"George Bush this, George Bush that"

Post Reply New Topic

Yea! I'm one out of five!

I'll chalk this one up to Aspieness; Orwell is often accused by certain posters of trying to "police" the forum for ideas that don't fit the majority's view while I was recently portrayed as the spokesman for some sort of vast PPR shadow conspiracy. I thought the emotes should have been enough of an indicator of my facetiousness, but again this is an Aspie forum so whatever.

Since you saw my repartee with Red H, you should be aware that I've plainly stated that I'm simply doing my best to conform to his idea of a typical banally evil American; you know, like Pandabear and co like to do in threads about conservatives. Further, though I mentioned his anti-Americanism since it's the virtually the only element to his posts, I wouldn't have even bothered with him had he not chosen to sign off nearly every post with an unambiguous personal insult. In other words, he has no credibility because he's shown nothing worthwhile other than the ability to be a jerk, which even here in PPR doesn't really count for much.

As for me, I'm done defending myself against you, especially when the post(s) in question have nothing to do with me personally. If you want to waste your time attempting to discredit me personally, that's your business.



'Keet is obstinate and occasionally abrasive; I wouldn't go so far as to call him a troll, especially by the standards of the forum.



Orwell doesn't really on "clever" put-downs and loaded language to the detriment of his rhetorical points; besides which I've called him on similar issues in the past. Again though, this isn't about Orwell. You can complain about right wing politics or really anything else to your heart's content without cheapening your arguments with linguistic sucker punches, you just seem to think that they add something and indulge in them more regularly than many other posters.



There you go again, "talking point", which in your lexicon is a synonym for a position you disagree with but don't care to refute. You're still missing the point anyway, that your attempts to marginalize groups and ideas merely make you look like a zealot who has to resort to linguistic trickery to make his points. Your writing would be stronger without them.



Since I don't feel like digging, I'll concede that I may have been mistaken here, though I believe Orwell did use that term early and often. However, refraining from using the most juvenile of these terms the one time is hardly exculpatory for you, your posting history will quickly reveal your penchant for mocking language and engineered terms designed to provoke a predetermined response rather than performing an actual descriptive function.



If right leaning posters show up who pick fights and sign every post with a personal insult, critique away.



I could fall back on your own defense of those being simple observations, but I actually do think that over-use of loaded language has hurt my posts in the past and I make an effort to keep it to a minimum in my writings. Nanny state in particular is a bit loaded, but is more of a time saver than anything as it instantly conveys exactly what I mean without unnecessary descriptions and qualifications. Your primary offense in my opinion is that you over-use loaded terms (e.g. using the term "Tea Partisans" EVERY single time) and create the impression that you're not so much here to talk as to push an ideology.

Further, you often use what I term "engineered language" that may not actually mean anything but attempts to frame a discussion in a particular way; two prominent examples (not specific to you but just in general) being "hate speech" and "cop-killer bullet", both terms are not so much descriptive as meant to create a specific reaction. In those cases, it forces a disagreeing party to be in favor of something that sounds inherently bad, manipulating the rhetorical playing field through linguistics rather than logical argumentation. If you have to rely on these tricks to make your points, your points themselves may bear some self examination.



Do you read the newspaper or watch political adds on TV? Which do you find more persuasive; the dry and neutral or the sensational mudslinging? Also, notice how many of your defensive replies in this post alone rely on "well other people are doing it" style logic to try and "justify" your behavior. I know your relative youth is a sore point to you when it comes to the fitness of your opinions, but you're not doing yourself any favors in that department with that type of reasoning.



On that at least we can agree...

I used the term a couple times, but I wouldn't characterize my usage of it as "early and often." I ignored the Tea Party movement at the beginning, and only referred to them as Teabaggers on a handful of occasions.

To answer your criticisms of MP, yes he does use ideologically charged terminology and labels on occasion, but that's not really out of place or out of line in a political forum. Everyone does the same to some extent or other.

Apologies for any appearance of misconstruing you Orwell, like I said I was relying on memory and readily concede that mine is pretty good but far from perfect. I was certainly among those facepalming when early on some clearly culturally naive Tea Partiers described themselves as teabaggers, though I thought that far too much was made of it in the mainstream media. It was funny for a minute, but then very quickly took on a nasty and more partisan edge.

As for Master P, my charges aren't that he's unique in his use of loaded terms and labels, but that he does so extensively and to the detriment of his rhetorical strength. I'm not trying to put him down or discredit him in some way, I'm trying to offer him some constructive criticism on what I see as a major weakness in his argumentative style. You may or may not recall that I once spent the several pages of a thread trying to make the same point about sensationalism to Xenon13 concerning the use of DU munitions while beating back a misunderstanding with Sand at the same time, so it's not like I'm singling just him out, though I do think he's a primary offender right at the moment.

well gee.....'i am not a witch'...........'pay for your health care with a chicken'...........'what radar, what satellite, i need to see the russians flying over alaska'........everything that the dip-s..t sharron angle says.....dressing up as a nazi ss officer several times in reinactments. tea party....hell....tea enemas. demos and reps just as bad. remember the moron who thought guam might tip over?

george 43 gets mad because s.h. tries to kill 41. to get even he spends a trillion dollars and gets thousands of u.s. troops killed and terribly wounded FOR NOTHING. what, you're calling me a liberal p...y? i'm a vietnam vet, so f..k you. besides, i dislike obama just as much as any other president.

far as i can tell, no one reads what i write. har, har, har.

Read it, but I think that after reading this it's easier to decide never to read another of your posts, "har, har, har."

Last edited by danandlouie on 09 Oct 2010, 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I said it was easier, not that I won't. Personally, no I haven't been in the military since I have Asperger's Syndrome and it is a disqualifying criterion. My birth-father was in the US Army though, but since he had an IQ of 188 they stationed him in Germany as a helicopter mechanic during the Vietnam war. Did you fight in the war, perchance? From my mom's first marriage, her two sons, my older half brothers, both served in the US Army, and my half sister serves in the US Air Force. My step-dad was never in the military, but even he's worked for the DOD designing weapon systems for them. I would gladly serve my country as a soldier if they didn't reject on the basis of my diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome.

Now, are you prepared to shut up with the insults?

I'm sorry, where was the truth of what you wrote? I couldn't find it amidst your emotionally charged incoherent mutterings.

well gosh, i have a.s. and i was accepted. the air force thought i was close to mute. they seemed glad to have me and made accommodations for me. go figure.

i will say that i am sorry that i expected you to be able to separate delusion from reality. my bad.

don't want to upset you so i will never respond to anything you write again.

Thank you very much! Thank you very much! It's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me!