Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Bullsh*t People

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:04:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First of all, who exactly are the people I'm reckoning under the crude & rude rubric "bullsh*t people"? No, I'm not referring to people whom I consider to be full of bullsh*t, such as (with all due respect) conservatives & libertarians. This post is not a "rant" against conservatives, I've just been there and done that. Rather, the bullsh*t people are a political breed apart from conservatives and liberals, or at least that's how they fancy seeing themselves, whether or not their aversion to such trite tags really puts them beyond the platitudinous pale of the left-right spectrum is a question I'll touch on in due course.

The bullsh*t people then are those mental mavericks (as they might like to describe themselves) who hold that both loyalist Democrats and true-blue Republicans, both leftist and rightist credos, both team capitalism and team socialism are all a lot of passé bullsh*t. The bullsh*t people take the staunchly self-assured stance that all isms are disgraced doctrines, all ideologies are schools of thought with nothing relevant to teach anymore, and all political parties are a part of the problem and have no genuine solutions to contribute to society. The bullsh*t people are those folks who in knee-jerk fashion balk at the very mention of any kind of political orthodoxies, and who have no use whatsoever for the very concept of political partisanship. It's all just a steaming, stinking load of bullsh*t in their humble (?) opinion. As for politicians, well, needless to say, they're all just hacks hoaxing the electorate and the very embodiment of bullsh*t (there is a sizable grain of truth in this one though).

In short, the bullsh*t people are politically disaffected and disgruntled men and women who've reached the point that they categorically disdain all political theory and the politicos and intellectuals who profess any sort of unified theory. And, oh yeah, the bullsh*t people like to use the word "bullsh*t" to contemptuously dismiss everything (in the realm of politics and life in general) that they deem to be bogus, bromidic, and banal, hence my slightly uncomplimentary handle for them. So much for defining them, let's proceed to dissect them and see if they're really just the sensible pragmatists who see through all the bullsh*t that they claim to be.

Let's start with their impatience with "ideology". Sure, the self-flattering self-image of bullsh*t people is that of free-thinking political agnostics and realists who have no intellectual truck with isms of any kind, or with the ideas that hail from any of the stale isms still hanging around in the 21st century. But is this just because these isms have all been thoroughly discredited by history? And are bullsh*t people really all that successful at proofing their minds against the philosophies they so sweepingly scorn?

Hardly, on both counts. Just listen closely and critically to a bullsh*t person put down some ideological perspective as a clichéd crock of "bullsh*t" and you'll often catch two drifts that suggest that something else, other than a healthy intolerance of "bullsh*t", is up with his/her mentality. Okay, I'm just going to come right out and name it, the first drift you'll probably catch is anti-intellectualism. The mind of a typical bullsh*t person tends to balk at "ideology" not so much because ideologies all consist of just a lot of empty, jargony ideas, but because they consist of ideas per se.

No, I'm not suggesting that bullsh*t people are all simpletons incapable of processing ideas, oxymoronically there are anti-intellectual intellectuals and smart folks who lack any appreciation or flair for airy ideas. It's not so much a question of intelligence as attitude and inclination. Bullsh*t people simply lack an inclination to intellectualize or philosophically ideate, i.e. to systematically explore and struggle with ideas and theories. What's more, theirs is an attitude that regards intellectuals and adherents of formal philosophies as people living in an ivory tower or cloud–cuckoo–land. That is, bullsh*t people suffer from a reverse snobbery, they regard themselves to be superior in their down-to-earthness to the braniac who's all book learning or the thinker who's supposedly divorced from reality by his lofty or ideologically rigid thoughts.

Well, alas, to the anti-intellectual bullsh*t person, being a subscriber to a philosophical perspective, utopian or not, makes you less of a practical and sober-minded individual like him/her, and more of a naïve devotee of notional notions.

As various social scientists, such as Richard Hofstadter, have observed, American culture is distinctly anti-intellectual. This is why when someone shares knowledge derived from reading people who aren't exactly avid readers will dismiss it with some comment about the inferiority of mere book-knowledge vis–à–vis knowledge gained from experience. It's why people who use "big words" are often written off as pretentious. And it's why professional intellectuals are disparaged with terms such as "egghead". And of course it's why some people renounce and repudiate systems of "highbrow" political ideas, why intellectual systems amount to nothing more than "bullsh*t" in their estimation.

Naturally, bullsh*t people rationalize that all ideologies have grievously let us down, and that that's why they're down on ideology per se. Certain ideologies, on both the right and the left, do certainly stand out as disillusioning historical letdowns. However, to turn against all intellectuality, to develop a mentalité in which all ideas are "bullsh*t", is not always just a simple disillusioned response, it's often a response that people are predisposed to by an ingrained anti-intellectual attitude, ingrained by our anti-intellectual society.

