# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/281 "2012-11-15T21:03:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is, I think, a good illustration of what concerns me. > > I can be treated in a vile manner because I advocate for voter suppression. > > But I don’t agree that I’m advocating for voter suppression. Your inability to understand the issues you’re advocating isn’t the point. If you kill people because you honestly believe they’re demons, that doesn’t mean you aren’t a killer. > [@](#): > > I say I’m advocating for strong identity checking at the polls, which I believe is of great value. I understand that you disagree, but why does your disagreement boil over into fury? Because in that thread you laughed at the idea that poor people would be kept from voting. Because your final, last ditch argument amounted to, “Bwahahaha, my way is the law!” > [@](#): > > My view is not a niche view. It’s shared by many people. It’s not a matter of scientific proof that my view is wrong. It’s a matter of opinion: you choose to weigh the relevant factors and reach a different result than I. And when shown that your position would cause many more people to find it difficult to vote than would be averted from committing in-person fraud, you don’t care. Look, two honest people can disagree on an issue. I agree that voter ID is a good idea. But it needs to be matched with a huge, good-faith effort to get IDs into every hand. The Republicans this cycle were washed into unilateral control of many state legislatures and over-reached. It’s understandable. But attempting to enshrine lasting partisan advantage when temporarily in charge is as obviously an un-American thing as can happen. > [@](#): > > I’m sure I won’t find examples of you calling me a cum pig in GD, because you presumably value your posting privileges. So you’re upset over harsh language in the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/282 "2012-11-15T21:05:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I don’t agree that I’m advocating for voter suppression. I say I’m advocating for strong identity checking at the polls, which I believe is of great value. However, you can’t point out what actual value it achieves, or even that the problem you claim it would address even exists, nor can you deign to respond to careful and reality-based explanations of the real, extensive damage it would cause. Therefore your claim as to what you actually support has no credibility. > [@](#): > > I understand that you disagree, but why does your disagreement boil over into fury? Because you’re lying. Because your repetition of your lies, in the apparent expectation that we’ll come to accept them, is insulting. And because your lying is in the cause of undermining democracy. > [@](#): > > My view is not a niche view. It’s shared by many people. As if that’s an excuse. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of scientific proof that my view is wrong. Yes it is. It’s based on facts that _do not exist,_ and in spite of facts that do. > [@](#): > > It’s a matter of opinion: you choose to weigh the relevant factors and reach a different result than I. We’re all weighing facts against lies. It should not be a surprise that facts win. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/283 "2012-11-15T21:12:57Z")
I look forward to **Left Hand of Dorkness** calling out those who are unfairly attacking **Bricker**. 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 15, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/284 "2012-11-15T21:17:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And be sure you’re spending at least as much time calling out obnoxious conservatives as you expect others to spend calling out obnoxious liberals. When was the last time that, unbidden, you chided Shodan or Rand Rover for their posts? Easily in the last couple of months, I’ve criticized Shodan’s reasoning or conclusions, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen Shodan call someone a cum pig. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/285 "2012-11-15T21:24:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I look forward to **Left Hand of Dorkness** calling out those who are unfairly attacking **Bricker**. > > Regards, > Shodan “Now Wally, Mrs. Haskell tells me that you were downright mean to poor Eddie. Is there anything you need to tell me, son?” “Aw jeepers dad. We were just having this argument and then he turned into a big pussy. He even told the teacher on me.” “He did? Well, fuck him then. Give him a punch in the taint for me.” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/286 "2012-11-15T21:29:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Easily in the last couple of months, I’ve criticized Shodan’s reasoning or conclusions, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen Shodan call someone a cum pig. I think to him, “Liberal” carries the same venom. Okay, so \*cumpig \*is too much? Let me know if some of these other options are more to your taste: Bloodfart Jizzcrust Taint Fungus Bung-twat Vagi-sack Scrote-tard Scallywag Can a mod turn this into a poll? I’d really like some feedback here. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/287 "2012-11-15T21:37:53Z")
I quite liked cumpig. As an artist, you can’t let critics make you start doubting yourself. ---
