Well now I know just what I am. Thank God for asking simple questions online. 
Shut up, you’re a jerk.
If you’re JAQing around on page 8, you’re a troll.
As I’ve explained before, the fact that my comments about your posts reveal some underlying problems with your opinions that you never consciously intended doesn’t mean that I’m misunderstanding or misrepresenting your views. It just means that your assertions sometimes have some implications that you haven’t noticed.
And, as I’ve also explained before, when I point out some of the unintended implications of your assertions, that doesn’t mean I’m “assigning” any of them as “motives, beliefs and assertions” to you personally. But you don’t seem able to stop yourself from taking them personally and getting upset about them.
Taking a closer look at your recently posted example:
Here you entirely ignored my earlier response that was directly applicable to your specific conversation with the boy in question:
So as usual, Starving Artist, you forgot about or ignored what I said in direct response to your anecdote, which was not at all accusatory or critical of your actions therein. Instead you insisted on focusing on other, more general remarks I made, misinterpreting them as a personal accusation about this specific instance of your behavior (which in itself, as I already said, was not in any way objectionable), and getting all huffy about them in consequence.
I can (and do) explain to you repeatedly how your carelessness or forgetfulness with reading my posts leads you into this sort of self-generated confusion, but I can’t make you understand it if you wilfully refuse to do so.
Yup, or in this case travel with extended lack of internet access. I generally don’t bother trying to announce or predict specific times for my SDMB participation or any reasons therefor, because I figure it’s irrelevant to the content of the thread as well as being of zero general interest.
:dubious: Um, you seem to have forgotten (again) that I was posting in this thread before you were. Just because you and I have some extended arguments in a particular thread now and then doesn’t mean that either one of us is “stalking” the other.
In any case, you’re the one who seems to be far more emotionally invested in our exchanges and far more obsessed with what I’m thinking or feeling and how much time you imagine I spend on replying to you and what other posters think of me and so forth. I’m nowhere near as interested in anything about you personally as you seem to be in me: it’s just that, as I already mentioned, your posts are frequently so full of sloppy thinking and bad arguments that it’s interesting and thought-provoking to analyze them.
Pretty much, yes. Put another way, Burkean conservatism (or understanding that change is inevitable and often beneficial but taking it with deliberation) has been absorbed by the center-left. Academics like to dot the i’s and cross the t’s after all. Those who call themselves conservative Republicans are basically reactionaries. All they have left is pwning the libs. Their alleged support for free trade and balanced budgets is demonstrable smoke blowing.
Particularly relevant with regards to Starving Artist’s ongoing “women would be happier if they just knew their place” bullshit:
I blame the teaching of the theory of evolution. No, really, hear me out. I don’t mean I don’t believe species evolve, obviously. I just don’t think the forces shaping evolution are those of Malthusian economics.
The theory as I was taught, probably too long ago to be relevant, was that evolution was driven solely by competition for limited resources, and then used to justify, openly or implicitly, concentration of resources among a small group. The theory stated that the aggressive individual would have more opportunities to mate and spread genes. This obviously does not apply to females, who, by definition, put more resources into fewer offspring, and only makes sense if females are defined as resources and not as individuals driving evolution. It also ignores the importance of cooperation for the survival of social groups, and that ‘survival of the fittest’ leads to evolutionary dead ends, like those species that thrive in only one narrow, fragile niche, such as a one inch strip of mud in a tidal estuary.
I’m quite certain I’ve never voiced such an opinion.
The reason for this certainty is that I’ve never felt women (or black people, or anyone else) have a “place” that belong in or to which they should be confined.
Since you’ve chosen to attribute this notion to me, and to put it quotes as though you were quoting me directly, I’d very much like for you to quote or link to whatever I’ve said that leads you to the conclusion I hold this belief, and also for you to show where you got the quote you posted as though it were something I said.
You repeatedly allude to the supposed superiority of a time in which every woman, black person, gay person, and other minorities that I’ve ever spoken to that was alive at the time has said that society ensured they were in a certain place, inferior to white men, and that they are very glad those times are over.
But you’ve never learned anything from anyone on this board; I see no reason to believe you’re actually open to new information.
Scare quotes. (Separate from quotation marks for which purpose the software provides actual Quote tags that can be used to highlight an actual quote and its location.)
This is not a fact.
How is this relevant?
Kindly cite then which of my comments or other behavior led you to post this assessment of my behavior. Of particular interest would be “persistent” mistakes I’ve made, and/or how I often barge into conversations and post irrelevant information regarding my alleged “penisfeelings.”
I’m curious not only as to what led you to this conclusion, but also to what you’re referring by stating that I’ve forgotten it “again.”
Stalking behavior is not obviated by virtue of the stalker having posted to the thread first. When a poster can be counted on consistently to enter threads where the subject of his or her obsession (see, I can do it too! :D) appears, or when they focus upon and expend a vastly exaggerated amount of adversarial verbiage to the posts of the subject of that obsession despite the fact that the stalker appeared in the thread first, both behaviors may correctly be characterized as stalking. I have little doubt you know this.
