Bricker: Got A Second?

[Scylla]

@John Corrado

I think that’s a fine plan, Daniel.

One of the problems with the “if you were an honest whatever you are, you’d show up in threads and denounce the dishonest members of your coterie” is that I don’t have the time nor the interest to read every thread on the board specifically so that I can intellectually honestly backhand people who are on my side but being assholes. Ignoring them is defacto if I’m not reading the thread, and therefore much easier to do.

I’ve thought about this, John. My brain is a fearsome thing when engaged in this manner, and, it concludes that you are wrong.

First, I clearly agree with you, Svin, and several others that it is not your responsibility or duty to police the people on your side.

But, I think you should do it anyway.

I am not saying you should read threads you don’t normally read or participate in order to police things, but when you find somebody being an asshole, you should make a point of letting them know.

Here’s why, and these convictions are based on observation of this board:

1. It’s easy to ignore the assholes if your not engaged with them. If everybody does this than the assholes just gang up on the one person who is engaged. That one person fights and is provoked by the assholes by himself and he fights alone. Assholes are like sharks. They look for weakness. They attack in packs and have a feeding frenzy. You’ve seen this, I’m sure. I’ve seen Bricker trying to engage one or two people while five or six call him names. Nobody helps him. He feels all alone, outnumbered, and abandoned by the opponents he debates with in good faith, as well as the allies who don’t want to get involved. Been there myself. Eventually your turn in the barrel comes.

2. Assholes engage in trollish behavior. If they are being ignored by a Bricker they will go to just enough effort to produce a post meritorious enough to demand a response. Once he has been engaged they simply attack again. They pretend at good faith debate to get a response and then they abandon good faith. When they are ignored, the cycle repeats. 3 or 4 of these people can keep going in a cycle. Then, someone like Demostylus that his points have been ignored, as he has done in this thread. When you are by yourself and there are several people doing this, there is no defense other than to leave the thread, or attempt a rhetorical atomic bomb, and then you start hearing the cries of “trainwreck” and “meltdown.”

3. These people really are the common enemy. They turn good posters bad. They bring us all down. They are really not here for debate. They attempt only enough good faith to engage an opponent and then they try to assasinate him/her. Their goal being here, as far as I can determine is to hurt other people or anger them. That’s it.

4. They count on the majority of people ignoring them as part of their modus operandi. They count on a focussed attack that only engages their target.

5. I am convinced that they really are displaying stupidity and cowardice. If their attacks bring retribution their self-interest will cause them to cease. They don’t want to feel bad. They want to make others feel bad.

6. Sometimes things get heated among posters who generally show good faith, and they turn into bad people. Sometimes it is just that moment, or just that thread, but sometimes it sticks. If a person knows there are consequences to this bad behavior and they will not be validated for it, they will likely cease quickly and post quality.

---

I feel that identifying these people and this behavior is fairly easy. Typically somebody is playing for reaction when they display both of the following characteristics.

1. They make naked assertions as indisputable fact.

2. They rebut the person’s arguments with unprovoked character asassination:

For example:

In this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287685&page=4&pp=50

We can view post 156.

Evil Captor quotes Hamlet. Hamlet has made the argument that the Clinton impeachment was not about the blowjob, but about the perjury and he has a cite and an argument that their was no mention of the blowjob in the impeachment proceeding.

Whether or not you agree with Hamlet or think his argument has merit is besides the point. Evil Captor’s response, in Toto, is as follows:

Don’t lie, Hamlet. The impeachment was about the blowjob, it was ALWAYS about the blowjob, the bit about lying was just a cheap bit of cover for your nasty interest in the blowjob. You’re like the Soviet Union censors who censored Solzhenitsyn’s novels on the grounds that they were pornographic – you’re not fooling ANYBODY with your sad lies about the blowjob, so don’t lie about it. It was all about the blowjob and everybody knows it.

Clearly this was uncalled for. We have both a bold assertion, stated as fact without logical backing, and the personal attack on Hamlet. IMO, Evil Captor is engaging in classic political asshole behavior and deserves to get slammed for it.

In this case Hamlet is also engaged by Elvislives who uses the same two characteristics of political asshole behavior. In post 157 he makes the naked assertion, and then rebuts Hamlet with personal insults.

Neither Elvislives nor Evil Captor is called on their behavior. Hamlet gets frustrated and leaves.
This is a pattern that repeats itself over and over and over on these boards.

