It is important though to be clear what counts as ridicule.
It kind of relates to the ad hominem logical fallacy I suppose.
There's a difference between, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot," and "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong."
The first is a misdemeaner that would be more effective if it restricted itself to talking about ideas and arguments. The second is a felony of discourse.
The only thing I've seen that worries me is when someone starts throwing out snark/ridicule without including any related information to make clear the point of what was said. Just telling someone "You are stupid, your ideas are stupid and you should shut up forever" out of left field, for instance, isn't very productive on any level even if it's an entirely true statement. People don't always tie enough context into their snark to make it clear exactly what it's being said about, and why it's being said.
So saying "Your positions are contradictory, your rhetoric is vitriolic and not based on facts, the only consistent thing about what you say is that you hate you some Gays/Mexicans/Women. You are a bigot!" is a lot better than "You're a stupid bigot!"
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.
It is important though to be clear what counts as ridicule.
It kind of relates to the ad hominem logical fallacy I suppose.
There's a difference between, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot," and "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong."
The first is a misdemeaner that would be more effective if it restricted itself to talking about ideas and arguments. The second is a felony of discourse.
Very little in life is the kind of discourse you are talking about.
And no one in this thread has been saying "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." They've said "You are a bigot because of what you say, so stop fucking saying it".
Except if you don't actually support the things you say, you are just saying, "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." Which is as ad hominem-ey as ad hominem gets.
and nearly everything in life is this, if you choose to actually engage people rather than dismiss them.
If we're just going to try to conflate ideology with method, then I should at least point out that you've got that way backwards. It's why something as abhorrent as slavery was acceptable for the longest time, with abolitionists being socially ostracized, imprisoned, and even lynched right along with the slaves they would try to rescue. Valiant try though.
And those are the same reasons it's not acceptable now.
You seem to have this ridiculous idea bad ideas are killed with reason. Reason doesn't solve shit. Bad ideas don't die on swords of good arguments, they die because the people who espouse them are no longer capable of doing so in public without social stigma.
That's why you can't go around saying "let's kill all the jews" anymore. No ones stopping you, but you will be ostracized and ridiculed and all that shit.
So just as due diligence and to triple check here, and to make sure I'm not just being trolled here to prove a point, you literally do not see all the reflexive layers of irony when you type things like this?
What irony?
I'm sorry, do you not understand how this works? Do you really not get why you can't go around yelling "N****r!" at black people in public anymore? It's not because it's a wrong idea, it's because the people around you will deem it unacceptable behavior and act accordingly.
So just to verify here, you don't use that word because it is wrong and because you have any sort of moral compass that tells you as much, but because there might be people around that inform your decision-making about whether to use it or not? And if those guardians of public decorum are outside of earshot (and you've verified this by looking carefully to the left and to the right), then and only then is it acceptable to use the word, correct? I mean that's how it works, right? You do a "black guy check" and then it's N-word this and N-word that?
If that sours your stomach, that's OK. Other people will do it so you don't have to.
In an earlier post, you already couched reasoned debate as some backdoor way of giving credence to things you disagree with. Which would tend to make something like a debate forum a little moot, wouldn't it? I am sure in the New World Order, I am one of the sad apologists who thought up until the very end that we could just talk to them...we could just reason with them...until I am eventually herded off into a corner, protected by the stronger among you who had the courage to utter "dickface" when my own courage failed.
It is important though to be clear what counts as ridicule.
It kind of relates to the ad hominem logical fallacy I suppose.
There's a difference between, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot," and "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong."
The first is a misdemeaner that would be more effective if it restricted itself to talking about ideas and arguments. The second is a felony of discourse.
Very little in life is the kind of discourse you are talking about.
And no one in this thread has been saying "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." They've said "You are a bigot because of what you say, so stop fucking saying it".
Except if you don't actually support the things you say, you are just saying, "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." Which is as ad hominem-ey as ad hominem gets.
and nearly everything in life is this, if you choose to actually engage people rather than dismiss them.
No it's not. No one in politics gives a shit about a well constructed argument. They care about emotional appeals and the like.
And people's statements have been very well supported on the issues that sparked this thread, so I'm really not sure what you think you are talking about.
The act of rising above "mudslinging rhetoric" is itself an act of mudslinging, you are proclaiming everyone else lesser than you, who rise above it. Worse still, it makes you a target. Case in point the part where I entered the rollicking argument that spawned this thread was when someone whipped out the "smug" meme. For those who don't know there's a meme, often projection, where conservatives call liberals "smug" and imply a sense of egotism and superiority. It is most often used when the target liberal is right, or at least has a point that cannot be argued against directly and seems to most often come (ironically) packaged with an explanation how the target, and thus all liberals, are inferior because they think they are superior.
Using sarcasm I made fun of this meme, as well as the irony of it and the unequal application of it along partisan lines and was taken to task for it with because, "two wrongs don't make a right." This being the internet and me being a jolly little goose I then made another sarcastic bit of smartassery involving the "humor" meme wherein the Right Wing deflects criticism for saying reprehensible things by calling it, "a joke." Interestingly the person complaining about my "rudeness" also implied I was childish and insinuated I had received a poor upbringing, an ad-hominem itself.
Which brings me in this rambling incoherency I call a post to political correctness. The term "politically-correct" is defined as controlling speech in such a way as to avoid or minimize offense. As teh wikis put it: "In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative, while the term politically incorrect has been used as an implicitly positive self-description." What does this mean? Well for one thing it means that hate, insults, and uncivil discourse wins the popular vote, and in politics the popular vote is rather important. But what is interesting is while people are quite likely to hate on "being PC," to avoid offense is ALSO impossible. Right now it is offensive as all hell to a great many people in America that the theory of evolution is being taught as fact and that liberals DARE to point out that abstinence education leads to an increase in teen pregnancies. REALITY is offensive, and thus politically incorrect. It is offensive to pro-lifers to call their opposition "pro-choice" and it is offensive to the pro-choice crowd to call their opposition pro-life. It is offensive to a great many Christians that I even EXIST and am not chased through the streets, I find anything less than full support of my full citizenship to be offensive, there is no "politically correct" balance between the two.
So what? So don't bother? So don't even TRY to play it civil? Nah. There's a realm between impossible conflict and impossible peace, the question is objectivity and balance. Spool swears that big jerk meanie-heads for being so mean, yet he opened that particular back-and-forth with uncivil commentary and the largest sticking point seemed to be him equating one poster's personal vendetta (which originated outside of my experience and did not appear to be entirely one-sided) with everyone who disagreed with or opposed him. Then he began to wax poetic with chiming in supporters of less-than-spotless ettiquette waving the martyrdom flag while verbally assaulting others and asserting that qualitatively, liberals are all far meaner than conservatives.
And this is the most fun part of the game. It was QUALITATIVE instead of Quantitative and thus completely non-falsifiable. Random anecdotes about cruel representations of Sarah Palin that were "worse" and any claim to the contrary was either dismissed or insulted because it is something that CANNOT be proven and thus can be repeated as often as necessary. The media in general and even forumites here treated Sarah Palin with far more respect and credence than she treats others, but that's not a fact, that's my opinion. Katie Couric was considered an evil liberal media whore for her "ambush tactics" against Palin but by any objective view she was just asking questions, NICE questions, and playing it soft. And there's a word I really miss from the game; objective. Objectively speaking, if you aren't grinding an axe or even care about the other crap, it doesn't matter who is being nice or mean, nor does "balance" matter, what matters is the issues. What can be proven, what is factual.
But facts don't make any political party look good. Facts are unemotional and heartless. Facts don't answer those qualitative assessments like whether we should focus on the factual corruption within social programs and factual instances of lazy people sucking the welfare teat or if we should pay attention to the factual abuses of power by the military-industrial complex and the factual parallels between the American Economy and a Banana Republic from the 1960s. Facts don't answer whether Absalon was a wronged party seeking justice for insulted honor or a jerkoff shooting his mouth off. Facts don't judge whether you're an asshole or a savior, they only judge if you HAVE an asshole or CLAIM a savior.
End result? Well people could (and should) have been less personal, and Spool needs to stop waving his martyrdom complex around, and if you get uncomfortable with the nasty mean-spirited jokes about your candidates I suggest you post, "can we drop a little bit of the mean-spirited humor here folks?" in the same way Kevin Nash asked us to stop calling them "Paultards" and accept that you won't get 'em all, but you also don't have to pay attention to every Internet Fuckwad out there. But that's my subjective opinion.
