Anatomy of the Woke Madness › American Greatness

We have to put a stop to these insane idiots!

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Here you go, point by point.
At no point did I represent that I was speaking for what Rallypoint wanted or stated what matters to Rallypoint. [I didn't say you did – only asked if you had any authority from Rallypoint] did not pretend to speak for them [you merely arrogated authority and demanded adherence to your “rules” requiring labels of “fact/opinion” in my comments – as if you had that authority from Rallypoint, a grossly hypocritical act when you dare to demand similar qualifications to merely offer an opinion] and I do not claim to have knowledge of what people who are not me want, think, feel, etc. [so you get no impressions of such matters from what you read, hear, discuss, etc.] I try very hard to stay on my own side of a conversation and express what I think, not what someone else thinks or wants [so you don't understand what “someone else thinks or wants” from conversing with or reading about them? it's hard to say if that's a “lack of compassion” or “lack of comprehension”]. That is why I ask questions [trying to make up for your lack of comprehension?].

You, on the other hand, stated what matters to someone who is not you, [yes, my general “opinion'” on the subject] and I simply wanted to know how you were able to do that [probably similar to how YOU might form a general conclusion e.g. “Conservatives are 'weak-sisters'”]. That you were very upset by the inquiry [don't you wish with all your heart that were true?] tells me all I need to know [what! You can make an inference! even a false one! I didn't think you had such a hidden talent!].

I am certain you hold your ill informed opinion [in contrast to your self-defined “enlightened opinion", I suppose] and are unlikely to change it, so really, there is nothing to dispute [you COULD have disputed my “opinion”, instead of launching your ad hominem distraction – missed your chance]. You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe [as you are as well]. My point was that 1) it was your opinion [thank you for recognizing that I was NOT stating “fact”] and 2) it was uniformed. [and yet you could offer NO refutation of that supposed “ignorant opinion”]. That has been firmly established [in your mind, perhaps]. You have no basis for your opinion [that is, in turn, “your opinion” about “my opinion”]. You provided no evidence in support of your opinion [you did not ask for any, but went directly to ad hominem distraction]. You simply threw it out there and then became upset [don't you wish! -- I laughed at your foolishness] when anyone had the temerity to question it or how you came to have it [false – you first denied I was even expressing an “opinion”, even tried to pass off the wild interpretation that I was stating a false “fact”, you never questioned my opinion, qua opinion – you went directly to ad hominem instead, demonstrating your inability to reply to that “ignorant opinion”]. Very defensive of you [my “defense” is to simply point out your false claims and hypocrisy]. Very similar to how "woke" people demand that their views and opinions be accepted without argument [nice to hear that general conclusion and viewpoint from you, even if it's sarcasm]. Perhaps you are more woke than you realize [“Aware” might be a better choice]. Do you feel oppressed? [ I sincerely doubt that the “woke” would put me in that pigeonhole, how about you?]
If you don't like my questions, [it's more like your senseless , inane, comments] then block me like all your weak-sister friends [oh dear, are they being mean to you? shall I try to convince them to be nice to you?]. Then you can sit around and talk with people who will not question you and cheer every nonsensical thing you say [in contrast to being subjected to your gems of wisdom and attempts at wit, I suppose]. I am sure life is grand in an echo chamber [speaking from experience?] You can be a big man [why, I've dedicated my life to just being T.C. Mits, and been very successful at it]. Won't that be fun [not as much fun as impaling trolls on their own stupidity, that's REAL fun].

That was fun.
I take back my request that you cease your nonsense and go away. It must be a sadistic streak in me, but I'd like the opportunity to reply to your inane postings, maybe publish them in the local paper.
Of course, with the world coming back from COVID, and lots of distractions, I have little time for anything on the internet other than sowing and reaping options. Your sophistries will have to take a back seat to more important tasks.

