Sunday, May 1, 2011

The logic of why I shit on you

Just so there's no interpretive confusion, I'm
the bird.
Those of you who have been reading this blog so far know that generally, on other people's blogs, I don't engage in vitriolic discourse.  I've been told many times that I am "polite and cordial," and my cohorts have thanked me for my civility.  I usually am surprised for the thanks and praise, because I see being civil and polite as just a matter of course.  When I thought about it though, I sort of chuckled because the people thanking me had read my blog, and they were probably fearful of the type of language that I am capable of unleashing.

There is one forum, however, in which I tend not to hold back.  One of the things I have on my follow list is Crooks and Liars.  It's a hard-core, left-wing liberal forum that draws people who are the least tolerant of political dissent.  If ever any of you are brave enough to tool around there, I want to say that there are a few posters there who seem to have some sanity left.  I could count those people on two hands though, as the rest of them are vitriolic retards who appear to barely possess the ability to think.

I've been censured twice on that site, and in both cases it was for rediculous reasons.  The second time I was censured was because I was "sparring," with one of the regulars there.  The woman that gave me the absolutely moronic argument about rat shit and sodium had trolled me on an unrelated topic, and I responded to the trolling with counter-trolling. 

The funny part about me being warned that time was that up to the point where this festering pile of puss covered shit rolled out from under the bridge, most people were agreeing with what I said.  Some retard tried to claim that I was trying to denigrate the suffering of African slaves when I stated the historical fact that "Africans sold other Africans into slavery," but most people realize that that guy was an idiot.  So this sorry excuse for the fairer sex starts shitting allover me, calling me unintelligent and sexist (I started calling her names like "hunny bunch," and "sweetie," because I found out that she gets really offended by it), and I respond to her by counter-shitting, if you will.

After I got warned, I gave it some thought.  Should I just be the bigger man and not respond to dumb-fuckery?  Am I actually in the wrong for meeting her bullshit with insults?  I say fuck that.

I believe in the Golden Rule, and although the concept seems to be "Christian," I think it's something that applies to everyone in the world regardless of whether or not you believe in God or Jesus or whatever.  You should treat people the way you want to be treated.  Simple, right?

Search terms: Stupid Bitch

So here's the logic of why I have no problem shitting allover douche bags and like miss_kitty.  She is likely someone who believes in the Golden Rule, so when she treats me like shit, I can only logically conclude that she also wants to be shit on.  I mean, it could be that she she just a stupid cunt who has a child's understanding of the world, and is so retarded that she can't even realize how hypocritical and close-minded she's being, but for now we'll just go with the idea that she wants to be shit on.

Perhaps she's a masochist.  Perhaps I am actually helping her to get off by engaging her in meaningless debate that involves each of us displaying the worst qualities of humanit.  I don't really care, though, because I am what I call a "role filler."  I try to give each person what they need in discourse with me.  She apparently needs to be told that she's a stupid bitch, so I'm happy to oblige.

What's really sad is that people like her will never get it.  They'll never realize that they're idiots, and they think that anyone who disagrees with them or calls the logicality of their arguments into question are too stupid to understand what they deem to be "facts."

This might seem petulent or childish, but I don't really care.  It's Sunday and I tend to be a little more philosophical.  If you want to read the thread, it's here.  I post there as Jack Camwell.  For those of you who read, please tell me I'm not going insane.

11 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

For the record, I am one of those who thanked you for your thread comment and complemented you on your politeness. I'm not really afraid of vitriol or bad words (as a libertarian I am against censorship and I only delete the viagra spam and vulgar comments that have no point whatsoever).

Question: How do you keep from getting kicked off that site? I got booted for much less.

Even if I could go back, I will not out of principle. I never try to return to the places that have banned me.

I find it disturbing and telling that these lefty sites have their lefto-fascist censors, finger aquiver on the delete button, just waiting to get their rocks off by shoving a conservative comment down the memory hole.

And you're right. You'll never change anyones mind over there, so why go there? You are too intelligent to be wading into that sewer

ickenittle post said...

If you can't take the heat- then stay out of the kitchen. Sites like C&L are a rare forum for like minded people just trying to get through life.

Many are older folks who have been through lifes madness and have little tolerance for antagonism.

You would do well to temper your harsh judgements and offer a more balanced approach.

But what do I know-to you I am also an idiot.

Good Luck

Silverfiddle said...

