Larry Correia Loses Control

This, of course, is not shocking – libertarians seem to nurse a particular level of vitriol for Trump –  though I am well and truly disappointed. I can get not voting for Trump. Certain people I definitely respect for not doing so.

But this? This is childish and inane, not to mention frequently asinine. Forgetting anything else, the idea that Trump is anything close to a vote for Hilary is laughable to the point of ridiculousness. Also, saying “Trump is lying” over and over really isn’t anymore an argument than the reverse, whatever Larry seems to think.

Trump drives people insane. He’s become something of a litmus test for me: If your reaction to Trump is hysterics, beating your breast, tearing your clothes, and general virtue signalling…have fun in cloud cuckooland.

Question for Larry: Why are people supporting Trump?

If your answer is to insult the Trump supporters, guess what? You are the reason.

It amazes me that people don’t get that. Calling a very large group of people sheeple morons is, in fact, not going to get them on your side.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Larry Correia Loses Control

  1. Joseph Moore says:

    Here’s the thing: When I look at Trump, I do not see an outsider like Reagan, with a background as a union president and governor of the most populous state, whose career otherwise really had no bearing. Instead, I see an outsider like Kim Kardashian, someone who is famous for being famous, rich through family and connections and the exploitation of her fame. Next, when I hear Trump, I don’t hear someone working out their principles, I hear someone test-marketing ideas to see what gets people going.

    For me, these are high hurdles to overcome, but might be overcome with enough serious discussion. What I, for one – speaking only for myself and not defending anybody else – can’t get past: the dude has been a Democrat and a Hillary supporter, an off and on a Republican when he wasn’t. There seems to be no history of Trump having stood for anything other than Trump for his whole life. What I would expect seems to be what I get: a man with no principles that aren’t up for negotiation, giving no evidence of having reached any conclusions or indeed of having learned anything at all pertinent to the job he is seeking, who will say whatever fires up his base regardless of truth or even what he said last year or last week or yesterday. Unlike Reagan, who went through a clear change of mind as a result of his life experiences and gave some evidence of real principle (not a saint or anything, but at least consistent over years and decades) I see a man who never settled on anything until he finds out how it plays with the people he is trying to sell.

    Was Obama even more despicable and unqualified? Yes, of course – and I didn’t vote for him. Is it possible I might find myself voting for Trump this time around, as the lessor of two evils? Maybe, although I tremble to contemplate. What I can’t understand, and what I think Larry C can’t understand in his much more over the top way, is how anyone could support Trump with enthusiasm and conviction. Lesser of two evils? Defensible. Excellent candidate for President? Defies credulity.

    I don’t think Trump supporters are morons or sheeple or anything like that. I think they, like me and everybody else, are prone to fall for demagogues who tap into there very real wrongs and injustices they live through and hear about. Hell, I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time I voted, because I believed all the bad things they said about Reagan – I can hardly judge others for making what I think is a crazy political decision. The trouble is that demagogues use our unhappiness to get what they want – what we want is only important insofar as it gets the demagogue what he wants. This has been documented since the time of Socrates at least. Athenians, Romans, Chinese, Italians, French, Germans, English – all have fallen for strong seeming men who promise to fix things. That’s why I keep looking to Trump’s past for evidence of commitment to principle before he decided to run for President. It’s that lack that makes him unsupportable to me.

    • I get what you’re saying. Again, I have no problem with it. But Larry isn’t acting in an over the top way so much as in a completely insane way.

    • Also,

      Hell, I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time I voted, because I believed all the bad things they said about Reagan – I can hardly judge others for making what I think is a crazy political decision.

      Heh.

  2. GJ says:

    Calling a very large group of people sheeple morons is, in fact, not going to get them on your side.

    It doesn’t look to me like much of a loss of control, if any. Sure, Larry is denigrating a large group of people, but it seems pretty clear that he’s intentionally not devoting his efforts to swaying them but rather a much smaller group that are less decided. So mocking ‘sheeple’ isn’t counterproductive since he isn’t expecting to sway them anyway.

    • Saying “Well, all he’s doing is insulting them, not convincing them” isn’t really helping.

      • GJ says:

        No, I’m saying that he’s belittling them to convince other people. Just like how Vox Day picks apart some SJWs on his blog, exhibiting their flaws to sway people to his side.

      • No, I’m saying that he’s belittling them to convince other people.

