How does an accusation of whininess “acknowledge the truth of your observation?”
“Two plus two is four.”
“Oh, fuck you!”
“See? That supports my claim.”
No…it doesn’t.
Sure it does, because we can safely assume if eh could have refused the claim instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, he would have done so.
Is the claim that you’re being treated unfairly because we criticize you instead of each other, and us not criticizing each other is somehow evidence of the validity of your position?
If so, then yes, you are indeed a whiner.
Your observation is whining about nothing. Quit being such a baby.
“We can safely assume” – you are making an assumption. An argument that relies upon an assumption is not complete.
A couple of questions about this:
-
Does the responsibility to call out idiocy on one’s own side of an argument only apply to the side with the majority of arguers? This is a long thread, and I may well have missed it, but how many times have you taken the likes of Clothahump and magellan to task in this thread? They spew vitriol and idiocy in fairly equal measures to the shriekiest lefties here.
-
How many instances of “calling out ones own side” would it take to satisfy you? Is there some percentage of posts that need to be spent engaged in this? Or a number of posters? Or a flat number of posts? If I, right now, declare that Hentor, lobohan and Elvis often eschew clean and accurate argument in order to lay on insults, and that they shouldn’t do that, and I am hereby Officially Calling Them On It, would that mean we can get back to arguing the merits of the issues, rather than the unfairness of the sides? How about if I popped in once every three days to say it?
For what it’s worth, my ideal version of this debate, such as it is, would be happening in GD instead of the Pit, and consist almost entirely of you and MaxTheVool presenting point and counterpoint. (And, by the way, if you ever responded to his post #7678, I missed it. I’d like to see you answer his questions therein.)
I don’t know about an exclusive chat between Bricker and Max, but GD threads on this topic have not gone wanting of Bricker’s participation in all his glory, so have no illusions about Bricker being some gentleman of civility who is only rude when met with rudeness.
That comment was also ignorant of the fact-oriented debate that has gone on in this thread as well.
One of those threads was fairly short (and I participated in it, so no, I hadn’t forgetten about it), and the other both started and ended about 2.5 years ago. In neither, as far as I can tell, was Max a participant.
No, it was not. There is a fact-oriented debate weaving its way through this thread, certainly, but it has become lost and obfuscated by the personal attacks and hyperbole so endemic to the Pit. In fact, the very nature of the Pit continues to give Bricker a kind of perceived cover, where he can veer off topic in order to address meta-concerns (and, recently, to respond in kind with personal attacks), instead of addressing the more reasoned questions of Max and his ilk.
Yes it was, as was this one. Max was not the only one to engage in fact based and logical discussion. Similarly Bricker has not been a paragon of reasoned discussion whatsoever. One may smile and smile and be a villain, after all. It takes no profanity nor insult to neener, neener.
This name-categorizing perspective on this discussion is ignorant, simplistic and personality-driven.
Perhaps its time to consider a bolder adventure,** Bricker**. Your very own message board. They aren’t expensive, I understand, don’t take much. Don’t even have to be all that smart, shit, Giraffe can do it!
An open exchange of ideas would thrive there, yes? Free from the down-dumbing curse of liberal hypocrisy! The daunting standards of integrity, candor, and civility that you embody and epitomize would get the respect they deserve, you could see to it! Conservative arguments would get the fair hearing they deserve, free from the sarcastic interference of of lesser minds.
Many of us here would flock to such a board! Quite a few! Several, at any rate. I would certainly do my bit, as would many others, to advertise and promote your endeavor, I can think of at least half a dozen I wouldn’t hesitate to urge onward!
How about The Bricker Wall? * One Bricker Shy of a Load!* Well, you’ll come up with something. Go for it!
Was not. Phtbth.
Surely you know what the phrase “and his ilk” means?
No, he hasn’t. That’s my whole point. And, this being the pit, he doesn’t really have to be, does he?
No, but as a long-time mostly-lurker on these boards, I’ve noticed that he engages in much less “neener neener” in non-Pit forums.
I stand by my observation. I think this would be a more interesting debate outside of the pit, with fewer insults, less ad hominem, and less “neener neener.” You’re free to disagree, of course. (And for what it’s worth, I agree with the liberal majority on the issue itself.)