Sorry I don't seem to have a point there, just a blathering opinion, like the opinion that John Boehner is a threat to America.
This is a good post and your description of what happened in the last thread is accurate from my own subjective point of view, as well. As far as spool's martyr flag goes, he does love to wave it. He got away with calling me a troll (a total violation of forum rules) like 3 times in one thread because I was "trolling" him by expressing my honest, not-even-particularly-inflammatory opinions about Ron Paul.
How does he do it? Well playing the victim works amazingly well against liberals. We're hardwired to feel sorry for victims, even huge fake ones who manage to stumble into new vistas of victimhood every 5 fucking minutes.
And you'll notice that fundie christians, the catholic church, Republicans, have all been playing the victim lately. Because it works. Because the left doesn't even know how to kick people very well to begin with, let alone someone who is rolling around on the ground crying, no matter how fake their not-skinned knee is.
All the more reason we need to harden ourselves. We do not need to become our enemy, but failure to acknowledge what isn't working and whining about the opposition not playing by our playbook is fruitless.
If we're just going to try to conflate ideology with method, then I should at least point out that you've got that way backwards. It's why something as abhorrent as slavery was acceptable for the longest time, with abolitionists being socially ostracized, imprisoned, and even lynched right along with the slaves they would try to rescue. Valiant try though.
And those are the same reasons it's not acceptable now.
You seem to have this ridiculous idea bad ideas are killed with reason. Reason doesn't solve shit. Bad ideas don't die on swords of good arguments, they die because the people who espouse them are no longer capable of doing so in public without social stigma.
That's why you can't go around saying "let's kill all the jews" anymore. No ones stopping you, but you will be ostracized and ridiculed and all that shit.
So just as due diligence and to triple check here, and to make sure I'm not just being trolled here to prove a point, you literally do not see all the reflexive layers of irony when you type things like this?
What irony?
I'm sorry, do you not understand how this works? Do you really not get why you can't go around yelling "N****r!" at black people in public anymore? It's not because it's a wrong idea, it's because the people around you will deem it unacceptable behavior and act accordingly.
So just to verify here, you don't use that word because it is wrong and because you have any sort of moral compass that tells you as much, but because there might be people around that inform your decision-making about whether to use it or not? And if those guardians of public decorum are outside of earshot (and you've verified this by looking carefully to the left and to the right), then and only then is it acceptable to use the word, correct? I mean that's how it works, right? You do a "black guy check" and then it's N-word this and N-word that?
No. Stop being obtuse.
Firstly, my "moral compass" is informed by those around me. Our ideas of what is right and wrong are learned behaviors.
Secondly, that's not even what the discussion is about. This is about people who already believe shit like "black people are lazy" or "gays are evil" or whatever. Those people are unlikely to have their minds changed. The point is those that aren't bigots or idiots or the like ridicule these people until they stop expressing their views in public. This makes the views socially unacceptable and over time, they die off.
And finally, if you think you are ok to go spouting "N****r" this and "N****r" that just because there aren't any black people around, you are even more divorced from reality then I thought.
If that sours your stomach, that's OK. Other people will do it so you don't have to.
In an earlier post, you already couched reasoned debate as some backdoor way of giving credence to things you disagree with. Which would tend to make something like a debate forum a little moot, wouldn't it? I am sure in the New World Order, I am one of the sad apologists who thought up until the very end that we could just talk to them...we could just reason with them...until I am eventually herded off into a corner, protected by the stronger among you who had the courage to utter "dickface" when my own courage failed.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
It is important though to be clear what counts as ridicule.
It kind of relates to the ad hominem logical fallacy I suppose.
There's a difference between, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot," and "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong."
The first is a misdemeaner that would be more effective if it restricted itself to talking about ideas and arguments. The second is a felony of discourse.
Very little in life is the kind of discourse you are talking about.
And no one in this thread has been saying "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." They've said "You are a bigot because of what you say, so stop fucking saying it".
Except if you don't actually support the things you say, you are just saying, "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." Which is as ad hominem-ey as ad hominem gets.
and nearly everything in life is this, if you choose to actually engage people rather than dismiss them.
No it's not. No one in politics gives a shit about a well constructed argument. They care about emotional appeals and the like.
And people's statements have been very well supported on the issues that sparked this thread, so I'm really not sure what you think you are talking about.
Just because you talked and then the other person didn't agree with you doesn't mean no one cares about a well constructed argument. They may simply be unconvinced. But when you resort to ridicule you shut down any further conversation. You end up talking past one another, repeating the same tired old arguments without anyone learning anything new.
Like I said before, everyone has reasons for believing the things they do, and if you bother to investigate those reasons and find out what's really going on you can actually change peoples' minds.
In fact, I think I was much too gentle on this example statement earlier, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot." Because by calling that person out as a bigot it would entirely shut down the conversation. There's no way that guy's going to do anything but dig in. Whereas if you more diplomatically assert that those reasons lead to bigotry it gives him the space to disagree in detail, and perhaps common ground can be found to build upon.
If we're just going to try to conflate ideology with method, then I should at least point out that you've got that way backwards. It's why something as abhorrent as slavery was acceptable for the longest time, with abolitionists being socially ostracized, imprisoned, and even lynched right along with the slaves they would try to rescue. Valiant try though.
And those are the same reasons it's not acceptable now.
You seem to have this ridiculous idea bad ideas are killed with reason. Reason doesn't solve shit. Bad ideas don't die on swords of good arguments, they die because the people who espouse them are no longer capable of doing so in public without social stigma.
That's why you can't go around saying "let's kill all the jews" anymore. No ones stopping you, but you will be ostracized and ridiculed and all that shit.
So just as due diligence and to triple check here, and to make sure I'm not just being trolled here to prove a point, you literally do not see all the reflexive layers of irony when you type things like this?
What irony?
I'm sorry, do you not understand how this works? Do you really not get why you can't go around yelling "N****r!" at black people in public anymore? It's not because it's a wrong idea, it's because the people around you will deem it unacceptable behavior and act accordingly.
So just to verify here, you don't use that word because it is wrong and because you have any sort of moral compass that tells you as much, but because there might be people around that inform your decision-making about whether to use it or not? And if those guardians of public decorum are outside of earshot (and you've verified this by looking carefully to the left and to the right), then and only then is it acceptable to use the word, correct? I mean that's how it works, right? You do a "black guy check" and then it's N-word this and N-word that?
No. Stop being obtuse.
Firstly, my "moral compass" is informed by those around me. Our ideas of what is right and wrong are learned behaviors.
Secondly, that's not even what the discussion is about. This is about people who already believe shit like "black people are lazy" or "gays are evil" or whatever. Those people are unlikely to have their minds changed. The point is those that aren't bigots or idiots or the like ridicule these people until they stop expressing their views in public. This makes the views socially unacceptable and over time, they die off.
And finally, if you think you are ok to go spouting "N****r" this and "N****r" that just because there aren't any black people around, you are even more divorced from reality then I thought.
If that sours your stomach, that's OK. Other people will do it so you don't have to.
In an earlier post, you already couched reasoned debate as some backdoor way of giving credence to things you disagree with. Which would tend to make something like a debate forum a little moot, wouldn't it? I am sure in the New World Order, I am one of the sad apologists who thought up until the very end that we could just talk to them...we could just reason with them...until I am eventually herded off into a corner, protected by the stronger among you who had the courage to utter "dickface" when my own courage failed.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
Well no, their minds are not likely to be changed by you railing on them about how they're bigots and idiots. And yet presumably you do have some common ground about how people should be treated that could be used to investigate why ideas like that may or may not be consistant.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
makes absolutely no attempt to try to convince anyone of anything. It is not constructive in the slightest. Even though presumably the topic of how much civility should be used in public discourse isn't some deep seated prejudice, but a topic about which one could be convinced to change ones mind. Especially on a debate and discourse forum.
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Oh hey, I see."
And sometimes it does! But most of the time this happens:
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Sticks to flawed facts and starts creating logical fallacies"
"Points out facts again"
"Logical fallacies/accusations/quits thread because you're lying."
