I agree with this, and think xtisme’s advice is too broad.
You don’t want to be just a brawler, but you need that left jab to keep them honest. Otherwise you’ll find that even the more heavyweight and serious of your opponents will use your pariah status against you, in a condescending attitude and with subtle digs.
There are a LOT of people who will bully a perceived weakling but who will be more respectful if they think they themselves might get hurt in the process.
Perhaps I’m just in a nostalgic frame of mind, bit this reminds me of efforts on the part of some sdmb righty to advance the “big swinging dick” US foreign policy strategy during the Bush years. Why do you guys persist in doing things that demonstrably don’t work?
+1. And, seriously, I don’t even understand the point about liberals only attacking the poor put-upon conservatives. I’d suggest that LHOD has pissed in my Cheerios more times than I can count, and I think we’re pretty much on the same end of the politcial spectrum, and the contempt I’ve received from R.T. Firefly lately has been pretty well off the charts, and I’ve gotten into it with Elv1sL1ves over the years fairly viciously, and on and on and on. I think most lefty posters could name fellow-lefties they’s been attacked by and have attacked themselves, so where does this theme (practically an anthem) even come from anyway, that the nastiness that righties receive is purely ideological?
That’s an interesting analogy, and I actually think the same rule applies to both. You need to be sort of like a porcupine - not looking to mess with anyone but very prickly in a tangle. Where this breaks down in foreign policy is when you take on too much and try to solve all the world’s problems. Then you’re in constant conflict, which is not good idea in foreign policy or MB posting.
Did we ever get a definitive list of who the Usual Suspects are? Given the frequency with which he references them, I’m sure someone as intellectually honest as Shodan would be able to elaborate.
The posters that are worth debating won’t use condescending attitude and subtle digs because those things don’t really help either side learn or exchange ideas.
Precisely. I know a lot of folks think I’m a wuss because I’ll back out of debates with lowlifes, but whatever–I could not possibly care less care if an idiot thinks I’m a wuss.
My point in engaging in GD is to reach those rare threads in which I and another poster who initially disagree come to some sort of agreement: either we realize we’re talking past one another, or one of us says something that changes the other’s mind. I freakin’ love those occasions, no matter which side of the mind-changing I’m on.
So when I realize someone else is in it for some other purpose, I’m no longer interested in talking with them.
The precise participle modifying my face happens to be “Classically handsome and magnificently proportioned,” but moron’s moron’s moron’s morons (and, yes, three apostrophe 'S’s followed by a plural ‘S’ is what I’m shooting for) persist in applying it to my entire body rather than limiting it to my face.
Technically, this known as a squinting (rather than a dangling) participle, I think, but it’s close enough for jazz.
But seriously, it’s a pretty handy debating tactic. If you can pre-emptively declare that any opposition to anything you say, no matter how wrong, is based on knee-jerking by The Usual Suspects (a group which could include anyone) rather than being rational fact-based responses, you don’t ever have to take opposing arguments seriously. Winning!
Of course if you ever actually commit to stating who The Usual Suspects are it doesn’t work so well because then it stops being an all-encompassing liberal conspiracy against you and is just a list of People You Don’t Like.