        Then he’s doing an extremely poor job of it. He comes across as a lunatic. How many addendums has he added to that post? How many arguments has he made? How many people has he ACTUALLY QUOTED directly?

      • GJ says:

        Then he’s doing an extremely poor job of it. He comes across as a lunatic. How many addendums has he added to that post?

        Larry’s added as many addendums as types of terrible arguments or “arguments” he’s received since the original post. As he said originally, “I’ll come back periodically to see what fresh forms of bullshit these mealy mouthed motherfuckers have brought up to try and persuade us to vote for their amoral statist over the other amoral statist.”

        How many people has he ACTUALLY QUOTED directly?

        Actual Direct Quotes! My, you make it sound like this is a really completely serious formal dialectical debate.

      • Actual Direct Quotes! My, you make it sound like this is a really completely serious formal dialectical debate.

        You’re right – it’s a hysterical rant.

        There’s no rhetorical point here except that Correia looks insane.

  3. Crude says:

    That boy there is triggered.

    • Yeah.

      Joseph’s comments don’t really bother me. I think I disagree with them for a few reasons, but they’ve been explained in an intelligent way and I get what he’s saying. Really!

      But I don’t think we’re seeing the same thing with Larry Correia. What I’m seeing is a man picking fights with people so that he can insult them in a kind of virtue signalling. Not cool.

  4. Syllabus says:

    There are good reasons—well, no. There are non-stupid reasons to support Trump. And if Trump supporters primarily engaged in displaying those arguments rationally and coolly, this sort of response might be unwarranted.

    But they don’t. And from the tenor and content of Larry’s post, my suspicion is that, rather than just flying off the handle immediately with no prompting, this response is a result of a bunch of Trumpkins (by which I don’t mean “a generic Trump supporter”, but the kind of irrationalist, hyper-loyal devotee who buy into the “ONLY I CAN ____” spiel and depend it with the loyalty of a German Shepherd–which to be fair, is a pretty damn large proportion of his support) doing what they typically do and comporting themselves like right-wing SocJus people. So yeah, Larry’s pissed (and he’s got a bit of a temper anyway). But not illegitimately.

    [S]aying “Trump is lying” over and over really isn’t anymore an argument than the reverse, whatever Larry seems to think.

    I think both you and Larry are wrong here. That is, I think the notion that “Trump is lying” is wrong. To lie, you have to care about telling the truth, in some sense. Trump is bullshitting, in the technical, Harry-Frankfurt sense–he’s saying whatever the hell he thinks will get him elected. I think this is supported by the fact that, the second he clinched the GOP nom, he reverses course on the minimum wage, self-funding, tax increases on upper income quintile. He’s not quite lying, he’s just trying to con people who are fed up for very good reasons into supporting him, and so he’s just bullshitting all day, every day. The second Trump needs to run to the left to get votes, you can bet your ass he will.

    But though I think the notion that Trumps is straight-up lying is not very well supported by his record and statements, I do think that it’s a way, way better supported conclusion than “Trump intends to do everything he says he is going to do”, given the data set we’ve got. So Larry’s wrong, but not far wrong.

    • But they don’t.

      Keep in mind, I like you, when you read this response. I normally agree with you. So take it in that spirit, of someone who is not angry at you at all, when I say::

      Bullshit. Complete bullshit. I can point you to post after post, argument after argument, that would belie this point. It’s not true. Not at all.

      Larry’s response is hysterical panic. It’s ridiculous, and I’m not pretending otherwise.

      • Syllabus says:

        So take it in that spirit, of someone who is not angry at you at all, when I say:

        Short of effusive and continuous personal insults, I’m not really predisposed to get rankled by people disagreeing with or calling bullshit on me. So eh. I’m not offended.

        Bullshit. Complete bullshit. I can point you to post after post, argument after argument, that would belie this point. It’s not true. Not at all.

        If you’re talking about the Correia FB thread specifically, then I’ll freely admit that I haven’t examined it in detail. So you very well may be right. But if you’re speaking broadly about the tenor of Trump supporters (which is what I was)… I dunno man. I’ve seen enough rage-posting, Kool-Aid drinking, and downright stupidity from a lot of those people to think that it’s not a problem. This ranges from calling conservative Trump detractors traitors, leftists, “known Jews”, and all sorts of other bilge. So when Larry portrays them as whiners and morons, even though Larry has a tendency towards hyperbole and getting in a tizzy, my experience agrees enough with his portrayal that I find it credible.

