I gave up on this forum a few months ago. DT wasn’t the only reason, but he was one. Checking in this evening on a lark, I see another ATMB thread on what has historically been one of the Board’s most problematic posters. Whether DT is banned or not is no longer a concern of mine. I’ve moved on. I will say this, though. DT is overrated. Being liberal myself, I have little problem with his politics. The thing is that he posts only bumper stickers and almost no content. Rather, he’s all about Manicheism, ad hominems to all those with whom he disagrees and an organic inability to see any rationality of opposing viewpoints. Cheap stuff, easily done. If this is the Board ya’ll want, no skin off my nose. For me, though, no thanks.
Wholly moley. I thought Onomatopoeia was saying that Der represented a distinctive point of view, one that was an addition to this board, and that Der’s lack of substantiation, while unfortunate, did not invalidate this point. Which was a terrible argument in my view - if I want distinctive views I can visit crank.net.
Stink Fish Pot follows up with some possible but highly dubious arguments, accusing Onomatopoeia of reluctance to voice the unpopular views that Der does. The substantiation was terrible IMHO.
However, SFP did present a gem: he provided us with a parallel universe of version of Der, something that many have attempted but none had succeeded (to my knowledge).
That’s pretty good parody in my view. Not perfect, but better than I’ve seen before. What we need is a Great Debate pitting DT vs Parallel Universe DT. The only problem is none of us can consistently channel that other character.
Seriously SFP: that was quality parody.
DT is pitted regularly and his detractors (of which I am one) far outnumber his supporters.
Trolling gets you banned. Joking does not, usually. Hate speech against racial minorities and females will get you banned. Attacks on the motivations of Democrats and liberals should not. Such “arguments” will be challenged though - just like Der’s are- albeit at a torrential volume. And you will be obliged to follow moderator instructions inthread - just as Der does. Nor will direct attacks on other posters be permitted outside of the pit.
You won’t be able to use words like Demorat in GD - but Der doesn’t use phrases like Repugnican. Spoofing Der is harder than it looks, but SFP showed that it’s possible.
OBTW: I’ve ridiculed Der more than I have Bricker. Again, Der’s detractors far outnumber his supporters.
I’m not sure what you mean by parody, but Stink Fish Pot’s point was quite correct. Anyone who posted that the pro-abortion movement was motivated by a desire to see babies die would be banned in a few days.
No, he doesn’t - that’s the point. When he is told not to post absurd and inflammatory nonsense, he goes off to another thread and does it again. We are not supposed to argue with mod instructions outside ATMB. He’s done that too.
It baffles me how people can read the kind of thing he spouts and see a core of uncomfortable truth in it. It’s like agreeing with the guy who says the CIA is sending mind-control rays at him thru his television set.
There doesn’t seem to be anything some on the SDMB can’t rationalize.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, and can support.
False inference. I didn’t say nor imply that I believe everything Der trihs says completely.
I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘like’, but I have no problem with it.
Believe me, there is no problem with my temerity.
Nope
Yep
He is not.
This is true.
:: golf clap ::
You’re really close, but it is more that I feel Der trihs has a common view expressed distinctively, and that his lack of substantiation, although unfortunate, does not invalidate his point(s). I disagree that this is a terrible argument, but I understand your perspective.
Yep.
Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that one. 
This is a good point. I agree that Der Trihs is sincere in his beliefs even while I think he’s wrong in those beliefs. If somebody “the Nazis really hated Jews and wanted to kill them” it would not be a controversial post. Der Trihs seemingly believes that “the Republicans really hate blacks and wants to kill them” is equally true and no more controversial than the Nazi post. He just feels he’s stating a fact.
Der Trihs’ problem is that sincere belief is not a defense here. If he continues to make posts that offend a lot of other people, he’s going to end up getting banned. Your assessment of his choices seems accurate to me.
Actually what we are discussing are those of his statements that are inflammatory nonsense, and which serve no purpose in debate besides to express hatred.
We understand that you don’t buy into his stuff completely. What about the stuff he posts that is so over the top that no reasonable person could buy it? IOW, is there a reason besides that you often agree with him about other things that he should repeatedly post what amounts to hate speech?
Your problem is that you are suggesting an equivalence that doesn’t exist. There is no one on the right on the SDMB who posts the kind of thing that Der Trihs does from the left. Those types show up once in a while, but they are always banned, sooner rather than later. And no, debating whether or not there is a genetic component to intelligence among groups is not equivalent.
