Pimping?

Every time I try to think otherwise I find that Budge is a complete fucking asshole.

Comments

[Mark Tokarski]

I enjoyed the exchange down below, but isn't this a bit over the top?

[Big Swede]

Leave him alone Mark, he's going for his 3rd MT Weblog Award.

[Wulfgar]

Mark, No. This has been another simple answer to a simple question.

[Mark Tokarski]

As one who suffers from fits of temper, I'm often tempted to just give in and let someone have it, as I have done with Swede, and Budge. When that happens, Swede and Budge win. With this post, Budge won. You're much better than this, Wulf. Way much better.

[Wulfgar]

Mark, perhaps you can clarify to me what exactly it is that Dave has "won"; or more to the point of something I might care about, what it is I've lost?

[Mark Tokarski]

Credibility.

[drylander]

Naw Mark... I wouldn't say credibility, rather the other "c" word: Class.

But, it seems to me that Dave can behave like a classless asshat too (as I think we're all prone to do).

I can understand Rob's frustration - and it just compounds in this medium. Maybe it would be better if we could just arrange a public fistfight or an old fashioned duel between the two. Might be more productive...

I've basically given up on Dave's acerbic blog. Too many chips on the shoulder for me, thank-you-very-much. When I read, I don't leave feeling better informed or uplifted towards his political bent, rather I end up feeling like I've just been served a helping of an individual dealing with their own personal demons. There is hardly anything constructive on that end - if his goal is to turn would be libertarian minded folks to that bent... I wouldn't call that blog a success. But, again, I don't think that the point of it.

I do however get Wulfgar's sense of humor, and I like to see him chase people down with axes on occasion... perhaps I live vicariously though others, who can do/say what I cannot. He's over the top sometimes, but I get that his heart is generally always in the right place - and there are far worse ways to be.
And that said, I think Rob's justified in letting off some steam ans hasn't lost any more credibility than Dave has.

[Wulfgar]

Then I've lost nothing meaningful. That's the very rub; credibility means nothing anymore, except to those who wish to use it as a weapon, or a shield.

In a more rational age, were claim to be made "Dave Budge is a complete fucking asshole", the credibility of the claim would ride on whether Dave Budge was indeed acting like a complete fucking asshole. But no, as a sadly resurrected relic from a time when breeding meant value, we hold credibility not to a standard of truth but to a standard of objectionable speech. This one is erudite, hence credible; this one is foul, hence not.

Poppycock. That's a perverse form of Ad Hominem that we all seem eager to participate in. Except the game is rigged, and I'm way tired of that. Witness the Budge: most of his arguments that elicit response are arrogantly self-referential, claims of false authority on his part. He offers them with supposedly meaningful anectdotes. When challenged on his thesis, he falls into one of two claims, the opponent doesn't understand what he meant (but it is always miscomprehension, and not that he was unclear ...), or that the opponent hasn't the capacity to understand his argument (hence introducing the element of credibility). He claims credibility for himself, as all 'good righties' do, without ever having to establish the baseline of truth to his thesis. Since both those tacts are as fallacious as can be, they invariably get attacked as Dave knows they will, and he falls into his ultimate defense: the opposition is mean! Woe is he. His se4lf-pity is an unassailable shield, and any that attempt it have none of the credibility that he has already stolen from reason itself. He is intellectually dishonest, morally questionable and thoroughly hypocritical ... and he whines that others might shine a light on this. Ergo: He's a complete fucking asshole.

But he always is afforded that trump card ... "credibility". He's credible, for no reason other than that he said he was. Fine. Just as the wingnuts argue that the Nobel Peace Prize is now meaningless that Gore was awarded it, it's terribly clear to me that Dave, Mike, Steve and oh so many others have rendered the term "credibility" null and void. It seriously doesn't matter to me anymore. People are going to believe whatever makes them feel 'okay'. Reason? 'Got nothing to do with it anymore. Credibility? Keep it. I don't need it.

[Mark Tokarski]

He can get under your skin, I admit - I've had my days with him and have walked away thinking the man is an absolute expert at saying the one thing that will piss me off more than any other. But it's all up to me - he either gets to me or he doesn't. If I treat him with a modicum of respect, he does the same - he argues hard and doesn't pander, but he doesn't insult either.

I love to read the two of you as you're going at it, except when it devolves, as it did last time - that was painful to watch. And he held his own pretty well - he didn't sneer at you or call you names - he just came back at you hard, as he always does, wrong or right. On the other hand I saw you getting snippy and insulting and it got worse and worse.

Anyway, it's history. I do respect you and am done lecturing. Nothing will change. Just let it be said that I have a better time with Budge than you. He's not so bad as you say. You two are just match and flash paper.