I post controversial topics
But I'll only reply to those who agree with me and dismiss any disagreement.
Am I rite?
Sounds similar to TrentnQuarantino and Leodicaprio. The only difference is that they actually respond to a disagreement, and they'll do it by swearing and name-calling. I feel they start the controversial topic so they can jump on anyone who has even the slightest disagreement.
At one point I even thought they were the same person because they argue the exact same way. But then after I was informed they were not the same person, I noticed that they argue with each other a lot. They don't even realize their own argumentative styles.
Sounds similar to TrentnQuarantino and Leodicaprio. The only difference is that they actually respond to a disagreement, and they'll do it by swearing and name-calling.
Yes, I've noticed those two as well. I would think they're the same person behind the socks, except that "Quarantino" at least understands English grammar and can write a coherent sentence. "Leo!!!" is illiterate. share
Qurantino is the better speller of the two, but it's hilarious to see them use their similar argumentative styles against each other and the keep taking the bait. And they think everyone who has a slight difference of opinion than theirs, is a right-winger.
shareThere are a higher than usual number of accounts here lately that are best avoided.
shareThere was one that has a few hundred posts that I noticed this week who was talking absolute nonsense to me yesterday.
shareYeah, there’s been a bit of that going around.
Some posters have had years-long hateful
discord and that’s to be expected but some newer accounts seem like socks created to stir up trouble.
I had a long series of PM's with Leo (he initiated it) where I tried to reason with him and say hey "can we just agree to disagree without the pettiness?" He's just as pigheaded in private.
shareHe initiated PM's with me too. He calls everyone a bigot but calls people retards and dogs. Part of me believes that he's a closet conservative who wants to make liberals look crazy.
shareThe old wolf in sheep's clothing? 🤣
Usually when you have a heated argument with a poster and they PM you, it's a sign they want to come to a resolution and be friends who disagree. Not this Leo clown! He just wants to throw more insults.
Yeah, it's not even argumentative tactics when there's no tact.
shareTo be fair ... MovieChat bitch sessions do not bring out the best in folks on either side, nor do they often motivate people to offer the benefit of the doubt to another.
One thing I see constantly - from people on the Right, is the "Why Do you hate America" type argument. Making a conclusion they someone hates America because they hate what that person is saying ... and then they just pretend to discuss but always include some ad hominem like that.
On the fake-liberal side here the argument is for anyone who wants to dig deeper into the Russia/Ukraine thing is that they love or prefer Putin or Russia to America.
When I get that, insults are fair game because I am being disrespected and my huge even bigger than Donald John Trump's enormous brain's intelligence is being insulted. Then my past time of trying to discussion something calmly and logically has been stolen ... really pissed me off. ;-)
I mean, you claimed that not everyone who has sex understands that they could get pregnant. Because I disagreed with that statement and believed that everyone knows the consequences, your reply was: "You, here, for instance are using the primitive right-wing device of lumping everyone into one of your preconceived categories to vilify all. This is unacceptable to intelligent people because it is so easily differentiated, broke down and disproven." This statement alone is a "device of lumping everyone into one of your preconceived categories to vilify all."
shareYou are really tiresome.
> you claimed that not everyone who has sex understands that they could get pregnant.
What I actually said was that people who birth control sometimes get pregnant through no fault of their own, in response to your absolute "black and white" judgement of all women who get pregnant.
To me, the problem with you is that you are here to get some kind of authoritarian validation, not to have a discussion and thinking exploration of the facts. You lay down the gauntlet and then either provoke or demand people fight with you.
When you prove rigid and uninformed in your thinking, you have I have a problem because I am not here for that. The last thing I want to do is spend my time in this kind of nonsense, either listening to you or trying to talk to you. You don't listen - you proclaim. It reeks of someone who has no power in their life who is trying to bully people into accepting their ideas. Of course you get pushback, and since you never admit any sort of imperfection and always go nuclear ... how do you expect people are going to react to you?
What I actually said was that people who birth control sometimes get pregnant through no fault of their own, in response to your absolute "black and white" judgement of all women who get pregnant.
Well, your post was about being pregnant in general, not about the effectiveness of birth control. But even so, do you seriously think there are people out there who think every form of birth control is 100% effective? This is something we are all taught in elementary school. share
there are literal right wingers on here saying if used effectively that the pill is 100% effective so theres no excuse to need an abortion
shareSo you agree with abortion because people are too stupid to understand the repurcussions? But if that's what they're saying, link me some of those comments to see if you're taking it out of context which you have done before.
sharegive me one example of me taking anything out of context please
sharea long list of PMs? LOL Its 1 page worth, so 9 back and forths. and not a single time did you say anything resembling " where I tried to reason with him and say hey "can we just agree to disagree without the pettiness?""
