Neat.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, ceddit.com, archive.is*

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/co... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, ceddit.com, archive.is*

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Some people just enjoy arguing. The fact that /u/mrsamsa and his arguments get posted here so often proves that his trolling works too. I can't think of many other people who cause as much outrage on /r/Drama as him

Yeah, we once got him (her?) on /r/exmuslim and the best way to deal with it is to just stop posting altogether.

link?

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/64yy4z/our_favorite_srd_islam_apologist_thinks_islamic/

I thought we confirmed she's silvertongue's new account.

It is. Drama cracked his code a few weeks ago. The best thing to do is ping /u/mrsamsa, mock him, then just respond to him without acknowledging his argument and eventually just keep saying "k". He's easy.

It's not really "cracking a code", I'm just willing to discuss things with people or talk shit whenever they want to. If they don't want to or are done with the conversation then there's nothing else to say...

It is adorable how you guys have to come up with complex rules for how to talk to people though.

What are you even trying to say here? Is this a copy pasta?

Did you have a stroke?

So, yes?

You always have to get the last word, huh?

I thought we confirmed that everyone was silvertongue?

Why do you keep following me around and talking about me? If you wanted a sneaky hand job there are better ways to woo me.

Please do that thing where you tell me you've "Busted!" my arguments again. Remember when you kept doing that? Where you pretended to be the police and told me you were locking me up because you had won the debate.

Why don't you ever being that attitude to the bedroom?

ill take a handjob. dont have time to woo but i'll send you $14 thru venmo

I've done it for less.

k

idk why drama is so mad

the most i can fault you with is getting baited into arguing a rathiest who thinks the scientific method is somehow both constructed by humans and written into reality

I don't think the people hating on /u/mrsamsa are normal dramanauts, though serial serious posting can definitely earn you a poor reputation around here.

normal dramanauts

contradiction in terms m8

Tru.

How about "culture war refugees"?

I'm not sure, I think it's mostly that I post in SRD and sometimes my posts are long. I've pissed off quite a few red pillers in my time as well and there tends to be a few hanging around here.

If someone passes you a rubik's cube that is almost done, you tend to twist it around and fuck it up beyond repair and then pass it back to them and say, "what's your problem?" If this is satire then you are a genius, if it's not than you're an impossible ass ho.

For real this time: If you can not respond to this – or not respond to any other of my comments - starting now- i'll but you gold to show I'm a good sport. (not that gold is a big deal or something)

It's all good, I'll just take the gold for the other comment. I'm not greedy. Thanks!

I'll just take that gold, thanks!

bizud is a self described transphobe who was angry that the APA disagreed with his understanding of the science relating to trans people,

This person literally edited my flair on r/badsocialscience to read "transphobe," and then did it again after I changed it back. If it happens again I might just keep it. I mean that's the endpoint of people throwing out terms like "racist" to people and situations that they obviously shouldn't be applied to - people just stop giving a shit and the word will lose all power. With allies like you, who needs enemies?

Come on, you have to admit that it was pretty funny?

I don't think it's funny because it trivializes actual transphobia, which is a problem, and because it's used to avoid examining things or listening to people - i.e. "this person is a TERF, so nothing they say could possibly have value," or "this person is an MRA, so nothing they say could possibly have value," or "this person is a Marxist, so nothing they say could possibly have value." This is precisely the wrong attitude to take about individuals and their ideas and behaviours. People are not good or bad. Ideas and behaviours are good or bad. We should be able to examine just about any thinker or perspective and separate the wheat from the chaff - "what can I take from this that is useful and what do I need to discard?"

More broadly it's an attempt to shame an opponent into ceasing to put forward their claims, and again, that's exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. We should be encouraging even people who we think have vile, hateful views to speak the truth as they see it, because then those views can be disputed.

The OP is a Sam Harris fan

lmao. nuff said

Exactly. And I was serious about his comments above, he literally views himself as the "internet police", and when he thinks he's won an argument he tells the person that they've been "busted by the chartbuster!" and tells them he's "locking them up for poor reasoning!", etc.

It's really cringeworthy..

Ahh... you are talking about me. You obviously haven't gone back very far into their comment history. You also seem to be misconstruing my argument, although not to the extent of mr psuedo-intellectual.

What is there to "bust" about your arguments? They are mostly pseudo-intellectual nonsense. There is nothing to bust when your argument is a revolving door of fuckwittery.

Big words considering you were unable to find a problem with my arguments...

