I’ve seen nothing here to indicate DT hates women. He’s very eager to throw that accusation on anyone who isn’t totally pro-choice.
Here’s what I’ve wondered for a while~ he’s repeatedly said that anyone who is religious is stupid, evil &/or insane. He’s also mentioned that his mother was a Christian, tho she had the decency to be too ashamed to tell anyone. So which of the three labels does he think applied to his mother?
Would it be bad form to ask him that the next time he trots out the three labels?
Heh. I’m sure I’ve heard the same thing said about you at some point or another.
I tend to read posts before looking at who writes them and becuase DT is on the liberal side of the fence he occasionally says things I agree with. Sadly this is often followed by something WAY out of proportion to the rest of his post. My mental monologue in reading his longer posts is usually along the lines of “okay, I can kind of agree with that and WHOA THERE oh it’s Der Trihs”. It’s like “2+2 = 4 therefore NAZI DEATH SQUADS” - it starts out okay and takes the first exit to Crazyland. I usually just ignore it and move on.
That’s pretty much my take as well. He says some things I kind of agree with, then goes off the deep end with things like “Americans are near-sociopaths.” Or “Christians want to put me in a concentration camp.”
No, I said I have* no problem* with his stance. That doesn’t mean either I or DT think most SD posters display the characteristics of Americans en masse. Like I said, Fallacy of Division.
…and I said my opinion is that “America is just no damn good”. And I said his stance “pretty much jibes” with mine. This doesn’t mean I take every nuance of his stance as my own. Just that our two stances are in general agreement - neither of us likes America very much at all.
No, I said you tried to. But, of course, the attempt was made of fail, no surprise there.
The rest of your stupid one-track drivel doesn’t deserve any more answer than I already gave others. America’s modern track record as Imperialist and warmonger is there for all to see, it hardly needs me to prove it. But you can deny it all you like, apologetics for murderers is your niche, I guess.
Dude, it was less than a year ago. And it’s a tactic you’ve used more than once. Of course you stick out in my mind as a flailing simp, how could you not? It’s all you *can *do, since you clearly haven’t even mastered the subtleties of “No, U!”.
Well, he did use the qualifiers ‘near’ and ‘typical’, plus there is quite a bit of “nuance” in ‘murderous sadistic thug’. I mean, we could be pygmy raping murderous sadistic thugs, or gleeful murderous sadistic thugs, or elephant cocked murderous sadistic thugs. There are lots of levels here that Mr. Dibble might agree with or disagree with on principal…
I said it before - we *both *have a strong negative view of America as a nation, and Americans as a collective group. Now, I don’t think most *Americans *are (near-)sociopaths or murderous sadistic thugs, but I think America certainly plays one on the international stage. And Americans have to accept responsibility for that, for the evil their country does, just as much as any good it doubtless also achieves.
He dis say “near-” and “typical” . Plenty of margin there :).
That’s because I post on a board dominated by people whose politics are diametrically opposed to mine. I could go on a right-wing board saying the same things and be hailed as the wisest of sages.
The difference with Der Trihs is that he thinks everybody is wrong but him - mostly they’re people, and secondarily because they’re Americans.
While I share a lot of your concern (to put it lightly) about the enormity of the US’s military posturing around the world, and I’m all in favor of scaling that back significantly, one thing to keep in mind is that the role of Global Superpower is going to be filled by some country. At his point in time, your choice is pretty much the US, China or maybe Russia (although they are only a shadow of what the USSR formerly was).
So could I, but in such a world there wouldn’t be any modern nation states either. Can you think of a historical example in modern times where there weren’t superpowers? I can’t think of a single one…
I can, too. But those worlds all exist either 200 years ago or more, or sometime in the distant future when we have a One World Government.
Having said that, I will just agree to disagree in this thread. The topic might make a good GD thread, but let’s focus on the real issue here, which is a Pitting of DT.
Of course, perhaps you’re right on one particular. Maybe you’re obsessed and consumed with the memory of a thread which may have occurred within the last year, not obsessed and consumed with the memory of a thread that occurred more than a year ago.
