O/T:- MOTD Commentary

[Ayeayeskipper]

I did back up this thread somewhere, but if you missed it I'll apologise again. I was ill, peed off and feeling confrontational, behaved like an idiot and was totally out of order. Guy Branston moment.

No probs, you’re one of the best posters on here, so hope you’re feeling better.

His quizzes are sh1te.

[Davy500]

Someone pass the sick bag, he's going full Joan of Arc.

I'm saying that if your way of interpreting the world is the same as your NCM persona (denigrate anyone who says anything you don't agree with, so you can disregard anything you don't agree with) then you have a serious problem. I stand by that and I don't think I have said anything controversial there.

UTM went over the top but was man enough to apologise.

You insinuated I have voices in my head for referencing a post in this thread you said didn't exist, when actually you had made the mistake and missed it. I suggested you might want to apologise but more than a week later still no apology, or even acknowledgement.

Still, another set of points dodged, another distracting tangent taken. Fair play to you BFP, it is effective, I'll give you that.

Why should people apologise to keep you happy, so you will be right??
Listen i do what i want when i want, say what i want when i want, i make myself happy before others, some will like me , some will not

[laddo]

Almost a Cathy Newmanesque 'so you're saying (insert tenuous bad-faith claim here)...?' moment for woke bingo fans to cross off their lists here.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54



You asked me out of nowhere if my position, which I actually think I've explained in quite a lot of detail on this thread, was the same as James Lindsay's in a Tweet about Hegelian dialecticals being grafted on to lapsed Calvinism and so on.

I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with that Tweet, I just said that it wasn't really my position, and it isn't - not least because I only have a superficial knowldege of most of the doctrines mentioned there.

If you want we can both read up on Hegel and come back in a couple of weeks and debate whether we think that Tweet is right or not, or we can all just admire the workings of your startlingly immature mind, which, after being caught lying, has decided to brazen it out by making a clearly false equivalence.



Yes I do. Would you like to have a reality based conversation about the points raised in the video I posted? Or do you prefer to have a semantic argument about an obscure Tweet I never mentioned? Or is the point of the latter to avoid having to do the former?




I don't think he is ridiculous at all. I said you're attempting to make him look ridiculous. Also, you might have a hard time arguing the distinction between 'amusing' (your word) and ridiculous (my word) in this context, given the origins of the word ridiculous (from the Latin 'ridere' - to laugh).

Since I told you several months ago that I found his views on the modern Social Justice movement interesting, all you've done is tried to discredit him without ever getting into a discussion about the points he has raised.

This has continued on this thread and no doubt will on the next one too. This has happened with Helen Pluckrose on this thread as well, and with every author or speaker I have referenced since we first started having these discussions around the time of the George Floyd riots. If in real life you are actually a open minded and thoughtful chap who just uses this as a way to wind people up on message boards then great - mission accomplished and no harm done.

If, on the other hand, what you write here actually reflects your thought process and your way of interpretingthe world, I think you have a serious problem.



Great - would've saved everyone a lot of time had you wrote that from the beginning and stuck to it.




Against all odds, you have actually represented my views quite well there. I live in hope that one day we will enter into a good faith discussion about these ideas we disagree on. In the meantime, I'm happy to keep popping up on these threads to point out the problems with the mindset you follow, and the lack of rational thought behind it.

In the meantime feel free to continue with the sanctimonious tone, the ad hominem attacks and the distraction tactics, because in lieu of an actual discussion, this is the next best thing in terms of persuading any neutrals/undecideds reading this.

Wow! What a monster!

It's worth quoting purely due to its length.