But Abe, is he a troll? 
Just teasing.
Most interesting, this little rant generated more material than I had intended or imagined. I didn’t mean to start a debate here, but there are some points addressed to me that perhaps I will clarify. Since some people are stating positions with which I agree, I will not address their comments even though I enjoyed reading them. I will focus instead on the comments that were less kindly to my cause.
Enderw24, I don’t know if you are familiar with December, but I’m not spinning anything at all, I assure you. December is a first class troll in addition to, if not an idiot then someone who likes behaving like one, and my rant was more objective and civil than much of what he received in the past from other posters. In cases where objectivity is required, I employ it, although as a rule I do not start threads against posters–it’s not my thing. The one previous exception was triggered by the several thousand words of anti-Afghani bigoted revenge fantasy nonsense posted by a user several months ago, and my rant then was (I thought) objective and comparatively mild (indeed, I remember someone saying that my complaint was the best-referenced and supported pit thread they had seen).
December is well known not just for many of his obtuse views (for example, the constant superiority of things conservative), which would be perfectly fine if he relied on sound reasoning or objective information, but more specifically for:
A) his unfounded and unsupported “assertions”, based inevitably on his opinion and/or questionable information all packaged as “fact”;
B) the way he will try to twist an argument against you even when the argument in question is crystal-clear and it is obvious he is just being a prick by making the attempt;
C) writing for a bite.
I did not blast December for being a knee-jerk conservative, or any of the other positions he holds that I or some others may find silly. The reason this thread exists is that December took an explanation I provided (that Sharon’s famous visit to the Temple mount was an insult to Palestinians) and on the basis of that very simple unequivocal argument he accused me of bigotry against Arabs. His reasoning is marvelously dumbed-down, and looks like the kind of argument that someone makes just so they can hurriedly slap a label on someone to discredit him/her.
In short, it’s an unfounded ad hominem attack, although of course as jjimm pointed out he found a way to weasel out of it.
That is not my position. If December really saw my comments as bigoted, he either wanted to read them that way (suggesting he is an unpleasant and irritating person) or he was too foolish to understand the argument (suggesting he is an idiot blabbering about things he doesn’t understand). If he didn’t see my comments as bigoted, he managed to express the claim that they were bigoted anyway (suggesting he is an unpleasant asshole).
In contrast, I commented on the incredible level of stupidity he has posted over the years, and that he had to draw the line somewhere (meaning, “be stupid if you really want but don’t accuse me of bigotry based on this crap”). It is in this Pit thread that I have targeted December as opposed to the bullshit he spouts.
As Gaudere said in the other thread, my insult may have edged near direct personal attack. It was not such an attack. December’s comment did not “verge” on accusing me of prejudice and bigotry; it did so in a straightforward manner.
No one can object to your last sentence quoted, and I liked your example, Minty, but I want to re-write it to make it a bit more applicable:
Poster A: I favour a flat 15% tax rate
Poster B: You are a Republican.
That does not seem acceptable to me, because the label is clearly uncalled for. As a matter of fact I do favour a 15% flat tax rate (nothing wrong with paying low taxes) but I do not favour abortion bans or arctic drilling, and it would therefore be silly to call me a Republican based solely on my views on tax; I am not a Republican --and that does not make me a Democrat!
I become quite annoyed when I am explaining that there is no evidence to support the existence of God and someone comes along and calls me an atheist or similar label; I am not an atheist. Even if I were, it would not make a difference in a real argument.
Nor am I a female. I am not racist or bigoted. I speak German, but I am not German. I am not an old man, nor am I 12 years old. The danger with assigning labels, in addition to their use as personal attacks as we have seen, is that they are frequently inaccurate and just serve to dumb down the argument, which is a contemptible thing.
Poster A: there is an honest reason that the Palestinians took offence to an event that you may not consider such a big deal.
Poster D: You are bigoted.
That doesn’t follow, and with December’s techniques and past record, sadly, it doesn’t have to. Hence the objections I raised.
Truth Seeker and White Lightning, I too question the general usefulness of labelling a poster instead of addressing his/her arguments, although sometimes it is unavaoidable. Istara, and Sweet Willy, you touch on similar points and I am generally in agreement with them.
Gaudere, I know the rules of GD, I acknowledge the different spectra of sensitivity, and I follow most of your reasoning on this topic. The one thing I disagree with is how December’s words (as described again above) are immune from criticisms levelled at other direct personal attacks. Plus, December used the bigotry and prejudice argument without grounds to attempt to discredit me and cast my point into ridicule–not to offer a counterpoint. It’s not just an ad hominem attack, it’s also a deliberate sabotage of the discussion in classic Decembrist fashion.
