Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Carlson SLAMS stupid libs over unreported mass shootingsFollow

#27 Sep 05 2020 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
I doubt that gbaji has the fundamental brain capacity for actual, real belief, and his brain is just a rusted bucket of talking points and loose straw to make strawmen from.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#28 Sep 08 2020 at 3:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. - wiki

to act as a spokesperson or promoter - Webster's

an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others. - Oxford


Great! You provided a definition (the first of which is pretty close to my definition). Um. Where's your analysis of that definition? Are you saying that Carlson fits that definition? We've already established that Carlson does criticize the Republican party. Quite frequently, in fact. Now, Joph dismisses this because his criticism is that the GOP "isn't conservative enough", but that's still criticism.

You could say he's a "conservative shill", and be more accurate (I'd suggest that there are different types of conservatives, and they often disagree with each other on that, but whatever). But what Joph claimed was that Carlson was a "Republican shill".

By the definitions you just provided, he demonstrably is not.



Quote:
"Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive, mindless functionaries who do not know what they are doing, but rather because they come to believe -- typically under the influence of those in authority -- that what they are doing is right," Professor Haslam explained.

Professor Reicher, of the University of St Andrews, added that it is not that they were blind to the evil they were perpetrating, but rather that they knew what they were doing, and believed it to be right."-Dr Haslan: U of Queensland


Um... I'm not sure why you included those quote, but that's some serious projection going on there. The activists on the Left fit this definition almost to a tee. Heck, universities have become a virtual indoctrination system for this kind of thinking. Raise awareness of some kind of thing. Make the kids afraid of it (global warming, racism, economic inequality, etc). Then get them to "be active", which usually means handing their voices in the form of protests to those in power (ie: Democrats).

Heck. Just stop and think about the motivation of "silence is violence" concept. So just doing the right thing yourself isn't enough. Failing to become an activist is the same as perpetrating all the "bad things" you're being told to become active against. That's freaking insidious.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 08 2020 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I defined the phrase "party shill". If you disagree with that definition then, you know, disagree with it.

I did.


No, you didn't. You said this:

Jophiel wrote:
Again, you're just adorable. Like a little child trying desperately to believe in Santa Claus. Never give your naivety -- the GOP needs people like you.


You dismissed me. You didn't say anything about what I said, whether you disagreed with it or why, much less any counter definition or argument to support your position versus mine.

Quote:
Then you cried about how mean the liberals were to you.


Nope. I simply responded that your statement quoted above wasn't an actual rebuttal of mine. You know, cause it wasn't.

Quote:
Then I explained that your definition was stupid and now you're crying some more.


No. You claimed it was stupid. You didn't actually say why you thought so, nor did you come up with a different definition that disproved my position with regards to Carlson being a Republican Shill. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. You kinda have to provide some sort of facts, logic, argument, etc. You failed to do that. Utterly.

Quote:
Again, you seem to labor under the impression that you can say whatever dumbshit stupid crap that comes into your head and everyone else owes you the response you want rather than the response it deserves.


There's that projection thing again. That's exactly what you did. I'm the one who provided a definition and an argument that said definition didn't fit. You're the one who just made a claim and when called on it just repeated it and tossed insults at the person questioning you.


Quote:
Quote:
He's absolutely not a "Republican shill" though

I absolutely believe that you believe this. In fact, I would be shocked if you didn't.


Because it's true. I get that you don't want to accept this, but it's literally true. By the definition of the phrase, it's true.

Yet, for some bizarre reason, you refuse to simply acknowledge that and move on. It's not like this is even a very important issue. You just get stuck on things like this.

Here's a suggestion which may help you out. In the future, when you just toss out a claim and someone points out that it's not technically correct, instead of going off on a tirade, maybe just look at the definition and if your use of a word or phrase wasn't actually correct, just acknowledge it and provide the correct terminology (like the aforementioned "conservative shill").

That way you come off as someone who's reasonable and rational and can change how they speak of things to be more accurate instead of someone who's so afraid of "being wrong" that they'll continue to shout to the heavens that they are right and the other person is wrong, even when it's clearly the other way around, and frankly a simple acknowledgement and adjustment would have been so much easier.

