The descent of “discussion” and “debate” into “screaming past each other”
by Jack GrantFor me, this says it all ( from “Parting Shot” at Loaded Mouth by tas, who apparently is taking a break from blogworld) :
And that’s when I realized that my problem isn’t with Republicans – It’s with fucking assholes. Despicable pieces of trash who exist simply to argue with people. All they care about is appearing right so they beat their chest and pump up their ego a little bit more. It doesn’t matter who they take down in the process. For example, Boyd winning an argument with me is a more pressing concern to him then how his president responds to genocide. It doesn’t matter if I point out Bush’s lack of response and even the fact that I proved my point and I was correct. All that matters to Boyd is two things: I posted it, so that automatically invalidates the post; and that the lives of those hundreds of thousands in Darfur dying aren’t Americans, therefore making their deaths meaningless. He even comes right out and says he supports genocide in his comment: “I’m more concerned about what may affect the US (and by extension, me) than what may affect others. Syria allowing terrorists to come into their country for the express purpose of entering Iraq to kill Americans is more important to me than what may happen in another country that doesn’t affect us here.â€?
Regardless of the profanity, this encapsulates my views.
I will explain more soon. It is 11PM here in France, and I need some sleep. If you are interested in more than simple partisan screeds, you will read my future post explaining the meaning behind my catogory “Amber and Cruelty” that will be up in the next day or so.
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
There are assholes on both sides of the political spectrum. This is why I can’t do a political blog. I can’t take the assholes.
By Bou on 10.23.05 20:23
Well, I prefer to use the term “cyber bulliesâ€? rather than “fucking assholesâ€?. I’ve had some discussions in the past with people like that. If someone refuses to acknowledge that a point you made is valid, are you really having a discussion? One sure way to smoke out a cyber-bully is to say, “I don’t think thats true. Can we just agree that our perspectives are different?â€? If they just keep going then you know their mind is closed.
By Bob J Young on 10.23.05 20:35
The problem is that freedom of speech has descended into freedom of SCREECH.
By jae grenier on 10.23.05 21:40
Tas is projecting - again. He is the one who has to win at all costs. The last argument of the incompetent is to throw a fit and run away.
The profanity is essential: It’s all he’s got left. That’s all the left has got.
By Mark on 10.24.05 07:36
Calling somebody on their use of profanity is usually the mark of someone who doesn’t actually have a point.
As for running from an argument, I don’t care what you call it. You’ll call it whatever the fuck you want, anyways; at least where I’m concerned. Boyd came right out and said that since the views were voiced by me, that makes them invalid. So if that’s the “argument” which you support, then more power to you.
However, in the world of non-make believe, “arguments” like that don’t wash. Arguments on points of the matter do. And as far as I’m concerned, the right hasn’t provided any of those — They’ve simply gotten angry with me and resorted to slander, character defamation, and outright lying.
So if somebody wants to argue me on points, fine. But fuck this bullshit. If that’s what you call an “argument”, then you’ve got yourself a lot of fucking learning to do, Mark.
By tas on 10.25.05 03:27
There you go again.
By Mark on 10.25.05 06:36