And there's no reason not to start calling them assholes when they start acting like assholes.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
That part of the post was for Regina Fong, which is why the quoted part says "Regina Fong" and it's a reference to what forums poster Regina Fong posted on the last page re: Regina and MentalExercise's point about how the national conversation has already shifted to violence and threats of violence over reason.
I take no ownership for your confusion after pointing all those things out.
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Oh hey, I see."
And sometimes it does! But most of the time this happens:
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Sticks to flawed facts and starts creating logical fallacies"
"Points out facts again"
"Logical fallacies/accusations/quits thread because you're lying."
And there's no reason not to start calling them assholes when they start acting like assholes.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
I mean, on this very forum there have been a couple of extremely interesting discussions about homosexuality and beastiality. Not absurd dismissive conversations, but interesting and in depth ones.
And as a result of those conversations, when someone brings the topic up I (and plenty of other people that read the thread) can point out that there are solid legal differences between the two and the comparison is not a substantive one. Which can not be had if the only response is the usual one of, "That's so offensive that you're not allowed to talk anymore, bigot."
No it's not. No one in politics gives a shit about a well constructed argument. They care about emotional appeals and the like.
And people's statements have been very well supported on the issues that sparked this thread, so I'm really not sure what you think you are talking about.
Well I'm talking about in general and that is when you want to call someone something make sure there's a case laid out as to why you're calling them that in words. You can be snarky, make an emotional appeal, AND include all of the information necessary in your statement to support your conclusion that person X in discussion Y is being a goose.
Especially if someone's being blatant and offensive if you can't take five seconds to write it out so that it doesn't become a non-sequitor then you shouldn't do it.
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.
Oh, not to mention getting someone to expand upon their idea! Plenty of bad ideas can be maintained ad infinitum if they're kept basic enough, but very clearly lose ground when expanded or applied. But if you're calling someone a moron or just trying to play gotcha, they aren't likely to participate.
And often someone who is not convinced during a conversation is converted later by that one statement that just sticks with them. And the more you practice, and the better you present your arguments, and the more individual ways you approach something, the more likely you will express those statements.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
To which an asshole will respond with a question regarding the frequency of your wife beatings.
Again, liberals have been thinking like you for decades and have suffered for it. It doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bitch slap an asshole. And that's okay.
-My biggest pet peeve with the break down in political discourse is that elements have perverted how it's carried out. We literally have people who think it's proper to hear out all sides of an issue equally because they mistakenly believe that all sides are worth considering. The reality is that some sides aren't worth considering. Anyone that suggests the world is flat should be ridiculed because the facts show that their position is indefensible. Racism is another example, sure they exist but that doesn't mean we should hear them out on why they think it's acceptable to treat others like shit based on genetics. Yes, I know both these examples are hyperbole but then they don't seem that exaggerated when one realizes that people are having a debate on allowing employers to deny coverage for contraceptives or that VA would consider forcing women to undergo an invasive procedure, that constitutes rape, to get an abortion. Let's not also forget the bullshit that comes out of the likes of Fox News and Rush.
By responding to this garbage politely, it only seems to legitimize issues that shouldn't be legitimize. I'm sure when I run into the birthers, I don't treat them like an ignorant little kid that just needs to be educated on the matter. That's a fucking waste of time, they deserve to be ridiculed because they should know better and they should feel ashamed for having such a belief.
-One of the other pet peeves I have is that the right has gone out of it's way to stifle and suffocate public education. If we taught people to be better critical thinkers and to always check sources instead of instantly believing everything they hear, I'd wager that political discourse would be more civil. After all if it's harder to pull the wool over people's eyes, the idea of riling people up with lies loses it's appeal when one realizes that just ensures people will really be pissed with you, once they calm down and realize you're full of shit. To add insult to injury, the right then has the gall to bitch about people not being gentle to them, while they actively engage in treating anyone that disagrees like shit and taking steps to ensure that most of the populace is ignorant about reality.
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Oh hey, I see."
And sometimes it does! But most of the time this happens:
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Sticks to flawed facts and starts creating logical fallacies"
"Points out facts again"
"Logical fallacies/accusations/quits thread because you're lying."
And there's no reason not to start calling them assholes when they start acting like assholes.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
I mean, on this very forum there have been a couple of extremely interesting discussions about homosexuality and beastiality. Not absurd dismissive conversations, but interesting and in depth ones.
And as a result of those conversations, when someone brings the topic up I (and plenty of other people that read the thread) can point out that there are solid legal differences between the two and the comparison is not a substantive one. Which can not be had if the only response is the usual one of, "That's so offensive that you're not allowed to talk anymore, bigot."
This is the key point. When you maintain respect for the person you are debating with, and actually deal with each point they bring up, no matter how strongly you disagree with it, you keep the potential to change their mind alive. As soon as you move to an attack on them or their beliefs, you lose that opportunity. The right approach, if you care about fleshing out the issue and coming to the best conclusions, is to keep trying every angle you can until you have exhausted them all. At worst, you will have deepened and refined your understanding of the topic. At best, you actually give them something to think about. Also, don't forget that the tone of a discussion can influence how someone leaves the conversation. People with strong beliefs don't change them on the spot, but if you take them seriously and are respectful and civil, they might leave the conversation with something to think on which helps push them to change their view over time.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
To which an asshole will respond with a question regarding the frequency of your wife beatings.
Again, liberals have been thinking like you for decades and have suffered for it. It doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bitch slap an asshole. And that's okay.
I can't say I'm too much more impressed with liberals' arguments than neo-cons'. In my experience liberals in the public sphere have much too great a tendency to make their arguments and then if someone doesn't agree, repeat themselves more slowly the next time. But it's about listening and understanding as much as it is talking.
For example, how often have you heard liberals express their complete mystification that there are poor people that would be stupid enough to vote republican. It's a not uncommon sentiment. And yet it's a question with simple enough answers. And most of those morivations are well intentioned, some of which aren't. But instead of engaging those ideas, a lot of people just keep going,"How can these people vote against their own interests!" as if that were an acceptable motivation anyway.
Not to nitpick your example and lose sight of your point, MentalExercise, but that's a pretty awful example! People voting for their own interests is the most acceptable motivation around. It's how we're supposed to, in theory, end up with politicians or policies who reflect the interests of most people. It's a fundamental tenet of democracy, so trying to call bullshit on that is like saying you don't believe in the idea of collectivism put to a vote. It's pretty silly.
Plus, I think most of us understand that those kinds of votes are registered for non-debatable emotional and religious reasons rather than pragmatic ones made out of legitimate self interest. This isn't exactly stuff that seriously keeps analysts up nights. "Why?? Why do they vote against their interests!"
I have faith that you can pick a much better example to help illustrate your point!
I can't say I'm too much more impressed with liberals' arguments than neo-cons'. In my experience liberals in the public sphere have much too great a tendency to make their arguments and then if someone doesn't agree, repeat themselves more slowly the next time. But it's about listening and understanding as much as it is talking.
For example, how often have you heard liberals express their complete mystification that there are poor people that would be stupid enough to vote republican. It's a not uncommon sentiment. And yet it's a question with simple enough answers. And most of those morivations are well intentioned, some of which aren't. But instead of engaging those ideas, a lot of people just keep going,"How can these people vote against their own interests!" as if that were an acceptable motivation anyway.
No, not really, we KNOW the answer. The "mystification" is the most polite way to express this and hope that maybe, just maybe, someone will consider what was said and think to themselves they'd rather not be desperately poor instead of wishing for a pound of flesh from their minority/hated group of choice. Sadly, hate is like a drug and if you're raised with it, kicking the habit can be incredibly hard.
Two conservative posters here, when engaged repeatedly in good-faith debate regarding their positions on issues have refused to explain why they hold their positions, why they believe as they do, and immediately run away when asked about it. The "Moderate Republicans" here have already declared they've left the party and were people who I don't think anyone's ever had any sort of problem with anyway.
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.
Well I guess that is a tangent not worth running off into. Suffice it to say you are both potentially quite wrong, but we will have to table it until a more appropriate time or we will never get out of the rabbit hole, yes?
To use a different example, I'm an American History X kind of a guy. I think that movie really illustrates the American neo-nazi mindset, and how one ends up there. And I think there's a lot to be learned there. But there's no way to make that movie starting from the mindset that bigots are all just so horrible we need to shame them into hiding.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
To which an asshole will respond with a question regarding the frequency of your wife beatings.