I called you out for calling everyone a neocon because they disagreed with you on Ukraine.
this was YOUR fourth reply
"I'll only call you a Neo-Con if you support Neo-Con wars.
But fuck you then. I tried to reach out and be the bigger man, you little asswipe. "
I love when little bitches play the victim,
This comment is exactly why you have the reputation you do.
sharewhy cause hes a liar like you? and I Called him out for it. LOL big surprise the two lying scumbags agree the person who calls them out is a meanie. go cry more.
hey care to finally man up on your lies about me and that BLM lady?
I'm not crying. Look at your responses compared to mine. You even started sending me DM's because you didn't want to face responses from other people on these boards. You're even name-calling. I expect more from someone who's 26.
shareyou are crying that im mean to you. LOL I didnt want to face responses? when have I ever shy'd away from responses and opinions from others or controversy?
you are a fucking liar and everyone knows it. I can be rude and name call, but at least im not a little lying rat like you. yesterday I admitted I was wrong to either Craig or Blacksurn when I said Afghanistan wasn't justified. and I said I made a mistake and that was Iraq which I meant
when have you ever done that on your own volition? you continue to lie. and still won't man up for your 3 lies. until then you will be called out for what you are. a sleazy rat
I'm not crying that you're mean to me. I'm laughing at you for being immature and not knowing how to have a proper discussion. Your insults don't even make sense for me to be offended.
shareI am mature. I actually know how to provide evidence and arguments you dumb fuck. the fact I insult you when its well deserved changes nothing about the truth of my arguments.
meanwhile you are a joke. in an arguement about ANTIFA, you provided 3 BLM sources LOLL
then lied about the lady being antifa.
but again. cry more that I call you names and utterly destroy you clown
You said it was 1 BLM source earlier. Now it's 3? Are you adding inflation in your arguments?
shareyes I said you lied about the 1 specific BLM lady..... claiming she was antifa.
including her in total you provided 3 BLM sources. in a debate about ANTIFA.
WOW you dont even remember your now posts form a week ago and I do. LOOLOLLOL.
fucking retard over here
There's that "retard" word again.
shareyes because you are one.
look I get it, as usual you are trying to shift topics.
you cant man up to your multiple lies about me. and your horrendous "arguments" "proving" antifa is just like the nazis. but im smarter than you retardjoe. I dont let you move away from your embarassing lies and comments like the sleezy rat you are.
even now I showed my excellent memory for what was said weeks ago and exposed your stupidity!
so add another lie to joe's tally!
-was I inflating your BLM citations?
-why did you lie about me calling people nazi?
-why did you lie about that blm lady?
> I actually know how to provide evidence and arguments
You often start there ... I'll give you that. But like Keelia or whatever you quickly find a nasty riff and harp on it that has nothing to do with facts or argument.
You have a certain model, but facts that show that model to be incomplete throw you for a loss.
"you quickly find a nasty riff and harp on it that has nothing to do with facts or argument."
when you say admit you ignored my sources because 'they arent relevant" when they are indeed relevant, that is your issue. the topic was how bad is china. I gave you examples of it and you just ignored them. while expecting me to accept your evidence on the US.
stop projecting your faults on me please. You have a certain model and narrative, and will literally pretend like info directly related to the core topic arent relevant
> the topic was how bad is china. I gave you examples of it
Don't be so fucking daft. I did not ignore your examples, they are just not relevant. Call it cherry picking. I can pick out stuff about American culture that is just as bad, and you can just ignore that. It's a stupid waste of time, yet you are willing to go on and on with it with your nose stuck only on one aspect of the discussion and totally refusing to try to see anyone else's point of view. You are so desperate to push your agenda - exactly like Keeailx. It is boring as hell and in no way an engaging stimulating conversation. Get a grip.
