# Closing threads **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 14, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063 "2020-12-14T23:55:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/101 "2020-12-17T17:01:42Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You are imputing to me the belief that these terms “are used neutrally” and contain “no snark at all”. This is an example of something all too common on this MB. Not only did I not claim that the terms were not snarky, but I explicitly said that “I certainly agree that the term has a certain snarkiness” and “It’s frequently adding a bit of snark …”. > > As I said, this tactic has long been common here, but what’s remarkable in this case is that immediately following your imputation you go on to quote the very section which contradicts it. That’s taking it to a new level, I would think. I did not impute any belief to you. I think it is pretty clear by my inclusion of your contradictory statement that I think you agree the terms convey snark. But you just said, “It could theoretically be used that way [as an insult to denigrate the integrity of all opposing viewpoints], but that’s not the only usage.” Yet you immediately concede that it is snarky. But that is the very effect of the snark - to dismiss the opponents for not having independent thought. I’m not saying that snark is verboten on this board. But to say that the remark is snarky and at the same time say it is not a dismissal of your opponent is self-contradictory. Snark is all about denigrating an opponent. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/102 "2020-12-17T17:30:30Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > After the above? Yeah, it’s you. I don’t think so. It is pretty clear that you are exhibiting the traits that you are trying to criticize. ---
**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:** [December 17, 2020, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/103 "2020-12-17T17:32:22Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > I did not impute any belief to you. Quoting someone and saying simply “You think …?” is imputing that belief to them. (Hard to imagine that you would even argue this.) > [@Irishman](#): > > Yet you immediately concede that it is snarky. But that is the very effect of the snark - to dismiss the opponents for not having independent thought. Even if this were the case, it’s not an excuse for imputing things to me that I clearly disclaimed. At most you should point out the contradiction and why you think the second part implies such-and-such despite my disclaimer. But as it happens there’s no contradiction at all. As I said, it’s “frequently adding a bit of snark to a substantive point”. That’s a crucial distinction in context. The context here is Colibri’s claim that use of the term amounts to “a simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits”. That might (at most) be true if all it was was snark and nothing else. But if it’s adding a bit of snark to a substantive argument, then it has no basis. As noted, people use snark all the time here, and no one has ever claimed that any and all use of snark amounts to “a simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits”. But again, regardless of whether you disagree with the above, it’s not an excuse for just attributing to me things that I’ve not said and clearly disclaimed. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/104 "2020-12-17T17:37:29Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > > > After the above? Yeah, it’s you. > > I don’t think so. It is pretty clear that you are exhibiting the traits that you are trying to criticize. “I know you are, but what am I?” ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/105 "2020-12-17T18:04:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Comparing a question about when to ban someone from a message board to calls for the state-sponsored murder of political dissidents is a measured, reasonable analogy that can only further good will and mutual understanding. I read that as an analogy to someone who wanted to eliminate dissent and purify the echo chamber. Some people are almost physically pained by ideas that conflict with theirs. Especially when their ideas are flawed. > [@Irishman](#): > > I think the mods do a reasonable job of trying to clean up the mess, but then it isn’t my ox being gored most of the time. I applaud the moderator’s efforts (most of the time), I think it is an impossible job. I think reasoned debate has gotten harder and harder and with the last administration everyone lost their goddam minds. But I think that moderators could do more with an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure. > [@Irishman](#): > > This in itself doesn’t sound like a bad suggestion. However, many posters feel that the tone of the threads are already over-policed, I rarely engage in threads where I am in synch with the general orthodoxy of the board. What’s the point of being dogpiler #72 in the “trump is a piece of shit” thread. But the sniping is not conducive to debate and it creates escalation. > [@Irishman](#): > > limiting the amount of snark and venom a poster can use removes any fun element from the discussions. I thought that was what the pit was for. > [@Irishman](#): > > Using it on oneself is perplexing. Yes but if you read the post rather than just look for reasons to be offended, is it not clear (or at least possible) that I am talking about myself? The sniping is causing me to react. I am fully capable of admitting my humanity. > [@Irishman](#): > > tons of posters start ranting in ATMB about the “new rules” and how the board is no fun any more. Bullies frequently dislike impediments to their bullying. If the mission is to decrease ignorance, then, we are better off without them. > [@Irishman](#): > > You think the terms “hive mind” and “echo chamber” are used neutrally? That there’s no snark at all in the choice of those terms? I do not use echo chamber with any snark whatsoever. I think that there are issues on which I am