        Now, that said, I think either you misread my post or I didn’t express myself well. So here’s some further clarification. By “they” in the segment you excerpted, I mean “Trump supporters in general,” not “the Trump supporters in the FB thread”. If you look at the the distinction below between Trump supporters and “Trumpkins”, that’ll bear that out. Now, admittedly, since this is in the context of a discussion of the thread, it’s entirely possible that I could have expressed myself better.

        And, see, you say that you can point me to multiple threads/arguments that show that Trump supporters can have rational, sustained discussions–but as per the very first line of my comments, I wouldn’t disagree. Crude, for instance, makes intelligent and non-idiotic points (his asshole-ishness and abrasiveness are a quirk of personality, not a result of being a Trump supporter, as I think he’d be the first person to admit), even though I take exception to them.

        But I’m not saying that no Trump supporters make intelligent cases for supporting them. I’m saying that, from my experience (and admittedly, that may not be a representative sample of his support), the vast majority of “arguments” made by Trump supporters are of the mouth-breathing kind, to the extent that they make arguments at all. That is, in my (admittedly, anecdotal) experience, a large proportion of admitted Trump supporters are Trumpkins.

        And that’s why I say “they don’t primarily engage in that”. Again, this is from my own experience; since I’m not really a blog/internet denizen of any degree of assiduousness, it’s entirely possible that there are a lot of people who don’t act that way. But a lot of them that I come across do, so if you tell me that they primarily do act that way… well, I’m going to call bullshit too, for roughly the same reason that you do.

      • In fact, I too meant Trump supporters in general.

        You’re dealing with a good deal of angry people, but I can point you to Crude, for one, Free Northerner, Jerry Pournelle, and, yeah, Vox Day. If you want to hear his exact argument, he made it awhile back.

        I can’t stand Scott Adams and think he’s a poser and a liar myself, but he’s made some good arguments as well.

        I don’t think the average person in general will be able to speak well about politics. I’m not convinced Trump is special in this way.

      • Crude says:

        I’ve seen enough rage-posting, Kool-Aid drinking, and downright stupidity from a lot of those people to think that it’s not a problem.

        ‘Trump Supporters’ comprises near half the country at this point. Of course you’re going to find stupidity in that group. I suggest you’d also find it in supporters of Romney and the Sad Puppies campaign as well. Note: not just the rabids. The very group Larry relied on and basically headed. Count the rabids, and I think you’re going to find a Venn diagram of Larry insulting quite a lot of the people who were responsible for the Puppies project yielding success.

        Idiots are important. Sad, but true.

        That said, I think Malcolm has Larry’s post fairly pegged as some kind of weird meltdown-freakout. It’d be one thing if it was a rant. It’d be another if he was slicing and dicing some particular rube’s argument. But at a glance, that’s just him going after whatever mouth-breathers upset him on Facebook, ranting and yelling at them. The Great Correian Cunt-offing. Okay; grant that he’s talking to idiots. All that shows is that you don’t need to be smart to make a guy lose his shit.

      • Syllabus says:

        Malcolm:

        You’re dealing with a good deal of angry people, but I can point you to Crude, for one, Free Northerner, Jerry Pournelle, and, yeah, Vox Day. If you want to hear his exact argument, he made it awhile back.

        Sure. Again, I think this is largely a function of which sample you’re looking at. I mean, I don’t really trust Vox’s judgment all that much, given some of the positions he has taken in fields I know stuff about (e.g., physics) but one character flaw you can’t attribute to him is stupidity.

        I don’t think the average person in general will be able to speak well about politics. I’m not convinced Trump is special in this way.

        Dude, I think that the majority of human history is best understood by accepting the maxim that “people are stupid”, so again, you’re not going to get an argument from me on the general point. I do think that there’s something distinctive about Trump’s campaign in this regard, as opposed to (say) Romney’s (see below), but we needn’t get into that too heavily.

        Crude:

        ‘Trump Supporters’ comprises near half the country at this point. Of course you’re going to find stupidity in that group.

        This is true, but it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning as “yes, of course Hillary Clinton is a crook and a liar, but aren’t all politicians?” or “Sure, Obama lied his ass off about [gay marriage, the ACA, take your pick], but all politicians lie to get into office!”. Both of these are to varying degrees true, but in both instances they obfuscate a great deal the fact that there is something distinctively mendacious and criminal about both of those people.

