I read the Vietnam thread that Sam linked to. It’s sad, sad, stuff. If you think this thread has gone of the rails, take a look at that thread (and in GD, no less). There’s plenty of blame to go around. There’s a good chance this will backfire, but I think it’s worth taking a look at how and why that thread degenerated.
The OP was about the division of opinion in the U.S. over the Vietnam War.
Post #22: Rufus Xavier makes the rhetorical, off-topic point that maybe the Communist victory in Vietnam did not have the terrible consequences that would have justified our efforts to prevent it.
#28: Sam attempts to refute the aforementioned notion by referring to various historical events and figures. The problem with this post is not that Sam didn’t provide cites up front, but that he came into thread in full-on Rhetoric Mode. This is not a post likely to lead to mutual understanding. There is no acknowledgement that these are rough figures taken from memory. There is no acknowledgement that accurate, agreed-upon statistics in these areas may be impossible to derive. There is no acknowledgement that there is a counter-weight to the cited misery: specifically, the misery inflicted by several additional years of very bloody warfare, both here and in Vietnam.
A post which acknowledged the above would leave lots of room for reconsideration and compromise. A post consisting solely of six short, rhetorical questions leaves room for little other than, “Gee, I guess I’m ignorant.”
#31: elucidator (rudely) suggests that Sam’s “500,000” number is clearly ridiculous, and that Sam is parroting a conservative website; whether right or wrong, neither suggestion is informed.
#32 & #34: dropzone asks Sam how old he is, and why he’s never enlisted if he’s so pro-military. dropzone then very obliquely suggests (#34) that he suspects Sam might, potentially, kinda be a coward. Now that it’s personal, is there any chance this will end well?
#35: Starts out as a perfectly reasonable post which backs off from the 500,000 figure somewhat, and even politely suggests that perhaps elucidator simply hasn’t come across the range of casualty estimates that are commonly made. Just to make sure this post doesn’t do any good, however, Sam decides to end on a snarky and condescending note: “Before you call something ridiculous on its face, you should make sure you know what you’re talking about, m’kay?”
#36: elucidator responds in kind.
#37: pantom gives a couple of cites and concludes that the 500,000 figure is either greatly or slightly inflated (the post seems to contradict itself on this point). He then tells Sam that he’s got a lotta nerve to do what he’s done, and rudely challenges him to “do a little research, come up with something. Anything.”
#38: Sam points out elucidator’s jerkish behavior in the thread – fails to acknowledge that he might bear some responsibility for the tiff.
#39 & #40: elucidator posts a site that supports the claim that the 500,000 figure is way out of line. Takes the questionable tact that since he never said he wasn’t guessing before, posting the guess was just fine. Twice tacitly challenges Sam to a game of “Gotcha!” by asking “Whaddaya got?”
#41: Sam posts his own cite that supports the claim that the 500,000 figure is within the accepted range of estimates. In this thread he characterizes the response to this site as: “The table is too hard to read, and anyway, who can really know? It’s all so mysterious! Let’s not ever speak of this again.”
On my computer, the linked chart is 100% illegible, so “the table is too hard to read” seems like a perfectly reasonable complaint to me. No one explicitly put forth the “who can really know?” argument, but that would be an entirely valid and worthwhile point to make.
#43: Some more stats from pantom, followed by the obligatory cheap shot at Sam: “Sometimes I wonder why I bother.”
Anyway, these are the lowlights. I’m sure I don’t need to further point out the mistakes that were made, and why they’re so damning to productive debate.