thisguyvx, on the Ethan Van Sciver thread from Sunday:
Incidentally, I love how ANYTHING that echoes the non-screaming liberal viewpoint gets AUTOMATICALLY decried.
Honestly, it’s not EVS’s politics that bug me nearly so much as his debating style.
Summarizing his behaviour on the thread in question:
EVS: “The United States has a great degree of social mobility because of the policies we have enacted.”
SOMEBODY ELSE: “Actually, among first-world nations, it doesn’t. It’s not even close to the top. New Zealand is first, for example.”
EVS: “So move to New Zealand.”
That’s not substantive discussion: that’s just a blatant “fuck you.” It’s like arguing with somebody on a playground where they counter with “well, you’re a butthead!” It just shuts down conversation entirely, because you can’t have a rational talk with somebody who refuses to engage you honestly.
EVS was wrong, was corrected, and acted petulant – then, to irritate me further, started grandstanding about “civility” in the same thread where he accused his ideological opponents of being brain-dead. (It’s even more pronounced when in the same thread you have other conservative-leaning posters actually attempting to argue in good faith.)
And that’s what earned him the comparison to Byrne, who frequently does the same thing. Of course, Byrne has a lifetime of this sort of behaviour under his belt and this is the only time EVS has acted like this that I’ve seen, so I’m willing to extend him a little benefit of the doubt – but only a little, and frankly his replies in email have exhausted most of it.
And I’m not going to pretend that I’m a bastion of civility, but at least I try to argue in good faith, and when I say “fuck you” I don’t bother trying to hide it.
UPDATE: EVS has complained that I am mischaracterizing him, so here are the original quotes to which I was referring in the summary:
1.) (EVS): It’s not that ANYONE can succeed in this country if they aren’t lazy. They also have to be some combination of clever, thrifty, and lucky. People go as far as they are personally able to because this country makes that possible [emphasis mine]. Bad ideas, bad planning and yes, laziness, in business and in your personal life cause failure. And even then, there’s a chance to pull yourself up and start over again, without becoming addicted to Big Government programs.
2.) (“Charles RB”): Actually, that’s not true – studies keep showing that a number of other countries beat America in social mobility, with Sweden and I think Denmark or Norway always topping the list (and these are countries were a lot is paid in tax compared to the US). I think New Zealand beats you as well.
3.) (EVS): Well, there you have it, Dragonflye [commenter with whom EVS was arguing elsewhere in thread]. Move to New Zealand and get rich.
I allow the readership in general to decide if I have misrepresented him. I don’t think I have.
UPDATE TWO: Ethan responds in comments
Which is interesting information, but completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Putting aside the shaky validity of that list, since it’s impossible to compare nations with completely difference concentrations of populations and circumstances, I didn’t say, “America is THE BEST!” I was offering, “You also have a great chance at achieving wealth in America, like in few other countries in the world.”
Ethan, you’re applying a very tunnel-visioned approach to the argument as a whole.
Any argument about taxation is de facto an argument about societal policy (and its effectiveness) as a whole, because taxation policy serves as the alternator between public and private monies and what each of those monetary spheres can accomplish.
(Incidentally, asserting that you have a better shot at achieving wealth in America than in, say, Botswana, Laos or Somalia, is an irrelevant argument. It’s irrelevant because comparing stable, mature First World democracies to in-transition Third World countries or anarchic barely-there governments is kind of ridiculous, both because there’s no serious comparison to be made and because in the argument in question, which again is one about policy ends and aims, nobody is advocating for “hey, let’s ditch our mature government for a system of tribal leaders ruling by violence!”)
No – the discussion in question is about what combination of policies creates the best possible outcome for the citizenry of a given country, as well as how that best possible outcome is defined. Now, it’s perfectly all right – to take Ethan’s example – to advocate for a greater level of non-interference by government in private life, be that on a monetary/taxation level, a civil liberties level, or otherwise. The great question of modern policy debate is the appropriate level of balance between statism and liberty; statism provides stability and reliability, liberty provides dynamism and innovation. Neither of these are innate goods in and of themselves, of course; the USSR was a broken tyrannical government that was unfortunately pretty stable and reliable in how it operated, and the recent fiscal crises are an excellent example of how innovation is not always your friend.
