Fear Wins - Depressing

[lixy]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Conversely, someone says “I think Bush, an evil neocon controlled by the Jews, invaded Iraq as an imperialist move, despite evidence to the contrary…oh, and he did it for racist reasons.”

I am not inclined to pull my chin and say “interesting - that is a legitimate point of view worthy of consideration. Tell me more.” in a fit of relatavistic tolerance. In the marketplace of ideas, stupid ideas need to be called out and branded as such, political correctness aside.

Why allow such ridiculous opinions a fair seat at the table with other ideas? Not all ideas are of equal value - and as long as we adhere to the shibboleth that they are, we waste our time on frivolity when our minds should be trained on legitimate questions.[/quote]

Man! Or more acuratelly: Strawman!

Let’s break it down, shall we?

“I think Bush, an evil neocon controlled by the Jews, invaded Iraq as an imperialist move, despite evidence to the contrary…oh, and he did it for racist reasons.”

• A politician is evil by definition. So, yes, Bush is evil.

• Bush is a neocon? You don’t say! At first, I thought him a commie.

• Bush controlled by the Jews? I don’t think so. He wants Jesus to rise from the dead, and apparently, the Jews need to be in Jerusalem for that to happen. So, it’s more an association to achieve common objectives than control per se.

That said, one must not overlook the considerable influence AIPAC has over US policy. Are Fleischer, Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith or Abrams part of a Zionist cabal? I personally don’t think so.

• Was the oil-rich region a factor when deciding to go to war? You can bet your ass on that one. Ever heard of the PNAC? The US is the most belligerent country on Earth nowadays with bases across the globe. In my book, that’s enough to qualify a country of imperialist.

• Did Bush invade Iraq for racist reasons? Not a chance. The only race the guy cares about is the green one - and I don’t mean the little dudes.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I hardly am a troll. I don’t like you, or your murderous beliefs, and I will make sure that you know that every time I reply to your posts.

Well, you sometimes sound like one. You know, the kind that loves to throw stereotypes at people. If there was a French guy that hangs out around here, you’ll be tagging him as a “cheese-eating surrender monkey”. Anyway, just a head’s up…

Now, please explain why you’re using such terms as “murderous beliefs”. What makes you say that?[/quote]

You support terrorism. You hate jews. You defend those that call my country “the great Satan”. I call it like I see it.

You call Cheney, “Shoot-you-in-the-face”. How in fuck’s name can you sit there and be so fucking self-righteous?

I don’t need a heads up from you. I don’t care what you think of my posting style. I have been posting the same way since I joined T-Nation and starting spending money here.

If said Frenchie started slamming my country from the safety the US provides him - then it is fair game. If he engages in an intelligent debate - something you really need practice with - I can engage just as civilly.

Here’s a head’s up for you: I am back. I will be here for a while. I don’t tolerate shit-slinging radicals like you.

[Moriarty]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is an example:

Someone says “I think we should raise taxes so we can nationalize health care insurance.”

I disagree with them and would argue the other way as forcefully as I could. But I don’t think the person is raising an issue I disagree with in bad faith.

Conversely, someone says “I think Bush, an evil neocon controlled by the Jews, invaded Iraq as an imperialist move, despite evidence to the contrary…oh, and he did it for racist reasons.”

I am not inclined to pull my chin and say “interesting - that is a legitimate point of view worthy of consideration. Tell me more.” in a fit of relatavistic tolerance. In the marketplace of ideas, stupid ideas need to be called out and branded as such, political correctness aside.

Why allow such ridiculous opinions a fair seat at the table with other ideas? Not all ideas are of equal value - and as long as we adhere to the shibboleth that they are, we waste our time on frivolity when our minds should be trained on legitimate questions.[/quote]

Point taken Thunder, but that immediately raises the question: Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not a “stupid” idea? You seem to be implying that you would act as that arbiter and, if you deemed and idea “illegitimate”, poison a thread at your discretion.

What if you decided universal health care was a “stupid” idea not worthy of discussion, because any rational person could see it can’t work?

