# Bricker fooled me for too long **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 12, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835 "2012-11-12T22:46:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/401 "2012-11-22T01:04:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Actually, I don’t think you would, and this is a major crux here. Let’s assume for the moment that the SDMB is an idealized version of the way it is now… so the same ratio of more liberal than conservative posters, but all posters who are intellectual open and honest, and generally willing and able to apply to same ethical standards to their side as to the other side. In that ideal world, two scandals happen, one on the left and one on the right, and a thread is started about each. Because it’s in idealworld, you’re going to find almost no one who goes into the first thread and posts “hey, this really isn’t a big deal, the evidence is still out, this doesn’t in any way render this person unfit to govern… and this CERTAINLY doesn’t reflect badly on Dems as a whole” and then goes into the second thread and posts “wow, a scandal of this sort is so gross and huge that it demands that this jackass resign instantly. And really, this reflects badly on Republicans as a whole”. But I think you’ll still get a lot more traffic in the second thread, because while the leftist from idealworld are too honest to apply different ethical standards, they’re still going to want to go and post more where it’s more fun to post, because that’s why they’re on the SDMB, to have fun, not to server as Impartial Arbiters of Fairness. And, for most of us, it’s more fun to discuss a topic where the other guy did something wrong than a topic where our guy did something wrong. That’s a valid point. > [@](#): > > Ummm, I think that’s tangential to what I’m saying. Here’s my point: I think Karl “Turdblossom” Rove is INCREDIBLY partisan, and I think that he will pretty much always argue for the conservative side of any position. But he’s also smart and knowledgeable. If I was for some weird reason debating him about issue X, and he laid out some point by point arguments, I do not believe it would be relevant for me to respond by saying “well, I know and you know that if issue X were flipped around, you would be arguing the other side of it… therefore your points are invalid”. You may have missed my point. This example is pretty much identical to the Der Trihs example that I was responding to. And I agree in these cases that it would not be relevant. But that’s because you’re not saying anything _other_ than attacking the other person. But supposing that was not the totality of your response. Suppose you said “your arguments are invalid for reasons A, B, & C, and just a few months ago when the same issue came up on the other side of the aisle you yourself rejected those same arguments for reasons A, B, & C”. In that case you would be adding strength to your substantive argument, by observing that his point by point arguments are ones that he adopted out of expedience but he actually accepts your A, B, & C counterarguments too. > [@](#): > > Well, we’re getting pretty deep down the navel-gazing hole here, but… I think there’s a distinction here, which is that I think there are lots of points you might make about another poster for which it’s fairly easy to come up with at least relevant pieces of evidence… for instance, “MaxTheVool likes to post long and somewhat tedious posts full of things organized in little lists”. What’s the evidence for that claim? Well, here are 3 different posts in the last two weeks alone in which he did that. OK, fair enough, that’s at least prima facie evidence of this claim… MaxTheVool can now defend himself if he wants, but I think we’d all agree that the initial charge was, at least, a reasonably supported one. But that’s different from “MaxTheVool is a partisan hypocrite”. What’s the evidence for that claim? Well, here’s a thread in which he’s attacking a Republican idea. And, this one time, there was this Democratic idea, see, and it was kinda similar to that Republican idea, and he didn’t post in the thread about it… > > Do you see the distinction I’m trying to make? It would take a very unusual set of circumstances for a typical-SDMB-post-sized set of evidence to be prima facie meaningful evidence for hypocrisy, in a way that is not true about many of the other things we argue about. No, I don’t agree with this. For some reason you’re seizing on a specific example “he didn’t post in the thread about it …” which I’ve already agreed - in response to a) - is invalid. You can’t prove anything from the fact that one guy didn’t post in one thread. But if you can show that the same guy actually said the opposite, or that the group consensus was the opposite, than that’s prima facie evidence. > [@](#): > > We’ve come back to where we’ve been a lot of times in the past, which is a question of (a) tone, and (b) what the point is to begin with. For instance, the discussion that you and I have been having, which I think has been at least reasonably interesting and informative on the scale of SDMB discussions, is at least partly about Bricker’s posting style. As far as I remember, at no point did you ask me how much of my criticism of Bricker’s posting style is due to his ideology… but if you did, you could have done so in a polite and inquisitive fashion, or you could have started out in an attacking and accusatory and assume-Max-is-already-guilty fashion. One of those two approaches would have been likely to hijack and derail the discussion, which would have been a shame… because we would have lost the chance to discuss an interesting topic, and what would we possibly gain? (And note that even if it in fact turns out that I am a level 3 hypocrite and you were able to demonstrate that, well, what then? Assuming that I’ve said at least one thing that’s even the slightest bit informative or thought provoking this thread, would absolute proof that I’m a hypocrite render that thing suddenly retroactively non-thought-provoking?) I agree with you that we’re back to where we’ve been, and I don’t know that I have anything further to add. