# Bricker fooled me for too long **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 12, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835 "2012-11-12T22:46:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/201 "2012-11-14T16:17:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Here: > > > [@](#): > > > > the majority of SDMB posters . . . see themselves as fair and impartial adjudicators of truth Do you consider yourself fair-minded? [QUOTE=elbows] That could be read as not being able or willing to defend when challenged. [/QUOTE] I think we are in general agreement that, on the SDMB, conservatives are “challenged” in ways that liberals are not, Some of those “challenges” are fair. Others are not. But \*\*bump \*\*is correct - the conservatives who stick around, and are willing to post anything that varies from the liberal group-think, tend to be either like **Bricker** , who is testing his ideas by subjecting them to the best (and worst) the other side can come up with, and who largely ignores the snarking and assholery, and people like me, who like testing my ideas, but also enjoys giving back as good as he gets. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/202 "2012-11-14T16:19:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oh. There seems to be general agreement on that. What am I missing? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Most posters to this thread seem very vested in arguing that it was due to other differences. Sure. Other differences, like: > [@Baal\_Houtham](#): > > It seems very likely this point has already been made, but I’ve didn’t spot it: **Bricker** ’s Union Horror Story thread was posted in the pit; **Brain Glutton** ’s Buchanan thread was posted in Elections. It’s not surprising that the one in the Pit backfired more spectacularly. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > One night when I was seven, my pet cat was sleeping on our car. We didn’t see it when we got in the car to drive off, and the startled cat leapt off the car and under the wheels, dying instantly. > > I will tell you that the cat died because it jumped under our car. If you conclude from that story that I deny my cat would eventually have succumbed to old age, you’re an idiot. > > I will tell you that leftist posters treated Bricker differently because he > > 1. Posted in the Pit (I think), Of course, that’s not the case. It was moved to the Pit after it began tgo garner the vitriolic responses I complain of now. So the reaction to this news will be to (a) admit the main reason for the difference is my being a conservative; (b) drop the original-forum-posted-in issue and keep trying to find other points ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/203 "2012-11-14T16:33:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, that’s not the case. It was moved to the Pit after it began to garner the vitriolic responses I complain of now. > > So the reaction to this news will be to > > (a) admit the main reason for the difference is my being a conservative; > (b) drop the original-forum-posted-in issue and keep trying to find other points I absolutely agree that non-lefties get more abused than lefties for similar mistakes; it’s a point I make frequently. In fact I referred to that issue obliquely in my post you just responded to. I didn’t remember that your Union thread was moved (if I ever knew it.) I can’t say I like the notion of it getting moved – if posters wanted to trash you for the thread they could have started their own Pit thread, rather than the Mods giving them a ready-made. However, that’s an issue for ATMB rather than the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/204 "2012-11-14T16:36:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, that’s not the case. It was moved to the Pit after it began tgo garner the vitriolic responses I complain of now. > > So the reaction to this news will be to > > (a) admit the main reason for the difference is my being a conservative; > (b) drop the original-forum-posted-in issue and keep trying to find other points Since you chose (b) in your union thread, it seems a bit hypocritical to complain about people doing the same thing here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/205 "2012-11-14T16:40:19Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Since you chose (b) in your union thread, it seems a bit hypocritical to complain about people doing the same thing here. Fair point. What I said in the union thread was IF these statements were true, THEN the union influence was toxic, but I can see the view that this was not a complete rejection of the claim. Of course, I ultimately did completely reject it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/206 "2012-11-14T16:50:35Z")
The problem, as ever, is talking about “most posters” and “the Board,” when you’re actually talking about particular individuals. There are some individuals in this thread appearing to maintain that the partisan content of the two threads was not the principal driving force of the disparate reaction. Others aren’t. Similarly, there were some individuals in the union label thread who posted totally reasonable reactions disagreeing with \*\*Bricker \*\*or awaiting more information. Some posted insults instead (probably a majority, though I certainly haven’t counted). And some people repudiated those posting insults. Finally, there are some people who think of themselves as perfectly objective and fair-minded, and others who acknowledge their own biases regularly. These groups do not all overlap. I’d challenge you to show me a political forum with similar amounts of traffic that is more open to respectful discussion between ideological opponents. If such a place exists, I’ve never seen it. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/207 "2012-11-14T17:07:12Z")
