They are not personal attacks. Forget any disagreements about politics or philosophy, you are just plain being a jerk.
I mean that.
A grade a prick that is the first to call names and make nasty accusations at other posters. You are barely civil. Each post you make conveys the feeling of a “sneer” (maybe “snarl”?) at the other posters. You make grand assumptions and statements that are not at all agreed upon facts. Your responses are often “pregnant”, wherein they contain outrageous and intentionally inflammatory statements that were unrelated to what you were responding to making it difficult to respond to what you said. These last often result in you hijacking almost every thread you enter. Half of the things you post (and virtually all of the threads you have started) are closer to Pit-rants then Great Debates.
In summation: you are rude and unpleasant to be around. Shape-up or you will soon find the Mods enforcing the Don’t be a Jerk rule on yo’ ass.
And remember, if they do do it, it will not be because they are fascists trying to oppress you.
This is brilliant. I intend to steal it at the first opportunity.
Seriously, my favorite part about the Chump is his providing cites that make allegations just as outrageous as his are, and then dismissing the BBC as unreliable.
[Warron Zevon]He’s just an excitable boy.[/Warren Zevon] The meltdown and banning lies just ahead.
While I can’t agree with everything Chumpsky says, I think he gets the majority of the points right, and even when he doesn’t he provides a diversity of opinion that we lack.
I particularly want to be clear on one point: Him being snarky in response to the oftentimes ridiculous charges and disingenuous arguments leveled against him is not being a jerk. He posts his cites and he makes his points – if we want to start banning everyone who does that with a vengeful attitude, you’d depopulate the political GD threads, starting with three of the last four conservative posters here.
That is, to say, if you were at all concerned with being fair.
In no way did he explain how these bolstered his argument, or otherwise proved his point–he merely posted the links and said,“You guys should read this.” This doesn’t count as “posting a cite”. Posting a cite is where you say, “Cuba is not a total dictatorship!” and somebody says, “Cite?” and then you go find a reputable source that confirms you in your opinion.
And, I might add, when somebody says, “Cuba IS a total dictatorship!” and provides a cite from the BBC to prove it, it’s simply juvenile to say, “The BBC is hardly a credible source of information on leftist governments”.
I mean, really. :rolleyes: It’s the friggin’ Beeb, Chumpsky. Get a clue.
Furthermore, does quality of cites count for nothing? He dismisses the BBC as a tool of the oppressor class, then posts his own (rare) cites in the form of 20 page manifestoes put up on leftist conspiracy boards. If I backed up all of my own arguments with links to Art Bell and the Aryan Nation (just for example), would nobody call me on it?
It would be valuable if Chumpsky (and I have rarely seen a more apt username) actually made any attempt at serious debate. He does not. All he does is disgorge huge undigested chunks of radical leftist rhetoric about subjects he clearly knows nothing about, and which he has never devoted any critical thought to.
It’s interesting Chump considers being called a naive fool and a jerk an honor. It evidently is his objective.
You’ve been mislead about the meaning of this “debate” concept by the dark capitalist elite, whom just want to stay in power. Critical thinking is the tool of the administration to control the masses.
Well, the other thread suffered a colossal train wreck; so this will fit better here following that last post by DDG:
I consider myself a leftie, but I am first a skeptic. Even the “wacky leftist” links I posted had a little skeptical treatment done before I brought them here.
Narconews is there because they are virtually the only source investigating the corrupting nature of the war on drugs in Latin America. They got a lot of respect from me only after they proved that they were right during and after the Venezuela coup.
As for the link on the reporter that was on the plaza and contradicted everything the Venezuelan media said; I checked that indeed, the reporters were from the Irish Times and they were there at the right place.
The Guardian of London also got it right.
The BBC got a lot of respect because of the coverage of the Americas, special mention is necessary for the historians of the BBC: I noticed recently that they give very little credit to Reagan as the winner of the cold war. Of course while I think Cuba is a police state I think it is no hellhole as many want to think. I whish all dissidents on other repressive nations would be so well fed as the Cuban dissidents in that BBC report.
And then what I have is personal experience: mainstream media in Latin America (with some exceptions) is in the pockets of well to do extreme conservatives. Many unfair reports on the left do get pick up by other media like the US without any counterpoints. As I know Spanish, I did check the mainstream Venezuelan newspapers the week after the coup. You could swear that you were reading reports from the newspapers of George Orwell’s 1984. The coup was considered a democratic action! I even checked the letters to the editors trying to find a different point of view. Only one was found. And it was only to say that the coup was good, but the new ruler made mistakes.
Many of my conclusions would actually support some of Chumpsky’s positions! He is really foolish to jump on people who could be his allies.
Debate’s over, guys; Ace0Spades says that Chumpsky is usually right. A more authoritative source there is not.
Run along home now, and for all of you who said Chumpsky was an idiot, your 5000 word essay explaining how you could have been so completely wrong is due on Wednesday.
You just reminded me of a comedian in my country that plays a character that sounds a lot like Chumpsky. A former leftist from the 60’s student movement his favorite phrase is “we are been stomped by the imperialist boot of the northern opressor”. Far leftist that he is, he never loses a chance to see if he can get a visa to leave the country for the US. When asked about the contradiction between his words and actions he responds “I must study the monster from within”.
Gigo, even though we’ve disagreed on some things our point of views are not that different in which that we both agree that the press in Venezuela is biased. We still had a lively debate without any of us running around screaming “liar, liar, pants on fire!” to make our point.
No, I don’t want him banned. He is such a pure hardcore believer of the left that he provides a good foil for any debates concerning politics and economics. I just want him to quit being a nasty jerk. I did a search of his posts and am surprised that he has not been banned yet. Or at least given a “time-out” banning.