This issue is not something that bothers me so please don’t assume I’m challenging the rules of GD or getting all worked up. It’s more like an itch you can’t scratch, or the cockroach that you know is under the couch but you can’t quite reach to crush into a smelly pulp. But I am thankful for the reprimand (even though I opine it was misdirected) since it helps to improve respect and humility and one can always do with more of those.
– Ascribing hypersensitivity to a group of people, to a degree that you would not excuse in yourself.
– Excusing violent behavior by these people that you would not excuse among your own people.
These are examples of the *“soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” *
For a similar application of this phrase, see
December, I am grinning from ear to ear. That’s priceless! Backing up your behaviour and illogical reasoning with a “but this other conservative said it too” whine, and citing some far-right publication to do it. A consistent self-satirist in a world gone mad.
You great ninny.
Spiffy, jjimm. How 'bout rebutting his point, rather than sniping.
So: are you saying that that there isn’t a bigotry of “lowered expectations”? That ALL bigotry involves flaming crosses and lynch mobs? That subtler bigotry doesn’t exist?
To me, assuming that a group is inherently dumber/more violent/less rational than yours pretty much is the definition of bigotry. It doesn’t make it any better if you put a “oh, those poor savages, they just can’t help it” sheen on the front.
I didn’t read the original thread, so I don’t know if Abe was holding the Palestinians to a lower standard than he’d hold others to. But if he was, then he would have been bigoted to do so. If he didn’t, then December engaged in an unwarrented and fairly nasty ad hominim attack.
Fenris
(And if you consider “National Review” which, granted, is right of center to be “far right” I’ve got an idea of how extreme your views must be. :rolleyes: )
Abe, it doesn’t matter if december accused you of prejudice–either he and anyone else can do that, or else no onecan ever accuse anyone of being bigoted in a GD thread (subject to my personal judgement, yadda yadda etc.). Yes, you find it insulting; I understand that. But if december can’t call you predjudiced, you and everybody else can’t say the latest anti-semite troll or raving homophobe “indicate predjudice”, either. Again, the validity of the reason a poster accuses someone of bigotry or the poster’s general intelligence should not make any difference as to whether I determine that an insult has been posted, though it may have a bearing on the “jerk” decision.
I do not see that an acceptable response to a poster saying to you “this indicates predjudice” is to call their posts moronic and cretinous. If another poster said to december that “X action/post of yours indicates predjudice” and he responded as you did, he would have been warned as well.
Fenris, the post was about Abe and his interaction with December, about which I gave my feelings earlier in the thread. And fuck it anway, it’s a flame.
This is very relative: the National Review might be right of centre for an American publication, but to me it appears rather extreme. Since a British Conservative is slightly to the left (IMO) of the US Democratic party, this makes me (centrist) ‘extreme’ in the US, and the National Review ‘extreme’ from where I’m sitting. It’s a wide spectrum.
Fenris, methinks you missed the point of jjimm’s post. december’s citation to an opinion column is emblematic, indeed the very heart, of so many posters’ irritation with him. december is quite content, indeed appears to prefer, citing opinion pieces by pundits as fact and as valid support for his arguments.
Adding to this idiocy, he only believes that conservative columns are “factual support.” He spends the rest of his time screaming about the bigotry and stupidity of liberal columns and editorials.
It is all really quite asinine. On the rare occasions december presents his own opinion, he’s usually pretty coherent and intelligent. But he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that reference to someone else’s opinion is not proof or support of his position.
Sua
And again, we hit upon something that annoys me greatly about the SDMB.
december gives some examples of what he refers to as “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations”, which is what he referred to in Abe’s original thread. He then posts a cite from an admittedly conservative magazine listing further examples of the same thing.
The problem being, other members of the list think it sufficiently refutory to simply identify the magazine cited as ‘conservative’, and feel that therefore the point has been entirely disproven!
Do you feel the examples listed in the column never really happened? Do you feel the conclusions the columnist draws are unwarranted? Do you have any evidence or reasoning whatsoever that supports your idea that there is no such thing as “the soft bigotry etc.”?
Or do you rest secure in the knowledge that no publication that admits itself to be right of center could possibly contain any facts whatsoever?
It’s too annoying. ‘Racism’ is a term liberals use to shut off discussion. When people persist, they shift to their other terms of abuse.
Perhaps. Or maybe your comments were bigoted, and you switched to abuse, suggesting that you had run out of arguments. D’ya think?
General rule of thumb is that the first person to change from arguing to insults loses the argument. I find it interesting that Abe wound up in the Pit instead of Great Debates. I think he had run out of arguments, and he had some name-calling he had to get off his chest.
