"Troll thread" -- let's hash this out.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I am a Liberal.

I feel like I just learned there is no Santa Claus.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I feel like I just learned there is no Santa Claus.

You're kidding, right? I had him pegged as a Colbert wannabe pretty quickly. Does it well, too.

 

[Murloc]

I feel this is just ridicolous, I see people arguing against messenger (sophithia) and medium (thread, DC) instead of addressing the message.
If this is what being a right-winger means in the US, I feel like DC being center-left leaning is impossible to avoid because the discussion of opinions and theories is exactly what makes this place different from P&N. I can find a much more rational approach here. To each his own, you don't have to post in both.
This also makes me thankful for having almost-decent politics in my country, some stuff makes me angry but it's nothing compared to the stuff I see on the internet.

 

[fskimospy]

I also have to say that considering the almost completely open nature of this forum, a derth of conservative posters here says a lot more about the conservatives that tend to post on here than it does about this forum.

While I don't have any idea if people have asked to be included here and have been rejected, my guess is that if that is the case the numbers have been small. I don't think they are being kept out, they just don't want to join to begin with.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To my knowledge, somewhere between 100 and 150 people have asked to join the DC, and exactly one person has been refused. I won't name the person, but if I did, I doubt it would come as a surprise to anyone. I'm sure it didn't to him.

 

[waggy]

I agree it was a troll thread. the base idea was sound but he threw in a dig at the GOP when it really didn't matter. thought the idea of the forum was to foster honest debate not a bashing contest.


Fact is the forum is one sided. hard to debate (and not really a point to it) when you can tell how a thread will be.


the idea of the forum was great. shrug pity though in reality it does not live up to the hype.

 

[Wardawg1001]

I'll just say that I'm also disappointed in the thread. I'm not a religious person and have read very little of the Bible so I'm out of my element participating in that discussion, but I did read it and it smelled very much like troll. If people want to discuss it, then by all means don't let me stop you, but there seems to be very little room for honest debate on the topic. Would Jesus become a Republican? Unlikely. Would he become a Democrat? Unlikely. Would Jesus support any major political party in the world right now? Unlikely. If the whole point of the thread is to point out that Republicans are hypocrites in claiming that they are the 'religious' party, then so be it, but the way it was presented seemed more like an attempt to bash Republicans or just be trolly in general rather than promote honest discussion.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Democrats present themselves as the party of the working class. It would be fair game in this forum to start a thread pointing out ways in which this is not true. That would not be trolling if the evidence was fact-based.

Would that be "anti-liberal"? Sure, in the sense that you're pointing out flaws in "the other side". Is that trolling? I'd say no.

Perhaps it's because I don't belong to any of the parties, but I don't see a problem with pointing out where each party is wrong and how it is not living up to its marketing.

 

[ivwshane]

I agree it was a troll thread. the base idea was sound but he threw in a dig at the GOP when it really didn't matter. thought the idea of the forum was to foster honest debate not a bashing contest.


Fact is the forum is one sided. hard to debate (and not really a point to it) when you can tell how a thread will be.


the idea of the forum was great. shrug pity though in reality it does not live up to the hype.

Was it a dig because it was factually incorrect or was it a dig because it was correct? You either prove his claim to be false or you argue the topic. Seems simple enough.

It's seem to me the, "hard to debate" part is the issue. Who's issue? Certainly not the people actually doing the debating.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Democrats present themselves as the party of the working class. It would be fair game in this forum to start a thread pointing out ways in which this is not true. That would not be trolling if the evidence was fact-based.

Would that be "anti-liberal"? Sure, in the sense that you're pointing out flaws in "the other side". Is that trolling? I'd say no.

Perhaps it's because I don't belong to any of the parties, but I don't see a problem with pointing out where each party is wrong and how it is not living up to its marketing.

Was it a dig because it was factually incorrect or was it a dig because it was correct? You either prove his claim to be false or you argue the topic. Seems simple enough.

