So you are suggesting he may have been tro. . .
No, I’m not going there. I’ll buy you a drink Saturday, instead.
I don’t support military action removing George W. Bush from power, am I a Bushite?
We have people on this board from practically every group in the world. No matter what group you reference, even if it’s one-eyed French hookers, someone is going to be a member of that group. I think it’s a matter of either not being able to say anything unsavory about any group: homophobes, liberals, marxists, anti-zionists, atheists, etc., or allowing it for everyone. I already explained this.
I didn’t see the “homos” bit; if I did I would have warned him; even though I do think he’s using it ironically it’s too ambiguous for comfort.
Because EC is prone to making irrational arguments, I am not surprised when he makes more. Because manny is not prone to making irrational arguments, I am surprised that he would make one. Unclebeer seems to think manny is arguing a point he does not believe in order to make some point about the rules of GD. This is one possible explanation for why manny would argue illogically, but one I do not like to see. Manny is perfectly free to argue illogically just as EC does. However, we generally frown on posters knowingly posting inflammatory things they do not actually believe.
Manny said “I’m always curious to see what the Saddamites in this forum will come up with next. And Stoid, you’re as good a leading indicator of future GD looniness as anyone…have y’all abandoned this semantically contradictory, factually incorrect and racist assertion? That would be a welcome piece of news…I was wondering where the Saddamites on this board would go when it became clear American voters weren’t buying the “OMG BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD TO HELP HIS OIL BUDDIES” line of crap. Thanks for the head’s up.” (bolding mine) This seems to me to be pretty clearly calling posters in that thread “Saddamites”. Not just liberals in general.
Amok: I would have done a “cool it” post for the remedial reading and “type slowly” bits. We did used to allow those depending on the situation, but I’m getting pretty tired of them plus when a thread’s already “hot” you need to be a little more vigilant. I’ve actually been really busy the past couple weeks with work and freelance jobs and stuff or I’d be babysitting both that and EC’s thread. Yesterday when I checked EC’s thread it was just a discussion of Bush’s IQ and I figured, “eh, however it started, it’s a debate now and seems harmless”. Who knew it would inspire manny to call people “Saddamites” and get me pitted.
I was not. It was general – y’all was intended as an all-inclusive, non-specific term. Sorry if that confused.
As you know well, I have nothing against homosexuality, or straight sodomy, or anything of the sort. It wasn’t an attempt to make a parallel in any respect – it was just word play, as in my contrast earlier in this thread. I’m not going to apologize for it, as I had no ill intent towards homosexuals at the time or now, but aware that some people did take offense, I reiterate that I won’t use the construction again.
Again, it was a general construction and not intended to apply to any specific poster in that thread. But yes, I do believe that there are members of this message board who did and do support Saddam – at least enough to earn the sobriquet. People who draw a moral equivalency between the United States, where persons suspected of torture are prosecuted and Saddam’s government, where such persons are promoted would be examples of those whom I believe fall into this group.
It sounds like you’re saying what I suggested; that it is the official policy of this message board to hold people who are stupid to a lower standard than people who are smart. Again, I’d be saddened by this but would of course abide if it were clear. Is my understanding in error?
It was not what I was doing when I posted in that thread. However, I reiterate that it was based on other posts which you have allowed to go unadmonished that I developed my good-faith belief that my post was within the rules. So I guess in a sense that’s what I’m doing in this thread (not saying things I don’t truly believe of course, but rather making a point). I think what I’m hearing in response is, ‘Yes, we hold you to a higher standard because you are not stupid. And yes, we allow stupid people to get away with more. Get over it.’ Again, if that’s the policy, clearly and unambiguously stated, I will indeed Get Over It.
If it’s any consolation, I’m having even less fun doing this than you are responding to it. I have no wish to spend my time on this message board in the Pit, nor do I wish to go on any crusades. I do want to unjerk a few knees between posts to the economic threads. I do wish to make an assertion without having it called “Republican porn.” I do wish to make a GQ-style post in response to a good-faith GD that has a heavy GQ component without being called an “apologist.” I do wish to not see people say things like “Never confuse (this or that person) with the facts.” I do wish to be able to go tit for tat in GD without fear that tit will be allowed and tat will not. But again, if it’s your intent to hold different posters to different standards, just say so unambiguously and I’m on board.
Amok:
First off, thanks for dragging me into this mess, Amok.
Secondly, I take your point. I agree there’s a thin line between…hmmm, let’s call it “provocative speech,” on the one hand, and outright insults, on the other. But in my experience of GD, the occasional zinger is looked upon with a certain amount of indulgence there; sort of “sauce for the goose,” if you take my meaning. Debates that don’t include a put-down or two are generally rather sterile affairs, and anyone who feels passionately about a subject is going to find himself, inevitably, employing colorful language in a hot moment in GD. I’ve been involved in a number of altercations in that forum which have come quite close to crossing the line into downright mudslinging, but thus far managed to avoid censure by following this general rule of thumb: as long as you attack the post rather than the poster, you’re in the clear. While direct insults are not allowed, cheap shots are.