Again, liberals have been thinking like you for decades and have suffered for it. It doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bitch slap an asshole. And that's okay.
I can't say I'm too much more impressed with liberals' arguments than neo-cons'. In my experience liberals in the public sphere have much too great a tendency to make their arguments and then if someone doesn't agree, repeat themselves more slowly the next time. But it's about listening and understanding as much as it is talking.
For example, how often have you heard liberals express their complete mystification that there are poor people that would be stupid enough to vote republican. It's a not uncommon sentiment. And yet it's a question with simple enough answers. And most of those morivations are well intentioned, some of which aren't. But instead of engaging those ideas, a lot of people just keep going,"How can these people vote against their own interests!" as if that were an acceptable motivation anyway.
They express that because a poor person voting Republican is voting for themselves to be fucked over. It is an honest sentiment. You're already demanding liberals stop stating the truth lest it offend people.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
To which an asshole will respond with a question regarding the frequency of your wife beatings.
Again, liberals have been thinking like you for decades and have suffered for it. It doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bitch slap an asshole. And that's okay.
I can't say I'm too much more impressed with liberals' arguments than neo-cons'. In my experience liberals in the public sphere have much too great a tendency to make their arguments and then if someone doesn't agree, repeat themselves more slowly the next time. But it's about listening and understanding as much as it is talking.
For example, how often have you heard liberals express their complete mystification that there are poor people that would be stupid enough to vote republican. It's a not uncommon sentiment. And yet it's a question with simple enough answers. And most of those morivations are well intentioned, some of which aren't. But instead of engaging those ideas, a lot of people just keep going,"How can these people vote against their own interests!" as if that were an acceptable motivation anyway.
They express that because a poor person voting Republican is voting for themselves to be fucked over. It is an honest sentiment. You're already demanding liberals stop stating the truth lest it offend people.
You're going to have to show me where I suggested something similar to that.
edit: It's too late at night for such a short response.
I am most certainly not saying the bolded. I'm saying that throwing up your hands and ending the discourse because those working class red staters are just too stupid to know what's going on is actually a stupid thing to do. Which is about as deep as I would like to get on this one, just so's we don't end up going off the rails and whatnot.
As is often the case when there are two opposing views with similar goals, the answer is 'both are OK'.
Some people, even if they believe the most insane crap imaginable, will respond to reason, evidence and logic.
Some people will never ever listen to opposing viewpoints.
The trick is to try and work out which the person you're arguing with is.
For example, someone might spew some racist garbage. Now, that racism might have come second-hand from their family or society, and they might not have encountered the kind of people they're discriminating against at all. They might be slightly stupid or just thoughtless. That kind of person might respond to evidence-based discourse, realise they're wrong, and change.
Another person might be filled with hate for anyone 'Other'. They believe everyone must be like them, and they have encountered other ethnicities and the obvious arguments against racism many many times. They don't even share the same perceptions as you - they might literally perceive black people as always having threatening body language, aggressive voices and so on. They support violence, whether state-sanctioned or not, against minorities. They have little cognitive dissonance and their racism is firmly entrenched. That kind of person is not going to respond to evidence-based argumentation. So why bother?
You're going to have to show me where I suggested something similar to that.
Saying the truth is offensive to the other side. That Santorum is a homophobe, that creationism isn't based on anything real, that marijuana isn't actually that dangerous. These are all offensive. Yet they're all true. Which side are we supposed to fall on? Politeness or truth?
As is often the case when there are two opposing views with similar goals, the answer is 'both are OK'.
Some people, even if they believe the most insane crap imaginable, will respond to reason, evidence and logic.
Some people will never ever listen to opposing viewpoints.
The trick is to try and work out which the person you're arguing with is.
For example, someone might spew some racist garbage. Now, that racism might have come second-hand from their family or society, and they might not have encountered the kind of people they're discriminating against at all. They might be slightly stupid or just thoughtless. That kind of person might respond to evidence-based discourse, realise they're wrong, and change.
Another person might be filled with hate for anyone 'Other'. They believe everyone must be like them, and they have encountered other ethnicities and the obvious arguments against racism many many times. They don't even share the same perceptions as you - they might literally perceive black people as always having threatening body language, aggressive voices and so on. They support violence, whether state-sanctioned or not, against minorities. They have little cognitive dissonance and their racism is firmly entrenched. That kind of person is not going to respond to evidence-based argumentation. So why bother?
Because the right argument will stick with them. And it may never affect them, but everyone changes, and if something does crack their worldview a bit, that argument that's been sticking to their shoe might get a chance to start wriggling in. I also think this is relatively accurate:
This is the key point. When you maintain respect for the person you are debating with, and actually deal with each point they bring up, no matter how strongly you disagree with it, you keep the potential to change their mind alive. As soon as you move to an attack on them or their beliefs, you lose that opportunity. The right approach, if you care about fleshing out the issue and coming to the best conclusions, is to keep trying every angle you can until you have exhausted them all. At worst, you will have deepened and refined your understanding of the topic. At best, you actually give them something to think about. Also, don't forget that the tone of a discussion can influence how someone leaves the conversation. People with strong beliefs don't change them on the spot, but if you take them seriously and are respectful and civil, they might leave the conversation with something to think on which helps push them to change their view over time.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
That part of the post was for Regina Fong, which is why the quoted part says "Regina Fong" and it's a reference to what forums poster Regina Fong posted on the last page re: Regina and MentalExercise's point about how the national conversation has already shifted to violence and threats of violence over reason.
That wasn't what was said at all, you're reading into it what you want to hear. I said the national conversation is already full of mudslinging. I was only agreeing with the assertion that we will necessarily fall to violence and threats and intimidation for the sake of argument, but even in that I never claimed that we were already there.
Pardon me for having not read all five pages (just skimmed the first and last), but I figured I should at least weigh in briefly since I was part of the original tangent.
Far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of taking the high road so much as just looking at what and why you say.
Regarding Santorum, it's one thing if you want to analyze and criticize the actual procedure performed wherein labor was induced to deliver a child that would certainly not survive in order to save Mrs. Santorum's life. Otherwise known as a second trimester abortion, which stands at odds with his outspoken beliefs about abortions. It's perfectly fair, and relevant, to go down this route because it is directly related to a very politicized issue that he is campaigning on.
It's another thing, however, to analyze and criticize how the Santorum family grieved for their loss. What point are you undermining? What gains are you achieving? What the hell is your goal? What have you done other than kick at a man simply because? And to no effect, I might add, because the attack has no purpose and holds no weight.
I guess it's "taking the high road" in a way, but I'm not saying that any topic is off-limits so much as one should consider their actions. If what you're saying is no more than an attack for its own sake, ask why. Why do you revel in an attack, that should merely be a means to an end? And why should anyone respect such a thing?
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn't do that.
Anid Maro on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
What have you done other than kick at a man simply because?
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
What does attacking this funeral do? Other than be repulsive?
It doesn't discredit him in any way, and talking about it takes away from the myriad of other things you could talk about that would discredit him.
If you're trying to take Santorum out, you're doing it wrong.
Like a boxer who keeps making illegal blows, he thinks he's winning until the penalties tally up and cause him to lose. Stop working the kidneys and hit him in that glass jaw!
Yeah I mean, obviously people who do things I think are strange deserve derision because I am pretty much great but
I don't understand the Santorum baby thing. It's very tabloid and all, but it doesn't really connect to the election in any meaningful manner, and you have to wade through entire warehouses of ridiculous policy to even reach it.
He's not awful because he's made weird personal decisions, he's awful because he's advocating awful things.
What have you done other than kick at a man simply because?
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
This "anything" to win tactic is reprehensible enough when the candidates do it, but I think we all understand that the candidates are somewhat precluded from making well reasoned policy arguments in debates or commercials. All they can really do is trot out some bullet points or tug at the heart strings, because explaining issues involves educating people in what the issues are, and that takes time, and bores people. On a message board though? Here we have nothing but time to focus on issues. If an undecided voter comes to this forum and reads our political threads, do you really think you will convince him not to vote for Santorum through your insults about his family's grieving process? If a Santorum supporter comes here, do you think this is the argument that will change his mind, or at least plant the seed of doubt? All you are doing is high fiving your buddies and talking about how awesome it is to support the "right" guy.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
Right, civility is important for appealing to stupid people who care about stupid things. Me, I am intelligent to not give a toss if pundit A utterly eviscerates some bigot and then finishes with some accurate and justified insults to really showcase how much loathing and social ostracizing said bigot deserves, but I appreciate how a general audience is too simple to not throw pundit A in the trash.
