Scots Taffer on 27/8/2011 at 08:17
GBM, I think CCCToad's behaviour actually fits the definition of trolling and he himself practically admitted it on one or two occasions (RBJ will maybe recall the links as it was during a spar between the two), therefore it can definitely justify a ticket on the sluggstrain. The problem at this stage is that no amount of putting down of this guy will work as he seems to thrive on that kind of reaction.
CCCToad on 27/8/2011 at 12:03
Quote:
As for CCCToad, I think he tries to pretend to be more reasonable than he is just because the majority of people disagree with him. I've argued with many such people. He actually kind of reminds me of Andrew Breitbart on Bill Mahar (HBO show). I'll bet he's far douchier in reality, only giving on issues he know he'll get even more torn apart on so the dumb shit he DOES cling to will somehow be appear more reasonable.
[Persona off]
The reality is a bit of the opposite. I'm more a douche on here because, lets face it, the kind of "stepped on a wasp nest" reaction you get here is spectacular even by internet standards. Its also a bit of an anti-fanatic bent that I have, and the violently insulting and nasty reactions I get (as opposed to the well explained "this is why you're wrong" you get at other forums) is indicative of a rather nasty brand of tribalistic loyalty to people and ideologies that don't really deserve it. In short, I enjoy seeing people nerdrage because its kind of funny and pathetic when somebody is such a douche that they have no tolerance for dissent.
Now, this is the first and only time I'm going to lay out my actual political views. I'm left-leaning libertarian on social issues(What gives me the right to tell you not to smoke weed, for example?) with the notable exception of abortion because I consider the unborn human, and thus it would be ethically equivalent to any other killing. And murder is NOT protected under any social contract in history. Foreign policy I am for heavy diplomatic involvement but against aggressive interventionism because it seems to backfire horribly every time we stick our nose into another country unasked.
The economic situation is where I don't really know. All I really care about is good results. I'm dissatisfied with both the American "Right" and "Left" because they have only increased income inequality in the country. Mainstream economists seem to have been consistently wrong (There's no fundamental instability in the markets, the economy will recover next summer, there's "no risk" of a double dip, etc etc). It seems that other countries have had better results by doing exactly the opposite of what America has done: large and effectively distributed stimulus programs combined with a regulatory crackdown on their financial sectors.
Rug Burn Junky on 27/8/2011 at 13:47
Quote Posted by CCCToad
[Persona off]
The reality is a bit of the opposite. I'm more a douche on here because, lets face it, the kind of "stepped on a wasp nest" reaction you get here is spectacular even by internet standards. Its also a bit of an anti-fanatic bent that I have, and the violently insulting and nasty reactions I get (as opposed to the well explained "this is why you're wrong" you get at other forums) is indicative of a rather nasty brand of tribalistic loyalty to people and ideologies that don't really deserve it. In short, I enjoy seeing people nerdrage because its kind of funny and pathetic when somebody is such a douche that they have no tolerance for dissent.
Except that's not what's happening. You are not being belittled, demeaned and insulted for "dissent" but for "ignorance." Even more so, for willfully twisting facts, misinterpreting information, drawing poor conclusions and, my particular favorite, "stubborn insistence that you are right even when your ignorance has been exposed."
It is not ideology or tribalism that differs from yours, but level of knowledge and expertise. The fact that you've built up this defense mechanism where, rather than confront your own extensive shortcomings, you can attribute it to "I'm just trolling, I think it's funny you guys get upset because of your blind loyalty" is exactly your problem (pssst, scots, guess I don't really have to link to it, now, do I?). That's really the only way to explain the fact that you think you're only getting "violent and nasty reactions" and you are somehow able to totally miss the fact that EACH AND EVERY TIME you get a well-reasoned "this is why you're wrong" answer, which you seem to remain blissfully ignorant of. Hell, as espoused, I'd bet most people on these boards agree with your
views, so it's got to be something else you're doing wrong, hasn't it? Like, for instance, your severely lacking methodology? Is any of this getting through?
So yeah, keep thinking that you're simply being a gadfly. But someday when you feel up to it, really read this thread, and figure out what's being said here. You don't add to any debate, you pollute it with misinformation, ideology and ignorance. It's not "I hate that guy because he's different," it's "That guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and we wish he'd shut up."
Rug Burn Junky on 27/8/2011 at 14:04
Quote Posted by CCCToad
The economic situation is where I don't really know. All I really care about is good results. I'm dissatisfied with both the American "Right" and "Left" because they have only increased income inequality in the country. Mainstream economists seem to have been consistently wrong (There's no fundamental instability in the markets, the economy will recover next summer, there's "no risk" of a double dip, etc etc). It seems that other countries have had better results by doing exactly the opposite of what America has done: large and effectively distributed stimulus programs combined with a regulatory crackdown on their financial sectors.
Now, approaching this substance separately, this is exactly why you get into trouble. You really DON'T know. I do, far more than you do. You actually stumble on the right answer at the end there, which is what I've been saying all along, "large stimulus plus regulation" and which was also not your stance from the beginning.
