Discussion doesn’t = “bobbing and weaving”. There was more than one reason I made those posts – and a big part was, in fact, what I believed (and you agreed) that the slip-up might have revealed.
It wasn’t a distortion, because I didn’t say that it was intentional. I freely admitted that it was an unintentional (but revealing) comparison.
Yes, a comparison (even inadvertently!) of people to cockroaches is a racist comparison. An inadvertently racist (but perhaps revealing) comparison.
So what? It wasn’t dishonest, and it wasn’t a distortion. It was mockery. Gleeful mockery.
“came up with the idea”… LOL. It was a discussion. Things are discussed, and not everything sticks exactly to the first points that were made. There are often other points to be made later, when appropriate. And you agreed with this post – that such slip ups might be revealing.
Yes, I made a joke based on my opinion of your posts at the time. Perhaps my joke wasn’t a fact-based joke… maybe it was even a bad joke! The horror.
I think your opinion about this is based on bullshit and is complete bullshit. Further, my criticism in this Pit thread is not about the “classic liberals” post – it’s criticism of the fact that Bricker straight up admitted he plans to post things that are “clearly and utterly unreasonable” as a tactic because he thinks it is effective.
Since that’s not my experience of Bricker’s posts, I probably won’t be convinced without some cites.
Since you asked Fotheringay-Phipps for cites, I think it’s fair to ask the same of you. But as I’ve noted, if the opponents are just using mockery for their arguments, I don’t think Bricker should be required to address arguments, so I’d have to see it in context.
Well I think it’s completely on target. But I’m not inclined to keep arguing about it, and as it’s been linked, in the event that anyone else has enough interest they can read it themselves and form their own opinion.
These are not two separate things. The things he’s conceding are “clearly and utterly unreasonable” and which he intends to keep doing are the generalizations about “classic liberals”.
I’d like to believe that BobLibDem is not self-aware enough to realize how stupid what he just posted is. Bricker admitted full well that what he said was stupid, and he knows it. He knows better. He’s just going to keep doing it, because, well, fuck rational discourse, I have partisan sniping to do! :rolleyes:
This seems like a ridiculous assertion to me. If I say “People are running around like cockroaches out there”, where is the racism and what race am I showing bias against? :dubious:
Why should iiandyii have to defend all liberals (or excoriate them), when all you have to do is defend (or excoriate) yourself?
Why don’t you defend or scold all conservatives? When you are done addressing every instance of your side doing whatever you don’t like the other side doing, let us know.
As a minor suggestion, can we dispense with this “side” bullshit? Nobody should be held responsible for or be expected to defend or detract what other people say, even if they are ostensibly in agreement. It’s cheap and lazy to respond to the arguments of Poster A by asking why they don’t criticize Poster B, who might agree with Poster A on the specific issue but presented an argument that was flawed and/or snarkful.
Bricker was presented with so many good reasons against his position that his only counterattack was to try to turn the people giving those reasons against each other, then resorting to childish insult when they didn’t play along, and then started claiming childish insult was fine, when he did it it in response to the childish insults he was receiving. Grow a thicker skin or stay in GD.
The thing about admitting when you’re doing something childish is that the admission doesn’t make your action any less childish, though you can try to play the “I’m being all meta and ironical” card, for what that’s worth, and Bricker’s not good at it.
At one time, that was true. The Republican Party has been taken over by the truly batshit crazy. They would gladly destroy the nation as long as they get to rule the smoldering embers. How much evidence is needed? They refuse to allow action on global warming because their corporate masters might pull their money. No matter how many concessions they got, they could not muster a single vote for health care reform. They shamelessly want to rig elections so they end up victorious. When the sane faction regains control of the party, I’ll change my mind. Gerry Ford was an honorable man, so was Bob Dole. Even Ronald fucking Reagan had glimmers of humanity. Today’s GOP, not so much. Show me some bipartisanship- show me some caring about the average American and I’ll gladly change my mind about Republicans. I might even go back to splitting my ticket. But right now- no way.
Hm. I would respectfully suggest to Bricker that if (hypothetically) he is piled on by Lobohan, snaps, then calls BobLibDem a liar for lesser sins, then Bricker,
a) is practicing bad form,
b) is unhinged, which
c) is bad form.
I’m not sure my interpretation is correct as I only read one page of the linked thread. Generally speaking though, I’d say rhetorical nonsense needs to be properly calibrated in all forums. Otherwise a, b and c. Sadly, I agree that rhetorical nonsense has its place here and there, though it’s often best deployed with humor.
BTW, although it likes to phrase its opinions in the form of “clever” Socratic questions, it seems to come down on the side of the cops who murdered a black boy for playing with a toy:
What is with this fucked up reasoning of yours? You’re not a stupid guy. You argue that the tactic is wrong, and that people should repudiate it when it’s done “on their side.” Guess what? That means it’s wrong when you do it, too. You cannot have it both ways.
And, no, it’s not an effective technique when dealing with a hostile audience. How are you a lawyer who doesn’t know that you have to argue differently with people who generally agree with you and people who disagree with you completely?
Have you ever been convinced by someone saying that “all conservatives do this horrible thing”? Why would you expect the same thing to work on a liberal message board?
What it boils down to is that you do something you admit is wrong, but, when you do it, you have an excuse. It’s the very basic special pleading of “It’s okay when I do it.” It’s total bullshit.
Pretty much the only time I don’t take you seriously is when you pull this “all liberals” bullshit. Because then I know sane Bricker has left the building, and we’re dealing with angry political Bricker whose rationality and morals take a back seat to bashing liberals.
When someone is saying black people are inherently less intelligent than white people, and one says that we can use the same logic that tells us that cockroaches are inherently less intelligent to state that black people are inherently less intelligent, then I think the comparison is a racist one. Even if the comparison is inadvertent.
And I’m pitting him about admitting he intends to post things that are “clearly and utterly unreasonable”. The generalizations themselves are so common to not be pitworthy, IMO – it’s just the open admitting that it’s crap, and he intends to keep posting crap, that’s pitworthy.