1. davidnangle says

    The hover-over comment is most disturbing. See it on the original page.

    Causes one to search one’s memory carefully.

  2. Siobhan says

    I was thinking about the “two genders” crowd when I saw this. At least the career transphobes get creative.

  3. marie says

    davidnangle, I did in fact have the feeling while reading it that I could be the guy on the right, before I saw your post and read the hover comment.

  4. cleese says

    Me: “I could argue against the point being made by this comic.”
    Regulars here: “That would only validate our belief that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is an idiot.”

  5. John Morales says

    cleese, not quite an inverted parallel form, but you tried.

    I note that that your claim that you choose not to argue against the point being made by this comic though you could do so is necessarily a claim that you think the point is arguable, which itself entails you have reason to believe its validity.

    (In short, you failed at desisting)

  6. cleese says

    Uh, no. I’m riffing off of panel 3 in the comic to make a point about the groupthink in this forum. Nice try, but no kewpie doll for you.

  7. John Morales says

    So, basically, your comment is not about the validity of whatever point you think the comic makes, it’s a statement about this forum.

    I like that comic, it’s a wry look at a particular type of commenter.

    [Nostalgia: Flame Warriors]

  8. cleese says

    Me: “Sure, here’s one: link”
    You: “So, what in particular makes this an example of groupthink?”
    Me (exhausted after listing the instances of groupthink within this example): “Here you go.”
    You: “Why do you think the first is an example of groupthink?”
    Me (trying to give a cogent argument): “Here you go.”
    You (misinterpreting something I wrote and choosing not to give me the benefit of the doubt, but instead assuming that your interpretation means that I subscribe to a view that you find both relevant to what you believe is my point and also nefarious and repugnant in your mind, and answering with a smug and superior tone): “Bite me, you disingenuous hack [or worse].”
    Others on the forum smell blood and quickly swim over to read quickly through my posts, not to suss out what I meant but to interpret what I wrote in ways that will contradict what they believe to be true and good…culminating in PZ wielding his ban hammer because I committed the crime of defending my arguments from the twisting and rending that everyone has done to it…
    No, thanks. That sort of thing has happened to me a few times already under different user names. It’s exhausting to be attacked from all sides by baddies who believe they are the goodies.

  9. Rob Grigjanis says

    John @8:

    it’s a wry look at a particular type of commenter.

    I took it as a wry look at internet commenting, where you’re encouraged (if not forced) to respond without much reflection. Also, how easy it is to see this behaviour in others.

    The text appearing when your cursor sits on the cartoon;

    The neat part is how everyone reading this will assume it’s a judgment on someone else

  10. John Morales says

    Rob, perhaps the intended scope is as you perceive it, rather than the more literal perception I have.

    I did read the alt-text, BTW — and I’m pretty sure that at least some readers will in fact assume it’s applicable to themselves. Obviously, it’s a joke.

  11. says

    Christ, yes, “cleese” has been here before as “bresson” and was banned in this thread. Now his latest pseudonym is banned again.

    What is it with these dimbulbs? Do they also think that if they rob a bank, and then change their name, they get off scot-free?

    When I ban someone, I BAN THE PERSON. Not the combination of letters in their alias. I don’t know why they find this so hard to grasp.

  12. John Morales says

    Rob, fine: narrow. Literally, there’s nothing there about the internet; the comic depicts two people interacting in person — seeing it featured as a blog post with a pithy title primed me to associate it with the circumstances where I’ve encountered the featured attitude.

  13. Rob Grigjanis says

    John @16:

    there’s nothing there about the internet

    Yet you refer to “a particular type of commenter”. Do you always refer to people interacting in person as “commenters”? Odd.

  14. John Morales says

    Rob, ahem: “… seeing it featured as a blog post with a pithy title primed me to associate it with the circumstances where I’ve encountered the featured attitude.”

    I’ve conceded yours is the relatively broader interpretation — but it’s also explicitly about internet interactions, unlike mine.

  15. secondtofirstworld says

    @John Morales #16: When it first came around, I had hopes the internet could be a place like an agora, a free exchange of ideas, unlike the real world, but I was wrong. It has been reduced to a virtual extension to things already exist outside, so there aren’t as many changes.

    I have these conversations often in multiple languages to the point that I subscribed to the idea that 2 people can speak a different language by using the same language. As annoying it was, I’m thankful for that damn dress as it showed us, that we can’t even agree on what we see, is it white and blue, or black and gold, was a guy with his 4-year old in his car ready to shoot a cop, or he wasn’t.

    I’ve been called a Nazi by Marxists, a Jew by Nazis, so on and so forth. Although this is a joke, it does seriously deliver a note on how ideological opponents think we’re the self righteous ones (based on the mistake that everyone is hypocritical except they are not lying about it). That’s also why cleese is wrong about proposing groupthink is relevant here, it only shows he ignores the numerous instances when we disagree.

    The only time I’m the other guy is when I debate vegans on their proposals of a non-animal keeping future, and how public health would look like. I get the concern, but I disagree on the proposed solutions.

  16. DanDare says

    I’ve been the guy on the right more than once. Those times I have identified myself as that guy I have learned something. In the end I think I’ve become a better communicator.

  17. logicalcat says


    And that is ultimately the difference. Everyone is the guy on the right at some point in their life. The difference is those who realize it, and those who dont.

  18. emergence says

    This “groupthink” accusation always gets made against us, and it’s bullshit. You can look at virtually any thread on this site and see regular commenters disagreeing with each other and debating issues, even though we have a core set of shared values. You see that, ironically, in this very thread. The assnuggets who accuse us of groupthink misrepresent having a shared viewpoint and unanimously rejecting bullshit ideas as being in complete ideological lockstep.

    As for “Cleese”, I checked what you wrote in that old thread. You were flat out denying that speech can harm people or that there was a connection between what a person hears and their actions. That line about “baddies who think they’re goodies” has to be one of the biggest pot calling the kettle black moments I’ve read recently.

  19. call me mark says

    Vrabuski at #19

    a) I’m guessing you’re cleese/bresson again?
    b) When you’ve been told you’re not welcome somewhere it’s pretty damn rude to barge back in.