Politics

The 17 Habits of Somewhat Effective Assholes

How to be a pundit.

|

Michael Brendan Dougherty lists 17 ways we argue in politics, including:

The Incredibly Faked Surprise of Partisan Scribblers Over The "Appalling" (But Commonly and Sincerely Held) Views Of Most Other People

The Ritual Slaughter Of The Kook Used Cynically As An Avatar For Views Held By Millions Of Sane, Educated, Civilized, Productive Citizens

The Single Most Heartbreaking Anecdote That Will Awaken Your Undying Rage Against A Third Tier Pundit

…and so on. Feel free to enter your additions to the list in the comment thread below. I'll start with a meta entry: The Outraged Announcement That Any Suggestion That These Habits Cross Party Lines Is False Equivalence.

NEXT: J.D. Tuccille on Secession Fever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Outright lying?

  2. Fuck you, that’s why!

    1. Or,

      That “insert anything here”, you didn’t build that, so fuck you!

      1. What difference, at this point, does it make?!

        1. It helps to make someone feel worthless and shame them before you tell them to go fuck themselves.

  3. How about the redefining of words used by your opponents to mean something completely different from what they intended in order to depict their argument as utter sophistry?

    1. Does calling one’s self “pro choice” instead of “pro abortion” sorta count as a subset of that category?

      1. Defining “rights” as something the government allows you to have sure does.

        1. Or demanding that the government provides for you at the expense of others at the point of a gun.

          Or AKA, “Because I have the right to pursue it means I have the right to have it, regardless of who pays for it!!!!”

          1. I have a right to an education and a living wage, dammit!

            1. Or any other luxury. Or basic need required to live, such as food, water, shelter, and clothing.

              I’ll give you three guesses what my numero uno sore spot is…

              1. That little divot right under your nose?

                1. How did you guess!?! Have you been spying on me and Dr. PG you pervert!?!

                  She is a fantastic kisser. And so smart. And bee-yoo-tee-ful. And…*sigh*…swoonable. She should be off work soon, and she cannot hurry fast enough.

                  1. If she hates REM, I say dump her.

                    1. If she hates REM, I say dump her.

                      Doesn’t necessary like, but doesn’t hate either. A LOT of American music doesn’t translate well to Russian. To give you an idea, she likes Out of Time and Automatic for the People.

                      She does dig The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkle, and ABBA/ACE of BASE, so we’re good. She likes a lot of American entertainment.

                      Now The Cure, OTOH…

                  2. How did you guess!?!

                    It’s probably my number one sore spot too. I hate when you take a little ding there from a cup or something and your eyes get all watery and your nose starts to run.

                  3. She is a fantastic kisser. And so smart. And bee-yoo-tee-ful. And…*sigh*…swoonable. She should be off work soon, and she cannot hurry fast enough.

                    Oxytocin is a helluva drug.

                2. That little divot right under your nose?

                  Philtrum.

                  1. Thanks, Saccharin Man. It’s nice to have another know-it-all around here.-))))

                    1. One morning I woke with the taste of menthol cigarettes and French onion soup in my mouth. It was a strong memory impression left from a decade earlier from a quickie I had with a coworker during a lunch break where there was a lot of petting and kissing involved before we went inside a closed in bank drive through to screw. I had not even thought about that incident in years, but there is was, still impressed upon my tongue.

                    2. That was like modern-day Proust. 🙂

                    3. Thanks!

        2. Defining “rights” as something the government allows pays you to have sure does.

      2. Funny you should mention that. One of the examples I had in mind is how liberals call conservatives Anti-abortionist instead of pro-lifers.

        But I was primarily referring to instances like Bill Clinton’s argument that he didn’t commit perjury by contending that his statement that “there’s nothing going on between us” had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned. “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

        He defined it to mean that he wasn’t currently having sex with her, knowing full well that any normal person would assume he meant that he had never had sexual relations with Lewinsky.

      3. No, I actually don’t think so. Pro-abortion implies supporting abortion, whereas pro-choice implies supporting the right to have abortion. Sort of the difference between pro-(drug) choice and pro-drug.

        1. Sort of the difference between pro-(drug) choice and pro-drug.

          That’s why I’ve always framed my position as “Pro-legalization” or Anti-Prohibitionist” when I argue with drug warriors.

          I don’t think it’s an apt analogy on abortion, however. I say this because there is no victim when one uses drugs. When one gets an abortion, there most certainly is a victim as the direct result of the act itself.

          1. Oh. I’m just pro-drug.

          2. Does your argument allow you to use the word victim to claim that a just fertilized egg is a victim of an abortion while I might not see it that way?

            1. Has that just-fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall yet? That’s the logical point to determine viability.

              1. I don’t think that’s a particularly logical point to establish that something is a human… At implantation, it has no brain. It has not experienced “brain birth,” if you will.

                1. But barring intervention, the overwhelming majority of implanted eggs will develop into a fully-formed human. The same can not be said up to that point and the odds to not dramatically increase further on the developmental timeline. That’s why I’ve personally made that my point where human rights begin.

              2. Blah, blah, blah. Seems just as arbitrary as anything. Lots of miscarriages happen after that. Maybe it was viable, maybe not.

              3. Has that just-fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall yet? That’s the logical point to determine viability.

                What if I still think you’re wrong? And, what if I can argue that there is a victim in drug use and it is the user?

                1. What if I still think you’re wrong?

                  Then I’ll respect your opinion and admit under current law you’re correct.

                  And, what if I can argue that there is a victim in drug use and it is the user?

                  That I’d say you’ve just eliminated any and all manner of personal choice, as any action we undertake like what we eat, drink or how long we lay on the beach can be considered bad for us. IOW self-victimhood is a bullshit concept, IMO.

