Look I can be very direct and note that I explicitly said that white moderate liberals – not tankies – were the ones who passed the legislation that effectively turned long-time civil rights grievances into redressed law, and that is precisely what happened.
It really isn’t.
But sure I’ll fully acknowledge that without activists across the range from Malcolm X to MLK Jr., (whom Malcolm X basically said he wasn’t leftist and aggressive enough) influenced aforementioned white moderate liberals to action.
Thank God those poor Civil Rights leaders had such benevolent white saviors to help them.
if anyone thinks MLK would be advocating to let Donald Trump in today by voting 3rd party or not voting, then they are out of their goddamned minds.
No one thinks that, no one said that, you’re just making up people to be mad at.
You prove the point that geography made the difference…
Yeah, this was always my point. It’s in the second paragraph of my original comment. Nice reading comprehension.
…and as the realignment completed these northern Republicans and Democrats consolidated into a unitary Democratic banner.
for as we noted these Republicans, the party of Lincoln still in transition of the party realignment as the Dixiecrats abandoned their coalition, effectively became the liberals of the modern Democrats.
OK, now we’re starting to get into where you actually don’t understand history. You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats. In reality, the Republican/Democrat party switch took decades and involved very few members actually switching parties (aside from the Dixiecrats). Most Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act didn’t become Democrats or Liberals, they just saw their party gather more racist members over the years until they retired. They didn’t, “consolidate under a unitary Democratic banner,” they were still Republican and fiscally conservative.
I do not understand what you’re referring to when you write the coalition was majority Republican; it was majority Democrat. - 46 Democrats, and 27 Republicans in the Senate and 152 Dems to 138 Republicans in the House For. This makes the total For 198 Dems 165 Republicans.
OK, I get it. You’re looking at raw numbers without factoring in who controlled the House and Senate and how they voted. Only 153 out of 244 Democrats (63%) supported the Civil Rights Act vs. 136 out of 171 (80%) of Republicans. 46 out of 67 Senate Democrats (69%) vs 27 out of 33 (82%) Republicans. These white Liberals you keep praising weren’t the reason it passed, they were the opposition. The same white Southern Democrats that backed the New Deal also fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, more than their conservative peers.
You’re taking a modern understanding of Liberals and applying it to the Civil Rights Era. You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics. Beyond that, you’re pretending that the Republican conservatives could retroactively be counted as Liberals because you fundamentally don’t understand the party swap.
Besides that, your ranting about how tankies (which, by the way, you’re incorrectly using to mean, “Socialists, Marxists, or other Leftists,” but that’s a whole other issue) didn’t cast any votes in the Civil Rights Act, while ignoring that some of the most prominent voices in the movement where Democratic Socialists, Socialists, or other forms of, “tankie.” Sure, they spent years getting beaten by police, attacked by segregationists, and told to slow down by incrementalisy Liberals, but they weren’t in Congress, so according to you their not as important as white Liberals!
And then, after building this white-savior Liberal fantasy for yourself, you have the audacity to tell me entertain some humility? Sorry buddy, you’re going to have to work through this one on your own.
To pass a civil rights bill in 1964, the Senate proponents of that bill developed a three-part strategy. First, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield maneuvered the bill away from the Judiciary Committee and made it the Senate’s pending business. Second, a bipartisan legislative team of senators and staff, led by Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey and Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel, developed a plan to defeat a well-organized filibuster. Finally, they enlisted the aid of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Only Dirksen could provide the Republican votes needed to invoke cloture and bring about passage of the bill. “The bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen,” President Lyndon Johnson told Hubert Humphrey. “You get in there to see Dirksen. You drink with Dirksen! You talk with Dirksen. You listen to Dirksen.”
In an era when there were many factional divisions within both political parties, the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus. The filibuster that threatened to derail the civil rights bill in 1964 was not led by the opposition party, but by an opposing faction within the majority party. To invoke cloture on the civil rights bill, Democratic proponents of the bill needed strong Republican support. If the bipartisan team could gain the support of Dirksen, a small-government conservative from Illinois, they might win over other conservatives.