It's seem to me the, "hard to debate" part is the issue. Who's issue? Certainly not the people actually doing the debating.

Maybe I missed something, but what facts are there to debate? Here is the original post from the thread in question:

Would the Republican party that claims to all but revere him still do so? The more I think about it, the more it seems unlikely. Premise of thread.

If Jesus were alive today, he would likely try to care for the poor, the weak and the downtrodden while feeding the hungry with bread. The GoP would most likely blast him for propagating Socialism and "enabling" a welfare state. Opinion.

If Jesus preached to his followers to not lead a life of pursuit of ever greater amounts of wealth and property in modern times, I can't help but wonder if the GoP would blast such claims as an attack upon Capitalism itself, the system the Republican party defends to their dying breath. Opinion.

If Donal Trump were to ask Jesus what he must do to follow him, he would probably not like the answer, etc. Pure speculation, not possible to prove or disprove what Donald Trump would do if he was face to face with Jesus Christ, nor is it possible to know what Jesus would say to Donald Trump.

Anyway, my point is the Jesus we are taught in the bible seems highly inconpatible with the Jesus and the teachings those that claim to worship him seem to claim to follow the most. But if Jesus really existed, and was truly known for none being more dear to him than the poor and avocating a life of less pursuit of wealth, I cannot help but think that America scarcely resembles the path and the message he had tried to preach. On the contrary, everything he stood for may have been bastardized and re-appropriated for the purposes of those that would seek to control. Such an act would be even more wicked than simply claiming not to follow Jesus in the first like Atheists do. Opinion.

So here's the question. Are Republicans truly the more devote political party? Or has their faith shifted away from the very holy book they so passionately appear to cherish? The only real debateable point in the entire post, but also completely subjective and there is no way to be factually correct.

The entire premise of the post is based in speculation. There are no facts presented, and there are no facts that can prove or disprove any one persons viewpoint. We can only speculate on the reaction Jesus might have to society today, or which party is more 'religious', etc.

If you guys want to talk about it, I don't mind, I didn't report the post and I wouldn't want it banned from the Discussion Club, but given the way the question was posed and the subjective nature of the topic, I can see why some people would consider it a disingenuous topic and label it as troll bait. Lets please stop pretending there are any facts to be debated here though, or at least that the OP brought any up.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You're kidding, right? I had him pegged as a Colbert wannabe pretty quickly. Does it well, too.

Wait, Colbert is a liberal too? OMG, my world is coming apart.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Maybe I missed something, but what facts are there to debate? Here is the original post from the thread in question:

The entire premise of the post is based in speculation. There are no facts presented, and there are no facts that can prove or disprove any one persons viewpoint. We can only speculate on the reaction Jesus might have to society today, or which party is more 'religious', etc.

If you guys want to talk about it, I don't mind, I didn't report the post and I wouldn't want it banned from the Discussion Club, but given the way the question was posed and the subjective nature of the topic, I can see why some people would consider it a disingenuous topic and label it as troll bait. Lets please stop pretending there are any facts to be debated here though, or at least that the OP brought any up.

Most of the threads in this forum are about points that we can't "prove" in the sense of formal logic or scientific theories. What we can do is offer evidence for or against our viewpoints.

So: if you disagree that Donald Trump would not receive a warm reception, perhaps you'd point out his charitable works -- how he's used his wealth and influence help others. Has he? I don't know, and would be curious to find out without doing the digging myself.

In other words, if someone states an opinion you disagree with then you're free to show where they're wrong, and possibly even convince them of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Wait, Colbert is a liberal too? OMG, my world is coming apart.

Okay, I actually LOLed at that.

I agree it was a troll thread. the base idea was sound but he threw in a dig at the GOP when it really didn't matter. thought the idea of the forum was to foster honest debate not a bashing contest.

The thread was specifically about the GOP, so how could criticizing them not matter?

