Sadiq Khan looks set to be UK's most powerful Muslim

Scroll to see replies

Do you intend to answer my question or am I to take it that, having as usual said something you can't prove, you're now going to save face and resort to the good old silent treatment? :rolleyes:

Here's your little passive aggressive dig :smile:

Reply 181

username878267

Original post by Hydeman

This is an uncharacteristically non-regressive view, coming from you. :clap2:

This thread really does undermine your already-weak protestations that you're not an identity politics shill who thinks that a Muslim mayor or a female President are inherently good things in and of themselves. :tongue:

Here's another. This ones not even that passive.
Of course you're above it all though right?

Reply 182

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

But go through this thread and you've made lots of little passive aggressive digs 'that's a bit I regressive for you' ,'you're just ignoring to save face as usual', 'you defend crazy people' etc.

Your laughable.

You were saying something about digs and how they're a bad thing?

Yes I take digs at people, at least I'm honest about it. I don't take lots of little snidey, passive aggressive digs and then act like I'm above it all.

You've accused me of the highlighted for quite some time now, mostly in reference to something that I've said to criticise the left. Quite frankly, you're a pathological liar. Every instance in which you've accused me of 'acting like I'm better than others' has been a case of the your reflexive, simultaneous employment of the tu quoque fallacy and a non sequitur -- the whines essentially amount to 'if you say anything against my side, you're insinuating that you're better than everyone else, and this proves that what you say against my side must be false.'

Seriously, learn to argue/prove your assertions about my character, or **** off.

Reply 183

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

Here's your little passive aggressive dig :smile:

Original post by Hydeman

Do you count reporting acts of terror carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam to be 'media attacks?'

Original post by Bornblue

Here's another. This ones not even that passive.

Yes, as I said in the previous post, your accusations of passive aggression are entirely unfounded and erroneous. But anything will do as long as it confirms your existing view of me, right?

Of course you're above it all though right?

Above humour? Of course not, nor have I ever claimed to be.

Edit: I've claimed to be above partisanship in the past (which has been your chief complaint before you decided to care more about my lack of attention to niceties), and I maintain that I am above that, yes.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 184

username878267

Original post by Hydeman

Those are quite blatant jokes that you obviously didn't get, not 'passive aggressive digs', of which you've yet to find any proof.

Most of them are references to earlier conversations I've had with her on the US presidential election discussion thread (@chemting can vouch for that), and the last two of them, while an admirable effort at paraphrasing, are straight out lies on your part.

You were saying something about digs and how they're a bad thing?

You've accused me of the highlighted for quite some time now, mostly in reference to something that I've said to criticise the left. Quite frankly, you're a pathological liar. Every instance in which you've accused me of 'acting like I'm better than others' has been a case of the your reflexive, simultaneous employment of the tu quoque fallacy and a non sequitur -- the whines essentially amount to 'if you say anything against my side, you're insinuating that you're better than everyone else, and this proves that what you say against my side must be false.'

Seriously, learn to argue/prove your assertions about my character, or **** off.

Haha.
If you take a look I quoted you the exact digs.
I didn't paraphrase, I quoted. Of course I'm imagining it though?
And now you bring left wing into it, what does that have to do with anything. I'm centre left and have called for Corbyn to go time and time again...
The 'left' are not 'my side'. I have my own opinions.

Of course I take digs at people. I don't pretend otherwise, I don't act better than other people like I'm above it all. However you do.

You seem to think you're above mudslinging, like you're this mature, sophisticated, even handed and impartial guy.
The reality is you rarely have anything constructive to say so instead focus on pulling up other people on grammar/ technicalities.

That's not a problem though, the fact you're a massive hypocrite is :smile:

Reply 185

BubbleBoobies

Original post by Retired_Messiah

Lmao the irony

1) it was self-defence against their own pre-emptive insults.
2) those insults were, in no way, the substance of my argument
learn to read better, I'd respectfully advise. also, don't vet my message to make it seem like I was *only* insulting them. that's pretty ****ing dishonest now, isn't it? how *honourable* of you

Reply 186

username878267

Original post by Hydeman

As above, you pass comment on jokes that you don't get. This isn't the first time that FoS has simply stopped responding when she's been asked a simple question which, by the way, is what she was referring to as 'low grade point scoring', not the shoddy examples that you've found. Here's what she said was point scoring, to which you enthusiastically agreed given your eagerness to vindicate your longstanding false accusations:

Yes, as I said in the previous post, your accusations of passive aggression are entirely unfounded and erroneous. But anything will do as long as it confirms your existing view of me, right?