Regarding my specific comments to manhattan in that thread, I think one only need refer back to his post to understand why someone might feel insulted by it, and thus motivated to return the compliment. He begins in the most deprecating manner imaginable, by labeling Stoid a “Saddamite” and a “loony.” One can literally feel the venom dripping off his keyboard. (As far as that goes, Stoid had done little other than quote an article from MSNBC for the purpose of debate; I guess manhattan believes their offices to be a den of “Saddamites” as well.) The body of his post is a willful misrepresentation of the anti-war position, intended to make those of us who have opposed the invasion look like idiotic hypocrites. He finishes off by insinuating that an anti-war stance is synonymous with being “reflexively anti-American.”
I confess that I experienced his post as both “snide” and “hateful.” I also confess that this experience has been a very common one for me over the last couple years in my various run-ins with those who supported the invasion; so common, in fact, that I started my own thread about it a few a months ago: The Great Pro-War Massacree Thread (and General Meltdown). Considering how incredibly wrong the Bush administration has been about virtually every aspect of the Iraq debacle, and how spectacularly wrong his supporters have also proven to be here on these boards, one might reasonably expect a certain amount of humility in their demeanor at this point. Such expectations, however, are in vain; Bush supporters are just as obnoxious now as they were then. Sodan, for one, accused us lefties of “denying reality” when we argued against the war (see the linked thread for more examples); he certainly hasn’t apologized for that. And so on.
I just want to respond to this, as well:
In fact, the word “many” is indeed placed there to qualify my statement. There are a number of conservative posters at the SDMB whom I do not experience as hateful, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, even admiration. Simon X, in particular, has proven to me that one can be a Republican and still think for oneself. I have nothing but respect for Sam Stone as well, even if he and I have bumped heads a time or two. Bricker is another name that leaps to mind, and DCU (although I haven’t seen him around for a while, now). And IRL, horror of horrors, my bestest friend back home in the States was nothing more than a died-in-the-wool Pubbie, hisself.
On the other hand, there are many conservatives here (note the use of that word, “many”) whom I do find to be particularly snide, hateful, condescending, and so on. Milum, Brutus, and New Iskander stand out as particularly egregious examples, as does Shodan.
I don’t know. If I had written, “manhattan, I found your post to be hateful and snide,” would that be an insult? Maybe, but not in sense intended by the rules of GD, as far as I can tell.
Finally, in my own defense, I would also like to point out that I did continue my reply to manhattan laying out a logical argument, along with a cite, in a manner generally considered to be standard debating form in that forum. Actually addressing the issue at hand is the manner by which I show my respect for my debating opponents, even if I sometimes feel they show little, or no, respect in return.
I think this needs to be public, but of course I don’t intend to “Pit” you in the “Moderator X is an Ding Dong” sense with which we’re all familiar. Just following board rules. As an aside, I’d make the suggestion that since everyone’s got a little more skin in the game now it might make sense to experiment with requesting that administrative questions or disagreements such as this one go back to ATMB – it would certainly cut down on the hit-and-run sniping which always seems to infect these threads.
There are no rules, it works by them deciding whatever they say on any given day is “being a Jerk”, and there is noting even close to consistancy.
They don’t even have to warn you. They have banned dudes for being “hostile and insulting”- IN THE PIT. :rolleyes:
The moderators are liberals with a liberal agenda. It’s a fact that those with right wing tendencies are treated more harshly than those with a liberal bent. That’s one of the reasons I was sorry to lose you as a moderator, manhatten.
I’d like to hear more about those “one-eyed French hookers”–especially if they’re wearing pirate eye-patches. Arrrrrrr!
Sorry. I’ve got nothing.
Carry on.
Yes, CK Dexter Haven is such a commie.
That certainly is bullshit. There ain’t a liberal among them.
No libertarians, either.
But… we have an agenda, now? Could someone inform me what it is, please, because I seemed to have missed that fucking memo. :rolleyes:
I’m not sure your rephrasing helped matters, Gaudere. Posting inflammatory arguments unsupported by reasonable, logical underpinnings is fine if you lack the wit to form such arguments; if you possess such wit, that route is denied to you.
Apart from the obvious rhetorical value in being able to offer “Modest Proposals” and urge the consumption of Irish babies from time to time, the fact of the matter is that there is a clear perception of unequal application of the rules when you apply this standard.
Now, there is no monopoly on the left for hysterical, inflammatory posting – Milum comes to mind as a practicioner of this on the other side, and certainly former posters such as December were wont to engage in this practice. I agree that, despite initial appearances, this is likely not a liberal conspiracy to stifle conservative thought.
