Bricker is a Pile of Shit Sculpted into Human Shape

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Gyrate

Ah, the “my posts are brilliant and you only disagree with them because you’re all sheeple” argument. That one always wins the internet.

I wish they were all brilliant but they’re not. What I have noticed is that when I post fairly stupid shit from the liberal side of the spectrum, I catch little to no flak whatsoever. When I make what IMHO are very good posts from a more conservative perspective, I get called names and people start encouraging each other to put me on ignore. I bet I have more liberal posts on this board than conservative ones (by a lot) and yet only my conservative posts draw personal insults and attempts to shout me down on a regular basis.

[Scumpup]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Here we go. He thinks he’s got a new way to get under my skin (last time he inexplicably thought calling me a girl would work), so he’ll use this schtick for awhile. Enjoy it, folks!

I never called you a girl. I call you Princess because you remind me of my mother’s teacup Pomeranian of the same name.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

You do you, man. You do you.

[Scumpup]

The teacup Pomeranian is a yappy little bitch, you see.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Of all the criticisms of Bricker I’ve seen, here and elsewhere, this is probably the only one which is legit IMHO. And even here, he’s not entirely at fault. Because many times (though not always) it’s the other guys who confuse the matter.

Fact is that many many times, liberals attacking the latest conservative/Republican outrage, in addition to claims about the lack of any sort of morality etc. etc., also throw in an assertion that the actions were illegal. Now it’s obvious to the casual reader that these people have no clue what is or isn’t legal and are operating on some general notion that anything outrageous enough has to be illegal and/or have seen on some left wing blog or similar where another LW partisan with dubious credentials has made this claim. Most people gloss over the “illegal” part of the claim and focus on the outrageous aspects of it. But Bricker doesn’t. He starts questioning what specific aspects are illegal, and under which law, and possibly starts whipping out case law etc., and this frustrates the heck out of the original claimant and his allies, who think whether it’s legal or not is of minor import (if they even noticed the “illegal” claim being made to begin with). But the claim has been made and is fair game.

It’s essentially a situation where a debater is arguing with a ranter, and I don’t know if you can say the fault is completely on one side.

This is true. There are people who use the words illegal or unconstitutional incorrectly around here, and Bricker is very quick to point out those errors. Sometimes, that’s nice, because there are times when i am surprised that something is legal or within the bounds of the constitution.

But he also has a tendency to bring legal arguments into threads that have no legal issue. They are purely ethical or moral based arguments, and he likes to pop into those, and point out that ethics has no place in law or justice, which, we get that, but he then continues to tell use that morals also have no place in law or justice, and we get that too, but then he calls us hypocrites or unprincipled dictators that wish to rule by fiat, because we are not concerned about what the law says when we are discussing what we feel is ethical.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You do you, man. You do you.

You do Big Tard, man. You do Big Tard.

[CandidGamera]

@k9bfriender

This is true. There are people who use the words illegal or unconstitutional incorrectly around here, and Bricker is very quick to point out those errors. Sometimes, that’s nice, because there are times when i am surprised that something is legal or within the bounds of the constitution.

That’s the thing - it’s not an incorrect usage. It’s the common usage, rather than the legal usage. Words mean what most people think they mean. Connotation will eventually trump denotation every time. I mean, look at the actual dictionary definition of unconstitutional :

“not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules.”

Bolding mine. That is a subjective fuckin’ standard there, and anyone who claims otherwise is a pedant or an idiot.

[MaxTheVool]

@Gyrate

There’s also:
[ul]
[li]Find something a liberal has done or said.[/li][li]Extrapolate that to all liberals.[/li][li]Find something other liberals have done or said which conflicts with what the first liberal said or did.[/li][li]Insinuate that this proves liberal hypocrisy.[/li][li]When called out on this, change the subject.[/li][/ul]

Except that it’s even worse… something it’s find something that happened, point out that he didn’t see any SDMB liberal post anything about that happening, and then act as if that proves that liberals approve of that happening (which then leads to charges of hypocrisy, etc.)

