Obamacare and you

[DGuller]

I don't have many regrets in my life, but coming up with the Drazi analogy on this forum was one of them.   

Oh look, the fanatic is coming out to defend his fellow fanatic from the non-fanatics. What a shock.

I certainly don't regret my ability to get the nutbar left and the nutbar right to agree on *something*. MoveOn and TeaParty, united in hating on the non-tribal.

Yeah, I'm certainly notorious for defending derspiess.  That's why people keep accusing me of calling that moron names.

This isn't a "fanatic defending a fanatic" (a phenomenon that BTW has always existed only in your head), this is just a normal person in reasonable touch with reality being annoyed at a self-appointed judge of validity of others' opinions.  People who think that their shit doesn't stink tend to annoy other people a little bit extra when they drop a smelly turd.  Your opinions are not much less superficial in derspiess's, they're just superficial for reasons other than "tribal allegiance".

[The Minsky Moment]

So his right hand was reluctant but his left hand made him do it?   

I don't get it.  Are you unfamiliar with the concept of going along with something grudgingly?

He was the governor.  Unless the legislative majority was veto proof, why sign?

[Admiral Yi]

Is that the bar?  He didn't veto it, so it's Romneycare?

[frunk]

Is that the bar?  He didn't veto it, so it's Romneycare?

Before the ACA was passed I remember Romney touting the success of the program, so at the least he wasn't ashamed of signing it.

[grumbler]

Actually, it's from Babylon 5.

Actually, Babylon 5 was a TV show.
Actually, only for the first four seasons.  The fifth, it was a cable show.

I don't even think you  were a member here when that analogy was first used here.

I'm pretty sure that I was the one who first used it here, and yes, I was a member here at that time.  It was co-opted very quickly by the self-congratulatory duo here, though.

I'm pretty sure that it was used here before you were a member, at least under your DGuller guise.  You may have been a member under a different 4user name, it is true.  However, even then, you weren't the first to use the Drazi analogy here. Someone, maybe Crunchy, used it before you - but you wouldn't know that, not having been here.  You just assumed, apparently, that the board began when you joined (under whatever 4name you were using at the time).

[Berkut]

I don't have many regrets in my life, but coming up with the Drazi analogy on this forum was one of them.   

Oh look, the fanatic is coming out to defend his fellow fanatic from the non-fanatics. What a shock.

I certainly don't regret my ability to get the nutbar left and the nutbar right to agree on *something*. MoveOn and TeaParty, united in hating on the non-tribal.

Yeah, I'm certainly notorious for defending derspiess.  That's why people keep accusing me of calling that moron names.

I know, that is what is so hilarious about you doing it now. It is like when you see a Wesboro Baptist Church member and a Islamic fundy pause their fighting long enough to agree that yeah, the atheists will be the first against the wall when either of them take over.

It is the only things that opposite radicals can ever agree on...that really, they aren't radical at all, and that people who are not similarly "normal" are the crazy ones.

This isn't a "fanatic defending a fanatic" (a phenomenon that BTW has always existed only in your head),

Oh, I am pretty sure it exists in more places than just there - you are a special and unique flower DG, there are lots and lots of others like you out there.

They all think they are reasonable, sane, objective people as well. Nobody actually thinks they are barking at the moon nutbars.

But it is kind of obvious to the rest of us, because they do things like go on rants about how some particular legislation is terribly non-transparent, and how horrible that is, and what an asshole whatever other party politician who represents it is because of it....but never say a peep about even more non-transparent crap their party shovels out by the bucketload.

Or they do things like call people in their own party who are not radical enough for their tastes traitors and suggest that they be kicked out for being willing to compromise or work with others.

Of course the people making these kinds of arguments, I am sure, think they are perfectly reasonable. The rest of us can see things a little more clearly.

this is just a normal person in reasonable touch with reality being annoyed at a self-appointed judge of validity of others' opinions. 

No, not at all - you judge the validity of other peoples opinions all the time - you are doing so RIGHT NOW in fact. Have to find another justification for your "annoyance".

People who think that their shit doesn't stink tend to annoy other people a little bit extra when they drop a smelly turd.  Your opinions are not much less superficial in derspiess's, they're just superficial for reasons other than "tribal allegiance".

This is an especially stupid argument - all opinions are equally superficial? I presume that doesn't include yours, right - YOUR opinions are not superficial at all, I am sure, since they are the opinions shared by other green drazi.

[Berkut]

Actually, it's from Babylon 5.

Actually, Babylon 5 was a TV show.
Actually, only for the first four seasons.  The fifth, it was a cable show.

I don't even think you  were a member here when that analogy was first used here.

I'm pretty sure that I was the one who first used it here, and yes, I was a member here at that time.  It was co-opted very quickly by the self-congratulatory duo here, though.