As for my other question, are bullsh*t people that successful at refraining from developing ideological perspectives, at remaining ideology-free, or are they a bit hypocritical, sorry but I've yet to have a lengthy conversation with a bullsh*t person who didn't get around to expressing some ideologically derivative opinions, so to speak. And where do their opinions derive from? In my experience at least, many bullsh*t people tend to lean somewhat toward being conservative in their underlying viewpoints. They tend to espouse a kind of tentative, unfocused, and what they consider "commonsense" conservatism.

In particular, they share the nostalgia of conservatives for a golden American past, before modern politicians corrupted the American system. They take this notion that once upon a time the system worked as advertised and that it was politicians who malfeasantly mucked things up to be historically self-evident. They certainly don't share the leftist's more critical view of history; nor the leftist view that it's really capitalism that's subverted the democratic process, from jump, that the "Founding Fathers" were elitists who designed a system that's democratic on the outside and plutocratic on the inside, as all political insiders know full well.

Bullsh*t people also tend to share disgruntled conservative and rightist stances on a number of issues and current events. They do not in fact transcend the left-right ideological spectrum, not by any means! Some might even be said to be crypto-conservatives. (This is the other drift one picks up on. And something that confirms this, something I've often noticed, is that bullsh*t people claim to swear off all labels, but they still now and then use the L-word, in a clearly negative fashion. Why would this be, unless they still think in terms of liberal and conservative, and unconsciously identify with conservatives? Perhaps bullsh*t people are full of it after all, perhaps they're guilty of projecting their own proclivity for bullsh*t on others.)

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:05:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

The idea that all philosophies are BS and should be resolutely tossed out as such, that we should go about solving the world's problems as if from a blank slate, is an abjectly simpleminded idea indeed, it would lead to denying ourselves the benefit of the insights contained in certain philosophies, and to our having to constantly reinvent the wheel. The it's-all-bullsh*t attitude is not a refreshing and good faith mental posture, it's dangerously half-baked, retrogressive, anti-intellectual bullsh*t.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:03:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but.
He means he did a version for the people who think it's TL and therefore DR. A short version. Which he rarely does.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 9:48:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?:

Well, it's technically spam. It's just airplay for his Marxist blog.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2011 11:54:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 9:48:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?:

Well, it's technically spam. It's just airplay for his Marxist blog.

i seriously reported him for that. Unfortunately the mods didn't listen :(
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:06:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 11:54:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:48:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?:

Well, it's technically spam. It's just airplay for his Marxist blog.

i seriously reported him for that. Unfortunately the mods didn't listen :(

theres nothing against the ToS in posting long winded rants. which is for the best, really.

the saddest part is i think charles actually has a point here, but no one will think about or respond to it because its buried in a post that is 65% pure bullsh*t itself.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 12:53:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 4:06:57 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/11/2011 11:54:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:48:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?:

Well, it's technically spam. It's just airplay for his Marxist blog.

i seriously reported him for that. Unfortunately the mods didn't listen :(

theres nothing against the ToS in posting long winded rants. which is for the best, really.

the saddest part is i think charles actually has a point here, but no one will think about or respond to it because its buried in a post that is 65% pure bullsh*t itself.

I pointed out his point, read my post.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 3:01:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 4:06:57 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/11/2011 11:54:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/11/2011 9:48:05 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:54:58 PM, innomen wrote:
At 2/11/2011 8:21:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:56:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

you actually read all that? I'm actually impressed. Wow.

It's in the conclusion.

Charles did a TL;DR

He never does anything but. I'd really be okay if he was banned. I know it goes against the grain of this site collectively, but i think we'd get over it.

Can we get some mega trolls that we can unleash on him?:

Well, it's technically spam. It's just airplay for his Marxist blog.

i seriously reported him for that. Unfortunately the mods didn't listen :(

theres nothing against the ToS in posting long winded rants. which is for the best, really.

the saddest part is i think charles actually has a point here, but no one will think about or respond to it because its buried in a post that is 65% pure bullsh*t itself.

Hmm, please identify some of the bullsh*t in my post.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 3:28:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:04:06 PM, charleslb wrote:
First of all, who exactly are the people I'm reckoning under the crude & rude rubric "bullsh*t people"? No, I'm not referring to people whom I consider to be full of bullsh*t, such as (with all due respect) conservatives & libertarians. This post is not a "rant" against conservatives, I've just been there and done that. Rather, the bullsh*t people are a political breed apart from conservatives and liberals, or at least that's how they fancy seeing themselves, whether or not their aversion to such trite tags really puts them beyond the platitudinous pale of the left-right spectrum is a question I'll touch on in due course.