**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 15, 2012, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/288 "2012-11-15T22:18:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Easily in the last couple of months, I’ve criticized Shodan’s reasoning or conclusions, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen Shodan call someone a cum pig. So if that’s the issue, are you saying you haven’t seen RR say vile things about people, or that you’ve called him on it? For myself, I don’t think I’ve called people very often if at all on their saying ugly things to one another in the Pit, because you pays your money and you takes your chances here. I think Lobohan is being ridiculous here, even though I agree with him in broader strokes that voter suppression is the political purpose of most voter ID laws. But the vile epithets aren’t really such a problem. ---
**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 15, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/289 "2012-11-15T22:55:04Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Or it’s that Bricker tends to pose things in a very confrontational and accusatory way, and people get riled up and want to respond to it. OK, not technically impossible. Although FWIW I personally think Bricker tends to post in a rather measured way. Sometimes the actual implications of what he’s saying are pretty damning and I think _that’s_ what gets people riled up, but his actual tone is almost always calm and factual. Especially by the standards of this board. > [@](#): > > This topic gets very confusing and hard to talk about, because we’re talking about differences-between-differences-between-reactions and so forth, but I want to bring up one other general topic, which is the distinction between differences-of-volume and differences-of-substance. That is, here’s the thing that I think is TOTALLY unavoidable which ought to be taken-for-granted: > A conservative politician is caught in a scandal, and lots of people on the SDMB complain about it and say he was bad, but then a liberal politician is caught in a very similar scandal, and fewer people on the SDMB complain about it. > > That’s a difference in reaction mostly just of amount and volume… Bricker spends lots of time attempting to point these out, and I think these are almost entirely benign. This is not necessarily the case. This actually ties in to the distinction I’ve been making earlier. Because if the focus is just on the specific conservative/liberal politician caught in the latest scandal, then you have a point. But a board with a strong slant like this, generally whenever a conservative politician is caught in any sort of misdeed, the case is seized on to make the broader point that “conservatives are a bunch of …”. In this context, it’s completely valid to point to liberal politicians caught in the same or similar scandals. Not simply to illustrate the hypocrisy of the liberal posters - although that can be amusing too - but to make the valid point that this particular issue is not a conservative/liberal one as is being argued. > [@](#): > > As opposed to this: > A conservative politician is caught in a scandal, and lots of people on the SDMB complain about it, and very specifically say that a scandal of this sort is one that demands instant resignation; then a liberal politician is caught in a scandal that is very similar, and lots of people on the SDMB suddenly defend that politician and say that a scandal of that sort is really quite minor and in no way demands resignation. > > THAT would be far more serious evidence of liberal hypocrisy, because people are not just reacting more or less, but actually taking differing and potentially contradictory positions… although even then there’s the question of whether the group of liberals doing the attacking in the first case had any overlap with the group of liberals doing the defending in the second case, and even then there’s the question of whether the two scandals really are all that similar and even THEN, in the extremely unlikely hypothetical where you come up with utterly and completely ironclad proof that some number of people on the SDMB actually DO have double standards and actually ARE hypocrites, well, then, what next? Unless your proof applies to some really extremely large portion of the SDMB liberal population, what have you really accomplished? I don’t think pointing out that liberals are hypocrites is necessarily an end to itself (other than amusement). But even here, it has a valid logical function. Because the fact is, that despite a lot of high-minded and self-righteous preening from certain quarters here, at the end of the day there are a lot of very smart and honest people on either side of the conservative/liberal divide. Which means that as a practical matter neither viewpoint is going to be refuted in a mathematical sense and ultimately the vast majority of issues are going to boil down to some sort of judgment call, and everyone will make a judgment based on their own experiences, thought processes, education and the like (heavily influenced by various types of bias, of course). Now this is not to say that there are not certain specific arguments for/against liberal/conservative positions on various issues that are not completely bogus and refutable. But for the most part even here it will come down to a judgment call. And here’s where the “hypocrisy” issue becomes relevant. IMO. Because suppose - for example - you have someone - or a group of people - arguing strenuously for or against something like the Senate filibuster. Now that’s a judgment call - majority rule and progress versus protection for the minority and minority viewpoints and compromise (or whatever). You could justifiably take either side of the issue. And here is where it’s useful to point out to people that they or their group held the exact opposite position on this issue when it benefited them. Because this illustrates how arbitrary and self-serving this current judgment is, which tends to depreciate the value of it significantly and deservedly so. > [@](#): > > All of which is my very lengthy way of trying to make part of my larger point, which is that all of this accusation-of-hypocrisy business is just a big fucking waste of time because it’s NEVER EVER EVER going to accomplish anything. What’s the end game? Is there really a hypothetical future in which Shodan goes on a massive typing spree of brilliance and comes up with a perfectly crafted point and all the SDMB liberals admit “gosh, we really WERE hypocrites that whole time”, and then everyone becomes fair and balanced and we sit on the hill side singing kumbayahs together? Of course not. (As opposed to other SDMB debates about actual issues, as opposed to levels of hypocrisy, where it’s at least not outside the realm of possibility that sometimes people’s minds change, or at least people have their mental horizons opened or changed in some minor fashion…) I don’t see this big distinction between