Oooooh ad hominem I guess the rest of what he said is false now I'll just return to my high horse here in uncommitted land. Like I said, civility should sometimes be faked, but it isn't intrinsically desirable.
Absalon on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Right, civility is important for appealing to stupid people who care about stupid things. Me, I am intelligent to not give a toss if pundit A utterly eviscerates some bigot and then finishes with some accurate and justified insults to really showcase how much loathing and social ostracizing said bigot deserves, but I appreciate how a general audience is too simple to not throw pundit A in the trash.
Oooooh ad hominem I guess the rest of what he said is false now I'll just return to my high horse here in uncommitted land. Like I said, civility should sometimes be faked, but it isn't intrinsically desirable.
If the pundit's arguments are strong enough to "utterly eviscerate" the person, then the job is already done. In fact, the factual arguments which lead to this evisceration may be undermined by the insults that follow, since they may allow the disillusioned members of the audience (who would otherwise have been shaken by what they had seen) to just dismiss everything as biased attacks from a biased man. The fact that the pundit engages in this insulting behavior may also even drive people who would have watched him dissect his opponents with good strong arguments, and then you wind up in a world where everyone just listens to pundits who are spouting off things the listeners agree with, and that's how you get fox news. High fives all around!
I'm guessing you also don't like rules in sports against excessive showboating after scoring, or unsportsman like conduct.
What have you done other than kick at a man simply because?
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
This "anything" to win tactic is reprehensible enough when the candidates do it, but I think we all understand that the candidates are somewhat precluded from making well reasoned policy arguments in debates or commercials. All they can really do is trot out some bullet points or tug at the heart strings, because explaining issues involves educating people in what the issues are, and that takes time, and bores people. On a message board though? Here we have nothing but time to focus on issues. If an undecided voter comes to this forum and reads our political threads, do you really think you will convince him not to vote for Santorum through your insults about his family's grieving process? If a Santorum supporter comes here, do you think this is the argument that will change his mind, or at least plant the seed of doubt? All you are doing is high fiving your buddies and talking about how awesome it is to support the "right" guy.
I blame the media for that. They're only interested in soundbites, ratings, controversial stories and spinning things the right way to please their corporate overlords. Had they actually been interested in revealing the truth to the public, explain difficult issues well and in detail (or the basics at least), repeating clips of a politician saying something the complete opposite or examine what politicians are doing closely to catch the bullshit*, not let any idiot with a crazy point of view that is offensive or stupid (re: Pat Buchanan) say whatever they want, not deliberately lie** and had more commentators who actually know what they're talking about discourse in politics wouldn't be such a hot topic for everyone IMO. It would also give politicians and political associates time to debate their sides properly.
* The only one who does this at all is The Daily Show
What have you done other than kick at a man simply because?
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
This "anything" to win tactic is reprehensible enough when the candidates do it, but I think we all understand that the candidates are somewhat precluded from making well reasoned policy arguments in debates or commercials. All they can really do is trot out some bullet points or tug at the heart strings, because explaining issues involves educating people in what the issues are, and that takes time, and bores people. On a message board though? Here we have nothing but time to focus on issues. If an undecided voter comes to this forum and reads our political threads, do you really think you will convince him not to vote for Santorum through your insults about his family's grieving process? If a Santorum supporter comes here, do you think this is the argument that will change his mind, or at least plant the seed of doubt? All you are doing is high fiving your buddies and talking about how awesome it is to support the "right" guy.
I blame the media for that. They're only interested in soundbites, ratings, controversial stories and spinning things the right way to please their corporate overlords. Had they actually been interested in revealing the truth to the public, explain difficult issues well and in detail (or the basics at least), repeating clips of a politician saying something the complete opposite or examine what politicians are doing closely to catch the bullshit*, not let any idiot with a crazy point of view that is offensive or stupid (re: Pat Buchanan) say whatever they want, not deliberately lie** and had more commentators who actually know what they're talking about discourse in politics wouldn't be such a hot topic for everyone IMO. It would also give politicians and political associates time to debate their sides properly.
* The only one who does this at all is The Daily Show
** Fox News won a law suit to actually do this!
I actually blame people, not the media, for this.
Afterall, if people weren't so interested in soundbites and spin then those things wouldn't get so many viewers and make such 'news' so profitable. People got what they wanted, as the saying goes "garbage in, garbage out".
Which is partly why I get so irritated at those who would disown civility. That's why we're in this pot of shit to start with. This, all the bullshit, all the things people list as reasons to disregard civility are actually why civility is important. Anyone that wants better, ought to make a point of acting better themselves.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
That part of the post was for Regina Fong, which is why the quoted part says "Regina Fong" and it's a reference to what forums poster Regina Fong posted on the last page re: Regina and MentalExercise's point about how the national conversation has already shifted to violence and threats of violence over reason.
That wasn't what was said at all, you're reading into it what you want to hear. I said the national conversation is already full of mudslinging. I was only agreeing with the assertion that we will necessarily fall to violence and threats and intimidation for the sake of argument, but even in that I never claimed that we were already there.
So rather than just respond to the actual post per the debate we had the other night, you've cherrypicked a post directed at another poster summarizing another post, because then that allows you to take some imaginary issue with the summary and make the most insignificant differentiation ever? I mean that's what you just did. It's conversing in bad faith, is what it is.
It was probably just so you could just type out this eyeroll of a sentence, right?
Lets see if you can take ownership of your own confusion or if you will backpeddle.
Oh snap! Accusations of backpeddling(?), oh no! So let's see if this razor-thin distinction you've attempted to make even exists. Hmm...
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.
Lock the thread, because this is the alpha and omega of the discussion right here. This is where the primary thread keeps going off the rails.
Ok, there's one other thing, which is that there's also a difference between ridiculing and insulting. Friends ridicule each other, enemies insult each other. You don't convince anyone of anything by insulting them, other than that you're an asshole.
Of course, this is assuming that the point of the discussion is to convince the other side of something, WHICH IT IS. If this is NOT your goal, then all you're doing is getting your rocks off by feeling superior to somebody. Which is fine, but don't pretend that you're actually participating in a discussion.
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.
Here's a good example. Yeah, you mock and slander them, and then what? You haven't convinced them, you look like an ass to everyone who hasn't already agreed with you, and you can be sure that even if people think you might be right, they sure as hell don't want to be on your side. Feel free to do this, but you probably would do more to help your cause to just keep your mouth shut.
You are likely to never convince them.
The point is to convince everyone else that their ideas are worthy of scorn and derision. Which, you know, they are in this case and in many others.
And then eventually those people with terrible views are marginalized and ostracized and they all die out.
Is this the serious desired endgame or are you deadpanning some sarcasm here?
Throw some emoticons in there or something, or a person just cannot tell.
No, that is seriously his endgame. Throw shame and vitriol at those you disagree with until they disappear.
And then when that response becomes the new normal, we move on to physical intimidation. Literally.
It's already the current normal. I guess we better get good at it, because the current plan for when things get physical is apparently crying and begging. Which probably won't work.
Yes, how in the world could you have been misunderstood. I mean were we even going to have an earnest discussion about this stuff, or was this some sort of obscure point you were trying to make through example, about how debate is impossible because one party will always fail to observe even the basic rules of debate?
What have you done other than kick at a man simply because?
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
This "anything" to win tactic is reprehensible enough when the candidates do it, but I think we all understand that the candidates are somewhat precluded from making well reasoned policy arguments in debates or commercials. All they can really do is trot out some bullet points or tug at the heart strings, because explaining issues involves educating people in what the issues are, and that takes time, and bores people. On a message board though? Here we have nothing but time to focus on issues. If an undecided voter comes to this forum and reads our political threads, do you really think you will convince him not to vote for Santorum through your insults about his family's grieving process? If a Santorum supporter comes here, do you think this is the argument that will change his mind, or at least plant the seed of doubt? All you are doing is high fiving your buddies and talking about how awesome it is to support the "right" guy.