Turning back to the question of social mobility. Ethan is utterly incorrect to suggest that it was “irrelevant,” because we traditionally view social mobility – the ability to rise from one’s socio-economic class through merit, or to be able to lose their standing in the same manner through inability – as a positive in society, and something we wish to encourage. Now, in an argument about taxation policy and level of government interference, if you assert that social mobility and the opportunity to succeed based on merit is to the good – as Ethan did – then if somebody says “well, in [other country here with a different philosophy of taxation and level of government interference], they have more social mobility,” then that automatically becomes relevant to the discussion at hand because it is an end product of that tax philosophy.
It’s entirely true that Ethan wasn’t asserting that “America is the best,” but that’s not the point and never was.
And one more thing, tangential at best but since he quoted himself from the thread:
you probably aren’t interested in the Government defining what is and is not proper moral behavior.
What on earth do you think criminal laws are exactly? And before you go to “well, those prevent harm,” let me assure you there are tons of criminal laws on the books where the question of harm is purely indirect and the crime in question is primarily moral. (Insider trading is an excellent example.)
Related Articles
50 users responded in this post
EVS is very blatantly a hardcore right winger, and while this could be the most blatant example of him conducting himself in a less than civil manner it’s definitely not the only.
It’s funny you bring up the comparison to Byrne considering that EVS has been banned from Byrne’s forum for disagreeing with it, and if prompted will take the chance to say a less than civil comment here or there about ol’ JB.
EVS is a tool; he argued in the same brain dead way in Bendis’ forums. Got banned there as well, I think.
Wow, so this guy has a history of being a douchebag?
Wow. Yeah. Stay out of any political debate in the United States after, oh, 1912. Or 1776. I don’t know how far records go on that sort of thing.
You get this kind of debating style all the time on right wing blogs and its exhausting. I mean, I remember trying to defend the Michael Moore movie Sicko.
“We’re in a health care crisis.”
“No we’re not.”
“Look at the Cuban model. Look at the benefits that can be had in a 3rd world nation.”
“Yeah, and they also throw you in prison or shoot you. Your health care plan kills people.”
“At least admit that a problem exists.”
“Michael Moore is fat.”
:-p Check the stimulus bill that just squeaked through Congress last week. The GOP demanded 100% tax cuts, concern trolled over the national debt, shat all over the discussion with lies about the bills contents, and then voted en mass against it purely as a political gesture.
That’s what we all get to deal with until sanity gets injected back into political discourse.
It’s called the O’Reilly Style. You don’t like it, then move to Cuba!
Or Canada, since you’re a pedo-american, you fuck! Urgh, how I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU!!!!!! HEAD! EXPLODE!!! SHIIIIIT! AAARRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!
(I roll Cutting Mike. You can’t talk)
And you’ve lied about the “summary” of what was said in that exchange into what you’d LIKE to have been said. Out of context, words manipulated, and your own prejudice exposed.
Perhaps you should actually “quote” instead of summarize.
Hey Ethan,
What’s been taken out of context?
What words have been manipulated?
What prejudice has been exposed?
Perhaps, you should actually argue your point instead of whining like a little bitch and pretending everyone’s picking on you.
I’ll do it:
The argument was about the government regulating greed and taxing “rich” people to death. I countered with this argument:
Me: “Dragonflye, it doesn’t really matter if they would or not. “Greed” is a moral judgment, and near as I can tell, you probably aren’t interested in the Government defining what is and is not proper moral behavior. It’s not illegal to be greedy, and besides, who gets to define the point at which the acquisition of private property becomes “greed?” You?
I know it’s rough to watch rich people getting to do what you and I can’t, but hell, we can both aspire to be rich, and in this country, we have a better shot at it than elsewhere.”
And then a different fellow responded with this:
“Actually, that’s not true – studies keep showing that a number of other countries beat America in social mobility, with Sweden and I think Denmark or Norway always topping the list (and these are countries were a lot is paid in tax compared to the US).