However, the application of rules Gaudere urges upon us seems to draw an even more invidious distinction: giving freer reign to those posters who are either unwilling or unable to approach GD with logic and fair-mindedness. That, I find disturbing and sad, given this board’s oft-quoted mission statement.
- Rick
A copy of it was sent to me mistakenly. I can’t put it out here for all to see; I will say jackboots are heavily involved.
my understanding is that the mods expect everyone to argue to the best of their ability in GD. As I’ve said before, illogic isn’t fatal to a debate, but willful deceit is. If someone is merely illogical, you can confront their position with superior logic and hope to make headway. If they’re willfully deceitful, however, there’s not only no way of making headway, but there’s also often no way of knowing that your efforts will be fruitless.
Stipulate that EC was doing his best to argue from a logical position and sincerely believed what he was saying, whereas Manny was knowingly misrepresenting his opponents’ viewpoints. If this is the case, then EC’s posts are less poisonous to productive debate.
As Gaudere said, you can’t fight ignorance if there’s no ignorance to be fought. And EC’s post comprised ignorance in its purest form. Manny’s, however, wasn’t ignorance; rather, it was deceit. And the mission of this board isn’t fighting deceit.
Okay, we’re done with that stipulation now. I’m not sure whether Manny realizes how horribly twisted his statement about antiwar positions really is. He may really be ignorant instead of deceitful; that’s not for me to say.
As an aside, Lib, you wondered why I had a hardon for your silly namechange; it’s precisely because of cryptic little self-righteous drive-bys like the one you just did. You’re such a gas!
Daniel
Posters, bright or dumb, should not be deliberately deceptive in order to stir things up. Remember when you had a fit about what you considered willful deception on RTFirefly’s part two weeks ago? You didn’t like it when you thought RT was posting things he did not believe in order to get people worked up.
If you have examples of a poster popping into a thread and calling the posters therin pro-murdering-dictator-of-your-choice-that-is-a-deliberate-homophone-of-a-gross-slur, please post them. Or report the post. I have been busy lately, as I mentioned, perhaps I did not see them. You may also email me and ask my advice regarding whether a proposed post of yours in acceptable.
I do remember you saying something before about turning over a new leaf in GD. I am disappointed that you instead choose to follow the example of people like Evil Captor. He’s not converting people to his side; you know that. He’s not fighting ignorance, BUT the people who argue with him are. I wish you would do more fighting of ignorance and less pot-shots. But if you obey the rules of GD you can post like Evil Captor if you like (as long as you are not being deceptive just to stir stuff up).
Trust me, I am not having one iota of fun here. I am having anti-fun. I am not consoled.
Do you truly intend post as obnoixously as you possibly can juuuust within the rules of GD?
If it’s so terrible for you to act like you have, why do it? You fight more ignorance when you post more calmly. Do you really want to become the republican version of Collounsbury?
Charming, manny, charming.
I know what you’re doing–you’re worried I’m going to surpass your Pit thread record since I’ve been pitted 'cause of you twice in the past two weeks! Well, it won’t work, buster! Keep posting like you have and I’ll beat your record by Thanksgiving; because either you’re going to Pit me for warning you due to my Liberal Bias or other posters will Pit me for NOT warning you due to my Ex-Mod Bias. I can’t lose! 
I expect posters, smart or stupid, to not be willfully deceptive in order to stir things up. “Modest proposals” are fine if a reasonably intelligent person can tell what you’re doing. But that is why, for example, we require links for parody threads in the Pit; people were posting a bunch of parodies without links, others would take the parodies seriously and get wound up, and no one was sure if a thread was “real” or just a parody.
I am forced to reconsider my belief that Manny did not think that liberals/democrats are pro-Sadaam, however. He says he does think so and is not calling people Sadaamites just to make a point. Another poster in this thread reminded me that manny called him pro-child-prostitution. And he once called Catholics pro-child-molestation. So I guess he has used this demonizing sort of rhetoric before, and he couldn’t have been making a point about EC’s thread then since those examples were at least a year ago, possibly two. He certainly never suggested then that it was to make a point becuase of “unfair” GD policies. I seriously question its usefullness if you want to sway people to your side, though.
[continuing the aside]
Who did he used to be? Have I mentioned my belief that nobody with more than ten posts should be allowed to change their username? I mean, I HATE mine but keep it because tha’s how people know me, for better or worse.
[/my part of the aside]
Fifteen thousand posts, cryptic self-righteous political one-liners, and the nickname Lib? Tell me that you don’t recognize Libertarian.
Daniel
just ftr, I think that col is a Pubbie. He’s at least conservative.
…I may note that for example I had a long association with a major human rights organisation that was largely funded and backed by Republicans (like myself to be sure, not like you, which is to say those of us who maintain a certain degree of rational capacity).