I blame the media for that. They're only interested in soundbites, ratings, controversial stories and spinning things the right way to please their corporate overlords. Had they actually been interested in revealing the truth to the public, explain difficult issues well and in detail (or the basics at least), repeating clips of a politician saying something the complete opposite or examine what politicians are doing closely to catch the bullshit*, not let any idiot with a crazy point of view that is offensive or stupid (re: Pat Buchanan) say whatever they want, not deliberately lie** and had more commentators who actually know what they're talking about discourse in politics wouldn't be such a hot topic for everyone IMO. It would also give politicians and political associates time to debate their sides properly.
* The only one who does this at all is The Daily Show
** Fox News won a law suit to actually do this!
I actually blame people, not the media, for this.
Not all people are like this nor is it one sided. The media & the public effect each other. The media disregarding the truth or civility for profits is on them, not the public. The public didn't put a gun to their head to force them to do that they did it themselves.
Afterall, if people weren't so interested in soundbites and spin then those things wouldn't get so many viewers and make such 'news' so profitable. People got what they wanted, as the saying goes "garbage in, garbage out".
The media isn't powerless. Nor is it unusual for politicians to exploit them for their own agenda, like Fox News. They're the only side who have the power to change the narrative, the public don't. It's also their job to tell the truth. That's what they're meant to do. If they can't do that they should get out of the news business altogether.
Which is partly why I get so irritated at those who would disown civility. That's why we're in this pot of shit to start with. This, all the bullshit, all the things people list as reasons to disregard civility are actually why civility is important. Anyone that wants better, ought to make a point of acting better themselves.
The public being more civil won't have a big effect on national discourse. That's why the media is important. It has the range to influence the public on a large scale.
Civility is good, I agree. However, there comes a time when it needs to be discarded when all it becomes useless.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
That part of the post was for Regina Fong, which is why the quoted part says "Regina Fong" and it's a reference to what forums poster Regina Fong posted on the last page re: Regina and MentalExercise's point about how the national conversation has already shifted to violence and threats of violence over reason.
That wasn't what was said at all, you're reading into it what you want to hear. I said the national conversation is already full of mudslinging. I was only agreeing with the assertion that we will necessarily fall to violence and threats and intimidation for the sake of argument, but even in that I never claimed that we were already there.
So rather than just respond to the actual post per the debate we had the other night, you've cherrypicked a post directed at another poster summarizing another post, because then that allows you to take some imaginary issue with the summary and make the most insignificant differentiation ever? I mean that's what you just did. It's conversing in bad faith, is what it is.
It was probably just so you could just type out this eyeroll of a sentence, right?
Lets see if you can take ownership of your own confusion or if you will backpeddle.
Oh snap! Accusations of backpeddling(?), oh no! So let's see if this razor-thin distinction you've attempted to make even exists. Hmm...
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.
Lock the thread, because this is the alpha and omega of the discussion right here. This is where the primary thread keeps going off the rails.
Ok, there's one other thing, which is that there's also a difference between ridiculing and insulting. Friends ridicule each other, enemies insult each other. You don't convince anyone of anything by insulting them, other than that you're an asshole.
Of course, this is assuming that the point of the discussion is to convince the other side of something, WHICH IT IS. If this is NOT your goal, then all you're doing is getting your rocks off by feeling superior to somebody. Which is fine, but don't pretend that you're actually participating in a discussion.
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.
Here's a good example. Yeah, you mock and slander them, and then what? You haven't convinced them, you look like an ass to everyone who hasn't already agreed with you, and you can be sure that even if people think you might be right, they sure as hell don't want to be on your side. Feel free to do this, but you probably would do more to help your cause to just keep your mouth shut.
You are likely to never convince them.
The point is to convince everyone else that their ideas are worthy of scorn and derision. Which, you know, they are in this case and in many others.
And then eventually those people with terrible views are marginalized and ostracized and they all die out.
Is this the serious desired endgame or are you deadpanning some sarcasm here?
Throw some emoticons in there or something, or a person just cannot tell.
No, that is seriously his endgame. Throw shame and vitriol at those you disagree with until they disappear.
And then when that response becomes the new normal, we move on to physical intimidation. Literally.
It's already the current normal. I guess we better get good at it, because the current plan for when things get physical is apparently crying and begging. Which probably won't work.
Yes, how in the world could you have been misunderstood. I mean were we even going to have an earnest discussion about this stuff, or was this some sort of obscure point you were trying to make through example, about how debate is impossible because one party will always fail to observe even the basic rules of debate?
Actually I don't think it's even possible to read my sentence as meaning that physical intimidation is the current normal.
It only reads one way, the way I meant it, which is that mudslinging is the current normal.
Try again.
-edit-
And really, criticizing me for responding to a post in which you call me out by name, just because you were speaking to someone else? What rules of debate do you want people to follow exactly? The rule where everyone says what you want them to say or what?
This forum gets accused of being a liberal echo chamber on a regular basis and I am starting to see why that is. Conservatives in this forum fall broadly into two categories:
Those that are still conservative, but are no longer republican. Because the republican party has gone to far to the right for them to follow. These days they sound very liberal, despite having the same beliefs as 10 years ago.
And then there are those conservatives that end up getting banned for breaking forum rules. Because its hard to argue for current republican dogma in a place that enforce rules of good conduct. I can't really think of a way to present Santorums case against gay marriage in a non-joking fashion without geting infracted in the process.
Santorumites don't really post here. We get Paulites and generic Romneyfolk, but no practising Santorumites.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
The only thing I've seen that worries me is when someone starts throwing out snark/ridicule without including any related information to make clear the point of what was said. Just telling someone "You are stupid, your ideas are stupid and you should shut up forever" out of left field, for instance, isn't very productive on any level even if it's an entirely true statement. People don't always tie enough context into their snark to make it clear exactly what it's being said about, and why it's being said.
So saying "Your positions are contradictory, your rhetoric is vitriolic and not based on facts, the only consistent thing about what you say is that you hate you some Gays/Mexicans/Women. You are a bigot!" is a lot better than "You're a stupid bigot!"
Except if you don't actually support the things you say, you are just saying, "You are a bigot, therefore you are wrong." Which is as ad hominem-ey as ad hominem gets.
and nearly everything in life is this, if you choose to actually engage people rather than dismiss them.
--LeVar Burton
So just to verify here, you don't use that word because it is wrong and because you have any sort of moral compass that tells you as much, but because there might be people around that inform your decision-making about whether to use it or not? And if those guardians of public decorum are outside of earshot (and you've verified this by looking carefully to the left and to the right), then and only then is it acceptable to use the word, correct? I mean that's how it works, right? You do a "black guy check" and then it's N-word this and N-word that?
In an earlier post, you already couched reasoned debate as some backdoor way of giving credence to things you disagree with. Which would tend to make something like a debate forum a little moot, wouldn't it? I am sure in the New World Order, I am one of the sad apologists who thought up until the very end that we could just talk to them...we could just reason with them...until I am eventually herded off into a corner, protected by the stronger among you who had the courage to utter "dickface" when my own courage failed.
No it's not. No one in politics gives a shit about a well constructed argument. They care about emotional appeals and the like.
And people's statements have been very well supported on the issues that sparked this thread, so I'm really not sure what you think you are talking about.
This is a good post and your description of what happened in the last thread is accurate from my own subjective point of view, as well. As far as spool's martyr flag goes, he does love to wave it. He got away with calling me a troll (a total violation of forum rules) like 3 times in one thread because I was "trolling" him by expressing my honest, not-even-particularly-inflammatory opinions about Ron Paul.
How does he do it? Well playing the victim works amazingly well against liberals. We're hardwired to feel sorry for victims, even huge fake ones who manage to stumble into new vistas of victimhood every 5 fucking minutes.
And you'll notice that fundie christians, the catholic church, Republicans, have all been playing the victim lately. Because it works. Because the left doesn't even know how to kick people very well to begin with, let alone someone who is rolling around on the ground crying, no matter how fake their not-skinned knee is.
All the more reason we need to harden ourselves. We do not need to become our enemy, but failure to acknowledge what isn't working and whining about the opposition not playing by our playbook is fruitless.
No. Stop being obtuse.
Firstly, my "moral compass" is informed by those around me. Our ideas of what is right and wrong are learned behaviors.