**kalaysdad99** nailed it. My bad for not quoting! It was indeed in response to **bump**! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/208 "2012-11-14T17:29:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes, and it doesn’t change my point at all. I suppose this is OK as a snappy comeback, but it doesn’t happen to be true. If I was arguing - as you seemed to assume - that it was logically impossible for someone to believe a certain phenomenon exists but that the instance at hand does not happen to be a specific example of it, then your dog story would be relevant. But if I were instead arguing - as in fact I was - that it’s unlikely that so many people would be motivated to argue so hard about whether a certain specific incident proves something that everyone agrees is true anyway, then your dog story is not relevant. So while that poignant story may be of interest to future chroniclers of your life story, it has no bearing on this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/209 "2012-11-14T17:44:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I think we are in general agreement that, on the SDMB, conservatives are “challenged” in ways that liberals are not, Some of those “challenges” are fair. Others are not. > > But \*\*bump \*\*is correct - the conservatives who stick around, and are willing to post anything that varies from the liberal group-think Emphasis added. You seem to be saying that _some_ liberals (or whoever it is that will be challenging a conservative) can be fair, but vary from the “liberal group-think” and you’re in trouble. So what’s the deal? Are there some liberals here who are capable of fair debate and some who are not? Or is it simply more convenient to presume that all liberals are part of a “group-think” that will instinctively and collectively respond to perceived attacks? It’s like someone saying some black individuals are okay, but they sure hate black people. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/210 "2012-11-14T18:11:41Z")
He didn’t say “some challengers”. He said “some challenges”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/211 "2012-11-14T18:23:44Z")
Unless you’re being ironical, isn’t someone who makes a challenge a challenger, by definition? As such, your objection is of questionable significance. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/212 "2012-11-14T18:24:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But if I were instead arguing - as in fact I was - that it’s unlikely that so many people would be motivated to argue so hard about whether a certain specific incident proves something that everyone agrees is true anyway I’m a little uncertain what point you’re trying to make. Bricker proposes an equivalence that he claims demonstrates liberal hypocrisy. A lot of people (making valid points) point out differences in the situations that invalid his equivalence. At the same time, I make a different point, which is that even if the situations WERE identical, demonstrating a difference-in-reaction-on-a-message-board would be neither surprising nor indicative of anything particular damning. My argument does not render irrelevant the more specific arguments (because there’s no reason to let Bricker get away with BS false equivalences), and neither does the fact that people want to make the more specific argument in any way disprove or dispute the point I’m making. I think part of what’s going on here is that there are various slightly grandiose pronouncements that get made from time to time… one is that the SDMB is generally speaking interested in facts and rationality, and another is that the liberal side of the general American political divide is more interested in facts and rationality than the conservative side. And you and Shodan are acting as if those vague and non-absolute claims can be put together into “you SDMB liberals claim that you are always 100% rational and perfectly fair and objective and balanced in all times in all situations”. Which of course is a claim that no one has ever made. Granted, it would be nice for your side if someone DID make that claim, because it would be reasonably easy to disprove. But said claim remains stubbornly unclaimed. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/213 "2012-11-14T18:30:57Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Emphasis added. You seem to be saying that _some_ liberals (or whoever it is that will be challenging a conservative) can be fair, but vary from the “liberal group-think” and you’re in trouble. > > So what’s the deal? Are there some liberals here who are capable of fair debate and some who are not? What **Fotheringay-Phipps** said. Some “challenges” on the SDMB are fair, others are not. Call them Challenge Type A, and Challenge Type B. Post a thought that is outside the mainstream, you are going to get a fuck of a lot more B than you would if you simply join the chorus. Conservative thought is outside the mainstream on the SDMB. Thus you get a lot more shit if you post anything that resembles conservative thought. Sure, you get challenges of type A, and those can be debated. But nothing stops the type B - you can cite your points all you want, and the Usual Suspects will continue with the regular barrage of “ha ha that’s already been refuted you suck”. Bricker, as mentioned, tends to debate the type A and ignore the type B. I take a more mixed approach, where I debate type A and snark back at the type B. Different strokes for different folks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SouthernGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/82dd89/32.png) [@SouthernGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouthernGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/214 "2012-11-14T18:34:56Z")
Just because a thread is posted in(or moved to) the Pitt does not necessitate a negative(I’m understating here) comment to every view you do not agree with. Sure it’s the Pitt and it’s allowed however you must realize that in doing so causes tensions to rise and debases the actual argument. One only need review the **I pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppresors** thread to understand why. I think **Bricker** handled himself very well for as long as he could before rising to the bait so to speak. Most of it was highly unecessary as with any insults slung at an opinion such as it is. There were several times I noticed that **Bricker** would post and five or so malicious posts imediately followed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/215 "2012-11-14T18:35:34Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think part of what’s going on here is that there are various slightly grandiose pronouncements that get made from time to time… one is that the SDMB is generally speaking interested in facts and rationality, and another is that the liberal side of the general American political divide is more interested in facts and rationality than the conservative side. And you and Shodan are acting as if those vague and non-absolute claims can be put together into “you SDMB liberals claim that you are always 100% rational and perfectly fair and objective and balanced in all times in all situations”. Which of course is a claim that no one has ever made. Granted, it would be nice for your side if someone DID make that claim, because it would be reasonably easy to disprove. But said claim remains stubbornly unclaimed. I don’t recall saying anyone _claimed_ it. But I said they apparently _believe_ it. And that they demonstrate this belief by arguing vociferously and at length over matters that are otherwise pointless. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/216 "2012-11-14T18:48:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t recall saying anyone claimed it. But I said they apparently believe it. And that they demonstrate this belief by arguing vociferously and at length over matters that are otherwise pointless. I think you’re making an unsupported connection, here. I want “my side” to be right, and I want people on my side to be smart and virtuous and so forth. So when my side is attacked I will argue in defense of my side. At the same time I certainly don’t believe my side is perfect. I can simultaneously be entirely willing to admit that my side has been and is and will be stupid about many issues; while at the same time bitterly arguing over precise details of some controversial case in which someone claims that my side is being stupid and I disagree. I can even do those two apparently contradictory things while arguing in an intellectually honest and fair fashion (although I’m sure I don’t always live up to that ideal). In fact, I’d say that simultaneously admitting that your side isn’t perfect but still arguing vociferously about fairly minor details of situations is pretty damn normal and unremarkable. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/217 "2012-11-14T18:54:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What **Fotheringay-Phipps** said. The point of what he said escapes me, as if it was “the topic was people who jog, not joggers”, so I dismiss it. > [@](#): > > Some “challenges” on the SDMB are fair, others are not. Call them Challenge Type A, and Challenge Type B. Post a thought that is outside the mainstream, you are going to get a fuck of a lot more B than you would if you simply join the chorus. Conservative thought is outside the mainstream on the SDMB. Thus you get a lot more shit if you post anything that resembles conservative thought. But you _do_ get Challenge Type A, right? And someone who posts on nonpolitical topics is subject to Challenge Type B, right? My point being that those who post conservative viewpoints _can_ get intelligent responses, and those who don’t post conservative viewpoints _can_ get bullshit responses. I’m not going to respond to claims about the “mainstream” or “chorus” or “Usual Suspects” until such terms are better defined. Am I in it, for example? Who is and is not? Is it some vaguely-defined group of posters who are vocal about politics? Is there a formal board policy in place? Until such questions are answered, your