In a perfect world, any idea would be up for discussion, and if it were “stupid” it would be put down on its own merits (or lack thereof). However, this being an internet forum, that doesn’t seem feasible.

I’ve wondered lately what would happen if this forum allowed very senior posters, (say 5,000 or 10,000) to create invite-only sub-forums.

[nephorm]

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Point taken Thunder, but that immediately raises the question: Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not a “stupid” idea? You seem to be implying that you would act as that arbiter and, if you deemed and idea “illegitimate”, poison a thread at your discretion.[/quote]

Not really. It’s a marketplace of ideas. If the theory of relativity had been lambasted by the drunk on the corner, it wouldn’t have killed discussion of the idea. Because that person’s ideas about physics would’ve been irrelevant, they would’ve received the attention due to them.

Respected physicists who disagreed we’d have to take more seriously, because their ideas generally have merit. This isn’t the greatest example, of course: politics isn’t the same thing as science.

Let’s put it this way: You have three options when dealing with a post you think is utter nonsense. You can

a)ignore it. If everyone else ignores it, too, then that’s a good option. On the other hand, “el que calla otorga.” Especially on the internet.
b) You can try to rationally argue with it, which implies that the idea has some kernel of merit. Why give credit when it isn’t due?
c) You can call it like you see it, and say why an idea is stupid, irrelevant, or whatever.

Thunder isn’t saying that he should be the moderator who decides what posts should or shouldn’t be shown. If you think that he dismisses ideas unfairly, you’re free to continue the discussion however you see fit. If you think he’s a good judge of things, his posts might just save you some time.

Again: marketplace of ideas.

[Moriarty]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Point taken Thunder, but that immediately raises the question: Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not a “stupid” idea? You seem to be implying that you would act as that arbiter and, if you deemed and idea “illegitimate”, poison a thread at your discretion.

Not really. It’s a marketplace of ideas. If the theory of relativity had been lambasted by the drunk on the corner, it wouldn’t have killed discussion of the idea. Because that person’s ideas about physics would’ve been irrelevant, they would’ve received the attention due to them.

Respected physicists who disagreed we’d have to take more seriously, because their ideas generally have merit. This isn’t the greatest example, of course: politics isn’t the same thing as science.

Let’s put it this way: You have three options when dealing with a post you think is utter nonsense. You can

a)ignore it. If everyone else ignores it, too, then that’s a good option. On the other hand, “el que calla otorga.” Especially on the internet.
b) You can try to rationally argue with it, which implies that the idea has some kernel of merit. Why give credit when it isn’t due?
c) You can call it like you see it, and say why an idea is stupid, irrelevant, or whatever.

Thunder isn’t saying that he should be the moderator who decides what posts should or shouldn’t be shown. If you think that he dismisses ideas unfairly, you’re free to continue the discussion however you see fit. If you think he’s a good judge of things, his posts might just save you some time.

Again: marketplace of ideas. [/quote]

Great post.

Of the options given, I would think “a” would be the most prudent.

The problem with “c” is that the nature of this discussion format is linear; it’s not built for having multiple conversations occur in parallel within a thread, which I think the term “marketplace” implies.

Once Thunder, or whomever, gets into a name-calling match over a so-called “irrelevant” idea or post, it tends to completely derail the thread. See this one as an example. It’s very common in this forum that I get interested in a thread, read a page or so of compelling stuff, and just when things get interesting it all devolves into a pissing match.

I don’t understand why certain posts are even responded to at all. There’s a particular conspiracy theorist on this forum whose threads were almost always ignored and fell away quickly. I wonder why that doesn’t happen more often.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

Point taken Thunder, but that immediately raises the question: Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not a “stupid” idea? You seem to be implying that you would act as that arbiter and, if you deemed and idea “illegitimate”, poison a thread at your discretion.[/quote]

See, it is the exact opposite - I am no final arbiter, I am the converse: just one voice in the marketplace. But this “marketplace” is self-regulating - it is only as good as we make it. That is all the more reason to pipe up when you think the forum has become a garbage dump for Internet idiocy.