Secondly, that's not even what the discussion is about. This is about people who already believe shit like "black people are lazy" or "gays are evil" or whatever. Those people are unlikely to have their minds changed. The point is those that aren't bigots or idiots or the like ridicule these people until they stop expressing their views in public. This makes the views socially unacceptable and over time, they die off.
And finally, if you think you are ok to go spouting "N****r" this and "N****r" that just because there aren't any black people around, you are even more divorced from reality then I thought.
WTF are you talking about? And what kind of fantasy scenario of personal oppression have you constructed in your head?
Just because you talked and then the other person didn't agree with you doesn't mean no one cares about a well constructed argument. They may simply be unconvinced. But when you resort to ridicule you shut down any further conversation. You end up talking past one another, repeating the same tired old arguments without anyone learning anything new.
Like I said before, everyone has reasons for believing the things they do, and if you bother to investigate those reasons and find out what's really going on you can actually change peoples' minds.
In fact, I think I was much too gentle on this example statement earlier, "These are all of the reasons you are wrong, and therefore you are a bigot." Because by calling that person out as a bigot it would entirely shut down the conversation. There's no way that guy's going to do anything but dig in. Whereas if you more diplomatically assert that those reasons lead to bigotry it gives him the space to disagree in detail, and perhaps common ground can be found to build upon.
--LeVar Burton
Well no, their minds are not likely to be changed by you railing on them about how they're bigots and idiots. And yet presumably you do have some common ground about how people should be treated that could be used to investigate why ideas like that may or may not be consistant.
Similar to how this statement:
makes absolutely no attempt to try to convince anyone of anything. It is not constructive in the slightest. Even though presumably the topic of how much civility should be used in public discourse isn't some deep seated prejudice, but a topic about which one could be convinced to change ones mind. Especially on a debate and discourse forum.
--LeVar Burton
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Oh hey, I see."
And sometimes it does! But most of the time this happens:
"Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because what they do is akin to bestiality and marriage has historically been one man and one woman."
"Statement of facts"
"Statement of other facts"
"Point out flaws in those facts"
"Sticks to flawed facts and starts creating logical fallacies"
"Points out facts again"
"Logical fallacies/accusations/quits thread because you're lying."
And there's no reason not to start calling them assholes when they start acting like assholes.
That part of the post was for Regina Fong, which is why the quoted part says "Regina Fong" and it's a reference to what forums poster Regina Fong posted on the last page re: Regina and MentalExercise's point about how the national conversation has already shifted to violence and threats of violence over reason.
I take no ownership for your confusion after pointing all those things out.
Sure there is. Because there are different ways of saying things, different examples to bring up, different ways of approaching a question.
I mean, on this very forum there have been a couple of extremely interesting discussions about homosexuality and beastiality. Not absurd dismissive conversations, but interesting and in depth ones.
And as a result of those conversations, when someone brings the topic up I (and plenty of other people that read the thread) can point out that there are solid legal differences between the two and the comparison is not a substantive one. Which can not be had if the only response is the usual one of, "That's so offensive that you're not allowed to talk anymore, bigot."
--LeVar Burton
Well I'm talking about in general and that is when you want to call someone something make sure there's a case laid out as to why you're calling them that in words. You can be snarky, make an emotional appeal, AND include all of the information necessary in your statement to support your conclusion that person X in discussion Y is being a goose.
Especially if someone's being blatant and offensive if you can't take five seconds to write it out so that it doesn't become a non-sequitor then you shouldn't do it.
And often someone who is not convinced during a conversation is converted later by that one statement that just sticks with them. And the more you practice, and the better you present your arguments, and the more individual ways you approach something, the more likely you will express those statements.
--LeVar Burton
To which an asshole will respond with a question regarding the frequency of your wife beatings.
Again, liberals have been thinking like you for decades and have suffered for it. It doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bitch slap an asshole. And that's okay.
By responding to this garbage politely, it only seems to legitimize issues that shouldn't be legitimize. I'm sure when I run into the birthers, I don't treat them like an ignorant little kid that just needs to be educated on the matter. That's a fucking waste of time, they deserve to be ridiculed because they should know better and they should feel ashamed for having such a belief.
-One of the other pet peeves I have is that the right has gone out of it's way to stifle and suffocate public education. If we taught people to be better critical thinkers and to always check sources instead of instantly believing everything they hear, I'd wager that political discourse would be more civil. After all if it's harder to pull the wool over people's eyes, the idea of riling people up with lies loses it's appeal when one realizes that just ensures people will really be pissed with you, once they calm down and realize you're full of shit. To add insult to injury, the right then has the gall to bitch about people not being gentle to them, while they actively engage in treating anyone that disagrees like shit and taking steps to ensure that most of the populace is ignorant about reality.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
This is the key point. When you maintain respect for the person you are debating with, and actually deal with each point they bring up, no matter how strongly you disagree with it, you keep the potential to change their mind alive. As soon as you move to an attack on them or their beliefs, you lose that opportunity. The right approach, if you care about fleshing out the issue and coming to the best conclusions, is to keep trying every angle you can until you have exhausted them all. At worst, you will have deepened and refined your understanding of the topic. At best, you actually give them something to think about. Also, don't forget that the tone of a discussion can influence how someone leaves the conversation. People with strong beliefs don't change them on the spot, but if you take them seriously and are respectful and civil, they might leave the conversation with something to think on which helps push them to change their view over time.
I can't say I'm too much more impressed with liberals' arguments than neo-cons'. In my experience liberals in the public sphere have much too great a tendency to make their arguments and then if someone doesn't agree, repeat themselves more slowly the next time. But it's about listening and understanding as much as it is talking.
For example, how often have you heard liberals express their complete mystification that there are poor people that would be stupid enough to vote republican. It's a not uncommon sentiment. And yet it's a question with simple enough answers. And most of those morivations are well intentioned, some of which aren't. But instead of engaging those ideas, a lot of people just keep going,"How can these people vote against their own interests!" as if that were an acceptable motivation anyway.
--LeVar Burton
Plus, I think most of us understand that those kinds of votes are registered for non-debatable emotional and religious reasons rather than pragmatic ones made out of legitimate self interest. This isn't exactly stuff that seriously keeps analysts up nights. "Why?? Why do they vote against their interests!"
I have faith that you can pick a much better example to help illustrate your point!
No, not really, we KNOW the answer. The "mystification" is the most polite way to express this and hope that maybe, just maybe, someone will consider what was said and think to themselves they'd rather not be desperately poor instead of wishing for a pound of flesh from their minority/hated group of choice. Sadly, hate is like a drug and if you're raised with it, kicking the habit can be incredibly hard.
Two conservative posters here, when engaged repeatedly in good-faith debate regarding their positions on issues have refused to explain why they hold their positions, why they believe as they do, and immediately run away when asked about it. The "Moderate Republicans" here have already declared they've left the party and were people who I don't think anyone's ever had any sort of problem with anyway.
To use a different example, I'm an American History X kind of a guy. I think that movie really illustrates the American neo-nazi mindset, and how one ends up there. And I think there's a lot to be learned there. But there's no way to make that movie starting from the mindset that bigots are all just so horrible we need to shame them into hiding.
--LeVar Burton
They express that because a poor person voting Republican is voting for themselves to be fucked over. It is an honest sentiment. You're already demanding liberals stop stating the truth lest it offend people.
You're going to have to show me where I suggested something similar to that.
edit: It's too late at night for such a short response.
I am most certainly not saying the bolded. I'm saying that throwing up your hands and ending the discourse because those working class red staters are just too stupid to know what's going on is actually a stupid thing to do. Which is about as deep as I would like to get on this one, just so's we don't end up going off the rails and whatnot.
--LeVar Burton
Some people, even if they believe the most insane crap imaginable, will respond to reason, evidence and logic.
Some people will never ever listen to opposing viewpoints.
The trick is to try and work out which the person you're arguing with is.
For example, someone might spew some racist garbage. Now, that racism might have come second-hand from their family or society, and they might not have encountered the kind of people they're discriminating against at all. They might be slightly stupid or just thoughtless. That kind of person might respond to evidence-based discourse, realise they're wrong, and change.
Another person might be filled with hate for anyone 'Other'. They believe everyone must be like them, and they have encountered other ethnicities and the obvious arguments against racism many many times. They don't even share the same perceptions as you - they might literally perceive black people as always having threatening body language, aggressive voices and so on. They support violence, whether state-sanctioned or not, against minorities. They have little cognitive dissonance and their racism is firmly entrenched. That kind of person is not going to respond to evidence-based argumentation. So why bother?