This presented Everett Dirksen with a dilemma. It was a presidential election year and, as one historian commented, Dirksen was asked “to deliver Republican votes in support of a Democratic president who could not bring along enough of his own party to seal the deal.” As the long civil rights debate unfolded, it did so with the backdrop of presidential primaries. The last thing the Senate’s Republican leader should be doing, many argued, was to provide the Democratic administration with a major legislative victory, but Dirksen, a proud Republican from the Land of Lincoln, was determined to preserve the Republican legacy inherited from the Great Emancipator. In addition, there were liberal and moderate Republicans who were deeply committed to the cause of civil rights, and senators such as Jacob Javits of New York urged Dirksen to take immediate action. On the other hand, staunch conservatives like Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa fought Dirksen every step of the way. Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
By late February 1964, as the bipartisan team set to work, Dirksen began tinkering with the bill. Over the next three months, the Republican leader, meeting daily with Humphrey or Kuchel but largely avoiding his caucus, suggested a host of amendments divided into categories of technical and substantive. The lesser amendments corrected or clarified language, while substantive amendments brought compromise among competing views. Throughout the negotiations, Dirksen kept his own counsel. “What is Ev Dirksen up to?” asked the Los Angeles Times. Dirksen is “the master of obscure intention,” wrote the Washington Post, which will be “revealed only in his own good time.” While Dirksen worked with the bipartisan team, key staff negotiated with individual Republican senators.
In early April Dirksen attended the Republicans’ weekly policy luncheon and presented a set of 40 draft amendments. Conservatives, suspicious of the leader’s behind-the-scenes deal-making, expressed only reluctant support. The liberals simply rebelled, accusing Dirksen of watering down the House-passed bill. As the meeting broke up, it was clear that the Republican caucus remained divided. Reassuringly, Senator Humphrey expressed optimism. Dirksen’s “not trying to be destructive,” Humphrey commented. “He’s trying to be constructive.”
The debate in the Senate Chamber continued, as Dirksen produced more amendments while constantly testing the waters looking for support. Details were discussed, agreements were made, and deals were struck as Dirksen worked to gain votes for cloture while maintaining the integrity of the House-passed bill. As Kentucky senator John Sherman Cooper saw it, Dirksen’s proposal would not weaken the bill, but would be “a substantial amendment in developing sentiment for the bill, not only here, but throughout the country. It is going to have appeal.”
Lawrence F. O’Brien, President Kennedy’s and later President Johnson’s chief of liaison with the Congress, recalled it this way:
[Y]ou had a battle on two fronts simultaneously. You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
We were accused by some of being weak-kneed but, my God, are you going to have meaningful legislation or are you going to sit around for another five or ten years while you play this game? Those liberals sat around saying, “No, we won’t accept anything but the strongest possible civil rights bill, and we won’t vote for anything less than that.” To kill civil rights in that Judiciary Committee was an appalling possibility! And it was not only a possibility, it came darn close to an actuality.
Curse those liberals for demanding a stronger civil rights bill, right!?
Ergo: Liberals supported; conservatives resisted. No tankies in Congress. Thank a liberal. Yes, I’m aware that what is progressive for the time is comparatively conservative by today’s standards; that doesn’t change the point.
Congrats on completely ignoring everything I said about the nuances of Civil Rights Era politics and instead finding sources that only uses, “liberal,” and, “conservative,” as they refer to socal policies of the time. Don’t think too hard about the fact that Dirksen was a staunch fiscal conservative who supported the Vietnam War, or that Strom Thurmond was a New Deal Democrat who supported public spending on the working class. I wouldn’t want you to disrupt the ahistorical dichotomy you’ve created for yourself! Maybe Google, “tankie,” before you use that word again, because you have no idea what it means! Good luck with the scholarships!
