Reminds me of John Finnemore’s Souvenir Programme where he proposes an entirely new type of dog show* (“a competition to determine which dog… looks most like… a dog”).*
Ah! Found a script…
Imagine this said without taking a breath (liked I imagined wolfpup’s :explanation"):
“We can have sub-competitions. The Cocker Spaniel that looks most like a Cocker Spaniel, the Sealyham most like a Sealyham. And then, the winners of these contests will be pitted up against one another, and we will finally be able to determine whether the Labrador that looks most like a Labrador looks more like a Labrador than the Pug that looks most like a Pug looks like a Pug.”
The responses reminded me of my HS biology teacher who once said that there are two types of people: “lumpers”, who sort groups into a few broad categories, and “splitters”, who divide groups into a lot of narrow categories. I am not absolutely certain, but I think he was being ironical.
(I would have posted that in that thread, except, my hands are clean yet and I am out of virtual soap)
I’ve seen him elsewhere on the internet. Apparently, he’s in his mid to late teens, and is interested in politics. Problem is, that he’s been hanging out in a place that leans to the right, where everything is binary: one is either a leftist libtard who supports socialism, Obummer, and Shrillary; or one is a God-fearing patriotic American who believes that Trump walks on water. It seems not to occur to most in that place that one can, for example, be a Democrat who opposes abortion; or a Republican who doesn’t like the idea of a Mexican wall.
It is a place unlike here, and compared to it, we would give off a scary vibe. Over there, assertions are made without cites; when cites do appear, they are in many cases to opinion blogs. Long, rambling posts are quoted in their entirety, only for the poster to say, “I agree!!!11!!” Ad hominems are common. Moderation exists, but it is never explained; threads are simply cornfielded, rather than being locked with an explanation. If that’s his only experience so far, it is easy to see how his comments here might be seen as trolling.
That’s why I say to cut him a little slack, for now. Maybe if he hangs out here, he’ll learn how to debate online; and that most people are somewhere between zero and one. Maybe I’m being too nice, but let’s see how he manages here.
Oops. There was a new page and I missed it. Still argue that his claim to be autistic and certain language I’m hesitant to articulate indicates a troll. Being autistic is not consistent with that style. It’s just a feeble excuse to make you think better of them.
I’m in no position to cut him slack or not, but suffice it to say that I’m avoiding that thread. The problem with this guy isn’t some particular incorrect belief, it seems to me to be multiple layers of stupidity, layer upon layer of stupid beliefs, all directed to the notion that liberals are idiots.
His last gambit in that thread was hilarious. He finally drops the big “gotcha”: if an example of intersectionality is the intersection of sexism + race, then how about sexism against animals, huh? How about that? Yeah, I can see his point. How do you think an ambitious poodle bitch – maybe a dog show champion – feels when the Golden Retriever next door turns out to be a patronizing misogynist? Well, that zinger shut them up. Dang liberals – incapable of logical thinking!
And now he’s looked up Wikipedia to show that animal rights is a thing, and therefore the illiterate imbecile thinks he was right. If he’s anything other than a troll or a hopeless moron, I would be amazed.
