Credit where credit is due— 'luci’s funny at *least *half the time, easy! Minimum!
Lest I be accused of only going after right wankers, I totally agree with the above.
In proving this board values ideas over political leaning Der Trihs is exibit A.
Gee, thanks. Sorta. Kinda.
“Ol’ 'luc, he’s not nearly as unpleasant as cholera!”
Damned white of you, coming to my defense like that. Tell you what though, just between me and you, you catch me lying about anything…and I do mean anything!, you get right down here and point it out. I got my faults, and its a long damn list, but “liar” ain’t on it.
As far as the aforementioned Shodan, this is the first evidence I’ve had in over ten years that he even reads my posts, I pretty much assumed he ignored.
So, anyway, here we are, the hippest, smartest people on the planet. Overwhelmingly lefty. Fancy that. However did such a thing happen?
Sent you a package from Prague, mail order bride. Yes, that’s right, the Czech is in the mail…
No, I mean they gang up and pile on and harass him in the same way they do every other non-liberal.
Yes they did, and that is what drove him away. So your claim is easily disproven.
[ul][li]Honest conservatives don’t get attacked and driven away[/li][li]Sam Stone is an honest conservative[/li][li]Sam Stone got attacked and driven away[/li][li]Ergo, the premise is wrong.[/ul][/li][quote]
Luci usually just tries to be funny, occasionally even managing to. His posts are never as mean spirited as yours. He doesn’t lie anywhere near to the degree that you do.
[/quote]
This is just the No True Scotsman fallacy, and means you agree with his posts and not with mine.
Regards,
Shodan
This is just a game of semantics, so favored by intellectually bankrupt people everywhere. “I think I’ll just call moderates “conservative” and conservatives “extreme” so that I can pretend that I have respect for some “conservatives” and thus make my attacks seem more legitimate.”
I’ll plead to the same as well. Though in my case I think it’s a bit more than that, in that I shy away from “me too” posts in general, and with the makeup of this forum it’s rare that I would have criticism of a conservative post (or poster) that would not also be expressed - and in much more extreme form - by a lot of other people. (In addition, even if I did criticize the conservative it would not attract much notice, largely for the same reason. As an example - this thread - where I agree with the criticisms of Shodan’s posts to the Romney tax thread, but have attracted more attention for my position that Shodan is overall a good poster.)
But I’m not sure any of this is relevant in context here. Someone said that Shodan is unlike the good and decent conservative posters etc. My point is that the notion that there are these good and decent conservative posters in the eyes of the SDMB liberal masses is largely a myth (though it may be true for an individual liberal poster) and is generally more a way to bolster the credibility of attacks on the conservative victim du jour than a reflection of reality.
The last requirement is the whole point. If you want to say that you (collectively) respect the respectable conservatives, then you need to find some conservatives who are actually respected. If virtually every conservative is frequently the subject of mob attacks based on this or that perceived shortcoming, then this suggests that the perception of shortcomings is related to the conservative ideology. (Though someone did suggest that Martin Hyde might be an exception.)
That kind of supports the point I was making. What you’re saying is that a guy who deviates only slightly from the dominant view on these boards gets fewer ideologically-driven attacks than someone who deviates more, but that even he gets his share. That’s exactly the way I view things, and I have no doubt that if John Mace had the exact same reasoning capabilities, integrity, posting style etc. but was a true conservative, he would get attacked a lot more. (Do you disagree?)
[Of course, no doubt some will argue that no one with any sort of reasoning capability and integrity would ever be a true conservative to begin with, but while that’s a valid argument, it’s not consistent with an argument that "I respect the intelligent and substantive conservatives, unlike Shodan et al.]
Sorry if I sold you short. I don’t think of you as dishonest generally but I couldn’t say anything conclusively just to have someone cite some lie you told so I left it vague like that.
Accepted. It never happened. Egotist te absolvo.
Re elicidator, I think he’s funny much more than half the time, and in general is one of the most talented writers on this board. (Although I should qualify that I don’t read this board as much as a lot of other people, so it could be that his shtick wears on you.) But it’s hard to argue that his posts are generally substantive. I’ve seen a few here and there, but these are the exception.
Still, everyone has his place.
Count me as a leftist that also does take Der Trihs to task on several occasions; really, the extreme conservatives mentioned by **SenorBeef **are really clueless if they think there is just intellectual honesty behind the attacks of many on this message board.
BTW I do think my complaints against gonzomax and FX(not a mastermind) helped with the first one being banned and the second warned formally to stop making this site a blog against nuclear power.
So yeah, even though I lean left I bust also block headed ideas coming from the left. For me science is first and partisanship a distant second. It is just by historical timing that currently most of the evidence supports the liberals rather than some conservatives on important issues of today like climate change and evolution.
Whether he was driven away was entirely his decision. People argue with me about shit all the time. If I decide I’m bored with the SDMB tomorrow, have they driven me away, but if I don’t, they haven’t? It’s not as if their behavior is any different.
