Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don't change your mind. You're highly consistent. You don't give a fuck about anyone but you. Sometimes you pretend or lie (don't know whether to yourself or just to us), but when when it's time to act, you only care about you.

Trump means less regulation and less taxes for you. There is nothing else you care about.

And race isn't a red herring. Jesus. It's 2020. (Please do not cite McWhorter or Chatterton Williams)

I'd cite both, and either is far more lucid than any of the pseudo-intellectual "critical" tripe you would offer from some fool like Kendri.

(I do not criticize DiAngelo because I think some of her views make a lot of sense, and I think she was more opening a conversation rather than laying down edicts. Kendri strikes me as a screwball with some seriously bizarre views who is damn sure he knows everything about everything.)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's neither. I change positions all the time and shift arguments. Flower has a set of positions. He's a pretty cookie cutter liberal/progressive. He toes a pretty predictable line. GGG is predictably neoliberal/progressive. His is a slightly different line, but fairly predictable.

You're open to suggestion. Mix of libertarian, tech bro, progressive, and classic old line liberal. Hard to put into any single category. This is a compliment, by the way. Hank is old school GOP/Dem moderate mixed -- a nearly extinct thing once known as a liberal/Rockefeller Republican.

I don't really know what I support from day to day, but as Adder noted, self interest is pretty high on the list. I only depart from self interest dependably on matters such as freedom of speech, on which I'm absolutist and kind of a zealot. And as you note, I am conservative in generally avoiding policy interventions. I don't believe in the state's ability to Make Things Better. But if it's the right policy (read: one I like), I'll take a liberal stance (UBI). (But that's also my neoliberal slip showing, as UBI is a placation policy for those losing out in the new economy, so I might simply be acting in self-interest there.)

This means I am highly undependable. You can't expect me to hold to much. Also, I don't pay attention to much of what I've written before and in exchanges with Flower will say just about anything. Because I don't care about those exchanges, which are usually ad hominen back and forths. You'll notice that in exchanges with you or Hank, I'll put a little more care into it. I'll make some effort at consistency and not just recalling things in whatever is the most expedient fashion for me at the moment. But it'll still fail because I'm not consistent.

But you can't call it a reckless disregard for the truth. I don't change facts on which we disagree. I can't. Trump said words last nite. I won't say he didn't say them, because I can't. I may try to argue what I think he actually "means" when he says something, but that's just my spin, my guess.

Where I think the reckless disregard accusation may be applied is I will say I argued something a certain way and in fact, I actually previously argued it differently, or in exactly the opposite fashion. But if you look back on most of what I've argued, you'll see a lot of it is trolling, and a lot of it is inconsistent, sometimes within the same post or series of posts. I'll disagree with and contradict myself endlessly. So I'd agree with your assessment I've authored a fair amount of bullshit.

The last time you told everyone what my political views are, I asked you to find one post, one sentence, that supported your statements that I believed, for example, that the George Floyd killing would not have occurred were it not for Trump. You came up with nothing. You know virtually nothing about what my political views are so you just make things up. Maybe its reckless, maybe its intentional. It doesn’t really matter. You’re still just a liar. You even lie about your lying. You’re a meta-liar! But I’ll still send back the oysters when you die. I’ll get the Hamachi Crudo instead. #respect

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The last time you told everyone what my political views are, I asked you to find one post, one sentence, that supported your statements that I believed, for example, that the George Floyd killing would not have occurred were it not for Trump. You came up with nothing. You know virtually nothing about what my political views are so you just make things up. Maybe its reckless, maybe its intentional. It doesn’t really matter. You’re still just a liar. You even lie about your lying. You’re a meta-liar! But I’ll still send back the oysters when you die. I’ll get the Hamachi Crudo instead. #respect

Your words:

"Of course, I care about Trump. I never suggested that I didn’t. For example, I care about the fact that he says racist things, and has emboldened and been a catalyst for increased activity by white supremacist groups and other similar extremists. This upsets me on principle, and also because I have friends who are people of color who already have enough bullshit to deal with in the world without having a racist president."

So your vote will turn on Trump's reaction to Charlottesville? Or his Proud Boys comment last nite?

