i am begining to believe that it is political at lit to post even towards the edgy...

[cleaver]

the old gb has become
a stroke fest
for the
needy and damaged
and the safe
and the fluffy
and the old granddad
with a butter knife
sharpened
for clay

god knows what goes on here?

i'm comfortable with what i'm uncomfortable about
re: politics

and i know the cocktails that most of the bars here serve...

still, as a potential buyer in this neighborhood,
is this board open for more controversial subjects
re: sex
and gender
and psychological issues
and exclusions?

is it true you fuckers killed vetteman?
and brush-brushed the trail behind the retreat of the jim guy?

 

[PoppingTom]

Yes.

Wise words.

 

[cleaver]

Yes.

Wise words.

thank you

was beginning to also believe that the crickets here
had no eyes

 

[Que]

the old gb has become
a stroke fest
for the
needy and damaged
and the safe
and the fluffy
and the old granddad
with a butter knife
sharpened
for clay

god knows what goes on here?

i'm comfortable with what i'm uncomfortable about
re: politics

and i know the cocktails that most of the bars here serve...

still, as a potential buyer in this neighborhood,
is this board open for more controversial subjects
re: sex
and gender
and psychological issues
and exclusions?

is it true you fuckers killed vetteman?
and brush-brushed the trail behind the retreat of the jim guy?

The sage Roscoe enlightened me once to the concept that a lot of what seemed to be posturing with the feathers of politics attached was standard male chest puffing for the benefit of nubiles.

That paradigm shift has colored how I look at a lot of posts on the GB, and now here.

Segmenting the "displays" to here has proved him remarkably prescient.

One poster in particular, that I maintain probably simply "picked" a political "side" that he felt appealed to nubiles posts here occasionally, but not with the verve and drive he did when such displays were conducted on the GB before a greater incidence of nubiles. That poster has experimented briefly with an Alt so as to engage in display on the GB, while not walking back his insistence (at the time) that sending the obnoxious political posters from there to here was to be a good thing. As if he, himself was not such a poster.

That is but one example about how posting styles and patterns changed.

Vetteman was consistent, there and here. I see him as a bit of a polarized thinker. I suspect he would call it consistent. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and so forth. His sense or right would mean that if the "rules" required he relegate all political discourse to this place, he would comply.

This meant that even threads that he did not start on the GB that were clearly political in nature should not be participated in. He is not one that requires the backing of the choir to voice his opinions. But it does get tiresome when from your point of view the entire building is off-key.

The entire site leans hard left. Much more so than the general population, especially amongst males. Statistically there are far more liberal males than there ought to be. My working theory is there are some that are active, involved, thoughtful male posters who are liberal here and with their friends, co-workers and acquaintances.

I suspect a good 1/2 of the "progressive" voices piling on are simply a-political neophytes that just think that hippie chicks are easy, so they go to the peace rally in hopes of a nubile being impressed with his display of chest thumping.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The sage Roscoe enlightened me once to the concept that a lot of what seemed to be posturing with the feathers of politics attached was standard male chest puffing for the benefit of nubiles.

That paradigm shift has colored how I look at a lot of posts on the GB, and now here.

Segmenting the "displays" to here has proved him remarkably prescient.

One poster in particular, that I maintain probably simply "picked" a political "side" that he felt appealed to nubiles posts here occasionally, but not with the verve and drive he did when such displays were conducted on the GB before a greater incidence of nubiles. That poster has experimented briefly with an Alt so as to engage in display on the GB, while not walking back his insistence (at the time) that sending the obnoxious political posters from there to here was to be a good thing. As if he, himself was not such a poster.

That is but one example about how posting styles and patterns changed.

Vetteman was consistent, there and here. I see him as a bit of a polarized thinker. I suspect he would call it consistent. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and so forth. His sense or right would mean that if the "rules" required he relegate all political discourse to this place, he would comply.

This meant that even threads that he did not start on the GB that were clearly political in nature should not be participated in. He is not one that requires the backing of the choir to voice his opinions. But it does get tiresome when from your point of view the entire building is off-key.

The entire site leans hard left. Much more so than the general population, especially amongst males. Statistically there are far more liberal males than there ought to be. My working theory is there are some that are active, involved, thoughtful male posters who are liberal here and with their friends, co-workers and acquaintances.

