When things look bad for Their Side, adaher usually shows up to change the subject.
When Bricker takes the job, things must look really bad…
Here’s the thing, though - for the last few posts in that conversation between you and septimus, you were addressing each others’ specific points (and insulting each other directly). The reason I jumped in wasn’t because I felt the need to attack you (and/or defend septimus); it was because you brought me into it, albeit indirectly.
You didn’t just attack septimus (who, for the record, I think was being a jerk and with whom I disagree about you being an “ignorant cretin” who should have your voting rights removed); you saw fit to add a broad swipe against “liberals”. And as a self-identified liberal I felt a rebuttal was fully justified (in fact more so now since you seem to think that silence equals agreement). If I was having an argument with someone else and threw in a general comment about lawyers being immoral lying bastards you’d be well within your rights to jump in and complain about the characterization. I was merely doing the same, addressing the specific point that pertained to me even if you didn’t specifically have me in mind when you made it.
So in short - if you don’t want “liberals” to pick on you, perhaps you shouldn’t pepper your posts with these irrelevant derogatory asides.
I completely and unreservedly apologize for any insults I have offered you, and specifically for the insults in this thread.
I may well remain both right-wing and sanctimonious, but I will try mightily not to also be insulting going forward.
Fair point. That was an undeserved swipe, although in the interests of completeness I should point out that similar swipes against conservatives go unremarked. But mine was the first salvo here, and I withdraw it and apologize.
Is Hillary Clinton going to jail or not, guys?
That’s very gracious of you, sir.
She’s already married to Bill - what could prison do to her that was worse?
<rimshot>
The Real answer is that limousine liberals like her are protected by the Illuminati from silly things like prosecution for crimes. She could get away with anything… even eating a baby!! :eek:
That’s entirely true. And to some degree that might be because of bias. But in the main, I think it’s for the same reasons people didn’t call out septimus: it’s clearly invective, clearly hyperbolic, and clearly silly. And, again, not everyone reads every post or can be fucked to reply.
I get that after lo these many years there’s been a lot of well-poisoning. But it’s good for all of us to take a moment to give one another the benefit of the doubt. If someone insults you and I don’t call it out, that doesn’t mean I agree with it.
Yes… but notice that my swipe about liberals WAS called out.
It was also clearly hyperbolic, invective, and silly.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s bias: we’re more motivated to call out an error when it’s one we disagree with, or one that affects us – as Gyrate mentions, he spoke up after my words brought him into it, at least indirectly.
You know, we should start a new tradition, Liberal Hypocrisy Day. That would be like the day all of us who are more to the left than Calvin Coolidge can troop down here and blubber our apologies to Bricker for all the travails he has suffered at our hands. Perhaps the Counselor can offer us individual critiques on how well we have succeeded in freeing ourselves from the dreadful curse of liberal hypocrisy! And then all go down to our local Hypocrisy Shelter and adopt a conservative. You know, clean them up, feed them, give them their shots. Spayed and neutered…
What do you do with the feral ones? Besides re-election?
While it’s true that I don’t read everything and can’t be fucked to reply to everything I do read (god know I post enough as it is), it’s worth noting that I responded to something I felt reflected on me personally. Conversely one might expect those conservatives who spot and object to things that personally aggrieve them to call them out rather than complaining that liberals aren’t doing it for them.
In an ideal world all injustices and grievances would be dealt with equitably and consistently but we can only fight so many battles and tend to choose the ones with causes closest to our own hearts.
ETA: You guys really aren’t helping.
Fair enough, but I think it makes a substantial difference that Septimus’ hyperbolic invective was directed at you personally, while *yours *was generalized to an entire group. (ETA: as Gyrate just pointed out.)
That said, I didn’t take your dig as a personal attack, even though I self-identify as liberal.
.
I took it as a personal attack and just didn’t give a damn. Just as I didn’t give a damn that septimus was saying stupid shit. Someone asks me sincerely or semi-sincerely whether I think anyone should lose their right to vote and I’ll answer.
FTR, my unjustified swipe against conservatives preceded yours I believe - post 134, page 3. It generate a response, though Waymore and Hab didn’t pick up on the broad brush fallacy.
I use the broad brush fallacy when I perceive bad behavior by conservatives - in this case, the OP’s trolling. It’s a form of mock agreement.
Moron: “Hillary shouldn’t receive even one vote, or I’ll threaten violence!”
Me: “Oh, is that what [your side] thinks. I see.”
We are tribal creatures and IMHO, conservatives are more so. I prefer discourse with factual correction and empirical observation, but your discussant has to be up to a certain level for that. Bricker is, easily. The OP though was… using intentionally provocative and unsubstantiated argument.
It’s best to fight ignorance with logic and evidence. But some are immune to that, so we use the neural disruptor.
… A-a-a-a-a-nd back to the original insult.
Closer to #1. Questions here often have a legal, moral, political and policy dimension. You emphasize the first, and sometimes imply that the moral conclusion follows. (I addressed this with the mock hammer some years ago in the pit. I think the topic touched on Pennsylvania tax law.) I’ve noted that you are pretty much aware of this now, and usually include disclaimers which satisfy me, but not everyone.
Generally speaking, conservative policy arguments were a lot better in the 1970s than they are today. Today they are pretty weak. And the center left has grown in prominence, at the expense of the Naderites – more data orientation, less moralizing. But methinks the realm of law provides a refuge for those of conservative temperament. Unlike, say, economics there’s no central paradigm or even theory of the law. So conservatives and liberals are on more of an even footing there.
I apologize to you, Bricker, for the hugely out-of-proportion abuse I’ve heaped on you in BBQ Pit.
With the two “sides” in American politics drifting further and further apart, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the “other side” can be intelligent, fully sincere and good-spirited.
Thanks - I appreciate your words, and although I’m sure our respective policy differences will have us crossing debate swords again, I too agree that we’re both intelligent, fully sincere and good-spirited… just both convinced of some fundamentally different ideas.
If both of you assholes don’t start yelling at each other again, I’m kicking you out of the Pit.
Destroying public documents is a crime, destroying evidence after that evidence was subpoenaed is a crime. Bribery, as in receiving donations from foreign governments to her "charity, is a crime. Failing to turn over public documents upon leaving office is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison, per document, and a bar from ever holding elected office.
July 2003, huh?