Sorry, what?

Remember the thread where you couldn't find any problems with my arguments, and you just started throwing a hissy fit because I went against the circlejerk.

Not following. Can you link it here, please?

Just look at any conversation we've had.

Any conversation? We had? I call shenanigans!

Is this where you deny reality again?

Greatness fascinates intricate sensations.

I have never met a more irritating interlocutor.

He is an obvious pathological narcissist. His complete lack of sense of humour makes it obvious. Why let it bother you so much?

Said this before and I'll say it again.

Mrsama is the most bat-shit crazy person I have ever encountered on Reddit and one of 3 people I've put on a "no-argument" list.

The other 2? An anti-vaxxer and guy that tried to convince me lizards are controlling the government.

And here's the crazy part - people in various left-wing subs love this person, I've gotten in multiple arguments where one of them will drop "You're the guy that won't argue with mrsama because he destroys you!"

I don't even know how to respond to that because Mrsama is blatantly mentally ill and has never won an argument in his life.

Definitely deliberate. I wonder if it is something like Internet Comment Etiquette with Erik but not funny.

often misunderstands the true intentions of others

Holy shit that's spooky.

I dunno, bridezilla was 10lbs of crazy in a 5lb bag. And then there was /u/WorldofWomen, and /u/irbytremor...

I'm sure there are tons more, I'm just basing it on what I've personally encountered.

Mrsamsa is blatantly mentally ill and has never won an argument in his life.

He wins the majority of them. You really think people would be this up in arms over an idiot who always loses?

Absolutely, as long as his arguments lined up with their own views.

i mean mrsamsa really is retarded but its really crazy to me how many people are willing to talk in absolutes in a sub called r/skeptic

Right? Even retards can be right, especially when the question is whether you should eat that crayon.

mrsamsa is the most skilled debater, and the most generally infuriating person, I have ever encountered on the internet. The way he'll mercilessly exploit the slightest ambiguity in a person's argument. The way he always knows just the right thing to say to confuse someone or get under their skin. He's a talented individual.

A deceptively pseudo-sincere troll, wasting peoples time

Well. I think he deploys some deceptive tactics to help himself win arguments. But he's also quite sincere in his political beliefs. He views it as his mission to educate people, ultimately for the purpose of making them adopt liberal viewpoints.

The way he'll mercilessly exploit the slightest ambiguity in a person's argument. The way he always knows just the right thing to say to confuse someone or get under their skin. He's a talented individual.

This doesn't seem fair or accurate. Generally my posts end up being fairly long because I'm always trying to account for possible misunderstandings of the other person's point. So my posts tend to take the form of: "When you say X, I disagree because I think Y disproves it. But if you actually mean not-X, then I still disagree because I think Z disproves it".

I'm sure it can be tiring to read and maybe it can be criticised as not being an effective approach, but to me it has the advantages of a) trying to save time where the person can just pick the actual position they hold and respond to that, rather than us getting bogged down in semantics and having to define basic terms through a number of posts, and b) demonstrates that I'm operating in good faith by attempting to understand their position from all angles, and doing so in the most charitable way.

He views it as his mission to educate people, ultimately for the purpose of making them adopt liberal viewpoints.

This is a pretty interesting interpretation, given that I'm a conservative...

I think the part that confuses most people is that I tend to argue based on what I think are incorrect understandings of a topic, not whether I agree or disagree with the overall position. For example, I'm a fairly passionate atheist but when people make incorrect claims about religion or religious ideas, it pains me to read a weak argument for a position I agree with. As such, a lot of people come away thinking I'm a theist!

There was a similar issue a while ago on this sub where I was arguing that punching Nazis was wrong, but someone on SRD presented a bad argument for why punching Nazis was wrong. So I was arguing that even though punching Nazis is wrong, we need to make sure we employ strong arguments against it, otherwise people are going to think we're morons for taking the position we do. Over on /r/drama, this seemed to turn into a game of Telephone where my position became "Punching Nazis is okay".

Wow. You managed to do both of the things I complained about in this reply. That had to be intentional.

I'm sure it can be tiring to read

mrsamsa loves including snarky comments like this in an attempt to fluster his opponents. The obvious implication here being that I'm either too lazy or too incompetent to read and understand his posts. Now that I've pointed this out, possible responses from him include things like "I was just expressing genuine concern..." or "you seem paranoid..." Other mrsamsa classics in a similar vein include "are you having a mental breakdown?" and "science doesn't care about your feelings."