                  1. IOW self-victimhood is a bullshit concept, IMO.

                    I agree, which is why I see early-term abortion as acceptable.

                    Just for the record, sloopy, I’m not trying to give you a hard time or anything. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re willing to respect my views then I’m willing to respect yours. When it starts to get tangled up in the law is when the problems start.

                    1. ust for the record, sloopy, I’m not trying to give you a hard time or anything.

                      I never thought you were. And I appreciate the way you and other abortion rights advocates on here argue in good faith. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of this particular issue are incapable of doing so.

                    2. And I appreciate the way you and other abortion rights advocates on here argue in good faith

                      It is always nice. These are often pretty interesting discussions when everyone isn’t just calling each other evil. I can’t even discuss abortion with my liberal friends anymore. Even accepting that the debate mostly comes down to a difference of opinion on the moral status of unborn proto-humans and that most anti-abortion people aren’t doing it because they hate women and want them barefoot and pregnant all the time seems to be a problem for a lot of them. Especially after the idiocy of the last election.

          3. You’re kind of begging the question on abortion, but we don’t need to get into that. But the fact that the choice may or may not involve a victim makes it no less of a choice.
            But I also am annoyed at “pro-choice” being used to mean pro-legal-abortion, since a lot of those people are pretty anti choice on most other matters. I find “pro-life”, when used to refer to people who oppose abortion equally stupid, since a lot of those people like war and the death penalty and such, and anyway, who the fuck isn’t pro life.

            People should say what they mean in plain words.

            1. “Pro-life” is nonsensical, as is the whole “when does life begin?” debate. When personhood attaches is the point of contention.

              Unless you are a radical Jain, 99% of what you eat in a day is the result of a living thing being killed.

              1. Pretty much. Life is a continuous process which began several billion years ago and has been doing just fine ever since. It has nothing to do with life and everything to do with the question of what makes an entity the moral equivalent of a human being.

        2. Pro-abortion implies supporting abortion,

          This is exactly what I was talking about! Pro-abortion may imply that to you, but that may not be what he meant.

          Giving sloopy the benefit of the doubt, I would assume he defined pro-abortion to mean someone who is in favor of legalized abortion. You defined pro-abortion to fit your argument in order to discredit his.

          1. This is correct. And again, I think “pro-choice” is a bullshit term they never should have gotten away with using. “Pro-legalized abortion” is more accurate.

            1. I could go with pro-legalized abortion. Not catchy, but that accurately describes my viewpoint. Provided, of course, that anti-abortionists drop the “pro-life” monicker, since that assumes something that forms part of the core of the debate.

              1. I’ve never once corrected someone that called me “anti-abortion” even though I think pro-life is accurate.

              2. I could go with pro-legalized abortion. Not catchy, but that accurately describes my viewpoint. Provided, of course, that anti-abortionists drop the “pro-life” monicker, since that assumes something that forms part of the core of the debate.

                These terms are used purely for marketing purposes. It’s like calling a non-stick pan grease-less, fat-free, or organic cookware. If your argument for or against any particular practice has validity, then you shouldn’t have to result to using such flavor-enhancing phrases like pro-choice or pro-life.

              3. “I could go with pro-legalized abortion.”

                Pro-baby-scraping works for me.

            2. That’s what I always try to say. I am pro-legal-abortion. I also happen to be pro-choice on most matters, but thinking that legal abortion is preferable to the alternative is not sufficient to make a person pro-choice.

              1. That’s what I always try to say. I am pro-legal-abortion. I also happen to be pro-choice on most matters, but thinking that legal abortion is preferable to the alternative is not sufficient to make a person pro-choice.

                At least you have the stones to say what you mean and not dilute the language, Zeb. And that I can respect.-)

        3. Pro-choice implies areas outside the topic of abortion.

          1. Sure it does. That’s why they are always protesting for the right of women to chose adoption.

            1. Assuming this is sarcasm, where do women not have the right to choose adoption, or rather, where is it even in question?

              1. Next time you’re near a Planned Parenthood, drop in and ask them for their literature on adoption agencies in the area. See how fast you’re escorted out of there and threatened with arrest if you return.

                I’m speaking from experience. It’s happened to me several times in several cities.

                1. Well, if that’s the case, then that’s obviously wrong from my point of view. But I ask: is private douchery the same as the government banning something? That is, adoption is not banned as a choice, whereas opponents of abortion want to ban it.

                  1. But the most vocal self-declared “pro-choicers” will throw you out of their (at least partially publicly-funded) clinic if you even ask about any choice other than abortion. Those are the people I call hypocrites for calling themselves “pro-choice,” not people like you that actually are. They are abortionists or abortion-rights advocates. They don’t care about a choice unless it’s the one they support.

                    Another way to test them is to “choose” to protest on the sidewalk in front of their clinic. See how fast you’re arrested.*

                    *I think I’ve told of my multiple arrests on here before, so I’ll spare the details unless someone asks for them.

                    1. Sloop, you’re a goddamn malcontent, aren’t you?

                      And what did Mr Armstrong ever do to you?

                    2. Sloop, you’re a goddamn malcontent, aren’t you?

                      I don’t rouse as much rabble as I used to, but I’m strongly considering becoming more of an activist now that I’m married to a woman with a brother that’s a pretty solid attorney .

                      And what did Mr Armstrong ever do to you?

                      Yes, I’d like to exercise my Fifth Amendment rights.

                2. ^^THIS^^

                  1. That was at Sloopy; fuck nesred threads. Postrel would never have permitted them.

                    1. Would it be so fucking hard to tag who is replying to whom at the top of each post.

                      This ain’t rocket surgery.

