ProudKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 8:16pm:


Consider it done.

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 8:29pm:

Ah, Krusty Keyboards is here to hold your... Er... whatsis.
And Uncle Pedestrian, too.

How you all frolick!

freediver wrote Today at 5:19am:


Is this a question, FD, or a pretend answer?

Frank wrote Yesterday at 8:32pm:


No, I'm trying to establish where, if anywhere, the line actually is with you.

It's not easy, because the things you routinely support, excuse, or actively defend here rank among the most vile positions one can take in public without shame. I had genuinely hoped your ban might have forced a moment of reflection. I even disabled the scripts that automatically hide your Babylon Bee posts, on the off chance there was a possibility of engaging with you in something resembling a respectful exchange. Instead, you came straight back out of the gate with the same adolescent name-calling.

So yes, I feel stupid for thinking you might have changed. Not mildly stupid, profoundly so. And that line, it becomes harder to see when you set it against the catalogue of behaviour you've excused, ignored, or outright defended from Trump alone, a man who you have defended when he:

Bragged about sexually assaulting women
Walked in on teenage girls changing at Miss Teen USA pageants
Faced multiple allegations of sexual assault and rape
Was found liable for sexual abuse in civil court
Engaged in repeated infidelity and paid hush money to conceal affairs
Accumulated felony convictions
Collected dozens of criminal indictments across multiple jurisdictions
Mocked a disabled reporter on stage
Told thousands of documented lies
Claimed the 2020 election was stolen without evidence
Pressured state officials to "find" votes
Attempted to overturn a democratic election
Incited, then defended, the January 6 Capitol attack
Labelled January 6 rioters "patriots" and promised pardons
Refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power
Praised authoritarian leaders, Putin, Kim Jong-un, Orban, Duterte
Floated suspending parts of the Constitution
Encouraged violence at rallies
Suggested police brutality as policy
Used overtly racist rhetoric about immigrants
Implemented family separation at the border with no reunification plan
Amplified extremist and QAnon-adjacent content
Personally attacked judges, jurors, prosecutors, and witnesses
Undermined public health during COVID
Withheld disaster aid from political opponents
Used the presidency for personal profit
Retained classified documents and obstructed their return
Attacked Gold Star families
Insulted POWs and veterans
Threatened political opponents with prosecution
Normalised corruption and loyalty tests
Deliberately undermined trust in elections, courts, media, and democratic institutions
Protected child abusers and sex traffickers

And that's just Trump.

Layered on top of that is your own routine racism and your default reliance on abuse when faced with anyone who doesn't think exactly as you do.

So yes, even you should be able to see why it's difficult to determine where the line is with you, if it exists at all, right Cock Sucker?

Frank wrote Today at 9:07am:


Calling something "hysteria" instead of engaging with its substance isn't analysis, it's avoidance.

There's that word again.

Also, describing something as "erratic hysteria" while simultaneously calling it a "tactic" is a direct contradiction. Which is it meant to be, a psychological flaw marked by emotional instability, irrationality and loss of control, or a deliberate, calculated manipulation?

Trying to have it both ways isn't analysis, it's incoherence. The label just shifts depending on which version is more convenient at the time.

The more telling point, though, is that you haven't even paused to interrogate what you're repeating, let alone whether it makes sense. You've simply regurgitated it because it feels useful, not because it withstands even minimal scrutiny.

That, more than anything else, explains why the substance keeps being avoided.

When facts, documents, and timelines become inconvenient, the response is entirely predictable, pathologise the speaker and hope no one notices the evidence sitting there unanswered.

The sleight of hand is transparent. Raise arguments persistently and it's labelled "erratic". Raise them coherently and it's dismissed as a "tactic". Either way, the objective is the same, avoid addressing whether the claims are true. Tone becomes a substitute for rebuttal, and amateur psychology is wheeled out where counter-evidence is absent.

Invoking a media hit-piece about rhetorical style doesn't strengthen your position, it merely confirms the problem. You're not disputing claims, you're critiquing delivery. That's not scrutiny, it's deflection.

That's avoidance.

If you think something I've said is wrong, identify the error and explain why. If you can't, dressing that failure up as "hysteria" doesn't make it disappear, it just makes the dodge more obvious.

Now if you want some analysis of one's posting style, this does a great job at describing you and many others here, if not the greater conservative movement: