Maybe he craves the attention even though it is very negative?
I’m basing that hypothesis on the fact that we do have emotionally challenged students who do exactly that.
Probably.
But I mean the board. What part do we have to play in this long standing kerfuffle?
Has there been too much attention paid to someone no one would give the time of day to, in RL?
Does anyone remember what even started this?
It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Feud for feuds sake.
“Bad actors” know how to press the right buttons, so it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. I understand, though, why people have to challenge the outrageous.
I made the mistake once again of arguing with DrDerp in the thread about John Oliver and his report on “felony murder”. I’d almost forgotten how stubborn and irrational he is. Some facts he gets wrong, others he misinterprets so they fit his crazed view of the world. He has no interest in reasoned discussion – it’s always about winning the argument. Oh, and John Oliver is a habitual liar and so is The Guardian newspaper, in case anyone didn’t know!
There are some other posters in that thread that I disagree with in terms of social and legal policy, but the Doctor is the only one who’s fanatical about winning arguments. He comes into threads seemingly not so much to have a discussion as to have a fight. It’s very tiring.
Because the poster in question didn’t bother actually watching the relevant John Oliver segment, so he didn’t notice that Oliver did in fact explicitly say the stuff that the poster was accusing him of omitting. 
He always struck me as the sort of person that, if he actually was a LEO as his day job, would be the sort of asshole to want to restrain somebody on a daily basis and tell them “if you don’t respect me, I won’t respect you” as he does it
Despite my cheap Dad Joke, I was sorry that the Self-defense/Castle Defense/Stand Your Ground discussion comments probably outnumber your intended discussion by 2 to 1 or so. It’s an interesting discussion to be had.
As you correctly pointed out, I was probably responsible for starting that digression. I don’t mind – the two topics are somewhat related, IMHO.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight but I saw this Veritasium video last night that seemed very applicable to what’s being discussed.
Wait, you’re saying DrDeez didn’t watch his cite and it actually said the complete opposite of what he claimed?
Inconceivable!
I mean that he can do that in video as well as text format.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. 
“Never go in against an argument when DrDeth is online!”
As far as I can tell, their entire affect is based around being the guy who “corrects” what “everyone knows” at parties, which is why every fourth thread they start here is about how people are wrong about something.
At least, where history is concerned, which is all I know about. They want to be taken as an insightful revisionist, but—being uninterested in, or incapable of, intellectual rigor—have no qualifications except needing to be seen as the smartest guy in the room.
This leads to two problems. The first is that historical revisionism will put you in bed with some weirdos. Because—surprise!—most people who want to rehabilitate Andrew Jackson have an agenda in doing so that isn’t blowing people’s minds on a message board as if we ordered snopes off Temu.
The second is it means that, while you might be capable of kicking off a discussion, you cannot meaningfully participate in it. You have not learned to do your own research, are unable to evaluate and contextualize sources, do not know how to identify the right lines of inquiry to pursue next and could not follow them even if you did.
Personal confession
I don’t want to misrepresent myself. I’m not a professional historian, either. That said, I studied history in school, and it’s my main hobby these days. I love the feeling when facts fall into place because you realize someone’s initials were transposed in a newspaper article, or when you uncover an example of a phrase being used 10 years earlier than everyone else.
Or, yes, when you realize people are wrong about something. Like, this old page on Rootsweb says that there’s no evidence that David Kaufman owned slaves. I was able to find his name in the slave schedules of the 1850 census, and it turns out he did own slaves. This doesn’t really change much about his loathsome personality, but it seems to be a new bit of information.
Honest historical revisionism generally looks like that. It’s often on the level of “this key decision was made in late April instead of early May, and two previously unknown people were also in the room,” not “why is nobody talking about how Santa Anna knew in advance that France was going to bomb Pearl Harbor?”
I’m an expert in a very narrow slice of history and geography. Outside that niche, I’m good at finding overlooked things in archives and I have a good intuition for knowing where missing pieces might connect, but that’s all. Sometimes, like on a simple question of “who owned slaves?”, that’s enough. Often it’s not.
So I also love the times when I think I’ve turned something up, reach out to someone with subject matter expertise, and they explain why my big theory is completely undermined because I didn’t know some quirk of Alaskan corporate law in the 1920s.
I just don’t think that happens to DrDeth. I do not think they have ever been corrected and thought: “oh, but if that’s true, then…” and spent the rest of the day trying to track down a copy of an old book and felt the thrill of finding it at a historical society in Kansas that will photocopy a key page for them that unlocks a new minor rabbithole to go down.
And this is sad to me, because the past, and well-grounded amateur inquiry, is more accessible than ever, and I love that. DrDeth does not. They can’t or won’t do research because they only care about history as a vehicle for going “um, actually” and then jumping to the next “““misconception.”””
The Straight Dope column did that, too, and I’m sure a lot of us are here because we appreciate the idea of interrogating conventional wisdom and learning it was incomplete or inaccurate. DrDeth is not Cecil Adams. DrDeth is CinemaSins “critiquing” an AP World History textbook, and it sucks.
(applause)
Spot on.
I don’t usually read posts that long. I read every word. Great post.
You’re about to find out. Poor fool. You should have kept your mouth shut. I hope you aren’t too attach to your favorite potted plant.
Yes, I’ve heard Karens don’t like being called Karens
He’s just added a new debunking to his pet Historical Myths DEBUNKED thread. See Search results for ‘debunked before:2025-08-20 after:2025-08-18 #in-my-humble-opinion’ - Straight Dope Message Board to locate that thread.
I’m not at all competent to opine on his research this time, but color me skeptical.
Wikipedia has a pretty well-sourced article on the subject, and it confirms what DD has said.
The common belief that Mozart was buried in a pauper’s grave is without foundation. The “common grave” referred to above is a term for a grave belonging to a citizen not of the aristocracy. It was an individual grave, not a communal grave; but after ten years the city had the right to dig it up and use it for a later burial. The graves of the aristocracy were spared such treatment.
So I’m inclined to support him this time.