@mk

Yea, textbook liberal "debate" tactics.

Not the the right is a paragon of excellence when it comes to debating, but their MO tends to be a bit different (less blocking, more trolling most of the time).

@freeschool

I'm all for transparency.. if that shames someone so be it, but its important to be fair and crtitical of yourself when you do so.

I think too many people try to engineer their words to play a social game... Id rather people just have no mind to mouth filter and let it sort itself out.

@freemo Interesting how you see it and depending on what game, I'd lean towards agreeing but also not giving them so much credit at the same time / assuming that intelligence.

I simply see them as more:
█non players or not playing / no risk players though able to speak and not play (1 way action)
█ don't have to justify anything to anyone
█ are not there to be answerable to a nobody (might be a fan if really they think person is worth it or can get something obvious from them)

So that's probably the kind of social game I think people play which related to:

█ bare minimals
█ not accepting blame
█ finding imperfection hard to accept or live with (in themselves mostly sometimes)
█ balancing imperfection is too hard for them (needs people to let go or practice being less mad / biting their fist)

That's why people have friends who can say it, despite major down sides, exchanging the truth or humour more than social faux pas which I can see can lose 'friends' easily like me! ('friend' in these quotes as they are not really friends when it comes to any test which inevitably does).

Least some of them run GNU / Linux though ! (It's a start...)