Real World Event Discussions

The Cowardly Hypocrisy Of RiverLove

POSTED BY: Riverlove
UPDATED: Friday, August 29, 2025 14:58
VIEWED: 9935
PAGE 12 of 13

SIGNYM

Friday, April 2, 2010 3:30 PM

By now we all know RL has very little to say aside from smear, innuendo, half-truths, lies, and invective-laden posts. Facts? Insight? Not so much.

RIVERLOVE

Friday, April 2, 2010 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
By now we all know RL has very little to say aside from smear, innuendo, half-truths, lies, and invective-laden posts. Facts? Insight? Not so much.

Who is "we"? You mean the group-think douches who all say the same things as you?

KWICKO

Friday, April 2, 2010 4:57 PM

The opening line from your original post, which you seem so proud of:

Quote:
Democrats and their liberal media allies have sunk so low as to now be demonizing average working Americans...

And then you followed it up later when I questioned you on your lies by hurling THIS:

Quote:
By the way, you've admitted you're a total loser in life, just a lowly shipping clerk right? What makes you think you can question, insult or harrass me? Go back to the dock boy. There's a truck ready to be unloaded.

I have to ask, WHO here is demonizing average working Americans, exactly? Me and the rest of my "liberal" cohorts, or you, who flat-out called warehouse, manufacturing, and production workers "lowly" and "total losers in life", and questioned how any of us could have the temerity, gall, or cajones to question you?

Why do you hate working people?

Why do you insist that I called you a drunken death-loving cunt, and then run away and try to hide when called on your blatant lies? And why then do you claim that even if you grossly misled people about who said what, and when they said it, you owe no apologies to anybody? Seems pretty desperate and pathetic...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

RIVERLOVE

Friday, April 2, 2010 5:09 PM

I take back my regret from earlier today. You do indeed belong on the dock with the rest of the HS dropouts.

MINCINGBEAST

Friday, April 2, 2010 5:11 PM

Riverlove is a damsel in distress. Where is my white knight gear? I want to come to her aid, and the only thing that will help, is if I become a conservative. So I am presently listening to Rush, and I am totally confused. This conservative stuff hurts.

KWICKO

Friday, April 2, 2010 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Riverlove is a damsel in distress. Where is my white knight gear? I want to come to her aid, and the only thing that will help, is if I become a conservative. So I am presently listening to Rush, and I am totally confused. This conservative stuff hurts.

When you say you're listening to Rush, you mean the talk-radio guy, not the Canadian prog-rock trio, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Friday, April 2, 2010 5:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
I take back my regret from earlier today. You do indeed belong on the dock with the rest of the HS dropouts.

What regret? You've expressed none. You should probably feel shame more than regret, because you've had your ass handed to you time and time again by one of those "HS drop-outs" you think so little of.

MINCINGBEAST

Friday, April 2, 2010 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Riverlove is a damsel in distress. Where is my white knight gear? I want to come to her aid, and the only thing that will help, is if I become a conservative. So I am presently listening to Rush, and I am totally confused. This conservative stuff hurts.

When you say you're listening to Rush, you mean the talk-radio guy, not the Canadian prog-rock trio, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

limbaugh.

but will that prog rock stuff help make me conservative? if so...i might try it...but if listening to geddy lee's voice is the only thing that can make me conservative, i give up! is suspect rush's music lowers testosterone levels.

NIKI2

Friday, April 2, 2010 6:49 PM

Quote:
the fact that you gotta ask questions just shows how ignorant you are!

Oh gawd, oh gawd, please stop! There it is folks, in black and white for all to see: THIS is the audience of FauxNews, who think asking questions is a sign of stupidity...and there goes your hope that any of them will ever bother to question anything. Bingo, and thank you for my first guffaw of the day!

The other one made me giggle, too:

Quote:
your stupid, inane questions with a response?

Isn’t it wonderful, how dismissing actual questions works so well when you give them dunderheaded adjectives? Ahh, me, my day has started off with a laugh or two, I’m ever so grateful.

Quote:
Nothing better than some goofy wingnut starting a thread to attack libruls, and finding themselves faced with questions they can't bring themselves to answer.

