Mr. Clothahump, if you will

[BigT]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

To the OP, curious question:

Taking you at face value that you’re not just looking for a pile-on, what’s the point of this thread? Why would you care what Clothahump thinks about anything, or whether or not he’ll give a reasoned and honest response to your questions?

The point is to call out the guy who was an asshole. A pile on may happen, but that’s beside the point. If someone is being a jerk, the point of this forum is to call them out onto the carpet while also giving them a chance to defend themselves.

This answer is the same for every Pitting of a poster. But I notice you do not regularly ask this question. This suggests you have an objection to this particular pitting over others.

My question to you is why. Your past behavior would suggest it’s because the particular asshole here is conservative, but I’m giving you a chance to say otherwise.

[Clothahump]

@Not_Carlson

(Sorry. Longish.)

So, in this other threada newcomer tried pitting **Helena330 **for being a man-hating feminazi™, while himself displaying a blatantly misogynous attitude and insisting that women-hating comic book villains are a good source for relationship counseling. It didn’t go well for him, and he took quite a beating, with MOST responders taking Helena’s side and pointing out to the OP just how misguided and illogical his arguments were. Most, but not all.
Clothahump stuck his head into the thread to offer up his familiar anti-liberal sentiment.

Not Carlson, thank you for the civility of this post.

Now, having read through all the threads mentioned, I will say this: my statement about liberals in general was correct. However, that thread was not the correct place to make it. Mea culpa for that one.

So…isolating the statement by itself and removing it from any context of the surrounding threads, is my statement in and of itself correct?

They’re liberals, dude. Any time you say anything based in logic and fact, you’re automatically wrong and evil and bigoted and thinking with your dick, etc.

Based upon the typical response to anything that I post, or statements made about me, the answer is yes. For example, let’s just look at some of the posts in this thread alone:

[QUOTE=Bobot]
From OP:
“Clothahump, if you value reason and honesty,…”

Oh, so you’re going to put conditions on it. Best of luck to ya!

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Typo Negative]
The sky is a different color in his world.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=raventhief]
I have seen Clothahump deride liberals for failing to engage in reasonable debate, but i only ever seem to see him do nasty little drivebys, calling names.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chimera]
Lets not forget that Clothy is a martial arts instructor in Texas. He’s got his head firmly up his own ass, convinced of his correctness, while openly displaying his lack of honor and integrity. He is completely this guy.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Minds Eye,Watering]
The Pitee, (Humpy) is a gutless coward.

[/QUOTE]

And all of this is before I even saw the post to respond to it (I actually do have a life away from the SDMB). I imagine buckets more will emerge after my response. But…all of this proves my point. It is impossible to get a rational response out of the liberals on this board. Or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. What I listed above were personal attacks and outright lies about me. Yeah, I know, it’s the Pit and all that, but one can still wish and hope for at least an underlying grain of logic or common sense in a post.

[QUOTE=Not Carlson]
I used to be under the misconception that “fuck off” was against the Pit rules (I mean, it’s not much different from “fuck you”), and I wondered how Clothahump got away with using it so frequently.

[/QUOTE]

To answer this…if I say “fuck you” to someone, that is a direct attack. However, saying “fuck off” is a somewhat stronger version of “go be an asshole somewhere else and stop bothering me”.

I hope my explanation was what you were looking for. If it wasn’t, let me know and I will try to clarify further.

[E-DUB]

Perhaps people should save a few of his better insults and use them on him. Then when he says that proves how liberals are like, you can say; “But you said that exact same thing about so-and-so.” Of course, now that I’ve posted that idea here, it won’t work…probably.

[Fuji]

@E-DUB

Perhaps people should save a few of his better insults and use them on him. Then when he says that proves how liberals are like, you can say; “But you said that exact same thing about so-and-so.” Of course, now that I’ve posted that idea here, it won’t work…probably.

“Better insults”? I think he needs better writers, first. I’ve seen a lot of skilled wordsmiths on this board - he is not one of them.

[Not_Carlson]

Clothahump, thank you for responding.
And of course I understand that having real-life commitments means people can’t be expected to respond to a thread toot sweet.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you acknowledge that your statements were out of place in the quoted thread.
However, in that regard, and before asking you to address the individual points in my OP, I would appreciate it if you could perhaps address the following 2 points directly.