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’m trying to suppress anything. I’m not proposing a new rule or going around issuing red cards and trying to get people to go on not-responding-to-accusations-of-hypocrisy strike. As for the OP of this thread, well, what about it? It was someone who was pissed off at Bricker, referring to various specific things that happened in threads that I personally never read. I do not believe that the OP has an implication of “oh, by the way, I’m super-fair and super-non-partisan and this pitting is due SOLELY to Bricker’s posting style, and is not at ALL influenced by his ideology”. And, as I said, I think there are some pretty interesting discussions that have come about in this thread, even with that pretty accusatory OP. Actually FWIW, the impression I got was that the OP was a wannabe trying to show he’s part of the in crowd by picking on a popular target. But that’s neither here nor there. My point is that the OP was not looking for an interesting and productive discussion, and his tone was not the type that was likely to lead to a productive discussion. If a partially productive discussion broke out, then it was in spite of the OP and other posts like it. So I reject the notion that in this atmosphere anyone else would be advised to hold back on in order to keep the tone more civil. The tone is already shot, and if a productive discussion can break out in spite of it, then a point about hypocrisy is unlikely to kill it, and if it can’t well then no great loss anyway. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/402 "2012-11-25T22:10:09Z")
Sorry for the delayed response, I was busy with Thanksgiving > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You may have missed my point. This example is pretty much identical to the Der Trihs example that I was responding to. And I agree in these cases that it would not be relevant. But that’s because you’re not saying anything _other_ than attacking the other person. > > But supposing that was not the totality of your response. Suppose you said “your arguments are invalid for reasons A, B, & C, and just a few months ago when the same issue came up on the other side of the aisle you yourself rejected those same arguments for reasons A, B, & C”. In that case you would be adding strength to your substantive argument, by observing that his point by point arguments are ones that he adopted out of expedience but he actually accepts your A, B, & C counterarguments too. Assuming I’m reading this right, you’re envisioning something like this: Karl Rove: Voter ID laws are a good thing, for reasons A, B and C Max: But just last week, I was using reasons A, B and C to argue for issue Y, which is remarkably similar to the Voter ID law issue, and you dismissed my arguments. But then… what next? There are at least two problems here: (1) chances are that issue Y, while possibly SIMILAR to voter ID laws, is in fact not IDENTICAL to voter ID laws. (2) More importantly, even if they are, and if I prove to everyone’s satisfaction that Karl Rove is a hypocrite, well, then what? I mean, let’s be honest, we all already KNEW that about him. He’s Karl Rove. But has that in any way really advanced my argument about voter ID laws? Sure, it makes Karl look kind of bad, but it’s not like his argument was “hey, I’m Karl Rove, and I’m super-duper-impartial, and I am saying that voter ID laws are a good idea, you should believe me.” Instead, he presented reasons A, B and C. And if I’m actually trying to present a convincing argument for my position, rather than just trying to make my opponent look bad, then it’s incumbent on me to actually address those points. Which brings up an interesting point, which is that I feel like accusations-of-hypocrisy, in general, are part of a general approach to SDMB arguing in which the objective of the debate is not to win the debate by presenting the better argument or more convincing claim, but just by making your opponent look bad or stay stupid things. Which might sometimes result in “winning the argument”, but not in actually communicating anything to anyone. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t agree with this. > > For some reason you’re seizing on a specific example “he didn’t post in the thread about it …” which I’ve already agreed - in response to a) - is invalid. You can’t prove anything from the fact that one guy didn’t post in one thread. But if you can show that the same guy actually said the opposite, or that the group consensus was the opposite, than that’s prima facie evidence. Sure… but no one ever does that. Well, almost never. Certainly, the vast majority of SDMB hypocrisy-accusations are not either “you, poster X, posted clearly contradictory things here (link) and here (link)”, or even “You, SDMB liberals as a whole, supported two clearly contradictory positions here (link) and here (link)”. Rather, they’re “we all know that you guys wouldn’t be saying X if it were a LIBERAL who did that, and there was a vaguely comparable situation a few months back which I’ll now mention and kind of imply that you all responded to it hypocritically, but won’t bother to actually link to any evidence of any such hypocrisy”. (It’s worth pointing out, btw, that I’m not claiming that this type of poorly backed up hypocrisy-accusation is exclusive to either “side”… plenty of liberals post things like “we all know that if it were Bush who did that you guys would all be saying…”, etc.). Again, I’m not saying that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to legitimately and logically demonstrated that someone is a hypocrite. I’m saying that it’s: (a) VERY difficult in anything other than an incredibly contrived situation (b) usually not even meaningfully attempted in an SDMB context (c) not all that relevant to the substance of whatever argument is going on and (d) insulting and distracting > [@](#): > > Actually FWIW, the impression I got was that the OP was a wannabe trying to show he’s part of the in crowd by picking on a popular target. But that’s neither here nor there. > > My point is