As for obsession over “tactics” I’ve used, and such, that’s probably about as honest and accurate as your whole “I agree with Der’s hatred of Americans as a group. Except I don’t agree, since I just said I have no problem with it and it jibes with my views and not “I agree”. Except I do agree that the ‘characteristics of Americans’ are negative. Except I take exception to the suggestion that one should use fallacies such as composition. Except when I’m founding my bigotry on the fallacy of division by ascribing America’s behavior as a nation to its citizenry, or the fallacy of composition by ascribing the behavior of some of America’s leadership to the nation as a whole.”
Obviously, your obsession over a thread which may have occurred within the last year is certainly the source of an accurate description of what transpired in it.
So, domesticated ferret? Polecat? Is there a specific weasel variety that you most strongly identify with?
“I have no problem with the stance that Europeans were right and justified to dominate the inferior proto-humans of South Africans. Not that I’m agreeing with that, mind you, I just don’t have a problem with it.
But some of my best friends are South African.”
You were agreeing with a bit of bigotry about Americans, not just America. That’s why you used your ever-so-amusing “some of my best friends” line.
Yes, bigot, having a strong negative reaction to a national group is bigotry. I know you’re stupid, and you think that it’s okay as long as you’re not directing your prejudice at a race. But, well, that’s part of the fact that bigotry and racism literally indicate a broken brain. *If you were capable of proper thought, you wouldn’t be a bigot. *
This is somewhat basic, so I understand if it’s far beyond you.
I recognize the fact that you’re very stupid and dealing with a brain that simply doesn’t work properly due to bigotry (much better than racism, and totally trendy). But I’ll try to point out why you’re being fucking retarded.
A tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to justify a position by pointing out that someone else does the same thing, or something similar. Or to claim that their argument can be rebutted by the fact that the person making it is a hypocrite. I know you’re suffering from a bad case of dumb, but I didn’t do that or “attempt to do that” (Stoat? Black-foooted ferret? Egyptian ferret?)
Bigotry is rebutted by the fact that it’s based on fallacy, stupidity and hate, you idiot-bigot. Yes, even if bigots claim that hating groups of people (except the good ones) is totally rational.
I did, however, point out that you, personally, are suffering from a broken-brain due to your bigotry and you’re fine with bigotry against Americans as a group, but opposed to racism and its colonial consequences when it was directed against South Africans. Seeing as how this is the Pit, pointing out that you’re an idiot, a bigot, and a hypocrite who employs well trod bigot-rhetoric is well twinned with pointing out that your position is* also* a prime cut of retard-grade bigotry. Your ‘position’ was already debunked, as it’s simply rank bigotry. I was simply pointing out that like most other racists and bigots, you use blatant stupidity and malleable standards to claim that hating the correct group of people is completely right and natural but hating the wrong group of people is just silly.
You can content yourself with the fact that unlike a White Nationalist who hates blacks (except for the ‘good’ ones) and thinks that negative views of European whites is just wrong, you hate the correct group of people. You don’t hate blacks because of the crime rate, that would be* silly*. You hate Americans because of the actions of some elected official. That’s the good kind of group-hate.
Not like all those lesser, incorrect, bigots. Your bigotry is the good kind. The right kind. It’s the very picture of scientifically-directed broad brush hated.
I really think that’s a bit naive. Do you think it at all realistic that if no country had troops in another’s starting tomorrow, that it would stay that way for any time at all?
The problem is, even if it wasn’t stupid (“Some American legislators do things that I don’t like, so America is bad and I hate Americans”), it’d still be ignorant.
Since the ancient world there has been systemic disparity between nations, tribes, nation-states, whatever. There is always conflict, there is always non-equality in resources, there’s always difference in goals and beliefs, there’s always one group with more influence, more economic potency, more military power. Until we get to the ‘post-scarcity’ reality that some anarchists pipedream about, the idea that we won’t have significant variations on national influence and potency is simply some flavor if ignorance mixed with some flavor of stupid. And in any case, any ‘post-scarcity’ sort of reality would most likely be so different from humanity as we know it that folks can pretty much just start making things up as they see fit.