I suspect a good 1/2 of the "progressive" voices piling on are simply a-political neophytes that just think that hippie chicks are easy, so they go to the peace rally in hopes of a nubile being impressed with his display of chest thumping.

I come from folks who stand their ground and don't retreat...ever. And we usually prevail because most people compromise and piss away principles. Back in 1979 I failed an FCC exam 7 times before I passed it, I was expelled from my university for an abysmal GPA (like .05 it was remarkable), but I hold 2 Masters Degrees from the same school. Defeat and ass whippings mean nothing to me. Recall Cool Hand Luke and Dragline fighting? That's me. You gotta kill me, and the lone man who tried to is dead.

So I don't buy the bravado thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

 

[DesEsseintes]

I come from folks who stand their ground and don't retreat...ever. And we usually prevail because most people compromise and piss away principles. Back in 1979 I failed an FCC exam 7 times before I passed it, I was expelled from my university for an abysmal GPA (like .05 it was remarkable), but I hold 2 Masters Degrees from the same school. Defeat and ass whippings mean nothing to me. Recall Cool Hand Luke and Dragline fighting? That's me. You gotta kill me, and the lone man who tried to is dead.

So I don't buy the bravado thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

That's right, Jimbo. Because nothing you just posted sounds remotely like bravado.

 

[Que]

I come from folks who stand their ground and don't retreat...ever. And we usually prevail because most people compromise and piss away principles. Back in 1979 I failed an FCC exam 7 times before I passed it, I was expelled from my university for an abysmal GPA (like .05 it was remarkable), but I hold 2 Masters Degrees from the same school. Defeat and ass whippings mean nothing to me. Recall Cool Hand Luke and Dragline fighting? That's me. You gotta kill me, and the lone man who tried to is dead.

So I don't buy the bravado thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

I would count you as one with your own integrity. People misunderstand the word integrity and think it means the sort of character traits they think they ought to be seen as having. It doesn't. It simply means ones thoughts, actions and words are congruent with each other. I don't approve of your racist views, but I tend to believe they are a part of what defines you and I seriously doubt the idea that some have that you are at all different in any other environment.

I suspect you get a grin out of riling people up by expressing those views loudly and often, but I don't see that as your absolute defining quest in life.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I would count you as one with your own integrity. People misunderstand the word integrity and think it means the sort of character traits they think they ought to be seen as having. It doesn't. It simply means ones thoughts, actions and words are congruent with each other. I don't approve of your racist views, but I tend to believe they are a part of what defines you and I seriously doubt the idea that some have that you are at all different in any other environment.

I suspect you get a grin out of riling people up by expressing those views loudly and often, but I don't see that as your absolute defining quest in life.

What people miss with me is this: I go with the odds when I bet. I have black grandchildren who are superlative citizens and performers, they aren't niggers, because they embrace standards and attiudes the best of us hold and value. They kick ass in the classroom and on the playing field. And theyre treated like princes by all because they act like princes. I had to remind my grand daughter she's half white and stigmatized by her biology...8 of her ancestors were CSA warriors, and several were large slave owners. It takes the wind from her militant sails. I wasnt always
a racist, it took many darkies to change my thinking about their crew. Discounting them works better than excusing them.

The other thing with me is I literally fight for justice. IRL I don't abandon people when right is unpopular, and doing right has cost me plenty.

 

[cleaver]

query,
i've pondered your thoughtful first post over night
and...

whilst i cannot disagree with the general observations,
and indeed, quite agree as to the chameleon like displays
of the e-cooch sniffers...

i'm more, perhaps, convinced that the excise
of the "political" threads
took with it
the very dentures that provided much of the bite
in the gb...

and... as i have been ever so subtly murmuring for years....
that is a direct result of grassroots politics.

the gb has become gentrified through redlining.

no.
this is not the point i am trying to foist any further with my op.
i do not necessarily need to lament any damn thing...
but...

i am still stymied by the definition... the redline...
the what makes it political/what says it is not?

for example:
this very instant, these issues cloud the front page of the gb:

pro life/pro choice - by dolf
667+ views

Hands Up, Don't Discriminate Against Gays! - by miles
339+ views


Does anyone here think we should trust Iran? - by miles
177+ views

Obama, Kerry Coddle Iran While Betraying Our Allies - by miles
652+ views


LGBT wants to close Church,s that don't perform same sex marriage - by busybody

39+ views

Sowing the seeds of our own destruction! #1 language of all new arrivals? ARABIC! - by busybody
31+ views