There are several examples of this kind of behavior in this very thread. Most notable of which is Demostylus’s attacks of a page or so ago. In this case, he was called on it, and he took it on the chin and left.
Everybody has bad days and acts like an asshole from time to time. Those people could sure use it being pointed out to them. If they are mostly good faith posters, they may not like it, but having their behavior pointed out to them will make a difference… if it comes from an ally.

There are also those people who really aren’t here for debate or discussion. They’re here for the pile on. They are here to get validation by hurting other people in a safe environment. I beleive it’s because they are mice in the real world who are too cowardly to assert themselves so they compensate here. They can be characterized with a posting history that is mostly antagonistic, and absent of good faith. These people deserve to get slammed by everybody.

That’s the only thing that will make them stop.

[Frank]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Where do you find all these liberal viewpoints in the media? I never seem to stumble on them.

The Rocky Mountain News prints a column from Molly Ivins at irregular intervals. You’re just not paying attention.

I think a large part of the problem with the ability to receive clear and reasonable viewpoints from either side is that TV has taken over from newpapers as the primary news source for many people. TV is a hot medium - conflict sells. Talking heads yelling at and insulting each other seems to appeal to a lot of people. Reading the editorial section of the Sunday paper is a cooler activity, requiring concentration and thought. (Well, cooler except for the occasional utterance of “Horseshit, Mr. Will!”)

[RickJay]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It must be a Canadian thing. I never got any liberal viewpoints shoved down my throat in college, much to my disappointment.

I’m Canadian and I don’t recall my professors shoving anything down my throat. The liberal AND conservative ones both seemed to want to present multiple viewpoints. Maybe some universities are better than others.

Sam, I simply don’t buy that liberals aren’t exposed to the conservative viewpoint. Sorry, but I think you’re looking at it from a biased position, even if you’re liberal on some select issues. The Canadian media is generally liberal, but the notion that conservative views aren’t heard in Canadian society is silly. I’m not kidding above - I heard as much conservative thought in university as I did liberal, and niether my liberal nor my conservative profs offered their subjective opinions as facts. And I wasn’t even in the Commerce program. (We had a song about them.)

The American media strikes me as being relatively moderate and somewhat conservative on some issues, somewhat liberal on others. It is certainly wildly pro-American.

[Frank]

@This Year's Model

The Rocky Mountain News prints a column from Molly Ivins at irregular intervals. You’re just not paying attention.

There was meant to be a smily after this. Diogenes, consider yourself grinned at.

Scylla, you make a good point about the thread you’re referencing. I agreed with Hamlet, and said so. Do you think I should have attacked the other posters you referenced? I don’t. I might also mention, from extremely memorable personal experience, that Hamlet is more than capable of ripping them a new one all on his own if he’d felt like doing so.

[Scylla]

@Mr. Svinlesha

I’m entirely willing to openly debate these questions with an opponent who possesses at least a modicum of rationality. But you, on the other hand, Mr. Stone, were engaged in a transparent attempt to smear a man who risked his life in the service of his country, while supporting for president a man who appears to have done everything in his power to avoid such service. That’s what I take offence to.

I have to call “foul” here. Please do the courtesy of trying to understand my point before you respond, as what I am about to say can be easily misinterpreted.

I would submit to you that the primary difference between Sam’s viewpoint in that thread and mine was that Sam felt the Vietnam incidents opened the possibility of a condemnation of Kerry. My viewpoint was that if literally true, they weren’t particularly meaningful.

It seems to me that because you found Sam’s conclusion to be distasteful and irrational, he was unworthy of debate and that your scorn of him is therefore legitimate.

Your scorn with Sam, is by your own words, based on his conclusion.

I beleive that this is irrational on your part. Regardless of what you feel about a person’s particular viewpoint, if you are to debate rationally you must engage the arguments being made, not the conclusions. Doing otherwise is putting the cart before the horse and dismissing on principle.

From a rational standpoint a person should be able to put the forth the most distasteful and ugly viewpoint to a rational audience, and not fear retribution, or personal attack, or dismissal, as long as his arguments make sense and are defended logically.

Sam’s difference in viewpoint is one of opinion and interpetration. The facts that he bases this interpretation and opinion on were supported logically with arguments and cites. If you are to reasonably refute them you must refute them on those grounds, not on his conclusions and opinions.

