The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Ah, good, I was hoping you would drop in to defend you dishonesty, Lithose. Anything, ANYTHING but admit you were exaggerating, right? Up is down, black is white, whatever you need to do to make sure you don't have to admit to being wrong about something.

"meanwhile, you can find 2-3 dozen articles on Anita's work, and how amazing it is; fairly easy."

"AND HOW AMAZING IT IS"

You didn't say "you can find lots of articles promoting her work". You didn't say "you can find lots of articles linking to her videos, which directly leads to more publicity and hits for her". You said, and I quote: "you can find 2-3 dozen articles on Anita's work, and how amazing it is; fairly easy." That's an objectively false statement, as was the statement that alternate viewpoints were nonexistent in mainstream media.

For fuck's sake, Lith, that article with 4 videos criticizing Sarkeesian, by YOUR definition, is either promoting or outright PRAISING critics of Sarkeesian. But then YOU say that that doesn't count because the article criticizes those videos, even though they still benefit from all the exposure that linking to their videos gives them. You JUST SAID "for a Youtube channel operator, having their channel featured in any article is amazing", and yet that somehow doesn't count when 4 FUCKING VIDEOS criticizing Sarkeesian are literally showcased in the mainstream media. You can't even keep your own shit straight.

"But... but everybody says you're wrong!"

And then you wonder why I can't take you morons seriously.

Lith: "Oh, Tan. I feel so bad for you, I thought you had forgotten about that embarrassment. But here you've been dwelling on it for a while haven't you? Even after all these months though you still haven't been able to convince yourself of your own argument? How sad. As for me, I feel no need to reply further, I was just reminiscing with others. Have a good day!"

I haven't been dwelling on anything. After asking both Khalid and Dr. Mario to put up or shut up, I decided to do what neither of them had the balls to do and actually back up what I was saying with evidence. So I went into the GG thread to find typical examples of people convincing themselves I was wrong without using any logic or reason and, lo and behold, the first example involved you.

I like how you can't respond to the direct contradiction to your stance I just pointed out, though. Don't worry, though, as usual, everyone will pretend I didn't just expose your hypocrisy. You don't ever actually have to defend your position when I'm involved, it's always just a given that I'm wrong. Must be nice, huh?


... Coward.





Doc: "Look at you Tanoomba. You can't even get hodj or lithose to argue with you anymore. Two guys that would argue with a brick wall until it was dust. Look at what you've become and weep."

Oh, Lithose will be back. If not about this, about something else later on. As for Hodj, are you on crack or something? I haven't read a single one of his posts in this thread as the last thing I want to do is to engage that delusional egomaniac on ANYTHING. Holy shit.

But see what I mean about evidence, doc? Lithose was objectively wrong in his statement. The facts proved it beyond the shadow of any doubt. None of you circle-jerkers will admit it, which is EXACTLY why "everyone sees it but you" is a worthless argument. What evidence was there that I was wrong in calling out Lith's exaggeration? The articles he listed that in no way proved his exaggeration true? Remember, I took the time and effort to go over ALL of his examples, I was even generous to count some in his favor that didn't technically support his point, and his evidence was still lacking, WELL below what his original statement claimed. I used logic and reason (and in several cases, the EXACT logic that Lithose explicitly described to try to support his point) and made my case clearly. You and the rest of the peanut gallery CHOOSE to pretend that isn't the case. That's not on me, that's on you. If I'm the only one making evidence-based claims that I can back up with logic and reason, then it doesn't matter how sure you are that I'm wrong.

Khalid: "Good to remember that Tanoomba, even from his very first post and disagreement, has had his arguments thoroughly rebutted. Yet continues to claim..."

What's been rebutted? I guess you haven't been paying attention.

Here was Lithose's claim: "meanwhile, you can find 2-3 dozen articles on Anita's work, and how amazing it is; fairly easy." Also, there was no criticism of her in the mainstream media.

He attempted to prove this with a list of articles, which contained:
- Articles from non-mainstream sources.
- Articles from sources that also featured criticism of Anita's work.
- Articles that themselves contained criticism of Anita's work.
- Articles that were not about her work, but about her harassment.

Are you going to tell me that that's wrong? I just listed the facts about what happened, dude. Why do the facts not matter? Why is it that I can hold black and white evidence in front of your face and you can just pretend it's not there? Let me tell you, I can't get away with that kind of shit... Why can you? Am I wrong about some of his articles being from non-mainstream sources? When I found criticism of Sarkeesian from one of those sources, I was IMMEDIATELY pounced on for using a non-mainstream source... the same source Lithose used to show the mainstream praising Sarkeesian. Am I wrong that some of the very articles he chose to illustrate "praise" also contained criticism? Well, I actually quoted the criticism from those very articles Lithose selected, so no. Am I wrong that some of those articles weren't about her work, but her harassment? Again, I quoted relevant passages illustrating exactly that. You know what we call that? Using evidence to support a case. There have been a million rants on Rerolled about the importance of evidence, but evidence that Tanoomba finds doesn't count because... reasons? If there are reasons, I haven't seen any yet.

Let's be honest here. Lithose has a kind of rep as the people's hero. He's been known to put people in their place from time to time, especially when they don't know what their talking about. Therefore, when I say "Lith, come on now, you can find 2-3 DOZEN mainstream articles talking about how AMAZING Sarkeesian's work is? EASILY? Really?" and he replies with "Yup, here's a whole bunch, see?" that's all the people want to see. The case is closed for them at that point. Lithose destroyed Tanoomba again! Ha ha ha! At that point it literally didn't matter what I said. I took the time and effort to examine his entire list and found that no, it doesn't support his position as well as everyone had assumed. They weren't all mainstream, several contained criticism of Sarkeesian as well, and several weren't even about her work. Again: Why does that not matter? How is that not directly relevant to the point at hand?

And the worst part is: It's a stupid fucking argument over a distinction that ultimately doesn't matter. All he had to say was "OK, so I exaggerated a bit". That's it. But NOOOOOOOOOO, God forbid someone actually acknowledge that I know what I'm talking about once in a while. Nope, better point and laugh, call him a troll, accuse him of being dishonest, etc. It's bullshit. I'm sorry you can't see it. I really am. But damned if I'm just going to tuck my tail between my legs and run away just because the bro brigade has decided they'd rather throw reason out the window and have a good laugh than engage in good-faith discussion.

Doc: "I thought about reading this but then I didn't."

I find it odd how proud you are of being ignorant. "Didn't read! WHEEEEEEEEE! I have no idea what you're talking about but you're wrong! WHEEEEEEE!"

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

I don't think of the Westboro Baptist Church. Those are the "God hates fags" idiots, right?