OK. So that is, objectively, so naive and such a silly basis to vote one can only hold such a view if he is a cookie cutter progressive.

I have tons of friends who are people of color (some of whom have voted for and are voting for Trump). There are numerous solid, well thought out adult reasons to vote against Trump. But your primary reason offered is one I would say demonstrates a mind unable to think circumspectly - the sort which might be influenced by what he just read in Vox.

So when you wonder why I'm reckless in reply to you, it's because you get the response I think you deserve. Ty is worth my deeper thinking, my care, as is Hank. You are not.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your words:

"Of course, I care about Trump. I never suggested that I didn’t. For example, I care about the fact that he says racist things, and has emboldened and been a catalyst for increased activity by white supremacist groups and other similar extremists. This upsets me on principle, and also because I have friends who are people of color who already have enough bullshit to deal with in the world without having a racist president."

So your vote will turn on Trump's reaction to Charlottesville? Or his Proud Boys comment last nite?

OK. So that is, objectively, so naive and such a silly basis to vote one can only hold such a view if he is a cookie cutter progressive.

I have tons of friends who are people of color (some of whom have voted for and are voting for Trump). There are numerous solid, well thought out adult reasons to vote against Trump. But your primary reason offered is one I would say demonstrates a mind unable to think circumspectly - the sort which might be influenced by what he just read in Vox.

So when you wonder why I'm reckless in reply to you, it's because you get the response I think you deserve. Ty is worth my deeper thinking, my care, as is Hank. You are not.

I said “virtually” nothing. Yes, it upsets me that our president is an unrepentant racist. That’s all you know. You made the rest up (for example, that my “vote turns on his reaction to Charlottesville,” that it is my “primary reason” to vote against Trump, or even the fact that I read or have ever read Vox). I never said any of those things. Moreover, there are millions and millions (and even more millions) of people who are upset about the fact that our president is an unrepentant racist, but who disagree about all manner of other political issues. But you come around here blowharding like half-wit jackass, telling everyone you know all about my politics based on one data point — “I don’t like racist presidents.” Whether you do so as an intentional misrepresentation or out of a reckless disinterest for the truth doesn’t matter. Liars are liars, and you are liar. You used to own it. You were even proud of it. Now you have this ludicrous “I’m not lying, I’m inconsistent” story? Tell that to Ty’s judge, and you’ll get a bottle of scotch, too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I said “virtually” nothing. Yes, it upsets me that our president is an unrepentant racist. That’s all you know. You made the rest up (for example, that my “vote turns on his reaction to Charlottesville,” that it is my “primary reason” to vote against Trump, or even the fact that I read or have ever read Vox). I never said any of those things. Moreover, there are millions and millions (and even more millions) of people who are upset about the fact that our president is an unrepentant racist, but who disagree about all manner of other political issues. But you come around here blowharding like half-wit jackass, telling everyone you know all about my politics based on one data point — “I don’t like racist presidents.” Whether you do so as an intentional misrepresentation or out of a reckless disinterest for the truth doesn’t matter. Liars are liars, and you are liar. You used to own it. You were even proud of it. Now you have this ludicrous “I’m not lying, I’m inconsistent” story? Tell that to Ty’s judge, and you’ll get a bottle of scotch, too.

They were your words. I extrapolated from them, that’s not lying. If I’m wrong, you can tell me why my opinion is wrong and why you were not what I say you are.

By the way, you did notice that I put question marks after my extrapolation? (I did it just there, too.) That means I’m not sure. I was opening it up for you to respond if you wanted to. So the argument I’m lying about you is fatally flawed on its face due to your lack of reading comprehension.

I think you’re a frivolous, naïve progressive who gets his political views from places like Vox or the New York Times opinion page. Tell me why I’m wrong and I’m happy to change my opinion.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They were your words. I extrapolated from them, that’s not lying. If I’m wrong, you can tell me why my opinion is wrong and why you were not what I say you are.

By the way, you did notice that I put question marks after my extrapolation? (I did it just there, too.) That means I’m not sure. I was opening it up for you to respond if you wanted to. So the argument I’m lying about you is fatally flawed on its face due to your lack of reading comprehension.

