The Kolga: bury people in facts coupled with truly elegant snark. Win thread!
The Nosism retort: When someone speaks for everyone because they think that everyone thinks the same way they do. Often, people in this group don’t see the reverse-sarcasm.
On some message boards, a few of these people posting in unison can look like a unified body when it’s just a few individuals.
Its like those guys always pissing and moaning about how lefty the SDMB is, when really, there’s like…what, maybe three of us?
FTFM
Then, of course, we have the underachiever’s counterpart - the flatlined.
Essentially, this is the same as the ducati, but with the most mundane and banal situations writ large as Life Lessons I Personally Orchestrated.™
Example:
I was riding my badass self on my badass motorcycle when I saw this UPS driver flick a butt on the side of the road. So I pulled him over and he meekly stopped and followed my orders to pick up cigarette butts along the highway, until me and a cop who happened by gave him permission to stop and resume his deliveries.
This happened because I live in a fantasy world where people actually give a shit what I think, and follow orders because there’s nothing more intimidating than an insane white woman on a motorcycle.
The be Schopenhauered is for a skilled arguer, say someone trained in the law, who uses logical fallacies to advance a crappy argument to advance a culturally or scientifically obsolete position because they can’t be bothered to craft a real argument in favor of the dark ages. (See what I did!?)
To drop a “brick” on the thread, to use a tu quoque reflexively. (See what I did again?!)
To Gack is to test, or offer to test, a given claim by inadequate backyard experimentation - such as burning chickens dabbed in kerosene to prove or disprove the Holocaust.
Yeah, pretty much.
The “Criticize the Expert Move.” (This really happened)
My post: Andrew Vachss says that child molesters cannot be rehabilitated.
Response: Mystery writer Andrew Vachss’s opinion is duly noted.
Uh, Andrew Vachss is an attorney who represents underaged child molesters, and knows more about child molestation than you ever will. And yes, he writes mysteries.
“Defining ‘Expert’ Extremely Loosely Because This Guy Agrees With Me” could also be a thing, apparently.
Then there’s the Whooshed Wiseguy: a guy who reads an exchange and misses the boat entirely, and thus doesn’t realize he has no idea of who understood what.
STOID SPEAK!!!
Using random colors, line breaks, font sizes, underlines, bold/italics, etc in place of rational thought. The ‘reasoning’ is that there’s no possibly way she could be…y’know…wrong, so you must not have noticed her
- SOOPER-SMART argument *
and by putting it in 40 point type, you can’t miss it and will have to concede.
+10 bonus points if the emphasized random bits are contained within a Wall-Of-Impenetrable-Text[sup]tm[/sup]
I almost feel bad about this because he has finally fucked the fuck off …
The FinnAgain: Feel the need to offer a paragraph in response to each sentence in the post you are replying to. Then liberally punctuate with “liar”, “lying”, “dishonest”, “troll” and “trolling”. When asked for an indication of where said lying happens just reply with more “liar”, “lying”, “dishonest”, “troll” and “trolling”.
The Full FinnAgain: Perform “The FinnAgain” in a thread about Israel. Also punctuate with “anti-semitism”.
See, I thought the FinnAgain was accusing everyone who disagrees with you of anti-semitism.
And at angry length.
Well The Full FinnAgain does add the liberal use of “anti-semitism”. The word, not actual slurs against Jews.
I think being angry at length sounds a lot more like a Jack Dean Tyler.
That’s angry hat length.
My contribution is “Assuming the Worst”. Because someone has a different political philosophy than you, they must be evil. So, you assume the absolute worst about everything they say even when it makes no sense.
Poster A: “I prefer hot dogs to hamburgers. I would never buy a hamburger.”
Poster B: “Why do you want to ban hamburgers? Where are we going to put all the prisons to lock up those that eat hamburgers in your twisted, sick world!!”
It’s mostly Liberals doing it to us Conservatives. But we do it back sometimes, too. It’s hard not to assume the worst when there’s a few outspoken truly crazy people among the mostly sane Liberals who I enjoy debating here.
I love this part, because (of course) this is exactly what many liberals think about conservatives.