Where you are egregiously wrong is saying "mainstream economists seem to have been consistently wrong..." No. They haven't, because that's not what they've said.
Mainstream economists have said from the beginning that we needed a larger stimulus. The block to that action is the ignorant retard Tea Party wing, which has freaked out over any thing that might "raise the national debt" because they, like you, truly don't understand how the economy works.
The only people who've said otherwise are the fringe right-wing economists and the politicians. And even the politicians have gradations on that front, where you have the Republicans shouting "Hell No!" and the Obama administration acquiescing. That IS a fundamental difference, and you consistently miss that, simplistically painting it as being just as bad. You have democrats pushing for regulation and stimulus, republicans whittling away at it, and you're sitting there screaming that they're both just as bad? You have the Democrats backing measures which would reduce income inequality, and republicans going whole-hog to protect it, and you lump them in together? Can you really be that fucking stupid?
And this is why, as your analysis spirals farther and farther away from the facts, you end up so very, very wrong, so very, very often.
/edit Oh, and further evidence of your misinformation. Except for Canada, other countries
haven't taken that path at all: England, Ireland, the EU . All under varying degrees of austerity, and all doing far worse than they would otherwise (Except for Greece, Not that they enacted stimulus, but that couldn't do any worse because no matter what they did, they'd be fucked). China: depressing the value of the Renminbi against the dollar to keep up exports and prop up their own economy, which is why they're complaining about the weak dollar. Japan: in the same deflationary debt spiral they've been in for 20 years because they never did enact the stimulus they needed. Iceland: nationalized their banks (oh god, imagine how the Tea Party would have reacted to that? Their heads would have exploded, unsure of whether to hate the Wall Street Bankers or the fascist government).
Aerothorn on 28/8/2011 at 01:09
I will say, Toad, that while there is definitely a tribal element to TTLG (which is pretty much inevitable on any forum where 90% of the activite populace are "veterans"), I really don't think you've been a victim of it. If anything, what we've discussed in this thread is that people have been reticent to do the sort of group smackdowns they used to do, leaving it to RBJ.
I can't speak for everyone, but in my experience TTLG is a pretty forgiving space that puts a lot of emphasis on quality of posts, not the poster. If you're getting slammed, it's rarely because of a personal vendetta; it's probably just that people think the actual content of your posts and the way you present them sucks.
And yeah, admitting to trolling is not helping the situation. One thing to note is that even when RBJ is on the warpath he's being sincere. Sincerity is a good thing here.
Vernon on 28/8/2011 at 01:59
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuglluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunch
Shug on 28/8/2011 at 02:03
Trying to compare the atmosphere of TTLG unfavourably to other forums is a bit lol
Tocky on 28/8/2011 at 06:40
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
If anything, what we've discussed in this thread is that people have been reticent to do the sort of group smackdowns they used to do, leaving it to RBJ.
And why the hell not? Who likes to dog pile somebody? Gang rape? Sure. We all like a good gangbang. I figure they are as grown up as anyone gets and they can fight thier own battles. I have my own opinions and if somebody throws a brick at me I'll state them but I would as soon go in on a side a I disagree with than stand in line to add a kick.
And yeah some of the harshness could be toned down but I figure why be a puss when there is a laugh or info to be harvested. If folks want to fight then sweet dreams are made of these. Chill out about it.
er... not you Aero, the subject in general.
CCCToad on 28/8/2011 at 09:14
Quote:
And even the politicians have gradations on that front, where you have the Republicans shouting "Hell No!" and the Obama administration acquiescing.
Everything you wrote is correct except that, its been fairly well documented over the years that the Democrat's actions indicate anything BUT acquiescence against their will. Note that I said "actions", not the spin the media puts on it. Also completely lacking from both parties is any real attempts at regulatory reform.
Quote:
Iceland: nationalized their banks (oh god, imagine how the Tea Party would have reacted to that? Their heads would have exploded, unsure of whether to hate the Wall Street Bankers or the fascist government).
Iceland's response was notable compared to the US because, unlike here, they actually were willing to prosecute white collar criminals who contributed to their financial mess. More remarkable was that (as revealed by Wikileaks well before they became famous) Iceland faced substantial international pressure to NOT nationalize the banks and prosecute executives.
Simon Johnson of the IMF wrote an article which I've quoted before, and is worth quoting again. There's a lot of similarities between the US and other economies that fail.
There's just too much good stuff in the article to discuss it all, though. Its worth reading for anyone with the slightest economic curiosity.
(
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/)
Their proposed solution:
Quote:
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people at the IMF. If you hid the name of the country and just showed them the numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF hands would say: nationalize troubled banks and break them up as necessary
.....
This may seem like strong medicine. But in fact, while necessary, it is insufficient. The second problem the U.S. faces—the power of the oligarchy—is just as important as the immediate crisis of lending. And the advice from the IMF on this front would again be simple: break the oligarchy.
Ideally, big banks should be sold in medium-size pieces, divided regionally or by type of business. Where this proves impractical—since we'll want to sell the banks quickly—they could be sold whole, but with the requirement of being broken up within a short time. Banks that remain in private hands should also be subject to size limitations.