Pardon me, but I thought it best to cut through the noise (e.g., patent finger-in-ears denial akin to, “Nuh-uh!”) and go straight to citing primary sources of which you curiously deflected; you see, you learn to do that with those fancy scholarships :)
To the contrary I’m pretty sure I pinned you into a corner after trying to claim it was conservatives not liberals who were the standard-bearers of the change. Here you’re not trying to play games of equivocation and move the goalpost by essentially allegings, “buT LiBeRals AREn’T ReEallY LibERals!” I mean — what?
I really don’t need to go any further, and it’s a remarkable reality of your position that you cannot rummage up a single academic source to counter what I had already provided. However, it’s a new day and I’ve got my coffee so let’s address some bullshit:
You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats
Straw-man. No, that is not what I’m saying at all. If you would’ve read more closely what I wrote a couple responses back, you would’ve recalled that I noted the transition took time and didn’t complete really until the '70s or even arguably Reagan. Considering
You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics.
You’re just not making any sense, here. (1) All the union strength and support was in the North. (2) YOU said it was a regional differentiation, with northerners voting in greater numbers. (3) Ergo, the vast majority of support came from districts and states predominantly pro-Union. So… ??? Or what, do you think the southern state’s rights anti-union confederates suddenly decided to turn out in great numbers to support the bill…? Let me again remind you what actual historians have to say:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
… But hey, why don’t you go tell those scholars they’re using the ideological labels incorrectly ;)
There really isn’t much more to say. My original claim was: “not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done.” From that:
I PROVED:
Liberals of the time among BOTH parties — predominantly in the North — supported Civil Rights in greater numbers
Liberals were the majority of its YES votes
Liberals wanted a STRONGER Civil Rights bill
Conservatives among BOTH parties — predominantly in the south — opposed the bill in greater numbers
Conservatives sough ta WEAKER Civil Rights bill
No Tankies passed the Civil Rights Act. (I have to note this as part of my original claim).
I REMINDED YOU:
That because the parties were still in transition and the great realignment incomplete, there were lingering liberals and conservatives on both sides.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of ardent support for the bill came from those further to the left on the political-spectrum and were ostensible liberals for the time-period. (Again, proven by quoted sources).
Liberals of today are less conservative than then, sure.
But Liberals of then were still more progressive than their conservative counter-parts.
Such Liberals who would become demographically-identical to the modern-day liberals (as proven by mere geographical region alone and the fact that Civil Rights leaders of then eventually JOINED the ranks of Democrats of today (e.g., James Clyburn, John Lewis).
You keep referencing party banners without looking at the underlying ideology, all the while admitting yourself that the parties were still in ideological realignment.
I therefore entirely reject the notion I’m, “cataclysmically wrong.” Seems I’m actually right on the money.
Finally isn’t it funny you quote MLK’s “White Moderates” remark in 1963 who is ostensibly speaking of what we’d consider centrist liberal Dems today and those very white moderates did end up passing the bill in 1964? You still continue to deflect this amusingly.
Buddy, I can’t help you. If don’t want to acknowledge how much of the Democrats economically Liberal coalition were segregationists, I can’t help you. If you want to believe that the Conservatives who supported Civil Rights legislation were actually Liberals, I can’t help you. If you want to pretend that the leftist Civil Rights leaders who were beaten, jailed, and lynched did less for Civil Rights than the Congressmen they pressured into adopting their movement, I can’t help you. If you want to say, “mLk ShAmEd CeNtRisTs BuT a YeAr LaTeR tHeY vOtEd FoR CiViL rIgHtS! HoW oDd!!!” WITHOUT EVER QUESTIONING IF THOSE TWO EVENTS WERE RELATED, I can’t help you.
Anyway, I can’t help you with the substance, but maybe I can help you with the style. The overly formal language you’re using? (“Ergo,” “I therefore entirely reject,” “you continue to deflect this amusingly.”) It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.
Anyway, that’s the best I can do for you. Go be wrong at someone else.
If I can’t get through with direct quotes from those who were a part of that era, specifically noting liberals FOR and conservatives OPPOSED
If I can’t cite primary historical sources from Senate.gov and Archives.gov detailing the same.