You found my arguments engaging because you did not find my conclusions to be as distasteful as you found Sam’s. That is giving him short shrift. He deserved better there.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@This Year's Model

The Rocky Mountain News prints a column from Molly Ivins at irregular intervals. You’re just not paying attention.!

Ok, well I concede a few print columnists but those are easy enough to avoid.

I think that the definition of “liberal” has shifted decidedly to the right in the broadcast media, though. People think Bill Clinton was liberal. They think Alan Colmes is a liberal. They think Morton Kondrake is a liberal.

Where’s Noam Chompsy? That’s a liberal.

[Scylla]

@This Year's Model

Scylla, you make a good point about the thread you’re referencing. I agreed with Hamlet, and said so. Do you think I should have attacked the other posters you referenced? I don’t. I might also mention, from extremely memorable personal experience, that Hamlet is more than capable of ripping them a new one all on his own if he’d felt like doing so.

I think you should have. Hamlet may be capable, but I feel the behavior of the other two posters was designed specifically to provoke Hamlet so that he could be ganged up on and attacked. Had they been taken to task for it, they would have likely given up and left, looking for an easier target. Nobody defended Hamlet. He got fed up and left.

Look for further validation of my thesis in this thread. Several posters have made the assertion/insult based attack, and since Bricker has specifically asked others to defend him, and others have, the attackers have for the most part ceased and desisted.

The result now is that we actually have a fairly decent debate going on with a variety of viewpoints. There are personal attacks, but they are a side effect of the debate, IMO, and the level of discussion is reasonably high.

[Frank]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think that the definition of “liberal” has shifted decidedly to the right in the broadcast media, though. People think Bill Clinton was liberal. They think Alan Colmes is a liberal. They think Morton Kondrake is a liberal.

Where’s Noam Chompsy? That’s a liberal.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.

[Frank]

@Scylla

I think you should have. Hamlet may be capable, but I feel the behavior of the other two posters was designed specifically to provoke Hamlet so that he could be ganged up on and attacked. Had they been taken to task for it, they would have likely given up and left, looking for an easier target. Nobody defended Hamlet. He got fed up and left.

You may be right. I must confess that my attitude about that generally aligns with Mtgman’s post #97 in this thread. I will use the comments in this thread to rethink that attitude.

[Scylla]

@elucidator

If

Refresh our memory of your glowing triumph: what are at least three accusations made by the Swifties conceded by Kerry?

In light of this, I don’t really see how a continued apologia for Kerry against SBVT can be made.:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4047

[Scylla]

I do have a solution to the board’s current and ongoing affliction of political venom.

There should be a single dedicated forum for all political discussion. This forum should have the rules of behavior of GD. No more political pittings of any kind. It would exist for all political discussion and be held to the levels of GD.

That would clean up the mess in the pit, and GD. It would deprive the attacking nutjobs of their current free pass on insults which exists in the pit, and those that don’t want to participate in politics would not have the front page of the pit and GD filled with political OPs.

It’s kind of funny. Several years ago I suggested there should be a forum dedicated to the discussion of the arts. The reply I got back was that this was a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance and not to the discussion of the arts. Several months later Cafe Society was created.

I, of course, would be a great moderator for this new forum. We would also need a rational liberal-leaning poster to take on co-moderating tasks, but there’s no shortage of those.

[Shodan]

@Mr. Svinlesha

Regarding this:…not that I find it even remotely edifying to engage you in debate, but if the specific poster you refer to is me, then feel free to reproduce the post in which I declared that Saddam was never found to be in material breach of the inspections, and I will happily to do something that you seem incapable of, to wit: concede that I was wrong.

@Mr. Svinlesha

.Aye, but there’s the rub.

You cannot simply state, “They were found to be so.” This is, in fact, not true. The truth is, they were never found to be in material breach, especially with regard to the inspections.

Cite.

:shrugs:

As I said, I don’t expect it to do any good.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Perhaps the idea of each policing one’s side has some merit. Worth considering.

Perhaps we might informally establish a role of “proctor”, someone for each side of the aisle to guide the discourse along lines of calm restraint and propriety.

Necessarily, such a person would have to be of mature years, in order to possess the crucial qualities of perspective and judgement. Refined sensibility, of course, but not delicate, not easily offended, but of sufficient gravitas to hold one’s own. A person of genteel diplomacy and unruffable dignity - a Texan, should one prove available. Brilliant, erudite, witty, Texan…yes, I think that about covers it.