You lose.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?!! There have been two, and only two, responses since december cited to yet another columnist to “prove” his POV, and neither have asserted that, because the columnist is a conservative, december is therefore wrong. What both have pointed out is that reference to an opinion columnist, conservative or not, is not evidence of jack-shit.
The issue here, and perhaps we should have it out in full, is very simple - is the opinion of others sufficient support for your position?
I will quite clearly state my opinions and biases - I am ridiculously liberal on social issues, moderate (tending strongly to conservative) on economic issues, and moderate (tending strongly toward a bias on human rights issues - which, depending on circumstance, conforms with liberal or conservative POV’s) on issues of foreign affairs.
What I do not do - ever - is rely upon opinion pieces to support, or as december so often does, “prove” my POV. Who gives a fuck what Quindlen or Safire thinks? I submit that the much more important issue is what facts can you demonstrate, and what inferences from those facts you can defend against opposition.
As for this particular case, the columnist december cited to on the issue of “soft bigotry” was discussing an entirely different issue. Please explain to me the connection between purported sympathy for a murderer of members of his family and the the outrage of the Palestinians over Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. Please fucking note that I make no judgment whatsoever about the Palestinian outrage - I merely ask for a rational relation.
So, in this particular instances, we have two problems. The first is debating by “appeal to authority” - a column by David Kopel (someone I’ve never heard of), who apparently must be right because he got published.*
The second is that Mr. Kopel was deploring the difference in the way (in his opinion) society treats fathers who kill family members and mothers who kill family members. An interesting POV (see asterisk below) but I fail to see how it has jack shit to do with the Palestinian response to Sharon’s visit. If Mr. Kopel had discussed a (theoretically) blasphemous or contemptuous visit to, say, the Vatican, the gravesite of Martin Luther King, Jr., Anne Frank’s gravesite, etc., etc., perhaps his column would have had some relevance - though even then it would be opinion support, not factual support.
Add to this the fact that december consistently denigrates the opinion of pundits with whom he disagrees. This demonstrates that december views as dispostive evidence the opinions of those with whom he agrees and as crap the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. A position that “if I agree with it, it is proof” is utterly inane and not worthy of GD.
Sua
- IMO, Mr. Kopel is absolutely right on the issue he discusses. My agreement with him doesn’t change (a) the fact that what he wrote is opinion, or (b) what he wrote is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
:rolleyes: Ok Shodan.
The article cited by december makes the claim that the media treatment in the Andrea Yates case vs. The Nicholos Soltys case differed because of the gender of the killer.
Other differences that the columnist (and by extension december, since he’s the one citing the article) that are dramatic, viable, reasonable, huge and more likely to be the rationale behind the difference in media treatment, are ignored completely by said columnist.
Said differences include:
Ms. Yates had several years history of serious mental illness, including, but not limited to 2 suicide attempts and 4 hospitalizations for acute depression w/in the prior 2 years, documented treatment w/psychotopic drugs, but she was taken off of 2 weeks before; suicide watch in her most recent (w/in a month) hospitalization; post pardem psychosis, schizophenia; etc. The killings occured with in a short time frame, and she not only made herself available for the authorities, but indeed called them (which, the defense witnesses claimed was consistent w/a psyhcotic break).
in all the investigations and digging around in her past, witness after witness said she was a good mother, non violent, gentle person. Very sick also, but not violent. (cites for news articles about that case supporting my statements here are in the GD thread re: Andrea Yates - which may have gotten eaten by the great dopeout, but can be located by perusing these 15 pages of news stories about the case. here ).
Soltys ’ killings took place over a course of significant time and several locations here (he had to go to some other house to retrieve his young child and final victim). He made attempts to not only hide the crime (the final victim wasn’t found right away), but himself as well successfully avoiding capture for quite a while. Also, they note that this man had a history of violence
So, for this columnist to attempt to portray these dramatically, substantially different situations as an ‘example of soft bigotry of lowered expectations’ instead of the obvious totally different situations, is, in short bullshit.
So, the criticism for linking that article stands.
Actually I was addressing a different issue: Was my accusation against Abe as far out of line as he claimed in his OP and later posts? To that end I clarified my point, explaining that I was accusing him of TSBOLE. I provided a link to illustate the concept of TSBOLE.
wring, you are correct that there are many differences between the two applications of TSBOLE. I didn’t mean to imply they were the same or that the link proved anything. All I meant to do was to provide another example.
And I was addressing Fenris’ and Shodan’s comments.
If you want to address your “illustration” of the concept, let me state it is irrelevant crap. Not only are the two instances utterly unrelated, you yourself asserted in yet another thread that attacks by American citizens on Middle Easterners was somehow less vile than European attacks on Jews because some other Middle Easterners had attacked the U.S.
