DNFTAYL: another derogatory categorization of a group of posters (mods object here)

The BBQ Pit
1

This one’s for posters who use variations on the theme, “You’re just saying that because you’re a liberal” to avoid actually responding to what you’ve said.

Variations include phrases beginning with “All you liberals…” or referring to the PC-ness of one’s position.

There are some very honest and astute conservatives who post to this board. This OP isn’t aimed at them. There are quite a few conservatives around here who will respond to what I’ve said. This is focused, rather, on those who slop shit at me (and others, I’m sure) like “you liberals always know what is right for the rest of us” or “you’re so PC” and consider that a rebuttal.

My working title for them is “All you liberals”, and if I post “DNFTAYL” after one of these bits of idiocy, it means exactly what you think: I’m not gonna bother with them until they actually start rebutting rather than sloganeering.

I’m not saying anyone else should adopt this formulation (although anyone’s welcome to if the mood strikes them), but it’s what I’m gonna do. I figure I can reference this thread, to make the meaning clear.

Coldie may get his underwear in a wad over this, but my belief is that I shouldn’t need to point out, every fucking time, what’s wrong with using lines like this in lieu of substantive debate. I’d rather just post a quick “DNFTAYL” and get back to responding thoughtfully to those who’ve actually engaged in rebuttal.

Thank you kindly for listening.

2

Yeah, there are conservatives like that. Liberals too. I thought about something like that, and decided it wasn’t a good idea as the sloganeers would pick up on it and use it as an excuse to ignore honest but dissenting opinion.

The strategy I’ve adopted is rather simple. I do my very best to take these idiots apart as quickly, callously, and mercilessly as possible when they are on the liberal side. I know they ain’t getting any help from the serious liberals.

If I see a conservative doing it, I try for gentle correction, but when he/she gets ripped apart by a liberals for trying this bullshit, he’s getting no help from me.

I take a little lattitude in dissecting these idiots, and I expect my liberal brethren to do the same.

Fortunately most of the sloganneers on both sides are so idiotic, that they get slaughtered pretty quickly, and don’t represent too much of a problem. There are of course exceptions.

3

DNFT means what?

I always assumed it was Do Not Fuck The…

4

DNFT = Do Not Feed The, taken from the more famous DNFTT = Do Not Feed The Trolls.

5

RTFirefly: Spoken like a true liberal! :wink:

nikjohns: DNFTT means “Do No Feed The Trolls”.

6

::cough cough KALT! cough cough FARMER! cough cough::

7

“Mods object here”? Do I have to object to anything in particular, or did you just provide this thread for free-form mod venting? :wink: You know, what I really object to are posters who quote a 50-line post to add a one-line comment. Y’know, there’s this little thing called the “delete” key that allows you to remove quoted text that you are not responding to! It’s really quite simple…

Well, since you asked: personally, I’d prefer not to see such a “DNFTAYL” post in my forum, RT. This board’s purpose is to fight ignorance, even ignorance that immediately labels opposing sides rather than make substantive comments.

Sure, we could ignore all the people who we’re pretty sure are not going to be convinced by us anyway and who make crappy arguments, but I think it would be a poor choice. We debate them for the sake of lurkers, and on the off chance that the poster that we assume is closeminded may not be entirely so. When a lurker sees you respond with “DNFTAYL” to a post, he may think you are unable to rebut the post; or the poster who irritates you may simply be suffering from ignorance, and an earnest discussion may help him/her to stop being a slogan-slinger, while an acronymic dismissal will likely lead to resentment and/or a “Hah! He can’t argue with me, so he’s giving up” attitude.

There are times, as well, where the comments you attribute to "AYL"s may in fact be a valid argument. Look at the critiques of Stoid’s defense of Clinton’s alleged exposure of his penis; a fair number of people are telling her that “you’re just saying his penis-exposure is no big deal because you’re a democrat”–and I think it entirely possible that they may have a point. It is also possible that Stoid’s argument has nothing to do with her party affiliation, but I think the assertion that someone may only believe in X because of belonging to group Y can at times be a serious and proper one.

Immediately dismissing someone who appears closeminded in a debate is easy, and cheap. I don’t like easy and cheap in debates. If you respond substansively and point out what is wrong with their posts, they may actually learn something, and so might lurkers. Posting an acronym and ignoring them from then on will almost certainly lead to resentment and further closemindedness, IMHO–I mean, good luck getting that poster to argue reasonably with you after you’ve just done that. If after several serious responses to these posters they are still not debating in good faith, I would be more sanguine about you cutting your losses and refusing to debate any more, but your implication that you’ll do so after the very first such response bothers me a tad. Keep in mind that someday, someone will post DNFTAYC to you after your very first post in a thread, and ignore anything you might say after that. I’m not sure that you’ll see the time-saving capabilities of an immediate acronymic dismissal as opposed to a serious response as being such an asset in that case.

