At long last someone has pointed out the lack of politial relevance of someone on an internet message board.
All Hail Kimmy_Gibbler, THE GIANT SLAYER!!!
<pause for applause>
Thank you. Thank you. I have transformed the medium.
You’re a transformer and a medium!?! :eek:Is there no end to your wonder?
Smashy, I would just like to give you some advice. Unsolicited and nonaggressive. This post here could have easily been reduced to just a few words. It makes it difficult to understand you when you string so many descriptive phrases together.
I am also a little curious to know why when someone nice comes along to seriously discuss things with you, you ignore them? I wouldn’t mind speaking to you.
Thank you and have a nice day,
~S.P.I.~
You I hope. Those crazy fuckers are NUTS. You should fit right in.
Factotum? Is this a common slur in use among the anarchist community these days? Is it recent? Is it ubiquitous?
Factotum as a sneering insult is a new one to me. Of course anybody using factotum as even a neutral descriptor outside of a history book is a new one as well. If I had to make a list of dying words in the English language ( at least in the U.S. ), that would probably be on it.
Shoptalk slang is always kind of curious from the outside. I remember telling my Marxist father decades ago that the near constant use of “running dog imperialist” made his commie paper virtually unreadable. By the hundredth time I ran across it ( maybe by the sixth page ), I felt like repeatedly slamming my head into a wall.
I dunno. Calling someone a neckbearded factotum has a nice ring to it.
Must we remind you that you proudly boasted of losing a battle of wits with a door lock?
Hmm. “Material Excess and the Neckbearded Factotums.”
One night only at the Orpheum!
-posted from a MacBook Air
I myself liked Smash’s post in the David Icke reptillian thread.
I didn’t agree with it, of course, but I thought with just a tad more attention to detail and exposition he could come up with some first rate SF.
That’s exactly why Umberto Eco is such a great author – he keeps his prose really simple; dumbed down, almost.
Might have something to do with the fact that your reply probably gets lost in the sea of “HUR HUR THAT GUYZ A CRAZY!! WE WIN TEH INTARNET!!!”
?HYPHENATION OvERFLOW ERROR
READY
>_
You’re saying the same thing, only with more words. People disagree with views that they disagree with. They’re not obligated to engage in detailed, scholarly refutation. Most ignorant people are ignorant for a reason, and quite often that reason isn’t that they simply haven’t been exposed to the information. Many of them are willfully ignorant, some areignorant because they’re also stupid and incurious. Some, like Smashy and Kimmy, are ignorant because they’re stupid, arrogant, completely lacking in introspective abilities and convinced of their own self-righteous superiority without having to back it up with anything more than jargon and bluster.
But even if they’re not, people can disagree with various tones of “Nuh unh!!!”
And remember, along the same lines, that as much as we’re about fighting ignorance we also often end up fighting ‘ignorants’. Someone like Smashy deserves no more consideration than lekatt does, and for exactly the same reasons.
Smashy was found to be lying when he pretended that most anthropologists held any the views he ascribed to them, and when pressed, could only cite a few books, sans quotes, some of them not even written by anthropologists. He also made other stuff up, like a claim about South American culture that was quickly refuted.
Nor is it any tenet of intellectual honesty that you have to spend time or effort to say “man, you’re dumb.” People who drop into a thread to quickly poke a few holes in Lekatt’s ramblings, or just mock him a abit, may not be acting in a scholarly manner but they’re not behaving with intellectual dishonesty. So Smashy was dishonest and intellectually dishonest to boot, and those who responded with mockery were under no obligation to treat him as anything other than a joke.
It’s not about “unexpected”. Someone who came into a thread with a divergent viewpoint but argued it with solid facts and logic would be able to support their position. Smashy just farted in the thread and expected people to take him seriously.
Got any proof of that claim?
You’re using “listen to” in the same idiosyncratic way many parents do. We’re perfectly able, however, to listen to what someone says and dismiss it as bullshit.