Can you provide a better fucking example of the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Those poor idiotic Americans could not be expected to distinguish between Apu at the Quickie-Mart because people who looked like Apu attacked the WTC, but those Europeans (who, very likely, are Arabs) should be held to a higher standard?
Thanks for the “illustration.” Next time, try for “relevance” and “consistency.”
Sua
Guilty, Your Honor, but I plead the inanity defense
As proof, I offer this hilarious selection of NY Times editorials.
(Please read through the whole thing to get the effect.)
Sua:
Ok, I conceed that if he’s citing opinion pieces as fact, that’s annoying and useless. But some topics (of opinion or ethics) don’t have much hard evidence and showing that others share your opinion has a place in a debate.
What would be evidence for this particular position? I think that assuming some group is incapable of civilized behavior because of their race is bigotry, even if there’s a thin layer of “OOoooh, we must pity them for their inadequacies” on the top. If you said “Cite?” I’d shrug and the best I could is find someone else who shared my opinion on this issue to show that it’s not just my crackpot idea.
Stoid has an interesting thread about the ethics of running off on a debt. Since she’s talking ethics, cites are going to be opinions. What’s wrong with that? Granted you could start quoting numbers about how the economy’s affected by people dodging debts, but since the theme is ethics, I’m not sure how that would be relevant. And I don’t think it’d be an IMHO topic: it’s too weighty. Some GD topics are less cite-able than others.
So what would be an acceptible cite for the idea that “lowered expectations” of a group is bigoted other than showing that others share your opinion?
Fenris
ps: jimm, I missed that you were in the UK. I’m aware that you folks have a seriously different left-center-right scale than we do, so sorry about the “extreme” comment.
You’re doing it again. to say, as you do here that you cited it to provide ‘another example’ says you’re accepting it as an example it ain’t. Neither was the one you provided in relation to the BYrd killing in Texas (same town, 3 black guys killed one white guy after giving him a ride, however, there were substantial other differences as well).
You’re loosing credibility by continuing to bring forth these ‘examples’ that demonstrate only your ability to look on the surface only if you think it substantiates your point. If you really want to bring substance to the argument, you need to do some very cursorary checking of the original source documentation for cases listed by these pundits. YOu hold the ‘liberal’ ones to such a standard, start doing the same to the conservative ones or stop referencing them as ‘support’ for your argument.
Support for your argument does not equal you ‘found some other guy on the net who thinks the same thing’.
What Fenris said.
I never said they were less vile; I said they were different. Then I even clarified that point in another thread here in the Pit.
Please review my posts and withdraw your accusation.
wrong.
You are attempting to claim that there exists some sort of bias in certain cases, with the ‘soft bigotry of lowered expectations’. to demonstrate this, you need to find similar cases where the differences were merely the gender, race or whatever soft bigotry you’re attempting to show. BY continuing to bring out examples where **in addition to ** the obvious differences in gender, race etc, there’s also substantial, dramatic, verifiable, differences that would explain the difference in how the case is perceived, you are continuing to do several things:
-
Over and over demonstrate your obstinate refusal to look even just below the surface of a case if you think it might demonstrate what you believe is true (example was your recent mention of the Paul Harvey radio program where PH made erroneous comments, but since they supported your view, you didn’t bother to check the original source of his story)
-
a substantial failure to support your position.
-
you, in effect, suggest to all others that dispite evidence to the contrary (that your cites continue to have holes the size of the Grand Canyon), that you will continue to believe your position is true. At some point, you should begin to question your adherence to these positions don’t ya think?
Well, as for what I would consider evidence of an position on “soft bigotry of lowered expectations,” I would submit that nothing really is. Really, the only way to discuss such an issue is “here is my position. Here are my arguments in support of such a position.” I think that reference to the opinions of others is fine in the context of “Joe Schmoe has made this argument better than I could, and here’s a link to what he said.” It is not fine if, as december so often does, presents such a link as “proof” that his opinion is the correct one.
I’m not an absolutist on the issue of “appeal to authority”. If Aristotle or Sun Tzu expressed an opinion on a subject, I agree that such an opinion is relevant (though, of course, not dispositive). Where there is a legitimate division between such “authorities” and irrelevant scribblings of the punditocracy is a legitimate point of debate, but I argue that december’s consistent references to a conservative Pundit-of-the-Day demonstrate that he has warped appeals to authority well beyond any rational and defensible basis.
december, are you such a jackass, or are you that dense? If someone linked to the NYT opinion pieces cited in your latest link as “proof” of some or other position on Yasir Arafat, you damn well know that I would be the first person leading the charge to denigrate them. Can you not see that your continued reference to other opinion pieces is just as fucking stupid?
Sua