Not completely different. There are enough similarities in actual content to suffice for a reasonable debate. And it falls within the rules.
If one cannot make a rhetorical point without breaking the rules…is the point of any real value here?
Okay, maybe the fact of moderation means we’re all having to bring pillows to a gunfight. But we’re all equally handicapped, and, by and large, rational viewpoints are being expressed. Inflammatory hyperbole isn’t necessary. The English language is rich enough to get almost any point across without resort to absurd exaggeration.
After further thought, I agree with you about #2. It’s borderline because it unnecessarily and knowingly misstates the gun owners’ position. The gun rights’ position is that new laws would do nothing to improve any child’s safety, other children or their own. Therefore, the view does not open itself to a rational counterargument that they choose guns v. children.
But you are right in that an improper argument shouldn’t be actionable. It’s poor form and in many ways disrespectful because an argument is being made against a position that a poster knows isn’t being held. It’s close to a strawman, but isn’t.
Also, I agree that this isn’t hijacking ATMB into a debate about gun control. I think we all are just trying to illustrate how a point can be made without being inflammatory, and using gun control as an example.
In general I agree. However, this thread started as a complaint by Der Trihs that he was being moderated for his opinions, and JonathanChance’s response was that it was not the opinions, but the way they were presented that was being moderated. It seems fair to address the issue of how to present arguments as part of that discussion. I’m not sure where or how else to address it. A Pit thread could be started, of course, but that is unlikely to get the correct attention from Der Trihs. If the effort is a serious attempt to help him understand then the Pit is not the place to start the conversation.
As I said, my point was not to address gun control per se and I avoided stating any personal opinions. The attempt was being made to address specifically why the framing of a statement or opinion in a certain manner serves some purpose to the author, and reframing the statement has to be careful not to omit the very point the author was trying to make. The gun control argument was just the example that was brought up, so I was elaborating on that topic to examine the framing discussion.
[QUOTE=Trinopus]
If one cannot make a rhetorical point without breaking the rules…is the point of any real value here?
[/quote]
Oh I agree, there is the need to stay within the rules. I’m certainly not one to try to push the margins or dance the line.
A certain amount of reframing of a position is a necessary element in showing a different perspective, and some people favor mocking an idea as a useful form of rebuttal. And inflammatory remarks can be the author’s attempt to demonstrate his own frustration with the opponent’s position - the level of outrage being generated because the author’s interpretation of the position is that level of inflammation. Thus the “stating in direct terms”. See, for example, the ongoing exchange over the ability to label an idea as “racist” and whether that is an objective description of the idea or a highly loaded insult and a term designed to poison the well.
The key question about all this is: do these various inflamatory things that Der Trihs says represent hyperbole or are they things that he thinks are true?
ISTM that most of the recent discussion has been based on the premise that they’re hyperbole. But suppose he thinks they are literally true? Then there’s no way for him to tone it down. There’s no tone. He’s calmly stating facts (as he sees them).
I’m not sure which is correct. I know I’ve tended to assume some of his extreme positions about men/women in divorce law have been hyperbole, but perhaps that’s just because I’ve been subconsciously trimming them down to something close to what I myself agree with, while his opinions about conservatives are things I’m not going to agree with in any event.
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
ISTM that most of the recent discussion has been based on the premise that they’re hyperbole. But suppose he thinks they are literally true? Then there’s no way for him to tone it down. There’s no tone. He’s calmly stating facts (as he sees them).
[/QUOTE]
It’s really irrelevant. If a racist really, truly thinks blacks/asians/hispanics/whatever are inferior and that using derogatory descriptive terms aren’t derogatory at all but apt, it makes no difference if that poster really believes it’s all ok. To me, the smell test on DT’s comments is if you insert a derogatory racial term or some other sensitive group in for ‘conservative’ or ‘libertarian’ or ‘Christian/theist’ and whether or not it then is offensive. And to me there is no question that if someone DID insert in a derogatory racial term or sensitive group in for whoever he’s spewing his hyperbole towards it WOULD be offensive and that person would get a mod note or warning. If I didn’t care about my own posting privileges I’ve often toyed with trolling the board in just such a way to prove this point, since there are so many 'dopers who handwave away this argument and excuse DT. It’s all about gores and oxes, and since DTs barbs mainly skewer a minority of posters, many of who are looked down on by the boards main corporate culture, they just can’t see it.
