Not being able to predict major events that have surely rocked the American political landscape is “fucking stupid”?
I guess the Bush administration should have been able to predict 9/11, no?
Spavined: your response to RexDart is wholly unwarranted. Law school classes are made up almost entirely of reading judicial opinions and discussing the reasoning behind those opinions. All Rex is saying is “I’ve read a bunch of these opinions, and having done so I think there’s less hocus-pocus involved in a textualist approach than in other approaches.”
He isn’t claiming to be the next incarnation of Learned Hand or Blackstone, he isn’t claiming to have knowledge beyond the grasp of the teeming millions, and he isn’t claiming to be a fount of wisdom. He’s just saying he has an informed opinion based on relevant real-life experiences.
Someone’s on a high horse, alright, but it isn’t Rex.
Nicely put, Maeglin.
Esprix
I think the point, MAEGLIN, is not that the Republicans have some ability of prognostication that the Democrats lack, but rather that if we can assume that neither party has that ability – and we can agree to that, yes? – then maybe the Dems should stop their dire predictions of future catastrophe and crow-eating.
It’s not fucking stupid to not be able to predict major events; I believe ANTH’s point is that is arguably stupid to persist in such predictions when you know or ought to know you’re not really able to support them.
(emphasis added)
Nicely put, Jodi. Seeing the predictions two years ago about how “Republicans were gonna pay” was absolutely laughable, and intellectually dishonest. Not that stopped the gang of usual suspects from making those predictions. Nor will it now for 2004. Oh! The irony! :rolleyes:
And maybe if some people weren’t so fucking stupid and uneducated they would have actually understood what I wrote, like you did. But that would require making a prediction that seems to have little evidence of being found true.
I’ve read it a few times, Jodi, and I honestly don’t see any justification for interpreting Anthracite’s claims so charitably.
The key words, as I see them, are a plethora of instances after the last election. Two years ago, I certainly thought the GOP was going to take it in the ass in 02. I probably even said as much. Though I welcome anyone to accuse me of stupidity, I find that it rarely happens.
Going back two years or so, it certainly seemed like the Democratic base would be mobilized, that new leaders would appear in droves, and that the progressive movement might just get its collective act together. To make a prediction of progressive gains and conservative crow-eating was a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Now, not so much.
As I see it on the level of the text, what Anthracite said was that all of us liberals are “fucking stupid” because our predictions were wrong. Hence my response.
Surely in retrospect you can see that it was not? You predicted it, and you were wrong. What more evidence of the “value” of such predictions do you need? They’re worthless, and they shouldn’t be made.
What ANTH said was that if you search for the “most partisan and insane posters on this board,” you can find “a plethora of instances” when these prophecies of doom were being made. That is totally, inarguably accurate for those posters. Take STOID, for instance, whom I personally consider a first-class whack-job on this subject – you can barely get the girl to talk about anything else. Shit, she’s still doing it as I type this – crying over how the earth is going to crash into the sun now that the Republicans are in power. But when ANTH specifically limits her comments to “the most partisan and insane,” why on earth would you assume that includes you?
UNA can defend herself, but she absolutely and clearly did NOT say this, and I don’t think any reasonable reading of her post could yield this conclusion.
Sleestak wrote:
How much?
Because they are fallible and based only on reasonable information that is available at the time? I dunno, I don’t see any harm in a little pre-election speculation. Politically motivated? Sure. Still, no harm.
Ok, but if Poster A (insane and partisan) and Poster B (relatively ordinary) both perform the same behavior, why is one “fucking stupid” and not the other?
My natural modesty. 
Curious. That is the only reading I can make of her remark. What’s the case for stupidity if not failure to make accurate predictions?
I see she has clarified in agreement with you. I’ll accept what she says as genuine in good faith. I just got something totally different from the text.
Where did I say or imply “liberals” in my original post? Please be sure you show me exactly where I said or implied “liberals”.
Oh wait, you can’t - that’s because you are purposefully distorting my message because you refuse to admit you made a hasty judgement.
As to the cause and effect portion, this has been explained to you already.
There are at least as many partisan and insane conservatives here as liberals. I don’t limit myself to castigating just the party I’m opposed to, as my posting record will show. Being able to recognize serious faults in your own ideology and party is one of the signs of being able to speak intelligently on more than just one solitary issue.
Now you’re starting to irritate me, Anthracite. Almost makes me regret accepting your comments in good faith.
It is thoroughly disingenuous to claim that just because you didn’t “say” liberals does not mean that you were not referring to them specifically. Considering that the board’s insane, partisan, “fucking stupid” conservatives were not making claims of a democratic revolution in 2002, it is pretty clear just whom you were talking about.
Uhhuh. Right. You found me out.
I think you will have to explain it again, because:
Would someone please enlighten this bumbling moron?
How about this – don’t try to predict (or, more to the point, guarantee) future events when those events are wholly dependent upon factors outside your control. (Not saying you did this, Maeglin; just that I believe this is the thrust of Anthracite’s argument.)
Heck, I’ll try:
MAEGLIN, what ANTH said was this:
“Them” and “They’re” clearly refer back to “the most partisan and insane posters on this board.” She said nothing about liberals in general. Nothing. Somehow, from her post you get:
That is very clearly NOT what she said. It just isn’t. And while I emphatically do not agree with your description of yourself as a “bumbling moron,” I must tell you that I see absolutely no reasonable way to read her post as you apparently persist in reading it.
Mkay. Even if I agreed with that 100%, my question is, how does engaging in this sort of behavior make one “fucking stupid?” That’s the rub, as far as I am concerned.
