You can’t change their minds, nor shake their convictions. Aside from the possibility of convincing a bystander, it’s just not worth the time and emotional effort these dark days.
ILoveCapitalismsays
Speaking of… Hey V / readers… remember Levi? He stopped by 10 days ago to tell us how dumb we are. Since Bruce banned him, the comment went automatically to the Trash (and I only just now saw it). Should we let him back? 🙂
Hanoversays
Merkel whined to the other G7 globalists, which now includes the child Macron who’s very happy he had a battle of handshakes with President Trump, that they can’t count on anyone but themselves now. Meaning, their social democracies are in danger because the US isn’t picking up the tab for normal, national defense & the US isn’t buying into the anti-capitalist [stated over & over & part of the public record] overall agenda of Climate Change alarmists. Evidently, she’s just now figuring out that Trump isn’t Obama. Perhaps she needs to learn English.
They’re scared. The special snowflake nations who deny they have no go muslim zones are scared. The Commies didn’t just go away. They’ve kept their mouths shut & invested their efforts in self-implosive dead end Socialist BS.
Thus is Socialism today. Championed by walking talking Jokes in Europe that think our President is a Joke. Who will have the last laugh? Europe is pretending their armchair issues are important, while arabs & north africans exist as growing cancers in their cities. Who exactly in the joke? Guess where the Manchester terrorist came from; one of Paris’ no go muslim zones.
V the Ksays
ILC, you know me. I’m the last person to want to ban anybody. Levi’s modus operandi, if I recall correctly, was… in addition to being abusive to other commenters… he would never, ever concede being wrong even when it was amply demonstrated. And he would return to subsequence threads spouting the same talking points that had been discredited over and over and over again. He was a waste of time for all involved.
I don’t care whether he remains banned or not.
TheQuietMansays
Re the Levi question. If he is abusive to commenters, I vote to leave him banned. I lose interest in a thread when the comments drop to the ad hominem level. Too much of it, and I stop reading the comments or the site.
Otherwise, contrary opinions can help with good discussions and the exploration of truth.
civil truthsays
Setting boundaries is important. If you’ve banned this fellow, you’ve set a boundary on acceptable behavior. No reason to change your decision – after all, he’s not going to change.
Hanoversays
I have no problem with ad hominem. Interactions on a thread frequently descend or ascend to an ad hominem level whether that is to praise a commenter or attack a villain beyond their comments or position. It adds a level somewhere between a chat room & a sterile thread. Something a lot of people crave. I understand some people find antagonists to be troubling in a world they believe is filled with round smooth edges & then there is the supervision which worries so, that people will get upset & abandon ship.
When there are actual substantive issues & a venue, I’ve yet to see people bolt. Of course, there are exceptions. Extreme examples that need that red A emblazoned on their vests & the village muscle to take them to the edge of the settlement pointing to the hinterland with a firm, verbal, “Go!”
As I noted above. Ad hominem also includes personal comments which are positive.
I say let the monsters in, Personally, I ignore those that I usually find distasteful. Because I know the world has sharp edges, those that actively divide in order to conquer & people who want to rip everything apart. Only Liberals want everyone to be the same without diversity. While pretending to promote otherwise.
The_Livewiresays
Well it would be nice to get tips on Cell phones again….
Though I’d have to find my ‘levi’s greatest hits’ file’
I often wondered where he went, and now I know. Was there a warning system put in place (i.e. I’m warning that you act this way again, we’re going to have to ban you from the site).
being abusive to other commenters
Do you have examples? I recall that maybe he devolved occasionally to making an off-the-cuff remark about someone’s intelligence. But, we still see that (which I’m guilty of when provoked by the same behaviour, which I have tried to modify–my own, that is; but). I’ve witnessed far worse on here, though.
you’ve set a boundary on acceptable behavior
For example, NorthDallas30 wrote some pretty vile things about other commenters and tried to spread patently false lies (something I don’t recall of Levi) for years. Accusing other commenters of spreading HIV and molesting children, among other remarks. Very vile. He hasn’t been commenting lately. Is it because he has been banned? And, if so, why did it take so long to allow such behaviour?
he would never, ever concede being wrong even when it was amply demonstrated
I have witnessed this with quite a few commenters. I have been guilty of this.
And, lol at the The_Livewire popping up at the mention of Levi’s name.
/dying
The_Livewiresays
I’m here quite often, Vince.
Unlike you, I don’t comment if I have nothing useful to add.
But why?
