As for Der_Trihs, while he was depressingly vindicated in 2016, I still disagree with him (though this time without the mock-hammer).
Imagine a group of blind men who have never encountered a conservative elephant before. One, touching the sharp tusk, characterizes it as a merciless killing machine. Which it can be, but not always. Another touching the side of the body say an elephant is a wide, fascinating, and surprisingly diverse plane of gentle undulations. This view gets a lot of press and its proponents heatedly object when some suggested that the elephant is anything else. Hippos do it too!
I think Der gets some part of reality, conservative self-characterizations get another part of reality, and that Der’s POV has the quality of not being broadcast 24/7 in a wide variety of media. Der’s POV is a corrective that (depressingly) captures a larger share of the truth than I believed before 2016. Today, he has a number of widely publicized pieces he can refer to: among them are The Cruelty is the Point (Adam Serwer), Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition (American composer Frank Wilhoit), and my go-to It Was All A Lie (Stuart Stevens).
Another method of quickly parrying Der’s attacks would be to say, “You’re discussing MAGA conservatives. I’m not one of those. I’m a Reagan conservative.” That’s infuriating nonsense, but again captures a slice of the truth.
Nothing is ever settled in GD. The best we can do is sketch out the main lines of argument. We still need to figure out the role of malice in modern conservatism, as well as the nature of what we might call think-tank special pleading.
I’ve seen people pop into P&E threads to say disparaging comments about people on the left. And they aren’t moderated for doing so, and I don’t expect them to be. Even though I’m on the left, I don’t feel insulted. I expect someone on the right to feel that way about the left, and vice versa. Whatever.
Also note that conservatives are not a unified group that all have the same beliefs. I speak from personal experience as a former conservative. There were always things in the Republican Party platform I didn’t agree with, and things that right wing personalities said that I didn’t like. I stopped being a conservative when those exceptions were so many that I realized I couldn’t call myself one anymore.
If someone said that a particular aspect of conservatism was due to malice, it might not have even applied to me back then.
So no, I don’t think that there is any problem disparaging a political group in such a way, and don’t see it as directly insulting every member of that group as an individual.
I didn’t see it as a sociological question. When I think of a debate, I think of a back and forth between a proponent and an opponent. Not two proponents discussing between themselves what they think opponents are doing. If, for example, you put together a debate on whether creationists believe evolution is taking place today, you try to invite creationists to represent their beliefs. A proponent is better than a straw man. It’s a live debate, not a post-mortem.
My read of Velocity’s post is that the topic for debate is the benefits of being gay, as per conservatives who think being gay is a choice. Not a discussion of polls on whether being gay is a choice, not a discussion on whether Republicans are bigoted or want to hurt gay people. He was asking for the arguments, not polling data. As I wrote in post #1, the thread is in GD, not P&E. To put it another way, he wanted to pick at the conservative perspective to this question: “Why choose gay sex over straight sex?”
And with the exception of a few posts, that is not the debate that actually took place in that thread. This is, of course, just my interpretation. It’s not up to me to say what the topic (or Velocity’s state of mind) actually is.
So.
I think the thread was mostly derailed.
I think if I had asked Der_Trihs for cites, it would only have derailed the thread even more.
I think the topic is not a largely sociological question, and that personal views of specific Dopers (conservative or not) are not only relevant but ideal. Czarcasm and Roderick_Femm made the most relevant posts, in my opinion, and interestingly on opposite sides of the question despite neither being known to me as conservative.
I didn’t disclaim malice with the expectation that statement would carry any weight, I did it to shut down the argument all conservatives are malicious/argue in bad faith which I felt detracted from the topic and attempted to shut down my argument by insulting me personally.
I did not segue into my discourse on the conceptual advantages of states’ rights. Not in the linked topic; not even here in ATMB, where I produced links to me expressing that opinion not to discuss it here, but to establish conservative bona fides. See, for example, BigT’s post directly under yours. (BigT, my opinions may diverge from mainstream conservatism in many respects, but not on the particular question of whether the courts were legally correct to protect same-sex marriage, nor of whether being gay is a choice.)
