Biden - Approval

[Dill]

(10-22-2022, 08:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don’t seem familiar with this option. I see no evidence that you understand when value judgments aren’t simply personal opinion. But you do sense the danger when fact can condition “perception.” (That’s why you called gabbard’s public statement a “subjective dill opinion”.)  There is a safety in perceptionland, where you can claim all perceptions equal, but some more than others, without accountability. Smears and sneers replace reasons.

I see no evidence that you aren't just attempting to build a position that only benefits your point of view.  Odd how different perspectives play into subjective arguments, is it not?  As to your assertion that there are "smears" in my position but not yours, well that's simply par for the course for old Dill.  It's ok when Dill does it, but no one else.  You come across as a hyper partisan actor who is completely unaware of their status.

Yeah, more aspersions to deflect from your soft as Sponge Bob argument.  You find solace in the hivemind and assume it lends your arguments validity.  As I've said before, I'd expect a person of your age to have progressed past that type of sophomoric thinking.


To summarize, I acknowledge my assessment of Harris and Gabbard's intellect to be solely my subjective opinion.  You declare your assessment objective fact.  Yet you somehow feel justified in claiming an odd sort of victory.  It's honestly a bit sad and desperate on your part.

This deserves a special note for the record.

Calling me "delusional" and a "sad" person who "finds solace in the hive mind" and writes "word salad" like Harris--those are the "smears" I was referring to.  That's the standard you have to meet for "Dill does it too." Saying you were speaking for the group when you wrote, for example, "We get it, you literally cannot concede a point, ever"* does not meet the test, especially if you can't explain why using first person plural isn't speaking for the group. That makes no more sense than claiming you are not speaking for yourself when you say "I." 

I am betting most forum members do see a difference between calling someone a delusional sad person (and "liar" and "hypocrite" and "blowhard" on other threads) and noting that someone using "we" presumes to mean more than just "I." 

So until you can show me the kind of name calling and personal attack regularly featured in your posts, there is no "ok when Dill does it" here, and no grand insight into how "different perspectives play into subjective arguments." There is only an attempt to construct false equivalence via subjective arguments.

The extreme if selective subjectivism of your position offers no incentive to tell good arguments from bad, or to distinguish "smears" from verifiable observations and ordinary good faith critique of another's position.

That sort of subjectivism can only have pernicious consequences in the political sphere. And it is becoming more widespread. Election deniers cannot be convinced that Biden really did win the election if anyone can tag "your opinion" onto actual vote tallies and "my opinion--just as good!" onto debunked theories of bamboo paper and rigged machines. 

When people who think like that get into power, then force, not reason, decides issues.

I'm not lumping you into the Trump base here, so if you respond don't claim I just misrepresented you as a MAGA fiend and rant off about my sad, desperate, hypocrisy and why I can't be argued with, instead of actually refuting what I have said. Chances are, the Moderators share my subjective dill opinion of what a "smear" is and I don't want the thread locked down. (Some solace in the "hivemind" there.)

*LOL while repeatedly refusing to acknowledge that Gabbard claimed Biden weaponized the DoJ. In the past I have called this kind of projection your SUPERPOWER. No one else really does this, and it's quite different from a simple misrepresentation, like claiming I've "declared [my] assessment objective fact."