NEWSFLASH! if you don't like your job at McDonalds - get a different job - by neverendingme
21+ views​

and any number of less obvious thread offerings
that have direct political implication
or motivation...

social issues are politic.
race issues are politic
class and income issues are politic
and politics are politic

and yet...

hmmmmm...?

i'm ridiculously bored by the swirling cotton candy
reddit rehashes
clubby mysticism
faux drama with pigtail dipping
and reno trailer line-ups
that seem to populate the gb
now...

and i'm not really overly intrigued by the somewhat civil incivility
"contained" here...

hmmmmm? again....

and the proof that these gerrymandered issue boards seem to....
or rather,
that the gb craves something of which
this district
is supposed to contain...

i simply wonder
and genuinely consider
that,
perhaps it is only a point of personal perspective....

and that the "that" which once intrigued me so
is not gone, but simply... no longer intriguing...


please pardon the ramble...

it is my purview, i think, to do so here....
subject always to commentary

 

[KingOrfeo]

still, as a potential buyer in this neighborhood,
is this board open for more controversial subjects
re: sex
and gender
and psychological issues
and exclusions?

Sure. Post a thread on any of those topics and somebody will discuss it. But, it should focus on the political aspects. E.g., whether people are born gay or transsexual, or made so by environmental factors or their own choice, is purely a scientific question, though the answer may have political implications.

 

[miles]

Cleaver has way too much time on his hands. He needs a hobby to keep his hands busy.

 

[cleaver]

jbj

i cannot help but read you as a character

and so,
find it extremely difficult to respond to any cogent fragment of issue that might get through...

it is not unlike how
i always read vette as a blogger
whose true belief served with personal bitterness
always clouded the greater
and oft times interesting pov(s)
for which i had a tangential affinity.

i found vette's dogmatic approach to almost any button issue
more subject to critical review than
the issue itself.

oft times,
as a conscientious conservative,
i found vette's vociferous scriptlike yammer
more detrimental to the issue in question
than any of the merits

by the end, vette had gotten so much in his own way that...
a ghetto like this one
seemed inevitable...

that it became one de jure
codified what had already become de facto...

numbers (many numbers)
simply passed over any political-ish post/thread
he wrote

the peeps would still go ga-ga over the pictures...
the fucker could snap a shutter

your presentations though...(?)

though not at all, all that dissimilar
are sometimes a bit less disturbing...

perhaps because i cannot read you as absolutely genuine.

my general political leanings are far closer to what yours purport to be
than the general lit "concensus"

i do get it that your presentation is constructed to incite
and to inflame.
your avowed race-ism is painful to read
and just as painful to 'understand' by the rubrics you present...
and
your unabashed blurtations do exactly what they are constructed to do...
which, strangely...
i endorse...

it is political and speech and... though disturbing... not in the least bit threatening because,
despite the well constructed backstory....
i cannot read you as real...

you are more colbert to me
than crumudgeon
nor...
or rather,
not as real (and as painfully pitiful at times) as a vette...?
for i believe that vette firmly believed in the positions he espoused
and just in the twisted way he voiced them here

your style of presentation ?
like vette's, to me, precludes almost any kernal of an issue at hand...
the character clouds the underlying premises...

is it to denigrate the right - for that's what it does?

so be it.

i just do not get the why?

is it thrill enough to be the grumpy guy in the trailer who can say what he wants and stand firm in the wash of whatever it is we should call this act?

is it thrill enough to write this character?

or, do you truly believe that to say your piece as you say it is enough?

are you zombie hunting the last few avowed conservatives here who are neither "shamed" nor converted into that other bunch of right thinkers?

i can respect all of that...
this is a place of many many fictions

but as a place to sway greater politics?

we are all the birds query mentioned in his first post here
just puffing all up for different prey...

i do want to understand you;
the writer who writes you...
for it reads entertainingly well...
i just find it extremely difficult to take you at any thing near face value?

which, unfortunately undermines at values i have come to hold
and can withstand almost all other scrutiny but obvious ignorance?

