A reply to Gaudere and Shodan, since I have been banished(?) from the orig. thread

The BBQ Pit
1

This is not a formal pitting of Gaudere, Shodan or anyone else in particular. If it’s a pitting at all, it’s a pitting of certain debating tactics, and a question about “fair” warnings in GD.

From this thread in GD:
What should the Dem position on Islamic terrorism be?

As per Gaudere’s dictate that I not reply in the original thread, and “take it to the Pit” in future, here is what I was about to post in reply to Shodan, and in my own defence:

I didn’t choose to not back it up; I asked what would make it worthwhile for me to do so. And now you have provided a worthwhile reason.

I wasn’t interested in the simple challenge or wagering for money. I knew from past experience that it would lead to either even more diversionary posts, or the poster(s) simply disappearing once the defence was provided.

Unfortunately, the company I would keep - should I actually be guilty of making assertions, refusing to back them up, and then departing the thread - would include you. Now, if you require me to back that up, I’ll ask again: What’s in it for me? If I can show examples of you doing this in the past, will you take your own advice and get out? Will you apologise?

In any case, should you try it in future, I now have a handy pro forma reply - your own post here. I invite others to use it as well. It’ll save time that used to be spent rebutting your assertions with facts and logic. Thanks, Big Boy.

Now, my own defence:

This is what prompted my reply that Bricker had “admitted his intention was to demonise the opposition”. This, combined with previous posts, where he mischaracterised, employed ridicule, and even resorted to what I consider to be a personal insult.

Note I did not say he used the exact words “I admit my intention was to demonise my opponents.” That’s why I invoked res ips. IMO, it speaks for itself.

Bricker also admitted that:

My bolding. Is he claiming to be a mind reader now? Demonising unexpressed thoughts? How much more broadbrush can you get?

Frankly, the word itself doesn’t mean much to me personally. I’m not sure I’d care if it were applied to me, as one of the US electorate. If you recall from past threads, I’m not big on PC.

But I wanted to make a broader point, and challenge the right-wing meme, ie: The Left, and only the Left, holds people in contempt. That is demonisation of the opponent.

I am on “the Left” and I don’t hold that view. Certainly some do, but when I asked Bricker if he was willing to defend the viewpoints of everyone who claimed to be on the Right, he replied:

He gets to pick and choose, but those on the Left are responsible for every utterance of every declared Leftist? (and perhaps even their thoughts, as divined by Bricker the mind reader)…

To get back to the OP (finally!): What should the Dem strategy be? Seems the right-wing strategy is to demonise, by tossing out non-fact-based memes as if they were accepted truisms. Should Dems do the same thing? Not my ideal, but I think my delayed response strategy has pointed out that they don’t like it very much when the tables are turned.

NOTE FOR THE PIT:

Now that this has been consigned to the Pit, I’d like to add: Was I guilty of “stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit”? Was my allegation really that “offensive”? Was it “clearly false”? Is there a time limit as to replies for “backing up” assertions, before you are warned or banished?

AFAIK, this is a second warning in this thread. I thought the first one was somewhat unfair (I used a sexual metaphor, that has been used before with no complaints), but I accepted it. Am I now officially “twice-warned”? Is this fair?

2

I can’t speak to your main point right now, but as to the first warning you got, it seems like it might have been in violation of the rules in Great Debates. If you check this sticky thread:

I’m not a mod, of course, but it seems to me that the warning you got the first time was fair, as it seems to have been a direct violation of the quoted rule.

3

The wise course is to debate the issue, and not the motivation (or presumed motivation) of the person with whom you are debating. There are a number of people who frequent GD and who seem **always **to make **every **debate personal. I would hope that the OP doesn’t intend to be among that group.

4

I think you’re right. Okay, my fault for not reading the updates (I didn’t know about the putz smiley either - luckily I hate it and never use it). But as I said, I accepted that one. The second one seems murkier. Is it implying that I’m a troll???

I also wonder why I was singled out the second time, when there were clearly 2 others breaking the rule about junior modding, right above Gaudere’s post to me.

5

Did you read the thread? It was poisoned on page 1 by a poster who questioned the character/motivation of the OP, and later on questioned the “patriotism” of those who either disagreed with his views, or failed to condemn those who disagreed. Tell me how that is not to be taken personally, if you are on the receiving end of it.

Also, if the motivation of a poster (or posters) is to derail the thread/attack the character of political opposition, why can’t it be pointed out?

6

And now you have posted at least twice, neither time backing up your accusation.

“What would make it worthwhile to” you would be simple honesty. If you feel you need to be bribed in some way to participate in civilized discussion, perhaps Great Debates is not the forum for you.

If you are saying, as you appear to be, that you will respond to every request for a cite with tu quoques, save your breath and spare the hamsters.

What’s in it for you, you ask again? I repeat, you are expected to back up your assertions, especially in the form of accusations against other posters, with something more than “I know you are, but what am I?”

You have made a specific accusation, and produced jack shit to show that it is true.

