[quote=njtosd]
More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Bullshit. I shall explain why that’s bullshit below. And I defy you find a single instance of my being hypocritical in the decade plus that I’ve been on this forum.
[quote=njtosd]
I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk – like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of.
[/quote]
You say I’m hypocritical and your only justification is I suggested a guy from Iowa might be a rube? It was a device. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I have to spell everything out for you. I was trying to paint a picture of a not-streetwise person, so I made up somebody from Iowa who’d never been to the big city. And you think that means I’m biased and prejudiced against people from Iowa? It’s like in the movies, where they give the dorky guy red hair. They’re not saying “all red-haired guys are dorky.” But they know it’s a stereotype that will inform the audience as to how the director wants them to see that character. I’ll spell it out further, in case you still don’t get it. I don’t think people from Iowa are any smarter or less smart than anybody else. It was just a device. You’ve ignored the substance of my post and tried to attack me based on a silly, insignificant little device I used. Sounds pretty desperate to me. It doesn’t matter where they’re from. What matters is the question that that scenario raises: Do you just disagree with them, or do you think they’re gullible? And that question that was not rhetorical.
That post “DRIPs with prejudice and bias?” Bullshit. Show me. You are constantly reading things into my posts that aren’t there. And then when I point out your erroneous inferences, you ignore that. And then you proceed to make more erroneous inferences. Do you feel that your arguments against mine are too weak to stand up without making nonsensical inferences about my posts? Or do you really have that much trouble understanding what I’m saying?
[quote=njtosd]
The people on this board seem to think that simply being in favor of the Democratic candidate makes them smart guys
[/quote]
Another nonsensical inference. It’s not being in favor of the democratic candidate. It’s seeing through Donald Trump’s con artistry. Seeing his bullshit. His lying, cheating, stealing, misogyny, racism, islamophobia, ignorance, thin-skinnedness, anger, unstable temperament. Et cetera. And seeing through the bullshit that is the right-wing noise machine’s attacks on Hillary Clinton over the past 30 years. A friend of mine is convinced that Clinton was disbarred and that she was kicked out of her party at one point. These are just a couple of the dozens of not-true things that people who feast on fake news believe.
[quote=njtosd]
– and that those who disagree with them or question them are dumb. I would think those who despised prejudice would know better.
[/quote]
There you go, ignoring it when I point out the nonsensical inferences that you’ve made. It’s not a matter of disagree, as I said before. It’s their refusal to believe what the evidence shows them. Namely, that trump is an ignorant, lying, cheating, stealing, misogynist, racist, islamophobic, thin-skinned, unstable con artist. And Clinton, while not perfect, was never disbarred, was not kicked out of her party, her associates do not run a child-sex ring, she does not wear a defibrillator, there is not a picture of her grabbing a man’s crotch, she did not unilaterally approve a uranium deal with the Russians based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. That list goes on for miles. And there are millions of trump voters who can’t see any of it.
If they acknowledged all of the above – all of which there is undeniable evidence for – and still wanted to vote for him, then I would agree to disagree. But, at this point, it’s not a matter of agree or disagree. It’s a matter of them dealing from falsehoods. It’s a matter of them living in an alternate reality for which there is no evidence. It’s a matter of them having been duped.
So, as I said, the question I asked wasn’t rhetorical, and I’m curious what your answer is. If it was you in New York, not some hypothetical person, and your friend (wherever he was from) wanted to play three-card monte, despite you having explained to him how it works (which is that a shill will “win” money from the dealer for a number of games, making it look easy when, in fact, it’s virtually impossible), would you think he was gullible, or would you think he just disagreed with you about not playing?
Let me take my analogy a step further, since you had trouble with it the first time. Let’s say you – not some hypothetical person – you – have a friend, and your friend is married. You catch her husband cheating on her. You tell her about it. You give her all the details. And there’s more evidence. It was a woman he’d had his eye on, he came home late that night smelling like somebody else’s perfume, she found a receipt for some condoms, etc. There was also more graphic evidence that we won’t go into here. The evidence is overwhelming. She confronts her husband, and he denies it. Now, if she believes that he was cheating on her, and wants to stay with him even though you think it’s a bad idea, that is disagreeing. But if she believes her husband, despite overwhelming evidence, and you know that he’s lying because you saw him cheating with your own eyes, that’s a whole other matter entirely. So, if she didn’t believe you, would you call that “disagreeing,” or would you think she was being gullible (and believing what she wanted to believe) for believing her husband?