I have to say, Jodi, I find this really amazing. In all of Anthracite’s nearly 6000 posts, I doubt I could find any in which she self-identified as a liberal. I would argue that she consistently indentifies herself as a conservative, however.
She uses the phrase them telling us how we’re going to get it. I fail to see how this could mean anything other than liberals, if only the “insane, partisan” variety. Who else could she possibly be talking about here?
Likewise, I see no reasonable way to see harmless electoral speculation as “fucking stupid,” or a behavior that characterizes stupid people. It’s certainly possible to disagree with particular arguments or to take offense at some of the SDMB’s liberal embarrassments’ tones or relatively unsophisticated grasp of political realities, but to call them “fucking stupid” for it seems, well, a bit fucking much.
Jes’ sayin’.
Look.
You want to irritate me? Put words in my mouth or attach implications to me that aren’t true.
Think I’ve been an unreasonable bitch? Then ask me what I mean first. Sometimes I am an unreasonable bitch who deserves to be taken to the mat. Sometimes I do make terrible mistakes, and I must be made to pay for those. Sometimes I post before I think, or in anger, and I need to be told I’ve crossed the line or over-reacted. I can recognize these, as well as many other, serious faults in myself.
I’m a highly fallible person, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I stand by what I said. The persistent and consistent predictions of doom made by some partisan madmen and madwomen here verges on the BANable. And it’s fucking stupid too.
It’s not “thoroughly disingenuous” just because you say so. You need some proof to do that, and you don’t have any at all.
And let’s have a show of hands here, from those who know and have fought me: if I had meant “liberals”, would I have been afraid to say as much? Have I ever been afraid to state something like that? Have I ever backed down from making an unpopular statement? Seems to me like I get in trouble for making unpopular statements all the time. 
And I wouldn’t back down now, either. My posting record will show I’ve been called on the carpet for all sorts of stupid things I’ve said, and I’ve freely admitted I was stupid. Shit, I’ve even pitted myself at least thrice for doing stupid things here. I didn’t say or imply anything other than what I and Jodi have been trying to explain to you repeatedly.
You need some proof before you accuse me of being “thoroughly disingenuous”, and quite frankly, you have absolutely none. I feel that your whole attack on me here and your continued efforts are simply stemming from dislike.
Last time I cared, you were neither uneducated nor stupid. And it is because I know you are not those things that I feel your continued persistence in fighting over something I did not say nor imply is stemming solely from hostility towards me, perhaps spurred on by or as a proxy for others. Because it just makes no sense otherwise.
Whatever, MAEGLIN. Read it the way you want.
Maeglin,
I agree with you that Anthracite’s message seemed aimed at the “insane, partisan” folks on the liberal side of the aisle. I don’t see an alternative way to read that.
However, surely you can understand why the “stupid” comment comes into play. Here you have a group of people creating very specific guarantees as to what would happen in 2002. Not simply saying “IF the Democrats win, then …” No, there were posts that went into great detail regarding the downward spiral the Republican Party would endure once the voting public got a chance to right the wrong that was inflicted upon the nation when Bush “stole” the Presidency. That’s stupid, because those posters making those threats/predictions had almost no control over the results.
What’s more, it’s entirely possible that rhetoric of that nature helped sway undecided voters to the Republican ticket in this election. (In fact, I believe Jodi has said as much in another thread.) IF (and note that I’m saying “if”) a number of undecided voters saw some of the over-the-top rhetoric as a negative component of the Democratic Party as a whole, it could have resulted in a backlash effect. In effect, those posters who were guaranteeing a Democratic victory in 2002 could have been undermining the very thing they most wanted to happen.
That, to me, would also qualify as stupid.
Ok. I would definitely appreciate a chance for you to clarify. Here’s the way I see it:
A lot of people were pissed off by the outcome of the 2000 election.
In general, those on the left side of the political spectrum were more pissed, since their candidate lost.
Said individuals assumed that the entire country would remain outraged for the following two years.
Certain posters of a flamboyantly liberal stripe, some of whom have already been mentioned by name, posted dire predictions.
You said:
Liberals made the predictions. You self-identify as a conservative.
This led me to draw a conclusion which I found obvious and undeniable. However, I admit I could be completely mistaken.
If you weren’t talking about liberals, even the most partisan and insane ones, who were you talking about? If you were talking about no one in particular, then how did you observe the phenomenon you report?
Honestly, I don’t know you real well, so I don’t think it has anything to do with that. What you said struck a nerve. While you likely did not intend it, I found your comment a little insulting and quite smug. My own thin skin? The limits of the written word? Pissed off that people I like got clobbered last week? Some combination of all of the above? Who knows.
All right. I have a different personal opinion about it, but it’s hardly an arguable matter at this point. I think it’s moderately lame, you think it’s bannable. De gustibus, and all that.
Hope this helps.
I’m just guessin’ here but I think Magelin is commenting that he believes that those persons making the aforementioned predictions included both the rabidly insane and the ‘liberal but not a fucking lunatics’ [sup]tm[/sup] (tho’ I don’t personally remember making any predictions - can’t promise one way or 'tother), therefore, if both made such predictions (tho it’s likely only the rabid would have said it in rude ways), then how is he, the liberal but not a fucking lunatic, to figure out how he should be differentiated from the aforementioned predicting liberals?
(donning huge amounts of asbestos and rubber gear, just in case)
That’s pretty much exactly what I said, wring.
And since I admitted to making some predictions, I am still in limbo.