No way is that clothy. That was actually coherent…ish.
Diversity is all fine & dandy, except when one is unable to present one’s views without abuse, acts all indignant when the abuse is returned, and refuses to address virtually everything else.
You mean… he’s trolling? :eek:
My thoughts exactly.
IMO, there is no presentation of views from this poster, with or without abuse. It’s just abuse.
Somehow I don’t think it’s really going to be your choice to cut back your posting…to zero, And that’s based on your latest “thread game”.
There are some conservatives on the board, but I’ve never considered you to be one of them. You are nothing more than a braying reactionary (the worst kind).
It would be interesting to learn if a dedicated search of the posts of actual conservatives would turn up a single instance of one of them posting words to the effect of “Clothahump is right” in a political discussion. I’m far too lazy to perform such a search myself, but if someone else were to do so, I’d be willing to wager one of Bricker’s vaunted bottles of single-malt scotch* that the search would come up empty.
*(Unless it was Lagavulin. That stuff tastes like a wet campfire.)
What!? I came in here for an argument!
This is ‘abuse’…
Didn’t “come here to compare facts yet again.” Obvously somebody’s trock who got their ass handed to them before.
…when I first came onto the internet I spent most of my time on a certain message board. I got along fine with most of the people there, and it really seemed moderate in tone. Then 9/11 happened. And the tone changed. The “conservatives” got stronger. And it got harder and harder to participate in debates because when its “one person” versus “everyone” you can’t “just debate.” You can keep it up for a while. But then peoples attitudes change towards you. People you thought were “friends” start getting vicious. And it stops being a “debate” because in order to properly rebut 20-well-cited-people attacking your position you need to spend hours, maybe days doing the research to back up and refute their positions.
So why bother?
Its entirely understandable why someone who holds a minority position chooses not to engage here. For every one person like you who genuinely “would love to hear more on why the Obama presidency was so terrible” you’ve got 20 that will shout him down regardless. Clothahump has been here 18 years. He hasn’t always been like this. If he’s not talking about politics hes generally indistinguishable from anyone else here on these boards.
Well, here’s one.
And another.
Both from 2005, and neither a ringing endorsement of his “debating” skills.
Are we really not allowed to bring up paper towel tubes in relation to hungry hungry artisans? I thought there was supposed to be inherent downsides to sacrificing your credibility.
OMG! Clothahump has been right all along!! It is all the libruhls’ fault.
Huh.
It’s uncanny - you even *flounce *like a whiny pissant.
Because someone has to be the worst?
[Looks like with Ruined tho we’ll have a new candidate if and when Clothy finally bites the dust]
Edit: Coke to Morgenstern in #38.
I have no doubt that he believes what he is spouting but that doesn’t make him not a troll. Again and again, others on the board with critique his claims with cites and logic which he will dismiss with some platitude and then claim that all of their arguments are stupid that he clearly won the debate, and we’re just too stubborn to admit it.
There are only two possibilities that I could see that would explain this
- He’s doesn’t really want to bother defending his views he just wants to vent his frustrations with the left and insult people on the other side (ie he’s a troll)
- He doesn’t have the analytical ability to distinguish a good argument from a bad one. As far as he is concerned all arguments are pretty much equally valid the only difference between them is what side they are coming from. Basically Dunning Kruger writ large.
Since you seem to have some insight into him I would appreciate your input as to which of these is closer to the mark, or alternatively offer a third suggestion.
But you would think that someone in that position would either quit the message board because it was too much work, or else welcome the one or two genuine snark free questions that he is actually asked. But when Clothahump is presented with a snark free question he either ignores them or responds to them with insults.
Don’t quote me on this, but I think you can in the Pit, but not elsewhere.
He’s right wing, which means he’s been treated with deference and kid gloves his entire life on and off the board. A non right winger who acted the same would have been banned years ago.
I can’t stand what Clothahump posts most of the time because I can’t stand what conservatives think.
But Clotha is what he is. He’s legit. He’s not trolling. I don’t like cyber-mobs. I don’t like the idea of being intolerant of people just because we don’t like who they really are. Even if he were a hardcore KKK racist – and I don’t think he is for the record – I wouldn’t support banning him if he were trying to have legit discussions, however offensive and repulsive I might find them.
All of that aside, Clotha seems like a real human, a real person, with real feelings. He just doesn’t see the world the way most of us here on SMBD see it and while I often vehemently disagree with his worldview, I even disagree more with trying to shut him down for it. Fer fucks sake, if your aim was to make the guy less visible and prominent, all you did was give him more attention - you failed. You don’t have to engage with him at all.
If not banned for socking first.