:shrugs
You want to look as big a moron as ElvisL1ves? Your problem.

7

“The little dog barks, but the caravan rolls on.” - Arab proverb

8

Should have taken Bricker’s “sheeple” bet, annaplurabelle.
First use of “sheeple” on the SDMB was a quote from some stupid right wing anti-Clinton screed. The second and third were from a member who I don’t recall, but is involved on the pro-gun side of a debate, so I assume he tends right-wing. The fourth references “religious sheeple,” so I assume that poster tends left.

Although, truth be told, I cringe whenever I see anyone using the word “sheeple,” because, for me, it’s irreversably linked to those fucking idiots at Storm*Front. I spend a horrifying afternoon lurking on their message board, and have never seen the word used so much. If only the sheeple in the US would rise up against the Jewish conspiracy! Would put the Negro back in his place! Would grind the Ay-rab to dust! To top it off, check out the first time “sheeple” was used on Usenet

So all of you: quit fucking using the word. “Ironically” or not. You look like an idiot.

9

You have real problems sticking to the truth, don’t you?

Please cite the reference to “patriotism” anywhere in the first four pages of the thread. The only even remotely related statement was various Dopers pointing to this:

You, on the other hand, had apparently no problem with it.

As far as your garbage about questioning peoples’ motivation, read the OP. There you will find gems such as:

and a long passage accusing Republican leaders of

I notice you had no objection to Evil Captor’s use of racist terms for Muslims.

Instead, you resorted to sexual insults, false accusations against Bricker, what amounts to out-and-out trolling, and your above-announced intention to respond when called on your bullshit with tu quoques and whining in the Pit.

Yes, yes, yes, don’t know, don’t know, and yes - respectively.

IMO.

10

This is true. Posting in Great Debates is not about getting incentives from other posters to do so. The personal satisfaction that comes from repeating the same talking point over and over again should be incentive enough.

Honestly, I’m impressed that anyone can seriously use the phrase “civilized discussion” in the same sentence as “Great Debates”. What a joke.

11

I not only read, but actively participated in that thread. If you want to know what poisoned it, just read the OP-- no further poisoning was required.

But you are missing the whole point. Yes, there are lots of people who get personal in GD, and who end misrepresenting what other posters have said. Do you or do you not want to be part of that crowd? It’s really that simple. If someone takes offense at the way you have paraphrased his posts, why WOULDN’T you simply retract your paraphrase and ask for further clarification of the actual post?

12

In that thread, I defined “gucks” as people who get all their news from TV and other broadcast media such as hate radio, mostly in the form of soundbites, and form their opinions from such. I suppose such creatures are not COMPLETELY mindless, but let’s face it, there’s not a lot going on there. I’m comfortable with the term.

Your attacks on annaplurabelle strike me as making a mountain out of a molehill for partisan advantage. She violated, in a minor sort of way, the rules. She has agreed not to do so again. Whaddya lookin’ for here, blood?

13

Oh, flapdoodle. And worse, since this is the pit. Fact is, the OP was a fairly straightfoward description of my analysis of the issues surrounding the situation wrt to terrorism and the Democratic response to it. I admit I called people who vote based on broadcast media soundbite gucks – that’s my honest opinion of them, whaddya want me to call 'em, Worthy Opinionated Gentlemen? And I admit I ascribed a great deal of cynicism to the Pubbie leadership … once again, my honest opinion of them. I do not believe that the folks who were planning to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush took office and then used the events of 9/11 as a pretext to do so are the souls of honesty and fairness.

At some point, you have to call a guck a guck, and a cynical slimeball a cynical slimeball.

14

I assumed you had simply misspelled “gook”.

OK, you’re a cynical slimeball.

15

I wasn’t even thinking of the “guck” comment, but of this gem (as I noted in the original thread), my bolding:

You claim that “conservatives” think Islamic terrorism is good for their poltical cause. That “conservatives” are more concerned with maintaining power than protecting the country from attack. In fact, your OP can easily be construed as saying that “conservatives” would prefer there to be more terror attacks than for there to be fewer or none. You honestly don’t see that as starting a debate by vilifying your opposition?

16

Ok, that was a good 'un.

17

I said conservative leadership. This would be people like Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. When I said “leadership” I thought it was understood that I did not mean every last conservative was included.

18

My bad for not including “leadership” above, but it makes little difference.

Can you give us a complete list of the leadership who thinks as you claim they do? Can you then tell us how it ADDS to quality of the debate to start things off thusly? And, though I’m even hesitant to ask, can you tell us how you came to your certainty about this line of thought among said conservative leaders?

19

Don’t cross Gaudere

Trust me on this.

20

Right. All the other conservatives are “gucks.” After all “(the Democrats are) going to have the votes of the thoughtful and intelligent,” right?

At the same time you are actively waging a rhetorical campaign to undercut the coming of democracy in Iraq. It’s not enough for you to have opposed going to war – now that we’ve done so, you actively want us, and the Iraqi people, to lose. You are a vile, disgusting creature and I wish I believed in a hell so I could tell you to go there.