Desmostylus

The BBQ Pit
21

Well, I didn’t see that thread until it was already a couple of days old, and couldn’t see much point in bumping it. You’d already had your whinge about people arguing in the Pit. If you felt that I unfairly ignored you, or if you really think that it can be couragous to post stuff on message boards, then I’ve got some shorts that I cordially invite you to eat.

I like Ethilrist’s hobby/cartoon job way of looking at what’s going on. It’s Liberal’s real world hobby/full time occupation on this message board to be a fool. It’s mine to not suffer them gladly. Yes, Liberal does go through some relatively calm periods where it’s possible to see the real person underneath. Polycarp has assured us that such a real person exists, and that the real person isn’t a bad or foolish one.

Airman Doors, USAFSometimes the Republicans get it right. Other times the Democrats get it right. I reserve the right to state my opinion be it good or bad about either party. That’s not bi-polar, that’s rational thinking.
[/quote]
Your’re quite correct here. But it’s you, not Liberal, who possesses the rationality. Liberal’s currently back in the Libertopian fantasy world, which he’s constructed in his head. Where you might be comparing real world alternatives, Liberal is measuring both against the fantasy construct. The fantasy construct might be attractive, but it’s still a fantasy. It’s no more sensible or useful than a white supremacist fantasy world, or Christian or Muslim fantasy world, or a fantasy world in which Superman lives. The fantasy world doesn’t exist, and can’t exist. In the context of real world political debate, it’s pointless and stupid to argue over and over and over that each and every problem should be analysed and solved using Liberal’s fantasy world.

In the thread that triggered this one, Liberal chose not to rebut an argument that I made about 527s and the FEC. Instead, he chose to start this thread, whining and snivelling about nipping

22

Crap. That was supposed to be a preview. Try again.

Well, I didn’t see that thread until it was already a couple of days old, and couldn’t see much point in bumping it. You’d already had your whinge about people arguing in the Pit. If you felt that I unfairly ignored you, or if you really think that it can be couragous to post stuff on message boards, then I’ve got some shorts that I cordially invite you to eat.

I like Ethilrist’s hobby/cartoon job way of looking at what’s going on. It’s Liberal’s real world hobby/full time occupation on this message board to be a fool. It’s mine to not suffer them gladly. Yes, Liberal does go through some relatively calm periods where it’s possible to see the real person underneath. Polycarp has assured us that such a real person exists, and that the real person isn’t a bad or foolish one.

You’re quite correct here. But it’s you, not Liberal, who possesses the rationality. Liberal’s currently back in the Libertopian fantasy world, which he’s constructed in his head. Where you might be comparing real world alternatives, Liberal is measuring both against the fantasy construct. The fantasy construct might be attractive, but it’s still a fantasy. It’s no more sensible or useful than a white supremacist fantasy world, or Christian or Muslim fantasy world, or a fantasy world in which Superman lives. The fantasy world doesn’t exist, and can’t exist. In the context of real world political debate, it’s pointless and stupid to argue over and over and over that each and every problem should be analysed and solved using Liberal’s fantasy world.

The thread that triggered this one was about Bush’s hypocritical attitude to 527s. Liberal:

a) tried to hijack into the “Clinton’s government was evil, too, because of pollution”, bring on Libertopia crap, and
b) posted some bullshit about the FEC and 527s.

I called him on both points, and, rather than attempt to answer either, he’s started this thread.

A sane and sensible person, OTOH, might have tried to argue the points on their merits in the Pit thread where Liberal raised them, instead of attempting this diversion.

YMMV. Liberal’s obviously does.

23

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5220597&postcount=54

24

I did. Just what the hell is a Desmostylus, anyhow?

25

What a tempest in a pisspot.

It is in these grand meanings that politics allows us to understand its message to the future and to see something of central importance about our whole view of how we wish the current generation to live well in an exceedingly threatening world. But to use the pronoun ‘we’ is to simplify matters impossibly, even though it gets that genial spokesperson of the real Australian away from the spotlight. And that’s critical.

Desmostylus, keep stirring the pisspot. I appreciate and applaud.

26

Not only would it be admirable, it would be something new under the sun.