A1C Mike Allen - Stick around -- We will see if he is as much a masochist as I am a sadist.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Back at you.
To your first inane paragraph [is your “inane” description a “fact” or “opinion”? YOUR rule is it should be explicitly labeled – evidence of your inconsistency and hypocrisy --”Rules for thee, not for me”], I did not require authority from Rallypoint as I did not attempt to speak for them or on their behalf [ I repeat – you arrogated authority and demanded adherence to your “rules” requiring labels of “fact/opinion” in my comments posted on the Rallypoint site – as if you had that authority from Rallypoint, a grossly hypocritical act when you dare to demand similar “authority” from me to merely offer a critical opinion on a subject]. And while I may get an impression of think I know what someone else thinks, wants, feels, I do not have the ego [nor competence to comprehend, apparently] that allows me to speak on their behalf [do you think you are acting as their attorney if you offer an opinion of them?] without clear indication that they want me to [then why did you arrogate such authority from Rallypoint to “speak on their behalf” by imposing your rules on Rallypoint Commentary? you tried telling me how I should explicitly label “opinion” commentary?] [BTW – You still can't bring yourself to admit that I never “spoke on behalf” of the “woke” – I criticized them. YOU were their “defender” by your foolish ad hominem attack on me for daring to offer a negative opinion of “wokeism” --- all that with no credentials presented or “authorization” of your actions from the “woke” (which you demanded of me to merely post comment) for you to speak “on their behalf”, yet another of your hypocritical inconsistencies] I certainly wouldn't want to misrepresent anyone [you certainly tried extremely hard to “misrepresent” me, even to the point of claiming that my posted opinion was a supposed statement of “fact”]. To do so mistakenly shows poor judgement [certainly showed piss-poor judgement in your case]. To do so on purpose shows a lack of personal integrity [which flaw do you claim explains your misrepresentation of my comment – “poor judgement” or “lack of integrity”?] . So tell me, exactly how many "woke" people have you had in depth conversations with? [probably about as many as you have had with the “unwoke” to assess them as “weak sisters”]