It sounds like you’re saying you don’t think whether DT really believes in what he is literally saying should make a difference as to whether DT should be warned/banned. That’s not what I’m addressing.
I’m addressing some recent discussion here in which various posters are trying to convince DT that he could make his same points more effectively and without risk of sanction if he toned it down. (Or others along the same lines saying that DT was being provocative by refusing to tone it down.) My point is that if he genuinely believes these things, then they’re not about tone and he can’t tone it down without censoring his beliefs.
[I suspect that most posters pushing this line of argument are left wingers who - like everyone else - have a predisposition to believe that others think like them and thus to think that DT’s true beliefs are close to their own, which leads them to interpret his more extreme statements as hyperbole which could thus be toned down.
And in that context I’ve noted my own tendency to be more apt to assume that he is engaging in hyperbole when if you strip the “hyperbole” away he might be saying something that I think is reasonable, versus instances when I think he is off the deep end regardless, in which case I am less apt to assume that it’s hyperbole.]
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
I’m addressing some recent discussion here in which various posters are trying to convince DT that he could make his same points more effectively and without risk of sanction if he toned it down. (Or others along the same lines saying that DT was being provocative by refusing to tone it down.) My point is that if he genuinely believes these things, then they’re not about tone and he can’t tone it down without censoring his beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
Even if he does truly believe his own rhetoric (which I have no doubt he does), he’s smart enough to modify his language and presentation. I’ve seen him be rational in other forums and in other discussions. He is capable of modifying his language and presentation. The excuse people (and the mods in the past) make for him is that since he’s so carried away by his own rhetoric it’s ok for him to fly off the handle since he really believes it. That’s horseshit, IMHO. There are a lot of passionate people on this board about various things and causes, yet THEY are able to by and large tone things down to have a rational discussion. If DT doesn’t have to, why do we all have too? I mean, I feel the same way he does about several groups, and I’m just as hot tempered and passionate about my dislike, yet I’m usually able to hold it together to not get a warning or Mod note unless I’m really worked up (or sometimes when I’m trying to be funny and it comes off as something else). If I did the things he does I’d be long gone…and so would many other posters on this board, even those who by and large agree with the corporate culture of this board fully.
It’s all about presentation. He can make those same points without being insulting or using charged hyperbolic language. Again, he’s smart enough to do this since he DOES do this in other discussions. He CHOOSES not to do it in discussions in GD on one of his pet subjects…and he’s been tacitly encouraged to not modify his language or presentation by the Mods in the past because they didn’t call him on it. At this point it’s, to paraphrase, like spanking your dog with an axe because when the dog was a puppy you didn’t house train it and not it’s peeing on the carpet like it always did by now it’s not a puppy anymore and, all of a sudden you realize it’s peeing on the carpet and you don’t want it to pee on the carpet (paraphrase is from Starship Troopers IIRC). That’s where we are at…suddenly DT is picking up notes and warnings for fairly innocuous stuff because, in the past he was able to flame at will without ramification and now it’s not acceptable anymore. At least that’s my interpretation of what’s going on.
I’m suggesting that what you’re calling his “language and presentation” are the substance of his beliefs.
If he genuinely believes that - for example - that Republicans tend to oppose expanded social programs because they enjoy the thought that poor people will starve to death, then there’s nothing to “tone down”. And you can’t say “well I also think Republicans are terrible but I don’t say over the top things like that” because that’s just premised on an assumption that his real belief is “Republicans are terrible” and “they enjoy poor people starving to death” is just hyperbolic tone and language. If that’s not true and he really believes these things, then you can’t compare him to someone like yourself who doesn’t believe that.
If there are other things that he sounds more reasonable about, it may just be that he doesn’t happen to have such extreme beliefs about those things.
My position is that if he really believes those things then they should require some sort of cite or else not be said on the board because they are so inflammatory and hijack threads.
