ACists in Politics

[xorbie]

Personally I'm getting a little sick of almost every debate coming down to some discussion of AC, or at least a few snide comments being thrown in by one of the crowd, regardless of topic.

Let me make this abundantly clear: what you have is a marginalized philosophy that most people do not agree with and do not take seriously. Ok? The fact that there are a high percentage of you folks here seems to have tricked you into believing that this is not the case, but rest assured it is. There is no need for the pointless derailing, off topic arguing and back slapping which goes on in every thread. Nobody cares if you think it's the government's fault. Really. We get it.

Debates pertaining to AC should be contained to threads, you guessed it, about debating AC. Then we can all post the same used up arguments, veiled insults and podcasts and go to sleep happy pretending anyone is going to change their mind.

Cliff Notes: STFU

[AlexM]

The vast majority of times that threads get hijacked into AC discussions, it isn't the ACist doing it. If someone asks a random question and an ACist gives a response that happens to align with ACism, that's a valid response to the thread, not a hijack. It's when someone else comes along and responds with a question about or an attack on ACism that the thread becomes hijacked. Mind you, this isn't always the case, but I see this type of hijack far more than ACists actively hijacking threads. Perhaps you think ACists shouldn't try to defend themselves when attacked? I dunno if you could or should stop people from doing that.

[xorbie]

No, it's more that I think you guys know exactly what's going to happen when you come into a thread and say "if only we didn't have a government..."

[AlexM]

An example:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

In this thread about Bloomburg we're talking about the meaning of the word "liberal" in order to determine whether it applies to Bloomburg, when out of nowhere Copernicus posts this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
social liberal

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't he behind all the smoking bans? Or am I confused? I don't follow NYC politics very closely because I'd never want to live in a [censored]hole of a city.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, the smoking ban was a pet project of his but on other social matters (gay marriage, abortion, gun control) he's liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very confused by this. You guys to be implying that smoking bans are unliberal, but it's liberals and liberal communities who have mostly been implementing them across the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never looked at it as a liberal or conservative issue, just something that is good for business, good for individuals, good for society as a whole, with some incovenience to a minority.

Which, in the tradition of this board, leads to another AC hijack. If it is so favorable, why did it take regulation to get there, why didnt the free market get there on its own?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where the hell did anyone hijack other than Copernicus? No one said a word about the free market or no government or anything until he posted this out of nowhere.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's more that I think you guys know exactly what's going to happen when you come into a thread and say "if only we didn't have a government..."

[/ QUOTE ]

So I'm not allowed to express my opinion, wtf? Regardless, in this example I just posted, I didn't even go there!!!

[AlexM]

Another Example:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

In the OP, the poster asks a question. In the first reply, Nielso gives an honest and on-topic answer to that reply. The next post after that is a random off-topic attack on Nielso's beliefs.

[Zygote]

this is probably the most pointless post ever, void of any useful argument.

I especially dont see how you came to the conclusion that because you dont care its the governments fault, therefore, nobody cares if its the government fault.

If i'm not mistaken, all those people endlessly debating with the acers do care. Also, i only discovered AC through this forum and definitely care - i'm sure there are others.

All this forum needs less of is people who try to regulate the content rather than persuade their ideas. Its also just so easy to ignore the posts you dont care for, so i dont so how you get to the point of telling other people what they should and shouldn't be reading.

[xorbie]

AlexM,

Yes those would be good examples of other people derailing threads pointlessly.

Zygote,

The point is that it destroys a debate. If my friend and I are debating the best method of taxation, you can implicitly assume that we agree that some taxation is a good thing. If you come in and start saying that there should be no taxation, it interferes pointlessly in our debate because neither of us is going to agree with you and vice versa.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff Notes: STFU

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that it destroys a debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like a black fly in your chardonnay!

[xorbie]

Yes, except this thread isn't a debate about AC.

It's like a free ride when you're already paid.

[Nielsio]

This is the perfect spot to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9i_TuD2HFs