Leftists Really Should Come to Grips with their TDS

[Publius]

Ooooh, not what I meant, but then again, I shouldn't assume that any uneducated leftist can incorporate context. My bad.

No, you said my 'memes were someone elses' and I just proved to you that was false by incorporating your name on one of them, then you moved the goal post by attempting to trivialize my work as 'using an app' (which is dumb since all digital graphic artists use apps) and also insinuating all I did was 'type words into the app' insinuating I did no work on the other areas of the image, which, of course,the following meme disproves.

You prove your mind-boggling degree of stupidity each time you post, you really can't get your fingers out of the dummy cookie jar.

 

[Truth Detector]

The denial amongst leftists is that their TDS can't possibly be real. It would be petty, embarrassing and it would mean that they are WRONG. Well, the best thing any leftist can do for himself is to address his most serious debilitations, and TDS is as debilitating as any disease, rendering one totally irrational, compelling utter dishonesty, and often reducing one to complete incoherence.



Editor's note: Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. Author of the acclaimed 2011 book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," Rossiter here offers a new and eye-opening analysis of those Americans growing increasingly hysterical over the presidency of Donald J. Trump, a condition often labeled "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

Research in child development over the past few decades has revealed a process of growth to adulthood far more complex than anything envisioned by earlier theories. Recent work in neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology have provided new insights into how we think, emote, behave and relate as infants and toddlers interacting with our earliest caretakers. Those insights, in turn, help shed light on how we eventually understand the adult world.


It is not news, of course, that the foundations of adult competence are laid down in the earliest interactions between an infant and his mother. She is, after all, his first and most important connection with a world he must eventually comprehend. But the nature and quality of that connection are both profound and subtle in ways we did not suspect in earlier inquiries.

The child's interaction with his mother begins with her willingness and ability to engage him, bond with him and enable his secure attachment to her. The child brings to this relationship certain genetically determined dispositions – his own abilities and limitations – for connecting with her. But it is in that most basic relationship that he must begin to understand a complex world of psychosocial interactions, and what he learns there will strongly affect how he relates to others as an adult.

Unfortunately, some individuals who do not complete this difficult task well enough develop personality disturbances that cause significant impairment in coping with life's challenges. Many of these disturbances are formally catalogued by psychiatrists as personality disorders, but occasionally such impairments get labeled informally by laypersons as "derangement syndromes."

One such syndrome has been especially prominent since the 2016 presidential election. Certain kinds of reactions to the victor of that event have earned the label Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS. A close look at it can be instructive.

Like past versions (Bush Derangement Syndrome, for example), the TDS is notable for its intense subjective distress. Persons suffering from a TDS experience high levels of agitation and fear about their own safety and about future prospects for a good life. The sufferer may also fear more broadly for the survival of whole nations and even for life on our planet. In fact, it is not unusual for a patient with a Trump Derangement Syndrome to predict apocalyptic events in the near future. These expected disasters are attributed to the predicted actions of Donald Trump in his role as president of the United States. In that role he is seen as an especially destructive individual bent on wreaking havoc on a highly vulnerable world.

That would require a brain and a modicum of self-awareness; two things' leftists have none of.

 

[Publius]

You sure engage with me a lot. It's a shame that you don't know how to express what you really want to say, hoping that arbitrary memes made by others will somehow be true to the mark.

Why would anyone want to engage with an asshole like you?

And no, you can't challenge the premise, you've already provided an abundance incontrovertible evidence of your being an inveterate asshole.

And, in case you are confused about the term 'engage', it means to have a serious discussion devoid of the following non arguments :


Things of this nature, I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of. But, you get the idea 'Engage'.

How can anyone engage with an asshole like you, which, given that all of your comments, the bulk of them contain variants of one or more of the above items? Now, I suppose all of us are guilty of a few of them, from time to time, but your comments reek of them, which puts you in the asshole zone. You are so far into assholedom you cannot extricate yourself, you don't even know that you are. You are beyond help. And given this fact, I sure as hell am not going to engage with a smug asshole like you. Got that? I will, however, accept your apology, if there is a modicum of humility about it, and we can start from scratch. I never close the door, totally.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you said ...

Nope. I said something else, and you failed to understand what I said, but I'll take the hit for it nonetheless because I assumed you were smarter than you were.