                    2. Planned Parenthood is against adoption? I’ve never heard of that before, and can’t find anything about that. Everything I can find online about them and adoption seems to be pro-adoption. Not that I’m doubting your experiences, it just comes out of left field is all.

        4. I think that, if we were devising slogans from scratch, the prolifers could call themselves “anti-outlawry” because they’re against a category of human beings being put outside the protection of the law.

          I notice that Planned Parenthood is trying to retire the “pro-choice” label, showing that there’s something wrong with it, so I don’t mind using it. Or just call them “choicers.”

          The very nature of the subject, and the fundamental disagreement over key premises, makes it tough to have a common language.

          An example of different terminology is on slavery. An abolitionist would not allow a supporter of legal slavery to call themselves “anti-slavery,” and would not describe slavery with euphemisms like “domestic institutions.”

          1. No, if you are talking about abortion, just use terms referring to abortion. All of it, pro-choice, pro-life, anti-outlawry are question begging weasel words meant to confuse and emotionally manipulate people. Just say what you mean and explain it further, in complete sentences if that seems appropriate.

            1. Agreed. Any slogan is meant to simplify an argument. Abortion is perhaps the most complicated argument of our time. No side of the issue can really be summed up in less than a paragraph.

              Too bad there isn’t time for a paragraph on cable news…

            2. I would prefer “anti-abortion.”

              But what if they tell me I can’t say anti-abortion because “plenty of anti-abortion people want abortion to be legal?” Should I ask them if they can think of someone who is anti-slavery and wants slavery to be legal?

              The choicers sometimes like to say “safe, legal and rare,” except the ones who don’t like the “rare” part. But how does one define “safe?”

              Without a common language, the proper terms of debate are going to be part of the debate itself.

              1. Should I ask them if they can think of someone who is anti-slavery and wants slavery to be legal?

                Considering that you are completely on-board with the government using force to make someone an unwilling servant of an entity you consider to be “someone” for nine months, maybe slavery is not the best comparison for you to keep using.

                1. I think technological progress will allow the ba-I mean fetus to be transferred safely to some other womb, I don’t think that the 9 months figure will be relevant for much longer.

                  1. So you don’t think we’ll have to enslave them, just force them to choose between having major surgery performed on them or be enslaved.

                    Damn ladies, all your problems are about to go away.

                    1. And abortion isn’t major surgery?

                    2. Like MNG and Tulpa, you are exhibiting the deliberate ignorance between “voluntary” and “involuntary.”

                    3. Is the fetus a volunteer for suicide?

                    4. Did a rape victim volunteer to be a slave?

                    5. See above on difficulties of agreeing on terminology.

                    6. (steps in)

                      So you don’t think we’ll have to enslave them, just force them to choose between having major surgery performed on them or be enslaved.

                      I’ll step in on this one for just this comment (I hate abortion threads, even though the best and most rational discussion about the subject was with SugarFree).

                      Either way, Saccharin Man, it’s a major surgery, regardless of the outcome.

                      Disclosure and my opinion:

                      I have performed a second trimester abortion. It’s a person, with implantation being the bright line as an expression of a property rights claim when consensual sex has taken place. The exception to this is when the fetus is endangering the health of the mother internally, which is no different if the fetus was standing outside the mother beating her with a shovel. Rape is the means of providing an unwanted intruder refuge and can be ejected at the sole discretion of the property owner. With so many avenues of birth control WRT consensual sex, there is no excuse that implantation should even take place.

                      I will not field questions about the experience and simply my opinion and I wholly respect yours, regardless of agreement or disagreement.

                      (steps out)

                    7. Either way, Saccharin Man, it’s a major surgery, regardless of the outcome.

                      One is still a free choice and the other is a coerced choice.

                      And the “technological” argument is still suspect on it’s face. Until then you are still forcing women to remain pregnant and assuming such a procedure could even be possible–or even if possible, could be done at the point of implantation and after, which is when Eduard wants to use the force of government to force a pregnant woman to make that hideous choice.

                      I’m fine with being against abortion; what I’m not fine with is the use of force to side unilaterally with one party automatically in a clear conflict of rights. And I don’t think personhood should attach at implantation in any case.

                    8. If Conjoined Twin A demands surgery to separate her from Conjoined Twin B, knowing that it would kill B, does B have a right to not have the surgery done if it is known that the surgery could be completed in 9 months without harm to either one?

                      That’s the same argument as abortion. A person should not have the right to terminate the life of another person for temporary convenience.

                    9. You visit a friend in the hospital and despite all reasonable precautions, you still wake up one day attached as a heart and lung machine to a comatose patient. Is it OK to post an armed guard to make sure you don’t unhook yourself?

                    10. OK. Can the armed guard be held liable to the comatose patient if he takes a lunch break and leaves you unattended and you unhook yourself, if his union contract said he was to be given one and his relief didn’t show up on time? Can the union be held liable? What if they’re city employees and they have qualified immunity?

                    11. You don’t have any difficulties, just evasions. Using government force to keep women pregnant against their will is slavery. You don’t want to call it slavery, so you evade.

                      If you would like to argue that you are perfectly willing to enslave women for the sake of their fetuses for utilitarianism reasons, go right ahead. But you cloak an anti-abortion argument in a anti-slavery wrapper, I’m going to call bullshit every time.

                    12. “If you would like to argue that you are perfectly willing to enslave women for the sake of their fetuses for utilitarianism reasons, go right ahead.”

                      Another item for the list of debating tactics “if you want to be a Nazi, just be one, but don’t pretend you aren’t!”

