You know that's not what I'm referring to. I think you know exactly why some people find you overbearing, even "insufferable". And you use your very fine debating skills to argue that that they are wrong to perceive things this way, and you will grind people down until they give up, and you will display the attributes of someone who is being overbearing and insufferable. If this is the impression people are getting, how is that their fault? And who is to say you don't match my straw man? How do I know you aren't arguing just because you want or even need to be right? I only know what you project, and you can argue I'm wrong, and you can argue everyone else is wrong, and maybe I am, and maybe they are, but your reasoning is entirely circular. You project an image of someone who likes to argue and be right and knock people around, and when someone points it out you accuse them of projecting, and argue about it to show you're right, and knock people around while doing it. You see the problem? You're not talking to me, you're talking to a straw man of me, one which you've already decided has constructed a straw man of you. My name's Mike. What's yours?
So hold up. I'm now 4 comments deep in a discussion about how overbearing I am. I've pointed out that the assumptions you've made about me are so incredibly precise they include my name (which, again, you guessed incorrectly). I've said nothing about you - other than that you're projecting... which I think I'm entitled to point out, as you decided to make this conversation about me. Yet here we are, discussing the merits of, well, me, based on your assumptions. You're now asking me to disprove a negative - "who is to say you don't match my straw man" is rhetorically equivalent to Glenn Beck demanding his guests prove they are not secret muslims. You effectively struck up a conversation with me which you freely, and with full dudgeon, have swung to "prove you're not the asshole I think you are." So I've got two choices here: 1) "Whatever, man" and mute/ignore you because frankly, WTF, man? 2) Continue to argue your game on your terms using your examples under your logic with you as the arbiter and hope that somehow I can prove to you that I'm not an asshole. 'cuz that's the context of the discussion. MIKE: You're an asshole but I still like you, smiley face. KB: I'm not, actually, here are a bunch of examples that directly contradict your evidence that I'm an asshole. MIKE: The fact that you provide examples that you're not an asshole proves what an asshole you are. KB: Seriously, dude, I'm just trying to have a conversation. MIKE: Whatever. You just need to be right which proves you're an asshole. And here's the thing: It never once occurred to you that I"m having this conversation (this tedious, retread, tired-ass conversation) because I don't like people thinking I'm an asshole. Back up to where we started: Me arguing "You can't have an opinion without making enemies." Case in point: I've had to go five rounds with you to demonstrate that I'm not a dick, and each step of the way you feel entitled to treat me more and more dickishly. Yeah, I see the problem. I said "you make enemies on the Internet" and in an attempt to prove I'm wrong, you decided to treat me like an enemy. My name's not Brian. You'll excuse me if I don't wish to be more familiar than that.
Yeah, ok. But I've never said you were an asshole. I don't think you're an asshole. I do think you have a very direct style and it does not surprise me that people find it overbearing. That is exactly where this conversation started with you stating that think you're the most ignored/muted/whatever username on hubski, and that it's okay because you're defending a viewpoint and you expect to make enemies. Maybe I've haven't been on online groups long enough to find out that you can't help but make enemies, or maybe I don't have strong enough opinions. A couple of funny things: (a) I do accuse you of making it easy for people to perceive you as overbearing. Your response to that could be perceived as overbearing. A self-referential contradiction on your part.
(b) You accuse me of treating you as an enemy when I'm trying to prove that you don't need to make enemies. A self-referential contradiction on my part.
(c) We could mute each other and really bring this conversation full circle! That's not a contradiction, but still chock full of self-referential structure on both our parts. But no, I don't want an enemy today and I apologize for my part in the escalation. I should have stopped the conversation way up after "depends on what you mean by 'good' politician"! I thought it would fun to poke at you a little, but I don't think it ended up adding much of value to the discussion after that. -- Mike :-) (the smiley proves I'm not an asshole)
For what it is worth, I think you are both assholes. But you are both assholes that have participated in the same podcast,, which kind of makes you kin.