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."