Above humour? Of course not, nor have I ever claimed to be.

Edit: I've claimed to be above partisanship in the past (which has been your chief complaint before you decided to care more about my lack of attention to niceties), and I maintain that I am above that, yes.

You're not above partisanship though. At all. You criticise certain groups far more frequently and harshly than you do others for the same things.

I do too, everyone does, but I don't claim I'm above partisanship, like you do.
As for being above petty digs, you claimed I had 'dogmatic' views which was clearly not intended as a compliment was it...(it's also laughable)

It's fine to make digs and snide remarks, but just be honest about it ffs.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 187

Retired_Messiah

Original post by BubbleBoobies

It was a quote, anybody that wants to read what you actually said can do quite easily, not like it makes any difference to the point I was making lmao

chill gurl

Reply 188

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

Haha.
If you take a look I quoted you the exact digs.

Yes, and I've already said that those 'digs' are examples of jokes that you clearly don't get.

I didn't paraphrase, I quoted.

Show me where I said, 'you defend crazy people.' With regards to the face-saving, as I said in a previous post: reference to something that you clearly don't get.

And now you bring left wing into it, what does that have to do with anything. I'm centre left and have called for Corbyn to go time and time again...
The 'left' are not 'my side'. I have my own opinions.

I bring the left into it because most of your accusations with me apparently pretending I'm better than everyone have been specifically related to my criticism of the left by you, not by me.

Of course I take digs at people. I don't pretend otherwise, I don't act better than other people like I'm above it all. However you do.

What a spectacle of goalpost-shifting you're orchestrating here. :facepalm:

You seem to think you're above mudslinging, like you're this mature, sophisticated, even handed and impartial guy.

Again, what you think I 'seem' to think I think is not the indisputable fact that you seem to think it is. It's a fabrication on your part, in its entirety. I have not claimed to be 'mature, sophisticated, even handed' -- although I have claimed to be above party politics, which has been the context in which your accusation has been framed until tonight, when it seems to have amalgamated with my tendency to make jokes and use sarcasm, which I've never denied using.

The reality is you're a pathetic pedant

For asking a question (below) that you've repeatedly failed to show constitutes a passive aggressive dig? Yeah, you'll have to try harder than that with your ad hominems. :smile:

Original post by Hydeman

Do you count reporting acts of terror carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam to be 'media attacks?'

you rarely have anything constructive to say so instead focus on pulling up other people on grammar/ technicalities.

That's not a problem though, the fact you're a massive hypocrite is :smile:

You've so far failed to show that. You're clearly experiencing quite a bit of cognitive dissonance tonight, since you're in full foaming-at-the-mouth-yelling-unproven-insults mode. I won't be continuing this for much longer.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 189

BubbleBoobies

Original post by Retired_Messiah

It was a quote, anybody that wants to read what you actually said can do quite easily, not like it makes any difference to the point I was making lmao

chill gurl

...but you replaced the bulk of my "quotation" with "...".

Reply 190

Retired_Messiah

Original post by BubbleBoobies

...but you replaced the bulk of my "quotation" with "...".

Yeah, to shorten it. There was no point making my post look massive when I was only gonna focus on one bit of it anyway.

Reply 191

username878267

Original post by Hydeman

Yes, and I've already said that those 'digs' are examples of jokes that you clearly don't get.

Show me where I said, 'you defend crazy people.' With regards to the face-saving, as I said in a previous post: reference to something that you clearly don't get.

I bring the left into it because most of your accusations with me apparently pretending I'm better than everyone have been specifically related to my criticism of the left by you, not by me.

