Why is the politics forum dead?

Anyway its all intended to be constructive criticism, I hope you take it that way.

 

their baaaaaaack

its always the same people - see

 

I can't get on with firefox.

Apparently, It turns out it might be something to do with Russian or Chinese hackers or some such crap...many sites were effected.
All seems well now, though.

 

Hipstatic

You’re not contesting that I relish criticism you complaining that I put in the research and make some effort in my replies.

Doing research and thinking about the questions doesn’t make me right on those subjects or smarter than everyone else, but I think you know that, it seems more like you’re complaining that it makes it more difficult for you to dismiss such arguments or defend your own views so you’d rather run away and scream ‘FOUL’ rather than put up a defence.

Again this doesn’t ‘prove’ I don’t like criticism, I try to give an explanation and an apology but to you that is a “full peacock display of vanity”, it seems like your personal animosity toward me is clouding you mind.

I don’t claim to be one of the greatest writers in history, LOL very far from it, but this idea that I should employ a professional editor is a bit laughable, I don’t get paid for posting here (are you saying you do, are you saying you employ an editor, or are you saying you are such a good writer you don’t need one?).

I throw up my arms and admit that some of my posts are long and I’m not offended if someone tells me that they are long winded, although I can’t say it doesn’t hurt.

So where’s your argument?

You seem to be claiming I don’t really like criticism – and you ‘evidence’ for this is that I do research and am a bad writer who sometimes writes long posts?

This seems indicative of your other charges - when looked at they don’t actually exist

What?

LOL - I like the way you spin it ‘petty’, ‘rambling’ etc.

Thing is I’ve opened ‘locked’ threads for other people when they’ve asked (like this one), in fact I’m not a great believer in locking threads as I think it unfair on the members that have posted to them.

Anyway Aris, Skip and I are thinking about having a sub-forum where such threads could be moved to so they can ramble on as long as they want even if they go wildly off subject.

I notice you don’t actually say what you wanted I said - What you seem to be saying is that I (and others) shouldn’t point out that you ideas have flaws or even criticise them. That peoples ideas here shouldn’t go unchallenged?

Oh you’re quick with the accusations once again “straw man tactics”, “cheap debating tactics” et al but you don’t actually refute what I said?

So you want me to ban Guy?

 

hipstatic

LOL well of course, but constructive criticism doesn’t usually involve calling the other person a petty, vain peacock and rambling windbag.

They be more fightin’ words

 

No of course I'm not complaining that you 'put in the research'. Again why do you resort to silly straw men evasions when you supposedly relish criticism? "Oh I see you are complaining that my responses are too thoughtful"? I mean really, is that relishing criticism?

The problem is that you don't make efforts in your replies. They are often rambling 'musings' which say very little and take a long time to say it. You can't even be bothered to format them properly.

So not too much effort Balbus, too little.

Again, you're just claiming victory again. "You're complaining that I'm always right". Well no I'm not actually.

Not once in any of my comments have I said anything about whether your arguments are right or wrong (or claimed the superiority of my views and arguments). You (the one who doesn't care about 'winning') are the one who constantly insists that your ideas are superior and nobody else's stands up to scrutiny.

Its not very clever for you to constantly accuse people of running away and crying foul, since I'm the one that can get banned for criticising you, not the other way around. So a pretty lame comment on your part. In fact I absolutely guarantee everybody here, if I get banned the first thing Balbus will do is claim another great victory and express dismay that "hiptastic's arguments just couldn't stand up to scrutiny and he knew it". You love that sort of cheap shot against someone who can't defend themselves.

Right so you relish criticism but it seems that the death of the forum proves how great your moderation has been, people complaining about your long winded rambling monologues means you're just got more to say than people because you're a deep thinker who does more research, and you reply to every criticism with "so you're saying you can't handle the fact that I'm always right". This is 'relishing criticism'. And 'apologising' for putting so much research into your comments? Come on. That is a full peacock display of vanity.

Of course I'm not saying you need to hire an editor and of course I'm not saying I have one, nor am I paid to post here (hey guy, he's throwing you a bone with that little insinuation, keep up the pressure on the jews mate). If someone criticises my writing I'll take the criticism instead of saying "I'm sorry I've got so much more to say than everyone else, its because I think about things very deeply unlike most people". As it happens nobody has criticised my writing style (and in fact hardly anybody here gets criticised for their writing style). Would you like to offer any criticisms? I would relish them.

Repeated straw man.

I'll bet everyone here knows what I'm talking about, I'm surprised you don't.

And I like the way you spin it 'run away' etc. But you didn't actually address the point - you reopened a thread so you could make couple of rambling posts where you claimed victory and then locked the thread again. This from someone who doesn't care about 'winning' and thinks other people 'run away' from debate?

Sorry?

