I'm here to help, Velocity

The BBQ Pit
1

Hey, Velocity, how’s it going, bud? Have a seat. I know this is a bit late in coming but it’s been a busy couple of weeks, and I’ve only just now seen my way clear to very quickly glancing over some of the words in the 31,000 threads you’ve started. Many thanks to you for mostly keeping the posting at a minimum once you’ve stapled those OPs to the ol’ telephone pole. Anyway, I’m here now. And you know what?

After yet another in a long string of abortive gotcha attempts on a small handful of subjects, essentially all of which boil down to “aren’t you liberals pretty stupid idiots? Haven’t I savagely struck a dolorous blow at your hollow intellectual core with this thing I thought about for a second? Hmmmm?”, I’ve realized that the fault here is really on the rest of us, who haven’t been answering the question you’ve really been asking all along. People keep responding to you with some song and dance like “oh, actually, you’re using those terms in a misleading way” or “actually, nobody ever said the thing you’re saying they said, and that resolves this whole paradox” or “that doesn’t make any sense” or “nearly everything you have said is factually not the right thing.” Every thread people are saying this stuff to you! Embarrassing. Nobody’s hearing you.

So here I am, and here it is: shut up. No; shut up. That’s not a good point, that isn’t incisive, you haven’t exposed anything, the obvious answer to your should’ve-been-rhetorical question is the correct answer, and next time, instead of starting a thread on a trash fire of a premise only to be immediately corrected and never own it, here’s what you can do. Shut the fuck up, just for like a little while.

2

Will you post the premise of each thread and provide the obvious, inarguable correct answer to each one?

3

Nothing is “inarguable” to those determined to argue.

4

I disagree.

5

Could we get a summary of the links? I don’t have time to read through them, Family Feud is on.

Thank you.

6

Just a quick skim of the OP’s and a few of the responses, because I’m certainly not going to read all those threads:

Long: Is abortion a complicated moral subject?
String: If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?
Abortive: Would liberals still want to have abortions if they knew their baby was human?
Gotcha: Really, do black lives matter? I mean, they kill each other, too, don’t they?
Attempts: (tl;dr OP, good god) If everybody does this one thing that I think is right-wing, does that mean that everybody is really right-wing?
Small: When is it okay to be a prejudicial bigot?
Handful: How do abortionists feel about when someone else hires an incompetent to perform their abortion?
Subjects: Those Native Americans are a bunch of whiners because white imperialists stole their land.
All: How do we properly scale the SATs so that people from the dumb races get just as high a score as one of the smart ones?
Which: Even if people don’t like the ideal of profiling, I still think we should be able to discriminate against people if we think we’re upholding the law.
Boil: I have not read Slaughterhouse Five.
Down: Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?
To: Should science be based on facts or feelings?

7

Nice summaries! May I subscribe to your newsletter?

(Seriously, you took one for the team by scanning so many of the threads, thank you.)

8

Jimmy Chitwood already did that. The premise of Velocity’s threads is always, “I’m an idiot and I’m here to criticize something I don’t understand.” The obvious, inarguable, correct answer, is, “Oh, just shut up, already.”

9

I’ve not gotten a strong impression of Velocity, one way or the other.

Jimmy Chitwood, on the other hand makes a more distinctive impression, as a guy full of over-the-top invective based on very little (if any) substance. Much like the OP of this thread. You’ve seen that, you’ve seen it all - there goes good old Jimmy Chitwood, doing his one trick.

10

No, you don’t.

Regards,
Shodan

11

Velocity will more often return to his own threads (although not always), but other than that, he’s pretty much just another boffking. Exhibit A.

12

Holy shit, that’s a lot of strawmen.

13

You are so wrong.

14

Holy shit balls. I say we ding him for the volume AND the content. That’s one unattractive look at the human psyche right there.

15

Well, Ethririst did a good job of providing some details, but perhaps you were so lazy in your excitement to watch Steve Harvey roll his eyes that you didn’t quite reach this sentence in the OP:

I think that’s a pretty useful summary of all the threads.

16

I’m not sure what you mean here. If you mean that Ethilrist provided a distorted interpretation of what Velocity wrote, then you’re certainly correct. If you mean that Velocity’s OPs were strawmen, then you’re probably not (and probably didn’t read the actual OPs that were linked in the OP of this thread).