Generally my posts end up being fairly long because I'm always trying to account for possible misunderstandings of the other person's point.

BS, because we have right here a perfect example of you taking an ambiguous word and running with it:

This is a pretty interesting interpretation, given that I'm a conservative...

A cursory glance at your post history will show anyone in this subreddit that you're obviously not a conservative in the sense I intended. Maybe you could argue that you're a conservative because you think social change should happen incrementally, or you support lower taxes, or whatever other criteria you choose. But it's obvious that I was talking about "conservative" in the right-wing "culture war" sense. Granted, the "culture war" is a bit difficult to define - people variously call the two sides left vs right, SJW vs anti-SJW, feminist vs anti-feminist, whatever - but once I've described it in this way, everyone will know exactly what I'm talking about. On reddit, the two sides are represented by subreddits like /r/kotakuinaction, /r/tumblrinaction, and /r/theredpill on one side and /r/gamerghazi, /r/shitredditsays, and most of the badX consortium on the other. And if you're in America, the conflict is being increasingly represented by real street violence, in Berkeley and elsewhere. So it's the sort of social phenomenon that people should be aware of, and it should be obvious that that's what I was referring to. A social conservative is not the type of person who spends fantastic amounts of time on reddit arguing that misgendering trans people is a violation of their basic human rights, or that doxing racists and getting them fired from their jobs is a morally positive thing to do, or that colleges need to protect their students from the psychological harm of controversial speakers, but mrsamsa is, in fact, that kind of person. The only way that someone could a) spend as much time on political subs as mrsamsa does and b) be completely unaware of the phenomenon of the culture war (and infer that that's what I was talking about) is if they were a particularly dense person. But mrsamsa is not dense. So I have to assume this deception is intentional.

There was a similar issue a while ago on this sub where I was arguing that punching Nazis was wrong

I do not recall a single instance of someone earnestly arguing that punching Nazis was ok, and you replying to that person and arguing that they were incorrect.

mrsamsa loves including snarky comments like this in an attempt to fluster his opponents. The obvious implication here being that I'm either too lazy or too incompetent to read and understand his posts.

...What are you talking about? There's nothing snarky about that, it was a self-deprecating jab at myself.

Now that I've pointed this out, possible responses from him include things like "I was just expressing genuine concern..." or "you seem paranoid..." Other mrsamsa classics in a similar vein include "are you having a mental breakdown?" and "science doesn't care about your feelings."

You're reading way too much into those comments.

A cursory glance at your post history will show anyone in this subreddit that you're obviously not a conservative in the sense I intended. Maybe you could argue that you're a conservative because you think social change should happen incrementally, or you support lower taxes, or whatever other criteria you choose.

Haha what?! I'm misrepresenting you because I don't define "conservative" as "liberal"?

On reddit, the two sides are represented by subreddits like /r/kotakuinaction, /r/tumblrinaction, and /r/theredpill on one side and /r/gamerghazi, /r/shitredditsays, and most of the badX consortium on the other.

If that's your understanding of the political spectrum then that's a little messed up... Regardless, what does that mean for your claim given that I'm banned from most of the subs on both sides?

A social conservative is not the type of person who spends fantastic amounts of time on reddit arguing that misgendering trans people is a violation of their basic human rights, or that doxing racists and getting them fired from their jobs is a morally positive thing to do, or that colleges need to protect their students from the psychological harm of controversial speakers, but mrsamsa is, in fact, that kind of person.

Then your definition of "liberal" would include practically everyone, as most conservatives generally agree with all of those positions, at least in the way I approach them - e.g. with the doxxing racists, my position is that employers should be free to choose who they employ and shouldn't have to associate with racists if they don't want to, or that universities should be free to disinvite speakers if they think it'll be bad for their students and thus their profits.

The only way that someone could a) spend as much time on political subs as mrsamsa does and b) be completely unaware of the phenomenon of the culture war (and infer that that's what I was talking about) is if they were a particularly dense person. But mrsamsa is not dense. So I have to assume this deception is intentional.

..But I don't spend time on any political subs.

I do not recall a single instance of someone earnestly arguing that punching Nazis was ok, and you replying to that person and arguing that they were incorrect.

That's because I've only really discussed it in SRD and anyone who advocated for punching Nazis had their posts deleted, so there was no one to argue against.

But if explicitly stating multiple times, and making it undeniably clear, that I am against punching Nazis isn't enough then people have an agenda that won't be swayed by actual evidence.

