For a change of pace, why don't you try explaining what conclusion you've reached, and present the evidence that has led you to that conclusion. Then, the other person can either agree with your assessment, or explain either why the evidence doesn't justify the conclusion or potentially why the evidence is wrong. 

Cause, it feels like what you're doing here is wasting people's time primarily with questions that are neither designed to help you build to a point nor to understand theirs, and eventually draw people into vague philosophy 101 discussions, which are not what this topic is for. So from here on out, your posts should be making a clear point (or counterpoint)  directly related to US politics. To the extent that clarifying questions are necessary, they should be non-open ended, specific, not draw people away from a topic, and answers should not be met with further questions (unless you for instance make a cogent point of your own and then ask for a response to continue the situation). Consider this a warning, because it really seems like your intent is to waste people's time here. 

What we are looking for generally (which isn't to say you can never throw in a one liner) is two way conversations, which each side trying to explain or establish a point. Not a conversation where one person is trying to make a point and another person is endlessly needling them about it.

"why don't you try explaining what conclusion you've reached, and present the evidence that has led you to that conclusion."

>I haven't reached any conclusion: these statements are terribly devoid of any detail that is of any use, to try to reach any meaningful conclusion would be reckless. So when Jaicee posts:

"The second thing I wanted to highlight today is a headline that I feel speaks for itself: Egotistical victimhood is linked to support for Trump, study finds."

I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to draw from such a headline/study? I suppose one could vilify with this information but that would be an awfully rude thing to do to someone one has never met before...

"Not a conversation where one person is trying to make a point and another person is endlessly needling them about it."

>Good thing I didn't endlessly needle Jaicee then. I asked Jaicee a question, she did not answer it, and everyone moved on.

I ask questions that I think can lead to thoughtful discussion and people are perfectly free not to answer.

What you're supposed to draw is that egotistical victimhood is linked to support for Trump. That's like... literally the conclusion of the study.

If you don't know what you're supposed to draw from a study, maybe read the study? Do you need Jaicee to think for you? I mean, you could ask her to respond to a specific part of the study, or to apply the finding to a particular situation, but you shouldn't need her to tell you its conclusion. That's reading comprehension. If you asked a question that demonstrated you had actually read the article, that'd potentially be fine. What it seems you did was read one paragraph into it, find a quote you thought would evoke a response, and then start a line of questioning which from past experience, we can assume will fit the description "endless needling". 

If this was the first time maybe you'd get the benefit of the doubt. It's not. Based on your posts it doesn't seem like you're actually reading what's being said, just enough to come up with a one sentence response (virtually all of your responses are one line) to needle people. For instance, if you had read Vivster's original post, it'd be clear the sense in which he's using humanity which would've avoided this off topic detour (it would be nonsensical to suggest that the left possesses all of human kind, or that they solely possess the condition of being human, so obviously neither of your definitions could be the one they were using, whereas the claim that the left is more humane is a questionable but at least sensical assertion). Similarly, when talking with Runa, you ignored 99% of the post, asking them repeatedly what makes them invulnerable to racism... a claim they never actually made (they only said they hadn't been subject to racism). Another conversation ended with you yourself admitting that you had no idea how it related to the original topic. 

If you think that your questions are leading to thoughtful and on topic conversations, you are wrong, as I'm pretty sure anyone who has read these conversations would agree. I have explained what is expected. So, you can use those guidelines to help yourself out there, or the mods will discuss a thread ban. 

Any further questions should be through PM.

"What you're supposed to draw is that egotistical victimhood is linked to support for Trump. That's like... literally the conclusion of the study."

>The study's conclusion was longer and a little more elaborate than that. It's long so I won't copy-paste it, just follow link below if you care.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-020-09662-x#Sec13

"virtually all of your responses are one line"

>I try to keep things brief, that's why this is so. Some very long posts touch on many issues and can lead to discussions on various topics.

When I post, I try to keep it short and sweet for the sake of the reader: I think the shorter a post is, the more likely someone is to read it and focus on the topic I'm interested in discussing rather than getting lost in a longer and more laborious post with a lack of focus and tons of issues touched upon.

That's it: that's my big, dark secret.

Well, that didn't take long...

You have perfectly demonstrated why I thought your question to Jaicee was not in good faith. You were able to easily find what you were supposed to draw from the study, so why ask her? 

After discussing exactly what the issue was in detail, you took one sentence (a parenthetical at that) out of context and simply responded to that, as if that's all I said, ignoring the main point. As far as I can tell, you only read two lines of my post. Which means I wasted a ton of time. And, that's part of my job, but you're also wasting other people's time and preventing that is also part of the job. 

This is a thread about politics... If you think you're going to have meaningful conversations one sentence at a time, that's probably not happening. A reply should demonstrate that you have read the other person's entire post, are responding to their main point(s), and generally should show that you are in agreement with their position, have something to add to it, or are presenting a counter argument. Maybe pulling two sentences out of context and replying to them is not an attempt to troll and is honestly your idea of real conversation... I think I speak on behalf of the mod team in saying it's not ours. If you're not open to having real conversations about politics, then the politics section is probably not for you.

As instructed last time, anything further should be via PM. As I've already explained the issue three times, the PM should not be to me. CGI should be the person I guess. So, re-read what I've said. If you're coming back with the same kind of stuff, next ban's gonna be way longer.

Just so we're clear here folks, since the whole dialogue here seems to be about me right now and there are policing actions being taken "in my defense", I would point out that I called for no such actions to be taken and that I am perfectly capable of responding to detractors or ignoring them as the situation may call for.

While KLA Marine isn't my favorite forum contributor and doesn't seem to have much of an argument in defense of Trump or Trumpism here, I felt that his contention that I, and the author of the article I linked to, was cherry-picking the findings I wanted to highlight was deflective, but well within bounds. The article I linked to headlines a point that they, and I, feel is especially pertinent at the moment to American politics, but it is fair to say that the study itself is more nuanced, describing multiple forms of "victimhood" people feel befalls them and essentially characterizing modern politics itself as being perhaps a major source of this self-perception.

I just want this to be a thread where actual debate is possible, not one where people get policed essentially just for having unpopular opinions.

Yeah you may be right about that. Knowing KLA Marine as I think I do, I may well eat my words yet. But I just felt that this was on the frivolous side.

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1355535723315781633?s=21

And the dumpster fire continues.

Remember the guy in the face paint wearing bull horns dressed like a mutated buffalo? He was a part of the mob that stormed the Capitol. Now he is suddenly willing to testify against Trump in the upcoming Impeachment Trial

Shit, are you serious? THAT guy is willing?!

I couldn’t believe it either.

A big part of me is skeptical, thinking this is just another cry for attention or that he may take advantage of this to try and push the pro-Trump narrative even more.

And another big part of me thinks this could be for real and the big push needed to incriminate him once and for all. And that part is only fueled by the fact that, allegedly, Lindsey Graham wants him nowhere near the Trial.