                    13. Another item for the list of debating tactics “if you want to be a Nazi, just be one, but don’t pretend you aren’t!”

                      Good to see that you don’t have a reply.

                    14. Other than that fact that, for a century, this country had (a) laws against slavery and (b) laws against abortion – almost as if you could prohibit both!

                    15. (and even with your definition of slavery, you would still have to deal with sloopy’s question – is slavery as you define it worse than murder?

                    16. slavery as you define it worse than murder

                      You don’t think it is, slaver. I disagree within certain parameters.

                      And you still have to assume it’s murder for it to even be an objection.

                    17. We’re closer together than you seem willing to acknowledge. You say below:

                      “I support the attachment of personhood at non-mechanical viability. If you can’t get it together before then to have an elective abortion, I’m not too upset about it.”

                      Your evocation of nine months, therefore, is misleading. You only oppose “enslaving” the pregnant women in the interval between conception and viability. After that, you are fine with “slavery” as you define it, because you accept the personhood of the fetus. So the dispute narrows to the time in which personhood is established.

                      And you still need to explain why, for half a century (1920-1970), despite having full voting rights, women constantly elected politicians who “enslaved” them by keeping abortion bans on the books. Would plantation slaves, if they had the vote, continue to re-elect their enslavers to office? Maybe something is wrong with your terminology.

                    18. almost as if you could prohibit both!

                      An admittedly creative non-answer. Kudos.

                      Slavery used to be legal. Unlike you, I don’t support returning to that legal arrangement.

                    19. “Slavery used to be legal. Unlike you, I don’t support returning to that legal arrangement.”

                      Begging the question.

                    20. I’m sorry, SF, but I read your argument as “Slavery is worse than murder” as it can be applied to a fetus that’s in the birth canal but hasn’t cleared the vagina yet.

                      If one is on the personhood timeline past the period of implantation, which is where viability takes a huge leap forward, then they should have the rights of any other person.

                    21. I’m sorry, SF, but I read your argument as “Slavery is worse than murder” as it can be applied to a fetus that’s in the birth canal but hasn’t cleared the vagina yet.

                      I support the attachment of personhood at non-mechanical viability. If you can’t get it together before then to have an elective abortion, I’m not too upset about it.

                      But, I don’t support the state forcing women to remain pregnant pre-viability.

                    22. Viability keeps getting pushed farther and farther back. And as far as I know, an egg can be fertilized and grown outside of the womb, with only ethical concerns keeping us from full growing human beings. The viability question is a red herring.

                    23. sloppy,

                      We are not going to agree on this. While you are a reasonable voice, Eduard wants to spout off. He sickens me.

                    24. I’ll tell you why I absolutely love the abortion arguments: it causes people to either make sound arguments and defend their position intelligently or it causes people to start in with name-calling and bullshit arguments.

                      Obviously, I’m adamantly pro-life. And I am so from both a religious and libertarian position (two things which are not mutually exclusive). But I completely respect the other side when it is argued intellectually and honestly. Which is why I prefer to argue it here as opposed to elsewhere.

                      I’ve got to run now because Baby Reason has a Dr’s appt, but I’ve enjoyed having this conversation with everyone involved on both sides of the issue. I doubt anyone was swayed either way, but it’s still healthy to have arguments with and against smart people. It keeps me on my toes when I come across those that don’t argue in good faith.

                    25. I’ve got to run now because Baby Reason has a Dr’s appt

                      I haven’t seen an update. I demand one for Monday.

                      Somedays I feel like each and everyone of us got Banjos pregnant.

                    26. Somedays I feel like each and everyone of us got Banjos pregnant.

                      WE ARE ALL BABY REASON NOW!

                      **giggles**

                      Oops! Time for me to go meet the GF! Do skorogo vsjo!

                    27. Somedays I feel like each and everyone of us got Banjos pregnant.

                      You can start sending your support checks to:

                      Baby Reason Fund
                      c/o Ken Spicer
                      [REDACTED] Road [REDACTED]
                      Woodlake, CA 932XX

                      I’ll be sure they get properly apportioned.

                    28. “Eduard wants to spout off. He sickens me.”

                      That’s because I’m a “slaver,” duh!

                    29. I support the attachment of personhood at non-mechanical viability.

                      Now there is a legit moral conundrum: If I have you under anaesthesia, where you are:

                      A) Naked.

                      B) Immobile.

                      C) Unconscious.

                      C) And at the risk of sounding sadistic and inflammatory (which is not my intention, as I argue in good faith), at my sole mercy as the surgeon, do I have the right to take your life when you cannot object?

                      Absent the licensing system, the law, and an otherwise appointed custodian, you are at no one else’s mercy but mine and the equivalent of a giant fetus.

                      The reason I ask this is because, using the non-mechanical viability argument opens up a lot of cans of worms that I, as the provider, don’t want to go, and there are end of life concerns that naturally follow, especially regarding triage and emergency medical intervention.

                    30. Did a rape victim volunteer to be a slave?

                      Did a guest in a womb volunteer to be murdered?

              2. “Should I ask them if they can think of someone who is anti-slavery and wants slavery to be legal?”

                You know I’m anti-slavery and yet, if offered a free slave and immunity, I might say, “let’s bring this little fella home.”

          2. because they’re against a category of human beings being put outside the protection of the law.

            Which has the built-in assumption that a fertilized egg cell is “a category of human”.

            The very nature of the subject, and the fundamental disagreement over key premises, makes it tough to have a common language.

            If by “language” you mean “definition of words”, then yes.

            1. ‘Which has the built-in assumption that a fertilized egg cell is “a category of human”.’