I don't play "gotcha" games Joph. You do, but I don't. So if you had responded by saying "Ok. So maybe not technically a Republican Shill, but he's still shilling for hardcore conservative ideas that I think are stupid", I would not have done the gotcha thing of claiming you're changing your position and that makes you a liar, and you don't know what you're talking about, etc, etc, (like you've done to me a zillion times on this forum). I don't care about that. I care that we use correct and accurate terminology when talking about things. Because I find that when we don't (and I'm not just talking about this forum, but communication in general), it leads to the ability for people to change the argument simply by intentionally misusing the terminology. I would have simply accepted the new label and moved on, knowing that we're all on the same page in terms of what we're talking about.


Edited, Sep 8th 2020 1:31pm by gbaji

Edited, Sep 8th 2020 1:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Sep 08 2020 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
So, by your analysis if I say any negative thing about a subject I support, it's impossible that I am a shill for that subject? Are you in kindergarten or do you not know how propaganda works?


Just kidding, I know you don't know.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#31 Sep 08 2020 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Look, I'm sorry that your feeling were hurt because I didn't want to play reindeer games with your stupid definitions but typing 500+ words about your hurt feelings won't change that. I'm not worried if you want to pout that I won't let you play arbiter to whether or not your definition is dumb by getting into a "debate" over it. Which is what this is really about: You wanted to spend 15,000 words of sophistry about the meaning of "shill" and I didn't want to play so now you're going to spend 500 words whining about it. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Sep 11 2020 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
So, by your analysis if I say any negative thing about a subject I support, it's impossible that I am a shill for that subject?


Let's recall that we're talking specifically about an organization not a "subject". And in that context, then no, if you say negative things about said organization you are not a "shill". A shill is trying to sell something. You don't sell something by telling people what is bad about it. In fact, you will go out of your way to avoid speaking about any negatives, and work hard to prevent anyone else from talking about them either. That's the job of a shill.

[quote[]Are you in kindergarten or do you not know how propaganda works?[/quote]

I do know that propaganda does not work well when your spokespeople regularly criticize the thing you're trying to get people on board with. Pretty sure Goebbels never mocked Hitler's stache, or said that the **** party was "ok, but they could really do with a more Jews joining", right? That's how shills work. They speak only of the positives they want you to accept and ignore or actively attack any criticism.

Quote:
Just kidding, I know you don't know.


Projection again. This guy T. J. Ducklo is a classic example of a shill. When confronted with a direct yes or no question about what Biden may have done, he ducks (hah!) the question. Repeatedly. And quite humorously. That's what a shill looks like. That's what someone who's paid to support someone or something "no matter what" looks like.

That's not Tucker Carlson. Look. I'm not a fan of the guy. I just think you should criticize him for what he actually is and not some other label you just randomly applied.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Sep 11 2020 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Look, I'm sorry that your feeling were hurt because I didn't want to play reindeer games with your stupid definitions but typing 500+ words about your hurt feelings won't change that. I'm not worried if you want to pout that I won't let you play arbiter to whether or not your definition is dumb by getting into a "debate" over it. Which is what this is really about: You wanted to spend 15,000 words of sophistry about the meaning of "shill" and I didn't want to play so now you're going to spend 500 words whining about it. Have fun with that Smiley: laugh


And yet, you've spent more time and effort tap dancing around the issue than it would have taken to just write "You're right. I was wrong. He's not a GOP shill". Seems you do want to play, just not a game that is terribly productive or conducive to useful communication. See. If we just agree on the definition and move on, we can have a conversation. But when you hem and haw and avoid the topic we kinda don't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Sep 12 2020 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, you've spent more time and effort tap dancing around the issue than it would have taken to just write "You're right. I was wrong. He's not a GOP shill"

But then I would be lying. Why do you want me to lie? Smiley: frown He's absolutely a Republican shill. That you're gullible enough to think otherwise because "Herp, derp, lookit this time he said Republicans weren't tough enough on dem liberals! That proves he's totally not workin' for the Republicans" doesn't really change that. It just proves that you're, frankly, astoundingly gullible.

This is like watching a rube at a Three-card Monte game saying "Gawrsh, I've been watchin' that feller and sometimes he loses! I reckon a cheat can't ever lose a game and still be a cheat so this game must be on the up and up..."