We don’t repond to the first idiotic creationist post with DNFTC. We don’t respond the the first “no atheist can be truly moral” post with DNFTAYA. We don’t respond to the first “all you Christians think Gandhi is burning in Hell” with DNFTAYC. We don’t respond to the first “you only believe in evolution because you’re an atheist” post with DNFTF. And I think that’s one of our board’s great strengths. Yes, we get frustrated with people who facilely dismiss well-reasoned arguments in favor of shallow slogans, but I’ve always been pleased and proud to see my GDer’s gamely point out the flaws in such a post in thorough and specific detail. I’d hate to see that end.

As far as I’m concerned in an official level, I don’t currently see a problem with you using the phrase in GD (so long as half your posts don’t consist of it, or something). On a personal level, I’d be disapppointed to see it unless you have already given the poster a good ol’ GD try first–and I’d rather not see it even then, but I understand the need to sometimes throw up your hands in a debate. Poly has often pointed out that labels can do more harm than good, and I think this is one of those cases.

8

You’re just saying that because you’re a liberal Gaudere.

9

They’re called “knee-jerk conservatives”. Why mess with awkward acronyms that need to be explained to newbies once a week?

10

Bingo bingo bingo. Test me on it any time. I just don’t take penis-wagging all that seriously. :slight_smile:

stoid
sexually chilled out

11

No, she’s saying that because she’s a mod, and you know what THEY are like.

As for “all you Christians think Gandhi is burning in Hell,” I can only say that no, he was burned in Delhi.

12

What Gaudere said…

The presence or absence of Coldy’s underwear aside, (not that it doesn’t provide fodder for lively speculation) your suggestion falls into its own trap.

The problem is “in lieu of substantive debate”. At dire risk of sounding like a touchy-feeley motivational trainer, I understand your frustration. Some doctrinaire posters resemble pithed frogs attached to electrodes when it comes to knee jerking. It’s soooo tempting to write them off upfront. And, truth to tell, some people can’t or won’t open their minds and hearts beyond comfy constructs–and they never will. It’s a pisser.

Trouble is, labels are false and self-limiting no matter how tempting they are. Even the most diehard (progressive, conservative, fundie, pissant contrarian–insert label of choice) isn’t confined to labels or so easily dismissed. It’s incredibly wearying to slog through the same old soundtracks triggered by the same cues in the same people, time after endless time. Push button, hear recording.

But the hardcores are a minority. They tend to wear out their intellectual welcome pretty quickly. They’re still around–noisy, demanding and annoying–but lose credibility with every “debate” because they can’t reach beyond soundtracks. Their noise far outweighs their significance.

That doesn’t mean substantive debate can’t and won’t change even stubborn minds, no matter their predisposition. IMO labelling people is the fastest way to drive them into corners. Naming has power. “Give a dog a bad name…” Slap a label on people and they’ll live up, down or just retreat into it.

Some minds are hopelessly closed. No amount of honest debate will make a dent. The ones blaring out the same old looping-soundtrack noise take an unnatural toll. Their noise shouldn’t drown out real discussion.

(Didn’t realize I was that peeved, grieved OR hopeful.)

Veb

13

Is it OK if they say, “All you liberals are belong to us”?

*::: ducking & running ::: *

14

No, but it’s okay to say “PLD, your balls are mine.” (Grrr…)

15

:::::slaps self on forehead::::: Damn! -Wish I’d said that!

16

IMHO, the AYL tactic has a legitimate use, as long as it is not ALL that is being said. If someone has nothing substantive to add other then AYL there is no point in debating with them. But if someone can present substantive arguments there is legitimate room for additionally placing one’s opponent’s arguments in the context of larger liberal thought. As an example, see my OP to this current GD thread.

I would also point out that people have a tendency to consider arguments made in favor of positions that they agree with to be substantive, and arguments made in favor of positions that they don’t agree with to be shallow and meaningless. For example, you may note that our worthy OP, RTFirefly, seems to consider the type of posting that he has an issue with to be a predominantly conservative style of debate. The fact that he is himself a liberal is not completely coincidental, IMHO. As such, the inevitable overuse of this label will tend to obfuscate more than to clarify. (I think there is a similar issue with the overuse of the DNFTT label). I think in general, there is no responsibility to respond to every single post directed at oneself or one’s position, and one can ignore posts that one considers to be completely non-substantive. This is the approach that I frequently use, in any event.

