CRT Part II: Defunding the Military

[Dill]

(06-30-2021, 09:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've had this discussion with you hundreds of times.  You've been provided with examples, but "Dill doesn't see it".  This is yet another example of you ignoring unacceptable behavior by people you like.  Fred is solely known for this exact type of conduct.  But don't take my word for it, Bel or Hollo will tell you the exact same thing.  Not that it matters, as "Dill doesn't see it".

You have indeed accused me of "not seeing it," but accusation is not proof, and you can't provide me with an example of you providing an example, can you? Mere accusation, not demonstration, is your style. And accusing people of not seeing what you never actually show them is just gaslighting. 

So you want to maintain "Fred is solely known" for the conduct illustrated in Wes's fictional examples--misrepresenting another's statements/position and then refuting the misrepresentation? 

But recently, on the "Big Lie" thread, it was not Fred who imputed to AU165 the assumption that any criticism of election process damaged democracy (#13, 26), that on the way to constructing a superficial equivalence between Hillary and Trump.  When I agreed with AU and pointed out no one was claiming criticism of elections was in itself damaging to democracy, you responded with the usual charges of 'double standard' and 'typical Dill' who only sees what he wants when its Republicans--none of which refuted any of my points. That's how, in a discussion of the consequences of Trump's Big Lie, which has the DHS and FBI on alert, I supposedly overlooked how Hillary's grousing about her loss was really "the same."

On the "Minority Rule" thread last week, when I invoked a MLK's internationally recognized definition of "civil disobedience," but would not include 2A "protestors" in NY under that category, since they were not publicly challenging the law with their own bodies, it was not Fred who suddenly accused me of deploying "personal" definition in service of a double standard. It was you, and in post #44 you went so far as to call my definition "completely arbitrary and wholly semantic," without demonstrating at all why that was so.  Eventually, in a post to someone else, you conceded my definition was consistent, but not before accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" and deploying your personal definition of civil disobedience which did include your 2A resistors "100% the same" in "spirit." 

On "Kamala Harris: Enjoy the Long Weekend." After I merely summarized the rationale for Evergreen State's "Day of Absence," it was not Fred who "refuted" a claim I never made, namely that this day was no different from "the incident in which whites were invited to leave campus"(#186, 191). When I asked you to identify which statement(s) made the point you claimed I made--the minimal condition for any logical refutation--your response was simply "Dill doesn't see it."  Gaslighting.

I listed those new examples of mischaracterization because I am tired of reviewing the old ones, when you've represented me as a supporter of ISIS or ANTIFA or MS-13, or asserted my position on some issue was racist, or accused me of accusing you of "racism," while refusing to identify which post or statements in which I supposedly did this. 

This has gone on for years, and not even primarily against me. One of the best examples is from the "Kansas City Overwhelmingly votes" thread (04/2019), which discussed protestors who invaded a church where people were signing a petition to keep MLK's name on a street. When Dino called the protests "disrespectful," you immediately imputed to him a general claim he never made, namely that "peaceful, silent protest was disrespectful" in itself, on any occasion, and decided that was a contradiction, since he was supposedly for non-violent protest, and now suddenly wasn't, because he questioned this one case (#10) (talk about absolutist constructions, jeez!). When he defended himself against the misrepresentation, you told him to "stop feeling persecuted" (#14). And you insisted you would continue calling out Dino's "BS" into the future (nevermind that two others had agreed with Dino, without your naming them "hypocrites.") That continued until the "Lawsuit" thread in March, when Dino announced he was tired of the baseless accusation, of your constantly replacing discussion of politics with discussion of Dino's character, and signed off for good (#5). I could list examples of you twisting Fred's words, as well. 

Even if someone can eventually produce a few Fred examples, in terms of sheer volume, you are the forum champ when it comes to misrepresenting other's positions, and blocking or dismissing good faith efforts to clarify misunderstanding. It's of a piece with the history of personal attacks you recently "owned" on the "Minority Rule" thread (#49). 

So it's no wonder you like the Fred herrings--"that's what HE does; EVERYBODY knows! Keep track of his posts, not mine!"

And no wonder you don't like "pedantic" and "genteel" posters who cite thread and post, and quote examples. They can do that because they have the examples; you can't because you don't.  Hence the lazy default mode--"Dill can't see it."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2021, 11:43 PM)Dill Wrote: You have indeed accused me of "not seeing it," but accusation is not proof, and you can't provide me with an example of you providing an example, can you? Mere accusation, not demonstration, is your style. And accusing people of not seeing what you never actually show them is just gaslighting. 