What a spectacle of goalpost-shifting you're orchestrating here. :facepalm:

Your usual complaint with me is that I claim to be above partisanship, not that I claim I'm above making jokes about people. And I do maintain that I'm above political tribalism. You've conflating this new standard with the old for reasons I'm not quite certain of.

As for the 'you think you're better than other people' -- pulled out of your ass. Prove it, or stop repeating it. Making a joke that you're unfortunate enough not to get is not the equivalent of thinking I'm better than everyone.

Again, what you think I 'seem' to think I think is not the indisputable fact that you seem to think it is. It's a fabrication on your part, in its entirety. I have not claimed to be 'mature, sophisticated, even handed' -- although I have claimed to be above party politics, which has been the context in which your accusation has been framed until tonight, when it seems to have amalgamated with my tendency to make jokes and use sarcasm, which I've never denied using.

For asking a question (below) that you've repeatedly failed to show constitutes a passive aggressive dig? Yeah, you'll have to try harder than that with your ad hominems. :smile:

Again, I'd love to see how the post in question constitutes pedantry, unconstructive speech, fussing over technicalities or correcting people's grammar (where even have I done that with regards to a political discussion? The only place I've ever done that in is Chat, and again as a joke with friends -- @FrenchUnicorn can vouch for me there).

You've so far failed to show that. You're clearly experiencing quite a bit of cognitive dissonance tonight, since you're in full foaming-at-the-mouth-yelling-unproven-insults mode. I won't be continuing this for much longer.

Except I have shown everything you've asked me to.
You claim you are above partisanship which is quite simply not true. You always criticise the left for things you let fly by on the right.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, we all do it. I'm ten times harder on the right than I am the left. But I don't pretend otherwise. I don't pretend I'm some even handed impartial guy who's above it all. You do.

And you also always deny making petty digs when you make digs a plenty. Like ive shown in this thread, like you did on the Iraq war illegality thread. Just because you make them in a slyer way, doesn't mean you don't.

Again that's fine to make digs, I love taking swipes at people on here but again, at least I admit it. You pretend to be above it all- you're not.

As to your point about Muslims, while quite clearly this thread is about the disgusting campaign tactics used against Khan, which has been criticised by several Tories even. It largely played on the fact he was a Muslim, trying to link him to all sorts of extremism.. But of course, when the right engage in dirty regressive, divisive politics you refuse to condemn it and then claim you're above partisanship...

It's fine to engage in partisanship politics, it's fine to sling mud. But ffs just admit you do it rather than pretending you're above it all.
And yes I like to have the last word :smile:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 192

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

You're not above partisanship though. At all. You criticise certain groups far more frequently and harshly than you do others ~~for the same things~~.

Oh, we're back to partisanship, are we? Okay. Are you going to concede that you changed your complaint from partisanship to etiquette to partisanship again (when I mentioned it)? :holmes:

The highlighted statement is correct except for the bit I've crossed out. Criticising some things more than others is not evidence of partisanship. Some things are naturally more worthy of criticism than others.

I do too, everyone does, but I don't claim I'm above partisanship, like you do.

It doesn't matter to me whether you do or you don't -- I'm of the opinion that I don't go out of my way to defend or attack certain parties, and that, to me, is lack of political partisanship. :dontknow:

As for being above petty digs, you claimed I had 'dogmatic' views which was clearly not intended as a compliment was it...(it's also laughable)

A dig would be if I called you a pathetic pedant/grammar Nazi while knowing that you weren't. A dogmatic view is one which you're not willing to accept as false. I was simply saying it as I saw it. As ever, context matters, so it's worth mentioning that I said something like, 'I don't have time to argue with someone who's dogmatically anti-war', and that's true. I didn't have the time or the patience that day to resurrect an days-old conversation that was already over and have a heated exchange with you on matters where you've previously shown an unwillingness to be convinced.

It's fine to make digs and snide remarks, but just be honest about it ffs.

So, which is it that you're worked up about: partisanship or a lack of etiquette? Please stop switching between the two as if they're one and the same.

