Ranndom Ranntings

[aberrantangels]

The BBC would like to apologise for the following announcement.

The real reason no debate ever breaks out in rann's journal: she bans anyone who starts making points. Or just anyone who looks like they might make a point. Or even just anyone who doesn't share her belief that Rush Limbaugh is God's youngest son. Or particularly anyone who tries to get her to consider that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" might be real. Rush Limbaugh said it's a fake, after all, and he couldn't lie even if he wanted to.

Here's what I would have posted in one of the threads I got into on her journal, in response to her saying "It's pretty sad that you think you've got an actual functioning brain, y'know."

Can you prove that I don't? With evidence? Or can you just throw out snarky putdowns as a substitute for debate?

Because you're right about one thing, I'll admit; you've never asked anyone to start a debate, and one never has. You post something that boils down to "Boy, aren't liberals STOOPID?" and somebody says "Yeah, they sure are!" and somebody else says "Gee, Wilgus, they're stoopider than stoopid, actually!" and, every once in a while, an actual liberal says "Why do you think liberals are so stupid? Have you ever actually read anything they write?"

And you, as if this person had asked "Why do you think the sky is blue?", say something that boils down to "Prove to me they aren't stoopid and I might read what they have to say." And when somebody takes you up on that and posts the words of actual liberals, you do what you did to bellatrys in the other post and go

LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I'M GOING TO IGNORE YOU AND PRETEND YOU'RE THE ONE IGNORING REALITY! I WILL NOT BE INFECTED WITH YOUR COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA! I WILL PRESERVE THE PURITY OF ESSENCE OF MY NATURAL BODILY FLUIDS!

or words to the same defect. Lather, rinse, repeat. Anything bad conservatives say about liberals is to be taken as self-evident; anything even remotely non-positive that liberals say about conservatives requires a detailed proof that must be no longer than 19 pages and no shorter than 20 pages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the next rightwingnut like her I meet who's willing to listen to other points of view will be the first, and the next one I meet who's able to defend eir point of view will be out walking eir pet flying pig. (Note: sticking your fingers in your ears and la-la-la-ing does not constitute defending your views from anything except the risk that your memetic bubble-boy-ism might fail.)

EDIT 3:48p — can somebody please inform restless1, re this comment, that I was attempting to point up cuthulu's immaturity?

Comments

[aberrantangels]

As it happens, I had a reply all ready to go to the only thing you said that was, in my opinion, actually worth replying to. I was trying to get it into a form that didn't spew flecks of foam out of your monitor. But lucky you; by your pushing, you convinced me that you deserved to hear it twice, here and on bellatrys' journal.

bellatrys laid out the evidence for her assertions. Or, having denied that you ever saw the evidence, are you now going to deny that you ever referred to it as "pretty string art"?

I don't know what to do — pretend to be insulted that you think I have no memory, or insult you by pretending to think that you have no memory. Given the circumstances outlined in the previous paragraph, however, those are the only two options I have.

So, to sum up what I must (for lack of a better term) call your logic:

bellatrys laying out evidence for the vast right-wing conspiracy, naming names and showing how those names are connected: stupid

cuthulu saying "George Soros", without showing how that name connects to anything other than the voices in his head: pure genius

aberranteyes making fun of the voices in cuthulu's head: stupid

Like black_dub, you are starting to look to me like what I call a "he-said she-said moderate". That is, you believe that the truth lies midway between the two "extremes" because of the media treating moderates on one side and loonies on the other as if they represented the endpoints of debate. This is nothing new — Molly Ivins wrote about it in 1987. (Judging by your performance to date, I expect you to dismiss this the moment you see the name, but I thought I'd make the effort nonetheless.)

The American press has always had a tendency to assume that the truth must lie exactly halfway between any two opposing points of view. Thus, if the press presents the man who says [a certain dictator] is an ogre and the man who says [the same dictator] is a prince, it believes it has done the full measure of its journalistic duty.

(She had already quoted Russell Baker on the false "objectivity" this breeds: "a refugee from [the dictatorship in question] who appears on television saying monstrous things are happening in his homeland must be followed by a [Party] spokesman saying [the dictator] is the greatest boon to humanity since pasteurized milk. Real objectivity would require not only hard work by news people to determine which report was accurate, but also a willingness to put up with the abuse certain to follow publication of an objectively formed judgment." So they escape the hard work and the abuse. "The public may not learn much about these fairly sensitive matters, but neither does it get another excuse to denounce the media for unfairness and lack of objectivity. In brief, society is teeming with people who become furious if told what the score is.")

[fourel.livejournal.com]

Like [info]black_dub, you are starting to look to me like what I call a "he-said she-said moderate". That is, you believe that the truth lies midway between the two "extremes" because of the media treating moderates on one side and loonies on the other as if they represented the endpoints of debate.

Um, no. I'd say that that's a wrong assumption. I made the post I made because you *both* sounded completely fucking bananas and it wasn't the first time I've seen you blow up about Rann. It was a pot and kettle situation and you seemed pretty blind to that fact.

Loomis, I know very little about you. I don't pretend to assume to know what you're thinking and you should give me the same common courtesy.