        And similarly, with Trump. The fact that once you have broad support you’re expected to have a few loonies is entirely true, but from what I’ve seen there seems to be a certain degree of… particularly, virulently stupid and worshipful support. To a degree which I find somewhat creepy. The veneration I see from a lot of people, like “Trump is the One True Alpha!” and “Anyone who opposes Trump is a traitor/cuck/whatever” and “Trump is the strongman we need and he alone can fix _____” and so forth, is something which looks (to me, anyway) pretty singular. The closest comparison was the collective orgasm the Left had over Obama in 2008, and the rabid attacks spewed onto detractors.

        And yeah, “Not all Trump supporters are like that,” I know. That’s not the point. In the same way that not all feminists are intersectionalists/Marxists, but the fact that enough of the prominent ones are that it’s just not really believable to say “NAFALT, now shut up”, I’m sceptical of the argument that the (to my eyes, abnormally large) amount of quasi-religious devotion to Trump is wholly irrelevant or is exactly the same as the crazies who have accompanied political campaigns since time immemorial. And then there’s the way in which a lot of Trump supporters seem to be oddly comfortable with anti-Semitic slurs, calling people who have mixed-race families race-traitors (sometimes literally in those words, sometimes in the context of “why do you support white genocide”), and just generally racist shitbaggery.

        I debated bringing that last point up, because these people may just be shit-posters or trolls, and thus not a representative sample, so it would be both incorrect and unfair to use this as characteristic. But the tenor (and often substance) of the actual campaign is one of a sort of American/white identity politics, which I have both philosophical and gut-level problems with. You can probably guess the philosophical problems pretty easily. As for the gut-level, I grew up in a cult-ish environment, and a lot of Trump support I see (again, on the common level, not by people like you or Pournelle or Scott Adams (though Vox sometimes gets a little close)) is starting to come disturbingly close to the kind of extreme clique-ish, collectivist behaviour I came up around. And that’s disturbing.

        Okay; grant that he’s talking to idiots. All that shows is that you don’t need to be smart to make a guy lose his shit.

        *shrugs* Fine. Larry’s kind of volatile, so I wouldn’t be disposed to saying that this is the thoroughly sane, rational, calm, perfectly justified response. ‘Sides, he did this all day every day to trolly lefties back when he ran SP last years.

      • Syllabus says:

        Ugh. Goddamn boldface command.

      • Crude says:

        Syllabus,

        This is true, but it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning as “yes, of course Hillary Clinton is a crook and a liar, but aren’t all politicians?” or “Sure, Obama lied his ass off about [gay marriage, the ACA, take your pick], but all politicians lie to get into office!”.

        I was talking about Trump’s supporters, not Trump. Are you trying to get me to admit that Hillary and Obama have a lot of stupid supporters too? I mean, twist my arm and I’ll grudgingly cop to it. Tough as it is to do.

        The fact that once you have broad support you’re expected to have a few loonies is entirely true, but from what I’ve seen there seems to be a certain degree of… particularly, virulently stupid and worshipful support. To a degree which I find somewhat creepy. The veneration I see from a lot of people, like “Trump is the One True Alpha!” and “Anyone who opposes Trump is a traitor/cuck/whatever” and “Trump is the strongman we need and he alone can fix _____” and so forth, is something which looks (to me, anyway) pretty singular.

        You realize a lot of these guys are kidding, right? I mean, yes, you will find people who call him God-Emperor Trump and do art like this, but if you think they’re dead serious, I’m afraid you’re being fucked with.

        For that matter, a good share of the guys saying ‘KNOWN JEW’ are fucking with you too.

        Obama’s worship didn’t come from anonymous nobodies. You had dead serious columnists writing about how Obama’s election was a kind of religious moment for them. Compare him to Sanders, even, where you have a lot of people squealing about how generous and awesome and amazing he is – good God a bird landed on his podium, it’s a sign from the Universe/Deity. Trump’s highest praise is “Look at him stumping everyone!” It’s a different scenario.

        In the same way that not all feminists are intersectionalists/Marxists, but the fact that enough of the prominent ones are

        Alright, I’m game. Show me the prominent Trump supporters who seriously regard him as God-Emperor – whatever it would mean to seriously do that. We can roll out academic feminists spouting some crazy-bitch shit with ease. You don’t have to roll up your sleeve and thrust your hand deep into a pile of reddit to find LGBT feminist nutjobs cracking out some serious psychomania. But with Trump? The highest praise you’re going to find is Scott Adams repeatedly saying Trump is extraordinarily persuasive and ‘thinking in 3d while his opponents think in 2d’. Quite a compliment, but considering Trump’s pretty much landed the nomination – and Adams was taking this tack way, way early – he seems on-target.

