This matter of lobbing insults is somewhat fascinating. I'm certainly no stranger to deploying insults, but I feel that at the very least I try to make mine somewhat topical. But with Seattle, I'm not sure how insulting me for being chronically underweight, for instance, is pertinent to anything being discussed.
But more curious are those insults which can be construed as perhaps somehow relevant. One in particular stands out: Seattle regularly accuses others of being antisocial. Huh?! Now I'm certainly a bit asocial, though impatient and mildly manic may be more accurate descriptors. And I'll be the first to admit that I've got some antisocial attributes, though I think in many respects these come down to unresovled tension between my anarchic and communistic leanings. In short, I think I've generally got a fair bit more "faith" in the positive potential for propaganda of the deed than do most people--than do most leftists really. But is that really antisocial? I'm not so sure about that.
Seattle, on the other hand, harbors many views which most readers would likely read as antisocial--with respect to social welfare, systemic racism (which he regularly denies exists), people with addictions or people who just make rather un-sensible decisions sometimes, etc. etc. etc. So what's the deal? Is it just some weird, inscrutable tactic? Or does he simply not know what the word means?