How does my post indicate that I “constantly and reflexively allow my politics to influence my ethical judgments about any issue large or small”? How does this thread indicate this about any significant number of people, and who, specifically, are they?
Assuming this post is offered to to show that I admitted to goading my political opponents… no. It’s true that I Pitted by reference some people who are my political opponents. But by no means did I Pit all of them, nor does Pitting equate to goading.
Sorry.
No, a cartoon of a lawyer pointing at a kangaroo does not refresh my memory.
But pitting someone pre-emptively could be seen as goading. By saying “I pit this person, oh, and these people who are going to disagree with me, you idiots” you’re certainly goading them into responding.
Oh, c’mon now, Bricker, the very title of the thread is clearly intended as a goad. Its as if you were choosing the right word…“complain”, “protest”, “object”… and you pick “whine”. You knew the button was there when you pounded on it!
Save batting the big, brown, innocent eyes for the jury, counselor.
Bravo! I also wish we could talk about black box voting machines without Bricker and “THE USUAL FUCKING SUSPECTS” shouting about tin foil hats and demanding certainty before considering the issue.
Not sorry for the hijack, the OP is fucking rediculous.
[list=A][li]The part in quote marks is something that you manufactured and are apparently trying to attribute to me. You are, in other words, misquoting me, possibly inadvertently, but possibly not. [] This thread indicates it about a significant number of people because a significant number of people have posted in exactly the manner described. []Bricker has already listed several of the names. In other words, this stupid and dishonest semantic hijack has already been attempted. Try to keep up, dummy. [*]You are a fucking moron. Anyone who posts garbage about how there isn’t a vocal cabal of knee-jerk left-wing dolts whose response to a thread is entirely determined by the political affiliation of the first person named in it is a fucking moron. You have so posted, ergo you are a fucking moron. Q.E.D.[/list][/li]Gad, you’re pathetic. This is like arguing with a creationist - no matter how hard your silly nose is rubbed in the feces of the Usual Suspects, you keep insisting it smells like a rose.
You want to pretend that rjung isn’t a mindless master of the content-free, three line drive-by? He is.
You want to pretend that Der Trihs isn’t a drooling cretin whose immediate reaction to anything American is to hate it? He is.
You want to pretend that Guinastasia didn’t dismiss the OP because it wasn’t anti-Bush? She did.
You want to pretend ElvisL1ves isn’t a direct and proven liar? He is.
You want to pretend that Diogenes the Cynic isn’t a hysteric whose positions are so extreme even the other lefties don’t like it? He is.
You want to pretend that RedFury isn’t given to surfing the left-wing blogs to find fuel for his hatred of the US and Israel and vomiting it up onto the SDMB? He does.
And every fucking one of them is a left-winger, and vocal on the Dope.
Is it universal? Of course not - there are some reasonable types even on the left side, and some have posted in this thread. And some have even spoken to condemn the petty cruelty mentioned in the OP.
But go ahead and try to claim that if some Republican were making children cry and putting it in a political ad, you and the Usual Suspects would shrug their shoulders and say that it was no big deal
It would make you look even more stupid, but go ahead anyway.
Regards,
Shodan
The title of the OP is: “Make Toddlers Cry - It’s OK, Since It’s For the Anti-Bush Cause!”
The word ‘whine’ does not appear anywhere in it. Nor does it appear in the text of the OP.
I think we have to renew the question of what you’re smoking - I agree that I couldn’t handle it, whatever it is.
By that definition, any Pit of another poster is “goading.”
A very insightful and well-composed post.
I want to reply to this paragraph in particular because I think it’s very true. The few posters that are “rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush” tend to overshadow the majority who are simply anti-Bush – that is, opposed to his policies as a matter of merit, but not claiming he’s evil, or a poor excuse for a human being, or some such.
The problem is as you frame it: when the pile-ons begin, it’s very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Attempts to argue the merits of positions are drowned out by name-calling and insults.
That shouldn’t relieve me of the responsibility to keep trying, though, and I’ll try to work on that better in the future.
I invite you to bring this commentary and attitude into the various threads and throwaway posts that have claimed a stolen election. Seriously - it would be heartening to see and be able to respond to this highly reasonable statement in those contexts…
Yes, to some extent. However, when you pit someone specifically, the OP being goading is something you really can’t avoid. It’s pretty much entwined with writing a Pit thread altogether.
In this case, however, you pitted people for something they hadn’t done yet; your OP acted as a challenge to the people you pre-emptively pitted. There’s a big difference between “I pit so-and-so, for doing this” and “I pit so-and-so, because they’ll post in this thread and show their stupidity”. You wouldn’t consider that more goading?