        By the way? It’s team #nevertrump that really seems to be losing their shit at the ‘prominent’ level. Glenn Beck was out there urging everyone to fast because the Lord God hath given us a choice between good and evil – Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, in case you were wondering who’s who there. National Review has just been one long bit of anti-Trump-SUPPORTER vitriol from start to finish. Where’s the pro-Trump ‘prominent’ version of this? The best you’re going to find is Milo Yiannopolous calling Trump ‘daddy’ in between jokes about sucking black cock.

        Maybe I’m wrong and I just missed it. It’s possible. Maybe someone at the level of at least Newt Gingrich is talking about how Trump is a savior, speaking with slavish devotion. But in the meantime I note that Ann Coulter – by far one of Trump’s most feverish supporters – openly talks exactly that way I’ve been talking when you get right down to it.

        and just generally racist shitbaggery.

        I’ve given up on caring about that, and I think many people are equally tired of it. They’re not my responsibility to police. Let me know when it goes out of fashion to talk about how white people are evil, or to squeal with glee about demographic trends in the US, or to squeal with glee at the idea that white people are upset at or feel threatened by something. If ‘these really reprehensible people support that candidate’ makes said candidate unelectable, then be ready to not even vote third party, since Ivanka’s an orthodox convert and I guarantee you that whatever inane third party candidate they float will get the endorsement of some handjobs talking about how the Jews ‘got to’ Trump.

        Either racists of all races are treated with equal contempt, or equal apathy. For now, apathy rules the day. Let me know when that changes.

  5. GJ says:

    Trump drives people insane. He’s become something of a litmus test for me: If your reaction to Trump is raving joy, hanging out flags, cracking the champagne, and general virtue signalling…have fun in cloud cuckooland.

    Question for Trumpkins: Why are people rejecting Trump?

    If your answer is to insult the Trump rejecters, guess what? You are the reason.

    It amazes me that people don’t get that. Calling a very large group of people sheeple morons is, in fact, not going to get them on your side.

    • It amazes me that people don’t get that. Calling a very large group of people sheeple morons is, in fact, not going to get them on your side.

      The difference is that this is wrong. I have never once said on Facebook or in public that I support Trump, I would lose friends, alienate family member,s potentially risk job opportunities.

      But everybody I know – everybody! – who opposes Trump is loud and proud about it.

      So, no. You can put it like that, but that’s not how it is.

      • GJ says:

        But that is what Trumpkins do with their raving joy etc, and Correia is directing his attacks at them (and incidentally not at you).

      • Compare Correia’s rhetoric to Vox Day’s to see what I mean. Vox actually DOES quote the people he’s attacking. His responses ,may be rhetorical, but he quotes them. And he comes off – true or not – as calm and in command of the situation.

        Correia does not. He comes off as a guy throwing a hissy fit because he hates a candidate. There’s no rhetoric there besides “Those guys are morons, right”.

        But I’ve been reading about and seeing a lot of rhetoric lately. This ain’t it, or if it is it, it’s really bad rhetoric.

      • If you’re saying Correia is not being provocative and having a hissy fit…I point to his blog as exhibit A of how, yeah, he definitely is.

        Correia is arguing with people on Facebook, and freaking out about it. This isn’t “Correia fisks a fool”. It’s “Correia’s lost it, because he really hates Trump”.

    • GJ says:

      I’m saying that there are masses of people on both ‘sides’ who are in cloud cuckooland, who react emotively, can’t argue themselves out of a paper bag on this issue, gravely insult the other side and be provocative while wondering why much of their audience doesn’t see how Obviously Right they are.

      You don’t fall into this category. But neither, it seems, does Larry Correia. (And yes, I do disagree he’s having a hissy fit in that post. It reminds me more of contemptuous amusement.)

      • I’m saying that there are masses of people on both ‘sides’ who are in cloud cuckooland, who react emotively, can’t argue themselves out of a paper bag on this issue, gravely insult the other side and be provocative while wondering why much of their audience doesn’t see how Obviously Right they are.

        Well, sure, yeah. But I’m not seeing contemptuous amusement. Vox shows contemptuous amusement. Scott Adams is pretty good as well. Even Crude’s not bad.

        Correia just keeps linking to idiots he argues with on Facebook, and responds by insulting them. An insult is not rhetoric in and of itself. And that post? It’s not directed at people on the fence. It’s virtue signalling to people who agree with him.