Fewer insults, hominems and neeners doesn’t mean more reasoned arguments (plus what Bricker presents as such). The GD threads have reasoned arguments, this thread has reasoned arguments. Bricker’s had multiple chances to discuss the issue in the constrained civility of GD - he prefers to come to this forum, then whine about how the incivility of the forum means he is treated unfairly, which somehow bolsters his position.
Yes, and your usage of the phrase here appears to be an attempt to suggest that Max belongs to some category distinct from some other set or sets of posters. My point is that many posters in this thread have provided both rational, reasoned, fact-based argument AND insults. Pretending that there is some categorization of posters by fact-based versus insult content is ignorant of the actual thread, and is simplistic bullshit. It seems to be some kind of appeal to personality rather than to content.
And yet he produces non-insult and insult content alike! Yikes, how shall he be categorized?
And your observation continues to be for shit. If you’ve really observed these threads, you should be able to articulate what Bricker’s primary position is.
If you can do that, I will then ask you to explain to me how his participation in a discussion on this topic would advance the debate in GD or the Pit or anywhere else.
Spoiler tip: Nobody disagrees that state legislatures may pass laws. Nobody disagrees that judges produce decisions of the court. As a result, observing that legislatures have passed voter ID laws and judges have found in favor of their use fails to add anything meaningful to the discussion.
Hey, if Bricker accuses enough people of wanting to destroy democracy, sooner or later he’s got to be right.
I dunno. The “even a broken clock is right twice a day” thing worked OK for analog clocks. But my digital clock says “–:-- --” when it’s broken. I don’t think that’s an actual time. (Is it?)
So if Bricker accuses each of his interlocutors in this thread of wanting to destroy democracy, he is no more likely to get it right than my busted digital clock.
Unless of course we broaden the set to include “people outside of this thread” and especially “Republicans”. 
Pro tip: sure it does. The “discussion” here concerns the legitimacy of Voter ID laws. The fact that those laws were correctly passed and upheld is a clear indication of their legitimacy.
Only one kind of legitimacy – not necessarily their moral legitimacy. I’m sure you don’t need examples of many laws that were passed and upheld that were morally illegitimate.
See Parthol? The above from Bricker is perfectly profanity- and insult-free. Yet it does nothing to advance the discussion. In fact, it is aimed at quashing or diverting the discussion because Bricker knows that all the rules may be followed, yet injustices may still result.
He is arguing from a pure authoritarian position. Those in authority said so; the discussion is over. Given this position, two possibilities exist. Either 1) this is an honest expression of his beliefs, which makes him both pathologically authoritarian and stupid enough to not see how the discussion here STARTS at the point of the passage of these laws or issuance of these decisions; or 2) he is knowingly and disingenuously engaging in a tactic to subvert an internet discussion about some behavior by people on his “side” that is morally questionable.
Either way, he has been doing so to the tune of nearly 2,000 posts in this thread alone. Some may have seen as laudable Max’s attempt to try to engage him in reasoned debate. That’s not Bricker’s game, though.
Bricker is a partisan who thinks of “sides” and “ilks” and other such limited categories. He is an authoritarian - how can you hope to influence him through reason when he didn’t reason his way to his position in the first place? All he wants to do is either neener, neener in full Brickey Shuffle mode when his “side” is victorious or obfuscate the matter when it is not.
Don’t be so easily duped.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but no vitriol or idiocy spewed on my part. I do tend to annoy the living hell out of the lefties by pointing out massive fuck-ups on their collective parts, which of course makes me The Big Bad. As a result, I receive a metric shit-ton of vitriol and idiocy from them.
As just one example: I have pointed out repeatedly that I show a picture ID every single time I vote. It hasn’t caused me any difficulty in the voting process, and the people running the polls have a reasonable assurance that I am the same guy whose name is on their list of registered voters. I personally see nothing wrong in the slightest with requiring a valid photo ID to vote. But because of this, I’ve been reamed for being a nasty, horrible, ebbul ol’ ID-demanding GOP vote suppressor, when I am nothing of the sort. Etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.