#499084
BCSWowbagger wrote:I find it bizarre how often people try to psycho-analyze others around here. You could just say you disagree with his point, rather than guess motives.Armus wrote:That said, I get your point. Mike is making a P -> Q statement and I'm offering up ~P -> Q, which doesn't refute the original argument, but the argument is a weak logical statement to begin with. But now we're really academic, so I'm stopping.I'm comfortable agreeing with all six claims in this short post.
KillerB wrote:Curious I mention the CoC and Heaney suddenly appears declaring winners of arguments.I know you're saying this because you think it advances your short-term political agenda, and because, like your idol Alinsky, you rarely consider the consequences of your actions further than five days into the future.
All my abstract ideas as to why the CoC is fatal are one thing, but the nerd power tripping is just sad.
However, I invite anyone who even suspects that Corbett might have an actual point here to reread the past few days of posts and realize how wildly the premises of his post diverge from reality. Recognize how many dozens and dozens of times the CoC has been mentioned without my offering comment. Ask why I would suddenly jump in now, if my purpose were to defend the CoC (or whatever) rather than to correct a technically invalid argument. Above all, notice the destructive intent behind Corbett's implication. Corbett knew better than anyone what an absurd claim this was, but he made it anyway.
Why does he do it? I don't know. I really don't think Corbett bears me any personal malice. He certainly didn't say things like this back when I was saying nice things about The Process. I think he just wants to win the audience, and I think he believes casting aspersions at people like this is how you practice "feminine aggression," which, he imagines, is how this community does business. But John's motives have been much harder for me to figure out than his tactics, which are textbook.
Corbett's tactic right now is to turn the 2E Director Search into a Shea-Corbett fight. (Notice how he rags loudly on Shea but doesn't present himself as an advocate for any other candidate.) He doesn't need to actually win that fight, because he's not a candidate. All he needs to do is damage Shea enough (or goad Shea into damaging himself enough) that Nerdo or Triumph or Tjark don't want to vote for Shea. Simply by having the fight, Corbett wins. That's Alinsky Rule #13 right there. It's a good tactic, battle-tested in the real world. I hope the selection committee is smart enough to see through it here.
To illustrate what Alinsky Rule #13 looks like:
Ordinarily, John's next move would be to declare The Prefect "the candidate of the moderators," labeling me "the moderators" and presenting my comments about Armus's malformed argument as somehow supportive of not just The Prefect, but The Prefect's entire candidacy. Corbett would make this argument even though I have no real interest in the 2E Director race, I like all the candidates just fine*, I'm not a moderator, and the other ex-moderator here (Armus) seems to be (at the very least) Shea-skeptical. (And, note well: ARMUS is the ex-mod who has an actual vote, not me.) Corbett would do it anyway, because his tactics aren't about logic and can't be refuted logically. Their purpose is to evoke emotions, which (as Scott Adams informs him) often slip straight past any logical filters.
Of course, now that I've called out that approach, he'll have to come up with a different one (while insisting that my prediction was wrong).
In any event, I've said everything I mean to say, and KillerB doesn't mean anything he says, so -- unless Armus has anything further to add about the Queen, God save her -- I'll be leaving this hellscape for the sunlit uplands of other subforums now.
*Yes, even Hosp. In fact, especially Hosp. I doubt my affection is returned, but I'm quite fond of Hosp's outside-the-box perspectives, his overwrought analogies, and his solid jokes.