I just mentioned your defect in thinking, it is not a projection. Now I am going to get harsh, because you refuse to listen, adapt and just keep saying the same thing over and over -- you are too stupid and immature to use that word properly, you are just trying to bully and intimidate because you have probably heard someone else claim projection.
remember when you said we were the same person. and I showed you were wrong. and the moderator stepped in to embarrass you LOL
shareOf course I remember, I mentioned it above, genius.
shareyou sure left out the moderator stepping in an embarrassing you though huh? as usual you are a dishonest person
shareNo I didn't. Although I didn't mention the moderator specifically, I clearly stated that I was informed that you two were not the same people. Here is my exact quote:
At one point I even thought they were the same person because they argue the exact same way. But then after I was informed they were not the same person, I noticed that they argue with each other a lot.share
lol first it was "you two are the same people you fake arguments ive seen socks do it before."
now its "I was informed they arent" leaving out the the critical part of the story. which is "I made false accusations, a moderator had to step in and call me out for being wrong"
honestly somoanjoe. can you ever be a real man? im being straight up here. you are a perpetual lying bitch. you couldn't even say the truth there. your cant man up and admit you lied about what I said saying "there are multiple nazis on this site" and then your garbage sources you lied about a BLM lady being antifa.
for once in your pathetic life. man up
leaving out the the critical part of the story. which is "I made false accusations, a moderator had to step in and call me out for being wrong"
Can you read? That sentence clearly states that I was wrong. share
"At one point I even thought they were the same person because they argue the exact same way. But then after I was informed they were not the same person, I noticed that they argue with each other a lot."
where do you admit being wrong? lying about us being the same person?
I dont see the word wrong or false accusations made? as usual you sidestep any responsibility and just say "oh I was informed"
where do you admit being wrong?
The part where I said: "But then after I was informed they were not the same person..." share
nope you just said you were informed. care to man up finally? you "I made false accusations. despite Leos evidence they weren't the same I denied it. a moderator had to step in and show I was WRONG"
try it little bitch. admit for once you were wrong bitch
Do you know what "informed" means? If I say X and someone informs me that it's Y, and I say thanks for informing me, what do you think the logical conclusion is?
sharedefintion "having or showing knowledge of a particular subject or situation."
the logic conclusion was you didnt know before. but that can mean different things depending on the circumstances of your ignorance.
you can be informed on something and not have been wrong. which you were. lying by omission as usual. again you left out the accusations you made, me proving we weren't and you still lying, then the moderator stepping in.
how dumb are you that I have to explain this?
If I made an accusation and I say that I was informed otherwise, there is your answer about "depending on the circumstances of your ignorance." You knew the circumstances.
shareyes I did. the person you were talking to didnt. you also left out the part where you said you made an accusation. heres what you said
''"At one point I even thought they were the same person because they argue the exact same way. But then after I was informed they were not the same person"
this just makes it sound like you personally felt it but were informed.
so now you are lying, again. how fucking serial lying rat
this just makes it sound like you personally felt it but were informed.
How would that imply that I onlyfelt it when I clearly said "someone informed me"? Did you think the person who informed me read my mind? Read my sentence again:
At one point I even thought they were the same person because they argue the exact same way. But then after I was informed they were not the same person
Me saying "thought" doesn't mean I kept it to myself. It becomes obvious as I blatantly mentioned someone informed me that it was not true. That shows that I openly made the accusation in order for the mod to correct me.
share
Stop flaming people.
shareWhat I think is that all of you are the same AuI program.
shareYou're just not reading if you think we have similar argumentative styles.
share- Both of you start a topic and then get mad at the slightest disagreement.
- Both of you accuse people of being Trump supporters and right-wingers
- Both of you go straight to name-calling when an argument wasn't even happening.
- Both of you accuse people of lying on opinions.
- Both of you claim we're making assumptions about you when it's you who's doing it to us.
Leo and Keeky-whatever use the same BS patriotic attacks defending America in the same mode as Trump supporters support Trump. Meaning that like Trumpers they both have an inconsistent world view and are perfect trolls in that they can be pointed in any direction by their "handlers".
I am neither of them. And you folks are chickenshit for talking behind my back.
This is a public board. What's behind your back?
I for one am not a Trump supporter. But this is what you guys do, label everybody in terms of black and white.
you are just assuming that I mean literal Trump supporters. As I said Leo and Keelai is it, are both mentally Trump supporters to me, meaning that they are inconsistent and mentally confused - a state of mind.
plus, you know a lot of trump supporters deny it, and a lot of Conservatives say they are independents.
> But this is what you guys do, label everybody in terms of black and white.
Kinda like what you just did?
Dude, I didn't label you anything. But I'm wondering what Trump has to do with anything?
shareExcept you said to me:
you are at least slightly more reasonable than your fellow right-wing wing nuts.