And if you call what he said "bashing", then you're basically saying that nobody should ever say anything critical about either political party. That's not a discussion club -- it's old ladies getting together for tea and crumpets.

IMO, bashing is "Republicans are all a bunch of racist morons." That's not what Sophitia said. A specific claim was made and argument provided to back it up. If you don't agree with the claim or the argument, great! Explain why it's off base. That's what the place is about.

Calling it a "troll thread" accomplishes nothing.

If you guys want to talk about it, I don't mind, I didn't report the post and I wouldn't want it banned from the Discussion Club, but given the way the question was posed and the subjective nature of the topic, I can see why some people would consider it a disingenuous topic and label it as troll bait. Lets please stop pretending there are any facts to be debated here though, or at least that the OP brought any up.

The basic requirements for a discussion are an opinion and an argument. Both were provided in the original post.

Now, a good argument should be grounded in facts. My guess is that Sophitia feels the OP was, and others think it was not. Again, great! Debate the facts and the conclusions drawn from them. That's why we're here.

 

[spittledip]

I am a Christian and a conservative, although too liberal for alot of conservatives I suppose. I am independent, however, not Republican. Christianity informs my political views, not the other way around, which is why I have certain "liberal" leanings. I think that the "Republican Jesus" thread brings up important issues (that have been brought up a ton of times, which is why I did not post in it b/c I am a broken record in that regard). It is not trolling to question if one party would crucify Christ. Seeing that Republicans seem to have a hold of white evangelicals, it is good to question the beliefs to see if they actually line up with Christianity.

I think the best response would have been to create a counter thread to ask the same question of democrats. That would have kept the waters less murky in the original thread and also given voice to the other side. I say close this thread and open a "If Jesus were alive today would the Dems crucify Him" thread.

One of the difficulties with maturity is trying to trust the motives of those around you and questioning the things that rile you up. I think that all the threads I have read in this sub forum so far have been fairly troll free. Of course there is going to be some agitation and cross words, but that is a part of normal life.

 

[ivwshane]

I am a Christian and a conservative, although too liberal for alot of conservatives I suppose. I am independent, however, not Republican. Christianity informs my political views, not the other way around, which is why I have certain "liberal" leanings. I think that the "Republican Jesus" thread brings up important issues (that have been brought up a ton of times, which is why I did not post in it b/c I am a broken record in that regard). It is not trolling to question if one party would crucify Christ. Seeing that Republicans seem to have a hold of white evangelicals, it is good to question the beliefs to see if they actually line up with Christianity.

I think the best response would have been to create a counter thread to ask the same question of democrats. That would have kept the waters less murky in the original thread and also given voice to the other side. I say close this thread and open a "If Jesus were alive today would the Dems crucify Him" thread.

One of the difficulties with maturity is trying to trust the motives of those around you and questioning the things that rile you up. I think that all the threads I have read in this sub forum so far have been fairly troll free. Of course there is going to be some agitation and cross words, but that is a part of normal life.

I think you are correct about questioning ones motives but I think that this sub forum was setup to debate people on the topic rather than their motives (which is not the case in P&N). Basically, in my opinion, everyone posting in this forum should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[shadow9d9]

This thread is the perfect example of how being a republicans have trouble existing outside of echo chambers and seem to love the idea of being persecuted.

 

[cwjerome]

One of the difficulties with maturity is trying to trust the motives of those around you and questioning the things that rile you up.

The thread in question was not a troll thread, I'll take his word that it was sincere and yes it's often hard to be honest about things when it's someone with a clearly opposite view of yours pointing it out. It can be hard to trust the motives when a topic skirts the edge of a circle jerk. I wish someone would have countered the premise with substantial reasoning instead of complaining about the topic. For better discussions in the DC, I think you have to make an effort to assume good intentions in others and act accordingly to foster a decent climate for discourse. If you are quick to assume hackery and trolling in others, it'll be hard to have any deep conversations particularly about delicate or taboo subjects. I would hope the motives here are more informational and arguing ideas than scoring cheap points for your side or against the other. I can't stand political proselytizing.

