Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Civility in Discourse: Mudslinging, Rhetoric, and the High Road

AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad.The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
edited February 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
The primary thread got socked in with a two page debate about what is and isn't appropriate to say in a debate.

Instead of destroying that thread, it can be discussed here!

I'll start it off:

I'm a firm believer in the high road, but in certain circumstances I can understand the base need to call someone like Rick Santorum a toeheaded spunk balloon. But clearly you probably shouldn't say that in a debate about the issues.

What are your thoughts, you lonely, pasty nerds? ;)

AManFromEarth on
Lh96QHG.png
«13456716

Posts

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    Rick Santorum and his positions should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. You don't get points, or votes, for being a wimp.

    Spoiler:
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    If you feel the need to ridicule anyone, you probably just need to reevaluate your emotional self-control. I've never seen a situation where ridicule was the only option, or even the best option among many.

    It feels good, I'll admit that much, and I'm not saying I've never done it. But there are people around here arguing that ridicule is "the right thing to do" in some cases, and that just makes me scratch my head.

    EDIT: Then again, some of those people are also wishing death on children, so maybe I should just add them to my list or something.

    Gandalf_the_Crazed on
    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    Like someone saying that Satan is out to take control of America and implying that liberals are servants of evil (Santorum).

    To respond respectfully is to legitimize it.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    There are also people who lie or spout shit without spending one minute checking up on a subject and then go for the fainting couch when people don't give them a pass for it. There is such a thing as malicious and aggressive levels of idiocy, you tender flower, and I treat it as such.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    If you feel the need to ridicule anyone, you probably just need to reevaluate your emotional self-control. I've never seen a situation where ridicule was the only option, or even the best option among many.

    It feels good, I'll admit that much, and I'm not saying I've never done it. But there are people around here arguing that ridicule is "the right thing to do" in some cases, and that just makes me scratch my head.

    There are certain viewpoints where engaging them on a reasonable level just gives them credulity that they don't deserve. Creationism, for instance, or certain conspiracy theories, where people aren't merely disagreeing on value judgments or on good-faith interpretations of the available facts, but are on such deeply fictitious epistemological ground where trying to engage with them is counterproductive.

    When somebody has gone so far as to say that all scientists are liars and visible fossil evidence was just planted by God to test us and that you can't trust anything that you've read in a peer-reviewed journal (simply by virtue of it being in a peer-reviewed journal) and the Bible is the only source of truth, I don't see how the high road is even possible.

    That's not to say that ridicule is the only right answer, or the best answer. But I think it is a valid reaction.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • So It GoesSo It Goes Justice.Registered User regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Um, yes?

    NOPE.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I'd much prefer that the high road was more frequently traveled around here. Not really sure how to go about making it happen though.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Because people believe ridiculous things and arguing with them with facts will only entrench their beliefs.

    Social and emotional pressure is more effective at changing a person's mind than factual evidence. That is what ridicule achieves.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    So It Goes wrote:
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Um, yes?

    What I'm saying is, if it's obvious, it doesn't need pointing out -- via ridicule or otherwise.

    If it's not obvious, then it deserves to be pointed out respectfully.

    Engaging in ridicule is at best childish and masturbatory. At worst it's an unacceptable lowering of the discourse.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    Like someone saying that Satan is out to take control of America and implying that liberals are servants of evil (Santorum).

    To respond respectfully is to legitimize it.

    I strongly agree.

    A key facet of the rights war on reason and education is the notion that all opinions are equally valid and worthwhile. We have nationally recognized political figures going on television and saying with a straight face that made up ideas, supported by questionable theology, are absolutely on par with rigorously verified theories and models which have been continuously supported by all or nearly all available data.

    This needs to be mocked. It is a mockable and ridiculous concept, and it should absolutely not be dignified. The people doing this know they are wrong, but they are appealing to unsuspecting, and under-educated people, they are not appealing to the people who already know better (with whom they cannot gain any traction whatsoever their arguments).

    The left is too-often on the defensive when the offense is weak and has nothing to stand on. That is when you attack. Attack with facts, yes. But when someone says something ridiculous and dangerous, they should be made to look the buffoon.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?
    Many people are too dumb to recognize face-value ridiculousness. They are even so dumb they can't imagine themselves being dumb enough to miss such things.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Yes, actually they do. Lies left unanswered may begin to masquerade as the truth.

    But while we are here, we can talk about the bullying analogy. I respect where you are coming from Gandalf, but I cannot agree with you. There is a time and a place for pacifism, but being exclusively pacifist in the face of an enemy bent on bringing you harm will only result in harm befalling you. Admittedly, my opinion may be colored by the fact that I was physically bullied in terrible ways when I was younger, and it only stopped once I fought back. Politics, unfortunately, exist in a similar situation now.