this issue and any other issue. Very very few people are going to change and suddenly accept that they personally are biased hypocrites. But I don’t see many people backing down in any debates here, and I certainly see a lot who should. The only real hope of changing anyone’s mind is for that of the neutral bystanders, and I’m not sure these would be swayed any less for this type of argument than any other. And in particular, as I noted earlier, there’s a weight of “public opinion” that can help sway the debate in its own right, and pointing out the biased basis of this “public opinion” can counteract this. But more than any of that, the real truth is that the primary point of debating this issue is for the entertainment of people who happen to like debating this issue. Which is pretty much the point of debating any other type of issue that gets debated here. Either you go for that type of thing or you don’t. To each his own. > [@](#): > > (a) given how much I bitch about Shodan describing liberals as “the usual suspects” and people using phrases like the liberal hive mind, it would be pretty hypocritical (hey, there’s that word again!) of me to claim to speak for all liberals No one is asking you to “speak for” anyone. But if your original point was that the matter was so obvious that you criticized anyone for even discussing the issue, so it’s surprising to see you suddenly expressing some uncertainty as to whether your fellow liberals agree with you about it. > [@](#): > > (b) I suspect that the really basic point of “liberal posts on the SDMB as it exists today in the context of this political climate will get reactions that are not precisely identical from conservative posts” is pretty universally agreed upon… but stepping from there to “all liberals all agree about what the right way is to react to Bricker, and whether he is or is not (insert insulting or complimentary or grudingly approving adjective here)” is a bit of a stretch. The question is not how to react to Bricker but whether in actual fact people react differently to Bricker than to comparable liberals. And if you accept that it’s a given that people’s reaction is heavily influenced by their ideological affinities, I don’t see how it’s possible for that to suddenly cease to be true in the case of Bricker. It would seem to logically follow from your position - which again, you claimed to be obviously true - that someone like Bricker will be treated differently due to his ideology. From which it would follow that at least some (possibly unknowable) portion of the antipathy to Bricker in liberal circles of this MB is derived from his ideology versus the putative reasons being put forth. [This has been a lengthy post typed in a hurry, as I am logging off for the day shortly. My apologies if it’s poorly written or confusing.] ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/290 "2012-11-16T00:21:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, as I just laid out above, I think there’s a problem that goes beyond a few vocal posters; complicit in the poor behavior of the few is the acquiesence of the many. Yeah, it’s a shame when many people can causally go along with the determinedly negative efforts of a few, without appreciating the greater consequences. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/291 "2012-11-16T00:39:55Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree with your “of course” and your “insane and wrong”, but not your “everyone already knows to be true”. > > In fact, I would estimate that 75% of the posters to this thread are in denial about this very matter. > > I do agree with those who say if you’re a conservative and post on this board you’ve got to be prepared to take some abuse. But there’s no great harm in pointing to this issue every once in a while either. To be fair, you also think that posters in the Paterno thread would have “lynched niggers”. > [@It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/526): > > And yet, for some reason the law as written specifies reporting to one’s supervisor as one of the proper courses of action. > > Even more so in this case, as JP did not himself witness anything and could only relay what he had been told by someone else. > > I appreciate that there is a contrary view in this matter, and there are intelligent people who disagree with me. But for the most part, those calling for heads are nothing more than a frenzied lynch mob. In other times and places it would be obvious to these people that we need to burn the heretics, hang the witches, lynch the nigger, blacklist the commie-lover etc. etc. And it would be obvious to all these people that this is clearly the only proper course of action and it’s amazing that anyone could disagree about how forcefully we need to deal with these dangerous threats. And look how everyone agrees with us - it’s only a few fools or evil people who disagree. > > As previous, IMO JP did nothing wrong (unless he knew more detail than what’s been made public so far). What’s immoral was for the university to fire a guy to whom they owed so much and for so long over some passing outrage. > > But them’s the breaks for people in public life. Public opinion is fickle. I once saw a good line from a British politician whose career was brought down by some scandal. He said “it was a tempest in a teapot, but in politics we ride paper boats”. Doesn’t make it right, but that’s how it goes. ---
**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 16, 2012, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/292 "2012-11-16T00:59:47Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > To be fair, you also think that posters in the Paterno thread would have “lynched niggers”. Wait, what? Edit: never mind, not gonna go for a hijack. ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/293 "2012-11-16T01:07:32Z")
So as an intelligent person, am I required to explain/defend the motivations of imaginary lynch mobs? Just checking what my obligations are. ---