That's the point Balbus, I don't play along with straw man arguments. I asked you if you are 10 years old and you didn't respond, does that mean you admit you are 10 years old? Of course not. And you didn't respond to a number of serious and perfectly valid questions. So it seems you are resorting to a classic Balbus debating tactic - ignoring points you can't address while demanding that other people respond to silly rhetorical games.

In other words, I don't need to "refute" you every time you say "so you seem to be saying that I am always right and you can't handle it".

Absolutely not. I definitely want him to stay and I'm pretty happy to see you continue to pander to him. Its a side of you that I think people should get to see.

 

Hipstatic

Wow man, you really dislike being challenged don’t you, I mean to produce these levels of spite and near hysterical vitriol, it’s like listening to one of Fox’s stars on a Obama rush.

It seems clear that to you I’m the big bad.

Well that’s you’re prerogative.

But could you please calm down and put you views on the subject a bit more clearly?

For example, can you state clearly 'the number of serious and perfectly valid questions' on the threads subject that I’ve supposedly ignored?

 

This forum isn't dead, but it's traffic has declined due to people's inability to remain calm throughout a discussion.

 

I don't mind at actually, in fact I specifically invited criticism in my last post. So I guess its straw man time again. Don't you feel that as a moderater, you are setting a bad example by repeatedly resorting to cheap debating tactics like that?

LOL! Near hysterical vitriol? Hmmm...

Again, are you sure you relish criticism? You sure don't react well to it.

I am completely calm, as anyone who has been following this thread can see, and I was quite clear and specific in my criticisms.

Its one of your cliche debating tactics to tell people to 'calm down' when they disagree with you. I've actually tried to have private bets with people about how soon you would resort to it. No takers though, it would be like betting on day following night.

If you can't be bothered to read what I write, why should I repeat it for your convenience? I've made a very small number of posts here, they aren't very difficult to follow.

 

hipstatic

Fine, you feel you have been clear and calm, now just call me thick or slow on the pick up but could you please restate the ‘number of serious and perfectly valid questions’ on the threads subject that I’ve supposedly ignored?

Then we can move on.

 

Of course.

The question relates to your habit of declaring yourself the winner, and your delusion that this isn't your opinion, rather that it is a widely accepted fact that Balbus has proved that big government is good and gun rights are bad and we should all build socialism.

So who is this 'left' that you think has been on such a huge winning streak here at HF? Its just you, isn't it.

The reason I think this is important is that you seem to confuse "moderater" with "judge". We don't need anybody to declare which arguments are 'valid' or 'stand up to scrutiny', and it is particularly inappropriate for a moderater to do so. Make your case and let people decide for themselves.

The next one is a point you evaded.

You responded simply by asking if I wanted him banned. Well of course I don't. I want free speech here.

But the question remains, why are you pandering to such a disgusting anti semite? The enemy of your enemy is your friend? It is completely against the concept of open debate to baselessly insinuate that your opponents are paid agents yet you seem to enjoy exactly that kind of wholesale smear of the right and go further by encouraging people like guy to do the same. You know "entryism" is a historic tactic of the left but you won't find me acccusing people of it just because they are left wing.

And finally, can you ease up on the debating tactics, e.g. straw men or asking people who are completely calm to 'calm down'? As a moderater you should set higher standards.

I don't think HipForums is doing well. Neither do a lot of other people. We want the place to get active again, and that might, just might, involve some criticism of moderaters.

If you respond by saying 'the place is dead because the left was so victorious' or 'so you are saying you can't handle debate' I think even more people are going to give up and leave.

 

the main thing for these people is that they keep talking

you can debate them till the cows come home but it doesn't matter what irrefutable facts you might come up with - hell this mob are like the holocaust deniers.

these people have an agenda to bombard these forums with information fresh from the ministry of facts working over time to defy gravity.

the idea is to kill debate

for example

i see from the america attacks forum that the last post was jan 16th!!!

you can shut these forums down by baby steps AND whats more they have done this since i disappeared for a while - no involvement on my part.

idle ramblings are one thing filling it with garbage is quite another.

these people are part of the god squad wanting to bring on the messiah. no sane individual would bother talking up brutality and genocide for its own sake.

they talk up the war

they won't go fight in it

they want someone else to fight for them

they complain when they are called out

they swamp with indignation

they discourage free speech

as long as they can stop free speech the longer the war lasts and the more likely the messianic period will come about.

 

for you or for hip forums?

 

Hipstatic (one)

Oh please Hip, I litter my posts with ‘it seems to me’ which is just another way of saying ‘in my opinion’.

And on numerous occasions I’ve made it very clear that the views I express are my own, my opinion, how I view things. It’s my assessment, theory, hypothesis, supposition or whatever else, but I don’t or very seldom claim it to be ‘fact’. Now I might miss out a ‘seems to me’ once and a while when saying something but the amount of time I do use it and the amount of times I’ve explained what I say is just my opinion, I think people here understand it by now, I’m sorry you or others hadn’t realised.