(1)

@Clothahump

Now, having read through all the threads mentioned, I will say this: my statement about liberals in general was correct. However, that thread was not the correct place to make it. Mea culpa for that one.

Does this mean that you did not actually read through the Pit thread started by **CosmicManiac **(as an attack on Helena330), or read their respective posts in the original thread in which **Helena **chided **CosmicManiac **for his ludicrous and blatantly misogynous comments, before you posted your statement?

You say:

So…isolating the statement by itself and removing it from any context of the surrounding threads, is my statement in and of itself correct?

But context is important. In this case the context was (in my opinion) an illogical, unfactual, bigoted and unwarranted attack on Helena. This, I believe, was the sentiment of most responders, understanding the context. But you chose to defend **CosmicManiac **by characterizing his detractors “liberals”, with the implication that their opinions should automatically be dismissed, rather than as thinking individuals.
Did you at least read the Pit thread before you posted your attack on “liberals”?

(2)
You point to the negative (though mostly mild) comments made toward you by some of the posters in this thread (which, in context, is a carryover from the now closed thread), and in the closed thread you attempted to justify your anti-liberal statement with the following: (Sorry. Quote function’s not working properly.)

All one has to do is to read responses to my posts to see what I’m talking about. Just the responses in this thread prove what I said.

You seem to use posters’ attacks on you as evidence that “liberals” are bigoted or illogical, without acknowledging that the content of your posts or the context in which you make them may justify a negative response.
Since you acknowledge that the Pit thread against **Helena **was an inappropriate place to make your comments, can you also acknowledge that at least some of the subsequent derision you received there and here has been becauseof the inappropriateness of your comments in that context?

Clumsy analogy:
Mr.C “That kid is a violent foul-mouthed punk.”
Mr.D “Dude, not this again.”
Mr.D “Seriously! Did you see how he lashed out at me!?”
Mr.D “Well, you called him a violent foul-mouthed punk to his face.”
Mr.C “Yeah! Because he is.”
Mr.D “At his mother’s funeral!”
Mr.C “And he lashed out at me! That fucking little shit. I ought to punch his little punk ass face in.”
Mr.D “Well, at least wait until the end of the eulogy.”
I’m off to set up a chocolate Easter egg hunt for my kids (even the moody high-schooler ).
I’ll check in later.

[kayT]

NotCarlson, I have to say I am impressed with the clarity of your writing and (apparently) of your thinking as well. I don’t remember reading your posts before but I will be watching for them in the future.

Regarding the object of your OP, I am not a liberal (or a libtard) and I have never responded to his criticisms in the past that I can remember, but I do think that he’s a narrow-minded bigot who consistently refuses to engage in actual debate and instead posts a lot of mostly drive-by insults. So, he has come in here and reinforced that opinion. I guess that gives you an answer to your OP.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Not_Carlson

I’ve mentioned this before, but Clothahump is actually the one who prompted me to join the board after years of lurking. At that time I felt the irresistible urge to respond to someone being unbelievably wrong on the internet, and he continues to amaze me with what I consider to be distilled wrongness. I’m curious to know if it’s just trolling,

He’s literally admitted that he’s just trolling, and I have no idea why, of the two people with a “C” at the front of their name in that thread, the one who got banned was the one we suspected was a troll, rather than the one we knew was a troll. :rolleyes: He’s even an embarrassment to the conservatives on this board. Not even they like him.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

He’s literally admitted that he’s just trolling, and I have no idea why, of the two people with a “C” at the front of their name in that thread, the one who got banned was the one we suspected was a troll, rather than the one we knew was a troll.

I just figured Cosmic was instabanned for being a sock.

Clothahump at leaves serves the purpose of proving anyone who says conservatives don’t get a voice on this board is lying. They may be too embarrassed to admit his existence, but we know - Clothahump is the classic troglodyte tea-party Trump-lover who’d love to see America burn just to watch his fellow Americans suffer because he hates them so very very much for not behaving the way his fantasies tell him Americans should.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bryan_Ekers

I just figured Cosmic was instabanned for being a sock.

