Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

What did you think the analogy was when you read the OP?

I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo's tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was--because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece.

Now your turn: why won't you lay out your argument clearly in the OP?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo's tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was--because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece.

Now your turn: why won't you lay out your argument clearly in the OP?

I did not read that piece, but I immediately recognized the argument Bricker was making, and thought it was extremely obvious.

[CoolHandCox]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Seriously, just who in the bloody hell do you think you are?

You prance around here with your holier-than-thou attitude as if you are so above the fray, when in fact you are one of the dirtiest motherfuckers that I've ever encountered.

[A Bricker Post - See OP]

Hey, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, I SPELLED THE SOURCE OUT RIGHT THERE FOR YOUR TINY LITTLE PEA-NEURON TO SEE. Since the hell when did CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST MARK HALPERIN at The Page become a fucking "echo chamber that reinforces my view," you cumwad?

As for your guess-hazarding, I guess that's proof enough right there how fucking wrong you are about me and my reading habits.

Besides the fact, the person you should have been attacking was the fucking source of the information if they in fact got it wrong. Excuse the fuck out of me for relying upon one of YOUR GUYS for truth and accuracy. You can bet your sweet ass I won't be making that mistake again!

Jesus you make me sick.

Asshole.

I don't post in Pit often, but I'd just like to say that I think Bricker is a great contributor to any thread. He's not always correct, but always elevates a thread's content and he's very often a good contributor and not a "guess-hazarding...cumwad.... " If he makes you mad, just point out why he's wrong, very clearly. It takes time and thoughtful effort, but hopefully that's what this board is about. It can be done.

I haven't read the thread, but I'm guessing the OP has been cleared up somewhat? (WAG?)

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo's tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was--because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece.

I didn't recognize the source because I don't waste my precious time on this earth on his hateful partisan yammerings.

But that actually makes it worse, doesn't it? This latest gotcha attempt wasn't even original - Bricker simply plagiarized it. Two levels of dishonesty for the price of one. Not that the realization of even one of them inhibits the dwindling few here who haven't yet caught on to his act from lauding his "contributions" here.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread "trolling."

You can say that right after explaining in detail how it was simply an attempt at drawing a reaction, not a sincere attempt to explore a topic? Really? If that's not trolling, what word would you use?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don't see it.

If you're going to lie like that, at least try harder to make it convincing. Or you could accept responsibility for it; that would be even better, if not to be expected.

[Oakminster]

While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect Bricker. I don't always agree with his positions, and I don't like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo's tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was--because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece.

Now your turn: why won't you lay out your argument clearly in the OP?

Because I thought it was blatantly obvious. Because I would be stunned to discover any actively participating GD member read my post and did not understand it. Because "right thing to do" in connection with Obama's immigration decision was been dominating the headlines.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect Bricker. I don't always agree with his positions, and I don't like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here.

Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically.

Don't put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don't don't like this particular tactic--the "gotcha" style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Don't put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don't don't like this particular tactic--the "gotcha" style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

Still, one would have to wonder if Bricker's style of pompous douchebaggery would sit so well with you if he didn't align with your ideological stances.

[xenophon41]

Bricker's style sits fine with me, and I'm hardly ideologically aligned with the counselor. What grates is his emphases on the legality of actions over their consequences, on the ideologically theoretical over the demonstrable actual, on the propriety of behavior over its wisdom.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Don't put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don't don't like this particular tactic--the "gotcha" style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you "don't don't like" Bricker's schtick, that means you like it, right? GOTCHA!!

ETA: I forgot--numbnuts.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically.

And yet Bricker does not line up with me ideologically at all; we're miles apart on heaps of issues. But i feel pretty much the same way about him as Oakminster does.

Why can't you accept that it's possible to have disagreements with someone, and even to think that they can be a douche at times, while also being willing to acknowledge that they might bring something of value to the conversation?

I'm not saying you have to like Bricker. If you do think he's a "jackass extraordinaire," that's your right. But you're being disingenuous in your interpretation of Oakminster's comments here.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Why can't you accept that it's possible to have disagreements with someone, and even to think that they can be a douche at times, while also being willing to acknowledge that they might bring something of value to the conversation?