 

[Abraxas]

Frankly I think the intention should be disregarded entirely. Whether they are sincerely questioning, being critical, or trying to provoke a response, you can still answer the question honestly and completely using facts and well supported argument and prove their suppositions wrong if you don't like them (and they are counter-factual). Whatever their reason, the the appropriate way to react to the thread is the same, should you choose to react at all.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Most of the threads in this forum are about points that we can't "prove" in the sense of formal logic or scientific theories. What we can do is offer evidence for or against our viewpoints.

I understand that a debate does not have to include scientifically proving something, but I'm not the one who brought up 'fact based evidence' either. Like I said, if you guys want to talk about it, thats fine, there are issues to explore within the OP's post, but none of them lend themselves to 'fact based evidence' in even the loosest sense of the phrase.

So: if you disagree that Donald Trump would not receive a warm reception, perhaps you'd point out his charitable works -- how he's used his wealth and influence help others. Has he? I don't know, and would be curious to find out without doing the digging myself.

I did not say that Donald Trump would receive a warm reception by Jesus, or that he would be willing to do what Jesus told him to do if he met him face to face. My position is that it is ludicrous to believe that anyone could claim to know what Jesus would say to Donald Trump, or how he would react. You can research Donald Trump, his life, his body of accomplishments/failures and make all the inferences you want from it, but there is absolutely no way for you or anyone else to know whether you are correct or not. Thus, the whole debate is pure speculation, regardless of what 'evidence' is brought forth for either side. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to debate this anyways, what would I be arguing? That Jesus would like Donald Trump? That Donald Trump is a religious man? That Donald Trump gives a lot of money to charities? That Donald Trump would give away all of his money is Jesus asked him to? None of this even seems remotely relevant to anything outside of perhaps a personal desire to know more about Donald Trump. Even if I somehow managed to prove indisputably that Donald Trump would do whatever Jesus told him to do, what have I accomplished?

In other words, if someone states an opinion you disagree with then you're free to show where they're wrong, and possibly even convince them of it.

Yes, I understand that, and thats why I don't have a problem with the topic not being shut down. What I do have a problem with is people going on about fact based evidence and things being factually correct when we are talking about how the son of God, whom we know nothing about beyond the writings in a 2000 year old book, would react to modern day society.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Frankly I think the intention should be disregarded entirely. Whether they are sincerely questioning, being critical, or trying to provoke a response, you can still answer the question honestly and completely using facts and well supported argument and prove their suppositions wrong if you don't like them (and they are counter-factual). Whatever their reason, the the appropriate way to react to the thread is the same, should you choose to react at all.

That would be ideal, but it's hard to do for most people.

But I would ask, that if anyone sees what they think is a "troll thread" in the future, use the report feature rather than derailing the thread itself.

Yes, I understand that, and thats why I don't have a problem with the topic not being shut down. What I do have a problem with is people going on about fact based evidence and things being factually correct when we are talking about how the son of God, whom we know nothing about beyond the writings in a 2000 year old book, would react to modern day society.

For the purposes of this particular discussion, though, does it really matter whether what is in the bible is factually accurate or not? Seems to me what matters is the degree to which the behavior of people who claim to follow the bible's teachings actually do so.

 

[DaveSimmons]

For the purposes of this particular discussion, though, does it really matter whether what is in the bible is factually accurate or not? Seems to me what matters is the degree to which the behavior of people who claim to follow the bible's teachings actually do so.

Right. If I claimed to be an Orthodox Jew following the dietary laws in the old testament, you could point out my hypocrisy in loving cheeseburgers, bacon, and especially bacon cheeseburgers.

It doesn't matter that it's "speculation" whether Jews of the time would punish me. The bible says one thing, I visit Wendy's to do something else.