Also, the pejorative of "weak sister" is my personal view [ of my fellow Conservatives, it appears, then why didn't you state “in my opinion”, as you said I must if not stating “fact” – more of your inconsistency and hypocrisy] . What I feel about them based on their behavior [what behavior is that? do you see them as “obstructionists” preventing achievement of some Utopia you think you can install?]. It is not a characterization of what they think, what they want, simply a characterization of how they conduct themselves [sounds like you think they all go about drinkin', cussin' ,beatin' on cripples, and lynching any minority they come across -- and from that “behavior”, however you personally assess it, you make no judgements on their motivation or the thought process behind it all, that's most unconvincing]. A characterization rather than an inference [could it possibly be a characterization based on an inference?]. I am sure you are having trouble understanding the difference.[don't be too sure of yourself].. If I were to say you think you believe that your shit doesn't stink [what? It's more like YOU “think” I “believe” “my shit doesn't stink” – “you think you believe” is a strange construction (are you a native English speaker?) aren't you even competent enough to get your “hypothetical” vulgar, childish, ad hominem insult right?] and that you feel you are entitled to respect you never earned [so tell me, how much respect do you think you're entitled to, and how much of that respect have you earned?] that would be me attempting to speak for you [speak “for me”? no, that's talking “about” me, indeed “against” me --- you're back to your muddled nonsense where you claimed I supposedly “spoke for” the “woke” when my comment was “about them”, a criticism of them] and what you think and feel [not at all, it would be your personal impression based on your interpretations of, and reactions to how I have pointed out your errors and faults to you, in reply to your ad hominem attack on me, which is criticism you just can't learn from and accept, can you?].. On the other hand, when I say [oh, “WHEN”, not “IF I say” – no more “hypothetical” – this time, you mean BUSINESS!] you argue like a teenage girl [even if I did, your foolish commentary would be left a pile of rubble by a sixth-grader] and generally come of as a wounded little twit [that's a close match of my impression of you, but with the added note that you can't admit, or perhaps don't even realize it's your blood that is pooling on the ground], that is my impression of your actions that anyone can see for themselves and and form their own opinions [I take it you are trying to say there is a level of abstraction between your hypothetical “snarky” opinion of my character and personality, which is more abstract and so less “provable” than your “non-hypothetical” opinion of the more concrete statements I used to demonstrate the inconsistent, hypocritical nature of your inane comments and “reasoning”, that you think can be “proven” by examination of those statements I made in reply to your ad hominen attack, and of course you believe that anyone doing that examination will agree with your “impression” – dream on]. I did not attempt to present what you think, feel, want, or what matters to you as a statement of fact, as you did.... [ you have just contradicted your admission and implicit agreement that my OP was NOT posting a “fact”, but an “opinion” -- Remember when you posted this? “My point was that 1) it was your opinion and 2) it was uniformed.” – you implicitly agreed you were wrong to try to categorize my comment as “fact” when it was “opinion”, now your memory has slipped, or else you still can't bring yourself to admit that I expressed an opinion re “wokeism”, as I have every right to do (without your asinine insistence on “labels” or “qualifications”) ] and then begrudgingly admit it was not actually a fact but only your opinion when called on it [blatantly false – it is recorded in the postings above that I immediately CORRECTED your false accusation that I was stating a “fact” and stated the obvious nature of my comment as an OPINION that was a criticism of “wokeism”, that there was no justification for your baseless charge that I stated an unproven “fact”, and I had every right to express that opinion]. But instead of simply accepting responsibility, you tried to explain how you were not doing exactly what you were doing - misrepresenting the thoughts of others [ as you admited in your writings above, I was not “misrepresenting the thoughts of others”, not “speaking on behalf of “ the “woke”, but stating my own thoughts which I have every right to do whether you agree or not]. ... Bearing false witness, as it were.[GUFFAW!] And also attempting to engage a To Quoque fallacy [it's “tu quoque” you “barbarian”, and I did NOT use it as a “fallacious argument,” in defense of any statement of mine, but as a tool to demonstrate your blatant hypocrisy, – I like how I used “tu quoque” for that purpose, and repeat that use of “tu quoque” here --- “In other words, do you meet the same requirements of authority or knowledge of a subject about which you wish to dictate YOUR RULES, as the level of knowledge of a subject you so foolishly demanded of me --- to merely offer an OPINION on that subject? You should have far greater 'expert' credentials for such authoritative action, but you have offered no evidence whatever of any authority, nor the slightest competency”].


I understand it is not in you to own up to your mistakes and simply admit where you may have been in error. That would take actual character and the semblance of a spine. I have yet to see any evidence of either in you. [another example of “projection” from the Left, the past masters of the art -- you may deny your obvious, proven errors and flawed “logic”, in spite of the clear evidence of your own words posted above, but you can't avoid looking increasingly more foolish and desperate with every passing denial of that reality – you can post your BS, but you can't defend it].

My sadistic streak is going strong. Be a good little masochist and deliver more grist for my mill.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - More of your "absurdity of impudence", etc.
You presented your bullshit opinion [more vulgarity, as if I could care what you think of my opinion] as a statement of fact [because to your simple, dictatorial, hypocritical, view I didn't explicitly label it as “opinion”, and you apparently lack the mental capacity to recognize what is “opinion” unless it is so labeled -- according to YOUR rules (rules which you don't apply to yourself – hypocrite)]. You know you did. You won't own it [you keep trying to put over your gross misrepresentation of my statement of an opinion as publishing a “fact”, but despite what you may have been told, your repetition of a lie won't make it true].

