Ok, first of all bundling the humorist elucidator in that list signals horsepucky. I’m not saying that humorists can’t be criticized: they can. But you apply a different sort of analysis to P.J O’Rourke than you do to Bill O’Reilly.
Secondly, I’d like to see some examples of clearly unreasonable and nonsatirical posts. I think it’s pretty obvious that’s a terrible thing to aspire to, even in the pit. What you want is subtlety and utterly unreasonable posts in this forum. Or (more likely) preposterously and utterly unreasonable. Those are far better approaches, and I trust you can find examples. We’re here to fight ignorance and one way of doing that is to cultivate and encourage critical thinking in the reader. The crude techniques evident in Bricker’s post above only succeed in shocking delicate sensibilities and dismaying idealists.
I hear you. But I’m not sure I agree. elucidator’s schtick is to debate in earnest until he’s trapped, and then retreat to a, “Gee, Hoss, I’m just a burned-out sixties conservative wing of the extreme left guy,” parry of why-are-you-taking-me-seriously.
That’s humorist-as-defense-against-argument, not humorist qua humorist.
The “good for a laugh” posturing tends to be undercut by the evident need to constantly reiterate it, and especially when the pose is also occasionally dropped in frustration.
But again, he seems to do it here. At least as far as I’ve noticed, he doesn’t seem to have problems interacting with people, other than to the extent that this is affected by the expression of his views.
And here too, I would suggest that the way a person relates to others who are the epitome of evil will vary based on whether those evil people are a few people who can be avoided or they are pretty much all over the place. So it would be a mistake to project how a person in the latter situation would deal with it based on how a person in the former situation would.
I agree with the second paragraph, but not the first. I see the “Gee, Hoss …” stuff right out of the gate. I don’t think he’s a rigorous thinker to begin with - just a guy with pronounced left-wing tendencies, who picks up random ideas on left-wing blogs and media and can express them colorfully here.
Since I’ve been inspired to try and do a better job on this, including criticizing such sweeping statements about conservatives in this thread, might you feel a little inspiration to not make such sweeping statements (or any other “clearly and utterly unreasonable” statements) about liberals?
Think of it more like dad humor: you’re a once-funny joke that I keep re-telling. Fortunately you keep making hilariously inept analyses of my motives, so you keep writing fresh material.
I think everybody should agree that they enjoy posting. Because if you aren’t enjoying it, and you keep doing it, there is something seriously wrong with you.
This right here, this is classic Bricker. You start out by declaring your open-mindedness, offering your boney fidos. Then, in the very next sentence, you declare the opposite.
Be like if I answered someone who remarked how liberal and open you were, and I respond:
“Not quite correct, when you consider that he is a constipated conservative with authoritarian instincts and a crypto-facist mindset, Steophan with a law degree…”
You’ve a mind like a steel trap, Counselor, but a steel trap is designed for injury. Perhaps when it is rusted shut it is improved, in which case you are to be congratulated.
Just noticed: Bricker, on why he doesn’t disown the nuttiness of fellow conservative Starving Artist:
Bricker’s entire complaint is based on a lie - if he doesn’t “own” Starving Artist and thus cannot “disown” him, he has no basis to demand that the people he calls “liberals” disown other “liberals.” I take this an an admission of his knowing deceit on the matter and figure the issue (at least as far as Bricker is concerned - I suppose we could debate how/if one’s political peers should be policed as a general concept) is closed on that basis.
ISTM there’s a difference in this regard between disowning a poster and disowning the tactics being used by posters on your side in a specific debate (in which you’re participating).