I can accept that. It would be much more convincing, however, coming from someone who did not align with Bricker's ideology, is all. Something like "a statement against interests" is what I'd find assuring--Oakminster's statement mitigating Bricker's excesses is a statement supporting his own interests.

[Really Not All That Bright]

My ideology- such as it is- is generally opposed to Bricker's. Will I do?

Originally Posted by Oakminster

While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect Bricker. I don't always agree with his positions, and I don't like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here.

I don't really see why it's an objectionable practice. Yeah, it's kind of annoying, on some level, but it's a pretty good way of getting people to see positions they hold in a different light.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo's tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was--because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece.

Now your turn: why won't you lay out your argument clearly in the OP?

1. Bricker's argument was blatantly obvious.

2. Since when has anyone in GD laid out an argument clearly? I'd say less than 5% of posts (including OPs) in GD lay out an argument for any position.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

I can accept that. It would be much more convincing, however, coming from someone who did not align with Bricker's ideology, is all.

Count me there--other than disagreeing with Bricker on substance more often than Oakminster does, I agree with almost everything he wrote. As such, I think your implication that Oakminster's position must be due to bias says a lot more about you than about him.

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

I didn't recognize the source because I don't waste my precious time on this earth on [Bricker's] hateful partisan yammerings.

Are there any conservatives here whom you don't feel are scumbags of some stripe?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Count me there--other than disagreeing with Bricker on substance more often than Oakminster does, I agree with almost everything he wrote. As such, I think your implication that Oakminster's position must be due to bias says a lot more about you than about him.

And what does it say that I find your admiration for Bricker far more convincing than I find Oakminster's?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

And what does it say that I find your admiration for Bricker far more convincing than I find Oakminster's?

I dunno, but I think it says that you base your admiration of people substantially on whether you agree with their positions, rather than on their behavior, and so you assume that everyone else must do the same.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Well for what it's worth here's Oakminster 's contribution to 'Do we need a businessman in the White House?'

Originally Posted by Oakminster

That's right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Well for what it's worth here's Oakminster 's contribution to 'Do we need a businessman in the White House?'

I'm not sure what this actually is worth. Would you care to elaborate?

Oakminster's post in that thread was a jackass post. He makes those sometimes. But i'm not sure what bearing it has on his argument about Bricker in this thread.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm not sure what this actually is worth. Would you care to elaborate?

Oakminster's post in that thread was a jackass post. He makes those sometimes. But i'm not sure what bearing it has on his argument about Bricker in this thread.

I was responding to Left Hand of Dorkness, and pseudotriton ruber ruber posts directly above mine, whom I should have quoted rather than rely on proximity, for unambiguity's sake.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm not sure what this actually is worth. Would you care to elaborate?

Oakminster's post in that thread was a jackass post. He makes those sometimes. But i'm not sure what bearing it has on his argument about Bricker in this thread.

For one thing, if Bricker was gone, then Oakie would likely be in for the Reasonable Conservative Guy position. The bench is thin.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I dunno, but I think it says that you base your admiration of people substantially on whether you agree with their positions, rather than on their behavior, and so you assume that everyone else must do the same.

Not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings unnecessarily, I will only assure you I hold in contempt several of my fellow left-of-center types on this board for general nonsense-spewing but I simply refrain from commenting when they come under attack rather than piling on. IRL, I doubt many lefties have more contempt than I do for Jesse Jackson, both Clintons, Ed Koch, despite large areas of ideological agreement.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by elucidator

For one thing, if Bricker was gone, then Oakie would likely be in for the Reasonable Conservative Guy position. The bench is thin.

Aw, shucks. Now you're making me blush.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

As such, I think your implication that Oakminster's position must be due to bias says a lot more about you than about him.

And with that, the whole "I'm Rubber and You're Glue" theory is finally disproved. Schoolyard mayhem is bound to ensue.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

Are there any conservatives here whom you don't feel are scumbags of some stripe?