I can’t speak to all of them because I didn’t read them all, but starting in reverse order, the last one was most definitely not “Should science be based on facts or feelings?”, and the penultimate was not “Cops killing people is totally the same as soldiers in wartime, right?”. I assume Ethilrist was equally “accurate” in the rest of his summaries.

17

I think a fair number of the OPs contained strawmen (I read the first post in each.) Some were eyeroll-worthy but others just seemed sincerely inquisitive.

I think Velocity is not a troll and is probably being picked on because he skews politically right. There is a patronizing undertone to some of his questions that are particularly grating, especially because Velocity does not seem to clearly understand the opposing viewpoint he is critiquing (that was especially striking on the ‘‘race is a social construct’’ OP.)

Despite all that, I actually find Velocity’s presentation of his views thought-provoking. They leave room for discussion and that’s the important thing.

Also, Jimmy Chitwood is my motherfucking hero and if he’s pissed off about something it’s probably for good reason.

18

Your politics appears to be severely distorting your perception. And I do mean severely.

I haven’t looked at all of them, either, but your analysis is flawed. Ethilrist’s summaries may be sarcastically worded but the ones I’ve looked at are accurate. The last one suggests that because certain facts carry emotional baggage that the science should be conducted entirely differently from how science is actually conducted! It basically says that it’s OK to publish new findings about quantum mechanics based on strong evidence, but science must shut up about findings that might upset some people even when those findings are based on equivalently strong evidence. This is gibbering nonsense.

The penultimate one was misstated by both of you – it’s capital punishment vs. combat killing, but again it seeks to make a ridiculous comparison.

I never paid much attention to Velocity but yesterday I was readying one of Velocity’s latest screeds and now I’m seeing the pattern that Jimmy Chitwood was talking about. Velocity’s OP there was sufficiently annoying that I was going to reply but never got around to it. Basically it says, “hey, here’s a brain fart I just had and spent a whole 12 seconds thinking about before posting: if you liberals think that a woman has rights over her own body, then you should be in favor of abortion right up until the moment of birth. Do you pro-choice liberals realize how stupid and inconsistent you are, based on my 12 seconds of incompetent incoherent analysis?”. And it turns out that this is actually pretty typical of many of his threads.

Seems to me that Jimmy Chitwood and Ethilrist are both spot on.

19

Yeah, there’s this element of him posing these questions like he has some vague understanding of what liberals believe but only like what he’s overheard from his drunk uncle and not based on any actual interaction with liberals.

To be fair, we do that all the time to conservatives on this board.

20

FWIW, I agree that that was a silly OP. But it was not “If we all have human DNA, how come we all have different skin color?”, as Ethilrist presented it.

A lot of people say silly things on occasion. Velocity doesn’t seem to stand out one way or the other, best as I can tell. But the thing is that many people have no patience to read through a bunch of links, and this leaves opportunity for people like Ethilrist to distort the words of other posters and be cheered on by like-minded partisans. Truth is that I myself also don’t have the patience to read through all of them either, but I picked a random sample, and every one of them was seriously distorted, so I assume the rest are too.

I am not familiar with his politics, though my vague impression is that he’s somewhat middle-of-the-road.

But if he’s in fact a right-winger then you might want to consider the possibility that your politics - and that of the other liberals posting here - is distorting your perception.

If you pay more attention to that OP, you’ll see that he did not actually take that position, but raised the question as to whether it’s appropriate; he seemed to be attributing that particular position to other people and questioning whether it was logical.

But beyond that, there’s a substantive difference between questioning whether science should demand a higher level of proof on matters that are “highly emotional, sensitive or potentially offensive nature” and saying “Should science be based on facts or feelings?”

What do you mean by “misstated by both of you”? All I did was directly quote Ethilrist and assert that this was incorrect. What misstatement are you attributing to me here?

As to the point itself, it’s not a completely compelling position but far from “ridiculous”. It successfully established that you cannot take an absolutist position against taking human life and use that as the basis for your opposition to the death penalty, which makes opposition to the death penalty need to stand on other grounds. Which isn’t to say that it can’t, but there are people who feel that the government has no right to take any human life ever, and it would be a counter-argument to that specific position.

Certainly it’s much less of a ridiculous position than those who say “you can’t oppose abortion and support the death penalty”, which is very frequently trotted out around here by people who don’t get Pitted over it.