in an echo chamber. It’s part of the human condition. > [@Irishman](#): > > So which is it? You never use the word “hive mind”, or you do use it to characterize a certain group of people? I never use the term. I use the notion of an echo chamber which people were conflating with hive mind. I think they are different but people are conflating them. > [@Irishman](#): > > Of course that just begs the question of what is center? When the Tea Party are the moderate Right, what is the goalpost? > > “Mainstream” is a difficult thing to measure when the spectrum is skewed so wide. I think a lot of people like to think they are mainstream and that anyone to the left or right of them is out of the mainstream. I frequently use polling data to determine this. For example in the thread that is the subject of this thread, I took the position that there is not widespread support for race based affirmative action. I base this on the fact that California (one of the most liberal states in the union, a state that voted 2::1 in favor of Joe Biden) rejected a proposal to reinstate affirmative action. GIGObuster takes a different route. > [@Colibri](#): > > I stand by what I said. In my personal opinion, when you use the word on this board, you lose any credibility with regard to your argument. So no actual response to the argument but more “nah nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you”? How are you any different than the trumpsters claiming that the election was stolen? You may be the one losing credibility here. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > And no, I do not consider a link to somebody else’s opinion to be worth anything, let alone authoritative. So you agree then that the vast majority of links by GIGObuster (not just on the subject rthread but in most threads) are worthless? > [@Babale](#): > > “I know you are, but what am I?” I have yet to hear anything interesting or original from you that was above twitter levels of snark. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/106 "2020-12-17T18:06:05Z")
> [@damuriajashi](#): > > I read that as an analogy to someone who wanted to eliminate dissent and purify the echo chamber. Some people are almost physically pained by ideas that conflict with theirs. Especially when their ideas are flawed. It ain’t the ideas. It’s the fundamental dishonesty with which posts are interpreted. At this point I have no interest in bickering with you over whether your debate style is dishonest; I think that’s been well-established. The question is whether such dishonest tactics should be acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![damuriajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@damuriajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/damuriajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/107 "2020-12-17T18:09:42Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It ain’t the ideas. It’s the fundamental dishonesty with which posts are interpreted. At this point I have no interest in bickering with you over whether your debate style is dishonest; I think that’s been well-established. The question is whether such dishonest tactics should be acceptable. And I think its been well established that you are a racist. Not the hateful hood wearing kind but the kind of racist that forms the firm foundation of institutional racism. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/108 "2020-12-17T18:10:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Quoting someone and saying simply “You think …?” is imputing that belief to them. (Hard to imagine that you would even argue this.) I’m sorry you don’t like my rhetorical flourish. Perhaps I could have worded it better, say “But you agree that it is snarky?” Look, I reacted to what you said. My immediate reaction was to think you were saying the term could be used without any dismissal of the opponent. You then clarified that it did have snark, so I guess I should have revised my immediate reaction, instead of just appending the follow on remark and response. I also phrased the remark as a question. I did not assert you thought that, I asked if I was understanding you correctly. You were free to say “No”. Accusing me of distorting your position and suggesting that the moderators should sanction me is a bit extreme. Misunderstandings aren’t maliciousness. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The context here is Colibri’s claim that use of the term amounts to “a simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits”. That might (at most) be true if all it was was snark and nothing else. But if it’s adding a bit of snark to a substantive argument, then it has no basis. As noted, people use snark all the time here, and no one has ever claimed that any and all use of snark amounts to “a simple admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits”. That’s an acceptable opinion. The difference between adding snark to a substantive response and just giving all snark is worth considering. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/109 "2020-12-17T18:26:10Z")
---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063/110 "2020-12-17T20:23:59Z")
This thread has veered off pretty far from the original topic. I was hoping that something useful would come out of all of this, but apparently not. > [@damuriajashi](#): > > And I think its been well established that you are a racist. You are expected to treat other users with respect in this forum. Personal insults and attacks belong in the Pit, not in ATMB. Many of your comments in this thread are also much more appropriate for the Pit than ATMB. If all you want to do is bitch about things and attack people, that’s what the Pit is for. Keep that behavior out of ATMB. Note to all: Everyone expected to treat other users with respect in this forum. I realize that a lot of folks come to ATMB because they are upset about something, but try to focus on the issue and don’t make things personal. Thread closed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/closing-threads/928063.md?page=5)