Edited, Sep 14th 2020 5:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Sep 12 2020 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
EDIT: You fixed it faster than I could make fun of you for it



Edited, Sep 12th 2020 11:31am by stupidmonkey

Edited, Sep 12th 2020 11:32am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#36 Sep 14 2020 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
You're using a definition of shill that is so broad, that every single person on the planet with a preferred political platform who ever says something political meets it. In other words, a useless definition.

A person who has their own set of political positions and praises a party when they do something that aligns with those positions, and criticizes a party when they do something that doesn't, is not a "shill". They're just a person with political positions expressing their like or dislike of political parties actions with regards to those positions. You know. A normal person.

What makes one a shill is when they find some way to praise a party or politicians actions regardless of whether they align with their own personal opinions, usually for money. A vegan celebrity doing an add for Chicken McNuggets? A shill. The athlete doing a commercial for shoes he doesn't wear or like (except during the shoot of course). A shill. The group of people in the car commercial shown an unbranded car, oohing and aaahing about how luxurious it looks, and that it's just as nice as their BMW, when I can clearly see just by sight in the commercial that it's a cheap economy car, and then they pretend to be shocked when it's revealed that it's like a $18k Chevy Malibu? Those people are shills.

Carlson is a lot of things. Blowhard? Check. Egotistical? Check. Sarcastic? Check. What he's not is a party shill. For any party. Again, shills don't criticize the thing they are shilling for. Ever. Because, unlike your shell game analogy where showing people they can win helps the scam, telling people that a political party's policies are wrong doesn't gain anything for that party. And sure, you could argue that he's only criticizing the party for things he doesn't care about or for, so people will view him as more objective and therefore be more influenced by the positions he is positive for, but that just loops us back to my earlier argument. That he's not inline with every position of the party, and criticizes those he dislikes while supporting those he likes. That just makes him a person with his own opinions trying to use his platform to influence people to the same set of positions.

Again. Not a shill.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 14 2020 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're using a definition of shill that is so broad, that every single person on the planet with a preferred political platform who ever says something political meets it.

No. Sorry. You just have no idea what a sh--- wait, I have no idea whether you know what a shill is or not. What I do know is that you're engaged in some weird panicked circle-the-wagons because a conservative ox got poked and now you're in a tizzy to protect him. Hey, at least Carlson's getting paid for what he does.
Quote:
Because, unlike your shell game analogy where showing people they can win helps the scam, telling people that a political party's policies are wrong doesn't gain anything for that party.

This is hilarious because you're so blind to it. He, like the Three-card Monte dealer, gains credibility from the rubes that he must be legit because he made calculated "losses" that were 100% designed to lull the naive. And they were gullible enough to think that it was ever anything besides an act even after they get taken by it again and again.
Wiki wrote:
In most uses, shill refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers, participants or "marks" the impression of an enthusiastic customer independent of the seller, marketer or con artist, for whom they are secretly working.

Huh? What? A shill is someone who feigns impartiality while actually operating on behalf of an organization? But.. but... Gbaji told me a shill is someone who never, ever, ever disagrees with something!

Edited, Sep 14th 2020 11:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Sep 17 2020 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're using a definition of shill that is so broad, that every single person on the planet with a preferred political platform who ever says something political meets it.

No. Sorry. You just have no idea what a sh--- wait, I have no idea whether you know what a shill is or not.


Ok. You linked to a definition of shill, but failed to make any argument that Carlson meets that criteria, specifically as a "Republican Shill". He doesn't pretend to be a customer buying or praising a product, right? He doesn't meet the second definition because he criticizes the republican party and politicians within that party quite often.

You're interpreting the definition of shill so broadly that every single pundit on TV, every journalist who expresses an opinion, and heck any person at all who does so, meets your definition. Which makes it irrelevant. If we take your position then anyone who ever expresses a political opinion is a "shill". But the word is specifically about people who are misleading you in some way. They disguise who they are, and their relationship to whatever they are supporting, and tell people that something is "good", and benefit personally in some way as a result. Tucker does not hide his positions or affiliations, therefore he can't be a shill.

