I don’t know why that seems so important. I have said, more than once, that I shouldn’t have made the post. As to be expected, a pile-on occurred. If I hadn’t made the post, it wouldn’t have. It ain’t rocket surgery.
Hey, Mr. Clothahump, do you still use ethnic slurs like “wetback”? Do you still thinks it’s okay to do so, or have you changed your mind?
Maybe I shouldn’t. He went on the ignore list for being an asshole. And for the record, his statement is incorrect, but no one seems to mind things like that around here any more.
The question is whether you can acknowledge that at least some of the derision you received was justified.
It is important because it goes to the heart of your claim that this board is full of bigots, bullies and buttheads.
It is important because it is central to the question of why you receive so much flack on this board and why people generally refuse to engage you.
It is important because it is connected to the number of blank posts that show up on your screen when you open a thread.
It is important because it is the hook on which I hang my hopes of having a reasonable discourse with you.
Saying “I shouldn’t have made the post” is a promising but ambiguous admission.
“As to be expected, a pile-on occurred” seems to me to be sliding back into the territory of blame-shifting.
“If I hadn’t made the post, it wouldn’t have” is an overly detached cause-effect observation that is neither an admission nor denial of culpability. (Similarly, if you had not turned on your computer that day you would not have been caught in a “pile-on”.)
I’m NOT asking whether you think you should or shouldn’t have made the post.
I’m NOT asking whether you regret making the post.
I’m NOT asking whether you think your post was justifiable in the greater context of board biases and bullying.
I’m not trying to goad you or set a trap for you. (Honest to god, who may or may not exist.)
I’m just trying to lay the groundwork for straight and honest discourse.
I must sound like a scratched record, but I feel like Sysyphus here.
So, at the risk of us perpetually talking past each other, I will ask again:
**THE QUESTION: **Can you acknowledge that at least some of the derision you received in the referenced Pit thread was justified?
Yes?
(Cards on the table: I am actually hoping you *will *respond in this manner, perhaps with some introspective elaboration, and prove that you are capable of self-assessment and accepting responsibility for how others see you.)
No?
(Honestly, this would disappoint me, but I realize it’s a strong possibility, which I would at least hope would be accompanied by something approaching a reasoned explanation.)
Virtually everyone deserves some derision sometimes. Getting clothahump to admit that one on occasion he deserved some derision doesn’t mean anything. Again, I can’t speak for him, but if he were to respond that there was room for criticism of his post in that thread but that such post(s) from a liberal poster would not have attracted nearly that much derision I would agree with him.
Then the next step is whether his overall posting style - while undoubtedly imperfect - is outside the norm for liberal posters and is attracting such widespread scorn on that basis, or whether it’s inside the norm and attracting widespread scorn because he’s outnumbered by liberals. I’ve not paid enough attention to have a firm opinion on this matter.
Well, he did admit to (and, in fact, bragged about) behavior reasonably characterized (and moderated) as trolling in a thread that you were a part of, IIRC.
Well, I’d say that if part of the reason that he is so widely derided here is because he is not capable of acknowledging what you suggest (that virtually all of us deserve some derision sometimes), then I’d say his response to my question is quite meaningful. And that’s what I’m waiting on.
This to me is a very . . . odd sort of statement.
From where I stand it seems crafted in the most peculiar effort to infer that, any-which way you look at it, the band of liberals who make up the majority of this board is just bullying Clothahump.
It’s like one of those optical illusions, except in this case, when you look at it one way it’s a vase, and when you look at it another way, it’s *still *a vase!
This is how I interpret your post: “Either the liberal majority here are attacking **Clothahump **because they just cannot accept his posting style, or they are attacking him because they outnumber him. I haven’t really given it enough consideration to decide which it is.”
Possibly not your intention, and maybe you’re just trying to be completely objective, like a naturalist studying animal behavior.
I just find your framing of the issue very, very odd.
I’m not sure what you find confusing or how you’ve interpreted my post.
The only thing I can think of is that you’ve misread my words “his overall posting style […] is outside the norm for liberal posters” as “liberal posters consider his posting style to be outside the norm”, when I meant “his posting style is not within the range of posting styles commonly found among liberal posters”.
But if it’s not that, then you’ve lost me.
No. You had it right the first time. FP is every bit as disingenuous as he seems. I don’t know who he thinks he’s fooling with his sophistry. Mostly himself, I think.
QED
It takes a special person to continually claim to be posting facts after said “facts” have been shown to be in error. The “fact” that Hillary Clinton is a “felon”, for example.
I have to agree that it’s a lie. I have made overtures, politely and civilly, and was ignored. Perhaps I am also on ignore.
