Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
- Apr 4, 2020
No. That's really more a problem with you specifically. I'm just going to go out and say it, House: You're probably the most textbook example of a pseudointellectual that I've ever had the displeasure of encountering. You routinely enter discussions from a position of ignorance with absolutely no intention of educating yourself on the subject even for the sake of improving your own arguments. You rarely read beyond tweets or headlines, and only begrudingly look for more information after being called out. Even then you only ever seem to come away with the most superficial of understandings, seemingly stopping your research the moment you find a sentence that you think you can leverage to make even the pettiest of 'gotcha' allegations irrespective of the surrounding context even of the source you're citing, much less the post you're responding to. So many exchanges with you essentially boil down to us explaining why the things you're ignorantly clinging to either do not imply what you claim or are simply false, and you in turn plugging your fingers in your ears, and effectively yelling "nuh-uh" before simply restating your then-debunked argument. You seem to bank on the idea that if you simply ignore the flaws pointed out in your argument then others would as well, but at the same time you also hypocritically seem to labor under the delusion that if you can find the slightest inconsistency (which, mind you, you often fabricate through quote mines, equivocation and seemingly willful misinterpretation) in the other speaker's posts that constitutes grounds to dismiss everything they say. Not to mince words, you are legitimately terrible at argumentation. You have a child's understanding of its purpose and methodology, and your tactics basically boil down to acting like a passive aggressive moron who tries to 'win' the discussion by being as frustratingly obtuse as possible so as to turn what's supposed to be a discussion into a battle of attrition. You paradoxically seem to revel in your ignorance but also act as if you believe yourself the resident expert on subjects that by your own admission you have no understanding of or interest in learning about.It seems like certain people don't like to think that I could just be a normal, reasonable person. Because then it would mean that my opinions are normal and reasonable as well. And certain people have already made up their minds and dug their trenches, and anyone with opinions that differ from theirs must be held by unhuman monsters without compassion or decency.
You show no intellectual curiosity, and never vet your own sources or do your due diligence. You demand that everyone else meet the burden of disproving your allegations to beyond unreasonable doubt; that unless they conclusively and definitively prove to you that the figurative Russell's Teapot not only doesn't exist but that it's literally impossible for any teapot to exist in such circumstances, and insist that if they cannot prove the latter then the teapot's existence must be treated as a given and at least investigated. You know, the old "teach the controversy" angle? You then, however, accept no explanations and call foul whenever someone questions the veracity of your sources (such as they are) as a matter of principle. And let's get into that last one a bit, because it seems you actually scoff at the idea of an objective reality, instead treating information as necessarily partisan and therefore the truth of reality simply a matter of ideological preference. More than a few times now, you've tried to call someone a hypocrite for daring to judge different claims on individual merit rather than treating all claims as having necessity equal veracity. This has been seen both in you implying hypocrisy when people have different opinions on different cases, and when - in response to people patiently explaining why the propaganda pieces and yellow journalism you like to cite is not credible - you claim it unfair and hypocritical that people dared to actually critically evaluate your sources and find them lacking, as if the simple fact that they appealed to you meant that they should be seen as necessarily holding at least equal validity to any other source, like the credibility of sources was a matter of pure fatih and independent verification was a foreign concept to you. There's a reason that so many people doubt that you argue in good faith, and that reason is your conduct.
It brings to mind an old adage about playing chess with a pigeon; the pigeon doesn't play the game, it just knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and then struts around like it won. If you ever wonder why so many people get so enormously frustrated with you, it's because your posting habits (general ignorance, reliance on equivocation and appeals to incredulity as the foundation of your 'arguments', flipping between deliberate obtuseness and not-so-subtle insinuation, passive aggressive habits, pretentiousness, etc) make you roughly analogous to that pigeon, and we've sick and tired of you constantly crapping on the board.