I no longer read any more ramblings from you. You are just another wordy DrJester to me and I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere. You notice that I'm painting a lot of you with the broadest of brushes, because just this year alone proved me again and again, arguing with you means 90% of the time using a lot of logical fallacies, reading passive aggressive insults here and there and some kindergarten namecalling somewhere. Shit's getting stale and very predictable, it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
Which is why lawyers make things as long and arduous and convoluted as possible. And I wonder if a certain racial demo has an inclination towards being lawyers...
For example, "You are an asshole" is concise but rather broad in its possible interpretations. Some "truthful things can be stated simply and concisely," but discussions of Hitler, his public image, and refuting claims that "Hitler was just a misunderstood, ordinary guy who was forced into the stuff he did" can't.
I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere.
I don't have a twitter. I would also like to point out that I've never been passive aggressive. Just aggressive. Know who you're talking to before you start whining to me about someone you think is me.
it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
I'm only name calling because you deserve to be mocked and belittled for your disingenuous bullshit. You know that we can all read Mien Kampf right? I have a copy. All those "wordy" parts you've chosen to dismiss and ignore are all the parts with the detailed analysis. I know it's wasted breath on your motivated reasoning, but it's still important to put out there.
Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
I no longer read any more ramblings from you. You are just another wordy DrJester to me and I've observed and argued with lot of you all plenty of times already both here and on twitter to know arguing with you goes nowhere. You notice that I'm painting a lot of you with the broadest of brushes, because just this year alone proved me again and again, arguing with you means 90% of the time using a lot of logical fallacies, reading passive aggressive insults here and there and some kindergarten namecalling somewhere. Shit's getting stale and very predictable, it's high time you notice this and make some genuine argument or something.
Would you say that even if you backed one of them into a rhetorical corner, he would have no recollection of it the next day?
I see what you did there ;)
I'm pretty sure verbosity is a sign of deceit. Truthful things can be stated simply and concisely.
Which is why lawyers make things as long and arduous and convoluted as possible. And I wonder if a certain racial demo has an inclination towards being lawyers...
Right.
For example, "You are an asshole" is concise but rather broad in its possible interpretations. Some "truthful things can be stated simply and concisely," but discussions of Hitler, his public image, and refuting claims that "Hitler was just a misunderstood, ordinary guy who was forced into the stuff he did" can't.
It's less about this specific instance and more about Gizortnik's pattern of excessive verbosity whenever he starts being deceitful or wrongheaded.
I genuinely don’t know what exactly is “deceitful” about what he’s saying
Hey, you forgot accusing you of saying things you never said and then accusing you of being a gaslighter if you say you didn't!
That's an important part of his repertoire.
I don't have a twitter. I would also like to point out that I've never been passive aggressive. Just aggressive. Know who you're talking to before you start whining to me about someone you think is me.
I'm only name calling because you deserve to be mocked and belittled for your disingenuous bullshit. You know that we can all read Mien Kampf right? I have a copy. All those "wordy" parts you've chosen to dismiss and ignore are all the parts with the detailed analysis. I know it's wasted breath on your motivated reasoning, but it's still important to put out there.
Gizortnik always argues logically. All I see from you is personal attack and whinging.
Gizortnik's rhetorical style is not totally logical. He makes dozens of points that appear to be directly applicable but can't sit still to discuss any particular one for long. He knows this is frustrating, so I can only conclude that he either doesn't care about persuading anyone or is a victim of crippling Adderall abuse.
There are times when it's helpful to write a 3000 word rant... arguing online is not one of them.
I dunno . . . I find many of his rants informative and entertaining. I'm not exactly pressed for time, so length doesn't bother me if the message is interesting, clear, and persuasive.
It's fine as long as you're not arguing with him, which means contesting the claims he makes.
No I have seen Gizortnik trying to make hair-splitting argument, whataboutism and all those fallacies even in the situation where the other party was trying to argue without pulling any disingenuous move. And I'm not just referring to Gizortnik here either. He just assumes I am because I used "lot of you" to refer to the tribes because I don't think I've ever argued with him. It's always the same with you people, you always go for personal attack like here when your brethren is being attacked in some manner then spam the hell out of my thread like a sperg.
I admit I devolve into personal attack when I'm arguing with someone like DrJester. I don't mean to be mean but I have to say something about my observation of the tribes. It's always noticeable with them. They get insanely spergy when they sense they are being attacked. Doesn't just happen here or twitter. It even happens in Kiwifarms. It gets incredibly easier to tell who's white and who's ((white)) even without knowing their real names or faces because of the way they react and I just lurk and observe there. And I even see few posters in Kiwifarms that like to make verbally dense arguments like Gizortnik does. In short do learn to make good and concise arguments if you want a good debate without resorting to infantile namecalling.
"You people"? Have you seen "The Pawnbroker"?
((white))?
Later.