To be delivered in the face, right?
I’ve never seen Key Lime Pie in a pretentious restaurant, only places like truck stop diners and Denny’s.
Sometimes I wonder why I keep coming back here. Fortunately, Miller is here to remind me.
Next time I suffer a minor loss of pressure, and my wife looks at me accusingly, I intend to blame it on the factotums.
Regards,
Shodan
You do realize that this statement is perilously close to forcing one of two equally damning admissions:
You eat in pretentious restaurants with the neckbearded, monocle-wearing factotums, or
You eat at Denny’s.
I’m not sure which is worse… :o
I was just thinking the other day how good it is to have someone like SmashtheState here on the boards. A little variety is good (plus it’s refreshing to hear that someone on here doesn’t knee-jerkingly assume that if someone has a psychedelic, spiritual, or unexplained experience, they must be a drug-fueled, schizophrenic loon).
I’ve done both. I am just THAT enlightened.
I dunno. Part of why he pisses me off far more than I should let myself be pissed off is that I’m sympathetic to a lot of his views. Overall, it’s not his politics that bother me: it’s his preening pretentious personality. Then there are pernicious aspects to his politics, e.g., the neurodiversity nonsense. But if he were just another Rand Rover, I wouldn’t care so much: it doesn’t really bother me when people make extreme capitalism look bad.
No, no, no. He thinks schizophrenic is good.
I’ve argued the same thing. I’m lazy currently, but search for ‘goddess’ in posts I’ve made.
And, what’s more, you’ll find I argued for that perspective without being reduced to woo-mongering about the horrible dangerous of Nutra Sweet or how schizophrenia is really a state of super-enlightenment allowing someone to directly intuit archetypes.
Including the belief that Liberals would compromise between killing all blacks and no blacks by agreeing to just kill a bunch of them? 
Seriously though, I kind of grok this point. Through my travels, especially my time in college, I brushed up against some similar ideas. Years ago I might’ve argued that initiation experiences serve a valid psychological function by separating life-cycle phases and by postponing our major ceremonies/rituals until 18 and 21 years of age, we delay the onset of adulthood and prolong adolescence and certain magickal rituals are designed to simulate the cognitive effects of initiation rites. And so on.
I don’t mind (some) of his politics, and could happily disagree with them without rancor or annoyance.
It’s that he argues in such a sloppy, stupid, obnoxious, dishonest, arrogant, pretentious back-slapping “aint I awesome?” manner that raises my hackles.
Also, now I really want to say preening pretentious personality producing pernicious politics.
Hey, I haven’t read everything he’s written. If you were talking about someone else I’d assume you were jokingly exaggerating what the person said. Smash, not so much.
Precisely. The same holds true for ivn and Kimmy and mswas and Rand Rover, to name some others who have the same undeservedly smugly contemptuous attitude toward others. They never discuss, they only dismiss. (To be fair, of that bunch, Smash is a lot better than the others: he at least starts off sincere in a thread, and it’s just when he’s confronted that he goes loco).
Perfect!
Yeah, I wish I was joking.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11340227&postcount=387)
Some people ironize. And some people are just too fucking dumb to realize when they’re contradicting themselves.
And some people think they’re making a clever point when what they’re saying is totally irrelevant. Your point?
Yeah the part you took out of context seems ridiculous, but the rest of the post you quoted was spot on.
Left Hand of Dorkness Actually I am quite rarely smug and dismissive. Smug maybe, but not so dismissive. If not I wouldn’t hang around in threads for hours after hours while people ask me the same thing over and over again. “I don’t agree with your argument therefore it makes no sense.”
The argument by false dichotomy that’s so popular around here is something I am dismissive of, but those arguments do not deserve equal time.
Things like:
Christians
A) Nasty bigots?
B) Naive morons?
or
Western Imperialism
A) Totally murderous Oppression
B) Paternalistic saviors of humanity
or
Opposition to gay marriage (See Christians)
Many arguments are so idiotic that they don’t deserve equal thought. It’s not my fault that a few of them are extremely fucking common around here.
The last two sentences are exactly what I mean by “dismissive.” Sorry if I wasn’t clear before–but when you say that an argument doesn’t deserve “equal thought”, that’s dismissing that argument. You’re pretty smug and dismissive, and I think you belong in the company I put you in.
Ok well then I’ll accept that label. Some arguments are not worthy of giving equal time to. Not because I haven’t thought about them, but because the maximum thought to comprehend their entirety requires about 30 seconds of contemplation.
I fully admit that my education is somewhat lacking. I never went to college and am an autodidact and as such will often defer to people who know much more about the subject than I do. Maeglin, FinnAgain, Tomndebb, SentientMeat and others will send me into lurk mode pretty quickly on a lot of subjects. But other times where it’s not a matter of further factual knowledge but a matter of barely deeper thought on the subject, I find people wanting.
So you can consider it smug and dismissive if you want, but generally it’s not that I think I am so brilliant and others are stupid. It’s that I think that the stupidity of others is astounding. That giving the subject even like 30 more seconds of thought and they’d get it, but they don’t.
That being said, I am most often smug and dismissive with the smug and dismissive. If you truly don’t understand and are willing to be a bit humble about your lack of knowledge I’m not going to be smug and dismissive to you.
But really, “I’m smarter than you because I’m an atheist.”, like really, I have some obligation not to be smug and dismissive to that kind of childish bullshit?
First of all, I didn’t take anything out of context. Its meaning is not changed, at all, by seeing the entire post.
And no, the post was not spot on, at all. He was wrong in every factual claim he made and stupidly irrational in every inference he drew.
Steve didn’t say that the truth must always fall in the middle. He didn’t say that the middle course was always best, either. Smashy is just stupid and had to get off on one of his “I’m elite! All other politics are bad, only mine are acceptable ever!” rants, and he needed a strawman.
Specifically, Steve did say that a balance between liberal and conservative politics was optimal for the nation. Now, that assertion is debatable but it bears no resemblance to the babbling bullshit that Smashy served up. It’s actually reminiscent of how uneducated folks don’t understand that “ambivalent” does not mean “blase”.
Smashy’s first paragraph was just idiotic. Liberalism may be a lot of things, but faux individualism with no regard for societal welfare it aint. And rather obviously liberals don’t actually hold to the view that the truth is always between their position and the conservative one. Come on, simple logic tells us that. Otherwise we’d get a Zeno’s Paradox situation where liberalism ceased to exist and it was always a hair’s breadth away from that last compromise which would make them conservatives.
The penultimate paragraph is insane, frothing stupidity that actually managed to be bonkers, offensive and startlingly stupid all in one breath.
The last paragraph is just nutter ranting, rolling up offensive and inaccurate stereotypes of the left (they’re all Nanny Staters!) and offensive and inaccurate stereotypes of the right (they all want to oppress me so they can profit off my misery!). Of course, it just happens to be designed to paint the Smashy Party as the one and only party of true community, liberty and justice. But what else should we expect from an arrogant anarchist whose abilities can’t back up his pretension?
And yes, idealized liberalism and conservativism are the two sides of the left/right political spectrum, with libertarian/authoritarian serving as a useful ‘up/down’ axis. Anarchism, the nutty kind that Smashy advocates, isn’t a political philosophy at all in any real sense. Not any more than bald is a color of hair or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Indeed. It’s more than meets the eye.
The point being that liberalism and conservatism claim to be the whole of the debate, when they are actually just a small part of it.