Yadda yadda yadda.
There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.
How about you stop making all these negative assumptions about me? Because unless you present evidence, I have to presume that's all they are: assumptions.
Why should I believe you were ever seriously interested in good-faith debates with me when you called me a "pigheaded centrist" and refused to talk to me only two weeks after I'd joined?
You calling me a "proven liar" is rich when you refuse to show this alleged proof. Like I said earlier, if you had evidence of wrongdoing on my part, you would've presented it by now. If I aggravate you so much and you're not going to defend your own position, why don't you just block me? Seriously, am I that interesting to you, do you think blocking me would be cowardly, or do you just get some kind of pleasure from this?
When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).
OK, first off, I'm not a "centrist", and I never claimed to be. I'm center-left. Second, why are you so cynical about my positions? Are you hiding
your powerlevel and projecting that onto me? Since you admitted you're arrogant and assumed I am too, the projection theory is looking pretty likely.
Now, about the Trump thing, you're again making negative assumptions. That wasn't a "defense", it was pointing out that Trump wasn't calling white supremacists "very fine people". If I point out that there's no evidence that Stalin actually said "one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic", that's not automatically "defending" him. Or was Politifact "defending" Trump
when they wrote this?
And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.
The idea that I have "zero credibility to demand anything" is only your opinion. Granted, that opinion is probably shared by some of your buddies, but your opinions aren't automatically fact. Since you closed your mind to good-faith discussion with me almost from the very beginning (you called me a "pigheaded centrist" only two weeks after I joined), your claims that your opinions of me are based on "inductive reasoning" don't hold any water. When one of your earliest comments to me is explicitly saying you think you're better than me and won't bother giving me the time of day, you cannot seriously expect me to believe you're not just interpreting things I've said in a negative light due to your own biases.
Yadda yadda yadda.
There was a time when I thought I had you figured out well enough to have good faith debates with you despite you being a proven liar. The obvious purpose of the first lies was to try and increase your social capital in the forum and spend it to defend ideological issues like Gamergate. When you proved that you didn't argue in good faith about those either there was no reason to trust anything about you anymore.
When it is doubtful how honest you are about your centrist positions it is impossible to trust that your argumentation flaws are a result of naivety instead of dishonesty. Arguing with a gullible useful fool for the alt-right can produce constructive results, arguing with a concern troll who is hiding his power level is just waste of my limited energy. You keep showing that there is a good reason to suspect the latter (the latest example being your defense of Trump's statements about Charlottesville).
And no, I don't need to give you a tl;dr level logical proof for anything since I don't give a fuck what you think and you have zero credibility to demand anything. For someone who is arguing in good faith and has a problem with what I have said I can go through the effort to provide evidence since in that case there is an actual constructive goal to be achieved.
And that really is the crux of it all: most people you can talk with, explain your position and the flaws in their position, listen to them, and reach some sort of understanding or agreement to disagree. In fact, I kind of have a history of being the dissenter in several instances. The difference is I stated my positions and argued them in good faith, as many others here have done.
Just about everything I see Dynamic Paragon of the Chaotic Reverse Anal arguing is more about scoring points than actually learning a deeper truth. Restated, it’s pure sophism and obviously in bad faith.
Also, Chaos, why the hell are threatening to leave when you have a history dating back more than six years of creating sock puppet accounts to dodge bans? I mean, I would believe a threat to leave from anyone else, but not someone who comes back after being shown the door four times.
Again, mods: why are accusations of ban-dodging not backed up by any evidence allowed?