So you want to maintain "Fred is solely known" for the conduct illustrated in Wes's fictional examples--misrepresenting another's statements/position and then refuting the misrepresentation? 

But recently, on the "Big Lie" thread, it was not Fred who imputed to AU165 the assumption that any criticism of election process damaged democracy (#13, 26), that on the way to constructing a superficial equivalence between Hillary and Trump.  When I agreed with AU and pointed out no one was claiming criticism of elections was in itself damaging to democracy, you responded with the usual charges of 'double standard' and 'typical Dill' who only sees what he wants when its Republicans--none of which refuted any of my points. That's how, in a discussion of the consequences of Trump's Big Lie, which has the DHS and FBI on alert, I supposedly overlooked how Hillary's grousing about her loss was really "the same."

On the "Minority Rule" thread last week, when I invoked a MLK's internationally recognized definition of "civil disobedience," but would not include 2A "protestors" in NY under that category, since they were not publicly challenging the law with their own bodies, it was not Fred who suddenly accused me of deploying "personal" definition in service of a double standard. It was you, and in post #44 you went so far as to call my definition "completely arbitrary and wholly semantic," without demonstrating at all why that was so.  Eventually, in a post to someone else, you conceded my definition was consistent, but not before accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" and deploying your personal definition of civil disobedience which did include your 2A resistors "100% the same" in "spirit." 

On "Kamala Harris: Enjoy the Long Weekend." After I merely summarized the rationale for Evergreen State's "Day of Absence," it was not Fred who "refuted" a claim I never made, namely that this day was no different from "the incident in which whites were invited to leave campus"(#186, 191). When I asked you to identify which statement(s) made the point you claimed I made--the minimal condition for any logical refutation--your response was simply "Dill doesn't see it."  Gaslighting.

I listed those new examples of mischaracterization because I am tired of reviewing the old ones, when you've represented me as a supporter of ISIS or ANTIFA or MS-13, or asserted my position on some issue was racist, or accused me of accusing you of "racism," while refusing to identify which post or statements in which I supposedly did this. 

This has gone on for years, and not even primarily against me. One of the best examples is from the "Kansas City Overwhelmingly votes" thread (04/2019), which discussed protestors who invaded a church where people were signing a petition to keep MLK's name on a street. When Dino called the protests "disrespectful," you immediately imputed to him a general claim he never made, namely that "peaceful, silent protest was disrespectful" in itself, on any occasion, and decided that was a contradiction, since he was supposedly for non-violent protest, and now suddenly wasn't, because he questioned this one case (#10) (talk about absolutist constructions, jeez!). When he defended himself against the misrepresentation, you told him to "stop feeling persecuted" (#14). And you insisted you would continue calling out Dino's "BS" into the future (nevermind that two others had agreed with Dino, without your naming them "hypocrites.") That continued until the "Lawsuit" thread in March, when Dino announced he was tired of the baseless accusation, of your constantly replacing discussion of politics with discussion of Dino's character, and signed off for good (#5). I could list examples of you twisting Fred's words, as well. 

Even if someone can eventually produce a few Fred examples, in terms of sheer volume, you are the forum champ when it comes to misrepresenting other's positions, and blocking or dismissing good faith efforts to clarify misunderstanding. It's of a piece with the history of personal attacks you recently "owned" on the "Minority Rule" thread (#49). 

So it's no wonder you like the Fred herrings--"that's what HE does; EVERYBODY knows! Keep track of his posts, not mine!"

And no wonder you don't like "pedantic" and "genteel" posters who cite thread and post, and quote examples. They can do that because they have the examples; you can't because you don't.  Hence the lazy default mode--"Dill can't see it."

Third try at this post was the charm, eh?

First off, it's insanely telling, and predictable, that you make zero effort to defend Fred or refute the claims against your little buddy, but instead try and deflect the accusation onto me. Very revealing indeed.

Sorry, Dill old buddy.  Your pathetic attempts to deflect from your blatant hypocrisy are a feeble effort.  Maybe instead of trying to constantly ignore the numerous people who see the things you apparently can not you could try buying a pair of glasses or invest in laser eye surgery?  Alternatively, you could try some self examination and try and discern why you're the only person who doesn't see what you don't see.  

Any of it would be better than this inane "I know you are but what am I" garbage tier post.  So, sincerely, thanks for the lame attempt.  Oh, and equally sincerely, enjoy your 4th of July weekend.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(07-02-2021, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Third try at this post was the charm, eh?

First off, it's insanely telling, and predictable, that you make zero effort to defend Fred or refute the claims against your little buddy, but instead try and deflect the accusation onto me.  Very revealing indeed.