Saying the truth is offensive to the other side. That Santorum is a homophobe, that creationism isn't based on anything real, that marijuana isn't actually that dangerous. These are all offensive. Yet they're all true. Which side are we supposed to fall on? Politeness or truth?
Because the right argument will stick with them. And it may never affect them, but everyone changes, and if something does crack their worldview a bit, that argument that's been sticking to their shoe might get a chance to start wriggling in. I also think this is relatively accurate:
Particularly the bolded.
--LeVar Burton
That wasn't what was said at all, you're reading into it what you want to hear. I said the national conversation is already full of mudslinging. I was only agreeing with the assertion that we will necessarily fall to violence and threats and intimidation for the sake of argument, but even in that I never claimed that we were already there.
Lets see if you can take ownership of your own confusion or if you will backpeddle.
Far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of taking the high road so much as just looking at what and why you say.
Regarding Santorum, it's one thing if you want to analyze and criticize the actual procedure performed wherein labor was induced to deliver a child that would certainly not survive in order to save Mrs. Santorum's life. Otherwise known as a second trimester abortion, which stands at odds with his outspoken beliefs about abortions. It's perfectly fair, and relevant, to go down this route because it is directly related to a very politicized issue that he is campaigning on.
It's another thing, however, to analyze and criticize how the Santorum family grieved for their loss. What point are you undermining? What gains are you achieving? What the hell is your goal? What have you done other than kick at a man simply because? And to no effect, I might add, because the attack has no purpose and holds no weight.
I guess it's "taking the high road" in a way, but I'm not saying that any topic is off-limits so much as one should consider their actions. If what you're saying is no more than an attack for its own sake, ask why. Why do you revel in an attack, that should merely be a means to an end? And why should anyone respect such a thing?
As an aside, it's also rather ridiculous from a pragmatic approach. Imagine a person who in one breath derides some Virginian Republicans' lack of empathy for wanting to effectively rape women with invasive ultrasounds prior to an abortion (for no purpose, not even to show her the fetus) just because, then in another breath mocks the funeral of an unborn child as empathetically as the Westboro Baptist Church might... just because. In most circles, such a person would be called a hypocrite and all their words summarily disregarded.
If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn't do that.
Santorum is dangerous and vile and if you've realized that you might as well go the full distance.
No, because the woman that don't want to be slut-shamed by a doctor before getting a fetus flushed out of their wombs are presumably innocent and decent people, while Santorum is guilty not only of being evil and degenerate, but also of trotting out his tacky family and looking for political fudge points for said handling of the dead fetus/baby/whaaaaatever.
Everything about Frothy is open season, because that's how he rolls. Of course, if me being honest and fair hurts my cause, I'll be dishonest and pull some punches even when it comes to people like Rick. But civility for the sake of being civil can fuck right off.
It doesn't discredit him in any way, and talking about it takes away from the myriad of other things you could talk about that would discredit him.
If you're trying to take Santorum out, you're doing it wrong.
Like a boxer who keeps making illegal blows, he thinks he's winning until the penalties tally up and cause him to lose. Stop working the kidneys and hit him in that glass jaw!
I don't understand the Santorum baby thing. It's very tabloid and all, but it doesn't really connect to the election in any meaningful manner, and you have to wade through entire warehouses of ridiculous policy to even reach it.
He's not awful because he's made weird personal decisions, he's awful because he's advocating awful things.
This "anything" to win tactic is reprehensible enough when the candidates do it, but I think we all understand that the candidates are somewhat precluded from making well reasoned policy arguments in debates or commercials. All they can really do is trot out some bullet points or tug at the heart strings, because explaining issues involves educating people in what the issues are, and that takes time, and bores people. On a message board though? Here we have nothing but time to focus on issues. If an undecided voter comes to this forum and reads our political threads, do you really think you will convince him not to vote for Santorum through your insults about his family's grieving process? If a Santorum supporter comes here, do you think this is the argument that will change his mind, or at least plant the seed of doubt? All you are doing is high fiving your buddies and talking about how awesome it is to support the "right" guy.
Oooooh ad hominem I guess the rest of what he said is false now I'll just return to my high horse here in uncommitted land. Like I said, civility should sometimes be faked, but it isn't intrinsically desirable.
If the pundit's arguments are strong enough to "utterly eviscerate" the person, then the job is already done. In fact, the factual arguments which lead to this evisceration may be undermined by the insults that follow, since they may allow the disillusioned members of the audience (who would otherwise have been shaken by what they had seen) to just dismiss everything as biased attacks from a biased man. The fact that the pundit engages in this insulting behavior may also even drive people who would have watched him dissect his opponents with good strong arguments, and then you wind up in a world where everyone just listens to pundits who are spouting off things the listeners agree with, and that's how you get fox news. High fives all around!
I'm guessing you also don't like rules in sports against excessive showboating after scoring, or unsportsman like conduct.
I blame the media for that. They're only interested in soundbites, ratings, controversial stories and spinning things the right way to please their corporate overlords. Had they actually been interested in revealing the truth to the public, explain difficult issues well and in detail (or the basics at least), repeating clips of a politician saying something the complete opposite or examine what politicians are doing closely to catch the bullshit*, not let any idiot with a crazy point of view that is offensive or stupid (re: Pat Buchanan) say whatever they want, not deliberately lie** and had more commentators who actually know what they're talking about discourse in politics wouldn't be such a hot topic for everyone IMO. It would also give politicians and political associates time to debate their sides properly.
* The only one who does this at all is The Daily Show
** Fox News won a law suit to actually do this!
I actually blame people, not the media, for this.
Afterall, if people weren't so interested in soundbites and spin then those things wouldn't get so many viewers and make such 'news' so profitable. People got what they wanted, as the saying goes "garbage in, garbage out".
Which is partly why I get so irritated at those who would disown civility. That's why we're in this pot of shit to start with. This, all the bullshit, all the things people list as reasons to disregard civility are actually why civility is important. Anyone that wants better, ought to make a point of acting better themselves.
So rather than just respond to the actual post per the debate we had the other night, you've cherrypicked a post directed at another poster summarizing another post, because then that allows you to take some imaginary issue with the summary and make the most insignificant differentiation ever? I mean that's what you just did. It's conversing in bad faith, is what it is.
It was probably just so you could just type out this eyeroll of a sentence, right?
Oh snap! Accusations of backpeddling(?), oh no! So let's see if this razor-thin distinction you've attempted to make even exists. Hmm...
Yes, how in the world could you have been misunderstood. I mean were we even going to have an earnest discussion about this stuff, or was this some sort of obscure point you were trying to make through example, about how debate is impossible because one party will always fail to observe even the basic rules of debate?
Not all people are like this nor is it one sided. The media & the public effect each other. The media disregarding the truth or civility for profits is on them, not the public. The public didn't put a gun to their head to force them to do that they did it themselves.
The media isn't powerless. Nor is it unusual for politicians to exploit them for their own agenda, like Fox News. They're the only side who have the power to change the narrative, the public don't. It's also their job to tell the truth. That's what they're meant to do. If they can't do that they should get out of the news business altogether.
The public being more civil won't have a big effect on national discourse. That's why the media is important. It has the range to influence the public on a large scale.
Civility is good, I agree. However, there comes a time when it needs to be discarded when all it becomes useless.
Actually I don't think it's even possible to read my sentence as meaning that physical intimidation is the current normal.
It only reads one way, the way I meant it, which is that mudslinging is the current normal.
Try again.
-edit-
And really, criticizing me for responding to a post in which you call me out by name, just because you were speaking to someone else? What rules of debate do you want people to follow exactly? The rule where everyone says what you want them to say or what?
Those that are still conservative, but are no longer republican. Because the republican party has gone to far to the right for them to follow. These days they sound very liberal, despite having the same beliefs as 10 years ago.
And then there are those conservatives that end up getting banned for breaking forum rules. Because its hard to argue for current republican dogma in a place that enforce rules of good conduct. I can't really think of a way to present Santorums case against gay marriage in a non-joking fashion without geting infracted in the process.
Santorumites don't really post here. We get Paulites and generic Romneyfolk, but no practising Santorumites.