Luckily I'm an agnostic, so a single cheese with bacon and fries is not against my religion.

 

[Wardawg1001]

The basic requirements for a discussion are an opinion and an argument. Both were provided in the original post.

Now, a good argument should be grounded in facts. My guess is that Sophitia feels the OP was, and others think it was not. Again, great! Debate the facts and the conclusions drawn from them. That's why we're here.

I agree with your first paragraph. I also agree that a good argument is grounded in facts. Whether Sophita believes it was or not is up for debate I guess. But those claiming that the post was a 'troll post' have a valid point then, the post is quite clearly derogatory towards the Republican party, and there doesn't seem to be any facts to debate. Like I said before, I don't think the thread should be closed, but I can understand why some people might see it as a dressed up attempt to troll. That doesn't mean that the correct response is to just call it out and complain about it, but the point remains valid, and Sophita has not gone back to the original thread to elaborate on anything or provide a more fact based argument.

Regardless, I don't really care. I don't have a dog in this fight, and I've stated numerous times that I'm fine with the thread remaining open.

 

[Wardawg1001]

For the purposes of this particular discussion, though, does it really matter whether what is in the bible is factually accurate or not? Seems to me what matters is the degree to which the behavior of people who claim to follow the bible's teachings actually do so.

Well that is not what is being debated as factually accurate. For the premises of the discussion, you must of course assume the Bible is accurate, otherwise there can be no discussion. What can't be factually proven are things like how the Republican party would react to Jesus were he alive today, how Jesus would react to the Republican party today, what Donald Trump might do in the presence of Jesus, which party is truly more devout, etc. All you can do is draw inferences and have opinions. Which is fine. But they aren't facts, so stop telling people to respond to that thread with fact based evidence.

 

[Sonikku]

Maybe I missed something, but what facts are there to debate? Here is the original post from the thread in question:



The entire premise of the post is based in speculation. There are no facts presented, and there are no facts that can prove or disprove any one persons viewpoint. We can only speculate on the reaction Jesus might have to society today, or which party is more 'religious', etc.

If you guys want to talk about it, I don't mind, I didn't report the post and I wouldn't want it banned from the Discussion Club, but given the way the question was posed and the subjective nature of the topic, I can see why some people would consider it a disingenuous topic and label it as troll bait. Lets please stop pretending there are any facts to be debated here though, or at least that the OP brought any up.

Perhaps Jesus was was the wrong person to name when trying to illustrate a point, then. Perhaps for the sake of "facts based discussion" I should have named Reagan. And I could ask the question how the party could possibly hold Reagan up as a champion of the party when he raised taxes on multiple occasions, raised the debt ceiling so many times it would make the tea parties head spin, exploded the deficit like crazy and advocated hard for unions, all actions Obama has engaged in that the party is condemning him for with every fiber of their being now. Yet the party is able to gloss over the things about their heroes that can not be reconciled with their current stances, while softening and perhaps even re-appropriating such figures for their own uses today. This stems to an underlying concern of picking the things we like about history while ignoring the things we don't that I think is a valid criticism of the party.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Perhaps Jesus was was the wrong person to name when trying to illustrate a point, then. Perhaps for the sake of "facts based discussion" I should have named Reagan. And I could ask the question how the party could possibly hold Reagan up as a champion of the party when he raised taxes on multiple occasions, raised the debt ceiling so many times it would make the tea parties head spin, exploded the deficit like crazy and advocated hard for unions, all actions Obama has engaged in that the party is condemning him for with every fiber of their being now. Yet the party is able to gloss over the things about their heroes that can not be reconciled with their current stances, while softening and perhaps even re-appropriating such figures for their own uses today. This stems to an underlying concern of picking the things we like about history while ignoring the things we don't that I think is a valid criticism of the party.

Go for it. Just make sure to bring some sources that support your position