Paper Tube Fans.
For you it doesn’t. But again, you’re very stupid. YOu don’t get the fact that I was specifically NOT covering for myself.
The “not covering for yourself” was supposed to be the joke part.
For fuck’s sake.
Finally one thing we agree about.
Something to do with one of his possible chilhood idols?
Say Rick, just wondering, any opinions on Trujillo? Or would you rather plead the Fifth?
I’d understand.
How is this even a fucking discussion? We don’t hold a lion accountable for murder. If someone does something wrong and knows that it’s wrong, then they rightfully deserve to be treated more harshly than someone who does something wrong and doesn’t fucking get it.
Case in point: Bricker and Der Trihs. Der Trihs is a moron who doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand that painting all republicans with the “evil” brush is wrong. It’s unfortunate that he posts the crap he does. But you know what? He’s apparently mentally retarded, so we give him a little more leeway. Bricker, on the other hand, knows that it’s fucked. He’s not a fucking retard. He just opts to act like one. No clue why.
I got the joke. It was funny.
Oh lord. Funny? I don’t know I’d even go that far. It was kind of a throwaway line meant mostly to amuse myself. In any case, by now whatever humor it may have had is as dead as FP’s sense of proportion, Shodan’s sense of irony, or the Democratic party’s sense of moral fiber.
Next time you see a thread in which someone does some hypocrisy-hunting and you think it actually resulted in useful communication, post about it in this thread and we can discuss it.
It’s also worth pointing out that of course context and tone matter. Part of what irritated me about Bricker’s bringing up the MA Senate stuff was that he didn’t say “hey, but this seems awfully similar to this other situation… can you explain what the differences are?”. Instead he went straight to “well, we know you guys didn’t complain about the MA Senate stuff, so clearly you’re hypocrites” (probably exaggerated). To the extent that there is benefit to be found in hypocrisy-hunting (for the various reasons you explained or for others), you can still choose to be polite and inquisitive as opposed to being accusatory and confrontational. Again, I don’t mean this to be scoldy, “how dare you raise your voice in anger in the civilized confines of the SDMB”. I’m just saying, think about what your actual objective is in the debate you are in, and consider what type of interaction is actually going to help you achieve that objective, rather than just giving you the giddy thrill of pissing off the people you disagree with.
You say, like, let him without sin cast the first stone, and look over and Bricker’s got a rock in each hand and is figuring the range…
Just to be clear, Der Trihs is hardly the only poster here who does that. It’s actually pretty common.
nm
I don’t know if “resulted in useful communication” is the proper standard. If the hypocrisy-hunting made a valid point in context and/or offset misleading connotations etc., then that’s a positive in my book, even if it didn’t subsequently result in further useful communication.
Again, I’ve not really read that thread, and don’t know what the original tone was and what Bricker’s was (& you yourself were unclear on this issue earlier on). But if there was a frank and cordial exchange of ideas taking place and Bricker derailed the discussion by saying “you guys are all just a bunch of hypocrites”, then I agree with you. But if even before that issue was brought up it was already the typical “Republicans suck!!” discussion suggested by the thread title, then I disagree and think that tone would be appropriate.
Sure, and if that happens, let me know.
It’s not like the thread was perfect and then became terrible. But I’d say the thread was already bad and then became worse (although this issue was brought up several times over the course of the multi-year thread, so to be really fair you’d have to analyze each instance separately…)