 

[cleaver]

Cleaver has way too much time on his hands. He needs a hobby to keep his hands busy.

thanks miles.
you are probably correct.

i tell myself the very same thing
almost every time i come to this neck of the woods...

good to have game keepers such as yourself
ever vigilant
to clip the weeds

should there be a topic on the agenda
other than the me's?

 

[RobDownSouth]

There seems to be quite a bit of angst in this thread.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

could not get a word in
they cried
toxic and overwhelming
they cried
it was, what it was
vette became what he is

I chose a side
What was, was lost
I had second thoughts
What have I done ?

A weaker brew is offered,
after the loss

Life's Blood ?

Much was spilled before

Ghosts of all kinds haunt
each velvet roped section

The nursery of stars
was once another world
out of the dust
new hope

the old gb has become
a stroke fest
(love speaks, anti-love speaks)


for the
needy and damaged
and the safe
and the fluffy
and the old granddad
with a butter knife
sharpened
for clay
(as always)

god knows what goes on here?

i'm comfortable with what i'm uncomfortable about
re: politics

and i know the cocktails that most of the bars here serve...

still, as a potential buyer in this neighborhood,

is this board open for more controversial subjects
re: sex
and gender
and psychological issues
and exclusions?

ask the question!

is it true you fuckers killed vetteman?
and brush-brushed the trail behind the retreat of the jim guy?

I would not know, I am not privy to whispers
too wispy, a tattered mist, I never materialized

 

[Que]

Several of the threads you cited were by posters who simply refused to be shuttled off to this place that they view as a thought-ghetto.

Because the fight for whether to have this place or not devolved to the majority (left leaning) crowing victory about putting "those people' (on the right) in "their place," it set up an insurmountable dynamic.

Initially I was for it before I was against it, as they say. I liked the idea that anyone posting in a "political thread" -however one defines that- would have to own their involvement. All too many of the dilettantes that have made a career here of bomb throwing claimed they did so because the premise of a thread or the mere presence of a thread was somehow offensive.

For them to come here and discuss things shows that they at least agree that a topic is worthy of discussion, and it forces them to have something to say.

Several of the combatants are just that. Self-appointed grenade throwers. One in particular does very little substantive critique, he waits until someone else has counted coup then rushes in to slap one of his preprinted memes on as he dances with the "winning side."

Looks even more contrived when he would come all the way over here to do it, so my initial feel for what this change would mean was somewhat correct.

One of the failings of having it here is that there are posters who have interesting things to say that might browse and reject 8 out of ten "political" themes but have something to say on a couple. Now that happens less.

There are those on the right that do yeoman's duty keeping the volume up of having threads that slant the way they like to see, but for sheer numbers the left has more shock troops.

I realize that the left is just as certain that the right lives in an echo chamber as the right is about the left. I think it is demonstrably true that the left has more sloganeering and less substance to their arguments. The proof of that is the rabid interest in any new platform for the left be it left talk radio, left slanted news, left-slanted opinion shows. After a very very short time, they have spouted all the slogans congratulated themselves and there is very little left to say.

When one gets in the weeds and wonkish on policy, numbers and just plain math, a lot of the Utopian ideas, though well intentioned do not survive that sort of line-item discussion, so they run out of steam.

So it is here. Threads started by sincere progressives that feel they have a point of view trail off pretty quickly unless it devolves to a slug-fest with no substance.

As far as your other musing about what is political, Laurelle wisely avoided making it mandatory, I suspect partly because she tries to be even-handed, but as a practical matter, any thread can take a turn for the political. Life is political, and politics touches every area of life, especially in modern times.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Several of the threads you cited were by posters who simply refused to be shuttled off to this place that they view as a thought-ghetto.

Because the fight for whether to have this place or not devolved to the majority (left leaning) crowing victory about putting "those people' (on the right) in "their place," it set up an insurmountable dynamic.

Initially I was for it before I was against it, as they say. I liked the idea that anyone posting in a "political thread" -however one defines that- would have to own their involvement. All too many of the dilettantes that have made a career here of bomb throwing claimed they did so because the premise of a thread or the mere presence of a thread was somehow offensive.

For them to come here and discuss things shows that they at least agree that a topic is worthy of discussion, and it forces them to have something to say.