I might REALLY, honestly and truly believe (I don’t obviously) that the United States would be better off if all minorities were rounded up, sent back to where they came from, and then tortured and killed, their bodies disinterred, and then posthumously executed. Or I might really, honestly, and truly think that the mods on this board are Chinese spies who hate America and are committing espionage.
But just because I honestly have these beliefs is not a valid reason to shit all over each GD thread spewing them. If I had charts, studies, and balance sheets tending to support my beliefs, then maybe I should be given some rope (because we don’t want to suppress valid thoughts just because at first blush they might seem silly) but to baldly assert them under the guise that they are my true beliefs is not proper, IMHO.
I’m not going to get involved with whether the mods should or shouldn’t allow these things. (Myself, I tend to favor allowing more rather than less, but I’m not charged with running the boards and trying to ensure civil discourse, and perhaps I would think differently if I was.)
But I don’t think cites are a possibility here. This is not the type of thing that lends itself to cites.
In general, cites are overrated on this board. If cites would be conclusive, then there would be very few debates, except perhaps over the veracity of the sources. Inferences from cites are what the discussions are about. And inferences from cites are ultimately opinion.
In this example, the “cite” would be “Republicans tend to oppose expanding social programs”. (No need to actually link anything because everyone presumbly agrees that this is so.) The inference is that they enjoy having poor people starve. A lot of other people might think that inference is unwarranted and find other inferences more likely, but those are also just inferences, and DT finds his more compelling.
Speculation about other people’s motives - which DT is far from the only poster engaging in - is not something you can cite.
[Note: I’m not claiming that DT has ever said Republicans enjoy having poor people starve to death. It sounds like the type of thing that he might have said and which people are complaining about so I used it as an example, but I don’t specifically recall him claiming this.]
I can have extreme beliefs about different things and yet moderate my language to have a civil discussion…well, mainly. I mean, I actually DO believe that communists, for example, are lying, murdering scum and that their system of government and economics is one of the single biggest travesties of human history, but I can still say all of that in a more or less civil way and have a civilized discussion with actual communists without resorting to over the top rhetoric or calling them lying, murdering scumbags. He could do the same. I’m fairly sure, for instance, that there are many 'dopers who believe that all conservatives are everything that he says they are, but THEY are able to moderate their language to an extent that they don’t just pop off a one liner nuke in GD every time the subject of conservatives comes up. There are different ways to say something than flat out flaming every time, and he has shown that he can moderate his language on other subjects. Again, he’s not a stupid guy…he’s just like that puppy that’s been allowed to piddle all around the house but now is expected to be housebroken.
You’d be censoring your beliefs if you did that, especially if whether communists are lying murdering scumbags became relevant to the conversation.
In addition, in your case you would very rarely be in a position where you had to do that - what with the local shortage of actual communists these days. If you thought all Republicans were lying murdering scumbags it might be harder for you - they’re all over the place.
The problem in claiming to know other peoples motives, as DT does all the time, is that it kills any rational argument.
For example imagine your thread on social programs in GD. One side, presumably the Rs in this case) want to limit those. The other side, the Ds, want to expand it.
As soon as DT comes in with "Well, the Rs want all poor people dead’ or some similar crap is that the argument can no longer go on in good faith. It derails the thread with unsupportable nonsense. DT will sit there all day and insist it is literally true. However, DTs belief that it is true does not make it so. And then the thread turns into another DT train wreck and a bunch of ‘Am Not/Are Too’ kind of bullshit.
DT should have been banned a long time ago. He should be banned the next time he steps out of line in any way. But DT knows that, due to the politics of the board, he can keep doing the same thing over and over and he will just rack up some more warnings.
I don’t know if DT really believes what he spouts. And I don’t care. He is by far the worst poster on this board. He spews hate speech against those he disagrees with and gets away with it. He makes illogical and unsupportable claims in GD and gets away with it. He gets away with so much crap that would get other people banned that it really makes me wonder why he hasn’t been banned. He got 12 mod notes a years time. Hell, I’ve been on this board for 13 years and I think I have been warned twice, maybe three times. And those came back when I was drinking. Anyone else would be out on their ass. Yet, here we are in another thread about DT.