The ick guy makes a point. These sites are for like-minded people to unleash incoherent, fleck-spittle rants, and they don't have time to stop and think when someone logical enters the forum.

I have no problem with msnbc-worshiping nutballs, it's the censorship by so-called liberals that pisses me off

Jack Camwell said...

Ick - I can definitely take the heat. I can more than take the heat, in fact, I can raise the heat to the next level.

And as I said in here, I wasn't antagonizing anyone. In fact, I agreed with the thread article. When I said I stated a historical fact, that "Africans sold other Africans into slaver," that's all I did. The sentence read thus:

"Africans enslaved other Africans."

I litterally only said that, and some jackass came out of nowhere and said that I was trying to make some sort of equivelancy argument.

If you think my judgment is not "balanced," then you must not have read some of my comments on C&L. In fact, in that same thread, one of the C&L regulars said "I don't really know why everyone is arguing with you, because your responses make you sound like a Democrat."

And I didn't say that everyone on C&L is an idiot, just the morons that have given up on listening. My harsh judgments are reserved for idiots who think they're always right. I know that I'm not always right, and I readily admit when I'm wrong.

And Silver, I go there because I like seeing other perspectives on things. If all we're doing is talking to other like-minded people, then we're cheating ourselves.

To both of you: "An unexamined life is a life not worth living." I really think that Socrates (or Plato, depending on who you think actually said it) was right with that one.

KP said...

I read the thread you refer to after I posted here a couple days ago on sodium intake. I was surprised -- literally -- by the intolerance. Not the blog site, but intolerance to posters who might agree, disagree or visit.

As well, as 55 y/o with adult children I was a little more than concerned that your age was brought in question; as if you lacked required wisdom to form opinion.

As you know I like to read and comment on a variety of blogs, left and right. Not because I am always in agreement; more because I am trying to learn from them. It works! As well, I offer views from what I consider the center.

Here is what I posted on Joe’s blog “Hope and Change” today to a poster I think is closed minded:

<< Who will re-elect or vote Obama out of office? My view is that it is not the far left or the far right. They are already committed. So if you find yourself in either camp and have a real interest in the outcome of the presidential and senate elections in 2012, you might ask yourself: do I help my cause by singing to the choir or am I better served by appealing to the center. My guess is that appealing to the center is key. You could argue that "rallying the base" is key. To that I say, if you rally the center you also rally that part of your base that is less likely to vote. Less likely voters move with momentum. The opposite is not necessarily true. Massaging those who already agree with you could prove to be a losing strategy for both sides. >>

Anonymous said...

The only way to deal with sites like C&L is to troll smartly and with perfect timing. Try to make it hard for people to know you're trolling and, at the same time, get the in-fighting going. Many sites' "communities" can be unraveled no matter how like-minded they see with just a little influence. It works quite well if done right.

But i'm guessing that's not your intention.

Jack Camwell said...

KP: Thanks for the words of encouragement. I also enjoy Joe's site, as he doesn't flame people for disagreeing with him. Although my arciles are acerbic, I don't flame commenters either, even the ones that dissent.

Anon: you're correct in guessing that my intention is not to troll.

KP said...

Jack, I enjoy the tough, hard hitting blog posts of yours. And those on other sites. That's why I am here. That's why I read Joe and Harrison and others. I respect the work ethic it takes to throw your hat in the ring and then listen to what others say. What I like most about your mind as you post on other blogs is that I can't always tell your political agenda (if any). That is a good thing. Keep On Truckin' ....

There are hundreds of thousands of bloggers and posters. I wonder how many are actually trying to understand others and build consensus as opposed to preaching. I have found that if we give reasonable people the chance to see we are also reasonable we can actually find common ground. In my mind, that is what American politics is all about. The extremes are a waste of time and often like "the fight" more than any change they discuss.

KP said...

I re-read ickenlittle's comments and Anonymous' posts a couple times. That's exactly what I am talking about. I don't have to agree with them but man you have respect the thought process.

KP said...

If ick and Anon had a blog I would read. Feel free to send me a link off line.

Jack Camwell said...

Well thanks man. One of my political science professors in college never, ever preached a specific agenda. He could argue either side of the spectrum as if he believed in it.

That's sort of what I try to do, as indoctrination and preaching are just pointless. There's plenty of blogs out there who make it their business to preach, so I'm trying to be different.