Several of the combatants are just that. Self-appointed grenade throwers. One in particular does very little substantive critique, he waits until someone else has counted coup then rushes in to slap one of his preprinted memes on as he dances with the "winning side."

Looks even more contrived when he would come all the way over here to do it, so my initial feel for what this change would mean was somewhat correct.

One of the failings of having it here is that there are posters who have interesting things to say that might browse and reject 8 out of ten "political" themes but have something to say on a couple. Now that happens less.

There are those on the right that do yeoman's duty keeping the volume up of having threads that slant the way they like to see, but for sheer numbers the left has more shock troops.

I realize that the left is just as certain that the right lives in an echo chamber as the right is about the left. I think it is demonstrably true that the left has more sloganeering and less substance to their arguments. The proof of that is the rabid interest in any new platform for the left be it left talk radio, left slanted news, left-slanted opinion shows. After a very very short time, they have spouted all the slogans congratulated themselves and there is very little left to say.

When one gets in the weeds and wonkish on policy, numbers and just plain math, a lot of the Utopian ideas, though well intentioned do not survive that sort of line-item discussion, so they run out of steam.

So it is here. Threads started by sincere progressives that feel they have a point of view trail off pretty quickly unless it devolves to a slug-fest with no substance.

As far as your other musing about what is political, Laurelle wisely avoided making it mandatory, I suspect partly because she tries to be even-handed, but as a practical matter, any thread can take a turn for the political. Life is political, and politics touches every area of life, especially in modern times.

I own a collection of books by a British psychiatrist named Anthony Daniels MD.

His parents were devoted Communists, and he used their connections to travel to most of the old communist nations, he also did medicine thruout Africa, South America, Britain, and the Pacific islands. His experiences made him a devoted Conservative, because he discovered communism treats people badly and liberal regimes encourage people to act badly. People must act badly to keep all the lawyers and therapists working.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The fringe right has lost not one, but two of their leading proponents of their "drown out the opposition" group in the past year: Koalabear (102,000+ posts) and the porcine marine Vetteman (133,000+ posts).

This leaves the "drown 'em out" contingent in a rather precarious position. Busybody is on most folks ignore list, and Queerbait (with his phalanx of alts) has limited funds to purchase the meth he needs to fuel his daily 100+ posting jags.

It is a time of great change.

 

[cleaver]

The fringe right has lost not one, but two of their leading proponents of their "drown out the opposition" group in the past year: Koalabear (102,000+ posts) and the porcine marine Vetteman (133,000+ posts).

This leaves the "drown 'em out" contingent in a rather precarious position. Busybody is on most folks ignore list, and Queerbait (with his phalanx of alts) has limited funds to purchase the meth he needs to fuel his daily 100+ posting jags.

It is a time of great change.

i do not really know you beyond this type of posting
and in truth,
it demonstrates - to me -
both the best and worst
of what the gb used to be able to bask in
and tolerate...

well.
the noise certainly has quieted the right
it is an admirable, if not foregone conclusion.
the gyrating demonstration that loudly still occupies these parks
seems tired though.

you've your ghetto
your other world is now pure.

as to the lacerations
and insinuations and
though hackneyed
still hilarious barrage at and about other posters
(ostensibly for their views and their voicing of them)

the children have always played so in the pool.
there is a shallow end, of course...
and another part
where serious substance
could indeed
make one
drown

(were one so inclined to take off the playgrounder's waterwings)

 

[Que]

The metaphor he likes to use is silly.

The idea that a vocal minority whose sins were having opinions that differ from his own could have "drowned out" the fire truth and light by the volume of words in a written medium doesn't withstand scrutiny.

If the ideas were wrong, plenty of opponents to offer either a few well-chosen words or their own deluge in refutation.

Then and now, far too much commentary that involves nothing more than score-keeping of whose point is invalid and far too little articulation of what the correct point of view is and why it is a superior argument.

As JBJ often says, there's a vast difference between advancing an argument and simply quarreling.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The metaphor he likes to use is silly.

The idea that a vocal minority whose sins were having opinions that differ from his own could have "drowned out" the fire truth and light by the volume of words in a written medium doesn't withstand scrutiny.

If the ideas were wrong, plenty of opponents to offer either a few well-chosen words or their own deluge in refutation.

Then and now, far too much commentary that involves nothing more than score-keeping of whose point is invalid and far too little articulation of what the correct point of view is and why it is a superior argument.

