It is not very complicated actually. I am, by nature, cynical and ironic. As a personal goal I am attempting to overcome this. Personally I do not feel that this sort of communication has much of a constructive place in human interaction. Your mileage (obviously) will vary.
Right, this.
What’s most hilarious about all the cigar-chomping, back-slapping, old boys’, country club monocle-popping and mutton-chopped sun-never-sets harrumphing around here is that their unwavering certainty in the naive-materialist shittery squeezing steam-fresh from Dawkins’ holy ass-cheeks to their quavering and prayerful lips is that the very ridicule they level at me – that the views I espouse are “fringe” or “woo” – is generally pointed at them by the vast majority of Western culture. I’m a raving lunatic for supporting neurodiversity? Well guess which one of us would be more welcome at a charismatic christer revival with people jabbering in tongues and twitching all over the floor.
It would be sad, pitiful even, watching the local neckbeards french-kiss their Jamie Hyneman blow-up dolls while they circle the wagons against anything unfamiliar except that some of these tossers (I’m looking at you Jackmannii) are actually working professionals whose troglodytic knuckle-dragging over issues which affect real people (like schizophrenics) is pretty horrifying.
Okay, but why not? Irony is just as capable a form of communication as sincerity, and is able to more ably convey certain nuances. Additionally, does all communication necessarily have to be constructive? Isn’t simply being amusing a worthy goal in and of itself?
… is that you assume everyone who argues against you is rich?
I sympathize with some of your view and I wish everybody didn’t dismiss them out of hand, but you couldn’t be a worse advocate for them.
I chomp cigars and belong to old boys clubs and am most certainly not rich. Nor do I own a monocle or have mutton chops. 
I also am not so opposed to SmashtheState’s point of view.
Oh, I sincerely doubt many of you are rich. The very rich and the very poor have much more in common with each other than either do with the petite bourgeoisie, who comprise the vast majority around here. It’s only the middle class who believe that the laws are fair, the courts are just, the police are friendly, and The System is an equitable compromise. The rich and the poor are quite aware that the system is designed to rape people in the ass; the rich because they get to do the raping, and the poor because they’re the ones being raped.
This whole message boards stinks of shopkeepers and factotums. The stench of spiritual death and materialist excess is unmistakable.
Sorry. I had cabbage for lunch.
I’m more inclined to believe that he thinks people who are arguing against him wouldn’t object to being rich. 'Cos that’s the only thing that could possibly keep someone from being motivated to “smash” the “state”.
See, thing is, if they turn out to not really be dismissable, someone who doesn’t make such a concerted effort to put everybody’s back up will be along to put them forward again.
I agree that his prior well-poisoning can make that a bit problematic.
You are so totally deep. And angry. Almost forgot angry. Very important. You’re so totally deep and angry. Mustn’t forget the big words either. Deep, angry, and big wordy. That’s what you are.
If we’re not rich, who’s paying for the monocles, sideburn trims and the upper-class British accent lessons? I’m just asking!
There’s more of that here than I like, but overall, there isn’t very much of it. Only relative to you do people believe those things.
I don’t agree with you that my post boils down to to have people disagree with me. Certainly not. It boils down to, in my opinion, that there’s no discussion, but ridicule and smug comments, if you’re not airing a “sandbox” opinion, if you excuse my expression; cheap shots and back patting – “now we got him, didn’t we?”. It isn’t “ignorance fighting”, but the group reinforcing its world view, its sandbox of thoughts and conclusions.
No big deal for me personally, really, but I insist that this is fact, and this fact is the source of frustration on Smash’s part, I believe. Smash initial intention was intellectually honest, but the response was intellecutally dishonest, in short.
He—and other who come from an unexpected angle—can’t get a serious discussion going, because the pack tear him apart instantly, without actually thinking, reading, because you’re supposed to have these and those opinions. And that’s pseudo intellectual, not “ignorance fighting”.
Ok, I haven’t read all the Smash threads, and what I’ve read haven’t made me a Smash fan, but please acknowledge that I’m using Smash as an example, because he has a point in his critique of this board. An “ignorance fighting” board should listen to those who criticize it—we all agree I hope, that Smash isn’t a troll, but can argue for himself, and I say his arguing is more honest than most of the dopers’ in these threads—and not just go into the “he’s a dumb asshole” routine.
No one thinks Smash is right in every aspect, but the man has a point, whether we like it or not. That’s what it boils down to.
SmashTheState has organized the Ottawa Panhandler’s Union. Your political claim to fame is being the SDMB’s resident archnemesis to Shodan. Perhaps you’d like to reconsider who is the hothouse flower and who is the heavy lifting of progessive politics.
A bunch of E-Trade Kulaks the lot of them!
I am unable to join you in making this all very personal, as I regret I don’t remember who you are. Is there anything interesting about you I might recall?
Remember me as the one who deflated your laughably pompous pretensions to any sort of political relevance, factotum.
DJ’s best friend on Full House? I believe DJ said of her, “Kimmy’s not an airhead. She just hates thinking.” So true.
I LOLed.
I still us a PC and AOL. Does that count? 
How does AOL help you dominate the means of production and keep it out of the hands of the workers?