In any event, congratulations on the effective pivot.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why would anyone want to engage with an asshole like you?

To learn about the thread topic, science, math, logic, economics and so much more. Those who are too stupid to learn anything avoid me, ignore me and/or flee from me.

And no, you can't challenge the premise, you've already provided an abundance incontrovertible evidence of your being an inveterate asshole.

Stupid people obviously find me to be an ashsole because I force them to think, which they find to be simply too much work and they didn't sign up for that. What they did sign up for was to have someone else provide them the convenience of doing their thinking for them, upon which their now-atrophied mind is completely dependent. Then I come along and rudely pull out the intravenous drip and obligate uncomfortable cold turkey.

Yes. What an ashsole I am.

So if you wish to engage in learning, you have to avoid these fallacies

 

[Publius]

Nope. I said something else, and you failed to understand what I said, but I'll take the hit for it nonetheless because I assumed you were smarter than you were.

In any event, congratulations on the effective pivot.

Like I said, why would any rational person argue with an asshole?

 

[Publius]

To learn about the thread topic, science, math, logic, economics and so much more. Those who are too stupid to learn anything avoid me, ignore me and/or flee from me.


Stupid people obviously find me to be an ashsole because I force them to think,

No, you're an asshole because you are a legend in your own mind.

which they find to be simply too much work and they didn't sign up for that. What they did sign up for was to have someone else provide them the convenience of doing their thinking for them, upon which their now-atrophied mind is completely dependent. Then I come along and rudely pull out the intravenous drip and obligate uncomfortable cold turkey.

Yes. What an ashsole I am.

So if you wish to engage in learning, you have to avoid these fallacies

Sorry, I do not engage with assholes, especially assholes who:

1. Think they are smart, when it is clear they are not. And this is usually those who raise the point. Smart people do not talk about it. It's evident in their communication.
2. Are smug in their certainty such that they wouldn't ever remotely consider they are wrong, refuse to consider another's argument.
3. Traffic in vacuous claims/generalizations which cannot be substantiated
4. Patronize, incessantly, as if they were God's gift to whatever the argument is about.
5. Traffic in weasel words ('everyone says' 'and you know it, too', all of which is a type of posturing. Trump does this all the time)
6. Traffic in loaded, charged, verbiage.
7. Ask questions with assumed, false, vague, highly debatable premises
8. Are incessantly off topic. however, it is necessary to go off topic with an asshole. The operative word is 'egregiously'. we all do it, to some extent. I reject ad homs, however, it is necessary to call assholes, assholes, if there is proof of it.
9 Traffic in egregious cynicism, nihilism. "Egregious'.
10 Traffic in kill-the-messenger/kill-the-source logic and refuse to engage. (Gatewaypundit/infowars/the Wonkette are exceptions)
11 Misapply the logic of fallacy. Here I'm referring to how some over do this. Everything is a fallacy of some kind, they say, with little knowledge on how the fallacy principles actually work all the while they put NO effort in their rebuttals, lazy retorts, etc.
12. Unjustly and egregiously trivialize, a type of posturing
13. Refuse to substantiate a claim or claims.
14. Gish gallop (google it, yeah, i don't like the term, either, but it is a thing). There are exceptions, though.
15. Egregiously Traffic in cheap shots, sophomoric remarks, diminishing/disrespecting, someone's name, like 'Joetato' etc. "egregiously".
16. Traffic in, and fail to grasp, thought-terminating cliches ('fake news' "TDS" )
17. Fall prey to the demagogue/cult leader and cannot understand they are under his/her grip. (some Trump fans, most fans of L Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon fans, etc)
18 Traffic in Unapplicable pithy aphorisms
19. Calling someone a Fascist, or a Communist, or some established group as a pejorative, without knowledge of what these things really are. There's a difference between 'Fascist', and 'fascist'. There are major differences in a Communist/Marxist, and a social democrat. Failure to understand these is an egregious fault such that, dealing with people who do not understand these things, to such a degree they refuse to educate themselves, refuse to take someone's word about it at face value, are assholes. You've called me a Marxist. I never made that claim, therefore you are an asshole. A non asshole would have queried the point. Assholes never query, they assume.
20 Posturing. Posturing is a pseudo debate trick, and it comes in many flavors, can't name them all, but basically it's verbiage which attempts to gain an elevated posture in a debate under the false notion that it improves an argument. Here's a few:
A) Shaming, belittling, talking others down in order to puff oneself up
B) Flaunting credentials. On anonymous internet forums, they are meaningless. Either be willing to produce your credentials, otherwise, you're blowing smoke. You're an attorney? Okay, show us your bar card. You have a PHD? Okay, prove it. Otherwise, you are a mere mortal like the rest of us. "I was in Iraq" (really, provide your name, rank and specifics so we can verify this claim, show some photos, otherwise you could be a liar. See, wise people do not take anyone's word for anything on an anonymous internet forum. This is why I NEVER discuss my education, training, etc. All that matters is the argument, the words in front of you,. the caliber of your presentation.