I don’t know if Jonathan Chance wants DT to be silent. I know I certainly do.
As others have stated, if Der Trihs moderated his tone, something I must admit that I am not necessarily in favor of, I suspect many who have a problem with him wouldn’t. And with that…
Slee, I think you’re largely incorrect here.
It may be a bit incendiary, but it doesn’t kill rational argument. The solution is to press the objectionable poster to support his argument. If he decides not to do so to your satisfaction, then you have the option to ignore him and continue engaging those who debate in a way you find acceptable. Others do.
There is a huge difference between ‘unsupportable’ and ‘unsupported’. I grant that Der Trihs often doesn’t bother supporting his assertions, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are wrong. I suggest that many of his assertions are supportable to varying degrees, and that even the more hyperbolic of these contain kernels of truth that some may be too uncomfortable to admit.
And, conversely, your belief that they are not doesn’t make that so, which, in my opinion, opens an avenue for another opportunity for debate.
No, he shouldn’t have.
Debatable.
I, others here and, I believe, even **Der Trihs **himself think he is on thin ice, hence this thread. He’s smart enough to know that it’ll be curtains if he doesn’t dial it back a little, and I suspect he will.
By what criteria is Der Trihs the worst poster on this board?
Whether we like it or not, it is appropriate, some believe obligatory, to sound the clarion when perceived evil goes unchecked. Der Trihs believes the Republican party is evil and has been for a long time. He states his reasons for this belief. Does that, in and of itself make him right? Nope, and even I would feel better if he supported his claims more. There exists data, however, empirical and historical, that can and should be considered before issuing a knee-jerk disclaim or worse, condemnation. Decry Der Trihs’ posting methods all you want, but understand that he has a perspective that many hold.
He makes logical, yet unsupported claims.
I haven’t searched and reviewed Der Trihs’ mod notes, but I would not be at all surprised if many of them are objections to his presentation and not his content.
And I don’t. We need people like Der Trihs here. Silencing his voice would leave an unnecessary and unfortunate vacuum.
A general comment here: This post is not meant to be absolution for or support of everything Der Trihs has ever posted. Like all humans, I’m sure he’s been on the wrong side of arguments from time to time, so don’t waste your time shoving some post of his in my face where he supported woodchipping babies or some other nonsense, in an attempt to prove how terrible he is. In the main, I believe Der Trihs is an asset to these boards.
You have named your own problem. You think “blanket statements” are legitimate since you can’t get to know all of the individuals. “Blanket statements” are logically a no-no in debating.
Your logic is the same as saying that apples and oranges are different and therefore, they can’t both be fruits. Moral people can’t be loving, kind, generous, patient, truthful, courageous, and faithful just like a good Christian?
You are right. You can’t read minds. And large groups of people rarely, if ever, have consistent actions. The effects individuals in a group have are just that – individual.
Der Trihs, which of these statements is a fact? Which is opinion? Which is a blanket statement? Which is blantantly untrue?
Abraham Lincoln was the eighteenth President of the United States.
All Union soldiers had the good of their country as their primary motive?
Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President of the United States.
Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth President of the United States.
You just can’t substitute different types of statements the way that you sometimes do and get a rational result. That isn’t debating. That’s just arguing.
Wow. I’ve stayed out of this thread, but this reply has me scratching my head…
Well, here’s your position. You are a fan of DT’s. Which is fine. But it would appear that he says many things which you not only believe in, but believe completely… and he says them in a way that you like, but don’t personally have the temerity to do so yourself. He seems to be your personal ramrod, speaker of the truth as you see it. You admit as much when you say:
In response to the example sleestak gave:
You actually believe that there is truth in a statement like this, and that people are to uncomfortable to admit it? Really? And because YOU believe in the same sort of hyperbole that DT slings, you feel that honest debate can follow? I’m amazed at how you see the world, I truly am.
If there was a similar poster on this board who posted unsupportable and unsupported views from the right, you would be all over that poster for doing the same thing that DT is doing… Which is debating in bad faith, and deliberately derailing threads. But because YOU think that DT speaks the truth, his cause is just, and his behavior should be overlooked. That’s not the way this board is supposed to work. Just because you believe something that DT says doesn’t make it true.
