My theory is that he was an angry fucked up guy. The rest is rationalization and power.

(The first gives the anger form. The second turns an anonymous crank into a global threat. Consider all the people here who say different things yet seem to be always singing the same song. Consider what would happen if you gave the average angry fucked up guy a billion dollar budget, a giant propaganda machine and an army. Consider what would happen if a cute little mouse grew to the size of a skyscraper)

But you know what, get a few drinks into him in a bar and he was probably pretty chill.

I like your fire

Scamper along. Seriously.

A person is very very large, deep and complex.

A bunch of words, even words of great veracity, are just a tiny cartoon.

To judge a large deep complex thing by a tiny cartoon is absurd.

(Unless you really want to judge of course. But that’s another matter)

Hm. Ask a question, then answer your own question, then enjoy a satisfying climax. Very efficient.

It’s like teaching a fencepost to play the piano.

Well at least you’re consistent.

Way to address my point. Good job.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?”

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serves it warrants scrutiny.

So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?”

I was shooting for “neutral you”.

The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.

Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serves it warrants scrutiny.