A better question would be "Are there any conservatives whom you don't feel are scumbags of some stripe?". Honestly, the only self-described conservative that comes close is Chomsky and he did say some questionable things about Cambodian survivor testimony.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Honestly, the only self-described conservative that comes close is Chomsky and he did say some questionable things about Cambodian survivor testimony.

Chomsky's a self-described conservative? I'm sure he'll be interested to learn that.

As for his statements about Cambodia, most people who rant and rave about that are just repeating what the right-wing dittoheads say, and have very little idea of what his argument actually was.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

Are there any conservatives here whom you don't feel are scumbags of some stripe?

(bolding added)

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

A better question would be "Are there any conservatives whom you don't feel are scumbags of some stripe?". Honestly, the only self-described conservative that comes close is Chomsky and he did say some questionable things about Cambodian survivor testimony.

Originally Posted by mhendo

Chomsky's a self-described conservative? I'm sure he'll be interested to learn that.

I suspect that the reference was to an erstwhile poster, here, not the language pundit.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I dunno, but I think it says that you base your admiration of people substantially on whether you agree with their positions, rather than on their behavior, and so you assume that everyone else must do the same.

I'd say it means he's more likely to believe that someone who shares beliefs with someone else will understate how much he dislikes him.

I personally don't mind his gotcha questions now that I know they are coming. It just means I have to address him in a certain way if I want to be convincing, just like I have to for every other person.

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm not sure what this actually is worth. Would you care to elaborate?

Oakminster's post in that thread was a jackass post. He makes those sometimes. But i'm not sure what bearing it has on his argument about Bricker in this thread.

That, in general, a jackass's opinion that someone else is a nice guy is not really worth much?

(Not necessarily my opinion, mind you. I don't know what I think of Oakminster. It's never been relevant.)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I just need to remember that he's a vocationally impaired being, unlike normal people who can phrase questions seeking information or answers. He, OTOH, typically asks questions to entrap people, and so must have his motives questioned. If he posts an OP querying "Is today Monday?" I must remember not to answer "Yes, it is" before considering which trap the counselor is trying to set. Is he setting a multi-cultural trap, meaning I must answer "In cultures using the Norse gods' names of the week, yes, but not in cultures using other naming systems." Or is he setting a International Date Line trap?, meaning I have to figure out what day today is in Polynesia before answering. In any case, Bricker can be relied upon not to be asking a straightforward question, but setting out some sort of Liberal-Snare. it's no big deal but it is a pain in the ass.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So if somebody links to a post where Bricker posts a question with no ulterior motive, will you shut the fuck up?

ETA: This is not a gotcha. I don't have a specific post in mind that my fingers are eagerly hovering over the keyboard to link to. I'm just fairly certain one exists.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So if somebody links to a post where Bricker posts a question with no ulterior motive, will you shut the fuck up?

ETA: This is not a gotcha. I don't have a specific post in mind that my fingers are eagerly hovering over the keyboard to link to. I'm just fairly certain one exists.

Because if one does exist, then... ?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Because if one does exist, then... ?

i]IT'S A TRAP!

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It's hard to avoid calling other people out when you think their position is based on tribal identification rather than reason.

And most political extremists of either stripe are doing exactly that, going with their tribe rather than reason/logic.

The other extremists are ones who've been through a traumatic event, like Ayn Rand seeing her father's fortune disappear during the Russian Revolution, or some real estate agents who became more economically liberal after the real estate bubble burst, and they went from $100,000/year to $5,000/year (as an example, those are rough, semi-random income guesses).

I'm not sure which group is harder to deal with, the tribal ones, or the ones with trauma. Probably, in the short run, the traumatized ones...but the tribal ones are worse in the long run, because they simply are immune to reason.

[Manda JO]

Bricker, the problem with the gotcha analogies is that they add a level of personal defensiveness. It's like this:

Bricker: What do you all think of red?

Poster: Red sucks! Down with red!

Bricker: But you support pink? What a hypocrite you are!

Poster: Red and pink are totally different.