See, all I'm interested in is the argument, sans the crap, and all I've seen from you is crap, you're really full of shit, and you have no idea how many hundreds of petty fools like you I've encountered on the internet, going all the way back to the days of Usenet.

You are a phony.

And an asshole.

Now pester someone else.

 

[Into the Night]

The denial amongst leftists is that their TDS can't possibly be real. It would be petty, embarrassing and it would mean that they are WRONG. Well, the best thing any leftist can do for himself is to address his most serious debilitations, and TDS is as debilitating as any disease, rendering one totally irrational, compelling utter dishonesty, and often reducing one to complete incoherence.



Editor's note: Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. Author of the acclaimed 2011 book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness," Rossiter here offers a new and eye-opening analysis of those Americans growing increasingly hysterical over the presidency of Donald J. Trump, a condition often labeled "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D.

Research in child development over the past few decades has revealed a process of growth to adulthood far more complex than anything envisioned by earlier theories. Recent work in neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology have provided new insights into how we think, emote, behave and relate as infants and toddlers interacting with our earliest caretakers. Those insights, in turn, help shed light on how we eventually understand the adult world.


It is not news, of course, that the foundations of adult competence are laid down in the earliest interactions between an infant and his mother. She is, after all, his first and most important connection with a world he must eventually comprehend. But the nature and quality of that connection are both profound and subtle in ways we did not suspect in earlier inquiries.

The child's interaction with his mother begins with her willingness and ability to engage him, bond with him and enable his secure attachment to her. The child brings to this relationship certain genetically determined dispositions – his own abilities and limitations – for connecting with her. But it is in that most basic relationship that he must begin to understand a complex world of psychosocial interactions, and what he learns there will strongly affect how he relates to others as an adult.

Unfortunately, some individuals who do not complete this difficult task well enough develop personality disturbances that cause significant impairment in coping with life's challenges. Many of these disturbances are formally catalogued by psychiatrists as personality disorders, but occasionally such impairments get labeled informally by laypersons as "derangement syndromes."

One such syndrome has been especially prominent since the 2016 presidential election. Certain kinds of reactions to the victor of that event have earned the label Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS. A close look at it can be instructive.

Like past versions (Bush Derangement Syndrome, for example), the TDS is notable for its intense subjective distress. Persons suffering from a TDS experience high levels of agitation and fear about their own safety and about future prospects for a good life. The sufferer may also fear more broadly for the survival of whole nations and even for life on our planet. In fact, it is not unusual for a patient with a Trump Derangement Syndrome to predict apocalyptic events in the near future. These expected disasters are attributed to the predicted actions of Donald Trump in his role as president of the United States. In that role he is seen as an especially destructive individual bent on wreaking havoc on a highly vulnerable world.

Asking Democrats to come to grips with their TDS is asking a lot.

They have nothing else. It's all they have.
Yes, their own fear is of their own making.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, there is that. Nonetheless, for any given leftist, the best thing he can do for himself is to seek treatment. Sending the disease into remission should be every leftist's top priority.

There is no treatment, unfortunately, other than the school of hard knocks.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, Trump Delusion Syndrome has taken root on the right. TDS. Got it.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

But see that's the problem, they dont know their nut is cracked. To get treatment you have to suspect something might be off. They lack any self awareness whatsoever so they think things like lopping body parts allows them to change their gender. There is little hope for these people.

What treatment is possible?

The only "treatment" is the school of hard knocks. Only under that do they begin to realize just how much they don't know...and it's coming for them. They cannot stop it.