I think New Zealand beats you as well.”
Which is interesting information, but completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Putting aside the shaky validity of that list, since it’s impossible to compare nations with completely difference concentrations of populations and circumstances, I didn’t say, “America is THE BEST!” I was offering, “You also have a great chance at achieving wealth in America, like in few other countries in the world.”
So yes, my reply, which was:
Me: “Well, there you have it, Dragonflye. Move to New Zealand and get rich.”
…may have been sarcastic, but it wasn’t a “love it or leave it” statement, it was a comment on the completely beside the point retort by the previous poster.
Is this difficult to understand? And you, Christopher Bird, there’s no need to lie about me and what I stand for in order to get my attention. It’ll work, because I like talking about me, but you can always just drop me a line or Facebook me. I’m very friendly.
Zenrage:
You’ll be happy to know that MGK thinks you’re stupid. He sent me an email apologizing for you.
I don’t know you, so I’ll just keep out of it.
EVS
Ethan,
MGK has made his opinion of me known in the past. I typically respect his work, regardless.
That doesn’t change anything about my opinion of you popping in and acting like a little bitch, which judging by other posts here, you are quite capable of accomplishing on a regular basis.
Your knowledge of me is irrelevant.
I’m clearly out of my depth here, and will never argue the goodness of America again. Not with smart people like Zenrage. I might get called “little bitch” three times instead of just two! 🙂
Anyhow, I appreciate the reply forum, so I can at least answer the charges! And to the humble Christoper “MightyGodKing” Bird, thanks for the compliments on FLASH #2’s cover.
Adios!
EVS
I wonder if I know the Charles RB that’s over there…
MGK,
It’s entirely true that Ethan wasn’t asserting that “America is the best,”
Assert? No. Infer? Most definitely.
His own quote, from his own post.
“and in this country, we have a better shot at it than elsewhere.”
What else could ‘elsewhere’ possibly infer to in respects to ‘this country’ except every other country?
This is the same nonsense intellectual retards like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and William Pierce use as a pseudo-defense when they openly infer irrational actions be taken against people they disagree with and then throw their hands up in the air and pretend they’re a victim when people actually call them out on their actions.
Likewise, one of his later Fox News-worthy spins.
‘may have been sarcastic, but it wasn’t a “love it or leave it” statement’
One would think that someone who has actually gotten PAID to write dialogue for comic books would know that typing the way you talk does not, without significant emotional reference, convey emotional intent.
Mind you, EVS could be telling the truth about being only sarcastic, but that’s really a matter of convenience to be able to define (or re-define) emotional intent only after he was called out on it.
For example, I could say my opinion of him was only made in jest, but I’d be lying.
Likewise, without asserting or directly stating it in my previous sentence, most rational people would be able to readily infer what my opinion of EVS is.
Yeah, the idea that the government shouldn’t be in charge of deciding how much money is “too much” for a person to have…well, they decide when it’s permissible to take a life, so what makes taking money so special? To say you’re not against taxation, only against “unfair” taxation…well, no one’s for unfairness, but we decide what’s fair and unfair collectively, through the mechanisms of government. Ethan says you don’t want the government deciding it…he also challenges his interlocutors’ right to make that determination…
Heck, somebody’s got to do it. I say we nominate a bunch of people to take on that burden, and then vote to see which one we prefer, you know? Sounds like a decent solution.
The “MGK doesn’t like you” comment to Zenrage was probably beneath Mr. Van Sciver. he must’ve been pissed-off when he wrote it, don’t you think?
But then it never does any good to argue with fundamentalist-righttards anyway — no matter how polite they are, they’re only interested in their side winning. Apologies to EVS if he does not fall into the “fundamentalist-righttard” category…but it sort of sounds like he does.
Hey now. Hold on a second, there. I haven’t read the argument in its entirety, but “in the argument in question, which again is one about policy ends and aims, nobody is advocating for “hey, let’s ditch our mature government for a system of tribal leaders ruling by violence!””? I find it hard to believe that in an internet argument about taxes, nobody’s arguing for libertarianism.