Damned straight, Story. Remember that book I did a couple of threads on, “The Authoritarians”? Several thought it was seriously biased toward the left, but if you read here enough, you see that those on the right absolutely reflect to a T what was postulated there:

Quote:
Illogical Thinking: A group of students from Peninsula College were given various memory and inference tests. For example, they listened to a tape of two lawyers debating a school segregation case on a McNeil/Lehrer News Hour program. It was found that High RWAs indeed had more trouble remembering details of the material they’d encountered, and they made more incorrect inferences on a reasoning test than others usually did. Overall, the authoritarians had lots of trouble simply thinking straight.

Intrigued, I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general. They do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them. Then they can be extremely critical.

Authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of his ideas--stored in a different file-- basically contradicts it. We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas. Thus they may say they are proud to live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but another file holds, “My country, love it or leave it.” The ideas were copied from trusted sources, often as sayings, but the authoritarian has never “merged files” to see how well they all fit together.

It’s easy to find authoritarians endorsing inconsistent ideas. Just present slogans and appeals to homey values, and then present slogans and bromides that invoke opposite values. The yea-saying authoritarian follower is likely to agree with all of them. They don’t seem to scan for self-consistency as much as most people do. Similarly they tended to agree with “A government should allow total freedom of expression, even it if threatens law and order” and “A government should only allow freedom of e

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

NIKI2

Friday, April 2, 2010 7:03 PM

Quote:
I'd love to see the frustration on RiverRappy's face as his screeds are so easily shot down, and he's faced with questions that might *gasp* force him to analyze his views.

Oh, come ON, Story. You really think that would ever have a snowball’s chance in hell of HAPPENING?? Remember, all pertinent questions can be brushed aside by responding with visceral name-calling. For them, in case they missed it, here’s the definition of “visceral”:

Quote:
not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning; dealing with crude or elemental emotions

I don’t need to define it for the thinking amongst us, but I thought it might have gone over the heads of the RWAs among us.

Quote:
you've admitted you're a total loser in life, just a lowly shipping clerk right? What makes you think you can question, insult or harrass me?

There’s another example: “you’re only a shipping clerk, so you have no right to question me”. Wow, the bigotry and illogical thinking of that remark is astounding—or would be, coming from a reasoned person. As it is, it just reflects the above.

Quote:
The original post I put up was complete. Pictures of Bush protesters with their threatening signs, and a few articles about attacks against Repub interests. Nothing more, nothing less. It was you and your pals that went gaga over it.

Does or does that not reflect the thinking that “My opinions and beliefs fit together perfectly to make a crystal-clear “picture” of things”? What was put up cannot be questioned, ergo debate is not only impossible, it is not allowed. The fact that there was no proof the church was burned in protest of Palin, nor that the vandalized office had effigies of BOTH Bush and Kerry in any way invalidated it. Nor is the fact that the first two stories posted were about the same incident come would never be acknowledge. The fact that numerous right-wingers had questioned whether the perpetrators of recent violence had actually been Democrat “plants”, which was thrown back as questioning the same of the material, was totally ignored, dismissed as “lame” and “pathetic”. When the valid challenge was made that

Quote:
is it fair to say that you assert: 1) the left can't complain too loudly about idiots on the right because 2) there are idiots on the left?

It was completely ignored.

Sweetie, we didn’t go “gaga” over it, we debated it; the erroneous material was questioned. The snark

Quote:
Come on now, find a way to spin, find a way to draw one of your world-famous non-sensical moral equivalencies for me. Will ya, huh?

was an INVITATION to debate the material you had put up... Rather than defend your material and your point with proof, you started right in with the personal slurs.

Numerous people agreed that the photos on both sides represented fringe elements, and I and others agreed that we despised violence from either side. Beyond a remark to me (and I’m still confused by “emotionally compromised”; if you could clarify that statement I’d be grateful), it was never mentioned again.

Mike noted that

Quote:
I have to call them out on their utter hypocrisy when they say Tea Party people are violent and dangerous with their protest signs and their anti-Obama rhetoric

meant that if you defended those on the right who were disruptive and had foul signs, you were showing hypocrisy equal to that you condemned. That was never responded to, either. You were also asked by several about the violent rhetoric of those IN PUBLIC OFFICE currently, and that, too, was never responded to.

I try to be a good sport, yes—and fail more than I succeed. But I also expect anyone who puts up a post and specifically challenges me to debate it would present rational arguments to defend their point and respond to points made by others. I’m not missing any big picture. I’m aware that your way of “debating” (which definitely is NOT to debate) lets others ridicule you...I don’t see any anger on the left, only valid points brought up and a lot of ridicule. “Desperati