      • …I will thank you for the compliment hidden in the middle there, though. Much appreciated.

      • GJ says:

        As Correia himself wrote early on, “Why waste time responding to bullshit individually, when I can just respond to all the tired bullshit up here once? It is like an industrial bullshit thresher!”

        And this is what he has done, summarising or paraphrasing many types of common responses (that I’ve also seen in other comment threads) and giving each a response. He has at least one rational goal and is achieving it. For example, subsequently he can point others to that post with ‘I’ve already addressed this here’ which will shut down >80% of the Trumpkins since they can’t argue.

        Well, sure, yeah. But I’m not seeing contemptuous amusement. Vox shows contemptuous amusement. Scott Adams is pretty good as well. Even Crude’s not bad.

        Vox and Adams are good at detached contemptuous amusement (I’m not including Crude because I haven’t read enough of his comments). Larry’s post is of a different sort where he is clearly angry and attached to the issue yet is able to ‘ride the anger’ instead of being ridden; he is still clearly in control.

        And that post? It’s not directed at people on the fence. It’s virtue signalling to people who agree with him.

        There are many intentions behind that post, some of which are explicitly stated in the post themselves, e.g.

        a) For posterity’s sake. This /is/ an interesting time, and those are interesting discussions.
        b) So that he can reply to all the tired arguments in one posts
        c) So that he can mock them, and show how ridiculous they are
        d) No ‘Last Word’ games
        e) etc…

  6. Let me put it this way: I was very mad and disappointed, of course, when Obama was elected President.

    And even me – a fairly cantankerous and outspoken blogger who isn’t particularly worried about offending people – never had a reaction even close to this histrionic.

    • GJ says:

      I am seriously considering the hypothesis that you are just projecting, that you believe that no one can make such a response and not be melting down while doing so, that no one can express frustration and anger in such a manner without losing a significant amount of control. Larry is clearly emotional, yes, but he’s not in any way being irrational.

      • I am seriously considering the hypothesis that you are just projecting, that you believe that no one can make such a response and not be melting down while doing so, that no one can express frustration and anger in such a manner without losing a significant amount of control.

        If that’s where you’re going with this, believe what you want. If you think this is some psychological projection thing, then literally nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.

  7. Keep in mind, too – Up to here, at least, I LIKED Larry Correia. I don’t think he’s a bad guy now, either. I’ll happily review and give a positive review to his books. But I think he’s said some dumb stuff here.

    • (And, for all my praise in this thread, I have next to no respect for Scott Adams, who in the past has admittedly (after being caught) sock-puppeted and right now comes off as saying shit he doesn’t really know about while acting like he knew it all all along. But I think he’s made some smart comments in between the bullshit – and, admittedly, he did indeed predict Trump’s rise, whatever else you say about him.)

    • GJ says:

      But I think he’s said some dumb stuff here.

      Actual Direct Quotes please, malcolm! Otherwise you’re just virtue signalling.

      And how do you expect to convince Larry when you’re insulting him?

      [/sarcasm]

      • If you want to do that…Do you disagree with my claim that he said a vote for Trump is like a vote for Hilary? Is this wrong?

        Also note: I linked to the post. And even responded – quite politely – in the first Trump thread he posted after Trump won the nomination. Several of his commenters called me a liar and insulted me rather nastily.

        Look, you can pretend that what I’m doing here is somehow comparable to what Larry’s doing…but it isn’t.

  8. GJ says:

    If you want to do that…Do you disagree with my claim that he said a vote for Trump is like a vote for Hilary? Is this wrong?
    I don’t see it anywhere in that post.

    Also note: I linked to the post.
    That seems to make a difference to you, but I don’t see it.

    Look, you can pretend that what I’m doing here is somehow comparable to what Larry’s doing…but it isn’t.

    Actually, given your descriptions of Larry’s post (e.g. “childish”, “inane”, “asinine”, “laughable”, “completely insane”, “coming across as a lunatic”, “hysterical rant”, “hysterical panic”, “picking fights”, “virtue signalling”) it seems like you’re being much more irrational than he is. You’re certainly protesting too much, methinks.

    I’ve read a lot of irrational rants about Trump, and savoured the tears within. That post of Larry isn’t one of them.

