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

[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.