    DoctorArch on
    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Are you familiar with the (possibly apocryphal) anecdote about LBJ wanting to spread rumors that his campaign opponent was a pigfucker, just so his opponent would have to deny it?

    Denying an idea gives its adherents the ability to frame the debate. Talking about whether or not you're a pig fucker is only a little bit removed from just admitting it.

    Ridicule gives you a chance to reframe the debate in such a way that the false idea is not merely proven false, but shown to be how ridiculous it is.

    Ignoring it doesn't always work - just look at the way Kerry dealt with the Swift Boat Veterans. He didn't want to proverbially deny that he was a pig fucker, but failing to address the controversy didn't do him any favors.

    Compare that to Obama making fun of Trump's birferism. By painting birferism as ridiculous, we was able to distance himself from it in a way that neither denial nor silence would have accomplished. Does that mean that Obama should have called Trump a fucking idiot or some other epithet? No, absolutely not - but he was able to poke fun at it in a classy, lighthearted way.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    If you feel the need to ridicule anyone, you probably just need to reevaluate your emotional self-control. I've never seen a situation where ridicule was the only option, or even the best option among many.

    It feels good, I'll admit that much, and I'm not saying I've never done it. But there are people around here arguing that ridicule is "the right thing to do" in some cases, and that just makes me scratch my head.

    There are certain viewpoints where engaging them on a reasonable level just gives them credulity that they don't deserve. Creationism, for instance, or certain conspiracy theories, where people aren't merely disagreeing on value judgments or on good-faith interpretations of the available facts, but are on such deeply fictitious epistemological ground where trying to engage with them is counterproductive.

    If engagement is counterproductive, what do you think ridicule accomplishes? And how do you identify these viewpoints anyway?

    It seems that the pattern is:
    1) I disagree
    2) Deploy ridicule!
    3) Well, you're so obviously wrong I can't talk to you like a reasonable person.
    4) The fact that you're disagreeing is proof that I haven't mocked hard enough yet!

    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets? When it's used as part of every single contentious discussion, you just create an echo chamber.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    Feral wrote:
    There are certain viewpoints where engaging them on a reasonable level just gives them credulity that they don't deserve. Creationism, for instance, or certain conspiracy theories, where people aren't merely disagreeing on value judgments or on good-faith interpretations of the available facts, but are on such deeply fictitious epistemological ground where trying to engage with them is counterproductive.

    When somebody has gone so far as to say that all scientists are liars and visible fossil evidence was just planted by God to test us and that you can't trust anything that you've read in a peer-reviewed journal (simply by virtue of it being in a peer-reviewed journal) and the Bible is the only source of truth, I don't see how the high road is even possible.

    That's not to say that ridicule is the only right answer, or the best answer. But I think it is a valid reaction.

    There's also something to be said for the difference between ridiculing the person and ridiculing their ideas, which is a bit of discretion people need to exercise more often. You can shame someone into silence often by just creating a clever enough picture through inferences that if they speak another word they've just admitted they're a blathering retard. If you talk about their ideas and points this lets you inject some snark without it entirely poisoning the well, and gives the other person a chance to gracefully concede without appearing like damaged goods. It gives every person a reasonable way to "get out" of a discussion when they realize they're in the wrong without igniting a storm of drama.

    Whereas if you go just calling (whether directly or through inference) a person names then you're just going to provoke a strong defensive reaction and do far more harm than good. Not everyone can be dealt with that way, but I've always thought that if a discussion of ideas cannot be ended gracefully with words it will eventually come to violence or the online equivalent thereof.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    See also: Would knowing that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child change your views about him?


    Are we drawing a line between "ridicule" and "satire" anywhere here? Because the sort of ridicule that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert put politicians and the media through is almost always well-deserved and important to the national conversation. Ridicule has been part of the national discourse since before political cartoons.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Plenty of people should feel ashamed of the ideas they put forward. Particularly when the only goal of those ideas are to destroy lives for their own personal views and who will lie and misrepresent every opportunity they get to accomplish them. They are doing shameful things.

    Quid on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    People have debunked creationists and climate change 'skeptics' so many times, and the little fucks come slithering back with the same old arguments and soundbites as if they were never shot down. At that point, dear arbitrator of civility, it's time for mocking, slander and opprobrium. Or dehumanizing hatred, in my case, because I don't forgive people that don't act the part.

    Absalon on
    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    spool32 wrote:
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Ummmm.....

    to silence and....

    shame those targets?

    Maybe they will stop thinking/saying ridiculous things if they feel shame and are silenced every time they say something ridiculous.

    That is, like, the entire point.

    Burtletoy on
  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Somethings are so ridiculous on their face that ridicule is the only acceptable response.

