Be simpler to just call him a dipshit.
There’s no reason to bring anyone’s mother into this. 
We’re not all fools. Some of us figured it out. Unfortunately, it’s clear he’s a racist.
I don’t know if he even realizes it, I figure most racists don’t think of themselves that way.
Of course not.
It’s always a busted syllogism.
“Racists are bad people”
“I’m not a bad person”
“Therefore, I’m not a racist”
Irrefutable logic?
I don’t think that’s what’s happening. With all the time he spends, if he’s trolling, he could be getting way better bang for his buck. I think he just thinks he’s kind of a brain genius. It’s clearly his actual mode of thought and his real opinions that he’s expressing, he clearly thinks he’s correct, and he clearly is trying to convince others of the sort of “facts and logic” robustness of his position. I don’t see anything he’s said as disingenuous, because I think it’s all predictable and consistent. I just think he has a genuinely, uh, either very deficient or very disordered sense of compassion, which leads to a lot of debates at cross purposes.
It’s always the same pattern: he offers up some very rigid, concrete philosophical position, people engage him on his terms in a sort of formal debate about his conclusions, when what they really want is to convince him that caring for other people should be a value of his, and then he engages with them ad infinitum about how his facts and logic demonstrate that no other conclusions than his are possible actually.
I mean, he’s probably right in that thread in his specific legal conclusion that the email isn’t actionable as a threat of violence. He’s probably also right that the odds are against the delegate in her lawsuit. I think from his perspective, that’s all that matters, because that’s all he’s trying to defend. And I think from everybody else’s perspective, what matters is what an asshole he sounds like, because whether you’re right or not about those things, you should also think it’s important to acknowledge that yes, a black woman would experience trauma from a fucking KKK-themed greeting card, wouldn’t she, and you don’t get to just leave that entire massive piece of context undisturbed while you drill down into only the little brainteasers you find intriguing. Unless you want to be called an asshole and a racist.
This is a pretty decent summary. 
I agree. And, to Max’s credit, it means that a bunch of people arguing with him are probably wrong. Assuming, that is, that people are claiming that the email in question meets some legal standard that it probably doesn’t. I got tired of that thread so I’m not sure if that’s still the case.
He’s the new Bricker in that regard. Bricker was, more often than not, absolutely correct in the narrow legal position he’d stake out. He was also, more often than not, an asshole about it. But he was right, and it made arguing with him all but impossible.
I certainly got emotionally invested in trying to get Bricker to “see” some point of view that he seemed to be obtuse about. I get why people argue with Max. But if he’s staked out some narrow definition that he’s “probably right” about, then people should just concede the stupid point and then move on.
The lingering effects of trauma are disorders. Anxiety, depression, insomnia, etc. My point is that if there aren’t any such disorders, we aren’t talking about the same usage of the word trauma.
I readily acknowledge that people of color can be traumatized by racist imagery even if there isn’t intent to threaten or otherwise intimidate with violence. I do not go so far as to say a person who sends a message containing racist imagery to a person of color (a politician!), used in a negative sense in line with a mainstream political position (comparing the politician to the racist depicted!), should automatically be liable for court damages and a restraining order against their local politician.
I also feel the need to point out, even though I think the author shouldn’t be punished in court, it’s still a despicable tactic they employed. Not out of place in politics but still despicable to accuse a PoC of being a race traitor.
~Max
From beyond the grave? 
~Max
So, to paraphrase the Dude, “he’s not wrong, he’s just an asshole”?
It became increasingly obvious that Bricker had no interest in leaving those narrow legal positions and this was a deliberate choice on his part in order to ‘win’ and/or be able to hold onto his own increasingly untenable positions.
This got a whole lot darker.
(Not in a racial way.)
I don’t like being an asshole (and don’t think I am being one), but the way I see it, if I wasn’t taking you guys think is an asshole position, I would be wrong.
If I thought this,
where “would” means certain or substantially certain, it follows that she should win the lawsuit concerning the charge of emotional distress.
~Max
Speaking of Bricker, one thing he was good at was pretending he was in a courtroom when it benefited him to do so.
By “trauma” I mean to communicate, in the colloquial and non-clinical sense of Merriam Webster #1(c), “an emotional upset.”
Because we are talking about a court case, and when I came over to this thread I carried that context over. MrDibble used the word “trauma” in the linked topic and, as I wrote, I assume he meant it in a strict legal sense then and here, otherwise the word had no relevance to the point he was countering.
For those who weren’t still following the other thread, I tried to make that clear here and here
At first I suspected MrDibble might have used it in the colloquial sense but he clarified, no, a reasonable person should expect your average Black person to suffer trauma as in a panic attack at the mere sight of KKK imagery, and the Delegate should win the lawsuit on these grounds.
That’s what I was responding to when I wrote,
~Max
And that he was appointed as defense attorney.
I have no problem with defense attorneys, even when they zealously defend an obviously guilty and heinous criminal, it’s their job, and no matter how guilty and heinous, someone has to do it.
I just always wonder why people choose to appoint themselves pro-bono as a defense attorney to defend them on the internet.
I think you’ll find that very few people are actually doing that. Certainly you are.
MrDibble was, or so I think, and he pitted me for it. If you’re saying for most of the pile-ons my words are being taken out of context, that takes the edge off.
~Max
What the fuck is the “strict legal sense” of psychic trauma, Mister NotALawyer?
I was very careful to use that full phrase, just so your disingenuous ass couldn’t come back with “What, you mean she suffered an accidental or intentional injury caused by energy, which is usually mechanical in nature”?
IIRC you distinguished between harm, trauma, and psychic violence.
I even clarified I was not talking about mere stress, here
~Max