Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sebby is pretty candid about the fact that he comes here to provide an antidote to our liberal elitist groupthink, not because he always believes what he is saying. That being the case, I wonder why I let it irk me.
|
Whether you believe he is just a provocateur, a supreme Trump apologist, or some of both does not make engaging in debate with him any more rational. His arguments are nothing more than a shifting target of strawmen, made-up facts, disingenuous assertions, inconsistent positions, and pathetic attempts to dig himself out of the holes he has created. In the last day alone, he has asserted that 1) with no intent, there is no bias; 2) that bias may become unintentional; and 3) bias is sometimes unintentional. I doubt he is even capable of recognizing any incongruity in what he is saying. I made a joke about how ridiculous his beliefs on bias are, and he responds with this:
"Everything is subjective. If you hate any politician entirely, you’re not thinking very deeply. The correct assessment is to view all of the issues discretely. If we took that approach more often, the debates would be less heated. We’d avoid the risk of demagogues. We’d avoid 'belief, which is the kind thing that enables them."
If that were a word salad, it would be called the Post-Brutus E Coli Caesar. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to endlessly argue with him. I'm just explaining why I find it pointless.
