Disagree with what?
You fake concern for suicide victims, while also mocking them at the same time, but you oppose any efforts to get those people the help they need.
So you're just masturbating here.
130 Americans will commit suicide today, but Democrats don't care
- Thread starter Dutch Uncle
- Start date
- Status
Disagree with what?
You fake concern for suicide victims, while also mocking them at the same time, but you oppose any efforts to get those people the help they need.
So you're just masturbating here.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
QED. You should meet a nice, mousey psychiatrist and marry him. It would save you a lot of money in the long run.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Did somebody hack your account?
QED. You should meet a nice, mousey psychiatrist and marry him. It would save you a lot of money in the long run.
LV is a woman? No way. Maybe in the gender confused world way, but not the real way.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I've posted about this before. Why the surprise?
This is still the same argument between Jefferson and Hamilton of individual and state rights versus a centralized Federal government with the power of all the states combined.
christiefan915
Catalyst
It seemed to me like the verbiage SmarterthanYou would write, i.e. nanny statism, Democrats don't care.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
What terms would you use?
Nanny State goes back to 1980 Britain: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45356189
The "don't care" comment is basic deduction: The Democratic Agenda prioritizes guns over better mental health care. Before Obama's 2013 Gun Bill failed a final time, it was amended once or twice. One of the first amendments was to add a mental health care section. He added it as an amendment.
Why wasn't it in the initial bill? Because "Democrats don't care".
Obviously because it's a secondary or less priority. The main priority was banning guns and magazines.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Fantastic. Thanks for helping prove Democrats don't care about saving lives.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml#menu155135
christiefan915
Catalyst
What terms would you use?
Nanny State goes back to 1980 Britain: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45356189
The "don't care" comment is basic deduction: The Democratic Agenda prioritizes guns over better mental health care. Before Obama's 2013 Gun Bill failed a final time, it was amended once or twice. One of the first amendments was to add a mental health care section. He added it as an amendment.
Why wasn't it in the initial bill? Because "Democrats don't care".
I rarely read gun threads. I only read this one because it seemed different from the kind of writing you usually do. My issue is with the phrase "Democrats don't care about mental health." Obamacare broadened treatment and protection for the mentally ill and it passed without a single republican vote, IIRC. To this day repubs are still trying to overturn it and it has nothing to do with guns. How do you square that with your comment?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
What kind of writing do I usually do? The "don't care" comment was directed by the observation of priorities and focus within the Democratic Party.
BTW, from over a year ago:
I've often commented about the Democratic focus on authoritarian rule versus working to solve social problems.
We could have this same argument about solving the problem of the chronically homeless, another social problem primarily involving mental health, not lack of jobs or housing.
Giving the mentally ill a job and a place to live doesn't work if they aren't treated for their illness. They'll just walk away when the whimsy hits them.
I've never supported the Republican ideology to overturn Obamacare since they never had a viable alternative. Like abortion or, with Democrats, guns, it's a wrongly focused issue.
Turgid Member
Verified User
You just seem to always be involved in some over the top mean spirited fight. I guess that's fun for you. regarding Veteran firearm ownership, yes I agree it does go too far, it's actually not a bad system. it just needs to make a petition and hearing including representation available free to those who wish to change their adjudication.
Turgid Member
Verified User
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Turgid Member,
Yeah, but what are ya gonna do.
Sites with stringent moderation require money to pay the moderators to be baby sitters. That costs more and results in low participation.
Sites with few rules (ala JPP) don't require as much moderation, and they attract lots of participation, so it's possible that people will volunteer for mod duty.
Trolls and flame wars generate a lot of volume, so things move right along. Those who don't wish to see the insult contests simply have to build effective Ignore Lists to filter out the posts of known trolls.
It's a bit of a chore, but preferable to paying for a low volume high quality site.
And there are high quality posts here. You just have to sift through all the garbage to find them.
We are given all the tools to make anything of this site we like. It's wide open to personalize to our liking.
Ya get out of it what you put into it. Don't even bother with garbage posts. Weeding through them is the price to be paid to get to the good stuff. That's the way I see it.
Yeah, but what are ya gonna do.
Sites with stringent moderation require money to pay the moderators to be baby sitters. That costs more and results in low participation.
Sites with few rules (ala JPP) don't require as much moderation, and they attract lots of participation, so it's possible that people will volunteer for mod duty.
Trolls and flame wars generate a lot of volume, so things move right along. Those who don't wish to see the insult contests simply have to build effective Ignore Lists to filter out the posts of known trolls.
It's a bit of a chore, but preferable to paying for a low volume high quality site.
And there are high quality posts here. You just have to sift through all the garbage to find them.
We are given all the tools to make anything of this site we like. It's wide open to personalize to our liking.
Ya get out of it what you put into it. Don't even bother with garbage posts. Weeding through them is the price to be paid to get to the good stuff. That's the way I see it.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You should do as you said you would, amigo, and ignore me if that's what you think. It's what most of the other political extremists do.
Turgid Member
Verified User
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Turgid Member,
I believe that is the best course of action. Here's why:
It should be realized that a chat room is not representative of society in general.
It makes sense that people who are anti-social in real life can find a way to interact with others on the internet.
So online chat rooms tend to collect more of these people than are encountered in real life.
If these individuals are so abrasive that few wish to have anything to do with them IRL, they will find a way to interact with others online.
