Lib’s been doing this a LOT in the past few months. Several dopers have offered him help, suggested he talk to someone, wondering what’s going on.
He shuns it all. I don’t know what his deal is, but I’m beginning to think it’s a lost cause.
I admit I dont’ know much about Liberal myself really. He seemed like a fairly intelligent but aggressive poster which there’s nothing wrong with of course. Lately however it seems like every post is mean spirited or sarcastic. I don’t know if he’s frustrated with something lately or just become a full on asshole. I guess time will tell.
Time has already told. I’ve always been considered the Simon Cowell of SDMB. But just to see whether you were right, I searched on my user name. Only 12% of my posts have been sarcastic or mean spirited over the past year.
Since when is Simon Cowell thin-skinned and overly defensive?
And 24.8% of all statistics are completely made up. (Seriously, how on earth could you quantify that?)
Personally, I think dopers like Libertarian are what make the SDMB so interesting. Really, if this board were just a big group-hug ecstasy party where we all agreed all the time, what would be the point? I’m not disagreeing that he’s a prick, I’m just saying, what’s the big deal? I bet every single person who posts here has had someone misunderstand or misinterpret what they are trying to say. When you create a thread about Libertarianism, you’d better expect Lib to be right up front, banging the drum so loud he can’t hear half of what you’re saying.
BTW, I don’t think I’ll ever adjust to the name change. Change it back, pretty please?
What, you don’t have the sarcasm calculator in your options?
Same way they could, I reckon. Obviously, every post hasn’t been sarcastic or mean spirited as Darkhold said. So, I took a look, and rated them as honestly as I could. In fact, as you know, Dewey, I’m far less pissy than I used to be. My last three posts to you, including this one, were quite friendly. A year or two ago, I utterly despised you, but no longer. But I think you touched on something, even if unintentionally. I think I used to be think-skinned and defensive. Now, however, few things phase me. And I think it has something to do with serving as a mod on another board. But this talk about my needing counseling or being on the verge of a meltdown is far more dramatic than the reality. My posts are all there, and you’re a great searcher. See for yourself whether you think I’ve been overwhelmingly mean.
Sorry, but that’s not likely to happen. I’ve wanted to change it for quite some time, and the admins understandably might not be keen on changing user names too often. But I appreciate your kindness. You are an example to those who feign concern and offer counsel, when nothing more is needed than understanding and the benefit of the doubt that one generally gives to people he calls “friend”.
How is this criticism of libertarianism any different than the original complaint of this thread?
Wasn’t the complaint, “Liberal said that people who don’t agree with him have a problem[character flaws]”?
And now if you embrace [L]ibertarianism, you must not have a clear grasp of reality? Uhhh, are there any other belief systems that you want to claim are only supported by those with no grasp of reality?
Creationism? I nominate creationism.
I was thinking of asking Lib in that thread to show a little more contempt for his political opponents, because there just wasn’t enough already oozing from his post. However, I think the OP here is just about right.
Lib, remember how I asked you to knock it off on mischaracterizing my political view? This was right after you changed your user-name and referred to modern self-styled liberals as zombies who just want to rifle through your wallet, or some other highly insulting phrase.
Well, I appreciate your extending me the courtesy of not insulting what you call “modern centrism” and what most Americans call liberalism. However, I kinda wish you’d extend that same courtesy and respect to other folks, too. I don’t know tdn from Adam, and I don’t know his political views, but his question was sincere. If you couldn’t bring yourself to say something nice, you did have another option.
Daniel
You mean, the Puritans and such? I can’t imagine they’d fall under any definition of liberalism.
The Jamestown settlers? They were just looking for a little more opportunity for themselves. But there’s no evidence that they desired a form of governmental or social organization that would remind anyone of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy: they brought with them allegiance to a Crown and an established Church, and a social code that strictly governed the behavior of members of the community. Not to mention, they had no problem with subjecting their fellow human beings to lifetimes of forced labor.
The African captives forced into slavery? Whatever political philosophy they may have had was unfortunately irrelevant.
Nope.
Sorry perhaps amend my statement to “Seems like nearly every post I run across seems mean spirited and sarcastic”
Every time I interacted with you has been fairly unpleasant once I honestly thought you misunderstood my post but that was followed up by an attack in a thread where there was no reasonable reason to attack me. You explained your reasons that made some sense but still the way you handled it in the beginning was needlessly hostile.
Then I observed several threads in the pit and in great debates where you just seemed to be running around attacking people. Many people were even saying things along the lines of “are you ok?” “what’s going on with you?” Making me assume that this was unusually aggressive behavior for you. After that I simply stopped noticing you (no offense of course just didn’t happen across any threads you seemed to be in)
Finally I had read the thread that started this pitting (before the pitting) and thought “what the hell is he going on about? Meaningless platitudes just like the OP was complaining about when he said the Libertarian homepage had ‘no real plan of action’”
So from my perspective it seems like there was a definite increased amount of hostility from you. If that’s not accurate just brush it off to poor luck in me reading the threads where you were even handed.
No problem, consider it done. 
It may be, but just as calling anti-abortionism “pro-life” is a rhetorical device, so is an authoritarian or totalitarian claiming to support freedom. And i believe that was the extent of Stonebow’s original reference.
He was not saying that everyone supports freedom as he or you might define it, but was suggesting that no-one opposes “freedom” as a generic, rhetorical concept. No-one literally stands up and says “freedom is bad”; rather, some people have a very restrictive, even nonsensical view of freedom, and then stand up and promote that “freedom” for its rhetorical and emotional appeal.
I’m not saying that Lenin’s definition of freedom was a good or a logical one–that’s actually immaterial to my point. I’m just saying that, whatever else Lenin said, he was still claiming to support “freedom.”
Maybe Liberal should just change his handle to A Prick and save everyone the trouble. The next time he posts something oturageously inane, people will see who it’s from, then realize, “Oh, no wonder, it’s written by A Prick.” 
Kind of reaching on this last one, aren’t you?
You’ll never be the last person in the know as long as I’m around.
$cientology!
Ah, I see. My apologies to both you and Stonebow.
But they did. The Puritans were agitators unsatisfied with reforms under Henry VIII. The more radical among them separated themselves from the Church of England and were called, well, Separatists. They were the forerunners of the Unitarian Universalist church, surely one of the most liberal churches today. They were dissenters who questioned the political order, just like all good liberals.