You know what? You're right, I did assume Poohead was in his early twenties or perhaps late teens because I glanced at a picture of him on another thread and formed an incorrect impression without all the facts.
I'm glad you were are able to identify this. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
And I replied something along the lines of how I still hold that view. But why? Perhaps I have a reason for that position. Perhaps there is a line of thought behind it, a worldview or way of using language to describe the world that explains why I differ on that score? But you don't care about any of that; you are (and were) clearly not looking for a discussion or even a debate-- you were scanning for anything you could mock or criticize without fully engaging in the conversation. You don't want to talk about a position you want to talk about the person.
So here comes the goalpost shifting, and dodging again, your original claim was that I never asked you about Ben Shapiro. I just provided you TWO instances on where I did ask you, and because you can't refute that you're changing the subject about how you are allowed to hold views about him. Well of course you are, that was never in question. I'm assuming you've had to resort to this strawman because you've been proven wrong with your own quotes.
Whoa there. How do you know my intent wasn't, how did you put it, "playful?" It seems to me that you use one standard to judge your own actions and another standard for everyone else. Anything you say is to be seen in the best possible light and anything someone else says is to be seen in the worst possible light.
No I was calling you out for being a hypocrite because you spent most of you previous post saying that these kind of playful jabs have no place in this political discussion, but if you really want to call me ugly, then break a leg.
And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Dynamo Frokane doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. (There's your political reference ~_^)
If you did not think that your comment wouldn't sting you would not have bothered to make it. That is one of the purposes of your little jabs. You want to make your target uncomfortable, you want to stick a negative label on them and you want to stir up a little bit of conflict.
Do you recall how this whole thing started? You were talking to Penny about the political center and at the end of the post you tacked on an ad hominem against me. But that wasn't enough; you had to be sure I saw your little jab so you @mentioned me. You wanted to get in a little sniping remark and you wanted to make certain I saw it.
I looked up the pages mdk referenced and it was yet another example of this sort of behavior. You get in a personal shot, you try to pin a label on him and you try to stir up conflict but you try to do so obliquely so you can deny it if you are ever called out.
The severity and subtlety of this behavior varies. Sometimes you are careful but other times you go way too far. But regardless all of these events are joined by a number of common elements:
1. You target the person, not the position
2. You do so with the intent to mock or belittle that person and/or to damage their reputation
3. You avoid taking a position that can be criticized
4. You hide behind humor or subtlety so that you can deny your actions when/if called out on it
The rest of us manage to discuss politics without sinking to those depths despite the fact that we often vehemently disagree and may at times discuss emotionally evocative issues that we feel strongly about. We are certainly not perfect-- but we don't sink this low. Your behavior is completely uncalled for.
This is fucking stupid, and I hate having to defend myself against such weak accusations but here we go.
1.Yes of course I @ you with the topic in mind. Thats how I wanted to engage you in the ben shapiro debate. My other attempts to discuss that subject with you have just been various ways of dodging the subject and passive aggressively goalpost shifting. Do you want me to provide your quotes again? I don't think you do.
2. If someone says something stupid and I point out how stupid it is, their reputation is collateral damage. This mainly comes up when you guys self contradict. When MDK says the New York Times,Wall Street Journal, CNN is fake news, and then cites a New York Times, Wall Street Journal or CNN article to prove a point that he agrees with and I point that out, thats just a result of a self contradiction, it'll make you look silly.
3. Avoid what position? Go on, ask me about a position and I'll tell you if I have a strong stance or I don't care. But I will tell you exactly where I fall on any topic, but like you accused me:
you never asked.4. I get to decide when I'm joking and when I'm not. Its as simple as that. But as far as things I feel strongly about, you can check the thread, I never hide from a debate.
And as far as MDK, he wrote a very specific accusation that I called him a racist, and then when I asked to provide evidence for said claim he backed down. Sounds like someone else in this thread doesn't it?
But because you want to speculate that I'm using 'humor' to avoid taking a position.
I personally think the confederacy was racist, and I used a meme to show that. Now unless you think mdk represents the confederacy, there is no reason to think that I think he is a racist. Now enough of that....
And because I've triggered a certain incredibly thick person every time I post this, and I've long stopped caring making debates based on anything with tact.
I've never really engaged with you on anything gamer-gate related so I'm assuming you're talking about someone else, who is it?
EDIT: I thought it may be
@Fabricant451 for a second, but then I remembered she's not a t y p i c a l feminist.
Oh and just another contradiction
@Kratesis you've clearly seen Silence call someone 'An incredibly thick person' but you have zero issue with that, even though you've spent the last 3 long form posts complaining about how we should attack ideas and not the person. This further discredits your position and solidifies my belief you are attempting to take some sort of constantly shifting 'moral high ground' for lack of any decent arguments.