But it seems to me you are just seeing what you want to see.

Which comes to your sarcastic taunt about

‘Big government’

On many occasions I’ve said that it seems to me that ‘big government’ and ‘small government’ are just slogans and that many of the people that talk about them don’t seem able to define what they mean when asked.

To me what’s important is good government size seems irrelevant and to argue that just a certain size of government is definition ‘good’ seems ridicules.

Again you seem to be seeing what you want to see

‘Gun Rights’

My view which I’ve stated many times is that I see nothing wrong with law abiding people owning guns, I do however think (its my opinion) that many Americans see guns as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring may socio-economic problems which therefore stops them seeking alternatives.(this is a simplification but the general gist)

So again I think your black and white viewpoint comes from a bias that makes you see what you want to see rather than what’s actually been said.

‘Socialism’

I’ve describe myself as a pragmatic and democratic socialist with strong green leanings, and I have never made any secret of it, I’m a leftie and of course that colours the way I see things and how I’d like things to be, again I don’t hide that.

But the way you seem to sneer “and we should all build socialism” again seems to point to an irrational dislike that colouring your judgement.

So you don’t like my views then put up an argument and we can discuss it – but that seems to me to be the problem you’re not willing to enter into debate.

*

Again I can’t shake off the impression that you really don’t like your views or the views of right wingers being challenged.

It seems to me that many on the right are unwilling, even unable to defend their view when they are challenged – nothing you’ve said so far seems to indicate differently, I mean you seem to be spending a hell of a lot of time trying to convince others that the questions and criticisms directed at the ideas and arguments of the right are somehow fraudulent rather than just answering the actual questions and criticisms.

Many of the arguments I present here are common on the left and among lefties, I interpret and adapt them for use here. Why you seem to feel so threatened by them, in my opinion, is your own problem.

As to this strange idea you’ve got that ‘I’m the big bad’ and that somehow I’m omnipresent and omnipotent well that seems to be all you, it’s not what I think.

You don’t like me challenging your ideas so you seem to have become fixated with me.

*

Again you seem to want to see things as you’d like to see them, the whole point of debate is to see if something stands up to scrutiny or seems valid.

It is about people putting up different ideas, putting forward arguments and criticisms of challenging what’s said (or supporting it). And if someone refuses to defend their ideas or viewpoint, or they are unwilling or seemingly unable to defend it, people can come to their own conclusion?

And I’m just stating the conclusion I’ve come to. You don’t seem to like that conclusion, but you’re still not entering into debate on the issues preferring instead to enter into what look like smear tactics and misdirection.

*

 

Hipstatic (two)

The next one is a point you evaded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiptastic
the fact that you continue to pander to people like guy

In what way do you think I’m pandering to Guy?

So you want me to ‘deal’ with Guy but you don’t want me to ‘deal’ with Guy, I’m not to act against him but I’m not to ‘pander’ to him, I’m to defend his free speech but somehow stop him having the ability of free speech.

In my view you seem to be confused.

Do you honestly see Guy as a big threat? Again can you please explain in what way am I pandering even encouraging Guy? And again what do you want me to do since you don’t want him banned and you don’t want his free speech curtailed in any way?

This did make me laugh - So you’re saying that left wingers are well known for entryism, but you’d never accuse them of conducting entryism, although you basically just have.

Honestly I didn’t even know what entryism was, I had to go and look it up.

*

I asked you to calm down because it seemed to me that your comments were becoming increasingly wild and personal for example calling me a peacock although funny had a ring of hysteria about it as did your implication that I banned anyone that criticises me and that you would be banned at any moment.

And you seem to shout ‘STRAW MEN’ at every turn these days even about things I say in jest so I’m starting to think you’re using it more as a means of not debating, a way of dismissing arguments or hiding them under a sea of accusation.

*

And I’m more than happy to hear valid and rational criticism, but every time I answer what you say is ‘constructive criticism’ you fly off about this being some kind of proof that I and seemingly moderators in general can’t take criticism.

Once again I ask you could you please state calmly and concisely what it is you actually want?

Are you saying you want to have the ability to tell others what they can and can’t say or that they’re not allowed to have an opinion or be allowed to express it?

Is this your brave new world?

(Oh and you’ll shout STRAW MEN, but look at the statement, you’re threatening that if I reply with statements of your opinion that you don’t want to hear then you’ll leave or others will. I’m to either desist from saying things you don’t like or you or others are not going to talk at all.)

 

Ok, you can close this thread again..


I thought it would change something..


But apparently not..

 

I agree. I'll close it.

Sometimes you can't feed the trolls. Or it's best just to ignore them. That's what I do.