re: They didnt even try to hide the money trail.Daycares in Mn donate $35 million to campaigns

quote:

---

Then that just shows the lack of intelligence

---

quote:

---

I can't control their irrational reactions

---

quote:

---

How so?

It is certainly plausible.

---

quote:

---

How is using logic irrational?

---

quote:

---

By that standard, he didn't imply that you said/implied it was OK.

---

quote:

---

Wait until you find out what nursing homes do for state pols in LA

---

quote:

---

Daycares in Minnesota donated a combined $35 million to political campaigns in the last two years

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of examples where MAGA takes, for example, a leftist position and rejecting the NPC script is far from being in the middle (as it's further away from Leftism than the MAGA stance). Like when MAGA was trying to convince us that actual socialism (fedgov owning parts of companies, which is owning the means of production as Marx described) was a good policy. Rejecting that for capitalist reasons was nowhere near a middle position

---

quote:

---

This is his SOP. When he doesn’t like the direction a thread is going he will post something completely irrelevant and then argue his new point for 50 pages

---

quote:

---

What would you say about a person who is an extreme contrarian that always argues vague points of a topic and attempts to prove himself more intelligent than others?

A person like that—someone who’s an extreme contrarian, habitually argues vague or tangential points, and seems driven to prove intellectual superiority—tends to exhibit a cluster of traits that are more about personal insecurity than genuine intellectual curiosity.Here’s a breakdown of what’s usually going on:Chronic contrarianism often stems from a need to differentiate oneself rather than a pursuit of truth. Healthy skepticism challenges ideas constructively; extreme contrarianism rejects consensus reflexively, even when the consensus is well-supported. It’s less “I think this might be wrong because…” and more “Everyone’s wrong because I say so.”
Arguing vague points is a common tactic in bad-faith discussion. By staying nebulous or shifting goalposts, they avoid being pinned down and proven wrong. It’s a defensive strategy: if the point is never clear, it can’t be decisively refuted. This keeps them in the game longer and preserves the illusion of intellectual dominance.
The core motivation is often to signal superiority. Conversations become performances where winning (or at least not losing) matters more than learning or reaching understanding. This can be rooted in insecurity, narcissism, or a fragile ego that equates being wrong with being worthless. Proving “I’m smarter than you” temporarily soothes that fragility, but it’s a hollow victory because it alienates others and rarely leads to real insight.

In short, such a person isn’t usually the confident genius they’re trying to project. More often, they’re someone who’s deeply afraid of looking ordinary or fallible, so they adopt a posture of perpetual one-upmanship. It’s exhausting for everyone around them and, ironically, undermines their own intellectual growth—because you don’t learn much when your primary goal is never admitting you might be wrong.The healthiest response (if you have to deal with them) is to disengage or set firm boundaries. Engaging on their terms usually just feeds the cycle

---