If you can’t muster a single source to support your position that contrasts what I already cited, as you simultaneously ignore these direct quotes…
… Then I believe we are done here.
It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.
Buddy, if you can’t actually remark on exactly where I’m using language wrong, then it’s FAR more probable that my word-choice might just strike above what you’re used to and this a desperate attempt to sling shade.
Besides, if I “dumbed down” my language to my Appalachian roots, then you’d try condescension with me and espouse how much more educated and academic you are to me. Apparently I beat you to the punch, and that upsets you. Who knows – maybe there’s a bit of personal insecurity and projection going on here. All I know is that it’s a pretty fucking pathetic low-blow. Should be noted that I tend to reflect the tone and let them stoop to a lower level. So maybe look in the mirror. If you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out, buddy.
As for the other user, I don’t really care — that kid’s frankly not that bright or informed on the issues. At least you presented a cogent argument by contrast. If you think I’m being smug, go join the fucking Trumpers who cry about elitism and feeling insecure around people who are educated — I really don’t care, buddy. Now until you actually respond to my sources, my logic, instead of hopping around more than the Easter bunny, then kindly stay down.
Frankly because now your argument has descended into personal attacks on me it sounds like you’re — as you said — “cataclysmically” desperate.
I think for fun I’ll just re-quote the primary sources:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
Speaking frankly: you’re just not worth responding seriously to. You treat every interaction as if it’s the worst type of performative debate, and every point is argued antagonistically and purposefully misrepresentative of the comment being responded to.
I learned a long time ago that being earnest with anyone so eager for ‘debate’ online is pretty pointless.
I’m not worth it, but boy do you go around replying to all my comments obsessively! What’s wrong with taking serious discussions, well, seriously? Sorry, I’m just not a meme person, and I frankly don’t believe I remotely approached the pettiness as you and the other user in striking low to substitute a lack of substantive rebuttal.
Have you entertained the humbling possibility you’re just being out-classed and that’s making you uncomfortable? I mean when you make legitimate points I’m willing to yield, such as when you gave me that link to a more recent poll on US perception of Israeli actions.
I know Trump speaks and writes at a 4th grade level and with more memes though — maybe that’s more your speed?
You’ve been active in exactly the same post comments as I have been, I’ve seen you everywhere this week and I find it difficult not to mock you because you make it so goddamn fun.
Have you entertained the humbling possibility you’re just being out-classed and that’s making you uncomfortable?
This is exactly the ‘performative debatelord’ behavior I’m talking about. It would be one thing if we were having a disagreement we were working through, but you treat it like it’s boxing match. I’m under no obligation to speak with you, let alone enter into some strange sparring match where positions are just weapons to wield against an opponent that you pick up and put down when it’s convenient. Even your use of the word ‘yield’ is reflective of this weird adversarial behavior that is hard not to regard as incredibly adolescent and worthy of scorn.
Ok, Formal Frank is going back to bed now, here comes Silly Willy. I’m turning my meme-mode setting back on, just as a fair warning that any further attempts at defeating me in the marketplace of ideas will be met with unrelenting mockery.
It really isn’t.
Thank God those poor Civil Rights leaders had such benevolent white saviors to help them.
No one thinks that, no one said that, you’re just making up people to be mad at.
Yeah, this was always my point. It’s in the second paragraph of my original comment. Nice reading comprehension.
OK, now we’re starting to get into where you actually don’t understand history. You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats. In reality, the Republican/Democrat party switch took decades and involved very few members actually switching parties (aside from the Dixiecrats). Most Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act didn’t become Democrats or Liberals, they just saw their party gather more racist members over the years until they retired. They didn’t, “consolidate under a unitary Democratic banner,” they were still Republican and fiscally conservative.
OK, I get it. You’re looking at raw numbers without factoring in who controlled the House and Senate and how they voted. Only 153 out of 244 Democrats (63%) supported the Civil Rights Act vs. 136 out of 171 (80%) of Republicans. 46 out of 67 Senate Democrats (69%) vs 27 out of 33 (82%) Republicans. These white Liberals you keep praising weren’t the reason it passed, they were the opposition. The same white Southern Democrats that backed the New Deal also fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights Act, more than their conservative peers.