Since this is self-regulating, it is up to all of us - right, left, and center - to maintain a threshold. I am not the arbiter, nor is anyone else - that is the point: we don’t have an arbiter, so it falls on us to take out the trash.

[Varqanir]

[quote]nephorm wrote:

On the other hand, “el que calla otorga.” Especially on the internet. [/quote]

On this forum, the corollary to that seems to be, “quien grita gana.”

[vroom]

I hate getting lumped in with some of these turkeys.

Posting something cryptic and then refusing to explain it does not qualify for all kinds of mischaracterizations and attacks simply because someone doesn’t like it.

Characterizing Lixy as a terrorist supporter and then attempting to brand me in the same manner is not appropriate. Expecting me not to respond to such tactics is ridiculous.

Sure, I’m willing to sink down to the level others employ, when it becomes necessary. In the forums, or in life, the most basic level is the one that rules.

For example, violence, in real life, trumps everything else. It’s a basic danger and it has to be dealt with before any higher issues get to be considered.

The shouting matches, mischaracterizations and insults we drop down to in the forums are somewhat the equivalent. Nobody, on the right or the left, get’s to “expel” the viewpoints of the other side simply because those viewpoints are not acceptable.

So, as much as I hate it, lump me in. If it takes toe to toe verbal slugfests, then so be it. However, at the same time, I’ve argued for real debate and will address issues when posts actually turn in that direction.

Whether or not anyone cares or will do the same remains to be seen.

[nephorm]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I hate getting lumped in with some of these turkeys.

Posting something cryptic and then refusing to explain it does not qualify for all kinds of mischaracterizations and attacks simply because someone doesn’t like it.
[/quote]

Is it a mischaracterization to call it “baiting?”

[vroom]

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Is it a mischaracterization to call it “baiting?”[/quote]

It could be, but to be accused of “baiting” on the forums is pretty trivial compared to being tossed into a seriously inappropriate viewpoint that you don’t actually hold.

Regardless, the point I had made was pretty simple. I do not have an obligation to explain everything I type to everyone who might not fully grasp the concept. Neither, of course, would you.

If you pay attention, it is just a tactic to ask for “clarification” ad nauseum and then to bitch about the person who doesn’t bother to respond in a way that the other person agrees with.

Once “both” sides have expressed their opinions, whether or not the other agrees, it’s okay (for bot parties) to stop trying to convince the other side they are wrong or you are right. Basically, it’s as simple as agreeing to disagree.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
It could be, but to be accused of “baiting” on the forums is pretty trivial compared to being tossed into a seriously inappropriate viewpoint that you don’t actually hold.
[/quote]

This - in a nutshell is vroom’s MO: Never have a real stance, and always cry about being misunderstood, or mischaracterized.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and get famously offended when someone calls him a duck.

Grow some nuts, kid.

[lixy]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You support terrorism. You hate jews.[/quote]

Those are very serious accusations. They’re also remarkable by the utter lack of evidence you provide to substantiate them.

Despite what Bush would have you believe, there is such a thing as not supporting you in the Iraq war and not supporting the terrorists. Also, one can be critical of Israel’s actions without being a Jew-hater.

1st warning.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You support terrorism. You hate jews.

Those are very serious accusations. They’re also remarkable by the utter lack of evidence you provide to substantiate them.

Despite what Bush would have you believe, there is such a thing as not supporting you in the Iraq war and not supporting the terrorists. Also, one can be critical of Israel’s actions without being a Jew-hater.

1st warning.[/quote]

You provide all the proof I need. I can read your posts.

You don’t have be head cashier at the Wal Mart to put 2 and 2 together.

Warning? LMAO!!!

Tough guy.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This - in a nutshell is vroom’s MO: Never have a real stance, and always cry about being misunderstood, or mischaracterized.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and get famously offended when someone calls him a duck.

Grow some nuts, kid. [/quote]

Zzzz. Almost every time I’m posting about a topic, instead of just arguing, I’m taking a stance. The fact you don’t like it, or choose to pretend not to understand it, is simply a tactic you use so you can make up whatever stance you like.