    • Crude says:

      Actually, given your descriptions of Larry’s post (e.g. “childish”, “inane”, “asinine”, “laughable”, “completely insane”, “coming across as a lunatic”, “hysterical rant”, “hysterical panic”, “picking fights”, “virtue signalling”) it seems like you’re being much more irrational than he is.

      Doesn’t seem that way at all to me. More ‘apt description’.

      I’ve read a lot of irrational rants about Trump, and savoured the tears within. That post of Larry isn’t one of them.

      Cool. Got a link to an irrational rant about Trump about which you savored the tears?

      • GJ says:

        Doesn’t seem that way at all to me. More ‘apt description’.

        I don’t see it and I’m not in any way on the anti-Trump side.

        Cool. Got a link to an irrational rant about Trump about which you savored the tears?
        http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/01/on_trump.html

      • Crude says:

        I don’t see it and I’m not in any way on the anti-Trump side.

        Didn’t say you were. But ‘over the course of many comments, Malcolm used different words that all mostly mean the same thing’ doesn’t seem persuasive here. It means he’s got a larger vocabulary.

        http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/01/on_trump.html

        What, the OP? You can’t mean that. It’s long, and it’s wrong, but it’s not a meltdown freakout. And I’m not exactly a WWWtW fan.

        What did you savour here? Where’s the panic and anguish? Maybe you mean something in the comments section.

      • GJ says:

        Please tell me you have something more than some kind of disqualification based on my taste in tears.

      • Crude says:

        Please tell me you have something more than some kind of disqualification based on my taste in tears.

        Disqualify? No, if you tell me ‘Larry typing “WAHHHHHH” over and over, that’s calm reason from a thoughtful soul. Team WWWtW writing a lengthy, if wrongheaded piece explaining their dislike of Trump? Mmmm, tears, mmmm.”, that’s your prerogative.

        I’m just waiting for the spelling out. What was irrational? What were those tears you savored?

        Here, I’ll help you out:

        The Left’s open embrace of lying as a legitimate alternative to persuasion seems to have found its corollary in Trumpism, which can be reduced roughly to the belief that “real” conservatism can find its strength in the abandonment of reason and, with it, whatever remains of the standards of uprightness in public behavior.

        Cue GJ going ‘Mmmm, yesssss tearsssss, me likey anguishy’?

        That about right?

      • GJ says:

        Do come back when you have something more.

      • GJ,

        Crude has a point. That you find the WWWtW argument laughable but Larry’s post reasonable seems odd at best.

      • Crude says:

        That you find the WWWtW argument laughable but Larry’s post reasonable seems odd at best.

        And I think I can reasonably say ‘I’m not a likely candidate for going easy on WWWtW, or particularly hard on Larry’.

        Odd at best seems about right.

      • GJ says:

        Seriously?

        That W^4 piece was all ‘we are bewildered and dismayed and all, and Trump is crap and terrible and really crap, and let’s by the way juxtapose him to a homicidal warlord, and Trumpism is , but we’re very very sure Trump won’t win. Vote Cruz’

        You (plural) seem caught up with style over substance, where ‘WAHHHHH’ is supposed to clearly reveal Larry’s irrationality despite his generally effective takedown of many pro-trump talking points, while W^4’s erudition is supposed to indicate calm rationality or something other than dressed-up flailing.

      • Please, tell me about the effective takedown of pro-Trump talking points, because I didn’t see it.

      • GJ says:

        Please tell me how Larry has lost control in general, or about particulars like “he said a vote for Trump is like a vote for Hilary”, because I didn’t see it.

      • I’m saying he DIDN’T take down talking points effectively. That does, indeed, make his post effectively “WAAAAAAH”.

      • Crude says:

        while W^4’s erudition is supposed to indicate calm rationality or something other than dressed-up flailing.

        Because being wrong, or even approaching an issue the entirely wrong way, isn’t automatically panicky, triggered flailing, just as being ultimately right about an issue doesn’t mean a person has their shit together.

        WWWtW’s post was wrong, but a flailing panic-attack, it wasn’t. Just garden-variety wrong. It happens. Throw in fourteen edits of them frantically lashing out at any criticisms and now maybe we’re seeing a descent into a meltdown.

  9. From Larry:

    Fuck those guys. They’ve proven over the last few months they’re too stupid to live anyway.
    But why do I think his reaction is over the top and histrionic? WHY?

    ‘Tis a mystery.

    Larry:

    Trump is Clinton in an Oompa Loompa costume.

    But where did he say a vote for Trump is equivalent to a vote for Hilary? I certainly don’t see it.