I knew you were full of shit when you did so, [ more juvenile vulgarity] but offered you the opportunity [ you “offered” nothing – I corrected your foolish categorization of my “opinion” as “fact”] to clarify and take claim of your opinion as an opinion [what? at first, you even refused to accept that my criticism of "wokeism" was in fact "opinion", claiming "You criticized nothing" Remember? I REPEAT -- blatantly false – it is recorded in the postings above that I immediately CORRECTED your false accusation that I was stating a “fact” and stated the obvious nature of my comment as an OPINION that was a criticism of “wokeism”, that there was no justification for your baseless charge that I stated an unproven “fact”, and I had every right to express that opinion]. You got butthurt. [in your dreams] You won't own up to it [ I have NOTHING to “own up” to – you are the one clinging to repetition of false “facts” refuted by the above record of our postings ]. I asked you a question [ a lot of “questions”, all based on your groundless misrepresentation of my statement of an “opinion” as “fact”, BTW – you have not yet explained whether your misrepresentation of my “opinion” as “fact” was just your error or on purpose – it looks to me like you intentionally misrepresented the nature of my comment]. You got injured [by a dunce like you? I laughed]. Now you just run your lips, or your fingers, trying as fast as you can to weasel as hard as you can to avoid any accountability for your actions or the words you said [nice bit of projection there, since I've shown you repeatedly as a fool and a hypocrite with the proof in the postings above]. Not difficult to see who you are. A little man with a big ego [oh! I'm so hurt! -- the vulgar little pest who thinks he's smart doesn't like me. BOO HOO!].

Not my rules [looks to me like you invented YOUR rule for “labeling” of “opinion” to accommodate a mind too weak to identify it without a label] or RallyPoint rules [never was a Rallypoint rule, you just took an ego trip and decided you would arrogate authority to require your “opinion labeling” rule on Rallypoint – for me, but not for yourself]. If you don't like the rules, talk to Aristotle [NEWSFLASH – Aristotle died in 322 B.C. -- attempts at conversation would be unfruitful – Aristotle did have something to say about your hypocrisy in demanding “opinion labeling” of me, but not practicing it yourself – “For it is the absurdity of impudence to arraign others for the very same things of which we ourselves have been guilty,” but if Aristotle said anything about requiring “opinion labeling”, since you claim that Aristotle, not you (“NOT MY RULES … IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE RULES, TALK TO ARISTOTLE) is the one who set the rule of “opinion labeling”, then please produce Aristotle's statement of HIS “opinion labeling” rule]. You serve as a living reference to logical fallacy [that hilarious comment coming from the guy whose ONLY reply is ad hominem, from the level of “credentials fallacy” down to the current level, the vulgar, juvenile, “name calling”].

And my "vulgar, childish, ad hominem" insult was correct, not "right" [ your “you think you believe” construction was, at best “screwy”, resulting in your attempt at a "vulgar, childish, ad hominem" insult failing – in other words, “you didn't get it – the insult--right”]. Correct is the correct word when used as an adjective [“right” is appropriate and acceptable as I used it (look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls) it seems your mind-set is so far “left” that you have a “rightophobia” – you even oppose the very word “right” – I bet if you have to give someone directions to make a right turn, you will direct them to make three left turns instead -- pitiful]. How many times did you fail basic grammar? [ never – not in any language, how about you, the author of “you think you believe”?]

Well, at least you have one of my fan club around to prop up your fragile ego. [fragile? why my ego grows stronger with every comment you write, giving me the opportunity to further pound your idiotic commentary into rubble, then the rubble into dust]. Mike follows me around reads everything I write [ he must enjoy a good laugh as much as I do]. He is of the same caliber as you; small, and hardly worth mention [ to continue your caliber reference, I might respond – you impress me as a .177 BB who thinks he's a .50 BMG].


Please provide that statement from Aristotle, where he said that “opinion” must be labeled as such. I never came across it in all my Philosophy courses. Also, there is still the matter of your explanation of how you came to misrepresent my “opinion” as supposedly stating a false “fact”. Did you do so in error? Or was it done on purpose?
Anxiously awaiting my next ego-strengthening exercise.

one of