He has too many “hot takes” on legal issues that seem really goofy.
I’m going to disagree scudsucker. I mean, technically, if you can find a factual subject that has no bearing on social, political or moral issues (not an easy ask I’d say) then it might be worth reviewing with a pinch of salt.
But go through the thread again. The Roastee of Honor picks and chooses what “factual” basis he argues from, and it changes to suit his conclusions, rather than arguing from merit or causes.
So, as a couple of examples, he considers himself a constitutional scholar… unless he feels that the amendment doesn’t apply. Or that territory gains by conquest are fine, As long as it’s before his chosen point of the World War Era.
And that anything done that is legal is fine, despite the moral arguments, again, unless it’s a law -he- doesn’t approve of, at which point, nope, it’s not fine.
It’s part and parcel of what’s going on in ATMB, he disagrees how the rule should be applied, because, well, he he feels HIS interpretation is the only one relevant, despite not being a mod. So he keeps fighting it.
And I think this might be my biggest issue with Max over the years. He uses the law as a substitute for an ethical framework. To him human beings are just variables in a court case. That’s a problem.
Well, given the prevalence in society, it is no surprise there is at least one (and probably more than one) poster with sociopathic tendencies on the board.
I don’t mean that in a perjorative sense but, possibly stealing Max’s thunder, in the dictionary definition sense of the word.
Int 16, Wis 5.
Yeah — I do believe that he is completely earnest in his repeated assertion in the ATMB thread that his horrible, horrible ideology is not, inside his head, motivated by malice or a desire to do harm.
Because someone who completely lacks normal human emotions and possesses zero functional sense of empathy is constitutionally incapable of recognizing harm done to others. It is simply not in his cognitive framework to feel motivated by malice because that requires the ability to perceive the hurt that one’s choices and behavior can cause.
To echo Jihi, Max doesn’t see people as people. He sees them as symbols in a math equation.
You miss the bit where he wants to deny some people their basic human rights? What’s it take to get on you bad side?
I am, apparently, extraordinarily tolerant!
(One might put forward a counter-argument, for example, that I am in reality a fool, but for reasons related to my own opinion of myself, I am not going to be the poster to do so)
There’s a term for a person who will watch their spouse abuse their child and make excuses for them, but “extraordinarily tolerant” isn’t it.
Or that you don’t care about people different than yourself.
In general I agree with this. But every once in a while, he doubles down on something like what’s in the OP, and I just want to scream at my screen.
Though I will also note that he often has the ChatGPT problem: appearing way more confident about things that his knowledge covers. For example, his legal arguments are generally quite wanting.
I find that, when he is willing to listen, we can get into some interesting topics and conversations. But when he isn’t, he can be entirely infuriating.
And, while I don’t want to toot my own horn, I know I get into that a bit, too (though I’m hopefully better than I used to be) But I also try my best to know when to shut up and back away.
Yes, they’re called the “skew”
TIL
Characters for Discourse
This is an extemely late response to you, so my apologies.
I care, like any sane person. I care about women and children, as an adult male they are different to me. I live in a multicultural society. I care about people with different culture or skin colour, because, as an adult, I interact with such people every fucking day.
I mean, @madmonk28 - dude, I live in South Africa. We have 11 state recognised languages, and that just covers the major players. There are a bunch more minorities. I come from Zimbabwe which has just around 5 minority groups, I lucked into being born into the (white) dominant one.
I think that you accuse
[quote=“@madmonk28”] me of not caring about people different than yourself. [/quote] incorrectly.
And thus being the pit, I will add some mild invictive.
Fuck you, @madmonk28. Come here to South Africa and fucking see broken white colonialism gone wrong and how fucking complex it is to fix the situation. It’s been over 30 fucking years, and the South African experiment is succeeding.
A hard fight to success, and we are not there yet. But we are trying.
So fuck you, @madmonk28. You gormless, stupid, imbroglio of an idiot.
Oooh! Practically a tribute post to Max_S!
A whole bunch of words, none of which addresses your attitude of sucking up to a legalistic approach to bigotry.
Max_S posts thousand word posts all of which can be distilled down to “It is [was] legal, so it can’t be immoral”
If you’re impressed by his intellect you’re a fucking idiot.
Let’s see, Max said:
“I’m against a number of legal rights that gay people fought hard to achieve.“
And when people called him out, you said:
So it’s reasonable to conclude you don’t care about gay people. Then when I pointed that out you got sad.
Fuck you, too.
(See how I did that more succinctly than you?)
Well, Mr. Monk, you may feel you have “won”, and “more succinctly” than I, but in the words of the Great Lebowski, “well, uhm, that’s just like, your opinion, man”
Good on you for using the word succinct. I do prefer to engage with people who make the effort to appear intelligent.
I will definitely give Max that: he makes the effort to appear intelligent.
Touché
