I pit Bricker for admitting he plans to make posts that are "clearly and utterly unreasonable"

[iiandyiiii]

I like Bricker. He contributes to a lot of threads, IMO. I know some people don’t like him, and I disagree with him on many things, but I generally like him as a poster. He (usually) spends effort to be factually correct.

In the never-ending ID thread, I called him out for making a sweeping insult maligning liberals.

@Bricker

Classic liberal. Confronted with evidence of his lies, he neither admits or apologizes, just sidesteps.

How about returning to that moment where you lied and explaining it?

Not a huge deal – happens pretty frequently on all sides. I don’t like it, and I decided to criticize it in this instance.

@iiandyiiii

Classic conservative. Being a whining, childish jerk.

Actually, that’s bullshit. I served with tons of conservatives (and liberals) in the Navy, and most of both groups were brave, intelligent, and had plenty of integrity. In fact, in the Navy I learned that it was futile and unwise to judge someone’s character based on their political preferences and philosophy.

Boo, Bricker. Boo.

Bricker objects! Haven’t other liberals made the same sorts of sweeping generalizations? Probably, but I mostly ignore posts by liberals (it’s much more fun to argue with people who actually disagree with me on substantive issues), so we had a back and forth for a little while in which I accuse him of whining like a baby and he accuses me of selectively criticizing conservatives.

Again, typical Pit stuff. Not a huge deal.

The back-and-forth changes a little bit – Bricker says that he must use such tactics, because to abandon them is to disarm himself against the cruel liberal onslaught (my phrase). I say that such tactics are stupid, and can’t he just admit that such sweeping insults are foolish?

@iiandyiiii

Is this really what you’re harping on? For one thing, this is a message board, not an article with comments. Can’t you just accept that my criticism of your posts maligning all liberals was a reasonable criticism? You haven’t even tried to defend it, beyond “others do it too!!”.

He does admit it’s very foolish:

@Bricker

Of course not. It has no defense. It’s clearly and utterly unreasonable. “All liberals,” are not anything, and any criticism directed at “all liberals,” is presumptively unwarranted.

I am conciliatory – he admits he was wrong to make such a sweeping insult!

@iiandyiiii

Okay, I applaud this. Hopefully you won’t post such insults again – it can only make you look foolish.

But no – I read it wrong. He’s doubling down.

@Bricker

Are you not paying attention to what I’m writing?

I absolutely intend to do it again, as long as similar behavior continues from your ideological allies.

That’s my point: I refuse to concede this weapon to the sole use of the other side, and I disagree that it’s ineffective. To the contrary, on a website supposedly interested in “fighting ignorance,” its use by folks on the left incurs few social penalties. It works.

He intends to continue to post “clearly and utterly unreasonable” and “unwarranted” stuff because he thinks it works. It does nothing but make him look foolish, IMO. But it makes him look far, far more foolish when he straight up admits that he’s going to post stupid stuff because he thinks it helps his argument.

Sorry, Bricker. Boo. Boo, Bricker. I think you torpedoed yourself. I think you can do better. I hope you do.

[Bone]

[ul][li]Republicans are evil.[/li][li]Teaparty members are racists.[/li][li]Police are racists[/li][li]Liberals when confronted with evidence of their lies neither admits or apologizes, just sidesteps.[/li][/ul]
Which of these statements is objectionable?

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

[ul][li]Republicans are evil.[/li][li]Teaparty members are racists.[/li][li]Police are racists[/li][li]Liberals when confronted with evidence of their lies neither admits or apologizes, just sidesteps.[/li][/ul]
Which of these statements is objectionable?

All of them.

[Lobohan]

@Bone

[ul][li]Republicans are evil.[/li][li]Teaparty members are racists.[/li][li]Police are racists[/li][li]Liberals when confronted with evidence of their lies neither admits or apologizes, just sidesteps.[/li][/ul]
Which of these statements is objectionable?

All of them?

[Hamlet]

Bricker trolls. News at 11.

[The_Second_Stone]

Bricker likes an argument from the side without logic and facts in his favor. He considers it a challenge and that is why he is a conservative and posts on this board. That and liberals will be the first up against the wall when Gitmo opens franchises.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

What I find remarkable about this OP is its sanctimonious hypocrisy. The OP is posing as someone who even in disagreement feels it’s important “to be factually correct”.

And yet, this is the same poster who has repeatedly asserted that when mocking posters whose positions he disagrees with he feels it’s OK to deliberately distort their positions and deviate from the truth.

So basically: stop whining.

[Lobohan]

@The_Second_Stone

Bricker likes an argument from the side without logic and facts in his favor. He considers it a challenge and that is why he is a conservative and posts on this board. That and liberals will be the first up against the wall when Gitmo opens franchises.

From your lips to President Cruz’s ears.

[Lobohan]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What I find remarkable about this OP is its sanctimonious hypocrisy. The OP is posing as someone who even in disagreement feels it’s important “to be factually correct”.

And yet, this is the same poster who has repeatedly asserted that when mocking posters whose positions he disagrees with he feels it’s OK to deliberately distort their positions and deviate from the truth.

So basically: stop whining.

You got a cite? Not that I disbelieve your honesty, just your accuracy.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Lobohan

You got a cite?

Not for you.

If the OP doesn’t dispute that this is his attitude, then there’s no need for me to run searches. If he disputes it, then I’ll look some up.

[Ludovic]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Not for you.

If the OP doesn’t dispute that this is his attitude, then there’s no need for me to run searches. If he disputes it, then I’ll look some up.

Well, you have me convinced!