**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 16, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/294 "2012-11-16T01:17:29Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So as an intelligent person, am I required to explain/defend the motivations of imaginary lynch mobs? Just checking what my obligations are. There does seem to be a strain of political thought that indicts one for what’s happening in the thinker’s imagination, yes. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/295 "2012-11-16T01:43:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK, not technically impossible. Although FWIW I personally think Bricker tends to post in a rather measured way. Sometimes the actual implications of what he’s saying are pretty damning and I think _that’s_ what gets people riled up, but his actual tone is almost always calm and factual. Especially by the standards of this board. > > This is not necessarily the case. > > This actually ties in to the distinction I’ve been making earlier. Because if the focus is just on the specific conservative/liberal politician caught in the latest scandal, then you have a point. But a board with a strong slant like this, generally whenever a conservative politician is caught in any sort of misdeed, the case is seized on to make the broader point that “conservatives are a bunch of …”. In this context, it’s completely valid to point to liberal politicians caught in the same or similar scandals. Not simply to illustrate the hypocrisy of the liberal posters - although that can be amusing too - but to make the valid point that this particular issue is not a conservative/liberal one as is being argued. > > I don’t think pointing out that liberals are hypocrites is necessarily an end to itself (other than amusement). But even here, it has a valid logical function. > > Because the fact is, that despite a lot of high-minded and self-righteous preening from certain quarters here, at the end of the day there are a lot of very smart and honest people on either side of the conservative/liberal divide. Which means that as a practical matter neither viewpoint is going to be refuted in a mathematical sense and ultimately the vast majority of issues are going to boil down to some sort of judgment call, and everyone will make a judgment based on their own experiences, thought processes, education and the like (heavily influenced by various types of bias, of course). Now this is not to say that there are not certain specific arguments for/against liberal/conservative positions on various issues that are not completely bogus and refutable. But for the most part even here it will come down to a judgment call. > > And here’s where the “hypocrisy” issue becomes relevant. IMO. Because suppose - for example - you have someone - or a group of people - arguing strenuously for or against something like the Senate filibuster. Now that’s a judgment call - majority rule and progress versus protection for the minority and minority viewpoints and compromise (or whatever). You could justifiably take either side of the issue. And here is where it’s useful to point out to people that they or their group held the exact opposite position on this issue when it benefited them. Because this illustrates how arbitrary and self-serving this current judgment is, which tends to depreciate the value of it significantly and deservedly so. > > I don’t see this big distinction between this issue and any other issue. Very very few people are going to change and suddenly accept that they personally are biased hypocrites. But I don’t see many people backing down in any debates here, and I certainly see a lot who should. > > The only real hope of changing anyone’s mind is for that of the neutral bystanders, and I’m not sure these would be swayed any less for this type of argument than any other. And in particular, as I noted earlier, there’s a weight of “public opinion” that can help sway the debate in its own right, and pointing out the biased basis of this “public opinion” can counteract this. > > But more than any of that, the real truth is that the primary point of debating this issue is for the entertainment of people who happen to like debating this issue. Which is pretty much the point of debating any other type of issue that gets debated here. Either you go for that type of thing or you don’t. To each his own. > > No one is asking you to “speak for” anyone. But if your original point was that the matter was so obvious that you criticized anyone for even discussing the issue, so it’s surprising to see you suddenly expressing some uncertainty as to whether your fellow liberals agree with you about it. > The question is not how to react to Bricker but whether in actual fact people react differently to Bricker than to comparable liberals. And if you accept that it’s a given that people’s reaction is heavily influenced by their ideological affinities, I don’t see how it’s possible for that to suddenly cease to be true in the case of Bricker. It would seem to logically follow from your position - which again, you claimed to be obviously true - that someone like Bricker will be treated differently due to his ideology. From which it would follow that at least some (possibly unknowable) portion of the antipathy to Bricker in liberal circles of this MB is derived from his ideology versus the putative reasons being put forth. > > [This has been a lengthy post typed in a hurry, as I am logging off for the day shortly. My apologies if it’s poorly written or confusing.] Good God, but you are boring. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Dord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@The\_Dord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Dord)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/296 "2012-11-16T02:16:17Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Good God, but you are boring. My eyes died from a wall of text ☹ Hw m i typin? fkasrm ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/297 "2012-11-16T02:34:33Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Good God, but you are boring. Well, given that he was responding to me, and my post was close to equally as long, and I found his post interesting and intend to respond to it at length later on today… I think your criticism is kind of misplaced, and quite rude. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/298 "2012-11-16T02:50:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > SDMB liberals who claim that they are treating all points of view fairly, I think you’re confusing “equally” with “fairly”. I have repeatedly stated in this thread that liberal and conservative viewpoints are not treated EQUALLY on the SDMB. That doesn’t mean that conservative viewpoints are treated UNFAIRLY, as “fair” is a hard-to-define word that contains strong value judgments, and doesn’t really apply here, imho. The moment you start describing the situation as “unfair”, you’re suddenly making implications about the way people act and their implicit responsibilities etc which I think just muddy the issue. > [@](#): > > Whether they are being more hypocritical than other message boards doesn’t matter. It’s not at all hypocritical for someone to post on a message board differently in one thread than in another. If my example from earlier in this thread comes about and two scandals happen in quick succession, one on each side of the aisle, and in one of them I post 100 times and in the other one I post zero times, that is in no way evidence of the slightest bit of hypocrisy on my part, unless I’ve made some pompous pronouncement claiming that one of my guiding principles in life is to read every single SDMB thread in existence and post equally in all of them regardless of their politics. Which I have certainly never done. > [@](#): > > And since you agree that conservative viewpoints are treated less fairly, I do not > [@](#): > > and that this “makes it very hard to have reasoned dialog about anything”, I agree with this part > [@](#): > > [li]one would expect there to be much more complaints from conservatives about being treated unfairly,[/li][li]those complaints are more likely to be justified, [/li] Uhh, right? There are plenty of conservatives who complain about what it’s like to be a conservative at the SDMB, and those complaints run a wide gamut from justified to unjustified, from reasoned and thoughtful to whiney and irrelevant. Fairly few liberals complain about what it’s like to be a liberal at the SDMB. But again, that’s hardly surprising, so I’m not sure what your point is. > [@](#): > > and [li]liberals who claim to be applying an impartial standard are more likely to be lying, [/li] I would need a precise example of “claim to be applying an impartial standard”. I’m sure there are some examples of liberals who have said things which clearly overstate their own impartiality, from some combination of misspeaking, overstating, or just being smug overconfident jerks. What I do not see is some groundswell of SDMB liberals who frequently and clearly state that they are objective and brilliant purely non-partisan seekers of truth who respond to all threads with nothing but objective intellectual purity. You seem to think that lots of us describe ourselves that way, and I just don’t see it. So… cite? > [@](#): > > [li]those who simply shrug their shoulders and say ‘you can’t expect any different, so suck it up’ should realize they are asking conservatives to abide by a higher standard than liberals.[/list]That last point being especially significant.[/li] I don’t think I’m saying _precisely_ “you can’t expect any different, so suck it up”… and I’m certainly not saying anything about a “higher” standard. Conservatives on the SDMB are in a different environment than liberals on the SDMB. That’s how it is, and (as Bricker and Fotheringay-Phipps seem to agree) that’s due more to normal human dynamics than anything unique to SDMB liberals. That’s how the situation is, and (as I’ve said repeatedly) it’s a bad thing, because it makes it hard to be an SDMB conservative, which means that there are fewer of them, which makes the situation worse, and we’ve been in a vicious cycle for a long time. But I don’t know how to fix it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/299 "2012-11-16T02:58:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > …I think your criticism is kind of misplaced, and quite rude. Well, he’s not a very nice person. Now, I approve of nice people, admire them unstintingly. Just don’t want to hang with them, because they bore me to tears. I also approve of lectures about non-partisan comity and mutual respect, what is commonly known as “high Broderism”, named after the Dean of Political Pundit Buzzkill. Everybody knows that non-partisan views are superior both morally and intellectually. It is such a widely understood truth that it does not bear repeating. Or, for that matter, examining. But I’m not a nice person either. And I couldn’t care less that a non-partisan me might be smarter than my partisan self, this stuff doesn’t take that much skull music. Never eat at a place called “Mom’s”, never play poker with a man named “Doc”, and never vote for anyone who doesn’t really give a shit about people. Really, if all of your impartial and cool non-partisan analysis leaves you with the same convictions and positions as when you began, what good is it? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/300 "2012-11-16T04:33:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, he’s not a very nice person. Now, I approve of nice people, admire them unstintingly. Just don’t want to hang with them, because they bore me to tears. > > … > > Really, if all of your impartial and cool non-partisan analysis leaves you with the same convictions and positions as when you began, what good is it? (a) I have no idea what you’re talking about (b) I can’t tell who (if anyone) you’re accusing of being a smug self-described independent non-partisan, but I’ve started entire pit threads about that mindset, which I find to be obnoxious and baseless (c) I can’t save I’ve interacted enough with **Fotheringay-Phipps** do have established a particularly strong opinion about him one way or the other, but in this thread, he’s being polite and calm. I strongly dislike when people respond to that sort of posting with dismissive rudeness, because it just kills whatever semblance of polite exchange of ideas there may have been. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=16)