Or do you think it does?
It often derails rational argument, because people find themselves trying to defend some nonsense that DT has written. Yes, the entire board could put him on ignore, (except for you and a few others, I guess), but you know as well as DT does, that people tend to react to posts, even if they are from a poster like DT. I don’t know why, but it happens. The phrase DNFTT exists for a reason; people almost always seem to take the bait, and DT gets the reaction he wants.
Why do we have to continue to open other avenues of debate when the first avenue is what the debate should be about? DT throws a fly in the ointment, and you think folks should spend time debating HIS avenues? This is just strange bizarro world thinking, used to justify your admiration of DT.
Why would you suspect he will do any dialing back at all? He has shown no desire to do so in the past, and in fact, he may be unwilling or incapable of doing so. DT is wired differently than most people, and he doesn’t strike me as someone who is going to buckle under the threat of banning. Which, as far as i can tell, he hasn’t been threatened with yet. I’m not even sure he’s been threatened with a suspension, although perhaps this has been discussed by TPTB.
No, you don’t want DT to be banned for your own selfish reasons. He is your champion: the poster that says what you REALLY want to say.
Just because many people may hold DT’s perspective doesn’t make it right. It could be a good example of groupthink depending on the issue. You personally believe the Republicans are evil and must not go unchecked. Even you concede that it would be nice if he supported his claims more, but hey… He’s performing a civic duty here. And just because he has opinions that you believe many hold, doesn’t mean he should be given a pass for being an abrasive poster who does many of the things he’s accused of.
I’m almost certain that if someone started a debate about a woman’s right to choose, and someone did a right-wing DT post by stating flat out that “Dems don’t care one iota about human life, and just want society to pay for abortions because people shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. No, instead of taking the proper birth control precautions, just snuff a life out because it is inconvenient for someone to have to deal with the responsibility that they signed up for when they spread their legs. Retroactive birth control should be available to anyone who wants it. This has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. In fact, Dems encourage abortions to reduce the population of marginal types that can’t afford to take care of the children they have. however, if they choose to have the child, Dems will support that too (with tax dollars of course), because they are just creating another voter down the line… The Dems win regardless of what the woman chooses!”
Pretty ridiculous statement, right? But in your mind, if TWO people believe it, the author and another reading it, it holds some value and may have some uncomfortable truths in it. So it should be open for debate? Even if it 1) derails the original debate thread and 2) has no real supporting cites to give it any merit at all? No, that’s not what GD is supposed to be.
Well, yeah… Logical in your (and his) mind. But the problem is the “unsupported” part.
I doubt this. Mods here are pretty good at cutting through the presentation style of different posters to get to the content. If the presentation method crosses a line, yeah they will call a poster on it. But if the content is crap, that’s where they will have the larger issue.
No it wouldn’t. No single poster is bigger than the board. And the belief that someone like DT is bigger than the board gives him the reinforcement he needs to keep his behavior up. Every time it goes unchecked, in his mind he’s within the rules and doing what must be done. He will not be missed, just like many other long time posters have gone and are not missed. The list is long of once-believed irreplaceable members who have left the board for one reason or another… And the board is still here.
And many other people believe just the opposite. He is a detriment to these boards and if he will not respect the rules he should find some other place to post.
I mean, I actually DO believe that communists, for example, are lying, murdering scum and that their system of government and economics is one of the single biggest travesties of human history, but I can still say all of that in a more or less civil way and have a civilized discussion with actual communists without resorting to over the top rhetoric or calling them lying, murdering scumbags. He could do the same. I’m fairly sure, for instance, that there are many 'dopers who believe that all conservatives are everything that he says they are, but THEY are able to moderate their language to an extent that they don’t just pop off a one liner nuke in GD every time the subject of conservatives comes up. There are different ways to say something than flat out flaming every time, and he has shown that he can moderate his language on other subjects. Again, he’s not a stupid guy…he’s just like that puppy that’s been allowed to piddle all around the house but now is expected to be housebroken.