Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
Its not an agenda if you're right and everybody else is stupid, evil, and weak... Its "rational"
MyFinalRest said:QFmotherfuckin'T! Not only do they attack those more conservative, they also hate those more liberal than them too. If it aint the usual aping of Chomsky style boring dribble, it's over their heads. Apparently, the more boring your CEP posts are, the more "mature you are" according to these mods and former mods who were indoctrinated by their marxist male lesbian sociology teachers during their 7-8 year stints as undergraduates. Also, they despise posters of a different persuasion, especially rights and far lefts along with anti-prohibitionists (this is a drug site right? "caring about prohibition is like... so high school..."), 911truthers, and those not charmed with Obama because we crash the kumbaya feel good social that they want this forum to be. This group favors the insult "childish" and "amateurish" when in fact they utter insulting remarks (what they love to call "ad hominem" attacks cause it makes them sound so "intelligent") in addition to the constant straw man arguments offered up. This group that should call themselves "Noam Chomsky's Wrinkled Nutsack" (It's childish when I say it but it's cool to get your political insight from Jon Stewart) creates the tone of these discussions that they so often complain about - they just don't like it when their sophistry falls short. You give sophistry, you get my "childish" "ad hominem" attacks along with a heaping serving of sarcasm.
While 'good leadership' is to be desired (arguing against it would be like adopting an 'anti-competence stance' or something), even potentially good leaders face institutional constraints which force debilitating concessions to power-elites, the latter playing a role in structuring such institutions. What is more, this prevailing framework of institutions comes to shape these leaders' dispositions, actions, and identities, corruptingly constructing 'good leadership' as a mere facade, opening the door to demagoguery.
ebola
FinalARRRR said:it's just that I have a problem with those who have a problem with them yet they use them too.
But, this straw man garbage does have a tendency to really piss me off
as well as these over-dressed pieces of sophistry.
You can have a discussion with an atmosphere of insults being hurled back and forth, but it is quite difficult when one has to to dismiss strawmen all the time or constantly call someone out for spewing out "sophistry" that ultimately says absolutely nothing.
And here's an example of somebody that spent too much time learning the "marxist vocabulary" in his Soc. Marxist Thought Processes 379 Course:
While 'good leadership' is to be desired (arguing against it would be like adopting an 'anti-competence stance' or something), even potentially good leaders face institutional constraints which force debilitating concessions to power-elites, the latter playing a role in structuring such institutions. What is more, this prevailing framework of institutions comes to shape these leaders' dispositions, actions, and identities, corruptingly constructing 'good leadership' as a mere facade, opening the door to demagoguery.
ebola
It sucks to read something and then end up with several different ideas of "what the hell is he talking about" and "what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about"? Well it at least prevents me from trying to argue with his position or lack of one.
and only Pander Bear could have thought of a sticky thread title like this...
It sucks to read something
Ebola is well-read.
Why don't you ask people to clarify what they mean when you can't tell? That's how people converse with one another.