Attack Watch

Post Reply New Topic

I don't need to live in a police state to worry at the signs, creeping authoritarianism is pretty easy to spot when you have history as your guide. In my case, I've chosen to mock this latest foray into it, and so chose a mocking piece to start the thread with, BFD.

Also, what of it being about politics? It's political humor with an edge to it, not even a subtle one at that. Is humor only okay to you if it isn't cutting or insightful, only mindless? Further, in this same post you then provide corroborating evidence of the case being made against Obama in the form of the treatment of Bradly Manning and Julian Assange, so it doesn't seem that you have a problem with the message of the piece so much as the messenger. I think if I posted the same piece with Glenn Greenwald's byline on that you wouldn't have said boo, not that you'll ever cop to that.



"ANY criticism"? Want to go through my posting history and see how many people have criticized me without me speculating that they're trying to troll me? I can count how many times I've floated that accusation on one hand and still have fingers left over, you ought to know your facts before throwing around your own accusations.

What I called you on was blatant hypocrisy; cursing and insulting people in the very same threads where you then criticized other people for the exact same things, on multiple occasions. When you contradict yourself in the same thread repeatedly and make this place into more of a cesspool with your vitriol and rage, yeah, I'm going to call you on that, same as I'd call anyone else on it. I realize you have an anger problem, but that's not a license to be a dick without accountability. I didn't single you out, you brought that on yourself through your behavior here.

You've admitted to trolling people you dislike or disagree with in the past, and I know you know who has irritated me here before, so it's not much of a stretch to make since you're following so closely in that poster's footsteps. You even have the same false equivalency problem; trying to spin things I post into hypocrisies based on a warped perspective of me and my views. It's worse in your case because you know me IRL, so I can't chalk it up to AS related misinterpretation issues; you likely know what you're saying and implying is false, but you've taken my criticisms personally and are trying to get even, or something to that effect.



Who cares about his ideology if his facts are straight? You help make the case against your own accusations of paranoia, since those are additional damning facts about the Obama administration, but I fail to see the sinister motives in their omission from a short opinion piece.

Apparently you're more concerned about the political affiliation of an author than the content of their work, and that is partisan BS. Knowing an author's politics might help in interpreting the opinion part of the piece, but that's irrelevant to the facts here.

Are you disputing that Obama did any of the things mentioned in the article, plus the Manning/Assange issues you brought up yourself?

I know of another poster who thinks that simply saying that a source is liberal ought to instantly discredit it, are you making the same argument for conservatives here?



Where did I say you don't have a life? I do try to stay above fruitless mudslinging BS, but any implication of slight is entirely yours.
I gave you the courtesy of a response because I know you, and I don't appreciate being potshotted by someone who should know better. Do you want me to write you off like I have some of the other hopelessly blinkered posters here?

Let my clarify...

The examples given in the article trivialize real authoritarianism. Including the treatment of Bradly Manning (which I do not consider trivial) would have proved that the article was not simply a gleeful partisan jab since that's one issue liberals and libertarians care about that conservatives generally aren't ruffled by at all. Instead it's written towards the kind of people who think the existence of NPR is an authoritarian menace, yet cheer when a Republican candidate talks about his record of executions in the state of Texas. It smacks of the kind of paranoid hyperbole and persecution complex common in right-wing-humor and thus isn't funny.


I don't even know who Glenn Greenwald is so you would be wrong. I generally don't read op-eds.


I should have said any criticism by someone you have a beef with. I also take issue with your definition of "trolling".


For someone who claims to be so anti-authoritarian, you sure do act like an authoritarian yourself. The bottom line is it isn't any of your damn business to "call people out" if you are not a moderator or administrator of this forum. I don’t consider you to be a neutral arbitrator of PPR justice. When I've had issues and lost my temper with certain individual members and they became upset I have subsequently apologized via PM. You were not needed. If you have a problem with me take it up with the moderators.


If you really need me to explain the context of my self-applied use of the word “trolling” here it is:

There was a thread a while back where Inuyasha was complaining about “liberals playing the race card”. In response I posted a photo of a blatantly racist poster at a Tea Party rally. Then predictably Inuyasha said those holding the poster must have been liberal infiltrators.

In page 2 of this very thread Inuyasha posted a picture of a donkey with its head up its rear end. Another poster recently started a thread entitled “You know you’re a sniveling liberal when…”. I would consider all these examples “trolling”, yet they are not examples of personal slights or bullying.

Also, have you ever considered the fact that you come across as intensely irritating to certain people? Maybe it’s your damn overinflated ego that gets to people.



Show me where I’ve drawn a false equivalency? You’ve claimed to be “above the trappings of partisanship” (sorry if this isn’t an exact quote, I’m not going to go around digging for it). It’s obvious you are not above partisanship based on where you direct the vast majority of your political pot-shots. I recall you joking with glee over the thought of Dennis Kucinich being assassinated.



Because the piece is meant to trigger partisan glee and gloating among conservatives. One look at the responses in this thread bears this out. It has an obvious partisan agenda. The two rather trivial incidents the author brings up involve cap-and-trade and the healthcare bill, issues carefully chosen to generate maximum ire among anti-environmentalist / anti-Obamacare conservatives. Bradley Manning wouldn’t serve the same purpose so he was omitted.


I don’t care about the facts in the article because they are trivial.


No. However they are all typical of the kinds of doings that went on within past presidential administrations. I don’t buy the view that Obama is worse than others in this respect. There’s a reason truly conscientious people don’t go into politics. You have to be slightly full of yourself to become the POTUS.


I don’t discredit the facts. I only discredit the sarcasm and humor because I can see the agenda behind it.

Good luck electing Rick Perry everyone. God help us all.

marshall,

Speaking as one who is more likely to be your political ally than opponent, I have to say that you have well and truly dropped the ball on this one. I simply can't be bothered sifting through the invective in your posts to see if there's a point that was worth making. There probably is--you're an intelligent person--but I can't be bothered looking.

If you're going to complain about, "paranoid hyperbole and persecution complex," I suggest you hold a mirror up to your own writing.