Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist

[Ziggurat]

No one can stop you from embracing the double standard you lament.

It's a double standard if it applies to me and not everyone else. It's not a double standard if it applies to everyone or no one.

Your adoption of the double standard does change one thing. In the past, your rhetoric has often challenged posters to support their claims with actual evidence. Such challenges have made this a better place.

In the future, anyone you challenge will be able to point to your behavior in this thread and say, correctly, that you are trying to hold others to a standard you have been unwilling to apply to yourself. Your repudiation of all obligation to provide evidence for one's fantasies will make this a worse place.

This is still a double standard you're trying to hold me to. I'm supposed to elevate this forum, but you don't demand that of others. If my complaint is about double standards, why would you think that applying one double standard is going to get me to accept another double standard?

The forum is already a worse place for me, it has long been so, and I didn't make it so. You were never there fighting to make it better for me, why should I now fight to make it better for you?

You say you're tired of the game and aren't going to play any more. That's not true. You're still playing the game, but have switched sides. As you stated in your first paragraph above, you are now on the side of those who insult whomever they like without justification.

That's a tactic, not a side. And I insult with justification, I'm just not bothering to provide it. Furthermore, it's not whomever I like. Forum rules constrain that, and I will continue to abide by those rules. But this isn't a violation of the forum rules:

Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist.

 

[Ziggurat]

To a point, I can see what you mean. Except, "thin-skinned narcissist" is not just an insult clearly referring to something (like, say, "Bush is a stupid liar"); it's a fairly specific claim about Obama's character. I know you've used it for a long time, but in these times it looks like you're comparing him to Trump and his childish rants.

That's because I am comparing them. But notice what you did: you called Trump childish. That's a fairly specific claim about Trump's character. I happen to agree with that assessment, but that's not the point: you make these statements without bothering to back them up (and I'm not demanding that you do), but why can't I do the same? The answer is obvious: Trump's childishness is part of the orthodoxy, but Obama's narcisissm isn't.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you consider evidence of Obama's narcissism.

Maybe I'll PM you something later. But this thread isn't about genuine interest, so I'm not going to post anything here.

If someone had said, "Marco Rubio is a tactless megalomaniac" or whatever, I imagine they would get called on it too.

I doubt it. But try it sometime. Pick some other thread, throw out an insult like that, and see what happens. You might get an objection from a conservative poster, but I bet you won't from any of the liberal ones.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Marco Rubio isn't a megalomaniac or tactless. He does have plenty of other failures as a politician.

 

[ehcks]

And I insult with justification, I'm just not bothering to provide it.

The tactics of a psuedoscientific conspiracy theorist, at best. This is something I'd expect a Bigfooter to say.

 

[Ziggurat]

The tactics of a psuedoscientific conspiracy theorist, at best. This is something I'd expect a Bigfooter to say.

Oh please. My statement is obviously a matter of opinion. If you can't recognize the difference between an expression of opinion and a claim of fact, then I'm not the one with the problem here.

And you're still proving my point. You're trying to shame me for violating the orthodoxy. Being a "psuedoscientific conspiracy theorist" is supposed to be the worst thing you can be on a skeptics forum, so you think that maybe you can change my behavior because I won't want to be thought of as being one. But it won't work, because your efforts are far too ham-handed.

 

[Belz...]

Wow. 4 pages of butt-hurt because your god-king was insulted. Well, if Obama doesn't have thin skin, his followers certainly do.

That is extremely unfair. First because you think no one could defend Obama from a lie unless one worships him, which is nonsense that someone as smart as you would never tolerate from someone else. Second, the accusation is a lie, and the counter-argument has been right on the money. Third, your reaction seems simply because you don't like Obama, which makes your comment ironic to say the least. Fourth, your last sentence seems to admit that the accusation is, in fact, not true, justifying the defense.

Maybe a bit more reflection before posting?

 

[Belz...]

Hey, remember that time when you claimed you had evidence that Obama was a thin-skinned narcissist but didn't have time to provide it for a week or so, then came back with ad homs against other users and provided no evidence?

Yeah, I remember that.

There's a double standard on these forums, where insults against conservatives are taken as given and insults against liberals demand proof, and I'm tired of that game.

So am I, however conservatives engage in the same double-standard, so there's no surprise, there. You can help improve the situation by providing the evidence that Upchurch reminds us you claimed to have.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is extremely unfair.

Life is unfair, kid. But you aren't proving me wrong.

First because you think no one could defend Obama from a lie unless one worships him

Trying to tell me what's fair while accusing me of lying for expressing my opinion isn't going to work. And you seem just as butt-hurt as the rest.

which is nonsense that someone as smart as you would never tolerate from someone else.

I tolerate expressions of opinion that differ from mine all the time. If I got butt-hurt every time somebody said something mean about conservatives on this forum, I wouldn't have time to use the bathroom.

Second, the accusation is a lie, and the counter-argument has been right on the money.

How can an opinion be a lie? That's not how it works. You don't get to privilege your opinion as a fact and mine as a lie.

Maybe a bit more reflection before posting?

You really don't understand what's going on here.

 

[Belz...]

Life is unfair, kid. But you aren't proving me wrong.

Don't pretend like you didn't understand what I meant.

Trying to tell me what's fair while accusing me of lying for expressing my opinion isn't going to work.