The bullsh*t people then are those mental mavericks (as they might like to describe themselves) who hold that both loyalist Democrats and true-blue Republicans, both leftist and rightist credos, both team capitalism and team socialism are all a lot of passé bullsh*t. The bullsh*t people take the staunchly self-assured stance that all isms are disgraced doctrines, all ideologies are schools of thought with nothing relevant to teach anymore, and all political parties are a part of the problem and have no genuine solutions to contribute to society. The bullsh*t people are those folks who in knee-jerk fashion balk at the very mention of any kind of political orthodoxies, and who have no use whatsoever for the very concept of political partisanship. It's all just a steaming, stinking load of bullsh*t in their humble (?) opinion. As for politicians, well, needless to say, they're all just hacks hoaxing the electorate and the very embodiment of bullsh*t (there is a sizable grain of truth in this one though).

In short, the bullsh*t people are politically disaffected and disgruntled men and women who've reached the point that they categorically disdain all political theory and the politicos and intellectuals who profess any sort of unified theory. And, oh yeah, the bullsh*t people like to use the word "bullsh*t" to contemptuously dismiss everything (in the realm of politics and life in general) that they deem to be bogus, bromidic, and banal, hence my slightly uncomplimentary handle for them. So much for defining them, let's proceed to dissect them and see if they're really just the sensible pragmatists who see through all the bullsh*t that they claim to be.

Let's start with their impatience with "ideology". Sure, the self-flattering self-image of bullsh*t people is that of free-thinking political agnostics and realists who have no intellectual truck with isms of any kind, or with the ideas that hail from any of the stale isms still hanging around in the 21st century. But is this just because these isms have all been thoroughly discredited by history? And are bullsh*t people really all that successful at proofing their minds against the philosophies they so sweepingly scorn?

Hardly, on both counts. Just listen closely and critically to a bullsh*t person put down some ideological perspective as a clichéd crock of "bullsh*t" and you'll often catch two drifts that suggest that something else, other than a healthy intolerance of "bullsh*t", is up with his/her mentality. Okay, I'm just going to come right out and name it, the first drift you'll probably catch is anti-intellectualism. The mind of a typical bullsh*t person tends to balk at "ideology" not so much because ideologies all consist of just a lot of empty, jargony ideas, but because they consist of ideas per se.

No, I'm not suggesting that bullsh*t people are all simpletons incapable of processing ideas, oxymoronically there are anti-intellectual intellectuals and smart folks who lack any appreciation or flair for airy ideas. It's not so much a question of intelligence as attitude and inclination. Bullsh*t people simply lack an inclination to intellectualize or philosophically ideate, i.e. to systematically explore and struggle with ideas and theories. What's more, theirs is an attitude that regards intellectuals and adherents of formal philosophies as people living in an ivory tower or cloud–cuckoo–land. That is, bullsh*t people suffer from a reverse snobbery, they regard themselves to be superior in their down-to-earthness to the braniac who's all book learning or the thinker who's supposedly divorced from reality by his lofty or ideologically rigid thoughts.

Well, alas, to the anti-intellectual bullsh*t person, being a subscriber to a philosophical perspective, utopian or not, makes you less of a practical and sober-minded individual like him/her, and more of a naïve devotee of notional notions.

As various social scientists, such as Richard Hofstadter, have observed, American culture is distinctly anti-intellectual. This is why when someone shares knowledge derived from reading people who aren't exactly avid readers will dismiss it with some comment about the inferiority of mere book-knowledge vis–à–vis knowledge gained from experience. It's why people who use "big words" are often written off as pretentious. And it's why professional intellectuals are disparaged with terms such as "egghead". And of course it's why some people renounce and repudiate systems of "highbrow" political ideas, why intellectual systems amount to nothing more than "bullsh*t" in their estimation.

Naturally, bullsh*t people rationalize that all ideologies have grievously let us down, and that that's why they're down on ideology per se. Certain ideologies, on both the right and the left, do certainly stand out as disillusioning historical letdowns. However, to turn against all intellectuality, to develop a mentalité in which all ideas are "bullsh*t", is not always just a simple disillusioned response, it's often a response that people are predisposed to by an ingrained anti-intellectual attitude, ingrained by our anti-intellectual society.