Internet arguments tend to run along the lines of Kenny Roger’s “The Gambler”. You need to know when to walk away, and know when to run.
Ethan V, you should have walked away a long time ago, because you simply are not going to win this argument.
Anyone else getting flashbacks to the West Wing episode where Josh finds his “fan forum” website? 🙂
EVS:
Yeah, nothing juvenile about that response at ALL…
Look Ethan, assuming you bother to keep track of this I can appreciate what it’s like to argue your point of view to multiple people who believe the opposite. I’ve tried it before, and getting quintuple-teamed isn’t much fun even if everybody arguing with you is civil, which isn’t always the case.
Here’s the thing though. Acting like a douche–which you’ll realize you are if you have any awareness of what you’re saying from moment to moment–won’t win anybody over. You’ve made liberal comics fans here and on CBR go from thinking “Damn, he’s a conservative, that kind of sucks” to “Damn, he’s a NASTY conservative. There’s no point in trying to talk to him since he’ll just start throwing around insults, so I might as well give him some of his own medicine.”
Remember how you said that it was okay to take a verbal jab at Paul McEnery on CBR because he insulted you first? That may have been true, but you started this one, and by your own logic everybody here’s entitled to diss you.
LAWYER-ED!
Wait, wait, wait…
You guys are going after Ethan for being juvenile after the other clearly insults him in an even more juvenile way?
Why? B/c Ethan’s a comic book artist and you’re applying that crap about them being held to higher standards? They’re not role models, folks. They draw people that fly.
My goodness…
Remember how you said that it was okay to take a verbal jab at Paul McEnery on CBR because he insulted you first? That may have been true, but you started this one, and by your own logic everybody here’s entitled to diss you.
——————
REALLY?? B/c of his debating methods on another forum?
For telling the other guy to go to New Zealand?
Really?
I mean, really?
@Jacob: I’m holding him to the same standards as anybody else.
If somebody were to tell me I was whining like a little bitch, I would try not to respond in the same manner. There have been times in the past when I’ve been able to show restraint and keep things from degenerating, and other times when I’ve lost my temper and wasted my time with a flame war. In retrospect, I’d say I’ve been wrong every time I did the flame war thing.
Since I’m posting both here and on CBR I’ve wound up repeating myself multiple times, so you might get a sense of deja vu if you’re following threads in both places. I’m about to do it again.
I think that it’s better to try to defuse arguments than throw fuel on the fire. It seems that Ethan thinks that if somebody disses you, you’ve got to come right back at them. I disagree. As I see it, it accomplishes nothing, you probably won’t hurt the feelings of the person who pissed you off so you don’t get your revenge, and people can look at what you wrote later and possibly think you are a jerk. So isn’t it better to try and make peace?
That, and also saying “Dear god. One doesn’t want his income taken by the government to piss away however it does, and it does, and it’s ‘GREED’ to liberals. I love that brain-damaged thought process…”
Plus, this:
If you want to start a nasty argument, a very reliable way of doing so is by accusing the other party of lying. “Lied” is a loaded word.
I’ll say this: I’ve never thought it was fair for a blogger to argue with someone who didn’t have a right to post front-page comments. With Chris’s arguments in the main article and EVS’s responses mostly in comments, it doesn’t strike me as a balanced arguement from the get-go.
And that’s coming from someone who hadn’t heard of EVS (I read comics, but don’t care much who draws them as long as they’re remotely competent) until two days ago, but now thinks he’s a bit of a douche.
For the record, Ethan can be very insulting and holier-than-thou when arguing political subjects. I ofter can not tell if he is being honest or if he is sarcastically mocking me in discussion. I am in direct opposition to him on nearly every political hot-button issue. Ethan can also resort to name-calling and less-than-reasonable tactics if a debate gets heated.
That being said, two points.
1. Ethan has never resorted to these measures during our debates.
2. I firmly believe that his New Zealand comment, TO ME (and not to anyone else, mind you), was nothing more than a means by which he wished to lighten up the discussion between him and me. The NZ comment was a bit of a call-back to our discussion many comments prior in the thread, in which not only did he remain civil during our debate, but he also attempted to find middle ground by implying that neither of us would want the government having too great a stranglehold on what our personal funds were spent on. In my personal opinion, he was NOT giving me a “Americuh, love it or leave it” ultimatum-style threat. He was merely trying to lessen the unneccesary tension in our conversation.