If he posts an argument in GD, and 10 people post counterarguments, do you consider that an attack? Because that’s sort of the whole purpose of the board. The demographics of the board suggest that more people will take up one side of the issue than the other in a lot of cases, but that’s not really relevant. If his argument is sound, he can withstand the criticism whether it comes from 1 or 10 sources.
Look at all the reactions in this thread to you. Everyone besides your retarded butt budies are saying you’re a shitbag who doesn’t post anything useful ever. People did not say the same about Sam Stone. Or Bricker for that matter, who was much worse at being partisan than Sam, but at least made a real effort to argue.
So if some value of “attacked” means “debated against in a forum made for debating”, then you’ve got me. Otherwise I don’t recall threads in which everyone pretty much agreed that Sam Stone was a useless windbag that never said anything interesting. But there are plenty of those for you.
I think we can make a de facto* ruling that you are not good at using the English language, because that doesn’t mean what you think it means.
How in the world is “Luci shares a few traits with you, but differs significantly with other traits” a no true scotsman argument? Is any time you differentiate between similarities or differences a no true scotsman? “The ford and chevy both have good engines, but the chevy transmission is always breaking down” “No true scotsman!”?
You lie, he doesn’t. You say stuff in a mean spirited way, he doesn’t. These are substantial differences that are entirely relevant to the discussion.
Ass Horn,
Graded
That’s why I said he’s the closest person I could think of to Shodan, in the sense that he rarely or never actually stakes out a position, but rather just snipes and mocks other people’s positions.
But the posting styles are clearly different. Luci doesn’t lie, he doesn’t seem to deliberately misrepresent other people, and he’s generally not hateful and mean spirited. And he occasionally manages to make a post that’s worth reading. Those are all pretty substantial differences.
Those things are bigger sins than taking a “sniping from the sidelines” posting style alone. I don’t recall any posts Luci has made that are as retarded as the shit Shodan said in the thread that started this pitting.
:smack:
Read this again:
Trying to have a discussion with Shodan is absolutely pointless. Shodan is not here for discussion. Rebutting his “oh how sad liberals hate charity” response with numbers and facts is like trying to win a fistfight with a fart. Pure waste of energy. If you need this illustrated, read the post of yours I quoted and then read every post of Shodan since.
Shodan is like a dog constantly shitting in the middle of the living room carpet. Those that oppose him do so because he is shitting on the rug and not because he is a dog, and those that approve of him do so because he isn’t shitting on their living room rug.
The point is your idea that honest conservatives don’t get piled and attacked and harassed and driven away is wrong, and obviously so.
But sure, it’s his decision to leave (which I hope he reconsiders). It is my decision to stay and make fun of people like you, and foolishness like yours, instead.
And that drives you crazy.
Actually it is the other way around that is instructive - the only ones attacking me are liberals.
You are simply disregarding (heh) evidence against your conclusion - everyone agrees on something except those who don’t, and those who don’t don’t count.
Because the stuff about how I lie and am mean-spirited is just something you made up. So is the stuff about how I don’t post anything substantive and only snark, but let’s pretend it isn’t.
The aforementioned troll never adds anything substantive, never does anything but snark, refuses to learn anything, and refuses to debate. But he’s OK, because he is a liberal.
But you think I do the same things, but I am not OK. Because, as mentioned, I am not a liberal.
Regards,
Shodan
Nicely put.
I think that would make a nice conclusion for this thread, as it sums it up very well.
Skin in the game is a quite useful concept really. As Mace says:
It’s easy to argue for something one is not involved in.
I have to agree with this.
As I recall SenorBeef has long been, on American terms, a conservative poster who’s just gotten frustrated with … I guess it is tribalism.
SDMB has a left slant, but tribalism is not the solution. Shodan is boring and useless.
And for the record, I think elucidator is a waste of human flesh only slightly less obnoxious than shodan because he has just a wee bit more style.
I’m not at all surprised that Shodan has the gall to be butthurt about unfair partisan attacks while simultaneously calling Democrats “pussies.” Logical inconsistencies cause computers to explode only in Star Trek episodes and Emerson Lake and Palmer songs. Suggesting that a bot “man up” is like asking a conservative to consider the well-being of the country in advance of a political party.
Shodan is capable only of binary conceptualizations. Us versus them. He is not about evaluating particular arguments for their merit. If it can be categorized as conservative, it is right. This is why he has used the phrase the “usual suspects” 254 times on these boards – things coming from “them” are by necessity wrong. (To be fair, I did not determine whether any of those posts were in reference to the film of that name, or to the movie Casablanca.)
As for Sam Stone, his arguments almost exclusively started with a desired conclusion and worked backwards from there. Sure, they were in a sense well-written, and given the scrutiny of a typical message board post, they sounded reasonable. However, you can only argue so long about the positive outcomes that will result from Bush’s economic policies or the dire consequences to the auto industry that Obama will cause before reality jumps in to curb stomp you. Reality does appear to have an unfairly liberal bias after all.
On rare occasions, his posts would delve into actual fact, and he typically would misrepresent factual matters, often very badly. I don’t know if he assumed people wouldn’t bother to check, but here people do, and so it didn’t go well for him.