Sorry, Dill old buddy.  Your pathetic attempts to deflect from your blatant hypocrisy are a feeble effort.  Maybe instead of trying to constantly ignore the numerous people who see the things you apparently can not you could try buying a pair of glasses or invest in laser eye surgery?  Alternatively, you could try some self examination and try and discern why you're the only person who doesn't see what you don't see.  

Any of it would be better than this inane "I know you are but what am I" garbage tier post.  So, sincerely, thanks for the lame attempt.  Oh, and equally sincerely, enjoy your 4th of July weekend.

I can't remember what I posted last week and this guy remembers shit from 2019 with clarity.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2021, 01:42 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I can't remember what I posted last week and this guy remembers shit from 2019 with clarity.

No, he doesn't.  He's just an older guy with a lot of time on his hands who's really invested in attempting to win arguments on the internet.  Oh, and ignoring behavior from people he likes that he claims to decry in others. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2021, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Third try at this post was the charm, eh?

First off, it's insanely telling, and predictable, that you make zero effort to defend Fred or refute the claims against your little buddy, but instead try and deflect the accusation onto me.  Very revealing indeed.

Sorry, Dill old buddy.  Your pathetic attempts to deflect from your blatant hypocrisy are a feeble effort.  Maybe instead of trying to constantly ignore the numerous people who see the things you apparently can not you could try buying a pair of glasses or invest in laser eye surgery?  Alternatively, you could try some self examination and try and discern why you're the only person who doesn't see what you don't see.  

Any of it would be better than this inane "I know you are but what am I" garbage tier post.  So, sincerely, thanks for the lame attempt.  Oh, and equally sincerely, enjoy your 4th of July weekend.

LOL Still no examples. Does this prove or disprove my point--accusation is your style, not demonstration?

It would be a lot easier to refute claims against "my little buddy" if you could actually provide an example, rather than just asserting that some other people agree. "Numerous people" also see the misconduct I've identified in the posts above. Go back one day, one week, five years, and they are everywhere to be found. But I don't need to lean on their opinions to make a point sufficiently made by the above examples. 

It is "insanely telling and predictable" that you cannot find similar support for your claims against Fred; you can only continue charges of Dill "blatant hypocrisy" and myopia. 

And I am not merely "deflecting" accusation onto you. My post includes NINE separate examples of you doing exactly what you claim Fred "solely" does. Why is that "feeble" when neither your nor "numerous people" can refute these examples of your own misconduct nor provide just one of Fred's? 

Finally, the issue to be addressed here is not whether Fred occasionally misconstructs others' arguments, but why forum members should be constantly invited to pile on him when he is long gone and you are yourself the gold standard of misconstruction? You are really arguing for the right to slander without proof, and that sets you against someone like me, who thinks accusing others without evidence is just toxic behavior in a forum like this--especially when you accuse them to condemn behavior you yourself happily engage in. You can't deputize yourself to police "BS" and "hypocrisy" for the forum while embracing personal attack and gaslighting as your primary MO.  

[Dill]

(07-02-2021, 02:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, he doesn't.  He's just an older guy with a lot of time on his hands who's really invested in attempting to win arguments on the internet.  Oh, and ignoring behavior from people he likes that he claims to decry in others. 

Ha ha yes he does remember things from 2019 with clarity, as just demonstrated. All the way back to 2015, in fact.

But yes, I am invested in winning internet arguments to uphold standards of civil discourse and evidentiary protocols.

I "decry" people who trash those standards. That's really the basis of every disagreement between you and me.  

[Dill]

(07-02-2021, 01:42 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I can't remember what I posted last week and this guy remembers shit from 2019 with clarity.

I've spent many years studying logical arguments and standards for vetting evidence in civil discourse, 

and now I am interested in how logic/standards are or are not deployed in internet forums like this, 

where there is no official arbiter of debates beyond the consensus, praise or blame of other posters. 

So it's easy for me to remember arguments over the long term as patterns--which threads had exemplary
debates, both good and bad, rhetorical innovations and so forth. 

It's a system. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2021, 10:13 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL Still no examples. Does this prove or disprove my point--accusation is your style, not demonstration?

It would be a lot easier to refute claims against "my little buddy" if you could actually provide an example, rather than just asserting that some other people agree. "Numerous people" also see the misconduct I've identified in the posts above. Go back one day, one week, five years, and they are everywhere to be found. But I don't need to lean on their opinions to make a point sufficiently made by the above examples. 

It is "insanely telling and predictable" that you cannot find similar support for your claims against Fred; you can only continue charges of Dill "blatant hypocrisy" and myopia. 