But not insults, so not really relevant to what I’m saying. The problem isn’t in making the generalization, it’s that there was (in my opinion) an insult directed at me.
The rule isn’t against generalizations, it’s against personal insults. And one example of breaking that rule is to say, “only a racist would say such a thing”. Which is a generalization (all people who say X are racists) implying a personal insult (because you said X, you are a racist). So, generalizations are prohibited when used as a backhanded insult.
I don’t see why it should be different when the accusation is malice or (intentional) bigotry or bad faith instead of racism.
As I said above, off-board parties are fair game according to the rules that you posted. AIUI, it’s also fair game – and I say this remembering that you’re in Florida – that Florida is The Largest Trailer Park In The World.
It’s also fair game to say that Floridians are The Friendliest People That I Have Ever Met In My Life.
Whether or not you choose to include yourself in either characterization is wholly a matter of personal choice. You could just as easily take the position that you “know that doesn’t refer to me.”
You’re literally making a choice, here, to be offended. I think you can make different choices without weakening GD to the point where nothing and nobody can safely be characterized, even in broad strokes where no reasonable person expects the characterization to perfectly capture every single member of that cohort.
And ascribing “malice” to the motives of a HUGE group … is hardly a withering blow. ISTR reminding you of how the right (falsely, at worst, and hyperbolically, at best) characterizes the left.
IOW: Malice <> pedophiles. Perspective matters.
We’re back to “But … with respect … you’re kind of an asshole.” It’s tough to wriggle one’s way back from that. The actions that give rise to the characterizations against which you’re pushing back … are rather difficult to defend. It’s even harder to defend that they’re occurring “in good faith.”
And on the Trolls thread … it comes up time and time again – and for good reason – that if it walks like a troll and quacks like a troll … then the distinctions quickly become irrelevant.
If you object to the disparaging sweeping generalization, then point out the logical fallacy of it being a sweeping generalization. Isn’t that the level of play in GD, anyway?
I would object to those characterizations as untrue, not as insulting. While it is true that I choose to be a Floridian in the sense that I have made the choice to live here and continue to live here, it is not my choice to include myself or not in the characterization you made of Floridians. I am a Floridian, due to my choices yes, but it’s not a category I could or would remove myself from without great difficulty. Even if I did decide to stop being a Floridian, that doesn’t change the fact that I was a Floridian when you made the statement.
Then, you’ve either misread or misunderstood the two exemplars that I offered.
ETA: and you’ve ignored the fact that either/both are fair play in GD.
ETA2: if somebody makes a comment about “Republicans who weigh more than 400 pounds,” but – as a Republican yourself – despite dressing out at a svelte 135# soaking wet – you take offense – you should have listened more closely to the speaker. They’re defining a subgroup of which you are not a part.
To clarify, I am fully confident that the characterization of “conservatives” at issue here actually includes me specifically. As was further clarified by Der_Trihs himself in this thread, it is my views that apparently make me personally malicious, by his reckoning.
Your point is taken - Florida is the Largest Trailer Park is not properly referring to Florida but rather the parts of it where trailers are parked. You’re saying I’m not the part of Florida where trailers are parked. But I am by way of analogy: I am in the part of “conservatives” being called malicious.
Certainly, some are legitimately in the cohort that truly wants to deny LGBTQ people equal access to marriage (to cite but one example) … for beneficent and charitable reasons.
/s
Defending the indefensible ensures access to an outstanding seat on the wrong side of history, just as refusing to accept a reasonable amount of opprobrium for holding those beliefs does.
If you’re IN that group, then take the feedback and learn from it. If you are NOT in that group, then explain how your position is separate and materially distinct FROM that group’s position and moderate your volitional indignation.
Just say it if you think it’s true. ‘The rule against personal insults shouldn’t apply to people with views you think are horrible.’ It’s not an unreasonable position to take. We have the Pit, after all. I just don’t think that opinion reflects the rules for GD as they are now.
I obviously don’t think my views are horrible but that is something I acknowledge reasonable people can disagree on. They certainly lead to horrible things, if only adopted on a partial basis. Like only interpreting existing law as I think proper, and not implementing reforms. That’d be like invading a country and then pulling out without setting up a transition.