As for my other question, are bullsh*t people that successful at refraining from developing ideological perspectives, at remaining ideology-free, or are they a bit hypocritical, sorry but I've yet to have a lengthy conversation with a bullsh*t person who didn't get around to expressing some ideologically derivative opinions, so to speak. And where do their opinions derive from? In my experience at least, many bullsh*t people tend to lean somewhat toward being conservative in their underlying viewpoints. They tend to espouse a kind of tentative, unfocused, and what they consider "commonsense" conservatism.

In particular, they share the nostalgia of conservatives for a golden American past, before modern politicians corrupted the American system. They take this notion that once upon a time the system worked as advertised and that it was politicians who malfeasantly mucked things up to be historically self-evident. They certainly don't share the leftist's more critical view of history; nor the leftist view that it's really capitalism that's subverted the democratic process, from jump, that the "Founding Fathers" were elitists who designed a system that's democratic on the outside and plutocratic on the inside, as all political insiders know full well.

Bullsh*t people also tend to share disgruntled conservative and rightist stances on a number of issues and current events. They do not in fact transcend the left-right ideological spectrum, not by any means! Some might even be said to be crypto-conservatives. (This is the other drift one picks up on. And something that confirms this, something I've often noticed, is that bullsh*t people claim to swear off all labels, but they still now and then use the L-word, in a clearly negative fashion. Why would this be, unless they ...
It's so interesting that I won't read it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 3:46:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, yes, the usual suspects are firing their usual sniping cheap shots at me for the "verbosity" and style of my posts, but tellingly failing to address the substance of what I have to say. Of course the facile rationalization is: "I don't want to feed the troll", but does that sort of quippy cop-out really explain the failure to provide a well-reasoned and interesting comment to refute my thesis? I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature has more to do with their hostility (which is pretty open and often ideologically-based [I feel safe in saying this given the fact that most of my critics are libertarians and conservatives]), and, in many cases, it has much to do with their inability to effectively rebut my arguments (sure, I can be trounced on technical grounds in a formal debate when I flagrantly fail to play by the rules, but this isn't the same thing as really disproving my views).

But, if any of my haters out there feel up to dissecting my thoughts in this post, I'll provide you with a bit more to work with.

Here are a few more thoughts. Why prolixly pick on the "bullsh*t" people when they ostensibly don't even take a definite and systematic philosophical position on the issues of society? Perhaps because despite having an elusively nebulous standpoint, and despite staunchly eschewing the black and white mentality that dichotomizes politics into right vs. left, the bullsh*t people do in fact have a quite black and white, totalistic attitude of their own.

That is, they're quite totalistic in rejecting out of hand all coherent creeds, and all ideological communions, whether political or religious. All the established political parties, and all "organized religions", along with any new philosophies comprising clear-cut and consistent views, are mere "bullsh*t" in their Manicheanly monolithic book that divides people's perspectives into institutional and ideological bullsh*t vs. their own supposedly more unaffiliated and outside-the-box outlook.

Of course they aren't conscious hypocrites in this regard, they don't realize how starkly black and white their own categories are, but they are perhaps guilty of unconsciously projecting a sense of their own dualism onto those with whom they disagree. Those of us with more well-formulated ideas, and who, for convenience sake, identify our viewpoint by certain partisan labels are more obvious targets of the charge of being locked into an ideological binary. But the bullsh*t people conceal their own closed-minded binary behind their false stance of flexibility and pragmatism, and they see it annoyingly reflected in those of us who committedly claim any particular school of thought. Hence their irritable way of interrupting political conversations to chide one for thinking in terms of right and left.

Closely related to the bullsh*t person's totalism is his own brand of dogmatism. The bullsh*t person not only thinks in simplistic terms of "All ideologies are illegitimate bullsh*t" and "All politically nonsectarian views are full of integrity", he or she can be downright dogmatic about it! Yes, for people who pride themselves on being disorganized in their opionatedness, they can be surprisingly bigoted in their belief in the superiority of their mental stance.

And, last but not least, there's the abject erroneousness and naiveté of their belief that there are really any ideas that are entirely original and unclassifiable, that don't fall under one familiar rubric or another, that aren't either conservative or progressive; right or left; anarchist, libertarian, socialist, etc. Sorry to burst their innocent bubble, but all opinions fit somewhere in these political worldviews. And these prototypical political worldviews are actually always inspiring new solutions for society's problems! They're of course ever evolving and adapting to the times, and there will always be new, innovative spins on their fundamental tenets. Socialism, for example, is frequently spinning off new variants, some of which go by other names, such as social democracy and syndicalism and liberation theology, etc. No, the old ideologies are not lame ducks by any means, and there will be no new ideas forthcoming that are so fresh and pristine that they owe nothing to the ideological oldies but goodies. The bullsh*t people are indeed quite naïve in this regard, and political naiveté is always dangerously exploitable.