It's not true, and you know it. Ergo, it's a lie.

And you seem just as butt-hurt as the rest.

Do you even know what that term means?

I tolerate expressions of opinion that differ from mine all the time.

Again, don't pretend to not understand what I wrote. You would not accept someone telling you that you were butt-hurt and defending your god-king just for saying that someone's accusation is wrong.

How can an opinion be a lie?

"Ziggurat is a murderer!" "Wait! It's my opinion. How can it be a lie?"

Very weak, Zig.

That's not how it works. You don't get to privilege your opinion as a fact and mine as a lie.

I do because despite your word, you have not provided evidence for your positive claim.

You really don't understand what's going on here.

I know exactly what's going on. You are allowing ideology to cloud your judgment.

 

[Ziggurat]

So am I, however conservatives engage in the same double-standard, so there's no surprise, there. You can help improve the situation by providing the evidence that Upchurch reminds us you claimed to have.

You fundamentally misunderstand the situation, and the dynamic at play here. You want me to improve the situation for YOU by doing what you ask, but why should I? The situation for me doesn't improve if I do as you ask. The behavior that I dislike continues unabated.

You're trying to act noble here, but it won't work, because it's one-sided. You ask something of me, but can offer nothing in return. You won't help police anti-conservative rhetoric, and you're only policing anti-liberal rhetoric because it offends liberals, not because it's offensive. You can't get me to change my position if you can't even understand the incentives at play here, and you don't.

And hell, what I said is not even all that offensive. Seriously, look how upset people have gotten from the simple statement that Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist. Oh noes!!!! I have said the unspeakable! I may not have proven that Obama is thin-skinned, but I've proved that about a lot of posters. And your post doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise.

 

[uke2se]

Someone sure is butt-hurt in this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know exactly what's going on.

No, you really, really don't.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow. 4 pages of butt-hurt because your god-king was insulted. Well, if Obama doesn't have thin skin, his followers certainly do.

I didn't see butt hurt. I think we're all just chatting among ourselves, killing time until you give us that evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You fundamentally misunderstand the situation, and the dynamic at play here. You want me to improve the situation for YOU by doing what you ask, but why should I? The situation for me doesn't improve if I do as you ask. The behavior that I dislike continues unabated.

You're trying to act noble here, but it won't work, because it's one-sided. You ask something of me, but can offer nothing in return. You won't help police anti-conservative rhetoric, and you're only policing anti-liberal rhetoric because it offends liberals, not because it's offensive. You can't get me to change my position if you can't even understand the incentives at play here, and you don't.

And hell, what I said is not even all that offensive. Seriously, look how upset people have gotten from the simple statement that Obama is a thin-skinned narcissist. Oh noes!!!! I have said the unspeakable! I may not have proven that Obama is thin-skinned, but I've proved that about a lot of posters. And your post doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise.

Do you need a donut-cushion? I ask because you seem very butt-hurt.

 

[The Don]

Could you please provide this evidence ?

If I get around to it. I'm now off for some long-distance travel, won't have much time for the next week or so.

I've not being paying much attention but I see that Ziggurat is back posting on this thread.

Was the evidence forthcoming ?

Was the evidence compelling ?

Is there now a general understanding as to why some/many/most/all (delete as applicable) people consider Obama a thin-skinned narcissist ?

The reason I ask is that the evidence I could dredge up was very weak.

 

[uke2se]

I've not being paying much attention but I see that Ziggurat is back posting on this thread.

Was the evidence forthcoming ?

Was the evidence compelling ?

Is there now a general understanding as to why some/many/most/all (delete as applicable) people consider Obama a thin-skinned narcissist ?

The reason I ask is that the evidence I could dredge up was very weak.

Nah, he's moved the goal-posts instead and said that everyone but him is butt-hurt.

 

[Upchurch]

The reason I ask is that the evidence I could dredge up was very weak.

What I found amount to "Yep, that Obama sure is a thin-skinned narcissist." I never found out where the echo in the chamber originated from.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't see butt hurt. I think we're all just chatting among ourselves, killing time until you give us that evidence.

Why? Of all the insults offered up about politicians in these forums, why was this the insult that demanded its own thread?

Because it struck a nerve, that's why.

 

[Upchurch]

Why? Of all the insults offered up about politicians in these forums, why was this the insult that demanded its own thread?

Because it struck a nerve, that's why.

....or because it was off topic for the thread it was brought up in so I spawned a new thread to address just that claim.

Also, it was a ridiculous claim that I thought should be challenged. Do you believe that there are some claims that should not be challenged?


eta: Wouldn't a much better way of shutting all this down be to just provide the evidence that you insist exists?

 

[Belz...]

You fundamentally misunderstand the situation, and the dynamic at play here. You want me to improve the situation for YOU by doing what you ask, but why should I?

Either provide evidence for your claim or accept that others will reject said claim.

You're trying to act noble here, but it won't work, because it's one-sided.

Yeah, people who don't make positive claims don't have to provide evidence. I thought you'd know this, by now.

And hell, what I said is not even all that offensive.

Calling people butt-hurt and Obama worshippers is meant to cause offense so that you don't have to delve into actual arguments, Zig. You're not fooling anyone.

No, you really, really don't.

Enlighten me. Or is this one of those times where you claim to have information that you don't actually have?