Clothahump at leaves serves the purpose of proving anyone who says conservatives don’t get a voice on this board is lying.

No, that’s the purpose Bone serves. Clothahump is at best redundant, in the same way one guy with a backyard roller coaster charging a hundred bucks a ride is redundant if he lives right across from Six Flags.

[Not_Carlson]

@kayT

NotCarlson, I have to say I am impressed with the clarity of your writing and (apparently) of your thinking as well. I don’t remember reading your posts before but I will be watching for them in the future.

Thank you. That’s very nice of you.
But I’m afraid I tend to be more glib smart-arse than voice of civility and wisdom.

Regarding the object of your OP, I am not a liberal (or a libtard) and I have never responded to his criticisms in the past that I can remember, but I do think that he’s a narrow-minded bigot who consistently refuses to engage in actual debate and instead posts a lot of mostly drive-by insults. So, he has come in here and reinforced that opinion. I guess that gives you an answer to your OP.

Well, I generally share your opinion and I think your doubts are well founded.
But he has come in to give me some response, and while he has not yet actually answered the questions I put to him in the OP, he has offered to give further clarification. So he may yet come around to addressing the points in my OP. I’m not sure whether he’s deliberately trying to dodge the questions I originally put to him, but for now I’m hoping he’ll first clarify the subsequent points I’ve asked him about; namely, (1) did he read the thread before posting his snipe, and (2) can he acknowledge that, in the context, at least some of the rebuke he received was justified.

@Budget_Player_Cadet

He’s literally admitted that he’s just trolling, and I have no idea why, of the two people with a “C” at the front of their name in that thread, the one who got banned was the one we suspected was a troll, rather than the one we knew was a troll. :rolleyes: He’s even an embarrassment to the conservatives on this board. Not even they like him.

Has he really?
I mean, I can see him saying something like “I enjoy seeing all you libtards shrieking like monkeys when I poke you”, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him quite tip over the edge of the bridge by saying “I don’t actually believe what I’m posting; I’m just doing it to get a rise.”

That said, it does confuse me that he’s been given as much rope as he has in regard to the *don’t be a jerk *rule. I’m also curious as to why he’s stuck around so long when, as he claims, he does NOT enjoy poking the liberal monkeys with a stick, and is tired of our stupidity. (I count myself as a liberal monkey. Specifically, this monkey.)
I wonder if it’s perhaps the equivalent hate-watching Fox News for him?

(I, too, was curious as to why CosmicManiac got banned after seemingly having a come-to-Jesus moment and actually acknowledging his fault.)

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Not_Carlson

Has he really?
I mean, I can see him saying something like “I enjoy seeing all you libtards shrieking like monkeys when I poke you”, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him quite tip over the edge of the bridge by saying “I don’t actually believe what I’m posting; I’m just doing it to get a rise.”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19946433#post19946433

Got suspended for it too.

[Not_Carlson]

Oh, yeah. Thanks. Dang.
I forgot that that was what got him suspended.
I even remember thinking “that’s it. He’s gotta’ be out of here now.”
And then noting his subsequent suspension with mixed satisfaction (because I am petty) and disappointment (because the same). Just a suspension. Curious.

[QuickSilver]

I think the mods enjoy calling him a fucking idiot as much as the rest of us do. And he can’t block them. That’s why they keep him around.

[watchwolf49]

@Clothahump

[snip] … It is impossible to get a rational response out of the liberals on this board. Or pretty much anywhere else for that matter … [snip]

This should be a clue to you … one that is free of charge …

Although you are good at pointing out the flaws in the liberal rationality … that’s not a substitute for providing the conservative rationality … I’m not saying this is God’s truth, but it seems you’re always pointing out saying “you’re wrong” as a way to cover your own inequities … a Pharisee if you will …

Perhaps you could list your credentials as a conservative, make and model of the guns you own …

[Superdude]

@Clothahump

Not Carlson, thank you for the civility of this post.

Now, having read through all the threads mentioned, I will say this: my statement about liberals in general was correct. However, that thread was not the correct place to make it. Mea culpa for that one.

So…isolating the statement by itself and removing it from any context of the surrounding threads, is my statement in and of itself correct?