These are just a few more reasons why the bullsh*t people deserve a little critical attention. If any of my philosophical foes here have anything thoughtful to say, their thoughts are of course welcome.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 3:57:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 3:46:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
Yes, yes, the usual suspects are firing their usual sniping cheap shots at me for the "verbosity" and style of my posts, but tellingly failing to address the substance of what I have to say. Of course the facile rationalization is: "I don't want to feed the troll", but does that sort of quippy cop-out really explain the failure to provide a well-reasoned and interesting comment to refute my thesis? I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature has more to do with their hostility (which is pretty open and often ideologically-based [I feel safe in saying this given the fact that most of my critics are libertarians and conservatives]), and, in many cases, it has much to do with their inability to effectively rebut my arguments (sure, I can be trounced on technical grounds in a formal debate when I flagrantly fail to play by the rules, but this isn't the same thing as really disproving my views).

But, if any of my haters out there feel up to dissecting my thoughts in this post, I'll provide you with a bit more to work with.

Here are a few more thoughts. Why prolixly pick on the "bullsh*t" people when they ostensibly don't even take a definite and systematic philosophical position on the issues of society? Perhaps because despite having an elusively nebulous standpoint, and despite staunchly eschewing the black and white mentality that dichotomizes politics into right vs. left, the bullsh*t people do in fact have a quite black and white, totalistic attitude of their own.

That is, they're quite totalistic in rejecting out of hand all coherent creeds, and all ideological communions, whether political or religious. All the established political parties, and all "organized religions", along with any new philosophies comprising clear-cut and consistent views, are mere "bullsh*t" in their Manicheanly monolithic book that divides people's perspectives into institutional and ideological bullsh*t vs. their own supposedly more unaffiliated and outside-the-box outlook.

Of course they aren't conscious hypocrites in this regard, they don't realize how starkly black and white their own categories are, but they are perhaps guilty of unconsciously projecting a sense of their own dualism onto those with whom they disagree. Those of us with more well-formulated ideas, and who, for convenience sake, identify our viewpoint by certain partisan labels are more obvious targets of the charge of being locked into an ideological binary. But the bullsh*t people conceal their own closed-minded binary behind their false stance of flexibility and pragmatism, and they see it annoyingly reflected in those of us who committedly claim any particular school of thought. Hence their irritable way of interrupting political conversations to chide one for thinking in terms of right and left.

Closely related to the bullsh*t person's totalism is his own brand of dogmatism. The bullsh*t person not only thinks in simplistic terms of "All ideologies are illegitimate bullsh*t" and "All politically nonsectarian views are full of integrity", he or she can be downright dogmatic about it! Yes, for people who pride themselves on being disorganized in their opionatedness, they can be surprisingly bigoted in their belief in the superiority of their mental stance.

And, last but not least, there's the abject erroneousness and naiveté of their belief that there are really any ideas that are entirely original and unclassifiable, that don't fall under one familiar rubric or another, that aren't either conservative or progressive; right or left; anarchist, libertarian, socialist, etc. Sorry to burst their innocent bubble, but all opinions fit somewhere in these political worldviews. And these prototypical political worldviews are actually always inspiring new solutions for society's problems! They're of course ever evolving and adapting to the times, and there will always be new, innovative spins on their fundamental tenets. Socialism, for example, is frequently spinning off new variants, some of which go by other names, such as social democracy and syndicalism and liberation theology, etc. No, the old ideologies are not lame ducks by any means, and there will be no new ideas forthcoming that are so fresh and pristine that they owe nothing to the ideological oldies but goodies. The bullsh*t people are indeed quite naïve in this regard, and political naiveté is always dangerously exploitable.

These are just a few more reasons why the bullsh*t people deserve a little critical attention. If any of my philosophical foes here have anything thoughtful to say, their thoughts are of course welcome.

Also, I noted in the original post that many of those I'm calling the "bullsh*t people" subtly, or not so subtly, lean toward the right, perhaps this is another obvious reason that some of you were apparently offended by the post, perhaps it hit a tad too close to home, psychologically speaking?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:26:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:55:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Interesting, so you are stating that it is a BS philosophy that we should decimate all current sociopolitical ideologies and start over with a blank slate am I correct?

Ironically, yes. See my rider to the original post just above.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:30:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 3:28:35 PM, Mirza wrote:

It's so interesting that I won't read it.

