Dio killed the clown that killed my dad.
Apologies. I missread your post. When you said DIO was your friend in juxtaposition with ‘Shakes, nyxx is no DIO’ , my brain interpreted it as: Shakes, you and nyxx suck, DIO rocks.
Again sorry. It was a knee jerk.
No worries. It works better if there are only two people involved. I had to mangle the quote a bit to accommodate 3.
I knew Lloyd Bentsen, I am very vaguely aware of who Loyd Bensten was, I watched a debate once that had Lloyd Bentsen in it, and you sir are no Lloyd Bentsen.
I vaguely remember that. Yeah, he could be a self-righteous prick sometimes and that was a particularly low moment even for him, but I was referring more to the entertrainwreck value he brought to the board, especially his classic NFL, anti-Packers, anti-refs meltdowns. Those were hysterically over the top to behold.
Somewhere, I know Hamlet agrees with me on that.
I think it was from a cat.
Much like Shodan, Nyx excels in making rough, inaccurate, and ideologically/emotionally convenient (mis)characterizations of his opponent’s arguments. But there are differences. Nyx is convinced that he is on the side of the angels, which justifies all manner of behavior. In contrast, Shodan is convinced that he a member of a verbally oppressed conservative minority on this message board, which justifies all manner of knee-jerked and dubious observation.
Shodan has greater discipline, which keeps him on one side of the ban stick. Nyx is funnier:
That’s the thing with that one. I was expressing the opinion that someone was showing bias. What I didn’t add was that doing so when being told to have a thicker skin showed that he had a very thin skin indeed.
So then he claims that I’m the one with the thin skin (projection) and mister nyxx comes along for the Pile On O’ Crazy.
I had already planned to respond to him in this thread rather than that one, so here goes;
Nyxx for Brains; You’ve already shown yourself a socially clueless fuckwit who is incapable of interacting with information provided by others. As such, your opinion has no value. Hopefully some day you will learn to listen and pay attention, at which point you might acquire value in conversation.
You came up with “stats” that didn’t even begin to address the question. I tried to avoid discussing it out of embarrassment about the fact that you hadn’t come up with anything that remotely related to the issue under discussion. Although I was eventually driven to do so.
But, I mean, if you want, you win. There are no statistics to back your point, obviously, or you would have been able to find actual stats to back you. But if you want, then, fine. Gay men are vastly more likely to be the subjects of violent crime. There are no numbers to support this – in fact, even before you cited your obviously useless numbers, I had already explained why similar numbers wouldn’t actually support the OP’s contention (which, of course, the OP didn’t even bother to try to support, but obviously no one but me cared about that.)
Anyway, Una, you don’t give a shit about actual numbers, so you cited absolute nonsense, despite the fact that your numbers neglected easily 95% of crimes against queer people, and despite the fact that they didn’t even attempt to acknowledge the actual matter under discussion – which was whether gay men or other queer people are more likely to be the subjects of hate crimes.
You don’t care about the issue, which is why you cited some nonsensical numbers that aren’t even vaguely plausible if one is looking for actual statistics. That’s fine. I understand that at the SDMB, actual facts mean nothing. You’ve demonstrated that perfectly, Una. That’s why, as I’ve been here longer, I’ve spent a lot less time trying to cite my points, because I know it doesn’t matter at all to dopers whether they’re discussing the truth or not. All that matters is if it’s in agreement with the SDMB’s group consensus.
But whatever. Made-up numbers are acceptable at the SDMB, as you have demonstrated so well. I am the only person here who actually gives a shit about whether numbers that you toss up are made up, or have any relation to reality. So of course your pals here agree with your fake statistics. And of course they are going to be just as unwilling as you were to address the obvious problems with the made-up numbers you cited. They don’t give any more of a shit about real statistics than you do. Which, well, is exactly my point about this place.
I would read that entire post, but I don’t want to get that invested in someone who may not be here for much longer.
In fact, before anyone takes Una’s numbers seriously, let me do a bit of math: according to her numbers, and assuming around 3.5% of the general population is gay or bi (which is a reasonable number but any readers are welcome to reduce that by a half if you like, since that is also supportable in the literature): According to Una Persson, the average gay/bi person is likely to be subjected to being “killed, tortured, bullied, or whatever” (as the OP of that thread specified) at this rate:
Us queers are likely to be bullied once every 6154 years. At least according to Una Persson’s numbers. And she is complaining that I didn’t take them seriously. Well, maybe I should have, but I just can’t help but notice that I have been subjected to bullying even more than once every 6000 years, as Una’s numbers would predict. Which is sort of why I dismissed these obviously stupidly wrong numbers entirely. I don’t know what Una’s career is, but I hope it doesn’t involve numbers, because, if she’s standing by her ridiculously false citation, she doesn’t have the ability to understand numbers at all.