But if explicitly stating multiple times, and making it undeniably clear, that I am against punching Nazis isn't enough then people have an agenda that won't be swayed by actual evidence. That's weird, because at the time, you were undecided on the issue

e.g. with the doxxing racists, my position is that employers should be free to choose who they employ and shouldn't have to associate with racists if they don't want to

That employers should be free to choose who they employ says nothing about the ethics of publicizing people's information.

Somewhat more interestingly, though, you define "racist" so broadly that it includes most people, when it's convenient for you. I get the utility of viewing racism and other kinds of bigotry as things that we all have inside of us due to being socialized in a culture that has inherited a substantial legacy of racism and general bigotry. But you can't then turn around and use it as a weaponized term or insult, or something that marks people as fundamentally bad.

That employers should be free to choose who they employ says nothing about the ethics of publicizing people's information.

The "publicizing" of information involved letting someone's employer know that they've said that they don't hire certain races.

Somewhat more interestingly, though, you define "racist" so broadly that it includes most people, when it's convenient for you. I get the utility of viewing racism and other kinds of bigotry as things that we all have inside of us due to being socialized in a culture that has inherited a substantial legacy of racism and general bigotry. But you can't then turn around and use it as a weaponized term or insult, or something that marks people as fundamentally bad.

We're talking about a white nationalist who said that they don't hire Indians because they smell.

I think that counts as racism under everyone's definition.

So I was arguing that even though punching Nazis is wrong...

That's weird. I thought you were undecided on the issue at the time.

You linked to my comment on whether Spencer deserved to get punched, not how I felt about punching Nazis?

You said "(Spencer) was a nazi."

But you're asking about a specific case, not the general case...

"Jesus christ. Okay, so your argument actually is that we should never punch actual Nazis?"

"Oh god no, I agree that it's wrong to sucker punch someone standing on a street corner, just talking to a camera. I'm undecided on whether it's okay to do that to a Nazi."

You've linked to a comment where I'm taking the piss out of Harris...

"...the context is that he was a Nazi."

I think your record is skipping. Try explaining why the flaws with your position that I've described aren't actually a problem.

A Nazi getting sucker punched while standing on a street corner while just talking to a camera, yes. You think that makes it okay?!

I'm saying I'm unsure, I haven't heard any convincing ethical arguments against it yet.

You understand that me saying "I'm unsure" is a set up to my joke about Harris endorsing killing Nazis right? And I'm making that argument because it was funny seeing you squirm in contradictions. The whole point of my position there is: "I feel like punching Nazis is wrong but on the other hand, Harris is convincing when he says we are ethically justified in killing people for their beliefs!".

Check out my comments in the SRD thread with non-trolls to see my more serious take on the issue.

http://imgur.com/gallery/n8umjWj

...But I was quite clearly making fun of Harris' position there. Are you seriously telling me that you thought I was arguing that Harris' arguments were compelling and I thought we should kill Nazis?!

Jesus, this is more embarrassing than the time you tried to argue that Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with gamergate...

"I'm currently undecided on the issue, I can see good reasoning either way. What I think is clouding the issue, however, is everyone seems to be misrepresenting the position from the 'pro' side, and painting them as arguing that "it's okay to punch people you disagree with", or saying they're arguing that it's okay to punch people because you subjectively believe them to be a Nazi.

"Clearly."

Jesus, this is more embarrassing than the time you tried to argue that Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with gamergate...

You mean this? I'm not sure how saying something else had "much more" to do with Gamergate implies that Zoe Quinn had "nothing" to do with it.

I love that you've reached the point where you're misrepresenting your own posts now. We've come full circle.

Should be easy to explain how then.

Still, GG might've not really started if the criticism of Quinn wasn't coincided by other events that were indicative of collusion, narrative-building, and the general invasion of PC-culture, such as when a dozen or so articles were released by different outlets all on the same day, all declaring "the end of gaming," or "gamers are dead."

Aw, you're trying to discredit the deconstruction above by "copying" it, poorly. How adorable.

Should be easy to explain how, then.

Nah, you've already stopped seriously defending yourself.

He's a sociopath and SJW feminist, it's their M.O. His posts are always disingenuous, illogical, and backed by poor or biased data. He takes things out of context and attempts to exhaust the person he talks to.

If it's any consolidation, these sorts of people can be dealt with if you pick your battles and stay firmly on point. Eventually they'll expose themselves for what they really are, take their ball, and go home.