And I am not merely "deflecting" accusation onto you. My post includes NINE separate examples of you doing exactly what you claim Fred "solely" does. Why is that "feeble" when neither your nor "numerous people" can refute these examples of your own misconduct nor provide just one of Fred's? 

Finally, the issue to be addressed here is not whether Fred occasionally misconstructs others' arguments, but why forum members should be constantly invited to pile on him when he is long gone and you are yourself the gold standard of misconstruction? You are really arguing for the right to slander without proof, and that sets you against someone like me, who thinks accusing others without evidence is just toxic behavior in a forum like this--especially when you accuse them to condemn behavior you yourself happily engage in. You can't deputize yourself to police "BS" and "hypocrisy" for the forum while embracing personal attack and gaslighting as your primary MO.  

You've been provided with numerous examples numerous times.  You are myopic to the point of blindness when the topic of misconduct by anyone you like, whether here or in the public arena, is raised.  You've routinely demonstrated your double standards in this regard.  You are 100% correct about one thing though, I have zero interest in sifting through hundreds, if not thousands, of posts to show you, yet again, proof of your conduct that you will ignore.  At this point people have more than a sufficient amount of evidence to draw their own conclusion on this topic.

Lastly, as for Fred, I'm not the one who brought him up in this thread, and you're the one who felt the need to white knight him when he was brought up.  So kindly cram yet another example of your double standards into the place most comfortable for you.

Thank you and good day.

[Dill]

(07-02-2021, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've been provided with numerous examples numerous times.  You are myopic to the point of blindness when the topic of misconduct by anyone you like, whether here or in the public arena, is raised.  You've routinely demonstrated your double standards in this regard.  You are 100% correct about one thing though, I have zero interest in sifting through hundreds, if not thousands, of posts to show you, yet again, proof of your conduct that you will ignore.  At this point people have more than a sufficient amount of evidence to draw their own conclusion on this topic.

Lastly, as for Fred, I'm not the one who brought him up in this thread, and you're the one who felt the need to white knight him when he was brought up.  So kindly cram yet another example of your double standards into the place most comfortable for you.

Thank you and good day.

You've provided numerous accusations "numerous times." You always have time and interest for that. 

So I have no doubt there are many instances when you've accused Fred of misconstruction. 

No need to prove that. Don't need laser surgery to see that. 

It's just that you accuse people all the time, mostly based on your misconstruction (recall the fine "Kansas City" example above). 

And I have never seen you correctly identify and demonstrate one in anyone else's post, let alone Fred's.

E.g, you'll claim a 200-word post somehow evidences a "double standard," but if someone asks "which statements exactly? Which two terms, ideals or values are in conflict?" You cannot supply the requested breakdown; the fault is others' if they can't "see" it in there, somewhere. And you aren't going to repeat yourself. The gaslight defense. On to the next accusation.

I agree people have "a sufficient amount of evidence" now to draw their own conclusions on this topic.  

And with all that evidence they may wonder going forward, as I do, why imputing statements to others that they did not actually make, and then "refuting" those statements instead ones actually made, should be called a "Fred move," if it's so hard to find Fred examples and so easy to find SSF examples. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2021, 02:53 PM)Dill Wrote: You've provided numerous accusations "numerous times." You always have time and interest for that. 

So I have no doubt there are many instances when you've accused Fred of misconstruction. 

No need to prove that. Don't need laser surgery to see that. 

It's just that you accuse people all the time, mostly based on your misconstruction (recall the fine "Kansas City" example above). 

And I have never seen you correctly identify and demonstrate one in anyone else's post, let alone Fred's.

E.g, you'll claim a 200-word post somehow evidences a "double standard," but if someone asks "which statements exactly? Which two terms, ideals or values are in conflict?" You cannot supply the requested breakdown; the fault is others' if they can't "see" it in there, somewhere. And you aren't going to repeat yourself. The gaslight defense. On to the next accusation.

I agree people have "a sufficient amount of evidence" now to draw their own conclusions on this topic.  

And with all that evidence they may wonder going forward, as I do, why imputing statements to others that they did not actually make,
and then "refuting" those statements instead ones actually made, should be called a "Fred move," if it's so hard to find
Fred examples and so easy to find SSF examples. 

As I've previously stated, there is plenty of evidence available for anyone who browses this sub-forum to make up their own mind.  You "don't see" the numerous other posters, spanning the ideological spectrum, who have all, correctly, called out Fred in the past for that exact behavior.  Like I said, you're very consistent in your inconsistency.  Since you have now successfully derailed your own thread I'll take my leave, but I'm used to people needing the last word, so feel free.  