Based upon the typical response to anything that I post, or statements made about me, the answer is yes. For example, let’s just look at some of the posts in this thread alone:

And all of this is before I even saw the post to respond to it (I actually do have a life away from the SDMB). I imagine buckets more will emerge after my response. But…all of this proves my point. It is impossible to get a rational response out of the liberals on this board. Or pretty much anywhere else for that matter. What I listed above were personal attacks and outright lies about me. Yeah, I know, it’s the Pit and all that, but one can still wish and hope for at least an underlying grain of logic or common sense in a post.
To answer this…if I say “fuck you” to someone, that is a direct attack. However, saying “fuck off” is a somewhat stronger version of “go be an asshole somewhere else and stop bothering me”.

I hope my explanation was what you were looking for. If it wasn’t, let me know and I will try to clarify further.

Point of order, Clothahump:

I’ve posted on this board for over 15 years. Over that time, I’ve had the opportunity to see scores of interactions between you and other posters. At no time have I seen you engage, or attempt to engage, in anything even approaching civility. You don’t debate, you insult. You characterize anyone disagreeing with you as stupid. You consider yourself as intellectually superior to just about every other person who posts here, yet when an assertion of yours is challenged, you either resort to insults and condescension, or you abandon the thread, never to return to it.

If you feel like you’re an unfair target in your interactions, you might want to admit that at least part of the problem is that you engage in dishonest debate tactics.

I’m not trying to insult you, or turn people against you. I’m not trying to disrespect you, either. I’m just trying to get you to realize how you come across to others. I’m reminded of an old joke about Taylor Swift, and how she should write a song called “Maybe It’s Me.”

Yes, some people here disrespect you. But you haven’t exactly made it easy for them to change their opinion.

[Not_Carlson]

M’kay. Sorry. I meant to wait for **Clothahump **to get back to me on points (1) and (2) up thread, and I still hope that he will, but I had a few more things turning over in my mind that I wanted to lay out for his consideration.

@Clothahump

So…isolating the statement by itself and removing it from any context of the surrounding threads, is my statement in and of itself correct?
Quote:

They’re liberals, dude. Any time you say anything based in logic and fact, you’re automatically wrong and evil and bigoted and thinking with your dick, etc.

No. You’re statement is not correct in and of itself, because, in spite of your claim to the contrary, it is inseparable from the context in which you posted it.

*“They” are Miller, Helena330, snfaulkner, ioioio, Grrr!, Wolf333, running coach, eulalia, Robot Arm, running coach, Gilundone, SeDragonTattoo, panache45, steronz, Aspenglow, Beren Erchamion, Lasciel, Bryan Ekers, Yllaria, Guinastasia, Sunny Daze, Budget Player Cadet, pilykamell, Little Nemo, dropzone, BigT, CairoCarol, Gatopescado, SaneBill, some doofus not named Carlson, kambuckta, Nava, kayaker, Fubaya, Knowed Out, Vinyl Turnip, naita, Eonwe, QuickSilver, and Azeotrope — all those who posted something that could be considered an opposition to the now banned CosmicManiac before you came in from left field to make your sweeping statement of derision, ostensibly in support of the OP.
The content of these posters’ contributions was a mix of head-shaking, stern but reasoned rebuke, logical and factual counterpoints, exasperation, jesting, mockery, a very little partisan scorn, and defense of the OP’s target. (I observe, also, that the only other post in the OP’s support up to that point appears to have been his now banned sock.)

You then pointed to the posters who subsequently derided your snipe as retroactive evidence for its justification, while seeming to ignore the irony that your post was an unjustified blanket attack on just about everyone who had posted before you.

I would be pleased if you could recognize that.

You claim your anti-liberal statement stands out of context, yet you try to justify it by framing it in the selective, unidirectional context of the backlash it caused, while ignoring the context in which you made your post. You point an accusing finger at those who attack you, but don’t look back to consider those you yourself have attacked.

*(Apologies to any I missed. There was a lotta ya.)

[Not_Carlson]

Clothahump, that **Superdude *chap’s words seem pretty reasonable to me.
I hope when the time comes that someone says something like that to me, I take a moment to give their words some serious thought.

