Why the hell do you people keep feeding this sniveling little troll? Hes’ still keeping this thread all about him. Stop it.
Sure, Bricker tells you to police your ilk, and you say “How high?”
Agreed. He’s a pathetic little man who doesn’t deserve the attention.
The claim that folks give a pass to poor arguments that align with their position is pretty much true - at least for some of the folks here who have said as much. If you conceded this rather than deny it then it wouldn’t have to be brought up so much.
There’s no reason to concede what isn’t true. Look how many people challenged me on my assertion that voter suppression tactics had a significant influence on the election results. I maintain I’m right, but nobody ignored my argument from my side of the aisle.
Stop playing into his games. He’s a troll and a whiny-ass childish creep. He’s the one whose posts should just be ignored.
And stop making this thread about him. Jesus.
For markedly different values of the word “challenged.” I’ve rarely seen a more gentle or careful “challenge,” to such a piss-poor argument. And look where it went. It’s a significant claim against the use of Voter ID: that its presence swung control of the Senate. And you made it, a couple of people politely said they didn’t agree, and now it’s dropped. Because, in the weird hive mind of liberalism, you’ve been given a signal that this one won’t fly, and you’re welcome to maintain you’re right…but not push it too hard, and everything remains friendly.
I don’t think either side of the argument has produced evidence or proof. Which is why I support the liberal side, at least until such evidence is forthcoming. When there’s an action that has an unknown set of side effects, but one of them is plausibly to suppress voter turnout, I think that it is unethical to take that action without further review or study. (And, circumstantially, the fact that among politicians and political scientists who presumably are actual experts in this field, many people clearly think it WILL have a suppressing effect, because that’s why the R’s did it in the first place and why the D’s oppose it.)
That (along with some addenda about how presumably the liberal press would be all over actual examples of making-voting-impossible if any existed, so the fact that they haven’t reported any suggests none exist) would be at least a logical argument if not a compelling one, aside from two very important things:
(1) The liberal argument doesn’t depend on voting being made IMPOSSIBLE
(2) There’s no guarantee that anyone who tries to get a voter ID and fails will always be someone who contacts the media and gets their story publicized
So someone tries to get a voter ID. They say “you have to go to office B and get a birth certifiacte”. At office B they say “you have to go to office C to get the right form”. At office C they say “you have to go to office D” etc. At every point along this chain there is reason to believe that it will eventually be possible to get a voter ID. Is there no amount of such bureaucracy that you would view as an impermissible obstacle to voting?
The difference between that and your voodoo analogy (which I might point out I personally don’t agree with) is that in your voodoo analogy, the only difficulty is a belief that you personally ridicule. In the real world, the difficulty is (or at least can be in many cases) something which inarguably takes time and effort (and often money). What if we just started reducing polling places in Republican areas, to make the trip to the polling place further and further and further away? At no point does it ever get IMPOSSIBLE to get to the polling place, but making it harder and harder is going to by human nature itself have an effect on turnout.
On the one hand, we have reliable testimony from the Board’s Foremost Authority that, yes, indeed, “some” Republicans had malign motives for their actions. But we must hold the rest of them to be innocent, because all they did was vote for it
But if Shayna, Queen of the Jungle. exaggerates a point and gets feedback and criticism, that is insufficient, hypocritical, partisan. We of the Moonbat Mafia must sternly denounce, renounce, and condemn, or we fail to measure up to the rigorous standards that the Counselor pretends to hold.
Boy, we sure are lucky he never got around to compiling that list of all the Republicans who criticized and denounced the partisan skulduggery of their fellow Republicans! Because then he would have a valid and verifiable point, rather than another transparent exercise in flat-footed hypocrisy. Or perhaps not hypocrisy, perhaps…
Cognitive Dissonance, the Number One Threat to the Republic! Back on top, number one, since the Republicans saved us from the Obambola Virus! When a Mother’s March Against Cognitive Dissonance volunteer comes to your door, give! And give generously, that poor little Bricker may, one day, be able to think again!
At some point, such efforts would be impermissible.
But not “at every point.”
The people that get to decide what the impermissible point is have spoken. They have made that decision. The fact that you don’t agree, and would draw the line in a different place, is of no real interest to the problem.
This is still going on? Making a lot of progress, are we?
You guys are nuts. Anyone who’s posted to this thread (more times than I have) should be really embarrassed.
ETA: More seriously, what’s the appeal of continuing? Is it the fear of backing down and letting the monsters on the other side go unchallenged? Or is just a circle-jerk of recreational animosity? I’m pretty sure it’s actually the latter, though the former isn’t exactly flattering either.
Thanks for clearing that up, explaining for us your principled stand of non-participation. Time and again, we have asked “Where is VarlosZ on this, how can we proceed without that invaluable input?”
Now, at least,we know why. Dully noted.
In case you were wondering: 9. The criterion value for V, the acceptable number of times that one could post in this thread is 9.
Nobody knows why.
(my bold)
In case you missed it when skipping posts from people who agree with you:
This is just one poster, but it’s taken as a given that this is true. Do you agree with the sentiment of this post? This is what is being denied by others including yourself.
I think this is the most reasonable take on it:
And while I think it’s reasonable to spend time on what you are interested in, it would be false to deny that the posting economy doesn’t exist. There is no need or point to try and change this, but a denial of its existence merits comment. Thus my point:
What I find amusing is this:
I hope this is meant to be ironic.
Can one thread-shit in the Pit? It’s an interesting question.
But people may want to stop and consider what they’re actually getting out of this thread. And then they should go back and ask again, because the first answer is almost certainly going to be self-delusion.
Obviously I was being facetious with the whole “more times than I have” bit.
Okay, what are you getting out of posting in this thread?
You may feel superior in questioning others about why they are posting to a message board, but everyone else can see that you’re just a douchebag posting to a message board who lacks any sort of capacity for self-awareness.
No, I’m sure that’s the greater part of it: it makes me feel superior. Or I feel superior already, and I just want other people to know it. Either way.
Of course, the reason I feel superior in the first place is because this remains really stupid behavior and I’m (mostly) not involved. And, also, I legitimately believe that there’s a spillover effect to the rest of the board. Enmity begets enmity. This thread is like a turd on the sidewalk, and some people are dragging shit-stains around on the bottom of their shoes.
I expect this is a minority opinion. I could be wrong.
Because the Idiots Brigade posts their crap, and the thinking, responsible representatives of the liberal viewpoint have made clear they have no real interest in or responsibility to debunk the IB.
Seeing as you’ve failed utterly to offer an argument that sums up to more than a rancid fart in a thunderstorm, I wouldn’t be so high and mighty. You’ve even lied outright about my positions in order to deflect from your utter lack of success in advocating yours.
You continue with your deflections with your nonsense pity-party, the liberals don’t self police!!!1
Even if that were true, what does it mean? It doesn’t make your shitty arguments somehow sound. It doesn’t retroactively destroy the arguments that smack yours to the ground and force it to eat dirt.
As an aside, you hate poor people because in your arrogance you think you’re better than them. Yet in this thread you mewl like a weak little pussy about how the deck is stacked against you. I find that rich. You laugh at poor people in generational poverty in our culture of low social mobility and then cry like a bitch when you feel the deck is stacked against you.
Funny and sad.
… aaand, we’re back.
Have fun, everyone. I know you won’t.
At least the acceptable number of posts has been raised to 12. And now everyone knows how super awesome you are! Bonus. We all have a new hero!