Pit threads on other posters can be for observed behavior. Pre-emptive pittings “I know you guys WILL do XYZ” are a completely different animal, and far more likely to be offensive and turn into train wrecks. The likelyhood of said pittings going off the rails increases in direct proportion to the sanctimonious attitude displayed by the OP and with an inverse square relationship with the accuracy of the accusations.
Enjoy,
Steven
Go read post 434. When come back, bring apology.
Not logically possible. Even if every poster you mentioned posted in an incredibly idiotic and hateful and Bush-bashing and mindless fashion in this thread, that couldn’t possibly demonstrate the above point, because the above point (stated by me, agreed to by you, quoted by me) requires that they respond that way to all issues. ALL. A very important word. I like to think that I’m a reasonable guy, overall. But I’ve posted over 3,500 times on the SDMB. I’m sure that in at least one of those posts, heck, probably a few dozen, I allowed my politics to influence my ethical judgments. I’m sure everyone has. But just because someone was a braindead Bush-bashing asshole in this thread (and I’m not conceding that anyone was), that can not POSSIBLY demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates. (It could, at best, be evidence for such a claim.)
I want to state for the record that it was Shodan who began the name-calling. My last post was questions posted in a fairly tone-neutral fashion. His response calls me a dummy, and later an fucking moron.
Anyhow, as I was asking you to list who you think the “Usual Suspects” are, once and for all, it’s fairly irrelevant what questions Bricker may or may not have answered that involve listing names. And in no way does that make my question “stupid”, or “dishonest”, or “semantic”, or a “hijack”. In fact, it’s none of those. 0 for 4. (Actually, technically, I suppose it might be a hijack.) If your claim is that there’s a liberal cabal on this board, it’s a completely reasonable question, perhaps the MOST reasonable question, to ask who these people are. I mean, unless the mods are in on this conspiracy and allow members of the Usual Suspects to constantly change IDs and have sock puppets, it’s quite impossible for them to keep their identities secret.
Two points:
(1) I said very clearly in my first post in this thread that “there are a FEW posters on the SDMB who are rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush”. I suppose a “few” could qualify as a cabal. If that’s all you mean, well, then I guess we agree, although your posts tend to imply to me that the usual suspects represent the consensus opinion of liberal dopers, not a tiny fringe. I mean, if it’s just a tiny fringe, if the “usual suspects” are 5 or 10 people, then why do you complain about them so much? “Oh, noes, there are 5 or 10 total idiots! Ack! Wah!”. Well, DUH. Welcome to living in a human society.
(2) You are also implying that all anti-Bush threads automatically receive support, and all pro-Bush threads automatically receive disagreement and abuse. (By “receive” in this context, I’m talking about the general tenor of the majority of responses.) This is demonstrably and factually false. I agree that it’s a trend. Why wouldn’t it be? More dopers are anti-Bush than pro-Bush. Thus, more responses will be anti-Bush than pro-Bush. But your implication is that this anti-Bush-ness is mindless and automatic. And as there HAVE been threads in which someone posted an anti-Bush OP, and most responses said “well, I sure don’t like Bush, but this OP is idiotic”, that immediately proves that your claim is false. (Would you like me to link to such threads? I recall at least two off the top of my head. I can’t claim there have been many, but then, there are enough legitimate gripes with Bush that it’s rare for someone to come in and whine about, say, his love of Baloney sandwiches.)
An odd claim, given that usually when I ask you for more detail about the Usual Suspects, you just ignore me. In fact, we’ve never HAD this argument before (as far as I can recall), so it’s hard to see how you can know “what it’s like” already.
More than about any other Doper, I think he fits your claim. If there were 50 or 100 of him on the board, (a) your claim would be utterly correct, and (b) I would have stopped posting here years ago.
Honestly, I haven’t formed much of an impression or opinion of these two posters. But nothing you’re saying about them has anything to do with reflexive Bush-bashing.
Insert the word “sometimes”, or maybe “often”, into this sentence a few times, and I’d agree with it.
I can’t say I recognize his username at all.
How do you know that?
So you agree with Bricker that making-a-toddler cry is such vile petty cruelty that all reasonable individuals would automatically condemn it, and the only reason one might NOT condemn it would be due to a severe case of Bush-hatred-induced-stupidity?
(a) A political ad is a slightly different animal from a work of art with a political message (but that’s just a quibble)
(b) read my first post in this thread. I suspect there are probably a FEW people who would do what you say. But that’s because making toddlers momentarily cry, and when that is and is not justified by the ends, is a fairly morally ambiguous question. As for myself, I don’t think it’s a big deal, and I wouldn’t think it was a big deal if a Republican artist did it. In fact, to be quite honest, if precisely the same piece of art were made precisely the same way with precisely the same title, by a pro-Bush artist, but their point was meant ironically, ie, “all the democrats do is cry like babies”, I think it would be a far more clever piece of art.