*(again)

[Clothahump]

@Not_Carlson

Clothahump, thank you for responding.
And of course I understand that having real-life commitments means people can’t be expected to respond to a thread toot sweet.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you acknowledge that your statements were out of place in the quoted thread.
However, in that regard, and before asking you to address the individual points in my OP, I would appreciate it if you could perhaps address the following 2 points directly.

(1)

Does this mean that you did not actually read through the Pit thread started by **CosmicManiac **(as an attack on Helena330), or read their respective posts in the original thread in which **Helena **chided **CosmicManiac **for his ludicrous and blatantly misogynous comments, before you posted your statement?

You say:

But context is important. In this case the context was (in my opinion) an illogical, unfactual, bigoted and unwarranted attack on Helena. This, I believe, was the sentiment of most responders, understanding the context. But you chose to defend **CosmicManiac **by characterizing his detractors “liberals”, with the implication that their opinions should automatically be dismissed, rather than as thinking individuals.
Did you at least read the Pit thread before you posted your attack on “liberals”?

I went back and re-read them both. That’s what made me acknowledge that my comment was wrong. I shouldn’t have made it.

(2)
You point to the negative (though mostly mild) comments made toward you by some of the posters in this thread (which, in context, is a carryover from the now closed thread), and in the closed thread you attempted to justify your anti-liberal statement with the following: (Sorry. Quote function’s not working properly.)

You seem to use posters’ attacks on you as evidence that “liberals” are bigoted or illogical, without acknowledging that the content of your posts or the context in which you make them may justify a negative response.
Since you acknowledge that the Pit thread against **Helena **was an inappropriate place to make your comments, can you also acknowledge that at least some of the subsequent derision you received there and here has been becauseof the inappropriateness of your comments in that context?

Calling me a gutless coward, etc., isn’t exactly mild, although I did get a laugh out of the big, brave keyboard warrior making that comment while posting anonymously on a internet message board.

Giving me a negative response is okay. Responding with NOTHING but personal attacks (ad hominem) simply indicates that what I posted was correct and the respondent can’t refute it. Hence the ad hominem.

But it is not just this thread. It’s damn near any comment I make on any topic at any time. I don’t get intelligent responses, I get name-calling and bullshit on the level of a five year old throwing a tantrum in a sandbox. If a large number of members of a group repeatedly respond in a similar manner, it’s a reasonable assumption that that type of response is indicative of the group as a whole. I have seen the same sort of behavior from the liberals towards other conservative posters here as well. And that is why I made the statement.

If you really want to get nuts-and-bolts technical about it, the behavior is classic bullying. Someone who doesn’t “fit in with the group” is mocked and ridiculed and called names. I see it constantly in young kids. I see the same behavior here with the liberal posters and I see it out in the live world with liberals as well.

Sad, but true.

Again, I hope I clarified things. If I didn’t, keep hitting me for follow-ups until I do.

[SteveG1]

@watchwolf49

This should be a clue to you … one that is free of charge …

Although you are good at pointing out the flaws in the liberal rationality … that’s not a substitute for providing the conservative rationality … I’m not saying this is God’s truth, but it seems you’re always pointing out saying “you’re wrong” as a way to cover your own inequities … a Pharisee if you will …

Perhaps you could list your credentials as a conservative, make and model of the guns you own …

In response to the bullshit to which you were relying to (Clothy)…

Clothy:
When everyone around you is an asshole, maybe it isn’t THEM.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Clothahump

Giving me a negative response is okay. Responding with NOTHING but personal attacks (ad hominem) simply indicates that what I posted was correct and the respondent can’t refute it. Hence the ad hominem.

I’m pretty sure I speak for more than just myself when I point out that you’ve shown yourself as capable of recognizing when you’re wrong as a Young Earth Creationist, and about as eager to actually come back to any discussion where any serious discussion is happening. I’ve written you off as someone like Drunky Smurf or my batshit crazy grandmother - someone who, through repeated attempts, has shown themselves as not worth talking to. And it’s really almost never just ad hominems. Usually, mixed in there, is a clear explanation of why you’re wrong. Often, it’s repeated several times, along with people pointing out how fucking stupid you are.

Why am I bothering now?

Shit, gimme my five minutes back.