that the OP was not looking for an interesting and productive discussion, and his tone was not the type that was likely to lead to a productive discussion. If a partially productive discussion broke out, then it was in spite of the OP and other posts like it. So I reject the notion that in this atmosphere anyone else would be advised to hold back on in order to keep the tone more civil. The tone is already shot, and if a productive discussion can break out in spite of it, then a point about hypocrisy is unlikely to kill it, and if it can’t well then no great loss anyway. Well, that’s all kind of subjective and situational. Certainly there have been SDMB threads that have already been such insult-filled content-free trainwrecks that tossing in some accusations of hypocrisy hardly matters at all. But, by the same token, there are almost certain threads that aren’t. Again, I don’t want to come across as a junior mod here, wagging my finger at you and scolding you for doing X or Y. But if the best case analysis of accusations-of-hypocrisy is “lots of times, the thread is also so stupid that it doesn’t matter”, well… that’s not a particularly stirring defense. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/403 "2012-11-26T18:01:29Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Assuming I’m reading this right, you’re envisioning something like this: > Karl Rove: Voter ID laws are a good thing, for reasons A, B and C > Max: But just last week, I was using reasons A, B and C to argue for issue Y, which is remarkably similar to the Voter ID law issue, and you dismissed my arguments. No, you’re reading it wrong. What I said was (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > Suppose you said " **your arguments are invalid for reasons A, B, & C** , and just a few months ago when the same issue came up on the other side of the aisle you yourself **rejected those same arguments for reasons A, B, & C** IOW, A, B, & C are your counterarguments, not the other guy’s arguments. For some reason you persist in discussing the hypothetical where the guy has no counterarguments, and I can’t get you to see another situation. I don’t know why this is repeatedly failing to get across, but am not inclined to persist in the face of this strange inability to communicate. > [@](#): > > but no one ever does that. Well, almost never. Certainly, the vast majority of SDMB hypocrisy-accusations are not either “you, poster X, posted clearly contradictory things here (link) and here (link)”, or even “You, SDMB liberals as a whole, supported two clearly contradictory positions here (link) and here (link)”. I disagree, and think in general the second is the most common situation. In fact that’s the situation that gave rise to this exchange. But it’s no real difference who is right about that. My position remains that accusing a specific person of failing to respond to a specific thread is generally ridiculous. If that happens a lot, then it’s frequently ridiculous. If not, not. > [@](#): > > (It’s worth pointing out, btw, that I’m not claiming that this type of poorly backed up hypocrisy-accusation is exclusive to either “side”… plenty of liberals post things like “we all know that if it were Bush who did that you guys would all be saying…”, etc.). True. Just happened to notice [this example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15722222&postcount=23). However, I suspect that on this board it’s a lot more common for conservatives. And this is due to reasons I’ve been discussing here. As previous, the point of the inconsistency argument is to puncture the extent to which subjective judgments are given inflated worth by mere dint of their being espoused by people. On this board, this factor is far more significant on the liberal side, which has the vast majority of the posters, and the weight of group consensus. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not saying that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to legitimately and logically demonstrated that someone is a hypocrite. I’m saying that it’s: > (a) VERY difficult in anything other than an incredibly contrived situation > (b) usually not even meaningfully attempted in an SDMB context > (c) not all that relevant to the substance of whatever argument is going on > and > (d) insulting and distracting OK, I think our positions are clear on these points. > [@](#): > > But if the best case analysis of accusations-of-hypocrisy is “lots of times, the thread is also so stupid that it doesn’t matter”, well… that’s not a particularly stirring defense. Substitute the word “heated” for “stupid” and I stand by that and think it’s a fine defense. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835/404 "2012-11-28T20:01:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, you’re reading it wrong. What I said was (emphasis added):IOW, A, B, & C are your counterarguments, not the other guy’s arguments. For some reason you persist in discussing the hypothetical where the guy has no counterarguments, and I can’t get you to see another situation. > > I don’t know why this is repeatedly failing to get across, but am not inclined to persist in the face of this strange inability to communicate. Sure, either way, my overall claim is the same. So I’m arguing with Karl Rove about the voter ID issue. And I make an argument or a counterargument, and he disagrees with it, and I point out that he made precisely the same argument or counterargument that he’s now disagreeing with. Whatever. In any of those cases, I’ve just proven that Karl Rove is a partisan hypocrite. But I already knew that, and any disinterested observer already knew that. But that doesn’t actually mean that the points about the voter ID issue I’m trying to make, and that he’s disagreeing with, are correct, or that my logic in that thread is better than his. Proving that your opponent in an argument is a hypocrite doesn’t mean you win the argument automatically, and it doesn’t mean that anything they’ve said in that thread is illogical or irrational or wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-fooled-me-for-too-long/640835.md?page=20)