Exactly this. I think his primary flaw is that he is constitutionally unable to ever admit that anything he says was wrong, so when confronted with some obvious flaw with what he said he will make something up out of whole cloth to prove that he was right, which is likely even more flawed, but which he will also defend to the death with some new even more outlandish explanation that he will defend to the death.
So a claim that Hillary ignored the attack on BenGazi, morphs into a claim that the airforce can put together a rescue operation at a moments notice which morphs into a claim that dropping motorcycles out of airplane is a good idea.
Or a claim that a protester being nearly run over than then beat up is a good thing, morphs into a claim that an umbrella is a more dangerous weapon than a car, which morphs into a claim that when someone is threatening you with an umbrella its safer to get out of the car and confront him rather than drive away, because he might have a gun.
The problem is, in order to foil Martingale systems casinos put table limits into place. There isn’t anything similar in the general world so they can double-down indefinitely.
This is how we segue from JFK Jr. showing up at a rally to announce he’s going to be T****'s running mate in 2024 to his old man announcing it at a Rolling Stones concert when Keith Richards 'fesses up.
You left out the one I am finding more and more prevalent among conservatives: Childishness.
“Why aren’t you playing fair? Why do I have to be good? I’ve been good so long, I’m sick of it! I’m tired of doing what you say, we’re doing what I say! It’s my turn to win. You’re cheating.”
All dressed up slightly, but the same arguments you’d get from an 8 year old.
After reading the “Immunity after getting COVID should fulfill vaccine requirements” thread I tend to think it is mainly #1. He is really coming off as painfully stupid.
Yes Aspenglow, that one’s way up there, I should have absolutely included it, but by the time I had typed the ones included I already needed a drink. Thanks for adding another of the key ones.
The first two are definitely there, and based on Harlon’s razor I tend to avoid accusations of trolling unless the evidence is extremely strong. But this would describe any garden variety idiot. Magiver is
But what really distinguishes Magiver from the general crop of idiots is a combination of stubborness, ego and confirmation bias, that make him constitutionally incapable of ever admitting he was an in error or dropping the argument.
Most posters when confronted with posts that utterly destroy their argument will either
Admit that they were wrong (very rare)
Slink off with their tail between their legs (more common)
or
ignore the problematic posts and keep repeating the same argument (alas too common)
Magiver on the other hand, will to his somewhat credit not ignore the post but will instead come up with an even more error filled idea (motorcycles from helicopters) that will somehow justify that despite the obvious evidence against him he is still right.
