Except that your particular way of saying, “I was right” isn’t getting results. Nobody but you seems to be impressed by it. Are you the audience for those claims, or is someone else?
What, his position that your quotes were about concealed-carry permits? That’s not a liberal position; it’s not even a position. And of course he was wrong. If you’d just said, “Actually, you’re incorrect, we were discussing domestic violence etc.”, then you would have given the same information without a bit of conservative martyrdom-complex coupled with a broad attack on everyone else.
I see this as a case of several posters who are, what we used to call, “gaming the ref”. When one (sports) team was losing the game, they and their fans would begin “trying” to pressure the umpire/referee to decide in their favor. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. The bettor team usually won because they simply played better.
No member can force another member to accept a bet. No member can force another member to admit that they were wrong/mistaken/confused/stupid. Personally, I see nothing wrong with reminding a member that their current opinion is based on previously held erroneous assumptions. It would be up to the challenged party to either clarify their previous position or ignore the reminder and let other members ponder why they’re ignoring it.
Either way, the sun will still rise in the East and go down in the West.
Not if you provide accurate information to counter it.
Which is just the sort of thing that can’t be established by your betting strategy. First of all, using the refusal of a publically made bet as evidence towards the falsity of or disbelief in a position is simply false reasoning. Second, the admission of sombody ‘I was wrong’ is actually perfectly contentless: either the person was wrong; then, it is possible to disprove their arguments. Or, they were right; then, it’s not. There’s no salient information added. The only thing the public shaming accomplishes is ego-stroking.
I wouldn’t assume anything as long as I still have access to further question your position. You have several choices. You could clarify your position. You could make it clear that you don’t accept bets. You could offer your own challenge. You could ignore the challenge. You could offer to agree to disagree. You could change the subject. You could stop posting on that particular thread. You could offer to give everyone who takes your side - a shrubbery. One that looks nice. And not too expensive.
Mods: Isn’t it enough the Bricker is always outnumbered ten to one? No. You must also tie a hand behind his back by constraining him with these silly rules that only seem to apply to him (and possibly other conservative posters). It’s a testament to the board that he more often wins than not despite these odds. Of course it helps that he’s almost always right and his opponents are almost always wrong.
I get the frustration that leads Bricker to offer bets to people. It’s not against the rules. What’s the problem, exactly?
This post I agree with 100%. The method to extract the concession could be a monetary wager, but it doesn’t have to be. I am guessing that Bricker would gladly accept a wager where the losing side must post a concession that unambiguously states they were wrong.
So, again, merely being right, proving yourself right, demonstrating that you are right, and being able to say you’re right are not enough.
The “liberal consensus” that fails to excoriate its own for being wrong needs to be taught a lesson, by bringing one of its beloved members, cap in hand, to his knees and cry his wrongness on explicit terms before the assembled host of the message board.
So it’s not debate, because in a debate, the assembly merely determines the winner. It’s something else, a kind of trial, which requires a confession.
And again, that’s the problem. This is a discussion board, not a true/false filter. Yes we could boil every thread in GQ down to its essential factual basis and settle it with a cite. And declare as ‘loser’ anyone who dared post anything less complete or less absolutely definitive than the “settler” (as Huck Finn might describe it). Why, we could wrap most threads up in half a dozen posts or less even if we include the required concession post! Think of the economy of it! The hamsters would be so grateful.
And while GD doesn’t so easily lend itself to strict black/white answers, we could hijack most threads there into a lengthy argument in which we whittle the discussion down into some esoteric point of fact or prediction that can be settled definitively, then further defining a wager and going through rounds of acceptance or decline (not counting the insinuations made about posters who may not wish to partake of the bet) so we might later, eventually declare a winner and a loser. Of course, by then the whole ‘discussion’ thingy pretty much flies out the window. My cite is the TX VRA thread that spawned this one. I note that there doesn’t seem to be much discussion left there about Texas, voter ID, or the VRA. I think there’s some justification in blaming ‘wannabet’ for that.
When you say, “taught a lesson,” that conveys a sentiment that you’ve been trying to bring to this thing all along, and its one I reject.
Any “lessons” that are being “taught” are simply the accurate factual result of a particular issue. While I suppose it may be correct to refer to such as “lessons,” that choice of words carries some emotional loading that isn’t accurate.
On the contrary – there’s no discussion going on there about betting. The discussion has evolved, organically, to a more fundamental discussion about universal principles as opposed to more substantive, normative law.
Assume there is a thread in GD that says, “1+1 = 4” and each and every poster comes in and says, “well shit, you’re right.” But then I come in with facts and evidence and mathematical proof that in fact, 1+1 = 2. Each and every poster that previously agreed that 1+1=4 remains silent, no other poster comes in after the fact and notes that the original posters were wrong, and the thread dies. Is that enough? What the fuck is the point if factual correctness goes unacknowledged?
I was right on my previous guess, so I will double down (see what I did there?). I am also guessing that if board consensus came down against incorrect predictions equally for both liberal and conservative positions, then Bricker’s desire to have a specific individual unambiguously admit there error would be reduced. In the absence of that, at least the poster that makes the wrong prediction should be held to account - by their own admission of error.
It’s not that hard to see why people don’t like it, actually. Some of them have made valid points and I’d rather not see threads get hijacked by arguments about whether betting is smart or dumb or by negotiations of the details of a bet. It’d be smarter to handle those details by PM. But I said very clearly that the betting thing isn’t against the rules and I also don’t think we need to consign it to another forum. In the post you quoted, Bricker is talking about my instruction that in this forum he keep the partisan commentary in check (when talking about specific posters rather than the general atmosphere).
Indeed, organically evolved from the thread topic into a discussion of universal principals via a debate about wagering. Which underscores my point about hijacks.
team usually won because they simply played better.