>>347426950
1. Appeal to higher-order effects and social/meta commentary. If you criticise the view, you are often met with appeals to something like society, something psychological, or some kind of "This is too reactionary and mould breaking for you to even understand" kind of idiocy. 
2. Weird ass tangents and lack of coherency. The appeals in 1 will often go to places that have no relevance to the actual points but are very important to carlposting. 
3. Sentences that read more like train of thought rather than something constructed to be understandable and make sense. Typically whatever counter comment made is simply whatever carl was thinking about at the time, rather than anything relevant to the discussion. 

What carl fails to understand is that he does not make sense, it is just his drug and alcohol riddled mind is not functioning properly and is making connections that it should not be. The grand idea feels good inside the head but once on paper it can't be comprehended because it was never more than a spurious half baked fever dream of an idea.