This is so witty that I won't offer any repartee.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature
When one actually bothers to read your tomes, they tend to play out as some of the most ad hominem heavy material on this site.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 9:25:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 4:37:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature
When one actually bothers to read your tomes, they tend to play out as some of the most ad hominem heavy material on this site.

Is this the best that you and this site's libertarian chorus that so likes to sing my dispraises can muster up in response to my challenge? No trenchant rebuttals of the points in my post and the comments above this one, no well-reasoned reasons why my fundamental thesis is itself a load of bullsh*t, just more ad hominem dismissiveness! Quite disappointing. Oh well, I suppose that the best defense, when you lack a good offense, is to be offensive in a personal fashion, and to hide your poverty of good arguments behind the ole Don't-feed-the-troll stance?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 10:10:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/11/2011 7:04:06 PM, charleslb wrote:
I don't like the people Stephen Colbert makes fun of, the anti-intellectual conservatives that "think with their guts, not their brains."

I think we all agree.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 10:13:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 9:25:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 4:37:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature
When one actually bothers to read your tomes, they tend to play out as some of the most ad hominem heavy material on this site.

Is this the best that you and this site's libertarian chorus that so likes to sing my dispraises can muster up in response to my challenge? No trenchant rebuttals of the points in my post and the comments above this one, no well-reasoned reasons why my fundamental thesis is itself a load of bullsh*t, just more ad hominem dismissiveness! Quite disappointing. Oh well, I suppose that the best defense, when you lack a good offense, is to be offensive in a personal fashion, and to hide your poverty of good arguments behind the ole Don't-feed-the-troll stance?

I don't really understand how a libertarian would "argue against" you charles, since you basically say that endorsing an ideology fully = good, meaning those that endorse libertarian ideals are good, according to this particular post.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 10:49:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 10:13:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I don't really understand how a libertarian would "argue against" you charles, since you basically say that endorsing an ideology fully = good, meaning those that endorse libertarian ideals are good, according to this particular post.

Finally, hallelujah, a comment that indicates intelligent thought!!! Absolutely, libertarians should not have much of an issue with this particular post, as they are adherents of an actual ideology, and not bullsh*t people who balk at the very notion of ideology. However, nevertheless, curiously it's the libertarians who've responded with their predictable negativity.

This is either because, to invert Sally Field's famous Oscar acceptance speech line, "They dislike me, they really dislike me", and are going to come out of the woodwork to attack anything that I post; or it's because right-libertarians somewhat identify with "bullsh*t people" despite having a formal ideology. As I point out in the original post, many of the folks I'm calling "bullsh*t people" claim that they consider all ideologies and parties, right and left, to be abject bullsh*t, they claim to be equal-opportunity sneerers at all isms, but they do tend to slant toward the right in their core attitudes. Perhaps libertarians then are taking my critique of "bullsh*t people" a bit personal, owing to an unconscious affinity with them as fellow rightists?

Or, perhaps they identify with bullsh*t people because they do share the attitude that ideologies are bullsh*t, they just make a special exception to the rule for their own ideology, which they arrogantly consider to be more a matter of systematized common sense than ideology. Either way, they seem to somehow take offense at my panning of the it's-all-bullsh*t perspective. Go figure!

But thanks for being perspicacious enough to pick up on the fact that they're all wet to argue against my little attack piece on "bullsh*t people", but then they haven't really argued, they've just taken the opportunity to issue personal insults again. But the invitation is still open to anyone out there, whether he/she is an actual "bullsh*t person" or a libertarian/conservative, to take a shot not at my personality but at rebutting my analysis of the bullsh*tarian mind-set.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 10:49:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 10:13:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I don't really understand how a libertarian would "argue against" you charles, since you basically say that endorsing an ideology fully = good, meaning those that endorse libertarian ideals are good, according to this particular post.

Finally, hallelujah, a comment that indicates intelligent thought!!! Absolutely, libertarians should not have much of an issue with this particular post, as they are adherents of an actual ideology, and not bullsh*t people who balk at the very notion of ideology. However, nevertheless, curiously it's the libertarians who've responded with their predictable negativity.

This is either because, to invert Sally Field's famous Oscar acceptance speech line, "They dislike me, they really dislike me", and are going to come out of the woodwork to attack anything that I post; or it's because right-libertarians somewhat identify with "bullsh*t people" despite having a formal ideology. As I point out in the original post, many of the folks I'm calling "bullsh*t people" claim that they consider all ideologies and parties, right and left, to be abject bullsh*t, they claim to be equal-opportunity sneerers at all isms, but they do tend to slant toward the right in their core attitudes. Perhaps libertarians then are taking my critique of "bullsh*t people" a bit personal, owing to an unconscious affinity with them as fellow rightists?