              An assumption which some choicers are beginning to acknowledge is true. See this link I posted recently:

              http://www.salon.com/2013/01/2…..ends_life/

              1. I still reject that assumption. I’ve yet to see anyone point to any feature or combination of features that makes a fertilized egg a “person”, but does not also make a cancerous tumor or an unfertilized egg cell a “person”.

                1. Here’s 3 conditions…

                  1. It has it’s own distinct DNA.
                  2. It’s teleological cause is a human.
                  3. Both 1 and 2 are true.

                  Neither cancer nor unfertilized egg meet #3.

                  1. @KPres

                    I’m an atheist, so you need to think up a better #2 if you want to convince me.

                    1. I could just restate as “It has the potential to become a human”, a condition which an unfertilized egg meets, but cancer doesn’t.

                    2. I could just restate as “It has the potential to become a human”, a condition which an unfertilized egg meets, but cancer doesn’t.

                      Human cloning via nuclear transfer might allow a cancer cell to become an individual human.

                      Still, this isn’t the argument I should be making. I should just point out that identical twins are clearly humans, but they do not meet both of your requirements. Therefore, your requirements do not “make a fertilized egg a person.”

              2. Um, Eddy Baby, swatting a fly also ends life. Your immune system ends millions if not billions of lives every day. Of course abortion ends life. There were some cells that were alive, and now they aren’t. You cannot conclude from that that it ends the life of a human being without a whole lot of further assumptions.

                1. The necessary assumption is that it’s the same species as its parents, and the same individual as it will be if it grows up. I don’t think that is exactly stretching the terms.

                2. With just a minor tweak or two, your argument could be made for killing humans in any state of total incapacitation, Zeb. I’m not saying you’re making that argument, but it could be made.

            2. I have no problem agree that a zygote is not a being with rights, but I still haven’t be convinced of the difference between a late-term, partial-birth abortion and leaving a newborn baby to die of exposure. In Ancient Rome, the former was outlawed and considered taboo, the latter was a father’s right under the mos maiorum and legally was compelled to do so in the case of children born with defects.

              1. I agree with you there, HM. The only difference between a 9-month old fetus and a 1 day old baby is location.

                1. So the question remains, should parents of newborns be allowed to put them out to die of exposure? And what if there is some sort of prophecy involved?

                  1. So the question remains, should parents of newborns be allowed to put them out to die of exposure? And what if there is some sort of prophecy involved?

                    Only if the child is the next Hitler.

                  2. Oedipus, you m—–f—-r!

                    1. One of the best scenes in movie history.

                  3. Putting them out to die of exposure at least has the chance of someone randomly coming upon them and adopting them. Or being raised by wolves/apes.

                    1. I agree with Heroic Mulatto. We would all be better off if Hitler had been raised by wolves.

                    2. And have given Hitler a source of Werewolf soldiers?

                      I shudder at the thought.

                    3. Well I’m not going to accept a Hitler raised by apes. Charlton Heston knows how that would end.

        5. Pro-abortion implies supporting abortion, whereas pro-choice implies supporting the right to have abortion.

          I think if you contend that the government should pay for abortion, you can safely be called pro-abortion.

      4. It’s gotten to a point where the word “choice” means abortion, and if you use it to mean “choice” you have to explicitly say so.

      5. The Patriot Act?

    2. Is this known as, doing the Tony?

      1. Is this known as, doing the Tony?

        It is now!

        1. Not that he doesn’t have a lot of bullshit up his sleeves, but he seems to like playing with words whenever he spews here.

          1. “You say you’re for freedom, but you’re not for the freedom from worrying about paying for health care!”

            1. I already covered this upthread, cap l.-)))

              Quibble: It’s “medical care”. “Health” is how you manage your state of being every day by the choices you make.

              1. I think tony has actually used this argument, or something like it, in the past.

                Freedom = free shit to the new American

        2. Second!

  4. WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???????

  5. Completely mischaracterizing a political minority in order to demonize it in order to give your retarded base someone to hate in order to distract them from your utter failure to deliver on anything you’ve promised to do?

    1. He already covered that one.

      The Unreflective Identification Of Ideological Heresy As Flaw Of Character Or Mental Defect

      1. Deceptively interpreting something someone said to mean something completely different than they actually meant?

        1. Ah, yes, the old Doing God’s Work in Some of America’s Toughest Neighborhoods.

          1. Focusing on (and usually mischaracterizing) a tiny element of what someone said in order to distract from what they said as a whole?

            1. Text, without context, is pretext.

  6. Eight years of BOOSH.

    End all. Be all.

    1. Eight years of BOOSH.

      Yeah but to be fair before this it was Eight years of CLINTON.

  7. The Shocking New Scientific Results That Completely Confirm That Everything My Doctrine Says Is Completely True

    1. The Shocking Anecdote That Convincingly Proves My Entire Ideology, Which Also Trumps The Other Side’s Examples, Which Are Merely Anecdotes.

    2. Considering “How To Lie With Statistics” To Be An Instruction Manual And Not A Warning.

    3. Or how about the variation, “Every historian before me was wrong, and my new evidence shows my doctrine has always been correct”? See in particular “Arming America” and the recent revelation that the (sole) purpose of the second amendment was to support slavery.

      1. I think that was an attempt to make a new ‘assault weapon’.

        Invent something, toss it out a few times, and hope it starts to take shape.

  8. The Incredibly Faked Surprise of Partisan Scribblers Over The “Appalling” (But Commonly and Sincerely Held) Views Of Most Other People

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say, that anybody would try a lame tactic such as this.

    1. Your NYT column, sir.

  9. The most common is the half truth. Telling just enough of the facts to make the argument look like it favors your side but leaving out any inconvenient details.

