4 ms·

This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally

by eli 12y ago

This sort of comment is a huge pet peeve of mine: you're accusing people who disagree with you of not just being wrong, but being maliciously and intentionally wrong. As if alternate viewpoints can only be explained by a literal conspiracy theory designed to mess with people like you. It's a lazy way to avoid acknowledging that alternate viewpoints even exist, let alone considering whether they have merit. (But then again, that's just what I would say if I wanted to prolong the conspiracy.)

Shivetya 12y ago
but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate and/or stupidity. I just want to know, what takes so many pages as to describe these rule changes? Why was it so important to pass changes without public review? What part of transparency don't people get?
- dntrkv 12y ago
  And now you are doing the same by making this a left/right issue. It's not. Both sides use this same tactic. It's a part of politics. You support abortion? Baby murderer! Healthcare reform? Socialist! Higher taxes on rich? Communist! Marijuana legalization? Lazy pothead!
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Unfortunately, "hate and stupidity" are often correlated with the issues. The political position opposite of granting, say, LGBT's the same rights as everyone else has literally no other basis than hate and stupidity. There may be valid arguments to be made against net neutrality, but I have yet to see one that doesn't start with putting more money in the pockets of the telcos.

by eli 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

but this is the standard method Democrats have employed for years. They take any debate and make it personal. No longer is the discussion of the subject at hand but the persons involved. This allows all sorts of toxic labels to be branded about, racist, bigot, for the rich, elitist, and more. They don't want to debate facts, the fastest way to avoid facts is to brand the other side with a label associated with hate and/or stupidity. I just want to know, what takes so many pages as to describe these rule changes? Why was it so important to pass changes without public review? What part of transparency don't people get?

dntrkv 12y ago
And now you are doing the same by making this a left/right issue. It's not. Both sides use this same tactic. It's a part of politics. You support abortion? Baby murderer! Healthcare reform? Socialist! Higher taxes on rich? Communist! Marijuana legalization? Lazy pothead!
Karunamon 12y ago
Unfortunately, "hate and stupidity" are often correlated with the issues. The political position opposite of granting, say, LGBT's the same rights as everyone else has literally no other basis than hate and stupidity. There may be valid arguments to be made against net neutrality, but I have yet to see one that doesn't start with putting more money in the pockets of the telcos.