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What I find remarkable about this OP is its sanctimonious hypocrisy. The OP is posing as someone who even in disagreement feels it’s important “to be factually correct”.

And yet, this is the same poster who has repeatedly asserted that when mocking posters whose positions he disagrees with he feels it’s OK to deliberately distort their positions and deviate from the truth.

Bullshit.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The two examples I recall offhand are: #1 and #2. (Some discussion between myself and iiandyiiii about his approach follows, in each case.)

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The two examples I recall offhand are: #1 and #2. (Some discussion between myself and iiandyiiii about his approach follows, in each case.)

#1 is total bullshit. The mockery was not dishonest in any way:

@iiandyiiii

I do believe that such inadvertent comparisons are revealing, though. It’s much easier to “slip up” in this way in this kind of discussion if one believes that black people are indeed inherently less intelligent. Which is also why I think it hit a nerve.

And you agreed:

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s true that slip-ups like this can be revealing. But people do use cockroaches as examples of very primitive creatures. Racists also like comparing ethnic groups that they don’t like to cockroaches (especially when complaining about their proliferation). So CP was very exposed to the sort of attack you did, which is why it hit a nerve, I would guess. (Had he used monkees or apes for the analogy he would have been in the same situation.)

Yes, I mocked CP when he (probably inadvertently) compared black people to cockroaches. But such an inadvertent comparison is revealing, in my view, of what CP really thinks (or might really think).

Yes it was mockery, and no it wasn’t dishonest at all.

I have no idea what you’re complaining about with #2.

[BobLibDem]

@Bone

[ul][li]Republicans are evil.[/li][li]Teaparty members are racists.[/li][li]Police are racists[/li][li]Liberals when confronted with evidence of their lies neither admits or apologizes, just sidesteps.[/li][/ul]
Which of these statements is objectionable?

Since only the last is a lie, I’m going with that one.

[iiandyiiii]

@BobLibDem

Since only the last is a lie, I’m going with that one.

Just to make Bricker happy, I’ll point out that this is incorrect and I served with many decent, honorable, and patriotic conservatives (and liberals) in the Navy.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What I find remarkable about this OP is its sanctimonious hypocrisy. The OP is posing as someone who even in disagreement feels it’s important “to be factually correct”.

And yet, this is the same poster who has repeatedly asserted that when mocking posters whose positions he disagrees with he feels it’s OK to deliberately distort their positions and deviate from the truth.

So basically: stop whining.

Yep. I’m with Bricker on this.

If someone decides to use mocking and sarcasm as their technique of argument, they should expect it back. No one should have to spend the time to be reasonable and logical if the person they’re discussing with doesn’t have the courtesy to actually address the arguments.

Disclaimer: I’m not involved in political debates, so my response is a general one based on behavior I’ve seen. I’m also not reading that thread.

[Morgenstern]

@iiandyiiii

I like Bricker. He contributes to a lot of threads, IMO. I know some people don’t like him, and I disagree with him on many things, but I generally like him as a poster. He (usually) spends effort to be factually correct.

In the never-ending ID thread, I called him out for making a sweeping insult maligning liberals.

…

I read that and had to stop and think, was this a pitting or an invitation to go out for a beer?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

#1 is total bullshit. The mockery was not dishonest in any way:

And you agreed:

Yes, I mocked CP when he (probably inadvertently) compared black people to cockroaches. But such an inadvertent comparison is revealing, in my view, of what CP really thinks (or might really think).

Yes it was mockery, and no it wasn’t dishonest at all.

You backed into that stance only after a lot of bobbing and weaving. That was not your initial stance.

Your initial post was a chortle that “Every time [CP] post[s] in threads about race and intelligence, someone’s going to point out that [CP] think[s] black people are comparable to cockroaches, at least when comparing their intelligence to white people”, which you later admitted was a distortion of CP’s intention. But when I first challenged that as a distortion of what he said, you did not admit that you were mocking an inadvertent comparison- you doubled down, saying (post #489) that you were “pointing out a very weak argument, and pointing out racist statements”. Similarly, in post #491, you accused CP of “calling people “cockroaches””.

After post #502, where I broke it down at some length, you responded (#508) that “Mockery is not necessarily dishonest. Mockery is often appropriate, as are witticisms that take advantage of misstatements.”

It as only after a further exchange that you came up with the idea that you were mocking an inadvertent use of a term that may possibly reveal some underlying attitude.

I have no idea what you’re complaining about with #2.

You original claim was that I " seem to be constantly surprised and amazed on the Dope". When I pointed out that this had no factual basis at all,
your response was “Snark is held to much lower standards. I’m okay with this – the more snark the merrier, IMO.”

IMO, someone with the approach you use and the attitude you’ve expressed in defense of it has zero business criticizing someone else for hyperbolic claims about “Classic liberal[s]”

[Lobohan]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Yep. I’m with Bricker on this.

If someone decides to use mocking and sarcasm as their technique of argument, they should expect it back. No one should have to spend the time to be reasonable and logical if the person they’re discussing with doesn’t have the courtesy to actually address the arguments.

Disclaimer: I’m not involved in political debates, so my response is a general one based on behavior I’ve seen. I’m also not reading that thread.

In the thread in question, it’s actually Bricker that doesn’t address the arguments.

He constantly diverts, and recently has petulantly collapsed into little more than complaining that “liberals” are unfairly being snippy.

As the snippiest person in that thread, I assure you, I don’t represent all liberals, and in any case, I have made my case, and he has never addressed those points other than to assert that I want to enact laws by fiat and destroy the democratic system.

Also, that I may want to suck off the Massachusetts legislature for some shenanigans with who appoints replacement Senators.