As is often the case with these folks, they remind me of my 8 year old son who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Several weak excuses are offered along with promises to continue to the behavior no matter what (!) but as soon as the threat of losing cookies forever (or, in this case, audience share) looms large, a rapid shift occurs in behavior.
But is it an 8 year old temper tantrum or an adolescent power fantasy? It seems to go back and forth. Perhaps it's both. This is an overall characteristic we see in today's version of conservatism...a sort of Neapolitan libertarianism. They really don't like rules and, quite honestly, don't seem to like people either. They just want to be able to do what they want and get pissed off to the max when they have to adjust. I wonder how many mouths foamed at taking down this billboard. Again, this is all they have.
As my friend Marc recently mentioned, in a near perfect description of the new right, when we were out at the pub recently , "They drove a Camaro in high school and this is their only intellectual outlet."
15 comments:
"You're childish!"
"Am not!"
"Are too!"
"Am not! And you're a stupid poopy head."
This is getting old. I sometimes generalize conservative behaviors out of frustration, but it's wrong because not all conservatives believe the same thing or act the same way. If we really want to stop this endless cycle of swapping insults, someone's got to change the tone.
To get the other side to argue in good faith, you have to start the argument in good faith.
And here is a well considered liberal deconstruction of M's ill considered antics.
"It’s well past time for journalists to move on from what we don’t know about the causes of last weekend’s tragedy and grapple seriously with a great deal that we now do know—even if, God forbid, it means we’ll have to abandon our hypotheses."
Truly, if this doesn't make you stop and think, then you never will. Are you able to abandon your failed hypotheses M?
It's hard for him to answer that one, juris imprudent, when you have failed to understand his hypothesis in the first place.
Which hypothesis oojc? Or is that another of my questions that will send you scurrying like a cockroach when the lights are turned on?
I've challenged any number of M's hypotheses on this blog: corporations force you to do things - see Centerpoint/RMR, the rich fuck you over - no example ever provided, advertising controls your behavior - lame example demolished, Loughner was a right-wing tool - see above if nothing else.
You sure as hell are never able to help M out.
The key point in that TNR piece is that it isn't about facts, it is about faith. I don't mind when someone argues a matter of faith, as long as they admit that is what they are doing. What I cannot tolerate is lying sacks of shit that say they are arguing facts, logic, reason but they are really arguing faith, belief and willful ignorance. Actually having faith requires the courage to stand up for what you can't prove, what you can't demonstrate, but honestly believe to be true none the less. There is no shame in that appeal - but you can't hide what it is.
More sensibility that escapes M and his little band of hate-mongers.
"It was the immediate connection from the left of this shooting to political rhetoric from the right that polarized this, and here we have a case where there's a rush to blame Palin [and other conservatives] with no direct connection to her at all," he says. "And the more we learn about this guy, it seems there isn't any political motivation in a broader sense."
Why do I have the feeling that this won't resonate with the resident howler monkeys?
It won't resonate because they have invested 10+ posts (Actually years) trying to point to a correlation that isn't there. Being wrong so often and so consistently, the left keeps spouting the same nonsense as if their brains are hard coded. Change coding to variables people!
Yes, and if I am wrong, then you...win! I still can't decide if it's an 8 year old or an adolescent power fantasy.
Juris, it's pretty amusing that you think you have "proved me wrong" in your list. You asked me to give you an example of a private company forcing me to do something. I did. You didn't like it. You asked me to give you an example of rich people fucking you over. I have given several...even though it's fucking hilarious that I did considering that's how the entire system is set up. You didn't like them. Then you set up yourself up as being the only one in this country immune to marketing because, again, you didn't like what I said.
Finally, you still completely fail to understand why talking about Palin is relevant. Maybe you can step back and be a little reflective (I'll always hold out hope) but for now it's just the same childish antics. Or is adolescent antics? Still not sure.
Yes, and if I am wrong, then you...win! I still can't decide if it's an 8 year old or an adolescent power fantasy.
You can keep playing this canard forever for all I care. I don't care if you have different views if they are grounded and I am not 'keeping score' as your little tantrum suggests. You have valid points in a lot of posts but your correlation, causation and generalizations are generally farces and easily refuted yet you don't change. Why is that?
From Charles Blow's piece in the NY Times today:
According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday, 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.
Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2011-01-13/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon
Juris, it's pretty amusing that you think you have "proved me wrong" in your list.
Really? Did I say "proved you wrong"? Are you putting words in my mouth - or is your reading comprehension really that bad? I said I challenged your position, and your answers (when you gave any) did not prove your case. You failed to support your position with evidence. If you would only admit you are arguing faith and belief, I'd let you off the hook - but you keep insisting there is evidence, which you are never able to produce.
You see M that is you insisting that you won an argument. That is your obsession with winning arguments - quite unlike what you did in discussing Manzi. Which I see was a fluke, probably because partisan-wise you were on top of the world then.
company forcing me
No M you did not. You are the only one that thinks you did. Not blk, not last - just you. The govt forced (i.e. legally required) the company to do the inspection, and the company said if you didn't cooperate, they would get the govt to force you (via a court order) to comply. How fucking retarded can you be to think that you "won" with that? Admittedly, you tried, which is far better than you usually do, as follows.
I have given several
Liar. Not once have you presented any case where a rich person fucked you over for profit or even just for fun. Not ONE fucking example - from you or anyone else here. You are a shameless liar and you are rapidly convincing me that your derangement, post November, is turning you into a person I won't care to interact with anymore.
Then you set up yourself up as being the only one in this country immune to marketing because
Is that what I said? Really? I recall saying that I don't buy heavily advertised products, or get led around by the nose as you appear to admit happens with you. Nor did I ever say I was the "only one", I said I was at least one data point that disproved your thesis (which you then dishonestly disclaimed as merely a metaphor). You are devolving into an atrocious piece of shit, the kind of thing that lives on DU, KOS, LGF or FreeRepublic.
Finally, you still completely fail to understand why talking about Palin is relevant.
If Palin went back to being an anonymous housewife, you would merely change targets, not tactics. You have to have an outlet for your hatred - which I suppose is healthier than just bottling it up.
But you keep it up with those voices in your head, and ignore, at all times, what people that are actually talking to you have to say. At least the voices in your head don't tell you things that don't comport with your cartoon caricaturizations.
Yes, and if I am wrong, then you...win! I still can't decide if it's an 8 year old or an adolescent power fantasy.
That's what is for you isn't it? You are so hung up on "winning" that it doesn't matter how you do it.
So which are you M?
You sure aren't here for the hunting.
And another trip to the woodshed for mark, delivered by juris imprudent. That'll leave a mark.
Let it go, guy. Just let it go. You're starting to make a fool of yourself.
OMG! Juris wins again...at what exactly? A blog debate? Wow, impressive. Next stop: climate change!
Oh wait, that's a hoax made up by liberals who want to steal my hard earned money.
OMG! Juris wins again...
You do realize that between you and me, you are the only one that ever brings up winning. That this isn't ever a discussion, but always a debate and that one side must be declared the winner. You and "W" sure do love that "with us or against us" way of looking at the world.
You could of course at least apologize for putting words in my mouth, repeatedly - or are you just too small to do that?
Post a Comment