Or, perhaps they identify with bullsh*t people because they do share the attitude that ideologies are bullsh*t, they just make a special exception to the rule for their own ideology, which they arrogantly consider to be more a matter of systematized common sense than ideology. Either way, they seem to somehow take offense at my panning of the it's-all-bullsh*t perspective. Go figure!

But thanks for being perspicacious enough to pick up on the fact that they're all wet to argue against my little attack piece on "bullsh*t people", but then they haven't really argued, they've just taken the opportunity to issue personal insults again. But the invitation is still open to anyone out there, whether he/she is an actual "bullsh*t person" or a libertarian/conservative, to take a shot not at my personality but at rebutting my analysis of the bullsh*tarian mind-set.

And, on further thought, perhaps libertarians identify with "bullsh*t" and have taken such offense at my mordant musings on "bulls*t people" because deep down they know full well that their libertarianism is a crock of you know what!?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:46:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:05:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 10:49:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 10:13:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I don't really understand how a libertarian would "argue against" you charles, since you basically say that endorsing an ideology fully = good, meaning those that endorse libertarian ideals are good, according to this particular post.

Finally, hallelujah, a comment that indicates intelligent thought!!! Absolutely, libertarians should not have much of an issue with this particular post, as they are adherents of an actual ideology, and not bullsh*t people who balk at the very notion of ideology. However, nevertheless, curiously it's the libertarians who've responded with their predictable negativity.

This is either because, to invert Sally Field's famous Oscar acceptance speech line, "They dislike me, they really dislike me", and are going to come out of the woodwork to attack anything that I post; or it's because right-libertarians somewhat identify with "bullsh*t people" despite having a formal ideology. As I point out in the original post, many of the folks I'm calling "bullsh*t people" claim that they consider all ideologies and parties, right and left, to be abject bullsh*t, they claim to be equal-opportunity sneerers at all isms, but they do tend to slant toward the right in their core attitudes. Perhaps libertarians then are taking my critique of "bullsh*t people" a bit personal, owing to an unconscious affinity with them as fellow rightists?

Or, perhaps they identify with bullsh*t people because they do share the attitude that ideologies are bullsh*t, they just make a special exception to the rule for their own ideology, which they arrogantly consider to be more a matter of systematized common sense than ideology. Either way, they seem to somehow take offense at my panning of the it's-all-bullsh*t perspective. Go figure!

But thanks for being perspicacious enough to pick up on the fact that they're all wet to argue against my little attack piece on "bullsh*t people", but then they haven't really argued, they've just taken the opportunity to issue personal insults again. But the invitation is still open to anyone out there, whether he/she is an actual "bullsh*t person" or a libertarian/conservative, to take a shot not at my personality but at rebutting my analysis of the bullsh*tarian mind-set.

And, on further thought, perhaps libertarians identify with "bullsh*t" and have taken such offense at my mordant musings on "bulls*t people" because deep down they know full well that their libertarianism is a crock of you know what!?

Here's another thought, socialism is the cleansing enema for the sh*t that the right-libertarian movement fills its members ideologically constipated heads with. Reading some of the writings of thinkers in the liberation theology movement, for example, would perhaps be a bit of intellectual ex-lax for them. Well, apparently the excrement in your craniums is pressing on your brains too much for you-all to be able to effectively reply to my critique of the "bullsh*t people", so I thought I'd suggest something that might help.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:46:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 11:05:17 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 10:49:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 10:13:42 PM, bluesteel wrote:

I don't really understand how a libertarian would "argue against" you charles, since you basically say that endorsing an ideology fully = good, meaning those that endorse libertarian ideals are good, according to this particular post.

Finally, hallelujah, a comment that indicates intelligent thought!!! Absolutely, libertarians should not have much of an issue with this particular post, as they are adherents of an actual ideology, and not bullsh*t people who balk at the very notion of ideology. However, nevertheless, curiously it's the libertarians who've responded with their predictable negativity.

This is either because, to invert Sally Field's famous Oscar acceptance speech line, "They dislike me, they really dislike me", and are going to come out of the woodwork to attack anything that I post; or it's because right-libertarians somewhat identify with "bullsh*t people" despite having a formal ideology. As I point out in the original post, many of the folks I'm calling "bullsh*t people" claim that they consider all ideologies and parties, right and left, to be abject bullsh*t, they claim to be equal-opportunity sneerers at all isms, but they do tend to slant toward the right in their core attitudes. Perhaps libertarians then are taking my critique of "bullsh*t people" a bit personal, owing to an unconscious affinity with them as fellow rightists?