FWIW, Lib’s suggestion that Desmo is following him around is old, old stuff as well. It’s easy around here to run into the same people in numerous debate threads, as it’s easy for different people to be interested in the same cluster of issues. However, when this happens with Lib and someone who’s willing to repeatedly take Lib on, head-on, it appears to be de rigeur for Lib to accuse his adversary of following him around the boards. (He said this of me all the way back in 1999; that’s how old we’re talking about.)

Since with over 17,000 posts (despite periodic absences from the board), Lib’s one of our more prolific posters, and since he’s not exactly a MPSIMS regular, it’s hard not to run into Lib a fair amount if one is a Doper who is into political debate.

27

I guess what gets me is the presumption that neutrality consists of being an asshole to everybody. That’s not being neutral: that’s just being twice the asshole.

The fairness I try to maintain consists of acknowledging the good points made by folks I disagree with. For example: recently, Bush said that the war on terror couldn’t be won, and lots of Democrats are jumping all over him for it.

The Democrats are wrong, and Bush is right, and it’s embarrassing to see the party’s behavior on this issue. Of course you can’t win such a war, any more than you can win the war on poverty, or the war on crime. Terrorism isn’t a nation state: it’s a societal ill.

Bush was further perspicacious when he declared that all we could do is try to make terrorism less acceptable in certain societies. That’s exactly what we need to do.

Of course, it’s not all butter and honey: his behavior over the last three years seems calculated to make terrorism more acceptable in certain societies. This is where we should be criticizing him, not for making obvious statements.

It is possible to disagree with someone without calling them a lemming, or saying that they’re corrupt or a zombie or a hypocrite. Lib never seems to remember that lesson for more than five minutes, unfortunately; even when he takes it to heart, he seems to think that not calling someone a zombie is doing them a personal favor, instead of considering it the minimum necessary display of respect that makes a political debate feasible.

Daniel

28

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and Stretch is entitled to his.

29

The above was addressed to RT.

To Daniel, I would say that I do indeed disagree with many people without calling them names. I have done so this morning alone probably a dozen times or more. I have done so since 1999 thousands and thousands of times. I do call some people names on purpose, and not being morally good, I do call some people names and regret it later. I regret, for example, calling you the devil. But to characterize me as incapable of remembering a lesson for more than five minutes is simply inaccurate, and itself evokes a name if not explicitly stating one.

Other than all that, I have no purpose for this thread other than to direct Desmostylus here whenever he hijacks a discussion to assail my character or my views. The link that satisfied Robin should satisfy you as well.

30

How does posting some variation of “I think you’re a crazy fuck” in every Liberal thread not constitute “being a jerk”? I know its the Pit and all, but christ- we got it the first two dozen times.
[sub]also search “poster = desmostylus + keyword = loon/nuts/etc…” and other variations for more results. I didn’t feel like wading through them all.[/sub]

31

I just looked at a couple of those cites, Mojo, and to be fair, the last one, Desmo wasn’t interacting with Liberal at all. And in the 'Iraq photo" one, where Desmo really does go off on one, Liberal was being delibrately obtuse to begin with.

32

from the last one:

I realize he’s not talking to Liberal here but my point still stands.

On preview: just realized that you may not see the search results in the same order I do as on mine the Iraq photo one is listed last. These were just a few examples, do a search on the variations and you’ll get more results. If it was once or twice I wouldn’t care but at this point we’re getting into dead horse territory.

33

Oh yeah, didn’t read it properly.

34

I guess we have different standards. I’m reminded of the joke, “But you fuck just ONE sheep…”

It’s not enough to behave appropriately often. With something like accusing all liberals (or all conservatives) of nasty behavior, you gotta avoid doing it entirely. I’m pretty sure I ran across a thread just this morning in which you (perhaps in the last two days) said that both liberals and conservatives were full of shit if they thought their party was any more honest than the opposition, or words to that effect–words that included several honest, respectful, thoughtful people in the thread in a nasty insult. The fact that you’ve also made posts in the last couple days that HAVEN’T done that doesn’t exonerate you.

As for learning the lesson for longer than five minutes: if you’d learned the lesson, I think you’d stop doing it. You continue making egregious and inappropriate slams of broad belief systems. I don’t see how you can do that if you’ve learned the lesson.