17

Ignoring is such a hard skill to develop. I know, I teach this skill to people, professionally. (Hey, it’s a living!) You see, when you tell someone you are ignoring them, you aren’t. When you tell everyone else you are ignoring someone, you still aren’t. When you check back to see if anyone noticed that you were ignoring them, you aren’t.

If you really want to ignore someone, you have to just ignore them. That doesn’t have nearly the level of immediate gratification that a hearty “Nyah, Nyah!” or a long wet raspberry might give you, but it does have the strength of actual behavioral modification technique behind it.

If someone asks you later why you didn’t respond to J Ackoff’s point, earlier in the debate, you can simply mention that, “Well, there really wasn’t one, now was there?” But the real strength of true ignoring is that people hate being ignored. They will do anything to avoid it, even put together a genuine argument, ** if that is what it takes to get a response.**

Yes, the all you idiots posters will sometimes resort to trollism, or flaming, or ad hominem vitrol. However, only mods actually have to read that stuff. That’s why they get the big coffee mugs, and tee shirts.

A caveat here is important. Ignoring a point, however lame the point might be, is not the same as ignoring a post that makes no point at all. A fine line, indeed, and a very important one. Also as important is the distinction between ignoring a post, and ignoring a person. The former is a judgment on an issue, or the absence of same. The latter is simply a prejudice, and bears all the logical fallacy of any prejudice.

18

Triskadecamus

There’s an story they tell about a prominent rabbi in the first half of this century, Rabbi A. He once paid a visit to a city in which lived another prominent rabbi, Rabbi B. Ordinarily, protocol would have required that Rabbi A pay a visit to Rabbi B, as he was visiting his hometown, but the two rabbis were having some sort of ideological dispute at the time, and Rabbi A was in any event somewhat ideosyncratic, and he did not pay the call. As he was leaving, he asked some of the local people if Rabbi B knew that he had been in town. They thought likely not. He said “go tell him that I was here and didn’t visit him”.

But seriously, I was not talking about ignoring for the purpose of making a point or teaching a lesson. More, a matter of expending my energy on things that have the most import. If I think someone has made a statement whose pointlesness is evident to any reasonably intelligent and somewhat unbiased observer, it will take a lot more incentive for me to bother responding to it. Whether I actually do will depend on level of interest and time constraints etc.

I’m not sure if you meant to disagree with any of this (or even if your post was in response to mine) but I thought I’d clarify.

(BTW, what do you do for a living?)

19

Izzy,

I wasn’t replying to you specifically. Not to say I was ignoring you, just replying to the subtext of the thread. This particular group of posters is very strongly motivated to respond to the unresponsive, and refute the unstated.

When someone has nothing to say in reply to a position other than “You liberals always say that.” There is no substance to refute, no point with which to contend. Dignifying the "You Republicans always . . . " point of view with a counter argument won’t accomplish anything, which RTF has already noticed. What he can’t seem to do is reach the point where he can fail to reply at all.

The “argument” deserves to be ignored. If the poster offers no other substance, then the poster deserves to be ignored. But that doesn’t win the “gotcha last, nyaah, nyaah!” competition implicit in the message board format. But any answer at all to this kind of crap is pointless. Ignoring is best, but ignoring means no answer at all. That is a bitter taste to bear, for some.

In the case of the argument from prejudice offered, the poster will have to either put up a real point, or wander off, sure that he has once again overwhelmed the ignorant liberals with his brilliance. I don’t mind. In the case of the Troll, it denies him the specific food he most dearly desires. And even a single acronym will provide his sustenance for the day. If the poster specifically demands a response, a single line question, like: “I was not aware of any point you had made, to which a response might be addressed.” Would make the point obvious to anyone reading the thread.

In response to your question, I care for and train mentally retarded people, and also train others in the methods need to train those people. Among the many difficult skills needed is the skill of ignoring a behavior, without ignoring a person. (Yeah, I actually do a lot of other things, besides ignoring and teaching ignoring, but they don’t apply to the thread.)

20

Great. Just what we need. Yet another stupid generalized acronym to toss out rather than engage in substantive debate. If we want to just reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, I suggest we use, FYYWAU (Fuck you, you’re wrong, as usual).

I don’t understand what you think can be accomplished with this. You decry those who do not wish to argue in good faith and then propose the same behavior as a remedy. It doesn’t make sense. But then you liberals never do.

Sorry, RTF; I hadda do that.