The thing that caught my attention with that thread is the OP was a misogynistic jerk who came out swinging, and Clothahump was thrilled to attack liberals for objecting to the hateful views the OP was trying to put forth. Yes, it was wrong to rush to the OP’s defense with political attacks on a matter that wasn’t political at all, but he doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with his statement; it was just in the wrong place. But context is all important. The fact that he rushed to start attacking liberals (and saying that liberals think conservatives all think with their dicks, WTF? The one accused to thinking with his dick wasn’t some brave conservative enduring liberal slings and arrows, it the guy dating a cocaine addict/user)
And you still doubt he’s the Cobra Kai guy? :dubious:
He really isn’t, though. Even hyperpartisan debaters who are capable of analysing and responding to the substantive issues in their opponents’ posts manage to earn some grudging respect on this board. Clothahump, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate any notable critical thinking skills at all. His sole rhetorical gambit, repeated in various forms, is “You’re liberal, therefore you’re stupid, therefore I win.” Like the man in the Monty Python sketch he confuses arguments and abuse, and like the knight in a different Monty Python sketch he keeps insisting he’s winning when he’s run out of legs to stand on.
Consider his Stupid Liberal Idea of the Day thread. He launches right off with “So many to choose from”, and then promptly falls over at the first hurdle with a blatant misrepresentation of a non-issue. Most of the rest of the thread is left to us so-called liberals to fill - which we’ve been doing - while he sputters and posts abuse and insists there are so many examples of stupid liberal ideas that he can’t possibly choose one, occasionally selecting something from one of the far-right sources he apparently relies heavily on only to have it picked apart by those with more discerning eyes. Occasionally, in a stopped-clock kind of way, he manages to hit close to the mark but there’s no evidence that he understands how those differ from all the attempts that have gone wide of the mark.
None of this will have any effect on him, more’s the pity. Those posts not actively blocked by the Ignore function are blocked by his impenetrable Dunning-Krugerism. But we persevere anyway, because this is the internet.
In all candor, I genuinely doubt the sincerity of your post.
Yes, I understand this is what you meant.
You have presented the argument as:
Either **Clothahump **is being derided on this board because his posting style is “outside the norm” for the liberal majority (ie, his posting style is the problem and is not generally reflected in the postings of “liberal” members),
Or **Clothahump **is being derided because he is a minority on a liberal-dominated board (although his style of posting is similar to that generally reflected by “liberal” members).
That is, you’ve framed either option in terms of **Clothahump **Vs the Liberals, rather than allowing the possibility that the problem might be something other than politics. (While, curiously, avoiding applying the label of “conservative” to Clothahump.)
You have crafted the wording of your statements to suggest that, in either case, the problem lies with the “liberal” majority.
“Widespread scorn” for something “outside the norm” implies intolerance rather than justified rebuking for inappropriate behavior.
“Widespread scorn because he’s outnumbered” implies bullying.
This may not be your intent, but once you’ve crafted a work of artifice such as yours it is open to the interpretation of those who view it.
I calls it as I sees it.
“Is **Clothahump **an unconventional hero, derided for his unique posting style? Or is he a down-trodden victim of prejudice, persecuted only for being a stranger in a strange land? You decide!”
Anyhoo, I’d really like to focus on making progress with my discourse with Clothahump. My energy reserves can only last me so long.
And this is one of the things that I wanted him to address in the OP of this here thread, but right now I’m hoping to first clear what I thought would be a smaller hurdle before getting back to that.
Fingers crossed.
Not entirely. As with open accusations of trollery, sock puppetry, and lying, in this forum alone, we do not face sanction for revealing who is on our ignore lists.
Not sure if you’re allowed to call someone a Junior Mod here.
I just realized that the previous sentence could be construed as an oblique accusation that your question was Junior Modding. To be clear, I had no intention of leveling such an accusation, obliquely or otherwise.
No problem at all. In all candor, I genuinely doubt your sincerity in starting this thread.
“The norm” was intended to be understood in the context of the prior paragraph of that post (#85).
As I wrote in that paragraph, “Virtually everyone deserves some derision sometimes.” The question therefore is whether clothahump is an outlier in terms of being worse than most, either in frequency or severity, or if there are many others just as bad as him but who don’t attract the same level of criticism because their politics are in line with the board’s.
If the former, then there’s no “intolerance” involved, and no “problem” with the liberal majority, and the problem is on clothahump’s end. If the latter, then clothahump is correct to attribute much of the hostility to him to ideological causes.
I don’t follow clothahump’s postings as assiduously as some of you do, so I can’t say for sure. My point was that you can’t settle the issue by hashing out one particular instance, as you were purporting to attempt.
That rule was lifted at the same time as the ones against accusations of trolling and sockpuppetry in the Pit, IIRC.
Actually, I think the Cobra Kai guy drives a forklift at the processing facility where I work.