You’re taking a modern understanding of Liberals and applying it to the Civil Rights Era. You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics. Beyond that, you’re pretending that the Republican conservatives could retroactively be counted as Liberals because you fundamentally don’t understand the party swap.
Besides that, your ranting about how tankies (which, by the way, you’re incorrectly using to mean, “Socialists, Marxists, or other Leftists,” but that’s a whole other issue) didn’t cast any votes in the Civil Rights Act, while ignoring that some of the most prominent voices in the movement where Democratic Socialists, Socialists, or other forms of, “tankie.” Sure, they spent years getting beaten by police, attacked by segregationists, and told to slow down by incrementalisy Liberals, but they weren’t in Congress, so according to you their not as important as white Liberals!
And then, after building this white-savior Liberal fantasy for yourself, you have the audacity to tell me entertain some humility? Sorry buddy, you’re going to have to work through this one on your own.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act
Curse those liberals for demanding a stronger civil rights bill, right!?
Ergo: Liberals supported; conservatives resisted. No tankies in Congress. Thank a liberal. Yes, I’m aware that what is progressive for the time is comparatively conservative by today’s standards; that doesn’t change the point.
Congrats on completely ignoring everything I said about the nuances of Civil Rights Era politics and instead finding sources that only uses, “liberal,” and, “conservative,” as they refer to socal policies of the time. Don’t think too hard about the fact that Dirksen was a staunch fiscal conservative who supported the Vietnam War, or that Strom Thurmond was a New Deal Democrat who supported public spending on the working class. I wouldn’t want you to disrupt the ahistorical dichotomy you’ve created for yourself! Maybe Google, “tankie,” before you use that word again, because you have no idea what it means! Good luck with the scholarships!
Pardon me, but I thought it best to cut through the noise (e.g., patent finger-in-ears denial akin to, “Nuh-uh!”) and go straight to citing primary sources of which you curiously deflected; you see, you learn to do that with those fancy scholarships :)
To the contrary I’m pretty sure I pinned you into a corner after trying to claim it was conservatives not liberals who were the standard-bearers of the change. Here you’re not trying to play games of equivocation and move the goalpost by essentially allegings, “buT LiBeRals AREn’T ReEallY LibERals!” I mean — what?
I really don’t need to go any further, and it’s a remarkable reality of your position that you cannot rummage up a single academic source to counter what I had already provided. However, it’s a new day and I’ve got my coffee so let’s address some bullshit:
Straw-man. No, that is not what I’m saying at all. If you would’ve read more closely what I wrote a couple responses back, you would’ve recalled that I noted the transition took time and didn’t complete really until the '70s or even arguably Reagan. Considering
You’re just not making any sense, here. (1) All the union strength and support was in the North. (2) YOU said it was a regional differentiation, with northerners voting in greater numbers. (3) Ergo, the vast majority of support came from districts and states predominantly pro-Union. So… ??? Or what, do you think the southern state’s rights anti-union confederates suddenly decided to turn out in great numbers to support the bill…? Let me again remind you what actual historians have to say:
… But hey, why don’t you go tell those scholars they’re using the ideological labels incorrectly ;)
There really isn’t much more to say. My original claim was: “not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done.” From that:
I PROVED:
I REMINDED YOU:
I therefore entirely reject the notion I’m, “cataclysmically wrong.” Seems I’m actually right on the money.
Finally isn’t it funny you quote MLK’s “White Moderates” remark in 1963 who is ostensibly speaking of what we’d consider centrist liberal Dems today and those very white moderates did end up passing the bill in 1964? You still continue to deflect this amusingly.