    • GJ says:

      “I started responding down there, but you know what? Fuck those guys. They’ve proven over the last few months they’re too stupid to live anyway. Why waste time responding to bullshit individually, when I can just respond to all the tired bullshit up here once?”

      So instead of engaging with his commenters in the comment section, he goes ‘screw that’ , gives up on responding to them there on this topic, and instead does so in the post so that he doesn’t have to repeat himself futher. Have I mentioned that being angry and frustrated doesn’t necessarily imply irrational?

      “Trump is Clinton in an Oompa Loompa costume.”

      But where did he say a vote for Trump is equivalent to a vote for Hilary? I certainly don’t see it.

      Ah, I missed that because I was looking for the word ‘vote’ when I was skimming through.

      So, what’s the big deal? Larry believes that they’re both ‘amoral statist authoritarian liberals’, (which incidentally they are), and seems to believe that that’s the important similarity and not whatever policies they promote. (Yes, he misses out how important nationalism has become, and is still stuck in the libertarian delusion about how any politician running for presidency can be non statist but these are common blinders that come with that worldview.)

      • So instead of engaging with his commenters in the comment section, he goes ‘screw that’ , gives up on responding to them there on this topic, and instead does so in the post so that he doesn’t have to repeat himself futher. Have I mentioned that being angry and frustrated doesn’t necessarily imply irrational?

        Sure. It’s not that he’s angry and frustrated. It’s that he’s insulting people, engaging with apparently a billion facebook commenters he considers idiots, and has basically acted like the crybabies he is supposedly denigrating.

        You said earlier that you think I might have been projecting. Thinking on it further, I’m not even sure what you mean like that. Do you mean that if I wrote in the same manner that Larry is writing I would consider it an irrational reaction by me?

        Isn’t my point that the way Larry is writing is what makes him sound like a petulant infant? So yeah, if I wrote in a way that made me look like a petulant infant, than I would indeed look like a petulant infant.

  10. I have an explanation as to why Larry responded as he did, and as soon as I write that post, probably later this week I will link here and you can see if you agree. It’s theorizing more widely about conservatives, but it has the benefit of explaining a lot of the Cruz supporters’ hysteria over Trump. I do think there is rime to his unreason.

    • Randy P. says:

      Yes, of all the different voting groups out there, I didn’t expect the Cruz supporters to fall to TDS so easily. The establishment has fought harder against Trump than they ever did against Obama.

  11. Aethelfrith says:

    Trump is a litmus test for me, too. When I hear that someone will pull for Trump despite all of the latter’s misdeeds, signs of bad character, bloviations, and general criminality, it tells me that that person is willing to let wishful thinking override his reason.

    I don’t think Trump will even accomplish a tenth of what he promised (and will accomplish even less of what his nuttier supporters think he will) and thus at the end of the day will just another deceiving politician.

    Look at how the rhetoric over him has changed somewhat; it’s not that Trump will “make America great again” but that Trump will “destroy the GOP establishment.”

    Simply put, Trump is troll and his victory (if it happens) will be a victory for 4Chan politics. That gives me great pause to shudder.

    • Trump is a litmus test for me, too. When I hear that someone will pull for Trump despite all of the latter’s misdeeds, signs of bad character, bloviations, and general criminality, it tells me that that person is willing to let wishful thinking override his reason.
      I’m disappointed you have so little respect for me.

      My litmus test, funnily enough, is not “Do you support Trump or not?”. It’s “Does Trump make you go into paroxysms of rage and fear?”.

      But your litmus test is “Do you pull for Trump?”

      Tell me: If you think so little of me, why should I, bluntly, give a shit what you think?

      • Aethelfrith says:

        >Tell me: If you think so little of me, why should I, bluntly, give a shit what you think?

        I am just expressing my opinion. Whether you care or not is none of my concern.

        And nice little misrepresentation there. You make it sound like my litmus test is for Trump supporters without qualification. My actual litmus test is for Trump supporters who should know better.

        It’s the fable about the farmer and the viper; Trump is the viper and you’re the farmer.

      • And nice little misrepresentation there. You make it sound like my litmus test is for Trump supporters without qualification. My actual litmus test is for Trump supporters who should know better.

        So, Trump supporters who know the facts, weigh the options, and come to a decision you disagree with, are willing to let wishful thinking override their reason.

        But if they support Trump blindly while doing no research, well, you’re not blaming THEM.

        Yeah, okay, he said sarcastically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s