Quote:
This is hilarious because you're so blind to it. He, like the Three-card Monte dealer, gains credibility from the rubes that he must be legit because he made calculated "losses" that were 100% designed to lull the naive. And they were gullible enough to think that it was ever anything besides an act even after they get taken by it again and again.


You can't even consider the possibility that the man may actually have his own set of opinions about things, and most of the time they align with the GOP and he says so, and other times they don't, and he says so then too? You're actually so cynical that you believe that any conservative who criticizes the GOP or one of the GOP members isn't doing so because they actually dislike what that person or the party did, but just because they want to trick people into thinking they aren't just 100% behind the party so they'll listen to them more? That's a pretty sad outlook on life Joph.

Quote:
Wiki wrote:
In most uses, shill refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers, participants or "marks" the impression of an enthusiastic customer independent of the seller, marketer or con artist, for whom they are secretly working.

Huh? What? A shill is someone who feigns impartiality while actually operating on behalf of an organization? But.. but... Gbaji told me a shill is someone who never, ever, ever disagrees with something!


How on earth does criticizing things the GOP does make him an "enthusiastic customer"? Again. He isn't hiding what his positions are or what policies he supports or opposes. You may not agree with him (heck, I don't agree with him much of the tine), but he's not pretending to be something he's not. He's not "feigning impartiality", he's telling you right up front what he's partial to, and what he's not.

The folks who are far more shills are the people on CNN and most of the broadcast networks who pretend to be impartial politically while quite obviously having a slant in their coverage. Tucker doesn't pretend to be a moderate. He doesn't claim to be politically unbiased. You're just plain nuts on this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 17 2020 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How on earth does criticizing things the GOP does make him an "enthusiastic customer"?

Are you just stupid? "Criticizing" things (weak as those criticisms are) doesn't make him an "enthusiastic customer". The 99% of the rest of the time makes him an "enthusiastic customer" while the 1% lame pseudo-criticisms are designed to fool rubes like yourself into thinking he must be an independent thinker. Apparently, it's working.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Sep 17 2020 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Jophiel wrote:
...while the 1% lame pseudo-criticisms are designed to fool AI programs like yourself into thinking he must be an independent thinker. Apparently, it's working.


FTFY

Edited, Sep 17th 2020 6:27pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#41 Sep 22 2020 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,550 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How on earth does criticizing things the GOP does make him an "enthusiastic customer"?

Are you just stupid? "Criticizing" things (weak as those criticisms are) doesn't make him an "enthusiastic customer". The 99% of the rest of the time makes him an "enthusiastic customer" while the 1% lame pseudo-criticisms are designed to fool rubes like yourself into thinking he must be an independent thinker. Apparently, it's working.


An "enthusiastic customer" of what though? He has his own brand of silliness, most of which I disagree with. Now maybe somewhere out there, there are people who watch his show and think "OMG! He's totally right. I was going to vote Democrat, but now I've decided to vote GOP!". Maybe. Somewhere. But I doubt it.

His show is pablum for people who are already diehard conservatives and who really like hearing constant confirmation of their own views. It's one of the reasons I don't like his show. It's too similar in messaging methodology to folks on the Left like Maddow. Pick a topic. Rant your own view on said topic. Maybe have a guest on who agrees with your view, and redirect that guest if they say something that contradicts your view. Throw zingers and one-liners out there constantly. And smirk a lot. A whole lot.

It's pretty much devoid of intellectualism and rarely if ever has much in the way of actual analysis of the issue at hand. Honestly, I think he's too egotistical to qualify as a shill. He doesn't just sit there and cheer lead for the GOP. He thinks that by pushing his opinions out there, he can influence others to agree with him and then change things. Maybe. I don't know. It's just that I've never thought of Carlson as even particularly liking the GOP as a party. More like tolerates them because they are closer to his own ideology than the Democrats. But hey. If you want to think that's what qualifies as a Republican Shill, go for it. I just think you're missing the mark.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Sep 22 2020 at 11:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I've stopped caring.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Sep 23 2020 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I've stopped caring.


This program has very little replay value, in my humble estimation
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#44 Sep 23 2020 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
This program has very little replay value, in my humble estimation
He makes up his own definitions and then wonders why no one plays along, so whoever programmed him makes the people that made Tay look competent.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 11 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (11)