 

[Into the Night]

The first time I heard the wingers use TDS I thought "exactly" The words Trump and Derangement were meant for each other. Like salt and pepper. A perfect description of him. But its easy to see. Trumpets love short words or descriptions to denigrate their "enemies" Woke, snowflake., TDS. It sells to their base. Cant get too complicated. It is a reason why trump makes up an absurd name for his perceived enemies. Childish but it works with the lower IQs.

TDS = Trump Dick Sucker

Which describes 95 percent of the conservatives here.

No, you created this thread because, like all Trumpers, you are an imbecile and a troll with nothing better to do.

@IBDaMann, do you see why these poor saps will never see their own problem and self correct?

They are all headed for the school of hard knocks. If they learn it anywhere and how to get past it, it will be there. It's their only chance.

 

[Into the Night]

Evidence? You think a partisan hack pysche who refuses to put his idea to the test of peer review, knowing he would be laughed at, is 'evidence', all the while you ignore the 70,000 mental health professionals who signed a petition to remove Trump from office because he is mentally wacko?

Tsk tsk, your Trump Delusion Syndrome really has gotten the best of you.

You are beyond help. Dismissed.

Consensus doesn't apply here. There is no voting bloc. Argument of the Stone fallacy. False authority fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I like how you make assumptions. No, peer review isn't the final word on anything, but an MD who refused to put his theory to peer review indicates he isn't even confident on his own idea, he fears he would be ridiculed, which he surely would be, if he submitted that paper.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox!

 

[Into the Night]

Like I said, why would any rational person argue with an asshole?

You apparently LOVE to argue with assholes, including me.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you're an asshole because you are a legend in your own mind.

Yet you are arguing with him.

Sorry, I do not engage with assholes, especially assholes who:

Yes you do. You LOVE to argue with assholes, including me!

1. Think they are smart, when it is clear they are not. And this is usually those who raise the point. Smart people do not talk about it. It's evident in their communication.

I consider myself smart. I am a scientist and a chemist. I also design, build, fly, break, and repair aircraft. I run my own successful company that makes sensors and equipment for industrial, medical, aerospace and entertainment applications. I sell world wide. Yes...I'm on of those 'evil' corporate owners, with international sales.

2. Are smug in their certainty such that they wouldn't ever remotely consider they are wrong, refuse to consider another's argument.

You are describing yourself.

3. Traffic in vacuous claims/generalizations which cannot be substantiated

You are describing yourself.

4. Patronize, incessantly, as if they were God's gift to whatever the argument is about.

You are describing yourself.

5. Traffic in weasel words ('everyone says' 'and you know it, too', all of which is a type of posturing. Trump does this all the time)

You are describing yourself.

6. Traffic in loaded, charged, verbiage.

You are describing yourself.

7. Ask questions with assumed, false, vague, highly debatable premises

You are describing yourself.

8. Are incessantly off topic.

You are describing yourself.

however, it is necessary to go off topic with an asshole.

Attempting to justify a pivot fallacy doesn't work.

The operative word is 'egregiously'.

That it is.

we all do it, to some extent.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEMS ON ANYBODY ELSE!

I reject ad homs, however, it is necessary to call assholes, assholes, if there is proof of it.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

9 Traffic in egregious cynicism, nihilism. "Egregious'.

Word games won't help you.

10 Traffic in kill-the-messenger/kill-the-source logic and refuse to engage. (Gatewaypundit/infowars/the Wonkette are exceptions)

You are describing yourself.

11 Misapply the logic of fallacy.

Fallacies are not logic. Denial of logic. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR FALLACIES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Here I'm referring to how some over do this. Everything is a fallacy of some kind, they say, with little knowledge on how the fallacy principles actually work all the while they put NO effort in their rebuttals, lazy retorts, etc.

YOUR fallacies are YOUR fallacies. They are no one else's. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEMS ON ANYBODY ELSE!

12. Unjustly and egregiously trivialize, a type of posturing

You are describing yourself.

13. Refuse to substantiate a claim or claims.

You are describing yourself.

14. Gish gallop (google it, yeah, i don't like the term, either, but it is a thing). There are exceptions, though.

There are no debates here. Only conversations. You are describing yourself.

15. Egregiously Traffic in cheap shots, sophomoric remarks, diminishing/disrespecting, someone's name, like 'Joetato' etc. "egregiously".

You are describing yourself.

