There are people in a conversation who actually listen and those who are just waiting to say something.
I figure he already “knows” what most cites will say (it will agree with him, naturally!) and doesn’t actually bother reading them. Just takes the first likely link off a Google search.
And we already know most people don’t really learn. A few might get more cautious, but most wander blindly through life stepping on every rake they (don’t) see in front of them
Most likely, they assume that the authority and sincerity of their post will come through, and people will take it at face value because of it. Somehow the truth will be self-evident. Also, in all likelihood they blab to people in-person about this shit constantly, and those people just nod along or otherwise don’t push back (for whatever reason) so they expect folks to do the same here. I don’t think it requires any kind of psychoanalysis to determine why they persist in this behavior; it seems not only easy to understand, but more common than not in online discussions (even more so when not on the internet).
Basically, it’s this place that’s weird; being skeptical of unusual claims, holding people to a certain standard, and requiring evidence. Most places aren’t like that.
But going back to what @Joey_P said, most people change after being called out a number of times. He never has changed.
I laughed out loud a this.
I suspect he just looks for something in his cite that looks like it agrees with him. He seems to have a stronger than average confirmation bias.
Most people who stick around here do, sure.
But in general? Most people really don’t. The ones who show up here flounce, denounce the echo chamber, etc. Somehow he avoided that path, to our joy
I think that’s the point… The culture on this board is “show your work”. It’s supposed to be a place fighting ignorance, and so you want to back your assertions up with something legitimate rather than just your own facts. And therefore, you either do so or you aren’t going to fit here. Somehow, he has both refused to go along with one of the most defining features of this community, and stuck around. It’s no wonder he has had so much friction. When that square peg is constantly being pounded into a round hole, it is a frequent source of disruption.
DrDeth is the kind of person you don’t want to have on your side in any debate.
And somehow neither the hole nor the peg ever changes shape.
A most minor defense, but DD has evolved (in a good way IMHO) on his perceptions regarding firearms at least, or at least, he’s far less absolutist about regulation.
I think he’s capable of improving, but he has a tendency to backslide, which gets far worse when he’s challenged.
And he’s far from alone in that particular trait. I’ll cop to it as well from time to time.
Which is why he misinterprets a sentence about a hypothesis about Proto-IndoEuropean into his assertion that PIE is just a hypothesis
Now he’s jumped into the pulled-back hairstyle thread, made an ignorant misogynist comment about certain hairstyles as a sure sign of stupidity, and has since been alternating between triangulating to try to cover his tracks, or doubling down on his ignorant aggressive position.
So tiresome.
https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pulled-back-hairstyle-why-is-it-popular/1029552.
And he started another Hiroshima debate less than a year after it was hashed out last time.
As @LSLGuy asks, do we really need to do this again so soon?
And what is a Pacific War thread without him dragging his dad in?
He says that perhaps the bombs saved his father’s life, which is quite unlikely since, according to his own account, his dad was a pool typist in headquarters.
I haven’t seen any definitive records of casualty rates of pool typists, but my WAG is that they are somewhat less then the men who stormed the beaches.
Can you prove that his father wouldn’t have been pulled from the pool of typists to go behind enemy lines with a squad of US Army Rangers to rescue a paratrooper if the invasion of Japan had gone forward?
You have me there, with the added bonus that your story is actually more plausible than the accounts he claims are true.
It should definitely violate board rules to use the phrase “mind you” as often as he does.
Good point.
Ah, you just said “mind you”! Oh no, now I’ve said “mind you”! Ah, I’ve said “mind you again”!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!
For one paper while I was at university, I was required to make a citation for one short sentence I translated myself. That was citing my current work, to wit: the very paper I was submitting, mind you!
Edited to add “mind you” just for fun!
I concur.
I dont