    If they're ridiculous on their face, why do they need a response? If it requires you to point out the ridiculousness, is it really "so ridiculous on its face"?

    Because if you say nothing, people will accept what is said. I mean, look at how the Right has demonized the Left and Liberals. Go to your local book store. Now go see how many "Liberals are servants of the Devil" books there are compared to the opposite. Because they've been polite and took the moral high road they're now seen as milquetoast, fiscally irresponsible, militarily incompetent, and anti-religious, all from trying to let the facts speak for themselves. Facts can be buried under Newspeak and Doubletalk by your opponents.

    Moral high ground? Be polite? Bullshit. Do whatever is necessary to win. The end will justify the means.

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    There's also something to be said for the difference between ridiculing the person and ridiculing their ideas, which is a bit of discretion people need to exercise more often.

    I totally agree.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote:
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Ummmm.....

    to silence and....

    shame those targets?

    Maybe they will stop saying ridiculous things if they feel shame and are silenced every time they say something ridiculous.

    That is, like, the entire point.

    That's not the beginning and end of what happens, though. You don't just silence and shame them - you also harden their opinions and push them farther to the fringe. Then, later when you're not around, they go back to whatever they were saying but with even more conviction and a grudge against people who disagree.

    It's intensely counterproductive.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    That's not the beginning and end of what happens, though. You don't just silence and shame them - you also harden their opinions and push them farther to the fringe. Then, later when you're not around, they go back to whatever they were saying but with even more conviction and a grudge against people who disagree.

    It's intensely counterproductive.

    You apparently aren't aware of the current political situation in the U.S. The Republicans have been doing this for decades and it worked. Liberals didn't become more hardened, they became afraid to even identify as one.

    Quid on
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    Evil always wins. First one to cheat takes the pot - as long as there are stakes, rules will be broken. But what kind of evil will win? That is politics.

    Ceejoyner wrote:
    Pick up artists and garbage men should switch names.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    The people and views being mocked on the right can't move any further to the fringe without falling off hinter edge of the flat-Earth theory.

    Regina Fong on
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    That's not the beginning and end of what happens, though. You don't just silence and shame them - you also harden their opinions and push them farther to the fringe. Then, later when you're not around, they go back to whatever they were saying but with even more conviction and a grudge against people who disagree.

    It's intensely counterproductive.

    Where have the birfers been since the White House press correspondent's dinner?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    I wonder if some of you know how ideas die?

    Ideas persist long after they are shown to be wrong. They die when people are too embarrassed or ostracized to admit them in public.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    That's not the beginning and end of what happens, though. You don't just silence and shame them - you also harden their opinions and push them farther to the fringe. Then, later when you're not around, they go back to whatever they were saying but with even more conviction and a grudge against people who disagree.

    It's intensely counterproductive.

    Where have the birfers been since the White House press correspondent's dinner?

    Where have the supporters of Virginia's ultrasonic probe bill gone since everyone started calling it rape?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    Don't give a shit about civility in politics, I care about truth. An emphasis on civility gives you David Broder, truth gives you Edward R. Murrow.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Moral high ground? Be polite? Bullshit. Do whatever is necessary to win. The end will justify the means.

    So why stop with words?

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    I think we/I have failed to draw a distinction between mocking ideas, and mocking people.

    Mocking ideas is more grey. I still am not in the habit of doing it, and we can discuss it, but I'm not really sure it's what led us to this discussion originally. I'd like to stick to the "mocking people" half of the question, just for the moment.

    The original topic (IIRC) was the Santorum family's funeral for their stillborn child, and the mockery that was being directed at Santorum personally for it. When some objected to the mockery, the idea was put forward that "civility was meaningless", and that it was OK because "Santorum and the GOP are much worse" in that regard. I find these justifications problematic, because they are at their core a way of defining our personal morality in relation to Rick Santorum.

    I do not think defining morality in relation to Santorum is a sound practice, and in fact I believe it's a very dangerous one, as it is any time we attempt to define ourselves by what we're not.

    That's part (not all, but part) of the problem we're seeing in the GOP right now, honestly. At some point which I'm not enough of a political historian to identify, lots of GOP voters -- like my parents -- began defining themselves in terms of Dem policies they disagreed with. This has left the crazies unchecked, because they blend in with "not-a-Dem".

    By adopting the same system of defining your morality in terms of who you hate, you're risking the crazies gaining a foothold in your party, because they'll get a free pass in public discourse by the same merits you've all been excusing (for example) Absalon's behavior.

    You had someone in the thread wishing ill on children as a result of the acts of their parents, and you said nothing, because he was wearing the "I hate Santorum" jersey.

    And you're telling me this sort of negatively-defined morality isn't having an impact on the direction of politics?