At the risk of having the guns leveled in my direction: why the hell do any of you care about any of this? I mean, seriously, having a (mature) debate or conversation on a message board is one thing. I enjoy doing that too, but when the conversation degenerates into name calling *cough*Zenrage*cough* or other such crap why, after it’s apparent that you’re not going to get a decent, mature discussion out of that person, does anybody give a shit what some anonymous douchebag thinks? I just find it funny that so many people have blown this stuff into such a huge deal when it was just a few comments on a message board. So EVS has different political views than you. So the hell what? He’s not in politics, he draws art for a freaking comic book. So some anonymous douchebag is an ass on a message board. So what? Why care what some dipshit you’ll likely never meet thinks? Insulting someone for having a differing view, regardless how stupid you may find it, is pointless and just asking for trouble; especially on a message board or comments thread where emotion and intent can be hard to accurately convey and misinterpretation is easy, and most often likely, to happen.
What’re you, a cop?
And who the fuck said anything about caring about it, anyway? I’m a guy with too much time on his hands reading shit on the Internet, you want me to stop? Cross my palm with silver, and we’ll talk.
Heh. No, just when I stopped to really think about what we’re doing (because I do it to) I just found it kind of funny.
“And who the fuck said anything about caring about it, anyway?”
Well, if someone is taking the time out to actually check back in, read everything, and argue/insult back even though it won’t make any difference, they apparently care a little otherwise they wouldn’t bother.
“I’m a guy with too much time on his hands reading shit on the Internet, you want me to stop? Cross my palm with silver, and we’ll talk.”
I’m in the same boat, which is why I’m here. As long as you’re entertained, more power to you. However, to clarify, I never said anything about not reading. I was referring to the people who continue to respond to people who are no longer discussing but are just being pointlessly argumentative or insulting. Like I said, just found it funny how easy it is to get riled up by people we don’t know, will likely never meet, whose opinions will (more often than not) mean nothing to us.
Does anyone here ever see the National Enquirer and wonder why the hell someone buys that? Or why E! manages to stay on the air talking about people whose lives have virtually no effect on your own? I know I do, and in that same vein, I have to wonder why any of this was worthy of a blog post attacking and, in my opinion, misrepresenting what Van Sciver said. Plenty of people said plenty of things worse than he did (and more added to the fire here), but they aren’t the source of everyone’s ire. Just b/c this guy’s name might be more common to more people than the other members of the discussion, that signals open season on him voicing his opinion? I’ve been of the impression that the media forces the first amendment down our throats too much, but obviously it’s not reaching enough people or only applies if you agree with what’s being said. I think people are equating Ethan saying “elsewhere” with “these colors don’t run” t-shirts. Is it possible that he was referring to even one other country where it’s less feasible to achieve some level of economic success than in the US? If the US is 23rd on a global stage, that can’t logically mean it’s only places like Darfur that are “below” it statistically. I’m really having a hard time understanding how anyone is taking what Van Sciver said to be the equivalent of holding up a big foam “USA is #1” finger, bleating an air horn, and telling people to get the hell out if they don’t like the country. He wasn’t expressing some rabid twisted form of “patriotism” – he simply expressed that there are options other than government for those who are willing to look for them. It goes without saying that there are people in this country who need government assistance because they can’t work for some reason, that’s just common sense, but am I alone in believing that there are those who are in a bad situation not because the world is against them, but because they refuse to put in the sweat to make life better for themselves and their children? Does anyone here not know at least one lazy person who blames everything that goes wrong with them on someone else? If we all know someone like that, doesn’t that mean there are as many of them as there are those who work and pay taxes and try to make things better? Have you ever known someone who goes to a job in a wheelchair every day? People who can’t walk are going to work, what’s stopping them from staying at home and taking tax payer money? Don’t fool yourselves into believing that there aren’t able bodied people doing just that, and that they don’t contribute to the downfall of our country, even if it’s on a lesser scale than the shady dealings of some corporations and politicians. It’s *all* weighing down the common tax payer, regardless to what extent. The straw that breaks the camel’s is still only just one piece of straw – the point is that it’s one too many. You don’t want to read a book that Van Sciver has a hand in because he doesn’t like the fact that he doesn’t have a voice in what his money is going towards, or because he doesn’t pull punches when being punched? Seems rather petty to me. I don’t care for the opinions an awful lot of people in Hollywood stuff down my throat uninvited, but I still watch movies, I just avoid award shows. Get over it people, there are much bigger issues in your neighborhood, probably your home, let alone the world.
