I've dabbled in a few things in my time, including some digital artwork (skins for airplanes, book covers, a few attempts at coloring B&W photographs), writing fiction, and even some encyclopedic cataloging of Star Wars-related material. Currently playing World of Warships and attempting to dabble in Starcraft II, wondering if there is ever an age limit when it comes to getting good at the latter. I have just published my first novel, The Crop-Duster's Son via Amazon.com's Kindle Direct Publishing service in eBook and paperback formats.
One's opinion, no matter how strongly held or vociferously defended, can never have any hope to be an adequate substitute for cold, hard facts. Confirmation bias, the art of accepting proofs and notions that only reflect your own opinion at the expense of any facts to the contrary, has doomed far greater endeavors than ours. Trust and respect are earned, not given, and offense is never given, it is always taken.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” —C. S. Lewis
"I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here. Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!" —William Tecumseh Sherman
"Science [edited], it works!" —Thunderf00t
"Facts are stupid things." —Ronald Reagan, misquoting Thomas Jefferson
aidspig; abbrv., "anti-intellectual demagogue spouting pseudo-intellectual gibberish"
- Acronym designed to indicate, in simple terms, a person engaging in the practice of semiotic disorienteering; a person who attempts to redefine words to suit whatever situation they happen to find themselves in, be it dialectic, debate, or simple internet argument.
- Any person who attempts to confuse an opponent, by focusing on the signifier rather than the signified, either deliberately or unconsciously, with the words used rather than the things for which they are used; selectively assuming that the dictionary is always right.
- The practice of engaging in semiotic disorienteering. "aidspiggery"
The above video is a quite thorough, if entertainingly roundabout, explanation of the term, and why being an aidspig is a state to be avoided if one wishes to be a good debater and rhetorician. Beware, naughty language is included, view at your own risk. However, if you don't have forty minutes to spare, here's a brief summation I put forth in a "troll" thread:
"The OP is not a troll, he is an aidspig, which stands for "anti-intellectual demagogue spouting pseudo-intellectual gibberish," and refers to a person who engages in the practice of semiotic disorienteering. In short: he puts out an opinion that is based, wholly or in part, on incorrect assumptions or simple errors of fact. When he is inevitably provided with the correct information, he not only refuses to admit to being wrong time and again, he engages in semiotic disorienteering—focusing on the signifier (the words used) rather than the signified (what concepts the words are referring to)—to try and weasel out of any kind of admission of being wrong. Hopping from one concept to the next whenever the opportunity presents itself, he will derail the conversation into territories further and further afield from the original topic, all for the sake of carrying on with whomever he has engaged with until they give up and drift off, after which he will assume that it is because they can no longer argue the point—thus, he was right all along. Often this will be accompanied by bog-standard ad homenim attacks, and even assumptions of intent, all for the sake of driving ever farther down the road to the loony bin. On, and if he is winning, it is an argument, but if he is losing, it's just having a chat. It is only ever about winning if he has the upper hand."
On 10/3/2017 at 1:50 AM, Battleship_MaineMk1 said:
I am now calling this "Goodwood Theory".
"For each sensitive topic removed, a proverbial can of worms is opened. For each escaped worm within said can of worms, two more cans shall be spawned upon the back of each said worm, and subsequently become opened. Each fractal multiplication of said cans and said worms shall continue until the law of conservation of matter has been reached, upon when both cans and worms alike shall cease to multiply."