Fox's Greg Gutfeld #1 Show beating all of the late night comedians

[Dill]

(07-25-2023, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So someone saying "Fox sheeple" isn't doing more "projecting" than "observing" because "it's a comedy show." 
And it is not "normal observation" which sees only "insane mirroring" in such statements.

And pointing out that several posters here are religiously adherent to the Dem script in much the same fashion is an equally valid observation.  I know you'll say it isn't because Dill said so, but it is.  One of your buddies is so indoctrinated he couldn't even take a female athlete at her word when she said she'd get destroyed playing against men.  To him she had to be lying to play along because to not think that way would damage his position.  I've pointed this out numerous times, you are very quick to point out flaws in others, and often times you are correct.  But you are wholly blind to the same types of flaws in people you agree with.  I know you don't see it, and you'll dismiss this statement out of hand, but it's blindingly obvious. 

Also, before you ask, no, I am not going to dig through your posts to find examples because I simply don't care enough to spend the time.  And yes, I know you'll take this as proof that no such examples exist.  

And I'm saying the bolded is not an "observation." It's an inference that needs to be demonstrated. 

You can't just claim "my buddies" are "as religiously adherent to the Dem script in much the same fashion" as MAGA voters, who by the millions can be manipulated by Trump lies far past their disconfirmation in courts and reports, all on the basis of a simple analogy: my buddies watch comedy and scorn politicians too. You need to show that Colbert et al. are also propagating disconfirmed Biden lies to an audience that will switch channels if the propagation stops.  And that the Biden lies incite people to violence. Until I get a cite for the female athlete incident referred to, so I can see for myself what was or was not said, that's just innuendo, like the Hitchens reference below.

I can't imagine myself taking the trouble to claim you are "wholly blind" regarding something without expecting to demonstrate that.
Lot's of things I "think" about people, but if I can't demonstrate them, I don't announce them and then keep repeating them as an unsubstantiated claim I for which I don't have time to provide examples. I put up or shut up.

Disagreements between us almost always boil down to a difference in standards.  Me arguing for higher, you for lower. This is one such difference.  Another from 2016 discussed below.

(07-25-2023, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:The show is part of what called social "backing" on another thread, which strengthens a group's perception of "validity." 

Indeed.  It's kind of like when someone dismisses a extremely learned scholar like Christopher Hitchens because they don't approve of his position.  Ascribing any expertise to those who think differently than us can certainly challenge one's perspective, hence some must avoid it at all cost.

No it is like when someone is discussing the ME and gives deference to actual Middle East Scholars, and can define what counts as scholarship in such cases. #171 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-With-Merkel-s-Foes-in-Disarray-Germany-Defies-the-Trump-Trend?page=9&highlight=merkel

Affirming that Hitchens was a great journalist and public intellectual, but not a ME scholar, was not dismissing him. I disagreed with his take on the ME, especially his support for the Bush/Blair Iraq War, which you have characterized as criminal. Do you "approve of his position" on that war now or do you "dismiss" him?

When i asked you for a definition of "scholar," I got Websters dictionary, which expanded the term to cover "pupils" in any classroom.
I would not dispute that Hitchens or even you qualify under that standard. Though it's not clear how one can define a "great scholar" taking that route.

The point of having standards--ME specific ones in the case of ME scholarship/issues--and being able to articulate them is precisely to avoid the kind of cherry picking you continually accuse me of but can't ever prove because you don't care to spend the time. 

Second time you've referenced Hitchens in a week. And it has nothing to do with this thread. Why would you go back to the Merkel thread of epic SSF fails--"copypasta" being my favorite?  Did you ever figure out how I managed an accurate and pertinent synthesis of ancient Mediterranean history to meet your question about why Jews aren't a terror problem today--without LINKING you to the source? You agree now it wasn't plagiarism. A mystery we'll never solve.