[Shodan]

@CandidGamera

That’s the thing - it’s not an incorrect usage. It’s the common usage, rather than the legal usage. Words mean what most people think they mean. Connotation will eventually trump denotation every time. I mean, look at the actual dictionary definition of unconstitutional :

“not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules.”

Bolding mine. That is a subjective fuckin’ standard there, and anyone who claims otherwise is a pedant or an idiot.

Does the statement “Freedom of speech is un-Constitutional” hold any meaning in your world?

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

ooh snap

[madsircool]

The only way this (and the Shodan) thread could get any uglier is if everyone was naked.

[k9bfriender]

@CandidGamera

That’s the thing - it’s not an incorrect usage. It’s the common usage, rather than the legal usage. Words mean what most people think they mean. Connotation will eventually trump denotation every time. I mean, look at the actual dictionary definition of unconstitutional :

“not in accordance with a political constitution, especially the US Constitution, or with procedural rules.”

Bolding mine. That is a subjective fuckin’ standard there, and anyone who claims otherwise is a pedant or an idiot.

Well, I agree, but it is useful to make a distinction between what disturbs your constitution, and what is actually at odds with the piece of paper we use as a framework for our civilization.

On the other hand, there are times when someone does something that seems it should be unconstitutional, and there are enough people that agree that it seems that way that it makes its way to SCOTUS, and then gets voted constitutional 5-4, and then Bricker gets insulting to anyone who called it unconstitutional in the first place. Turns out that SCOTUS agreed with him, but that does not mean that every dissenting opinion is as flawed as he implies.

[Slash1972]

It is my understanding that someone saying “In my opinion, this is blatantly unconstitutional” would draw no rebuke from Bricker, whereas saying “This is unconstitutional!” as if it was a known fact WOULD draw such a rebuke.

[CandidGamera]

@Shodan

Does the statement “Freedom of speech is un-Constitutional” hold any meaning in your world?

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, on Planet Earth we use it to identify the speaker as a typical right-wing idiot. Planning on emigrating?

[Shodan]

@madsircool

The only way this (and the Shodan) thread could get any uglier is if everyone was naked.

How do you know I’m not?

Regards,
Shodan

[CandidGamera]

@Slash1972

It is my understanding that someone saying “In my opinion, this is blatantly unconstitutional” would draw no rebuke from Bricker, whereas saying “This is unconstitutional!” as if it was a known fact WOULD draw such a rebuke.

Your understanding is incorrect. And the latter is acceptable common usage in any case. I mean, I’m a stickler for the whole ‘presenting opinions as fact’ thing, but in the common usage, ‘unconstitutional’ is implicitly as subjective as ‘delicious’. And if someone says ‘This is delicious!’ I’m not going to assume they’re asserting it as fact, even if they forgot the qualifying clause to ward off asshole lawyers.

[Bricker]

@Slash1972

It is my understanding that someone saying “In my opinion, this is blatantly unconstitutional” would draw no rebuke from Bricker, whereas saying “This is unconstitutional!” as if it was a known fact WOULD draw such a rebuke.

It’s like we’re sharing one mind.

One soul.

Er… yes. That.

[Scumpup]

@Shodan

How do you know I’m not?

Regards,
Shodan

Well hello!

[Bricker]

@CandidGamera

Your understanding is incorrect. And the latter is acceptable common usage in any case. I mean, I’m a stickler for the whole ‘presenting opinions as fact’ thing, but in the common usage, ‘unconstitutional’ is implicitly as subjective as ‘delicious’. And if someone says ‘This is delicious!’ I’m not going to assume they’re asserting it as fact, even if they forgot the qualifying clause to ward off asshole lawyers.

No, Goofy, ‘unconstitutional’ is not as subjective as ‘delicious’. Implicitly or otherwise. But keep advancing stuff like this. It’s delicious.

[Scumpup]

Goofy?