Randy, that comment of mine was not meant to be split into two pieces like that, FYI. No big deal, just saying.
And Red: I always say, if someone prefers living on a welfare wage to living on a working wage, they’re probably too stupid to find a job in the first place. Ever been on gov’t assistance? It’s not exactly easy street.
Exactly, so why would you want to pass that lifestyle and lack of anything to take pride in to your kids?
I don’t believe Ethan was banned at the Bendis boards, I believe he quit of his own accord.
The rest of this is whipping by too fast to keep up, but it looks like there’s plenty of rude behavior to go around.
How about if people take a step back and try to continue the discussion with a bit more civility in general?
Randy B,
Golly. You really got me there.. or at least you would have if you hadn’t ignored the blatant reality that:
tavella called EVS a brain dead tool without addressing the points of the argument.
Matt Ampersand called EVS a douchebag and said nothing else.
And EVS himself called MGK a liar in a statement that he obviously felt, at the time he posted it, did not require clarification for it to be taken as fact.
I only called EVS a little bitch after I called him out for his baseless accusations. As such, I would say, at the very least, my first statement was by far one of the more mature posts on this board.
As for my second post, I merely clarified that MGK’s personal opinion of me never really mattered to me (especially since one of his earlier posts claimed that he wished to track me down and beat me up for being contrary to his opinions) and that his failed attempt to strike a chord with me had no influence on my opinion of either EVS or MGK.
“MGK thinks you’re stupid”.. Oh please. I’ve gotten back-handed compliments from my own family with more bite than that.
To which EVS changes the subject and claims that he was debating American politics with me. I’m sorry, I must have missed something. I wasn’t debating EVS’ politics. My statement only referred to his calling MGK a liar and then to his personal behavior. A position which remains ultimately unchallenged.
And before you start any Ad Hominem crap. Ad Hominem only applies when a person dismisses an argument because he thinks the person is an idiot, or whatever. It says nothing about labeling a person an idiot (or in EVS’ case, a little bitch) after you call him out on the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and absurdities of their statements.
Simply put, if someone doesn’t want to be ridiculed for their ideas, then they shouldn’t bring ridiculous claims into an open and public forum.
If anything, it just appears that you (and maybe MGK) are blaming me for merely being better at being verbally vicious than anyone else here. To which the Trekkie in me can only take to mean as “I swear well”.
As for why do we care?
Simple. Because an idea that goes unchallenged is the only one that gets heard. And on an internet forum, one idea posted by anyone can be heard by and influence anyone else.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why one should never get into an argument with a lawyer (or law student) about policy issues without a lot more prep work.
Because we will totally own you. With well reasoned and informed arguments no less.
This is why we’ll end up in the grim near future described in “Liberality for All.”
It would seem that the longer this thread gets, the greater the likelihood of more people from within the comics industry show up.
Which is a good thing, I guess?
Dammit, MGK, if my funny books are late because of this, there’ll be hell to pay!
At least no one has been called a Nazi… yet.
I’m not sure if that’s something to take any kind of pride in, Zenrage, any more than it makes sense to take pride in the fact that one is good at being physically vicious in a fight. If you start the physical fight you’re in the wrong, and if somebody else starts a fight with you and you’re extremely vicious while beating them up then it’s excessive. The goal, IMHO, should be to avoid fights or to stop ones in progress before they get out of hand, and this last sentence refers to both physical and verbal fights.