As JBJ often says, there's a vast difference between advancing an argument and simply quarreling.

Sure. YOURE AN ASSHOLE isn't an argument. NOTHING STARTS MY DAY OFF RIGHT LIKE A FRESH TIGHT PINE CONE UP MY ASS isn't a quarrel.

 

[cleaver]

Sure. YOURE AN ASSHOLE isn't an argument. NOTHING STARTS MY DAY OFF RIGHT LIKE A FRESH TIGHT PINE CONE UP MY ASS isn't a quarrel.

there is a difference between
you're an asshole
and
you post like an asshole

it goes for politics
it goes for fluff

i can give almost any point of view
a cursory read
until
any set of personal triggers
tips my credibility/attention bucket.

posting like an asshole is the shark hurdle bucket-tip for me....

certainly, these triggers are entirely subjective
we all have them,
so,
i won't bore any of you with my silly list...

nonetheless,
entertain me as you impart your wisdoms
patronize me at your peril
and
this is a broad-cast... not a snipe hunt

 

[cleaver]

btw:

currently playing on the front page of the non-politics gb...

how should pregnant addicts be dealt with? (Multi-page thread 1 2)
dolf

Yo Sean you cunt!! if the SNP bring this...
hobbit.

Thank You Gov Brown for Statist Oppression Done Right (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)
BotanyBoy

Military is training to detain and intern citizens
Mike_Yates

Does anyone here think we should trust Iran? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)
miles

Good Job Obama (Multi-page thread 1 2)
aqwertyuiop

I bet badbabysitter calls this a Rightwing rag: A Feminist denounces radical feminism
LJ_Reloaded

"Conservative rag" Daily Mail characterizes anti-Obama emails as racist
LJ_Reloaded

​

i suppose the concept of cleaning up the gb remains subjective

 

[Que]

Hmm, "you are" as opposed to "you post like," are equivalent to me, mostly. Neither refutes what the hypothetical asshole has to say.

Finding how someone articulates their point flawed, irritating, tedius, or offensive doesn't change the basics. They either have expressed a point or not. Often times, here, no actual point was expressed. The point they are trying to sell is colored by their point of view and my own of course, but it is either objectively valid, incorrect, or deals with subjective judgments, for which there is no meaningful way to arrive at a resolution of differences.

Modern education is fatally flawed. In an effort to give everyone a trophy, points are given for style, when on some issues their is objectively speaking, only one correct answer. Having a wrong answer does not become a correct answer because of one's "life experiences" or ones "point of view."

I first encountered this concept about 1987. A co-worker who was simply wrong on something we were arguing about, said, "That is YOUR truth, that is not the only truth!" What nonsense. For the sake of argument, I COULD be wrong, but on the matter under discussion, we could not possibly both be even partially correct.

 

[cleaver]

Hmm, "you are" as opposed to "you post like," are equivalent to me, mostly. Neither refutes what the hypothetical asshole has to say.

Finding how someone articulates their point flawed, irritating, tedius, or offensive doesn't change the basics. They either have expressed a point or not. Often times, here, no actual point was expressed. The point they are trying to sell is colored by their point of view and my own of course, but it is either objectively valid, incorrect, or deals with subjective judgments, for which there is no meaningful way to arrive at a resolution of differences.

Modern education is fatally flawed. In an effort to give everyone a trophy, points are given for style, when on some issues their is objectively speaking, only one correct answer. Having a wrong answer does not become a correct answer because of one's "life experiences" or ones "point of view."

I first encountered this concept about 1987. A co-worker who was simply wrong on something we were arguing about, said, "That is YOUR truth, that is not the only truth!" What nonsense. For the sake of argument, I COULD be wrong, but on the matter under discussion, we could not possibly both be even partially correct.

i cannot be entirely convinced that
being
and posting like
are indeed the same...

for,
being an asshole means
that you have no choice but to post like an asshole...
it is expected,
and like some infirmity...
provides a bit of dubious cover...

posting like an asshole,
at least to me
demonstrates either laziness
or malfeasance;
which both necessarily take unfair advantage
of the reader's goodwill.

posting like an asshole
is selfish
and usually is better served
either by a bit more attention to the milieu
tempered by a bit of work
or a reconsidered silence