So Keelai and Leo are "like Trump supporters", but I am actually a right-winger? share
It’s almost like a drug for them. You can see when they cycle back onto the site in desperate need for a fix and how they get the jitters with angrier and angrier insults when no one responds to their provocations. When desperate enough, they start hunting for certain posters in other threads to try to force the issue. It’s a form of addiction I think
shareI just assume they live boring lives and like to stir up some excitement for themselves. I don't know why they bother if they make it so obvious.
shareYou're the one who name dropped them in the very first reply to this thread. Then you deliberately lured Leodicaprio here by telling him that you and others were talking about him in that Goodfellas thread you made
You pretty much instigated the whole beef in this thread while simultaneously pretending that you're above it
Clearly reading is not your strong point. I am talking about people
startingthreads and then getting mad at any minor disagreement. Leodicaprio and TrentnQuarantino do it constantly on the politics session.
Funny how you bring up the "Goodfellas" thread when I made a post that didn't incite anything nor was I adressing anyone, and then Leodicaprio is the one who started coming after me, but somehow you're saying nothing about him doing it.
share
I'm not saying that he's innocent, I'm saying that you're acting like you're different from him, but you're not. You like picking fights too
shareShow me one thread I started where I attacked anyone who disagreed with me. Just one. Seriously, I'd love to see it. I'll wait.
I'm not picking fights. Leodicaprio and TrentnTarantino have constantly done this to many users on this site and at some point, it's only necessary to call them out. But apparently you want me to continue to put up with their crap and stay silent about it or else that makes me a hypocrite. And the best part is that they responded exactly the way I described it.
You attacked those guys with your first reply. Specifically naming two other users in a post that had nothing to do with them is the same as attacking them
And then you baited one of them to come here by repeatedly telling him that you and others were talking about him in another thread
You attacked those guys with your first reply.
First, Are you aware of what the topic of this thread is? It's about people starting threads just to attack people who disagree. I did.
Second? Are you aware of the discussions I've had with them over the last few weeks. I'll repeat what I wrote in my last post: "Leodicaprio and TrentnTarantino have constantly done this to many users on this site and at some point, it's only necessary to call them out."
Calling out, isn't baiting. It's holding people accountable because they think no one will call them out.
And then you baited one of them to come here by repeatedly telling him that you and others were talking about him in another thread
This is why context matters. Leodicaprio claimed a few weeks ago (without proof) that no one likes me on these boards. I showed him how it's the opposite. share
It wasn't about that. YOU made it about that with the first reply
The title and OP are about people who start controversial threads and then don't reply
And you didn't call them out. You were talking about them behind their backs. You only baited one of them here after you had already described to others how terrible you think they are
You're being dishonest and two-faced
You were talking about them behind their backs. You only baited one of them here after you had already described to others how terrible you think they are
How is that talking behind his back when you admitted I told him where to find the conversation? Is it baiting or talking behind him back? It can't be both.
share
You can talk about somebody behind their back and then,when you're sure the mob is behind you, call them over to try and humiliate them
The proof is timestamped in your post history
Is Leodicaprio a friend of yours? You always seem to come after me when he's the one making the attacks.
https://moviechat.org/tt0099685/Goodfellas/62f64aa6ac9fb916522af697/Almost-identical-to-The-Matrix?reply=62f65898ac9fb916522af739
The best part is that I didn't even name-call you, but you were the one who instigated it:
https://moviechat.org/tt0099685/Goodfellas/62f64aa6ac9fb916522af697/Almost-identical-to-The-Matrix?reply=62f6597eac9fb916522af748
https://moviechat.org/tt0099685/Goodfellas/62f64aa6ac9fb916522af697/Almost-identical-to-The-Matrix?reply=62f65f9fac9fb916522af776
https://moviechat.org/tt0099685/Goodfellas/62f64aa6ac9fb916522af697/Almost-identical-to-The-Matrix?reply=62f66840ac9fb916522af7e2
Not once on this thread have I seen you criticize Leodicaprio . You didn't do it on the above thread either. Get off your high horse. I'm defending myself from constant attacks against myself and others on this board who have PM'd me about his behaviour. You just don't like that I'm calling them out.
He DMed me, like he did you and others. But it was a friendly exchange. We're not necessarily friends, but we see eye to eye on some things
And I insulted you because I've tried having civil exhanges with you before about the topic of trans people, but you pigheadedly insist that they're mentally ill
Did I insult you? No. Did I convey a hostile attitude to you? No.