As I've said, my position is that I'm above partisanship, but not above jokes/zings/sarcasm, and nor have I ever claimed otherwise, so you'd do well to stop asserting that I have. As far as I see it, you're blowing a few humorous remarks far out of proportion -- they're not 'passive aggressive' or 'digs' or 'snide.' Those terms imply malicious intent, which you've failed to prove to date.

Reply 193

BubbleBoobies

Original post by Retired_Messiah

Yeah, to shorten it. There was no point making my post look massive when I was only gonna focus on one bit of it anyway.

and surely you realise that by doing that you clearly misrepresented what I said? I mean, that "..." could have meant one sentence or 10. it's not as if you were trying to mitigate against this, especially given the fact that your point was basically ""oh at you, you're a hypocrite for insulting this other user", even after they a) do it to me first, for no reason, and b) it wasn't the content of my argument

Reply 194

troubadour.

Original post by Bornblue

Except I have shown everything you've asked me to.
You claim you are above partisanship which is quite simply not true. You always criticise the left for things you let fly by on the right.

Give a few examples of where I've done this, if you can. 'Showing' something to be true requires more than just asserting it.

In fact, I think I remember a good example of non-partisanship on my part: we had a similar exchange on the U.S. election discussion thread in which I sided heavily with Donald Trump against some Bernie Sanders supporters who'd made an organised effort to shut down a rally, despite being a strong supporter of Sanders myself (FoS, whose incorrect statement you agreed to with much haste and enthusiasm, would have you believe that I'm dogmatically (that word has a meaning, it's not just a slur) pro-Sanders, so another reason to actually read what she says instead of reflexively agreeing with her because she voiced an opinion of me that's vaguely in line with your own).

Ironically, it was you that made extremely poor arguments (at least one person other than myself called you out on them, so it's not just my view) in that case because you just couldn't compute a situation where Trump might be the injured party and tried to justify the disgraceful behaviour by those Sanders supporters by implying that Trump deserved it because his views are unsavoury.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, we all do it. I'm ten times harder on the right than I am the left. But I don't pretend otherwise. I don't pretend I'm some even handed impartial guy who's above it all. You do.

It's of no consequence that you admit that you do it and think that everyone does it. I don't think that I am particularly biased, and you've got nothing to show for this except your accusations. This isn't some rule that I'm somehow obligated to adhere to.

And you also always deny making petty digs when you make digs a plenty.

This is going nowhere, so can you please define what you mean by 'petty dig' and all of its variants? I've already told you that I don't deny making jokes at other people's expense -- that you choose to call them 'digs' and 'snide' is a problem peculiar to you and very few others, in my experience. I'd say it's a victim complex and lack of humour, but then you'd say that's a dig too. :facepalm:

Like ive shown in this thread

I've already explained why your examples do not support your conclusion, so stop acting like I haven't.

like you did on the Iraq war illegality thread. Just because you make them in a slyer way, doesn't mean you don't.

Again, you'll have to define what you mean by a dig, since you seem to think almost everything is a dig.

Again that's fine to make digs, I love taking swipes at people on here but again, at least I admit it. You pretend to be above it all- you're not.

It's fine to engage in partisanship politics, it's fine to sling mud. But ffs just admit you do it rather than pretending you're above it all.And yes I like to have the last word :smile:

Please stop implying that I'm not 'admitting' to partisanship because I fear social consequences/find it embarrassing and need to, in a sense, come out of the partisan closet. :tongue:

It's simply not the case.

I am above it all (insofar as 'all' means being politically biased, not jokes/'digs' -- they're two different things), in my view, and I think that's vindicated enough by my behaviour. The strategy of simply asserting I'm biased is frankly getting a little old, so give it a rest.

In any case, I won't be replying again if you continue to run around in these confused circles.

As to your point about Muslims, while quite clearly this thread is about the disgusting campaign tactics used against Khan, which has been criticised by several Tories even. It largely played on the fact he was a Muslim, trying to link him to all sorts of extremism..

This is related to the subject of the thread, yes, but has nothing to do with the statement you originally jumped on, which I'm still waiting for you to prove is anything of the sort that FoS claimed, and that you agreed with. :tongue:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 195

Fiduciam

NO. I am the UK's most powerful Muslim.