Yeah, it’s cool. I get that reading lots of long sentences and words and stuff is sort of anathema at the SDMB.
Fuck. Now I have to explain “anathema”.
It’s totally okay that you don’t like to read long things. Long things are bad!
When people try to get you to read long things, they are trying to lie to you! Long sentences are tricks!
Don’t read anything with more than five words! That will accommodate 99.9% of the SDMB, and it will protect you from reading scary bad things that will fuck your brain up!
You’ve got it exactly right! Don’t read anything long! Stick with the SDMB!
You know that feeling you get when someone silly just steps in front of a truck or something like that? And you half want to turn away and half are tempted to watch and can’t decide which to do?
Although of course the decision is made easier in this case by the amusing fact that the idiot stepping in front of the truck is doing so on purpose because he thinks he is going to win the fight with the truck.
Hooboy.
Ahh. I’m guessing her career is numbers-heavy, then, and yet she still made that basic error.
This is not a new thing for me. The numbers she cited were so indisputably irrelevant (they were based on zilch) that the only point in looking at them was to examine their failings. And, well, failings they had, in abundance.
I knew that it was basically a fifty-fifty shot between a lazy half-assed job from someone who didn’t want to bother with actual research, and someone who is as dumb as those numbers would indicate. I was hoping for the former, because we could actually discuss them, and find real numbers, and discuss the actual facts.
But obviously you’re of the opinion that it’s the latter. And, given my conversation with her, I suspect the same. It’s someone who is too innumerate to understand that 6154 year intervals between being “bullied” is a bit implausible for queer people.
Obviously Una hoped to fleece people with nonsense. I have no doubt that this nonsense will be popular here at the SDMB, because I have low expectations for this place. But regardless, she is citing nonsense.
I’m sorry, but who the fuck are you?
I’m the subject of this pit thread, man. :rolleyes: I would have thought that was obvious.
I suppose I should be trying to defend myself but I guess I’m not dumb enough to worry much about this nonsense. I see you, however, are concerned. Feel free to PM me, I am totally open to ideas and suggestions about how to handle this in the future.
I haven’t even looked at the numbers. It’s just that you post dumbass things nearly continually, and she is extremely technically able, and one the smartest, most eloquent people on these boards.
So to continue my analogy, it could be that the idiot who stepped in front of the truck is Superman, and that this collision is going to turn out very differently to what I expect. I just don’t think it’s a possibility worth considering until it happens. If I turn out to be wrong, I’ll have egg on my face. I’m not worrying too much about that possibility, however.
Having now looked at the numbers, it’s not that either her or your numbers are wrong as such, it’s just that as expected, what you are doing with the numbers is dumber than a box of hammers.
Una offered some statistics based on a sample to show relativities. If I understand how you arrived at your 6154 number correctly, you seem to be demonstrating with remarkable sagacity that more gay people are assaulted in the US per annum than are counted in Una’s sample. No shit, dumbass.
Do you understand the concept of “sample”? It’s not apparent. You say “I have been subjected to bullying even more than once every 6000 years, as Una’s numbers would predict.” Una never said that her number predicted anything at all about how often you would be subjected to bullying, and they don’t do so. If you think you can extrapolate as you just did, you aren’t fit to drool and mouthbreathe in the corridor outside a statistics class, let alone lecture people who actually understood what was going on in one.
Furthermore, I’ve been reading the posts of **Bryan Ekers **for about 12 years or so. He’s a smart guy who writes well and has a vocab to match. You’re piddling in your nappies laughing at your own wit with your crack about explaining the word “anathema”. Meanwhile, anyone who knows the players involved just thinks you are doing a damn fine job of making yourself look like a jumped up, full of himself, snivelling little twerp, who loves the sound of his own voice but is fit only to be laughed at.
I’m not even participating in any of the threads he’s in, and nyx still managed to annoy me enough to consider starting a pit thread. I think that would have been an extreme case of RO. Joining in on a pre-existing pitting, on the other hand, qualifies for the sort of mild, only somewhat silly RO that I’m okay with. He may not get banned, but man is this guy ever a jerk.
I will listen to you, mister nyx, as soon as you provide something substantive instead of “It’s wrong because I say it’s wrong!” to refute anyone’s cited assertions. Until then, I, the posters in this thread, and probably most of the rest of the board, will treat you like the thin-skinned, whiny little shit that you apparently are.
That’s how we roll here. We prefer that assertions be backed up with cites when the situation calls for it, and we expect that refutation of assertions be backed up with cites. It’s no different from college, really. Your behavior makes you difficult to take seriously. But I, and the rest of the board, can explain that point to you all day long, but we can’t understand it for you, and you seem to have a difficult time understanding it. It’s a personal problem, but it’s one you’re going to have to overcome if you expect to have a long, happy tenure here at the SDMB.