Grow up.

Here, this is what you do. Rainjack, have you quit beating your wife yet?

Take a stance, answer “yes” or “no”. Just “yes” or “no”.

Of course, that is ridiculous and unfair. If it makes you happy, that’s great, but most people here recognize it for the loser wordgame tactic that it is. So, what game do you really want to play?

I’m not overly interested in playing into “your” game. Get serious and you’ll get what you claim you want, straight answers. Play word games, like the example above, and of course I won’t be bothered to play.

What will it be?

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Of course, that is ridiculous and unfair. If it makes you happy, that’s great, but most people here recognize it for the loser wordgame tactic that it is. So, what game do you really want to play?[/quote]

Please cite threads where I have done what you say. I think you are just making up lies. Understand that this is rhetorical, as you have proven you will never actually provide proof of, or support for, your position that isn’t manufactured in your own fantasy world.

[quote]I’m not overly interested in playing into “your” game. Get serious and you’ll get what you claim you want, straight answers. Play word games, like the example above, and of course I won’t be bothered to play.

What will it be?[/quote]

I don’t want you to “play”.

Your wishy-washy fence riding is not something I have made up. There are many on here that see it. There are many that don’t.

Big fucking deal.

I will continue to call you a duck when you quack. You are powerless to stop that - just like I can’t stop you from being a little vroomalixious dolt with an over-valued ego.

You take down the value of every thread you enter and attempt to engage me. I return the favor by taking the bait.

[pookie]

Is it a sign of Fear’s imminent victory that any idea, opinion or thought that doesn’t conform to one’s current viewpoints is, not considered or debated, but rather immediately and viciously attacked? Worse, the trend seems to be to skip the idea altogether and to go directly for the offending poster’s character.

Debate has been replaced by debasement. Discussion by dismissal. Inquiries by invectives.

Are people’s opinions so ill-conceived and poorly thought out that the very idea of entertaining an opposing viewpoint makes them afraid that they’ll immediately and uncritically accept it as their own?

Although the whole thing can be mildly entertaining in small doses, there seems to be an epidemic of it recently. And while some posters do manage to remain above the fray, I fear their number is insufficient to maintain an adequate signal-to-noise ratio on the forums.

There is nothing more interesting than to debate people who hold completely opposed viewpoints and to discuss, intelligently, the reasons each individual has for arriving at his conclusions. And while we generally end up more convinced of our initial viewpoint, we generally gain a better understanding of the other person’s. In the best cases, we adjust our opinions to a better informed one.

I don’t know about you, but it’s been a long fucking time since I’ve had that pleasure here.

The ever popular refrain of the death of the politics forum seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Is it a sign of Fear’s imminent victory that any idea, opinion or thought that doesn’t conform to one’s current viewpoints is, not considered or debated, but rather immediately and viciously attacked? Worse, the trend seems to be to skip the idea altogether and to go directly for the offending poster’s character.

Debate has been replaced by debasement. Discussion by dismissal. Inquiries by invectives.

Are people’s opinions so ill-conceived and poorly thought out that the very idea of entertaining an opposing viewpoint makes them afraid that they’ll immediately and uncritically accept it as their own?

Although the whole thing can be mildly entertaining in small doses, there seems to be an epidemic of it recently. And while some posters do manage to remain above the fray, I fear their number is insufficient to maintain an adequate signal-to-noise ratio on the forums.

There is nothing more interesting than to debate people who hold completely opposed viewpoints and to discuss, intelligently, the reasons each individual has for arriving at his conclusions. And while we generally end up more convinced of our initial viewpoint, we generally gain a better understanding of the other person’s. In the best cases, we adjust our opinions to a better informed one.

I don’t know about you, but it’s been a long fucking time since I’ve had that pleasure here.

The ever popular refrain of the death of the politics forum seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[/quote]

I’m reminded of the Strong Words column the other day: “the greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.”

However the regulars on this forum are not at all ignorant. There are some really intelligent people here, on both the left and tight sides of the issues, but many of them can be staunchly dogmatic, and proudly so. If not ignorance, then what? Fear masquerading as reason? Prejudice pretending to be patriotism? Who knows.

What else I have noticed is that, while perhaps not engaging in a pure ad hominem attack, many of the regulars will attack the arguments of other posters whom they dislike, with a vehemence and spite that I suspect would not be employed if the very same argument came from someone else.

The Olympian gods tried to stay “above the fray” at Troy, too. They couldn’t resist jumping into the thick of it sometimes, however.

[rainjack]

Wow - the 2 smart guys show up for more tsking.

Look - if you guys don’t like it I jump on vroom - just fucking say so. Is it a new sign of intelligence to avoid coming out and saying what you really think?

Good thing I’m not smart enough to get Mensa Monthly.

Since when is it a sign of fear to be so sick and fucking tired of a person’s repeated posting style?

Pookie - you haven’t carried on an honest debate wince you have been posting down here. You are usually too busy trying to be a smart ass.

Not that there is a problem with that - but you acting as if you are the solution rather than part of the problem just smells funny.

[quote] varq wrote:
What else I have noticed is that, while perhaps not engaging in a pure ad hominem attack, many of the regulars will attack the arguments of other posters whom they dislike, with a vehemence and spite that I suspect would not be employed if the very same argument came from someone else.[/quote]

Absolutely correct. Why? You’d think after 4 fucking years, someone would learn. But they don’t. In fact they take it up a notch.

All that aside: Why is it all of a sudden you guys give a shit?

I have been back for less than a week, and I have managed to single handedly increase the stock of Canadian Keenex by 2 bucks a share due to all the fucking crying a certain Canuck has been doing.

Now we get input from Sarcasm Central.

Sounds to me like the pot has needed stirring for quite some time, and no one wanted to undertake the task.

Maybe from now on people will actually have to have some proof of their position, and not a quote of the day to make them feel better about what they say.

[JeffR]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Wow - the 2 smart guys show up for more tsking.

Look - if you guys don’t like it I jump on vroom - just fucking say so. Is it a new sign of intelligence to avoid coming out and saying what you really think?

Good thing I’m not smart enough to get Mensa Monthly.

Since when is it a sign of fear to be so sick and fucking tired of a person’s repeated posting style?

Pookie - you haven’t carried on an honest debate wince you have been posting down here. You are usually too busy trying to be a smart ass.

Not that there is a problem with that - but you acting as if you are the solution rather than part of the problem just smells funny.

varq wrote:
What else I have noticed is that, while perhaps not engaging in a pure ad hominem attack, many of the regulars will attack the arguments of other posters whom they dislike, with a vehemence and spite that I suspect would not be employed if the very same argument came from someone else.

Absolutely correct. Why? You’d think after 4 fucking years, someone would learn. But they don’t. In fact they take it up a notch.

All that aside: Why is it all of a sudden you guys give a shit?

I have been back for less than a week, and I have managed to single handedly increase the stock of Canadian Keenex by 2 bucks a share due to all the fucking crying a certain Canuck has been doing.

Now we get input from Sarcasm Central.

Sounds to me like the pot has needed stirring for quite some time, and no one wanted to undertake the task.

Maybe from now on people will actually have to have some proof of their position, and not a quote of the day to make them feel better about what they say. [/quote]

Rainjack,

Mea culpa.

After pookie’s incredibly insensitive and insulting remarks about dirty bombs “It’s no big deal. Just take some iodine pills” (knowing full damn well that if it was him in the cross-hairs he’d be whistling a different tune), and my usual response to vroom (Is that how you spell it?), the malignant Canadians have been able to dribble unchecked.

However, I’m glad your back to take out the trash.

JeffR

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Maybe from now on people will actually have to have some proof of their position, and not a quote of the day to make them feel better about what they say. [/quote]

All of us, including you, are basically limited to posting opinions and interpretations of news and events. Proof of a direct type is pretty much never going to be available.

What people can do is put together supporting evidence and lay out their case. That’s it.