    A example of this is people who claim that Obama really cut spending when compared to Bush. They do this by pinning all of TARP on Bush while failing to note that Obama voted for TARP as a Senator and continued it as President.

    1. But Tony told me that’s totally not true!

      1. Actually, that’s more Buttfuck’s Buttplug’s gig.

  10. The unbearable rightness of bleating.

    1. A plus!

  11. You can’t possibly believe that! Only and idiot would believe something like that!

    1. And if you don’t agree with me you’re either stupid or lying!

      1. All sane, intelligent, decent adults agree with me. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are mentally ill, stupid, evil, childish, or some combination thereof.

    2. I’ve got the same combination on my luggage!

  12. Trotting Out the House Team (X) Member Who Really Doesn’t Believe in Anything X Does But Can Demonstrate How Crazy X is.

    See: David Brooks and Kirsten Powers.

    1. The concern troll. See, even one of your own thinks you are nuts.

      I think Brooks and David Frum are still in litigation over who owns the copyright on that move.

  13. Another one is to take a statement made by your opponent completely out of context and call it a “gaffe”. This one is great because even after the context is explained, you just move on to talk about how your opponent is stupid and always committing gaffes. That way you don’t have to talk about the original gaffe anymore so it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t really a gaffe.

    1. Text, without context, is pretext.

  14. The Ritual Slaughter Of The Kook Used Cynically As An Avatar For Views Held By Millions Of Sane, Educated, Civilized, Productive Citizens.

    Niven already covered that one in his laws:

    16. There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

  15. Oldie but goody:

    The Persecution of the Innocent

  16. Where does Biden’s claim that “it’s not gun control, it’s gun safety” fall on this list?

    1. Words mean what I say they mean, not what they actually mean?

    2. The Orwellian Relabeling of Black as White to Those Too Ideologically Blinded to Recognize That Tactic Unless Your Political Opponents Do It, In Which Case You Instantly Recognize It as Bullshit.

  17. Lets not forget the good old reliable ad hominem attack. You know, if someone benefits from police protection, they have no right to object to raising taxes to pay more police. They are just a hypocrite.

  18. How about the

    Appeal to a Meticulously Crafted Model Designed to Validate My Previously Determined Conclusions

    1. Studies where any set of random numbers plugged in will skewer to the desired result.

  19. Where does Biden’s claim that “it’s not gun control, it’s gun safety” fall on this list?

    Humpty Dumpty’s Law.

  20. The Brave Confession About The Time I Almost Did Something Terrible, Which Proves That My Opponents Don’t Care About Stopping Similar Terrible Things From Happening Now

    1. I once owned a gun but was too unstable to keep from resisting the temptation to do something stupid and evil. Clearly, guns must be banned.

      1. Well, this can all be summed up with one word: projection.

    2. I couldn’t figure out how to watch and return my Netflix DVDs so clearly new methods of media delivery are just disruptive and racist.

    3. One former friend that that one on me. Said that he was in an argument with his wife and got so angry that if he had had a gun in the house the entire family would have been murdered.

      I asked him what kept him from using the huge butcher knife I see in the rack above the stove.

      1. He doesn’t like the sight of blood, you see.

        1. And, you know what he said in response?

          ‘Be serious.’

          That is another one that deserves classification. An answer that doesn’t fit within the desired mold isn’t ‘serious’ no matter how effective it may be in function.

          1. Good one.

          2. That is another one that deserves classification. An answer that doesn’t fit within the desired mold isn’t ‘serious’ no matter how effective it may be in function.

            Ah yes, Argumentum modum Tulpae

          3. You’re a better person than me. The temptation to tell the cops he was threatening to kill his family would be hard to resist.

            1. His (now ex) wife was a six foot one black lady who once played basketball at NC State. I never took his claim seriously. If it ever got that heated between the two she would have crushed his spine with her ginormous feet.

              1. Don’t picture a Wookie from that description. She was really pretty. You just had to watch your step when passing by, you were liable to trip over her feet even when you thought you had plenty of clearance going by.

      2. One former friend that tried that one on me.

      3. You need better friends. Come over, we’ll play Wii Baseball and eat chips.

        1. Don’t do it Killaz. Not if you value your sphincter control.

          1. IXNAY ON THE APERAY

          2. And I have incredible control over my sphincter. After a few beers I can make my farts sounds like an extended riff on a Moog (I’m not even joking about this one).

        2. I don’t have many progtards as friends left, and it is really more a matter of them sorting me out of their lives than the other way around.

          Got a date to play ‘Infamous’ and drink first rate beer in a few hours but appreciate the invite.

  21. This Backbencher From The Other Side Whose Total Freakout At Leadership Makes Him Slightly Less Repulsive

    There is a companion to this. Some backbencher no one has ever heard of says something stupid and that is taken as representative of the entire political movement no matter how hard the rest of said movement condemns said stupidity.

  22. Compulsory Volunteerism Does Not Mean We Are Forcing You To Do Anything.

  23. And come on, we can’t forget the old, if even one (insert lovely thing here) is saved, it is all worth it.

  24. If I Cannot Control My Basest Urges, NEITHER CAN YOU

    1. We need a Base Urge Czar.

      1. Who gets to choose where the base starts?

        1. Well, all your base urges are belong to us.

          1. Sorry. Who measures where the base starts…

            1. He Who Measures, um, Such Things.

        2. Who gets to choose where the base starts?

          Billy: Don’t take this the wrong way, but have you actually got a penis?

          Peter: Yes.

          Billy: Where… where is it?

          Peter: It’s in there.

          Billy: Are you sure, so it’s like all snuffled up in there is it?