    TL;DR: You are justifying your actions with a line of reasoning that is (along with other factors) helping to destroy the GOP. What impact do you expect it will have on the Democratic Party, in the long run?

    EDIT: Oh hey, Fallout2Man beat me to it because I am long-winded, it would seem.

    Gandalf_the_Crazed on
    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    spool32 wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    spool32 wrote:
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Ummmm.....

    to silence and....

    shame those targets?

    Maybe they will stop saying ridiculous things if they feel shame and are silenced every time they say something ridiculous.

    That is, like, the entire point.

    That's not the beginning and end of what happens, though. You don't just silence and shame them - you also harden their opinions and push them farther to the fringe. Then, later when you're not around, they go back to whatever they were saying but with even more conviction and a grudge against people who disagree.

    It's intensely counterproductive.

    It wasn't for me. I used to be a truther and general conspiracy theorist (you know that line from Santorum, I used to believe the same thing), but reading people get shutdown hard on this forum got that out of my head because I realized how much of an idiot I was.

    It wasn't facts that changed my mind, because facts can be disregarded and thrown away by the mind, it was the realization that if I thought the same thing I was as dumb as that other guy.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    For that matter, while I wouldn't call it "ridicule," I would call it a productive example of 'shaming and silencing' somebody when Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency?"

    At that point, there was nothing left to do except call McCarthy out as a terrible man doing stupid things.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Don't give a shit about civility in politics, I care about truth. An emphasis on civility gives you David Broder, truth gives you Edward R. Murrow.

    Truth. Civility gives you situations where one side says "The sky is on fire" the other side says "The sky is not on fire" and the person in the middle going "well, both sides have their pluses."

    steam_sig.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Plenty of people should feel ashamed of the ideas they put forward. Particularly when the only goal of those ideas are to destroy lives for their own personal views and who will lie and misrepresent every opportunity they get to accomplish them. They are doing shameful things.

    And they will continue to do them, and more, once you've left. But will you argue that ridicule is the appropriate response to people like this, and also agree with
    Do whatever is necessary to win. The end will justify the means.

    ... because they're just following Giga's philosophy, same as you.

    Successful Kickstarter get! Drop by Bare Mettle Entertainment if you'd like to see what we're making.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    When was the last time a prominent Democrat called all Republicans traitors, communists, fascists, and liars, spool? That's the kind of behavior that the Republican Party embraces, and people have problems with you because you refuse to admit that working with your local party cannot change that. The leaders of your party reap electoral dividends from demonizing Democrats endlessly, and they do not give a shit what you think.
    Basically, this. The Republicans use these sorts of tactics, and they work. Why should the Democrats shy away from them?

    And I really can think of very little that shouldn't be said in order to beat Rick Santorum. Should you say that his wife is a child rapist, regardless of whether or not that's true? If it gets you votes, fuck yes. Because it's exactly what Rick Santorum said about every homosexual in order to drum up support, so why the hell not? It's exactly what he has coming.

  • Gigazombie CybermageGigazombie Cybermage Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Moral high ground? Be polite? Bullshit. Do whatever is necessary to win. The end will justify the means.

    So why stop with words?

    Why indeed...



    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    The original topic (IIRC) was the Santorum family's funeral for their stillborn child, and the mockery that was being directed at Santorum personally for it. When some objected to the mockery, the idea was put forward that "civility was meaningless", and that it was OK because "Santorum and the GOP are much worse" in that regard. I find these justifications problematic, because they are at their core a way of defining our personal morality in relation to Rick Santorum.

    Given that their stillborn child has absolutely nothing to do with Santorum's politics, I see no benefit to the mockery you describe. That just seems like it's in really poor taste, and I agree with you.

    But let's look at another family situation where I think mockery might be justified: Bristol Palin's teenage pregnancy. Since abstinence-only education is a part of Sarah Palin's platform, I think it's valid - to a point - to make jokes.

    I'm not saying that ill will should be wished upon any of the Palins. That's not what I'm saying at all. But joking about 'yeah, looks like abstinence worked great for them' seems totally appropriate to me.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What, exactly, is the goal of ridicule and mockery but to silence and shame those it targets?

    Plenty of people should feel ashamed of the ideas they put forward. Particularly when the only goal of those ideas are to destroy lives for their own personal views and who will lie and misrepresent every opportunity they get to accomplish them. They are doing shameful things.

    And they will continue to do them, and more, once you've left. But will you argue that ridicule is the appropriate response to people like this, and also agree with
    Do whatever is necessary to win. The end will justify the means.

    ... because they're just following Giga's philosophy, same as you.

    Yeah and they're not going to stop following that philosophy when we do.

«13456716
Sign In or Register to comment.