problem may be with a small minority of posters, and it strikes me as presumptuous to use this to make general comments about the board membership. > [@](#): > > Sure, you get challenges of type A, and those can be debated. But nothing stops the type B - you can cite your points all you want, and the Usual Suspects will continue with the regular barrage of “ha ha that’s already been refuted you suck”. So bullshit responses are inevitable, I grant you, but there’s nothing specific to conservative viewpoints in this - it’s the inevitable result of expressing oneself on the internet, on _any_ topic. Sure, there may be ten or twenty specific individuals who you can count on to “barrage” you with what you call Type B. There might be as many as… I dunno, fifty? Ever tried writing up a list? You are, in any case, not being stopped from posting and I invite you to consider the following: 1. If the SDMB had an official liberal agenda and was tightly enforcing it, you would have been banned quite a while ago. 2. If the SDMB has no such agenda and had very lax enforcement, the quantity of so-called “Type B” would be even higher, as well as riddled with “lol u suck”, “go kill urself”, “go fuck ur sister some more”, “fuckn troll” and other subliterate drivel. > [@](#): > > Bricker, as mentioned, tends to debate the type A and ignore the type B. Well… maybe. When it suits him, I have noticed, he ignores the A and talks about how the B proves liberals can’t manage A. This is not unique to him, of course. I’m sure I’ve done that as well on different topics. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/218 "2012-11-14T19:12:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, that’s not the case. It was moved to the Pit after it began tgo garner the vitriolic responses I complain of now. > > So the reaction to this news will be to > > (a) admit the main reason for the difference is my being a conservative; > (b) drop the original-forum-posted-in issue and keep trying to find other points It’s very nearly amazing that, in an effort to imply that I’m being unfair, you delete the part of my post that shows that neither (a) nor (b) is necessary. Here’s the part you chose to delete: > [@me](#): > > 1. Stuck to the claim after it was shown to be unsubstantiated, and > 2. Used it to claim that large swaths of people were behaving in a despicably partisan manner in a time that cried out for non-partisanship. So, no, I don’t need to admit that the main reason for the difference is your being a conservative (although of course I admit that some people will treat you differently for that reason, because that’s too bleeding obvious to require discussion). And no, I don’t need to keep trying to find other points, **since I listed other points in the part of the post that you deleted**. I can easily drop my mistaken first point, you know, the one that I noted with the parenthetical comment admitting that I wasn’t sure about it, while leaving the rest of the post intact. I said “very nearly amazing” instead of “amazing” because this is yet another example of your looking for hypocrisy by engaging in disingenuous behavior. Again: instead of taking others to task for their behavior, try modeling good behavior yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/219 "2012-11-14T19:18:05Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > But you _do_ get Challenge Type A, right? And someone who posts on nonpolitical topics is subject to Challenge Type B, right? Right. > [@](#): > > My point being that those who post conservative viewpoints _can_ get intelligent responses, and those who don’t post conservative viewpoints _can_ get bullshit responses. Right. So what? This does not address the basic point, which is that any conservative viewpoint gets a lot more type B than a liberal viewpoint. And pretty much all the people posting B will claim they are posting A. > [@](#): > > So bullshit responses are inevitable, I grant you, but there’s nothing specific to conservative viewpoints in this It is on the SDMB. > [@](#): > > 1. If the SDMB had an official liberal agenda and was tightly enforcing it, you would have been banned quite a while ago. We were talking about the Usual Suspects, not (at this point) about the moderators. > [@](#): > > 1. If the SDMB has no such agenda and had very lax enforcement, the quantity of so-called “Type B” would be even higher, as well as riddled with “lol u suck”, “go kill urself”, “go fuck ur sister some more”, “fuckn troll” and other subliterate drivel. 1. If the SDMB were a heavily partisan and liberal board, conservatives would get piled on and snarked at and Pitted and otherwise subjected to bullshit of type B much more than liberals. Which they do. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/220 "2012-11-14T19:21:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you consider yourself fair-minded? I certainly attempt to be fair, but I don’t consider myself a “fair and impartial adjudicator of truth”. I’m not impartial, and I’m not an adjudicator; rather, I’m someone who is trying to interpret facts and understand and evaluate them. RR’s phrasing suggests someone who considers themselves above the fray. I don’t see anyone hereabouts except maybe John Mace who considers himself above the fray. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=12)