          Peter: Oh, the hell with this… Lois, get the ruler. We’re measuring again, and this time, I decide where the base is.

      2. We need a Base Urge Czar

        I am so stealing that as a new blog handle!

    2. And its companion, I Have Horrible Urges, SO YOU MUST TOO

      1. Again: PROJECTION

  25. If I Cannot Control My Basest Urges, NEITHER CAN YOU

    Dammit, beat me to it.

  26. I’m So Driven And Successful I Can’t Enjoy A Normal Life Like You Schmucks So Feel Sorry For Me.

  27. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..roval.html

    You just go to Slate and you can find one almost immediately. Because an organizations members really like and support said organization, the organization and its members bust be out of the mainstream extremists.

    1. Dang, they toss shit down the memory hole fast. I wish I could forget inconvenient shit that fast.

      Wasn’t it like a week ago that 80% of NRA members just sporting grandads that were against the group’s message, a message that was controlled by GUN-CORPRASHUNS(eek!)?

  28. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..43077.html

    Huffington Post. Since the actions of people hundreds of years ago were bad, your actions must be just as bad even if they are done for entirely different reasons.

  29. I Would Not Contribute A Single Penny Toward This Laudable Charity Because I Am a Selfish Bastard, And I Project Like Hell, So I Recommend That Everyone Be Forced To “Contribute” At Gunpoint So I Can Feel Good About Charitably Contributing to a Cause My Revealed Preferences Show I Don’t Actually Support, While Actively Seeking to be Personally Exempted From “Contributing” Toward Said Worthwhile Cause.

  30. I don’t think this

    The Embarrassing Ends Their Preferred Policies Were Put To Use For Over A Century Ago

    is categorically a fallacy. It’s possible in some cases that those ends were inextricably linked to the policies.

    1. Yeah, I noticed that as well. Laws are still on the books from racist progressive era policies that have consequences in our own time so there is no reason not to point out the origin of them. Another example, if Planned Parenthood put a clinic in a minority neighborhood forty years ago when eugenics was still a popular ideology amongst the rank and file of Barbara Bush’s that operated the organization and that clinic is still there, well, the ideology may have changed but the results are the same.

      1. I’m not sure liquidating the kulaks is separable from establishing a communist order, either.

  31. You know who else pigeonholed people?

    1. 12 gauge birdshot.

    2. Jesus, how did we not name this one sooner?

    3. Tiger Woods?

    4. That’s easy; Diogenes of Sinope.

  32. The Demand for a Compromise where I give up my superficial values but you give up your essential ones.

    1. “Look, I’m not saying I want to ban guns or I’m against self-defense, I’m just saying you don’t need more than two.”

    2. This is related to the demand we start having a serious conversation about something we’ve been having an endless argument about forever, in order to pretend we haven’t.

      1. It is also related to confusing compromise for concession. A compromise settles an issue. A concession is one side giving something up without settling the issue.

  33. That One Time I Heard About When the Government Did Not Make a Bad Situation Hugely Worse Which Proves They CAN be Trusted, and Makes You Guys Nothing More than a Bunch of Deranged Haters.

    1. New York cop buys shoes for a freezing homeless guy. Aren’t cops just swell!

  34. If You Don’t Want to Legislate Against a Behavior, You Must Be in Support of that Behavior. In Fact, You Probably Participate in that Behavior, or I Presume that You Would if It Wasn’t Currently Legislated Against.

    1. Looks like we won’t have T o n y to kick around at reason.com anymore!

      1. Is that supposed to be T o n y? Because it doesn’t seem like him at all. Much less douchey, and a lot more willing to mock the left.

        1. Can’t be T o n y, this blog guy’s way too much a fan of the 2nd Amendment.

  35. http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon…..ck_to.html

    If you won’t raise taxes, you clearly are not serious about cutting spending.

    Yeah, I know it is Yglesias and he is retarded. So it is not fair to pick on him.

  36. China Is Awesome, Is That A Cinnabon I Smell?, Six Months Until Mumble Mumble, Therefore Support Obama.

  37. Hai Guys! Republicans Are Big Meanies! Go Banana Slugs!

    1. The assertion that my argument is the “adult” assertion and that the person I’m talking to’s argument is not, and then mentions of sitting at “adult tables” and banana slugs.

  38. Disagreement with my policy proposal reveals your opposition to / loathing of the results I expect or the stated beneficiaries of that proposal.

    1. Do it for the Childrens!

  39. How about, just straight up calling people that disagree with you racist for no other reason than they happen to disagree with you?

    Was that one covered yet? It’s been pretty popular over the last 4-5 years.

    1. The fact that you ignored the equally over-the-top abuse of misogynist clearly shows that you are a misogynist.

      You make me sick.

      1. I make me sick too. Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.

  40. I guess this is a good thread to post insipid shit. WIKIPEDIA IS SEXIRACIST

    1. Ooh, sexy-racist!

      1. I’M BRINGING SEXIRACIST BACK!

    2. Despite being one of the most heavily visited sites on the web, women comprise just 13 percent* of all Wikipedia editors. Why is that? Oh, you know, the usual ? gender bias in general, extreme gender bias in tech, and the hostile culture that can create for women.

      Ummm, I don’t…?? Ehh, isn’t umm,…? What?

      DON”T GROK

      1. Look, man, the fact that a totally voluntary, anonymous activity is only comprised of 13% women doesn’t mean that maybe women don’t really like to do that activity all that much, it means PATRIARCHY. What are you, stupid?

        1. What are you, stupid?

          Yes, but calling me names doesn’t help me understand this any better.