This is from the Mayo clinic:
A diagnosis for gender dysphoria is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255
Here's more evidence from psychiatry.org:
"Some people who are transgender will experience “gender dysphoria,” which refers to psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity."
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
I apologize if the evidence I show you offends you, but this is the evidence that exists. That doesn't mean I'm pigheaded or I wasn't civil. I gave you evidence and you didn't refute it with anything other than "educate yourself" and "moron".
Googling "gender dysphoria" and then copy-pasting a couple of things is a very shallow excuse for evidence
We had a long discussion about defining and labeling mental illness already
I tried to have a sophisticated discussion about it
Like I said then, I have an education and I can tell when others also have it. You don't and that's ok. But you also don't have the humility to acknowledge that all of your knowledge comes from googling and that that makes you unqualified to really go deep on topics which require a proper science background
I didn't go to Google once. I saved these links from when I had Twitter and a transgender man posted these links in defence of JK Rowling. Saying "I have an education and you don't" doesn't mean anything. I find it weird that any time I provide evidence you push it aside as if there is another way I can provide evidence to you other than giving you a direct link. Would you like me to drive you to the Mayo clinic myself to prove it to you? Again, just because you don't like the evidence brought forth, that doesn't mean I'm uneducated, pigheaded, and not a scientist. I mean, don't you think the sources in those links I provided have a proper science background? What makes you more reputable than them?
shareI'm not saying that your sources are wrong. I'm saying that you fail to grasp how they don't actually support the full scope of your argument
Again, this is why I bring up your lack of education. Gender dysphoria is a legit psychological phenomenon. And it can leas to psychological distress and outger negative outcomes. But that does not mean that all people who experience it are delusional, suicidal, or too incompetent to make. Informed decisions about transitioning
My phone begins to condense posts from this site until they're unreadable so I can 't keep replying
Same thing that happened last time. That's my problem with discussing this topic with you. I don't mean to rub your lack of knowledge in ur face, but I have to spend several posts trying to explain complex topics in a digestible way just to try to begin to get us both on the same page
But that does not mean that all people who experience it are delusional, suicidal, or too incompetent to make. Informed decisions about transitioning
Did I ever claim this? Depression is a mental illness and people can be in full capacity to make their own decisions, so why would I think transgender people can't? As you stated above, gender dysphoria is a psychological phenomenon. I agree. I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. share
Because the term "mental illness" is highly stigmatized and and carries very specific cultural connotations. This is a pretty complex topic. It requires knowledge of psychiatric theory and policy, biology, sociology, anthropology, and more
I'm not saying only profeessors can express opinions on it, but mental illness is not a cut-and-dry concept like having an infection
Every category of illness is distinct and has to be examined separately and on its own terms. Its unethical to make sweeping generalizations about certain groups of people and their mental health. That's why in my first ever reply I askee you if you considered theists to be mentally ill. It was an analogy
Because the term "mental illness" is highly stigmatized and and carries very specific cultural connotations.
I agree, but that doesn't mean it's not a mental illness. Mental illness can be depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, anorexia, addiction and transgenderism. All should be treated as such and addressed accordingly. share
And what do you mean by "treated accordingly"?
All diseases are treated differently. In actual medicine all conditions (medical jargon rarely uses words like disease or illness for very specific reasons, those words aren't really scientific)
Some conditions don't require any treatment. Others are judged on a case by case basis
The psychiatric establishment is not opposed to transitioning as a form of trwating gender dysphoria. Not hormone therapy and not surgery
If we're talking depression, then address those who may be suicidal, possibly through counselling. Schizophrenics need medication. All mental illnesses are treated differently. Even ones that are the same can be treated or addressed differently depending on the severity.
shareOh f-off.
If I resort to whatever it's because you have lied, insulted or otherwise exceeded the bounds of civil and reasonable discussion, which you pretty much always do from your first reply.
samoanjoes - “The only difference is that they actually respond to a disagreement, and they'll do it by swearing and name-calling.”
You - “Oh f-off.”
The irony is delicious, lol!
Irony - the expression of one's opinion by language that normally signifies the opposite.
No irony there, that's exactly what I meant to signify. Maybe you ought to get some edumakashun.
You see, dumbass, when I insult someone - it is ALWAYS because they've done so first of they richly deserve it, as you do.
Oh c’mon, it was a little funny 🤣👍
shareWhen did I insult you?
share