The bottom line is that he gets away with posting screeds that would never be tolerated for an instant were they aimed at the sacred cows of the left. Or at least he used to - the attitude seems to have changed with the new moderation. That’s a good thing, in my view. Perhaps he can learn to debate instead of spit hatred. That will be much better for GD, and if he chooses to do so in the Pit, so much the better.
But you can’t cite bullshit, because it’s bullshit. Since, as you and I agree, he makes little effort to cite his more bullshitty statements, it would better all around if he can be persuaded to stop making them.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a pretty “common view” that blacks are inferior to whites, that muslims, Arabs and terrorists are synonymous terms, and that Obama is the anti-Christ. Not seeing the "common view’ defense as having any merit on its own. Anyone who threw those “common views” out in most of the GD threads he posts in, whether he did so “distinctively” or not, would not be around here very long.
Actually John lots of people regularly make such arguments about both blacks and Muslims and several of them have been here for awhile.
Similarly, it’s worth noting that Der Trihs doesn’t get nearly as much flack for his misogyny as he does for his attacks on all the other groups he has paranoid feelings about.
That’s it precisely: if a/the poster can’t/won’t support/substantiate the point, it’s not unfortunate, it does invalidate the point and belongs in In My Humble Opinion or Mundane Things I Must Point out but not Great Debates.
No, they don’t. I know you think they do, but they don’t.
I find neither the “he says what a lot of people think” nor the “he really believes what he says” argument to be compelling or relevant in the least, despite how often they are applied in defense of Der Trihs.
Children express a lot of beliefs that are commonly held by children. “You won’t let me go to the sleepover because you hate me!” “My teacher is the worst teacher in the whole wide world!”
These claims are expressed with heartfelt conviction, and may even contain a “kernel of truth”— we don’t hate you, but we really don’t like you very much when you act like a little shit— but it doesn’t make them valid or useful.
Most of us, God willing, look back on some of the things we were so convinced of at say, age 14 (duh, it’s like, so obvious!) and realize that there was a lot we weren’t privy to or didn’t understand. We revise, or at least refine, our views based on new information and an adult comprehension of complexity, nuance and uncertainty, and we feel pretty silly about some of the things we were so sure about. But some take another path from that point, and some take no path at all.
Well said.
None of this has anything to do with About This Message Board or even DT so much; it’s extension of other arguments better suited to other forum areas.
So it’s time to carry those arguments to those other areas.
Precisely.
So, are you saying that matters of rhetoric and expression on this message board belong in Great Debates or in IMHO? I disagree with that, but it’s not my call. Would this be an appropriate question to send around the mod loop? Or perhaps I misunderstand.
If you are saying this belongs in the Pit, I would respectfully note that there are issues of rhetoric and expression in discussion.
My take is that these topics match the ATMB description pretty well. Moreover the forum should not be limited to opinions regarding optimal moderation but should also encompass, “Best practices on this message board”. But I would accept any framework, provided of course I understand it properly.
ATMB should not be used an an extension platform for issues/arguments that started in other areas and/or are appropriate in other fora.
Getting clarification on a point; yes; asking about where a discussion goes, certainly. But the discussion itself goes back to the more appropriate forum area.
I’m not seeing the distinction either. The only thing I see is the discussion a few posts up where the debate was about whether certain comments about blacks/Muslims are inflammatory racism which should not be permitted or simply good debate fodder and should be permitted.
I don’t know how else to flesh out the distinctions raised in this thread without going into hypotheticals to see how one poster’s style is similar to other arguments made. Nobody is debating the merits of gun control or the relative intelligence of different races and whether those characteristics are genetic or societal.
If this discussion doesn’t belong in this forum, then it certainly can’t go in another forum where discussion of moderation is prohibited. Under such a standard, the discussion we are having about whether a certain poster’s argument type is the same, better, or worse than other arguments that are moderated cannot be discussed anywhere on the board.
It would be like if there was a forum for cats and another for dogs. Then a poster comes along wanting to discuss how his dog and his cat play with each other and is told by the moderators that his thread doesn’t belong in either forum.
The only guidance we have is that since this is about board moderation, it must go here. Since it will naturally touch on peripheral issues (which the substance of I still contend is not being debated), where should this hybrid thread reside?