[Dill]

(07-02-2021, 03:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

As I've previously stated, there is plenty of evidence available for anyone who browses this sub-forum to make up their own mind.  You "don't see" the numerous other posters, spanning the ideological spectrum, who have all, correctly, called out Fred in the past for that exact behavior.  Like I said, you're very consistent in your inconsistency.  Since you have now successfully derailed your own thread I'll take my leave, but I'm used to people needing the last word, so feel free.  

Perhaps some have correctly called out Fred. Somewhere.  (And misconstruction is not uncommon, much of it just misunderstanding.)

Let's assume they've done what you can't.

But they have also called you out, as has Fred himself, successfully (see link below). 

So when you raise the issue of "consistent inconsistency," I just have ask--

What is consistent about you calling misconstruction a "Fred move" when it is far more frequently your move.

Fred at least had the merit of responding to requests for demonstration with demonstration, and admitted when he misunderstood people.

One of his best examples? Post #203 on the "LE Leaks" thread. After he asked you for proof of your claims (as I did on this thread), you charged him with bad faith, "parsing hairs," (deliberately) misinterpreting or engaging in "semantic arguments," vowing to ignore him until HE got back on topic.  

Fred never got his proof (as I haven't on this thread), but he did provide one of the forum's finest and clearest demonstrations not only of misconstruction but of a "double standard," not to mention the substitution of feelings impressions and verbal abuse for argument.  
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-LE-Leaks-show-treatment-of-pro-BLM-protestors-vs-conservative-militias?pid=885019&highlight=seattle#pid885019

[Wes Mantooth]

Anyone who has spent enough time on these boards knows exactly how Fred operates. What people are describing is not at all simple misunderstanding. It happens enough to know it's intentional. I don't know how many times I've ended going back and forth with Fred on something where it's clear he's not debating in good faith.

The simpliest way I can describe it is this: A lot of people come to this site to have conversations, which can turn into debates. Fred comes here for only the debate. He's not intersted in actually hearing your opinion, he's interested in debating it. He'll play the contrarian, he'll exaggerate your stance, he'll hyperfocus on a very small part of a larger point, he'll do anything he can to leave the conversation feeling like he won. It does not, IMHO, make for good conversation. Because why would it? It isn't conversation. It's him trying to make himself feel like he's smarter than everyone else.

Who knows, maybe it's a failed law career that drives this? (I have no idea, I'm only speculating because I know he can't see this.) But I would think that pretty much everyone who has been around for awhile knows exactly what it is I'm talking about. And they don't need the receipts to know it's true.

Like it or not, that's just how it goes around here. If you see Fred reply to one of your posts, look to get ready to enter into a debate. And look for you having to spend more time explaining, clarifying, or correcting things he either initially ignored, or he chose to frame in a way that you did not. And don't ever look for a concession or coming to an agreement either. They'll be no "Good post" or "100% agree". He'll either fight tooth and nail, or he'll just up and leave and find someone else to pester.

PS In case you didn't notice, I'm not one of his biggest fans. And for any mod that sees this, I really hope this post is ok. I only made it because he can't see it, and it's been brewing for over a decade.

[BmorePat87]

Personal attacks and then spending days arguing the merits of the personal attacks are gonna get the thread locked.

[BigPapaKain]

I'm glad shitting on a guy when he can't defend himself makes ya'll feel better.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-02-2021, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Personal attacks and then spending days arguing the merits of the personal attacks are gonna get the thread locked.

I don't really consider them the same as other personal attacks because he can't see or participate in the discussion.  I view it no differently than criticizing anyone else who isn't a member of this specific forum.

Maybe I'm in the wrong here.  If so, I apologize.  A mod is more than welcome to delete my post if they feel it's inappropriate.

Fwiw, I've had conversations directly with Fred that read very similarly to my previous post.  I don't think it really varies all the much from some of the arguments we've had out in the open numerous times on Jungle Noise.

Again, sorry if I stepped out of line.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-02-2021, 05:48 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm glad shitting on a guy when he can't defend himself makes ya'll feel better.

Saying it makes me feel no better than any other of number of things I find to be factual.  I don't take a lot of joy from saying that Paul Brown coached at Massilon, or that Oscar Robertson is UC's all-time leading scorer(despite playing in only 3 seasons).   Nor do take a lot joy from saying that this is how Fred operates.

I mean, if what you find so offensive is that he can't defend himself, know that this coversation has played out before.  Very similarly.  Fred would be the first to tell that I have no problem shitting on him directly to his face (really on the internet, but you know what I mean).