Bricker: They are different shades of the same color. You are a totally illogical hypocrite driven only by your emotional attachment to a particular ideology.

After that, the poster has to defend themselves in an absolute fashion; they can't compromise or concede anything because it's no longer about pink and red, it's about being a hypocrite, an accusation that most people are very sensitive to.

Bricker, I in no way think you are a troll, and I think you probably use this sort of argument in your own head to check your own positions for integrity. But it makes what should be fairly dispassionate discussions about an issue into emotional, personal attacks where you are defending a position but the other side is defending their character. It makes the discussion unbalanced and prevents any moderating of one's position. It's counterproductive, if what you want is to come closer to truth through discussion.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

...if what you want is to come closer to truth through discussion.

I'm still unconvinced that he wants that.

I'm not saying he's a troll, and certainly not a troll on every single issue, but...there are certain issues where his lawyerly arguing style makes his strong partisan-ness somewhat irritating. I pitted him as well, just last week.

I've seen another lawyer do this online, as well. That guy had been doing it all his life, though, and didn't know how to stop.

[MaxTheVool]

One additional point: Bricker claims that the OP under discussion (hypothetical about Romney and inheritance taxes) was NOT intended as a gotcha, because he says that he was sure that everyone in the thread would recognize what he was referring to. But that's not good enough... for it to truly lead to open and honest and non-defensive non-gotcha conversation, not only would everyone who read it realize what it was referring to, but they would also have to realize that Bricker intended that they realize what it was referring to.

Which raises the question again, why didn't he just make the comparison explicit?


The shame is, it's an interesting discussion. Certainly, my initial response as a liberal was to cheer on what Obama did, but to what extent is it a massive overstep of separation of powers for the prez to arbitrarily limit how the executive branch will enforce certain laws, etc, etc. An interesting topic for discussion and debate, which mostly got lost in yet another argument about hypocrisy, and about arguments about hypocrisy.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Bricker's latest dishonest bullshit.

Originally Posted by Mosier

What's dishonest about it?

As you motherfucking well know, what is dishonest about that thread is that it obviously is about something (Obama's new immigration policy) entirely different than what it purports to be about (capital gains tax). "Gotcha!"-setup threads are always dishonest.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Can't prove this, but I strongly suspect that most of the irritation at "gotcha" posts and OPs is simply because they're so successful.

Most people - here and elsewhere - formulate their opinions about all sorts of ostensibly unrelated principles based on how they practically impact their more important positions and interests. If people see the "gotcha" upfront, then they put some effort into tailoring their "opinions" on thse matters so as to conform to all their more important positions. But if they don't see it, they don't get to do this upfront, and their ability to pass off their opinions about these matters as highminded principles is severely compromised.

Quite unpleasant, to be sure.

In sum, I am in favor of "gotcha" type posts/OPs, and think people should stop whining about them.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

Which raises the question again, why didn't he just make the comparison explicit?

For the same reason I created a little scenario about an inauguration speech and prior Congressional action that stalled. I could have simply written a dry OP that said, "Could a future president overturn capital gains taxes in the same way Obama has overturned portions of the immigration law?"

But I didn't, because I thought that every would understand the parallel (stalled in Congress, it's the right thing to do, etc). Why would I have added that detail in about being stalled in Congress and "It's the right thing to do?" otherwise?

I ask again: did anyone read that and NOT know what the comparison was? I didn't make it explicit because I was convinced it was already pretty damn obvious.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Bricker

For the same reason I created a little scenario about an inauguration speech and prior Congressional action that stalled. I could have simply written a dry OP that said, "Could a future president overturn capital gains taxes in the same way Obama has overturned portions of the immigration law?"

But I didn't, because I thought that every would understand the parallel (stalled in Congress, it's the right thing to do, etc). Why would I have added that detail in about being stalled in Congress and "It's the right thing to do?" otherwise?

I ask again: did anyone read that and NOT know what the comparison was? I didn't make it explicit because I was convinced it was already pretty damn obvious.

