Anon upset that his echo chamber got disrupted. If you want to disprove something then disprove it with documented facts and logic, don't just be a lefty and use ad hominem. We're supposed to be the news and we have embarrassing people like you all over the place who just use this board as a fox news echo chamber.
Then prove that it's a dumb post, it should be easier the dumber it is
You're literally deriding their tactics while you are using the exact same tactics, do you not realize that?
It is in fact possible to disprove opinions with facts. We do it here all the time. Watch: Jeff Sessions re-opened the Panama Papers investigation which dealt a massive blow to Deep State funding. Why would he do this if he was corrupt? See, it's that easy.
How can you prove it's retarded if you aren't showing people why it's retarded? If you don't explain why it's retarded then you just have hearsay countered by hearsay which does nothing. Furthermore, people here will see your arguments and learn something assuming they are valid and sound. Having shouting matches accomplishes nothing. You should welcome contrary points of view not only because it provides you an opportunity to spread factual information, but also because your current position could potentially be wrong. If you can't explain your beliefs then you should question them.
Holy ad hominem batman. Yes, anything that challenges your safe space echo chamber is bad. Anything that challenges you to explain your beliefs is bad. You should be able to have all of your beliefs and never have them questioned here on a fucking RESEARCH BOARD.
This is the most liberal argument you could have come up with. "Their argument isn't based on fact because I don't believe it is. Therefore I do not have to explain my position with factual information. Checkmate, [insert derogatory political comment]"
Imagine being so emotional that you can't even realize that I'm trying to foster an open minded environment where we can have productive discussions because you think everything that doesn't go exactly along with what you believe is a direct attack on you. There's literally no difference between you and liberals. Congratulations.
Then how does one arrive at an opinion? Is it your opinion that Trump is a good president? If so, are you saying that you didn't arrive at that opinion by logic, reason or evidence? This is the dumbest shit I've heard all day.
The only thing I'm trying to do is fix the echo-chamber this place has become and foster productive, open-minded discussion. Too bad you're so emotional that you are incapable of understanding this because you think anything that challenges your viewpoint is a direct attack on your character.
That's the thing, I'm not defending it. In fact, I gave a perfectly concise argument against it. You are just assuming that I am taking the position of the opposing side when in fact I am trying to foster better discussion and open-mindedness. See my post here: >>9076134
If you want an echo-chamber to go The_Donald or Hannity's twitter. Opposing viewpoints should be welcome as opportunities to spread facts and engage other people in discussion which has been lost to our society. Engaging opposing viewpoints also gives you the opportunity to correct any views you have that could be incorrect as you go through and try to explain them. There's nothing wrong with being incorrect, but there is something wrong with intentionally staying that way because you refuse to consider the possibility.
What a disappointing response. I did address the points you made. One of which was that I was defending the post, which I showed that I wasn't. You can't just say that a post is shitty without explaining why it's shitty and then act like you are automatically in the right because it's YOUR opinion. It's also extremely ironic that you are accusing me of not addressing any of your arguments (which I clearly did) while you are failing to address mine. You have allowed yourself to get emotional because you believe that I hold opposing viewpoints to yours and it's keeping you from thinking rationally.
I would say that selectively choosing what information is "good enough" to be allowed based on anything other than an objective standard (which does not exist_ is the definition of censorship. I'm sure Facebook and YouTube would describe what they are doing as information curation.