It can be hard to know that kind of thing for sure, but my guess is that he thought it was true (based on Lobohan being a hard-core liberal and this being the type of thing that hard-core liberals liked).
If there was evidence presented that it wasn’t true, then I missed that part. (I didn’t read that whole thread but went and read this specific Bricker/Lobohan exchange.)
I’m hardly a hard-core liberal. Well, maybe. Yeah, you’re right.
Evidence it wasn’t true? Well, I never said I supported it. And I said I didn’t.
Is there evidence that you don’t dig up, and have sex with the recently dead?
Yeah, those kinds of strawman generalizations about “liberals” were also not helping Bricker, I thought.
But hardly the type of evidence that was going to impress someone in the middle of a heated debate.
Hey, I said upfront that it was “extremely annoying, no doubt”. 
Should we conclude that these are about equally likely:
You’ve lost me there (or possibly gotten lost yourself).
What’s the difference between, “I bet you love X” and “You love X” when said in a mocking/taunting way when loving X is not true? Nothing and neither are a lie.
If I said that Diane Feinstein loves when people shoot up schools because it allows her to push her anti-gun agenda is that really a lie? It’s probably not true but it is offensive taunting/hyperbole. “you love it” is a pretty common taunt it’s absurd to me to think that was a lie. The constant harping on it makes it even more embarassing.
It’s in line with the change in posting style of that thread. Bricker did it to mock you - to get a rise out of you. And it’s worked. And *you loved it *because it allows you to play the victim. <-- mockery.
Oh, I know where I am. The point is that Lobohan made, for demonstration purposes, a claim which (if he followed Bricker’s example) would be completely impervious to any disagreement on your part. If you said you don’t fuck corpses… it doesn’t matter, Lobohan could repeat the claim as often as he wanted.
Does that ever morph into lying on Lobohan’s part, where he either must realize the claim is unevidenced (indeed counter-evidenced) but repeats it anyway? Can Lobohan declare that it’s not a lie if he simply refuses to recognize your denial, should you choose to make one?
And if you don’t make a denial, is it fair for an observer to conclude that the claim is unchallenged and therefore has a 50/50 chance of being true?
Though at some point, whether or not one can devise an acid “liar” test for Lobohan, his behaviour certainly wouldn’t be positive or adult, would it?
By the way, I appreciate how Bone’s example is generously “probably not true.”
If he genuinely continues to believe that it’s likely true and that my denial is likely self-serving and bogus, then he would not be lying.
That’s a bit out of scope here, as we’ve not been discussing the likelihood that Bricker’s claim about Lobohan is true.
But FWIW, I would think it varies by situation and the observer would have to make his or her own determination as to what non-denial means.
Quite possible. But it would hardly be unique, would it?
That’s generous of you, interpreting it in his favour when you have no real reason to.
Oh, I figured it takes a positive decision to presume the claim was true, and if it was repeated with no evidence in support or any indication evidence would ever be presented in support, I’d be okay with calling it likely false.
No, but… so? If Bricker’s a liar in a sea of liars, that doesn’t make him less of a liar, just less of a standout.
I feel deeply sorry for people who have to deal with this kind of behavior in real life. Your post makes me wonder if you act this way toward others in person.
Not only yes, but hell yes.
To be fair, he did concede that it was “probably not true.”
Mighty white of him, to be sure.
Thanks for the illuminating insight into right-wing communication. It does explain a lot.
Is there some code we need to determine when a right-winger is deliberately spouting falsehoods and intends us to know they’re false? In face-to-face talk maybe there’s an eye-wink, but we’re text-only here.
The simplest strategy – ignoring that which is obviously false – makes the (obviously wrong) assumption that there’s agreement about truth and certainty, and would stifle the very purpose of debate or ignorance-fighting.
Yeah, it looks to me like a piece of defamatory slander -bullshit in other words- that should be clarified or retracted.* But I might be wrong, as I only read Lobodon’s quotes.
How would you characterize it? Projection maybe? Bricker asserted that Lobodon loved certain behavior by the Massachusetts assembly. When asked for proof he said that Lobodon didn’t attack them for something they did. Which is pretty specious. Especially since Bricker himself doesn’t spend pages and pages attacking conservatives. Like me, he pats himself on the back on the basis of a couple of posts attacking his own side.
I welcome clarification - I haven’t read the relevant threads and I can understand how things might get heated when the pages number in the hundreds (no exaggeration).
Two differences. Firstly, obviously Feinstein isn’t a member here. But set that aside: this is the pit. When you mouth off with a piece of bullshit, you should clarify. Especially given the fact that Bricker’s shtick here for some reason involves constant, somewhat tedious and often dubious complaints about liberal hypocrisy. A reader who trusted Bricker’s words might think that he had a real example in mind. Except he didn’t. And he wouldn’t quite admit it.
Not especially honorable. I guess if you want to keep somebody in a ditch, you have to climb in the ditch with him. To be fair, extenuating circumstances involve the fact that his bullshit claim was buried in a bizillion post thread in the pit.
Hm. I have taunted here without regrets. I think Ralph Nader was the target. I also posted a fundi parody yesterday. But when called on it I characterized it as such.
(my bold)
That’s fine - but you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. A lie to me needs to be knowingly false with an intent to deceive. That’s determined from the speaker, not folks who are listening. Other people may use a different definition but that’s where I’m coming from.
Asserting someone’s state of mind is always tricky. When doing so, especially given that phrasing, ‘you love it’, there is no intent to deceive anyone. I read it as mockery. It’s ad absurd distortion of reality to make fun of or taunt someone. And months later Lobohan brings it up at every opportunity so I’d say it worked. Do you honestly believe that anyone would be slightly persuaded by the declaration without support that Lobohan 'loved something’? Who is going to be convinced, especially in that thread? Also consider it’s right in the midst of the Andy Kaufman-esque change in tone of posting that spawned this very thread.
Only reading one half of an exchange isn’t the best way to interpret it. I characterize it as mockery. Consider how Bricker generally responds to factual statements - he can support them. Folks may disagree with the relative utility of various positions, but on matters of fact statements aren’t made that aren’t supported it. Contrast that with his terse sentence saying that Lobohan 'loved something’. The intent isn’t to deceive - it’s to make fun of.
I get that folks want to search and nitpick for things to attack. Go for it, I think that’s all I’ll say on this topic.
Actually, I think there was intent to deceive. The underlying accusation was one of hypocrisy, and Bricker was intending to call Lobohan a hypocrite using this case as an example. What he said was knowingly false. He said it in an intent to deceive people into considering Lobohan a hypocrite.
The reason I said I looked at it from Lobohan’s perspective is because, when I wasn’t considering it from his perspective, I thought it was too trivial to worry about. But I don’t much like being called a hypocrite or a liar (unless it’s by someone as totally weird about the accusation as F-P always is, and even then the irritation is supplemented by, not replaced by, amusement). What seemed too trivial to deal with, when seen from my perspective, becomes really annoying when seen from Lobohan’s.
Was Bricker just trying to be annoying? Probably, and that’s not incredibly noble either. But the way he was trying to be annoying was by lying about Lobohan, and that counts as a lie.
Well, a lie doesn’t stop being a lie just because it is implausible.
I suppose if we want to go all taffy on definitions, if Bricker believed he was engaging in debate with that “you loved it” crap, at the very least he was lying to himself.