So, does anyone on septimus’ side of the ideological divide want to address the logic and fairness of this post? iiiandyiii?
Have you even met this forum?
Hey, Bricker, how about addressing this? It seem accurate to you?
Well, there’s the time you accepted that “some” Republicans had…less than totally honorable…intentions in this voter fraud fiasco. Of course, you pretty much had to since the court decision you were so proud of mentions that very fact.
Seemed at one point your self-restraint might weaken, and you were going to burst forth with a “tsk-tsk!” on such unseemly behavior, but then you recovered your composure.
Why draw attention to it? It’s litter.
Success!
But of course no one is seriously making that claim.
Democrats use political power for partisan ends. Democrats HAVE used political power for partisan ends. Democrats WILL use political power for partisan ends. Significant numbers of Democratic politicians are corrupt scumbags. However, none of that makes voter ID laws any more or less scummy and antidemocratic, and the fact that Democrats use political power for partisan ends doesn’t necessarily mean that they do so AS MUCH as Republicans in the modern era, nor does it mean that they automatically have or would done something that is closely analogous to voter ID laws, just because of some mysterious principle of partisan balance.
Which part of it specifically? I’m not quite sure what he’s saying about inkblots. I do agree that a reasonable number of your posts in the voter ID thread can be described fairly as “neener neener”, but I’m not sure it would qualify as “most”. I agree that you have condemned voter ID laws being implemented with short notice, but I’m not sure one way or the other whether you’ve actively condemned in practice actual examples of that.
Incidentally, if the neenery is crowing that a legislature legally did what legislatures do, then why isn’t Bricker neenering over what the Massachusetts legislature did?
Totally different. The Massachusetts Massacre was acting to favor a political party, the use of voter ID was acting to favor a political party.
There are other minor differences, the MM was a one time deal, and abusing voter ID to suppress voters has no set expiration date. And the MM was one state, and the other was a wherever the Republicans felt they could get away with it. Piddling distinctions, really. Hardly worth mentioning.
And here we go.
This is certainly the most rigorous standard I’d have to meet, eh? It’s okay to say that anything can be found in my posts, because who knows what that means?
But sure: “Can you point to even a single pro-GOP voter suppression program which passed judicial scrutiny that Bricker condemned as partisan?”
As you point out, I have condemned short-fuse programs implemented without enough time to get the program rolled out, even when such programs have been approved by the judiciary. I’ve done so numerous times. You remember it.
FWIW, I can’t comment in general on that thread, since I didn’t follow it and have only looked at specific posts that Lobohan linked to (and briefly skimmed the 3-4 or so pages they appeared in). But in the past I have seen you criticize actions taken by Republicans when you think they’re wrong.
I think you’re dreadfully wrong on the voter suppression laws that are cropping up across our country. I think you’re wrong both on the primary intention behind them and on the real-world consequences these laws have. I think you’re wrong on your underlying philosophy about what makes for a strong and just democracy.
But I don’t think that you’re a hypocrite. I think that your neener neener posts are motivated by some very sincerely held wrong beliefs. And when Republicans do something that runs counter to those sincerely held wrong beliefs, you criticize them for it.
And to finish this thought: there was a concerted effort to get to me acknowledge that what I said about Lobohan and Bryan Ekers “loving” the Mass action was factually incorrect.
Will there be one-tenth that effort to get septimus to acknowledge what he said was factually wrong?
Thank you. I obviously don’t think I’m wrong, but I certainly acknowledge that this is a matter on which reasonable people may differ. But I sincerely and deeply appreciate what you’ve said here. I am consistent in my standards, wrong though they may be.
Concerted effort? I just asked.
But anyway, let’s assume the situations are analogous and there isn’t one-tenth or even one-thousandth as much effort.
So what?
So: that choice is inconsistent with a claim to “fight ignorance,” and is the kind of behavior my lampooning was designed to highlight. When people simply ignore bad arguments from their side, and demand exacting adherence to good argument from the opposing side, that fosters ignorance instead of fighting it. It creates an environment in which poor argument thrives as long as it supports one side.
And I can’t understand why you’d say “So what?” if you’ve read all of THIS thread.
Just to be clear, precisely what do you think was factually wrong?
Okay, let’s say it fosters ignorance.
So what? Does that somehow morph into evidence for the position the bad arguments are trying to combat?
I will cheerfully and unreservedly admit that I have not. I’ve read the parts that involve me and skimmed with rest with variable retention or interest.
If I may, septimus is ascribing certain beliefs to Bricker, just as Bricker ascribed them to Lobohan (and me, to a much lesser extent) in part, I suspect, to bolster an accusation of hypocrisy or something.
In fairness, if Bricker denies holding those beliefs and there are no specific statements of his which indicate otherwise, septimus’s claim can be reasonably dismissed.
By the way, can that count as a one-tenth effort? It’s my understand that score is being kept.
I’m not sure if his accusation about a “a single pro-GOP voter suppression program” is accurate or not. As for the “pretends to be reasonable” and the “neener neener neener” stuff I’ve definitely seen the latter from you (which is not that big a deal, and I’ve probably done it too, not that it’s an actual argument) and for the former, I’ve seen you both be reasonable and be unreasonable, IMO.
But these are specific accusations against one person (you), not sweeping accusations of the type I’ve criticized. It’s quite difficult to verify whether someone’s individual accusations are accurate, but sweeping insults about massive groups are pretty much never accurate.