Buddy, I can’t help you. If don’t want to acknowledge how much of the Democrats economically Liberal coalition were segregationists, I can’t help you. If you want to believe that the Conservatives who supported Civil Rights legislation were actually Liberals, I can’t help you. If you want to pretend that the leftist Civil Rights leaders who were beaten, jailed, and lynched did less for Civil Rights than the Congressmen they pressured into adopting their movement, I can’t help you. If you want to say, “mLk ShAmEd CeNtRisTs BuT a YeAr LaTeR tHeY vOtEd FoR CiViL rIgHtS! HoW oDd!!!” WITHOUT EVER QUESTIONING IF THOSE TWO EVENTS WERE RELATED, I can’t help you.
Anyway, I can’t help you with the substance, but maybe I can help you with the style. The overly formal language you’re using? (“Ergo,” “I therefore entirely reject,” “you continue to deflect this amusingly.”) It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.
Anyway, that’s the best I can do for you. Go be wrong at someone else.
Buddy:
If I can’t get through with direct quotes from those who were a part of that era, specifically noting liberals FOR and conservatives OPPOSED
If I can’t cite primary historical sources from Senate.gov and Archives.gov detailing the same.
If you can’t muster a single source to support your position that contrasts what I already cited, as you simultaneously ignore these direct quotes…
… Then I believe we are done here.
Buddy, if you can’t actually remark on exactly where I’m using language wrong, then it’s FAR more probable that my word-choice might just strike above what you’re used to and this a desperate attempt to sling shade.
Besides, if I “dumbed down” my language to my Appalachian roots, then you’d try condescension with me and espouse how much more educated and academic you are to me. Apparently I beat you to the punch, and that upsets you. Who knows – maybe there’s a bit of personal insecurity and projection going on here. All I know is that it’s a pretty fucking pathetic low-blow. Should be noted that I tend to reflect the tone and let them stoop to a lower level. So maybe look in the mirror. If you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out, buddy.
As for the other user, I don’t really care — that kid’s frankly not that bright or informed on the issues. At least you presented a cogent argument by contrast. If you think I’m being smug, go join the fucking Trumpers who cry about elitism and feeling insecure around people who are educated — I really don’t care, buddy. Now until you actually respond to my sources, my logic, instead of hopping around more than the Easter bunny, then kindly stay down.
Frankly because now your argument has descended into personal attacks on me it sounds like you’re — as you said — “cataclysmically” desperate.
I think for fun I’ll just re-quote the primary sources:
Go be wrong at someone else.
Look at that false confidence.
No, I’m good right here.
Speaking frankly: you’re just not worth responding seriously to. You treat every interaction as if it’s the worst type of performative debate, and every point is argued antagonistically and purposefully misrepresentative of the comment being responded to.
I learned a long time ago that being earnest with anyone so eager for ‘debate’ online is pretty pointless.
Maybe next time you’ll at least be more subtle.
I’m not worth it, but boy do you go around replying to all my comments obsessively! What’s wrong with taking serious discussions, well, seriously? Sorry, I’m just not a meme person, and I frankly don’t believe I remotely approached the pettiness as you and the other user in striking low to substitute a lack of substantive rebuttal.
Have you entertained the humbling possibility you’re just being out-classed and that’s making you uncomfortable? I mean when you make legitimate points I’m willing to yield, such as when you gave me that link to a more recent poll on US perception of Israeli actions.
I know Trump speaks and writes at a 4th grade level and with more memes though — maybe that’s more your speed?
You’ve been active in exactly the same post comments as I have been, I’ve seen you everywhere this week and I find it difficult not to mock you because you make it so goddamn fun.
This is exactly the ‘performative debatelord’ behavior I’m talking about. It would be one thing if we were having a disagreement we were working through, but you treat it like it’s boxing match. I’m under no obligation to speak with you, let alone enter into some strange sparring match where positions are just weapons to wield against an opponent that you pick up and put down when it’s convenient. Even your use of the word ‘yield’ is reflective of this weird adversarial behavior that is hard not to regard as incredibly adolescent and worthy of scorn.
Ok, Formal Frank is going back to bed now, here comes Silly Willy. I’m turning my meme-mode setting back on, just as a fair warning that any further attempts at defeating me in the marketplace of ideas will be met with unrelenting mockery.