Yeah, see, here’s the thing: recognizing and admitting it is only an improvement if you stop doing it. I think less of Bricker than BobLibDem. Bricker may be smart enough to realize that what he’s saying is fucking retarded, but this intelligence merely pushes him into abject dishonesty.
If being smart and having morals puts you at a disadvantage in a game, how smart are you to continue playing with intelligence and integrity?
Who said it was a disadvantage?
Depends on the game, doesn’t it? It doesn’t always work all that well in the monkey flinging poo game.
Your Canadian is showing.
At some point in these discussions you have to zoom back and realize why you even post your opinions on the internet at all. You have to be a little narcissistic to think your opinions matter and that other people should read them.
So, to what extent does “it works” even mean? Convincing others of your view and bringing about social harmony? Ha! No. Entertaining yourself at the expense of others? Being lazy? Maybe entertaining others who agree with you, so it’s a bit of performance art? Maybe. Trolling is a perfectly cromulent use of your time.
I can’t help it, it’s deeply ingrained.
Anyhoo, so let’s assume there’s an ongoing poo-flinging contest. Bricker’s position is that his involvement in same is an act of intellectual integrity in defense of the conservative viewpoint.
Sure, pal, whatever helps you sleep at night.
I’m referring, of course, to the bolded part above. 
I second the OP, and think BigT’s post sums things up pretty well.
Not that it would actually be a justification, but: just who are these people for whom trite, offensive, overly-broad partisan smears “work”? Liberals, people who disagree with Bricker? Of course not – at best they’re offended, more likely simply dismissive. Conservatives? Well, one might get an extra attaboy from Shodan or something, but I hardly see what the use is. Does Bricker imagine that there’s a vast audience of silent, undecided lurkers who are waiting to be persuaded? Well, first of all, no there usually isn’t (and certainly not in that fucking Voter ID thread), and, second, do we think they’re liable to be convinced by our stupidest posts? “Gee, I guess liberals really do hate due process; I never of thought of it like that.”
It would be less annoying if Bricker would drop the pretense of tactical stupidity. It’s unpleasant to be on the receiving end of stupid insults, and it’s satisfying to respond to them with stupid insults of one’s own. That’s all that’s going on here.
Oh, and, needless to say, people should not be making stupid insults about Bricker or conservatives. Post #15 was fucking idiotic, for example. I just don’t think BobLibDem knows it’s idiotic, nor do I see any prospect of convincing him.
I agree. In fact, I’m feeling inspired to be a better poster – from now on, I will make more of an effort to criticize sweeping posts that malign all people who are conservative or vote Republican (or similar).
You’re always good for a laugh.
Always a pleasure, speedy. I’ll keep calling them as I see them.
But this is a broader issue than this one narrow point, and I don’t think you can dispense with the “side” stuff just WRT this specific aspect.
There are quite a lot of people who do view these discussions in terms of broad battles between themselves and their allies against the other team. You encounter it a lot when posters try to score points based on the ostensible agreement to their specific positions from the mass of posters in the thread who have posted in support of their “side” but who have (mostly) not addressed their specific sub-point at all. Or when people speak and interpret in the name of all the posters on their “side”, as in “we’ve been saying …”, when in reality different people have or may have different nuanced views on the subject.
And I think that attitude matters, when discussing why A criticized B but didn’t criticize C, or the like.
FWIW, IIRC, the OP of this thread is very much a team player, but I could be wrong.
I can point to many instances of my correcting or scolding conservatives on this board.
Why not?
Why can’t I say, “It’s wrong, even when I do it.”
“Dishes it,” refers to your dishing out a complaint to me about my unfairly grouping all liberals together.
Which you have done in the very OP that starts this thread.
Yes, I should adopt the liberal tactic and lie about it, claiming my arguments are pristine?
(See what I did there? That’s not the liberal tactic. That’s the Lobohan tactic, the elucidator tactic, the BobLibDem tactic. But they receive scant criticism for their continued use of the tactic; why should I be denied it?)
Not every tactical purpose involves persuading people of things.
I don’t specifically endorse posting things which are not true, but in general, the purpose of snarky remarks is not to convince other people of one’s correctness but other tactical ends (which can vary). And “trite, offensive, overly-broad partisan smears” are just a subset of snark and their purpose would be along the same lines.
If you’re attacking snark in general that’s beyond the scope of this thread. (The OP, for example, is an unabashed snark enthusiast, as noted earlier - this thread is just about unreasonable statements.)
And do you make room for the possibility that if you react this way, others might as well?
Watch me.
Sure, if that floats their boats. If they want to score points by demanding the various “teams” police themselves, let them try. It’s a crybaby tactic to use when one has run out of arguments and I’ve no problem calling it such, especially on a message board where the stakes are so low as to be meaningless.
I recognize that it matters to you, or that at least you see a likely benefit in claiming it does. That’s as civil a response as I can muster.