Or, perhaps they identify with bullsh*t people because they do share the attitude that ideologies are bullsh*t, they just make a special exception to the rule for their own ideology, which they arrogantly consider to be more a matter of systematized common sense than ideology. Either way, they seem to somehow take offense at my panning of the it's-all-bullsh*t perspective. Go figure!

But thanks for being perspicacious enough to pick up on the fact that they're all wet to argue against my little attack piece on "bullsh*t people", but then they haven't really argued, they've just taken the opportunity to issue personal insults again. But the invitation is still open to anyone out there, whether he/she is an actual "bullsh*t person" or a libertarian/conservative, to take a shot not at my personality but at rebutting my analysis of the bullsh*tarian mind-set.

And, on further thought, perhaps libertarians identify with "bullsh*t" and have taken such offense at my mordant musings on "bulls*t people" because deep down they know full well that their libertarianism is a crock of you know what!?

Here's another thought, socialism is the cleansing enema for the sh*t that the right-libertarian movement fills its members ideologically constipated heads with. Reading some of the writings of thinkers in the liberation theology movement, for example, would perhaps be a bit of intellectual ex-lax for them. Well, apparently the excrement in your craniums is pressing on your brains too much for you-all to be able to effectively reply to my critique of the "bullsh*t people", so I thought I'd suggest something that might help.

I'm surprised that J.Kenyon doesn't have some more words of encouragement for me here.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hey Charleslb.

If you give me a paragraph length (4-8 sentences) synopsis of your OP, I would love to talk to you about bullsh!t people.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2011 11:58:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:46:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's another thought, socialism is the cleansing enema for the sh*t that the right-libertarian movement fills its members ideologically constipated heads with. Reading some of the writings of thinkers in the liberation theology movement, for example, would perhaps be a bit of intellectual ex-lax for them. Well, apparently the excrement in your craniums is pressing on your brains too much for you-all to be able to effectively reply to my critique of the "bullsh*t people", so I thought I'd suggest something that might help.

Charles, I guarantee I have read more about socialism than you -- both the original writings of thinkers like Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Chomsky, AND the capitalist critiques. All you ever do is make gross generalizations about "right wing" (protip: ancaps aren't right wing, dumbâss) psychology. Of course, none of these arguments are actually testable (herp derp, you say you're not a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever but I know what you really think!) and none of them point out any shortcomings in the ideology itself. When you have a rational argument to present, come back to DDO. Until then, just fück off.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 1:34:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 9:25:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/12/2011 4:37:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I think the tendency of my critics to limit themselves to short and snarky observations of an ad hominem nature
When one actually bothers to read your tomes, they tend to play out as some of the most ad hominem heavy material on this site.

Is this the best that you and this site's libertarian chorus that so likes to sing my dispraises can muster up in response to my challenge? No trenchant rebuttals of the points in my post and the comments above this one, no well-reasoned reasons why my fundamental thesis is itself a load of bullsh*t, just more ad hominem dismissiveness!
Do a better job, call it tu quoque. But it doesn't actually win you anything to make ad hominem arguments about people's ad hominems, unless the observer ALREADY KNOWS about how ad hominem a given side can get.

I am confident that the observer will find out what that is.

The reason I didn't address your other points is because... well, I didn't find it particularly important to defend "bulls*** people." In fact, I rarely find anything you say important. Which is why I rarely read more than a small random sampling in the hopes its improved.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2011 2:18:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/12/2011 11:58:58 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/12/2011 11:46:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here's another thought, socialism is the cleansing enema for the sh*t that the right-libertarian movement fills its members ideologically constipated heads with. Reading some of the writings of thinkers in the liberation theology movement, for example, would perhaps be a bit of intellectual ex-lax for them. Well, apparently the excrement in your craniums is pressing on your brains too much for you-all to be able to effectively reply to my critique of the "bullsh*t people", so I thought I'd suggest something that might help.

Charles, I guarantee I have read more about socialism than you -- both the original writings of thinkers like Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Chomsky, AND the capitalist critiques. All you ever do is make gross generalizations about "right wing" (protip: ancaps aren't right wing, dumbâss) psychology. Of course, none of these arguments are actually testable (herp derp, you say you're not a racist/homophobe/sexist/whatever but I know what you really think!) and none of them point out any shortcomings in the ideology itself. When you have a rational argument to present, come back to DDO. Until then, just fück off.

God damn it where's the like button.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...