If you're sincere (I'm very dubious), this is an extremely solipsistic post, assuming that of course everyone is as aware as you are of every issue, and draws the same associations with every phrase in English language that you do, and so certainly that you are freed from every bit of responsibility for making clear the connections you have made--it couldn't possibly be the writer's responsibility, and it must be the reader's.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I ask again: did anyone read that and NOT know what the comparison was? I didn't make it explicit because I was convinced it was already pretty damn obvious.

I doubt anyone who had actively debated the immigration reform issue would not have figured it out. I can't say for sure if I would because I found that thread via this one.

Having said that, I think you'd admit that you have played this game in the past without making it obvious that you're drawing a similar parallel.

[Richard Parker]

Bricker is being misunderstood here.

Hypotheticals like this have long been part of the western canon, and it is customary to set them up exactly in this way -- i.e., with enough resemblance to the actual dispute so people have in the back of their mind their previously offered position, but without explicit reference to the dispute.

And there's a reason for this customary form, which flows from the purpose of this kind of inquiry. The whole point of such hypotheticals is to separate intuitions arising from the facts of the proposition actually in dispute from the logical reasoning that is produced to defend those intuitions (often post hoc, or at least ad hoc). The socratic method accomplishes this by separating the reasons from whatever facts produced them. If the result is the same, this tends to suggests that the reasons are both generally applicable (and therefore good reasons instead of being ad hoc), and that they are not driven entirely by the facts (and therefore good reasons instead of being post hoc).

Thus, the whole force of this kind of inquiry derives from separating the hypothetical from the thing actually in dispute. Not as a kind of "gotcha," but as a recognition of how human cognition works. The goal is to suppress gut intuitions, or else attempt to produce contrary intuitions and see if the same reasoning still applies. You accomplish that by a kind of mutually agreed-upon hide-the-ball.

The notion isn't to trick anyone. The notion is consensual manipulation of gut intuitions to separate the emotion from the logic (to the extent possible).

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

If you're sincere (I'm very dubious), this is an extremely solipsistic post, assuming that of course everyone is as aware as you are of every issue, and draws the same associations with every phrase in English language that you do, and so certainly that you are freed from every bit of responsibility for making clear the connections you have made--it couldn't possibly be the writer's responsibility, and it must be the reader's.

Uh huh.

And which reader didn't draw the requisite associations?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Bricker is being misunderstood here.

Hypotheticals like this have long been part of the western canon...

I appreciate the support, but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears; the posters most frothing at the mouth over this supposed dishonesty are the posters who think the western canon is a piece of field artillery in California.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

That would be me. I was following the one story closely and the other one not at all. Or are you suggesting that's impossible?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

That would be me. I was following the one story closely and the other one not at all. Or are you suggesting that's impossible?

No. Just very surprising.

You hadn't heard a thing about Obama's plan to implement the DREAM Act by executive order?

Then... what story was it you were following closely?

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I ask again: did anyone read that and NOT know what the comparison was? I didn't make it explicit because I was convinced it was already pretty damn obvious.

But I say again: even if everyone immediately knew what the comparison was, they would also have to immediately know that you intended that they know what the comparison was... that is, even if you had absolutely zero intent of pulling a "aha! you think this about this, but not about Obama! Gotcha!", and I honestly believe you if you say you didn't, the fact that your post was so similar in content to one that would in fact be leading towards a gotcha of that sort, and the fact that you have made such posts in the past, led an awful lot of people to quite reasonably assume that that's what was going on, leading to the kerfuffle we're in now.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

But I say again: even if everyone immediately knew what the comparison was, they would also have to immediately know that you intended that they know what the comparison was... that is, even if you had absolutely zero intent of pulling a "aha! you think this about this, but not about Obama! Gotcha!", and I honestly believe you if you say you didn't, the fact that your post was so similar in content to one that would in fact be leading towards a gotcha of that sort, and the fact that you have made such posts in the past, led an awful lot of people to quite reasonably assume that that's what was going on, leading to the kerfuffle we're in now.

I can only say that such thoughts of meta-gotchas did not cross my mind prior to the kerfuffle.