Because if you believe it’s wrong, you shouldn’t be doing it.
Or if you do, live with possibility that I will lose all respect for your supposed intellectual and moral qualities, for what that’s worth. Possibly others will have similar reactions, but I can only speak for myself.
When I wrote “can” I meant “can reasonably”. I would have thought this was self-evident, though not for everyone.
This misses the point. The point was that once the “side” dynamic already exists, then it’s not reasonable to expect it to be ignored for purposes of one specific aspect.
I’m not sure what the “likely benefit” part means, and this whole thing is not my issue altogether.
But if if you want to introduce “likely benefits” angle, I would note that your position is perfectly aligned with the interests of fellow-travelling wannabes.
He’s been doing this crap for almost a decade now. This behavior of his isn’t anything new for Bricker, he’s been rolling around in the slop heap for years. If you didn’t already lose all respect for him, you simply haven’t been paying attention. While he can still contribute to the board, his noise to signal ratio has rocketed up, and a vast majority of times, it’s simply not worth it. He’d rather sling crap with Hentor or Elvis than control his temper and stay above the fray. He’s left the high road a long fucking time ago.
If something is wrong, should those who agree with you do it? If something is wrong, should you object when someone who disagrees with you does it?
Regards,
Shodan
Eh, this is bullshit.
If Bricker shows up to a fight against a given poster expecting the Marquess de Queensberry rules while said poster shows up with a mob of others who are weilding pitchforks, torches and buckets of pig shit, I wouldn’t lose a drop of respect if he drops the gloves and starts flinging shit back.
They’re adults; they can do what they want and face the consequences, just like Bricker.
I feel no obligation to do so and anyone who suggests I should so feel can risk earning my scorn and contempt, if that matters to them and I have no reasonable expectation that it should. Bricker found an excuse to ignore valid arguments by claiming some of the arguers were being mean and other arguers were being just as mean by not talking about how mean the first set of arguers were. Crybaby bullshit.
Bricker’s been here long enough to know how the Pit works. He’s abandoned perfectly good GD threads to go TO the Pit. If he showed up with the expectations you described, he’d be an idiot and you might consider apologizing for implying such.
Or don’t, because he is pretty idiotic at times.
Then what is your complaint if he knows what he is expecting and then acts according to what he expects?
if he expects pitchforks, torches and buckets of shit, what is your complaint if he shows with a sow of diarhettic proportions?
Like button.
You did do that, with Bricker. You do it again below -
If you feel contempt for those who suggest you should object to this coming from someone with whom you disagree, why are you objecting to this coming from someone with whom you disagree?
I have a feeling you may have not read the question -
Regards,
Shodan
My issue is that not everyone Bricker disagrees with has those pitchforks and torches. There are more than enough thoughtful responses and actual points being made, but Bricker tends to ignore those, and, instead, simply jumps into the flinging shit. He chooses who he responds to, and, by and large, he’d rather spend a couple hours being Morton Downey Jr. (yeah, I’m old) instead of William F. Buckley (see what I mean? Old). So the intelligent part of the discussion gets ignored, in favor of trading barbs with Hentor or Elvis, or whoever he thinks he can get the best of. And then, after engaging in it for years, he still bitches about it.
Can you please cite my supposed lies?
Note that you have repeatedly lied about my position on the Mass legislature flipping who assigns replacement senators, and when asked why changed the subject.
That’s a fair point, I spose, but in the threads I personally have seen, those are very rare threads indeed and any thoughtful documented, informed response he gives is usually met with derision, pig shit and “Yeah, that’s what I would expect from the evil mentally ill conservatives. Just like Bricker. Fucking Cat’lics.” The OP is one of them.
Seems pointless to go through the effort of putting in the time and effort that I have seem from him for the sideswipes and horseshit from **'Luci **and Septimus and Bob. He’s gotta trawl through all of that to find one half a sentence of legible legitmate point clarification? Fuck that. He’s got more patience than I do.
I’m on a mobile device this week, so cites might have to wait. If you want context though, I’d suggest going into the voter ID thread and reading a few pages. It runs in cycles.
So then the tactic worked? I don’t agree with the tactic myself, but it’s clearly an elevated attempt to illustrate hypocrisy.
Consider that you’ve stated you post here focusing on those that disagree because it’s more interesting. You’re not the only one that expressed that sentiment. Great - no problem with that. But if you want people who disagree to post, an environment has to exist so that they want to participate. Do you think an environment where there are a minority but vocal contingent of folks who continually make poor arguments that go unhindered in any way is condusive to that? If we’re having a conversation and everytime I try to speak, our unruly children start shouting nonesense so loud it causes headaches but are silent when you speak, wouldn’t it be more productive if we went somewhere that didn’t happen, or we both made an effort to quiet down the children?
Bryan says he had no obligation or inclination to object when folks who share his positions make collosally poor arguments. I agree, there is no obligation to do so. This is like how people pick up litter in their neighborhood to make the place nicer for everyone - they don’t have to and have no obligation to do so. It does make the place more pleasant though.
Everyone has limited time, chooses to respond to what is interesting to them, and has no obligation to self or community police by calling out poor arguments. It’s nice when we all pick up litter though.
2 observations.
[ol]
[li]I don’t think this is unique to Bricker. You’ll notice that a lot of the higher decibel posters get constantly accused of “derailing” threads, and this is because it’s SOP for them to attract a disproportionate amount of the responses to threads.[/li][li]More significantly, you’re ignoring the extent to which even a minority with pitchforks and torches can change the dynamic of the entire discussion, and weigh it in favor of their side, especially when more thoughtful allies on their side provide some intellectual heft. The more thoughtful responders benefit twice, both from having their opponents denigrated and again by themselves appearing all the more thoughtful for not engaging in it themselves.[/li][/ol]
I have no complaint whatsoever to with him bringing a sow to a torch fight. If he insists on whining that the torch-bearers should be torching each other, then he earns ridicule.
From me, at least. I don’t presume to speak for others.
Then I would submit the OP should earn the same ridicule…
I would agree with you there, but previously you said:
I offered you a statement that compared people to cockroaches, and asked for the racism to be pointed out. I see that you didn’t directly respond to that.
YEAH! Or, whatever, I don’t understand the question.
Oh, I read it. There should be a clarification of what “should” means, though:
SHOULD I recognize a bullshit argument when I see one, even if it’s ostensibly in support of something I agree with? Absolutely.
SHOULD I feel an obligation to publicly comment on the bullshit argument? Fuck, no. Life’s too short.
SHOULD I take seriously any suggestion that my arguments or position is weakened because I did not comment, as described above? Fuck, no, and the person suggesting such earns my contempt.