16. Traffic in, and fail to grasp, thought-terminating cliches ('fake news' "TDS" )

TDS is not a cliche. You are describing yourself.

17. Fall prey to the demagogue/cult leader and cannot understand they are under his/her grip. (some Trump fans, most fans of L Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon fans, etc)

You are describing yourself. DON'T TRY TO BLAME DEMOCRATS ON TRUMP!

18 Traffic in Unapplicable pithy aphorisms

You are describing yourself.

19. Calling someone a Fascist, or a Communist, or some established group as a pejorative, without knowledge of what these things really are.

You are describing yourself.

There's a difference between 'Fascist', and 'fascist'.

Word games won't work, twit.

There are major differences in a Communist/Marxist, and a social democrat.

Word games won't work, twit.

Failure to understand these is an egregious fault such that, dealing with people who do not understand these things, to such a degree they refuse to educate themselves, refuse to take someone's word about it at face value, are assholes. You've called me a Marxist. I never made that claim, therefore you are an asshole. A non asshole would have queried the point. Assholes never query, they assume.

You are a Marxist. You are a socialist. You support fascism and communism. You HAVE made that claim. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

20 Posturing. Posturing is a pseudo debate trick, and it comes in many flavors, can't name them all, but basically it's verbiage which attempts to gain an elevated posture in a debate under the false notion that it improves an argument. Here's a few:
A) Shaming, belittling, talking others down in order to puff oneself up
B) Flaunting credentials.

You are describing yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

Don't twist my words, we do not agree, not in the slightest.

You are twisting your own words and the words of others. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

So, you think you've got a clever one there, twisting the idea of peer review into some sort of intellectual sideshow? Let me tell you something: Peer review is far from "intellectual masturbation." It's a process where experts in a field critically evaluate each other's work. It’s not perfect—far from it—but it’s essential. Peer review isn’t about getting a gold star or a final, unassailable verdict. It’s about the scrutiny of ideas, the testing of hypotheses, the sifting through evidence. It’s the filter that weeds out the junk before it hits the public stage, the first line of defense against shoddy science.

Science does not use "peer review". Science does not use consensus. Science has no voting bloc.

Yes, it’s a starting point, and no, it’s not infallible. Flaws can creep in, biases can affect outcomes, and sometimes the system fails. But to dismiss it as nothing more than mental self-gratification? That’s not just ignorant, it’s dangerously dismissive. Peer review is part of a larger process—an ongoing, self-correcting journey towards understanding and truth. It’s the rough draft, the conversation starter, the beginning of a long road that science travels to reach conclusions that, while never final, are as close to the truth as we can get at that moment.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no "peer review" in science.

So, if you want to throw out peer review,

Nothing to throw out. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

you’re not just rejecting a step in the process;

Science isn't a "process" or "procedure".

you’re rejecting the very foundation of rational inquiry.

Science isn't "inquiry".

You’re throwing out the map and compass

Science isn't a map and compass.

because the journey isn’t perfect.

Science isn't a "journey".

Don’t confuse the value of questioning with the absurdity of outright dismissal.

It is YOU that makes outright dismissals without any counterargument. That's a fallacy, called the Argument of Stone fallacy.

Peer review isn’t the final word, but it’s damn sure better than the alternative

Peer review is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no "alternative".

—a world where any crackpot idea gets equal billing.

Science isn't "ideas".

You love agreement? Fine. But only if it’s agreement with the understanding that the road to truth starts with the rigorous testing of ideas, not the reckless dismissal of them.

Science is not "truths". It is not possible to prove any theory True, including any theory of science.
It is YOU that dismisses several theories of science. It is YOU discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that believes that carbon dioxide has some kind of magickal property to create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe, but one thing I've learned in being on many forums, going back to the days of BBSes, IRC, and Usenet, I don't take anonymous opinions from the internet for anything, unless I verify it myself. But, you might be right.

For once you are correct. You have no mind of your own. You get ALL of your talking points from DEMOCRATS. You are a cut and paste kind of guy, unable to think for yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

Anonymous opinions often are the best kind because they tend to be truthful.

An opinion, anonymous or otherwise, it just that...an opinion. Nothing about any opinion makes it The Truth.

 

[Into the Night]

View attachment 30154

I already know you don't feed yourself. Fortunately, for you, @IBDaMann has graciously offered to feed you troll pellets.