I'm pretty sure that it was used here before you were a member, at least under your DGuller guise.  You may have been a member under a different 4user name, it is true.  However, even then, you weren't the first to use the Drazi analogy here. Someone, maybe Crunchy, used it before you - but you wouldn't know that, not having been here.  You just assumed, apparently, that the board began when you joined (under whatever 4name you were using at the time).

The irony is that DG has gone so far bonkers on his anger over being labeled as just another tribal is that he is now denying that there is really any such thing at all - he is even arguing that spicey, for example, is not engaging in it when he blasts Obamacare for not being transparent, but has never once EVER made any such similar complaint about a Republican initiative. This is an obvious case of a purely political complaint.

Apparently DG, if he ever saw that episode, was just kind of confused by it - since he feels that there is no such thing as tribalism, and all opinions are equally superficial. Why would he even bring it up, if he feels so strongly that those who are unhappy about tribal-thinking are not just wrong, but actually much worse than even members of the not-DG tribe?

Did he bring it up to point out how silly B5 is for making the exact same point he so thoroughly rejects now?

[Ed Anger]

DG: Russian.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm pretty sure that it was used here before you were a member, at least under your DGuller guise.  You may have been a member under a different 4user name, it is true.  However, even then, you weren't the first to use the Drazi analogy here. Someone, maybe Crunchy, used it before you - but you wouldn't know that, not having been here.  You just assumed, apparently, that the board began when you joined (under whatever 4name you were using at the time).

Unless you've got a backup of the old forum posts somewhere, this is argument by assertion. 


FWIW, my own memory of the first couple years of the forum sees "Binky the Space Dragon" or something like that as Berkut's go-to metaphor. Green and purple drazi weren't really on the radar.

[Berkut]

I don't even remember who used that first.

Now does it even matter.

What is funny is DG claiming that the entire concept is moot and a figment of non-partisan imagination, while also claiming he was the first to reference the exact thing the episode was mocking.

He doesn't realize that the episode was mocking him, and is so upset by the idea that he has pushed himself into actually arguing that tribalism as represented by the drazi allegory doesn't even exist.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is that the bar?  He didn't veto it, so it's Romneycare?

Ok so I went back and looked.  And the legislature did have a veto proof majority.  But as it turned out Romney used his veto anyway - to attack a few line items that he didn't like.  But the overall bill he supported.  He was part of the negotiations and when he signed it he issued a statement praising the law.  Other than the specific items he vetoed I saw no sign of any reluctance.

[DGuller]

This is an especially stupid argument - all opinions are equally superficial? I presume that doesn't include yours, right - YOUR opinions are not superficial at all, I am sure, since they are the opinions shared by other green drazi.

It's is indeed an especially stupid argument.  I'm really glad that I wasn't stupid enough to even think of it.  Perhaps if your reading comprehension weren't so shockingly bad, and your thought process were a little more tolerant of nuances, you wouldn't have such a distorted view of some things.

I wasn't talking about all opinions, I was talking about your opinions.  You certainly are not partisan, I'll give you that.  However, the method by which you achieve your lack of partisanship leaves you with an enormous blind spot when it comes to understanding how things fit together, as you do not even understand the dynamics of why parties form, and why they are not necessarily a bad thing.  If you start off with bad fundamentals, your conclusions are typically bad as well, especially when it comes to judging the validity of other posters' framework for opinions. 

Also, your logic that people aligning themselves squarely with one party or against one party (as I freely admit myself to be) are necessarily more wrong on average than moderates is clearly deficient.  If one party has the right idea 80% of the time, then hardcore supporters of that party do more to make their society better than moderates that support both parties equally.  There certainly were times in our history where in hindsight one party had it right way more than the other, there is no reason that these days we're magically balanced to the point where each party is right half the time, however you define that.  That's the difference between reality and the Drazi analogy:  the Drazi conflict was by definition arbitrary, whereas the Democratic/Republican divide may very well be mostly good ideas in deathmatch with mostly terrible ideas.

In no way should all that be interpreted that I think derspiess's opinions are more valid than yours.  He may as well be a bot as far as we're concerned.  I just think that that neither of you are exactly Minsky material, and neither of you earned the right to sanctimoniously dismiss each other.

[Jacob]

I, however, have the right to sanctimoniously dismiss pretty much everyone. After all I'm both Scandinavian and Canadian. It's like a super strain. Like the Magna Carta of sanctimonious dismissal rights.

[CountDeMoney]

Double Secret Sanctimony.

[Maximus]

I, however, have the right to sanctimoniously dismiss pretty much everyone. After all I'm both Scandinavian and Canadian. It's like a super strain. Like the Magna Carta of sanctimonious dismissal rights.

800 years of sanctimocracy