          And your mom…

        2. Or it means that most women have better things to do–like watching paint dry–than fool with those Aspy pedant fucktards on Wikipedia.

          1. You’re such a fucking misogynist. Women can be Aspy pedant retards too. It’s just that it’s much more likely for men to be so…wait, more fucking PATRIARCHY!

            1. When Jezebel addresses ways to close the alarming autism gap between men and women, I’ll never make fun of them again.

              1. Jesus, where’d they get those pics from?

                An anti-vaccination ad?

                1. I can haz Furburger is sexist, too.

          2. I wish I had the time, and or pedantic nature to edit wiki pages, as I’d totally fuck with the jezebel author’s page.

            Anyone?

            1. Anything remotely controversial is locked down anymore. And they are more careful about giving out editor accounts.

              I have one and make a few pages and contributions, but constantly having to argue with a idiot that clearly knows far less than I do about a particular subject is not my idea of a good time.

              1. And they are more careful about giving out editor accounts.

                Yeah, I heard that they’re checking new users for a penis now. Fucking shame, if you ask me. Ladyfolk have all kinds of useful information to share nowadays.

      2. I think that is a complicated way of saying that women just aren’t as into that sort of thing as men are.

    3. They never fail to whine….err I mean amuse!

      Seriously though get your lazy twat off the complaining couch and edit a few articles if that’s what you want to do….Oh it isn’t….you’d rather just complain about it!

      Okay Lucy Van Pelt just stay inside and fuss then.

      Jeez! Who the F cares about lezebel anyway?

    4. When they complain about 98% of pintrest only being women and gay men, I’ll start to give the tiniest of shit.

  41. Just Because Hitler FDR Did It Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It’s a Bad Idea.

  42. “The Regrettable Act By Our Ideological Ally Is Excused By His Lifelong Committment To High Ideals And Great Suffering At The Hands of Extremists.”

    Examples?

    1. Ronald Reagan
    2. William Jefferson Clinton
    3. Hillary Clinton (damn, she is so ugly)
    4. Teddy Kenedy
    5. Martin Luther King
    6. Jesse Jackson
    7. Maxine Waters
    8. Jesse Jackson, Jr.
    9. Obama
    10. Obama’s ux (damn, she is so ugly!)
    11. George Herbert Walker Bush
    12. Barbara Bush (yes, she’s FUGLY too)
    13. James Earl Carter
    14. Susan Rice
    15. Condi Rice
    16. Barbara Boxer
    17. Dianne Feinstein
    18. Lindsey Graham
    19. George W. Bush
    20. Dickless Cheney

    1. 18. Lindsey Graham (looks like a pasty faced past his prime drag queen)

      1. Phew! Thank Aphrodite dunked in honey that I wasn’t the only one who noticed!

  43. Negative Foreseeable Consequences are Unintended and therefor Moot.

  44. Politican X would have been worse!

    1. If we hadn’t done X, it would be so much worse!

      1. Doing nothing means you hate women, children, and minorities.

        1. DO SOMETHING!!!!!!

  45. If you refuse to support government action to stop people from doing something, you obviously support that something and think it is a good!!

  46. Have we covered the old Something Must Be Done! This Is Something! yet?

    1. Doing nothing means you hate women, children, and minorities.

      *I’m just going to randomly copy and paste this all day.

  47. I suppose we would be remiss to leave out Godwin.

    1. You know who else left out Godwin?

  48. It’s Racist When You Do This Thing Which I Do All The Time, But It’s Not Racist When I Do It.

  49. Also not necessarily a fallacy:

    The Principle That, If Other Side Adopted It, Would Make The World Better, (But Would Also Undermine Their Reason For Existing Altogether)

    And evokes the fallacy that politics is just another forum for the debate of ideas. Politics involves competing interest. Interest become entrenched at the cost of everyone else for the sake of gain for the entrenched parties. Say, for example, the public employee unions adopted a policy that they would fund their own pensions instead of feeding a second line of income from the public trough that would be very much be a gain for everyone else.

  50. X is a shithead
    X is a member of Y group
    Ergo, all Y’s are shitheads

  51. If you don’t think X should be doing Y, it means you think Y shouldn’t be done at all.

  52. We Tried That in the Gilded Age and Everybody Died

    1. this made me lol

  53. The Opposing Viewpoint Is Correlated with a Personality Disorder.

  54. Common Sense Dictates My Position.

  55. I Am Moderate.

    1. Good one.

      Make some marxist appeal and then say it’s moderate or center-left. Repeat until actual moderate is seen as right-wing anarchist.

  56. Our Opponents Are Physically Hideous.

  57. Dianne Feinstein is a stupid bitch.

  58. The consensus of an arbitrary group of people selected because they agree with an opinion makes the opinion a fact. Any disagreement of this opinion proves a denial of reality.

  59. I May Be Arrogant And Stupid, But I’m Your Brother/Friend/Mother-In-Law And My Feewings Will Be Hurt If You Don’t Agree With Me. Then You’ll Feel Guilty And Miserable. MwaHaHaHa.

  60. I’m Right Because I Goed to College Where I Learn About Diversity And The Rich Get Richer.

  61. People are facing different challenges in their daily lives. They need to come up with good results to prove themselves or somebody else that they are worthy of doing so. Basically, these tasks are evaluated according to their degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Whether you are in a business owner, an employee, or an ordinary person at home, it is highly essential to management effectiveness well.

  62. People are facing different challenges in their daily lives. They need to come up with good results to prove themselves or somebody else that they are worthy of doing so. Basically, these tasks are evaluated according to their degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Whether you are in a business owner, an employee, or an ordinary person at home, it is highly essential to management effectiveness well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.