You can’t change their minds, nor shake their convictions. Aside from the possibility of convincing a bystander, it’s just not worth the time and emotional effort these dark days.
Speaking of… Hey V / readers… remember Levi? He stopped by 10 days ago to tell us how dumb we are. Since Bruce banned him, the comment went automatically to the Trash (and I only just now saw it). Should we let him back? 🙂
Merkel whined to the other G7 globalists, which now includes the child Macron who’s very happy he had a battle of handshakes with President Trump, that they can’t count on anyone but themselves now. Meaning, their social democracies are in danger because the US isn’t picking up the tab for normal, national defense & the US isn’t buying into the anti-capitalist [stated over & over & part of the public record] overall agenda of Climate Change alarmists. Evidently, she’s just now figuring out that Trump isn’t Obama. Perhaps she needs to learn English.
They’re scared. The special snowflake nations who deny they have no go muslim zones are scared. The Commies didn’t just go away. They’ve kept their mouths shut & invested their efforts in self-implosive dead end Socialist BS.
Thus is Socialism today. Championed by walking talking Jokes in Europe that think our President is a Joke. Who will have the last laugh? Europe is pretending their armchair issues are important, while arabs & north africans exist as growing cancers in their cities. Who exactly in the joke? Guess where the Manchester terrorist came from; one of Paris’ no go muslim zones.
ILC, you know me. I’m the last person to want to ban anybody. Levi’s modus operandi, if I recall correctly, was… in addition to being abusive to other commenters… he would never, ever concede being wrong even when it was amply demonstrated. And he would return to subsequence threads spouting the same talking points that had been discredited over and over and over again. He was a waste of time for all involved.
I don’t care whether he remains banned or not.
Re the Levi question. If he is abusive to commenters, I vote to leave him banned. I lose interest in a thread when the comments drop to the ad hominem level. Too much of it, and I stop reading the comments or the site.
Otherwise, contrary opinions can help with good discussions and the exploration of truth.
Setting boundaries is important. If you’ve banned this fellow, you’ve set a boundary on acceptable behavior. No reason to change your decision – after all, he’s not going to change.
I have no problem with ad hominem. Interactions on a thread frequently descend or ascend to an ad hominem level whether that is to praise a commenter or attack a villain beyond their comments or position. It adds a level somewhere between a chat room & a sterile thread. Something a lot of people crave. I understand some people find antagonists to be troubling in a world they believe is filled with round smooth edges & then there is the supervision which worries so, that people will get upset & abandon ship.
When there are actual substantive issues & a venue, I’ve yet to see people bolt. Of course, there are exceptions. Extreme examples that need that red A emblazoned on their vests & the village muscle to take them to the edge of the settlement pointing to the hinterland with a firm, verbal, “Go!”
As I noted above. Ad hominem also includes personal comments which are positive.
I say let the monsters in, Personally, I ignore those that I usually find distasteful. Because I know the world has sharp edges, those that actively divide in order to conquer & people who want to rip everything apart. Only Liberals want everyone to be the same without diversity. While pretending to promote otherwise.
Well it would be nice to get tips on Cell phones again….
Though I’d have to find my ‘levi’s greatest hits’ file’
I often wondered where he went, and now I know. Was there a warning system put in place (i.e. I’m warning that you act this way again, we’re going to have to ban you from the site).
Do you have examples? I recall that maybe he devolved occasionally to making an off-the-cuff remark about someone’s intelligence. But, we still see that (which I’m guilty of when provoked by the same behaviour, which I have tried to modify–my own, that is; but). I’ve witnessed far worse on here, though.
For example, NorthDallas30 wrote some pretty vile things about other commenters and tried to spread patently false lies (something I don’t recall of Levi) for years. Accusing other commenters of spreading HIV and molesting children, among other remarks. Very vile. He hasn’t been commenting lately. Is it because he has been banned? And, if so, why did it take so long to allow such behaviour?
I have witnessed this with quite a few commenters. I have been guilty of this.
And, lol at the The_Livewire popping up at the mention of Levi’s name.
/dying
I’m here quite often, Vince.
Unlike you, I don’t comment if I have nothing useful to add.
My comment to you was an expression of endearment.
I know that your response was not.
*It’s one of the more clever things you’ve written and quite funny. And true.
Your pleas of “term of endearment” rings as hollow as your arguments.
Spin any way you want, but I liked the fact that you popped up at the mention of Levi’s name.
*shrug*
…
If I didn’t add the bit about TLW at the end of #9, it would have been crickets.