Thanks 
I hate to respond to such a complimentary post in a way that is likely to shatter our brief accord by perhaps sounding like an anti-Bush nutcase myself, but… to me the difference is not HOW anti-Bush someone is, but the extent to which they judge all information through that filter. I think it’s perfectly possible for someone to believe that Bush is a “poor excuse for a human being” or even “evil” (depending on how you define “evil”, which is a debate in its own right), and still be a reasonable, intelligent person worthy of interaction and debate. The question is whether they go from “Bush is evil” to “every action ever taken by an Republican, or even any not-sufficiently-anti-Bush non-Republican, is automatically wrong, evil, and should be opposed. And any bad thing anyone ever says about Bush is automatically true, and should be supported”.
(Actually, there are a few other flavors of nutty anti-Bush-ness, for instance, the “Bush did X? Well, clearly the only reason he did that is BECAUSE HE’S EVIL” flavor, and the “something unpleasant happened somewhere in the world? Well, it must have been MASTERMINDED BY KARL ROVE as part of his scheme to, uhh, do something”. But that’s beside the point.)
Wow. I can’t believe y’all have gone on about this for 12 pages. I would like to make an observation regarding what this board is like from a conservative perspective. The libs may think that the “usual suspects” Shodan listed above are an abberation from the usual reasoned debate, and to a certain extent, that is true. However, what you do not see is that it is the general support & tacit approval most of them get from the other liberals on the board is what keeps them going. I am not saying that people like Der Trihs are not called to the carpet by other liberals, because that does happen. But most of the time, it does not.
It is very, very easy to argue your point of view when you can gaurantee that at least 10 people will jump in and help you out with arguments, cites, etc., all supporting that POV.
It is very, very easy to get away with casual mentions of various claims/positions, without giving support, when you know that most people will agree with you, and the ones who don’t do not wish to get started onto something that is bound to become a major pile-on, because of the “at least 10 people” rule above.
It is very, very easy to become smug about believing you are in the morally and politically correct camp when you have so many people camping out with you.
If the balance of opinion was tilted the other way, believe me, it would be a lot tougher than you think. People like the aforementioned usual suspects would be running away with their tails between their legs…or not have the guts to make their statements at all.
It’s only 10 pages for me, so ner. 
Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything Sarahfeena’s said here. To provide a more countered view, though, I have to point out that being in the minority doesn’t necessitate less support. While it’s undeniable that liberals make up the majority of the boards, that fact also means you can’t simply seperate people in to “conservatives” and “liberals”. You couldn’t say, for example, that **Miller ** and Der Trihs are going to agree on everything, nor Bricker and duffer. But because there’s many more liberals on the board, there are many more “subsets” of liberal political ideas among them than conservatives; many more cliques, for lack of a better word.
Basically, what i’m trying to say is, a conservative on the board is much more likely to recieve support from a significant number of his/her fellow conservatives than a liberal is, since many more viewpoints are contained within that group.
In addition, being in the minority gives a sense of protectiveness of one’s own; after all, if one person in a majority is proved wrong, the “cause” itself isn’t hurt that badly. But in a minority, each person is much more visible. This can lead to other members of that minority having extra motivation to support them.
Gee, Sarahfeena, what a morally superior person you are to those of us whose strength of conviction comes solely from our perception of agreement by the majority. Those of you expressing conservative opinions in the face of such lambasting sure are better people who don’t go tucking their tails between their legs like I surely would if I didn’t think everyone else would agree with me.
In fact, I wouldn’t even know what to think if I couldn’t get a read on the majority opinion.
Actually, thank you for offering up yet another post committing the same error as the OP - predicting the less-than-attractive behavior of your opponents. Isn’t it possible that the OP expressed a belief and made a prediction, both of which were simply erroneous? Having the strength of your convictions is no substitute for basing your convictions in reality.
It’s not about wanting everyone to agree with you…it’s about the pile-on. It is really hard to get into a discussion around here if you are taking the unpopular side, because you have to have an unbelieveably comprehensive knowledge of the subject, know in an instant where to find the cites you need, etc., because there is no one else to help you out.
That’s not what I am saying at all. It’s about verbally defending it. You may have done everything you need to do to form your opinion in a perfectly reasonable way…but to be able to defend it without support from others is much more difficult than I think you realize.
Very true. In this thread, at least twice people have complained about my lack of response to their questions – not seeming to realize that they only have to respond to ME; I in turn have to respond to everyone on the posting bandwagon on their side. I do try to get to every substantive post, but it doesn’t happen with complete effectiveness all the time.
Well, exactly. Threads don’t follow an easy course…there are always several conversations going on at once. It tends to be one or maybe two conservatives, all trying to answer questions from lots of liberals. It makes it very difficult to follow, to answer all the questions, and to know enough about the fine nuances of the subject (or have ready statistics/cites handy) to hold your own in the conversation, without others to jump in to help out.