I have little doubt that my posts provoke you to thought. Dishonest thought, but thought nonetheless.
And when making those “allusions” have I ever remotely voiced my support of those aspects of life which existed at that time?
This is incorrect.
This kind of comment is not infrequent on this board. Why is the presumption always that the conservative is expected to learn from the liberals here, but is never the reverse?
Does such an approach not seem arrogant to you?
Very well, then, I withdraw my request that Gary Kumquat cite the remark he attributed to me through the use of quote marks which were not intended to convey an actual quote.
I do not, however, withdraw my request that he post statements I’ve made which led him to claim that I have a history, whether ‘ongoing’ or limited to a single post, of having expressed the belief that “women would be happier if they knew their place.”
Did you see? Did you see, everyone? Starving Artist took a statement that was about him specifically and turned it into a thing about liberals persecuting conservatives. That way he can continue to blame liberals rather than having to come to terms with his own personal ignorance, obtuseness and dishonesty. Rules #1 and #2 in action.
So let’s rephrase: YOU, Starving Artist - not all conservatives, but YOU SPECIFICALLY - have repeatedly demonstrated yourself incapable of learning anything. And it’s not because you’re conservative, because most conservatives are capable of learning and adapting. No, it’s because you’re an ignorant asshole.
And no, liberals didn’t make you that - you’ve done that all by yourself.
This is not the presumption. This is about you. I’ve learned a lot from conservatives on this board. And lots of conservatives on this board interact with some humility and don’t assume those they disagree with are brainwashed. For example, you’ve yet to identify a single woman Doper who will endorse your approach to these issues about women. Every woman in this thread has been critical of your approach. Doesn’t this give you some pause? If not, then why would any of us consider what you have to say?
So…she’s there first, and then you show up? Makes you look like the stalker, not her.
Are you seriously asking how it is relevant to point out that your attempt to interpret my quoted remark as a direct accusation about your behavior completely ignored my previous comment, which explicitly was about your behavior, and which entirely contradicts your attempted interpretation?
Because if so, I’m really not sure how it is possible to explain it to you. If there was ever an instance of self-evident relevance, this is it.
Once again, the post of mine that you quoted about “penisfeelings” was not and never claimed to be an assessment of your personal behavior in the realm of irrelevant oversharing about penisfeelings.
What it is critiquing is your insistent expression on these boards of opinions defending irrelevant oversharing about penisfeelings (at least as long as the oversharer is using non-cussword expressions like “hot chick” instead of obscene ones like “jiggle ho” or similar).
Geez, Starving Artist. You insist on wrongly taking my criticisms of your opinions as personal attacks on your real-life behavior, at the same time as you ignore my explicit statements about not criticizing your real-life behavior. That, since you ask, is one glaring example of a persistent mistake you make.
The “again” referred to your recurring tendency to forget key points about the threads you’re posting in. It seemed likely you’d forgotten who’d posted first just because it makes you look so silly to accuse me of “stalking” you in a thread that you chased after me into, rather than vice versa. If I gave you too much credit there for realizing how silly it makes you look, I apologize for my error.
In any case, if you sincerely believe that anything about our exchanges on these boards really constitutes inappropriate “stalking” behavior on my part, I hope you’ll report it to the mods. I’m happy to abide by board authority when it comes to regulating my behavior toward other posters.
Failing that, I’ll continue to assume that the term “stalking” is just your way of attempting to disparage the existence of my posts because you’re so consistently unsuccessful at refuting their content.
Oh come on. We’re all aware of your precognitive Starving Artist Sense that allows you to forecast, with unerring accuracy, which threads he’ll join so that you can engage in nefarious “pre-stalking”.
I wonder what other adjective-noun combinations describing people are terribly un-PC or intrinsically bigoted nowadays. Is smart woman a misogynistic, dehumanizing combination? It’s commenting on a trait that is a function of biology, the brain and its ability, and noting the gender. Smartness, quickness, height, weight, number of toes, hair color are all things that make up a body. Let’s say there was an athletic woman on the beach and I commented to my friend or wife that she looked strong, would that be misogyny? That’s a judgement based on physical observation.
Why is it that something like sexual desirability from a visual standpoint is verboten to speak about but intellectual ability, class, profession, political affiliation, etc are all fair game to note? Even race, age, and gender are critiqued in this very thread. We see the cliche admonishments to old, white, males yet again and again and again with no hint of irony.
So it doesn’t appear that reductionism or stereotyping is the problem. The problem seems to be that a particular expression involving a non-preapproved to comment about group is used. Well, if you want to change society don’t be a hypocrite. This whole thread reads like a script from that bookstore in Portlandia. What is it 8 pages now? I wonder how many pages that Serena Williams caricature would generate.
What are you supposed to say if someone is a “hot chick”? I was really good looking during a time in my mid-20’s and I used to get called a “hot guy” by women all the time in Boston in the club and entertainment scene. I certainly didn’t mind.
I certainly don’t go around doing that now but I don’t think the phrase itself is offensive. Context is everything.