But that doesn’t change anything. Lekatt has a point. Creatonists have a point. Advocates of homeopathic medicine have a point. 9/11 troofers have a point.
Having a point doesn’t transform a useless idiot into someone worth responding to in detail.
And just because someone has a point doesn’t mean that we have to respect them, their argument, or their method of argumentation. Especially if they’re arrogant, obnoxious and stupid, while their argument is dishonest and it’s argued in a sloppy manner to boot.
…is that poor Smash is still stuck in Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine, dial set to 1900, a-marching with the Wobblies, instead of the reality of being an anachronistic pseudo-intellectual figure of fun.
Yeah, it can be hard to fight those troglodytic (is that a word?) tendencies to treat seriously ill people like they have a treatable illness, instead of regarding them as one’s pet shamans.
Apart from his being an unusual political fossil, we should perhaps tolerate Smash for serving up hilariously credulous woo, which can then be shot down as both a means of combating ignorance and for sheer enjoyment. Smash, for instance, believes that aspartame is horrible nasty toxic stuff that introduces METHANOL into our bodies, and gets his briefings on the subject from a loony-bin foundation that also thinks soy is a terrible health hazard, and that high saturated fat and cholesterol are good for you along with heapin’ helpings of raw milk and poached animal brains.
Smash does deserve a B- for the new insults, lame as they are. The old ones mostly elicited a 
, particularly the neckbeard thing. Were we supposed to believe that being compared to Thoreau was bad? Is he unaware that facial/neck hair and anarchists were not exactly strangers? Aren’t the petit bourgeois mostly clean-shaven, Aqua Velva-using oppressors?
We need a neckbeard smilie.
All I have to say is that SmashtheState and Kimmy_Gibbler have inspired me to up my game at coming up with creative insults. I’ve gotten flabby and sedate in married life and my well owned smack-pwn skills have fallen into disuse. 
There does seem to be a tendency for the board to elect a whipping boy every now and again. Funny, I never get any notices about when the voting is going on.
SmashTheState, keep it up. Although I disagree with much of what you say, at least you’re entertaining.
ivn1188, nice rant!
That tl;dr crap should be considered thread shitting or at least as deplorable as pulls up a lawn chair.
To whoever complained about these poster pit threads: It’s the only way for me to keep up on the most recent thread gossip so shush!
Look, FinnAgain, all you’ve been doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and bitching and moaning that you don’t have to come up with any evidence to disprove people because it’s obvious that they’re idiots. Don’t you ever worry that people are going to realize you just can’t keep up with Smash? His claims about anthropologists actually weren’t refuted–you just never bothered to read the parts of the thread that don’t jibe with your worldview or preconceptions about other posters. Even DSYoungEsq, nobody’s idea of a hothead, called you out on your lame excrement-flinging.
The thing is, as Smash continues to acquit himself with aplomb on this board, your ranks are thinning, and the more you continue this line of tragic argumentation, the more you look like just an emperor in his newest clothes.
This is exactly why you are an arrogant fuckwit that can’t do anything but bluster. You had the perfect opportunity to prove him wrong, by providing your own cites. Surely, things that are so obviously true must be easy enough to prove; your failure to do so indicates that you’re actually just talking out your ass.
Sure, you might claim you don’t need to refute the “woo” (fucking retarded term, BTW) because it’s so obviously wrong. That alone consigns you to the useless mouthbreather sect that depends on no argument but consensus. You are such an incredible little bitch that I am frankly amazed you haven’t been raped by a pack of wild hyenas.
You don’t even have the saving grace of being mildly entertaining, even when you adopt (in what I am sure is a shoutout to your origins) your trademark “retarded hillbilly” style.
You’re a fucking wanker, Jackmannii. Nothing but hot air and pomposity.
Aspartame does metabolize into methanol; its other breakdown products include formaldehyde. You might want to pass on the “Watch Scrubs and Get CE Credits!” symposium this year, Doc.