The problem is, if they do not know how to have a friendly functional two-way conversation, and simply lack the ability to restrain themselves from nasty outbursts, they resign themselves to being dysfunctional online conversationalists, IOW, they become trolls.
They lack the ability to have civil discourse and find that it is easy to get a response, (any response will do,) by insulting people. And they are reduced to nothing more than such pathetic appeals for attention because they do not know how to conduct a mutually respectful dialog with another individual with which they may disagree politically. They are stricken with unresolved anger. They attempt to rid themselves of this anger by unloading their frustration on others. But they find that any resultant endorphin rush found in 'telling someone off' online is short-lived, and does not resolve their anger. Thus, the action must be repeated.
They then find that they fall into a habit of provoking others and getting the response of the annoyed other. If they find another individual who is prone to fall into the trap of attempting to silence the troll, a dysfunctional exchange is initiated in which each individual attempts to 'have the last word.'
When people have a habit of online nasty talk, they become desensitized to it, believe it is commonplace among everyone, regardless of the fact that it is not.
Also, it is logical that online habits are carried into real life situations. If an individual has an online habit of nasty talk, it becomes rather challenging to prevent that from seeping into real life. That would usually occur when the individual is under the influence of strong emotion. It is then that is is most difficult to remain mature and in control.
That being the likely situation, the best course of action for personal peace of mind is to avoid allowing oneself to devolve into online trolling or nasty exchanges with online trolls.
I believe that is the best course of action. Here's why:
It should be realized that a chat room is not representative of society in general.
It makes sense that people who are anti-social in real life can find a way to interact with others on the internet.
So online chat rooms tend to collect more of these people than are encountered in real life.
If these individuals are so abrasive that few wish to have anything to do with them IRL, they will find a way to interact with others online.
The problem is, if they do not know how to have a friendly functional two-way conversation, and simply lack the ability to restrain themselves from nasty outbursts, they resign themselves to being dysfunctional online conversationalists, IOW, they become trolls.
They lack the ability to have civil discourse and find that it is easy to get a response, (any response will do,) by insulting people. And they are reduced to nothing more than such pathetic appeals for attention because they do not know how to conduct a mutually respectful dialog with another individual with which they may disagree politically. They are stricken with unresolved anger. They attempt to rid themselves of this anger by unloading their frustration on others. But they find that any resultant endorphin rush found in 'telling someone off' online is short-lived, and does not resolve their anger. Thus, the action must be repeated.
They then find that they fall into a habit of provoking others and getting the response of the annoyed other. If they find another individual who is prone to fall into the trap of attempting to silence the troll, a dysfunctional exchange is initiated in which each individual attempts to 'have the last word.'
When people have a habit of online nasty talk, they become desensitized to it, believe it is commonplace among everyone, regardless of the fact that it is not.
Also, it is logical that online habits are carried into real life situations. If an individual has an online habit of nasty talk, it becomes rather challenging to prevent that from seeping into real life. That would usually occur when the individual is under the influence of strong emotion. It is then that is is most difficult to remain mature and in control.
That being the likely situation, the best course of action for personal peace of mind is to avoid allowing oneself to devolve into online trolling or nasty exchanges with online trolls.
Turgid Member
Verified User
We had some discussions on this in PM, I still try to see the best in everyone and hope that these folks who tend to desire to just fight with people, will one day see the light. I think part of the problem is how divisive the world has become, which I blame much of on the media, social and otherwise.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Turgid Member,
I completely concur.
I wish the people placed on Ignore no ill will. I sometimes include that in my final post to such individuals, often wishing them a happy life. That is the best case, that they find a way out of this negative trap they find themselves in.
I lament the fact that if they do experience integration and rediscover enough happiness to try to end trolling habits, that I will be unable to welcome them back into civil discourse. This I see as necessary because an effective Ignore Policy must include the threat of a permanent cut-off of interaction. Attempts to impose temporary sanctions are mostly ineffective. I have tried that in the past and it has almost never worked. If I ever considered placing an individual on permanent Ignore, and then decided to give them another chance, it most frequently resulted in a subsequent transgression, and the individual being placed back on Ignore. So I don't mess around with that. I figure if they are causing me to consider placing them on Ignore that they are unlikely to change because of anything I do, and that it is best to just go ahead and follow through with what is being considered.
I completely concur.
I wish the people placed on Ignore no ill will. I sometimes include that in my final post to such individuals, often wishing them a happy life. That is the best case, that they find a way out of this negative trap they find themselves in.
I lament the fact that if they do experience integration and rediscover enough happiness to try to end trolling habits, that I will be unable to welcome them back into civil discourse. This I see as necessary because an effective Ignore Policy must include the threat of a permanent cut-off of interaction. Attempts to impose temporary sanctions are mostly ineffective. I have tried that in the past and it has almost never worked. If I ever considered placing an individual on permanent Ignore, and then decided to give them another chance, it most frequently resulted in a subsequent transgression, and the individual being placed back on Ignore. So I don't mess around with that. I figure if they are causing me to consider placing them on Ignore that they are unlikely to change because of anything I do, and that it is best to just go ahead and follow through with what is being considered.
Last edited:
Iolo/Penderyn
Verified User
I am an expert, actually - and I spent a lot of time arguing with Stalinists, back when it mattered.
- Status