Well said, Rob.
plok,
I figured. It was early. I just hadn’t seen the second part until a few minutes later and wanted to clarify my own position so people wouldn’t think I was slamming them for reading or following these things. Hell, I’ve read every post for not only the two blogs here but the original one at CBR as well because I, too, have far too much time on my hands. 😉
“Randy B,
Golly. You really got me there.. or at least you would have if you hadn’t ignored the blatant reality that: [a bunch of crap I don’t care about because it’s beside the point]”
I wasn’t trying to “get” you, you were simply the most obvious and “vocal” example.
“Simple. Because an idea that goes unchallenged is the only one that gets heard. And on an internet forum, one idea posted by anyone can be heard by and influence anyone else.”
Yeah, but see the point is the way you go about doing it doesn’t make anyone want to hear what you have to say, they just focus on the parts that make you sound like a total ass. You’re shooting yourself in the foot every time you open your “mouth”, as opposed to using rational, logical thinking to sway people’s opinions, or at the very least make them stop to actually consider the point you’re trying to make. Pissing people off by being confrontational and “swearing well” does nothing more than piss people off and make them want to ignore you or write off your opinion automatically. You can quote all the really great philosophical sayings you want, in the end all that people really remember was you being a jerk.
“You’re shooting yourself in the foot every time you open your “mouth”, as opposed to using rational, logical thinking to sway people’s opinions,”
Whose opinion was I ever trying to sway, Randy? I only stated my own opinion about EVS’ behavior. No more and no less than what anyone else was doing here.
And yet again, you’ve completely ignored the reality that I wasn’t the worst offender here for whatever personal vendetta you obviously have against me.
“Yeah, but see the point is the way you go about doing it doesn’t make anyone want to hear what you have to say”
No. This actually goes far away from the original question you posed in which “some anonymous douchebag is an ass on a message board. So what? Why care what some dipshit you’ll likely never meet thinks?”
And since you are going to ignore any philosophical quotes I post here (where the hell did this come from anyway? Seriously?), then I’ll just have to post the only voice you’ll ever listen to… YOURS.
“I guess the whole point of this rant is just to say: people, chill the f**k out. Stop being so freaking harsh and overly critical, sit back, and just enjoy this stuff for what it is. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it and shut up about it so the rest of us that do can enjoy it without having to constantly put up with hearing adults who are jealous because they don’t feel like they’re 6 again bitch about how Lucas raped their childhood.” – Randy B. from his Star Wars rant.
I guess vulgarity and attacking people only counts as a positive when its being used against those people that YOU don’t like.
And for the record, regarding “You’re shooting yourself in the foot EVERY [emphasis mine] time you open your “mouth””:
Number of personal attacks made by me against Randy: 0
Number of personal attacks made by Randy against me: 3
I’ve been exceptionally rational and non-vulgar with you Randy. Does this mean you’re going to be swayed by my words now and apologize for your personal attacks/opinions against me?
And Rob, Excessive is fun. And social progression rarely occurs without some form of violence – and the only two that attempted to do otherwise were martyred for their respective, but not inclusive, causes (From what I understand, Gandhi hated black people).
I’ve not made any personal attacks against you, only comments about your own posts and the way you have, and continue to, conduct yourself. You’re right, you “swear well” and tend to stand out, so much so that MGK felt the need to message EVS directly about you (and notice, not about anyone else in particular), which is why I used you as an example. You’re quite obviously missing the point, so there’s no sense in continuing to discuss it. However, I should point out you get bonus points for quoting my blog, which was just me ranting and not directed at anyone in particular, out of context to try and back up your point. Had the quote been taken from an active discussion on a message board or comment thread it might have had some weight. But it wasn’t, so it has no relevance to what we’re currently talking about.
Has anyone mentioned Nazis or Hitler yet?
Thus far we appear to have proven that it takes more than 45 (now 46) posts before Godwin’s Law takes effect.
Sure you’ve seen this, but I thought this was amusingly on-task 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRwiH18QwpU
Who the fuck is Ethan van skiver?
Artist, probably most commonly known for drawing Green Lantern.
[…] http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2…civer-edition/ […]