Ask a simple question

Meathead has found the same perseveration he had as a child.

Hey! I want a dollar!

“Radical right wing”?

I thought “radical” was a term that was exclusive to the left.

mheh. I answered you, you, as Ogre pointed out, don’t acknowledge anything outside your small mind therefore, you don’t acknowledge that I did.

Is that my problem? Don’t think so. You’re trying to MAKE that my problem, but that should be between you and your shrink.

These are Ogre’s words, but I thought they were very fitting to be placed in this comments section. After all. Meathead doesn’t know a whole lot about anything outside his finite little world of fantasy-

Ah, you all haven’t learned the World of Meatbrain™, have you? In his world, everything is as he decides it will be. If you want to know your opinion on something, ask him and he will tell you. The only facts that exist in MeatbrainWorld® are those that he decide exist. Do not attempt to introduce any facts from reality, because those will only exist if he permits them to exist.

The entire field of logic does not exist there, either, so do not attempt to use it. Anything is a strawman if he says it is (and he will name many things strawmen). Anything that has happened before only has happened as he views it to have happened. For example, if he claims that the Holocaust did not exist, then it did not exist — in MeatbrainWorld®.

For much easier discussion, just ask Meatbrain what your opinions are — he knows better than you — in MeatbrainWorld.

The same confidently myth-slinging Ogre who not only tried to use the anthropic fallacy to rationalize the existence of a creator, but didn’t even know at the time that even many fundagelicals know better than to trot it out? The guy who claims that there is “recent evidence that the speed of light may not, in fact, be constant”? Yeah, that’s a fellow I’d want as a character witness and whose characterizations i’d be sure to take to heart.

This is one problem we rational people have that the wingers don’t: When looking to others for corroboration, we actually need to have some sort of quality standard, whereas nutjobs just quote whatever source that seems to suit them at any moment.

When you don’t acknowledge the answers to your questions, I can’t continue to play your silly game.

Whatever. You’re getting to be a nuisance, but that’s the goal, I guess. That’s why you’re a negative attention seeker – to get a rise out of people.

You can get help with that from your shrink, too, if you’re interested in why people see you coming and disappear, lol…

Boy you two elitists sure are funny! Passing judgement on everyone else without noticing what the heck it is that you are doing.

You’ve been tagged, I got my dollar.

Thanks.

I’d also like to know what, in Cao’s unique view, defines an “elitist.” In recent years, this term has been transformed into a slur by a lot of those who enjoy playing the victim card, so its intended meanings seem to vary, but in Cao’s case it appears to mean “someone with the temerity to value facts, reason and evidence over emotion and wishful thiking when it comes to debating issues.”

I think Cao’s definition of “elitist” is, something akin to “anyone who I feel inferior to.” Since many, if not most extreme right-wingers seem to have TREMENDOUS inferiority issues, it usually expresses itself as “Anyone with the temerity to actually tell me that I’m wrong and to count the ways.” Kind of like the stereotypical jock who mocks anything they can’t do as “stupid.” So “elitist” is just another in a long string of words (like “liberal”) usurped by wingers to give them cover on their retreat from an argument. Oh, but Heaven forbid that you do anything like that to one of them. Then it’s run home to mommy time telling everyone what a bully you are for calling them names and blah blah blah. Then they start with the game of “I already answered your question.”

It’s part of the wingnut campaign to out-1984 Orwell. Wingers DEMAND accountability … from others; they DEMAND civility … from others; they DEMAND religious tolerance … from others; they DEMAND a strict interpretation of the Constitution … so long as their strict interpretation is the one used; they DEMAND Freedom of Speech … as long as your speech is limited to saying how much you agree with everything they say; and, the believe in basic Human Rights … just so long as they get to decide what is meant by “Human.”

People like Cao, Justin and Kender aren’t interested in debate, which would require that they actually follow some rules like having facts. They are the Fred Phelps’ of the right-wing blogs. The more people see them spew their venom, the more people will wake up to the near-lethal toxicity in wingnutia.

What I don’t understand is why they even attempt to debate at away games. Their ignorance is open for all to view and they can no longer hide behind the delete function.

I think their insistence on debating in forums that aren’t their own was best explained by Penn & Teller when explaining why people like Michael Medved and other winger appear on their show (paraphrasing): They think they’re bulletproof. They’ve never encountered a contrary opinion so they think their arguments are beyond reproach.

They also seem to be a little masochistic. They also figure that, since none of their readers are going to have the intelligence to check into what they claim, they can just write on their own sites how they either a) totally kicked the liberals’ asses (whether they did or not is beside the point) or b) how their words were taken out of context and they were abused by the mean, nasty liberals.

To supplement what Bill and Robert wrote, it’s instructive to note several things about how these winger blogs are operated. On StopTheACLU.com itself, comments are not moderated in the strictest sense (that is, no one has to actively approve them before they appear), but they are routinely deleted. The overlords typically claim in such cases that dissenting commenters have broken some (often unstated) rule or “aren’t interested in real debate”—you know, the usual stuff—but even were this true, one would think that a bunch of people who openly crave attention and claim to love smacking down the “moonbats” would much rather take the opportunity to demonstrate the left-wing idiocy they say is so rampant rather than erase all traces of it from their addled midst. The conclusion here is inescapable.

What’s more, most of the contributors to StopTheACLU.com have their own personal blogs, and in my experience every one of them modifies or simply erases comments from the very people they say they can outsmart and out-argue at the drop of a hat. On the flip side, you never see meatbrain delete anything. Neither do I and neither does CaptainRational at DontStopTheACLU.com. This isn’t because of unusually generous personalities and it certainly isn’t attributable to winger interlopers’ providing any more substance or tact than they do when they’re the home team; it’s because knocking these people’s “arguments” out of the sky is, while often time-consuming, an incredibly easy task.

I suspect the primary reason the wingers come here and argue in spite of constantly gloating that no one reads these “moonbat” blogs is the same underlying impetus for their wrenching semi-opposable thumbs into place and venturing into the blogosphere to begin with: They can’t help themselves. These are—almost to a one—angry, uneducated people, and to them, attacking a phantom enemy is as easily resisted as is the sight of a live chicken by a hungry ‘gator. The difference, of course, is that in this case, the chicken always wins.