For the right, one naturally thinks of Simon Moon, registered Republican and Google monster extraordinaire, matches all these criteria save for an accident of nativity, which we can generously overlook. So long as he has had his share of bar-b-que and knows which end of the catfish has whiskers.

As proctor for the liberal/left…hmmm, that is difficult. But at least we have settled on the criteria, now we need only open the matter to nominations for the best Doper to meet those daunting expectations.

[pantom]

A person of genteel diplomacy and unruffable dignity - a Texan, should one prove available. Brilliant, erudite, witty, Texan…yes, I think that about covers it.

I can quite honestly say that up until the moment I read these sentences together I would have thought it impossible to compose them in that way. I mean, they don’t violate any grammatical rules or anything, but they make one’s head spin approximately at the velocity of Linda Blair’s in The Exorcist.
That is all. Carry on.

[elucidator]

@Shodan

…As I said, I don’t expect it to do any good…

Even Homer nods, Shodan. On your best day, it ain’t even close.

[samclem]

@elucidator

Perhaps the idea of each policing one’s side has some merit. Worth considering.

Necessarily, such a person would have to be of mature years, in order to possess the crucial qualities of perspective and judgement. Refined sensibility, of course, but not delicate, not easily offended, but of sufficient gravitas to hold one’s own. A person of genteel diplomacy and unruffable dignity - a Texan, should one prove available. Brilliant, erudite, witty, Texan…yes, I think that about covers it.

As proctor for the liberal/left…hmmm, that is difficult. But at least we have settled on the criteria, now we need only open the matter to nominations for the best Doper to meet those daunting expectations.

Aw, quit beating 'bout the bush(pardon the expression).

minty would be Texas proud to accept!

That is who you had in mind, ain’t it?

[elucidator]

I had no one in mind at all, really, just outlining some salient characteristics. I’m sure Minty would be a splendid choice. Except, well, he’s a lawyer, you know…

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

As I said, I don’t expect it to do any good.

Good grief. Not more than six posts further down the thread, in my next reply to you, I wrote:

I apologize; I was unclear. I posted late last night and I miswrote. What I meant to say was that Iraq was never found to be in “material breach” of Resolution 1441. That’s my point, since it was on the basis of the threat of “serious consequences,” should Iraq fail to comply with 1441, that the US and Britain sought legal justification for the invasion. (I clarify this argument a bit further down in my post.)

So, I’ve already conceded to you that I was wrong in the thread in question, in my first goddamn reply, and I even fucking apologized to you about it. Your response?

*I’ll be dipped in dogshit if I’m gonna spend another twenty minutes cutting and pasting your lies so you can ignore them again. You were wrong about what Zagadka said; you were wrong about the UN resolutions, your statement about Saddam “bending over backwards” for the inspectors was a bold-faced God damned lie, and you skipped over every other point I made as if it weren’t fucking there.

Pitch your bullshit somewhere else. I’m done with you.*

Yeah, there you go. Really solid evidence of how we lefties employ rhetorical tricks to avoid honest debate, and abuse our debating opponents.

:smack:

[elucidator]

Well, I’ll be damned! Shodan’s even more full of shit than I thought! This has got to approach some theoretical limit, maybe we should ask that Hawkings guy, is there some full-of-shit that exceeds neutron density, so that Shodan shrinks into a crap singularity, a brown hole…

[SolGrundy]

@Bricker

There’s a classic Russian proverb: when ten people tell you’re drunk: go lie down.

The implication, of course, is that even if you’re convinced you’re fine, a strong weight should be given to a strong consensus of opinion in the other direction.

Since this implies that numbers make a difference, I guess I’ll throw in my two cents:

Although I rarely agree with you, Bricker, and I honestly can’t say I understand exactly where you’re coming from half the time, I still think the OP and this thread weren’t warranted. You’ve always struck me as being basically respectful of other posters and attempting to use reasoned arguments to any discussion. I don’t see why you should be held to a standard of “always calm” any more than any other poster on this message board; we’re all people, not reference librarians who are obligated to provide cites on demand, objectively and dispassionately. If you’re passionate about something, speak up. You’ve proven that you can respond to an argument or a criticism with the combination of passion and reason that are necessary.