I think you’re a frivolous, naïve progressive who gets his political views from places like Vox or the New York Times opinion page. Tell me why I’m wrong and I’m happy to change my opinion.

You said I was childish because I found Trump upsetting. I admitted that I found Trump upsetting, and as an example, I noted that his racism is upsetting. From that, you made up out of thin air the fact that this was “primary reason” I am voting against him, “extrapolated” from there that I am cookie cutter liberal, and further “extrapolated” that I must therefore get all of my opinions from Vox or the NYT opinion page (neither of which I read, by the way). The reason you have to do all this “extrapolating” is because, unlike you, who pathetically spews thousands and thousands of words of “inconsistent” drivel every day in a desperate attempt to make sure everyone understands what you think and believe in, I almost never talk about my views. Because, unlike you, I actually don’t give a shit what you think. I just like pointing out that you’re a liar. Because it just makes you SOOOOOOO mad! And then you deny it, and I point out that even your denial is a lie, and you get SOOOOO mad again! And then we start the cycle over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., sure! I have a proposition for you. The next time your company is involved in litigation and the other side raises an accusation of lying, see if you can get your outside counsel to put the following phrase, verbatim, in a submission to the court: “[He/she] did not really lie; instead [he/she] merely exhibited an ongoing reckless disinterest in the truth.”

If you can accomplish that and show me the proof, you sir will find yourself the recipient of a very nice bottle of scotch.

I remember when I was a litigator. Good times. A partner at my old firm wrote a whole brief in iambic pentameter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I change positions all the time and shift arguments.

Yes, from post to post. You're crafty that way. We've noticed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You said I was childish because I found Trump upsetting. I admitted that I found Trump upsetting, and as an example, I noted that his racism is upsetting. From that, you made up out of thin air the fact that this was “primary reason” I am voting against him, “extrapolated” from there that I am cookie cutter liberal, and further “extrapolated” that I must therefore get all of my opinions from Vox or the NYT opinion page (neither of which I read, by the way). The reason you have to do all this “extrapolating” is because, unlike you, who pathetically spews thousands and thousands of words of “inconsistent” drivel every day in a desperate attempt to make sure everyone understands what you think and believe in, I almost never talk about my views. Because, unlike you, I actually don’t give a shit what you think. I just like pointing out that you’re a liar. Because it just makes you SOOOOOOO mad! And then you deny it, and I point out that even your denial is a lie, and you get SOOOOO mad again! And then we start the cycle over.

I’ll ask the question once more. Are you or are you not a progressive?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, from post to post. You're crafty that way. We've noticed.

You should try to have dinner with me. It’s amazing my wife hasn’t killed me.

The paradox of choice is my Achilles’ heel.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm selective. UBI seems smart. It's elegant and easy to deliver with limited admin costs. Most policy interventions aimed at helping people are run by untalented govt people and wind up bloated agencies that deliver little of value.

And let's be clear. Man's ability to fix things like poverty or poor judgment of the lower end generally is really limited. Throughout history in every society there have been loads of people living shit existences. It's a nasty mix of bad luck, bad govt policies of the past, and poor judgment. I see lots of poor people in this state and some are truly horrible cases of fate visiting cruel circumstances. But just as much can be blamed on these people making godawful choices.

We pretend the human condition can be significantly overcome when in reality it often can only be fixed at the margins.

It’s really not that hard. You make sure everyone has food, housing and health care.

That's not what I said at all. How you reached that crazy assessment of the words I wrote I have no idea.

It is, but you’re still lying to yourself.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

GGG is predictably neoliberal/progressive.

The equation of neoliberal and progressive would make an awful lot of heads explode.

But I'm being sensitive now, so I'll just think of the combination as a complement.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I remember when I was a litigator. Good times. A partner at my old firm wrote a whole brief in iambic pentameter.

But did he get scotch?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’ll ask the question once more. Are you or are you not a progressive?

Can you show me where you asked the question before?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You should try to have dinner with me. It’s amazing my wife hasn’t killed me.

The paradox of choice is my Achilles’ heel.

I remember when I used to fly places all the time. That was fun.