Consider Poster X. Poster X is an atheist who is very knowledgeable about religion. She is capable of discussing the finer points of religion, of citing arguments about it, of presenting her viewpoint thoughtfully and eloquently.

But Poster X, once in awhile, blows up about religious people. She says that both Christians and Muslims are dishonest scumsuckers out to shill a buck from the gullible. She creates elaborate, venomous posts about the evils of religious people. And she finds a way to turn completely unrelated threads into slams on religion. (For example, when someone posts about a job interview in which the interviewer asked inappropriate questions of an underage interviewee, she posts, “Keep in mind that no employer is going to risk the lawsuits involved in letter employees commit statutory rape–except the Catholic Church, of course!”)

Poster X, in other words, treats religion the way you treat poliitcs.

How are you going to feel about Poster X?

Daniel

35

I was unaware that your expression of opinion constituted my need for exoneration. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I believe that your analogy could use some fine-tuning. In fact, the antagonist need not be an atheist — it could already be I, because I routinely slam the insitutional leadership and membership of practically every religion, including my own, Christianity. On the other hand, I routinely extole the virtue of every person of faith who values goodness as the greatest aesthetic, no matter what his label of religion. I simply do not demarcate things in the traditional manner of rah-rah us-v-them. By the same token, my views on politics are driven by the ethical principle that peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. I even grant that the most authoritarian people may, if they wish, impose their authoritarianism upon one another. I do not seek, and have never sought, to impose my political system of choice on anyone else. I have only defended my own right of consent to be governed in such a way that I believe best ensures my safety and happiness — much in the manner that Congress declared in 1776. And I have condemned political expedience from every source, not just left and right, but libertarian as well. I am on record bashing the Libertarian Party for being riddled with statists and power hungry politicians just like all the other political parties. This is what I am, Daniel. Granted, I fly off the handle from time to time, and I wish I didn’t. But I do, and I do so despite my best attempts not to.

36

That’s the sort of semantic wordplay that seems to garner you respect in some quarters; me, I hate obfuscatory diversions like that. You know quite well what I meant.

Again: the fact that you’ve been an asshole to Libertarians doesn’t make you evenhanded, either: it just means you’ve been triple the asshole. The problem isn’t that you disagree, even stridently, with people; it’s that you do it so vituperatively. It’s how you say it.

It just baffles me that this is what we get with your best attempts not to fly off the handle. You make long, elaborate posts full of the foulest possible imagery to describe people with whom you hold a philosophical disagreement; how long are you off the handle before you land? What constitutes your “best attempts”? What sort of ick would you be posting if you weren’t attempting not to fly off the handle?

If you never posted anything worthwhile, I’d be happy ignoring you: you’d just be like duffer or someone. It’s exasperating, though, that someone who can post such interesting things is so repellent so often in the way he posts.

Daniel

37

[hijack]Turns out the bastard has flipflopped[/hijack]

Daniel

38

Thank you, Desmostylus, for taking the time to re-explain your moniker. As I wandered through this thread in search of your answer, I was reminded of a time when I walked, unscathed, through a roman-candle duel. Good luck to all o’ y’all.

39
40

Well, it’s nice to see the mods have given you a little place to whine about Desmo. It’s about time. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I will grant you this – you have a “clever” way of getting a few folks to actually sympathize with you, even when you’re being a complete loon. Fortunately, you can only fool some of the people some of the time.

It’s also interesting that you seem to think the Pit is your own little playground. We all know you spend an inordinate amount of time here – hijacking threads, calling attention to your fragile ego, shooting off snarky drive-bys – and frankly, if this is what gives you such thrills in life, who is anyone to take that away from you. But I do find it rather sad, as others have pointed out time and time again, that you are able to offer only a few enlightened thoughts amidst such a cacophony of nonsense and bile. And the way you pretend to be a Christian while acting in such an egregiously hateful manner is so odd and ridiculous it borders on pathological.

In any event, I imagine in real life you are a meek little thing, and being able to stomp about a message board gives you the outlet you clearly need. I hope it serves some better purpose for you, because it gives little to the community at large. If only you could eliminate some of the self-serving hate and stick to your “finer” points, you might actually do some good around here.

Though, by and large, to some degree that probably applies to a lot of us… :wink: