Make Toddlers Cry - It's OK, Since It's For the Anti-Bush Cause!

The BBQ Pit
461

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I take it you’ve never read threads debating gun control.

Now, I will agree with you that people who have liberal orientations to political issues outnumber conservatives here. But I don’t wander through a liberal fantasy world, and my opinion on many topics here is in the minority. It isn’t all that difficult or demanding, if you’ve really given thought to your position on a topic. If you’re challenged by others’ points, that’s part of it being a debate.

As to not responding to all posts by others, I do have sympathy for that. It’s unfortunate, but oftentimes, and particularly when lesser lights are involved in the debate, it seems that the posts being ignored would be the more difficult to handwave away. I don’t see Bricker as one who does that, by the way. I take him at his word that it was difficult to keep up. His characterization of others as hyenas, however, was unfortunate, and called up the “woe is me, poor besieged conservative” image that is so unappealing, yet so prevalent among conservatives (even when they are in the majority).

Which reminds me - appeals to the majority have been the basis for entire conservative movements in the past (e.g. “The Moral Majority”). I would be hesitant to depict conservatives as heroes who persevere simply on the basis of truth and justice and the American way.

462

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, smugness come from within. While I have noticed a certain smugness among those who are comfortably in the majority, I have noted no less smugness among those who take minority views. There might almost be a direct correlation between the smug self-righteousness of those who insist that they are holding out for “Truth” against the hordes of complacent majoritarians and the smaller size of their “group.”. (I am unwilling to attempt to quantify this phenomenon, as I see such an attempt as nothing more than a trigger to have more people fling insults at others, but I do not think that accusations that smugness provides specific support among the majority have much traction when it is a pretty universal trait regardlesss whether one is in the majority or minority.)

OTOH, while I was a bit disappointed in the tone of Bricker’s OP, (I would categorize the final paragraph as unnecessary to his general complaint and felt it was a bit of baiting), it hardly rose to the level of trolling or any of the other accusations that have kept this nonsense roiling along for page after page.

463

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/quote]
I’ve never quite understood why i am, as a leftist or a liberal, somehow compelled or obligated to condemn and decry every unsavory thing that comes out of another leftist or liberal’s mouth.

If, to take an example, duffer makes a comment that i think is stupid or pointless, i don’t automatically assume that Bricxker or Shodan agree with him or support that particular point. Sure, if one of those guys comes out and explicitly expresses approval of what he’s said, that’s different, but i don’t expect them to go around disavowing every comment they don’t agree with that is made by another conservative.

There have been threads started on these Boards to the tune of “Look at this [insert bad thing here]. I’m waiting for all [liberals or conservatives] to condemn this action.” I’ve always thought such threads were pretty pointless, whether they come from the left or right; the OP for this thread seemed to be of the same genre, and now you’re making a similar argument. It’s all rather silly.

464

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I take it you’ve never read threads debating gun control.
[/QUOTE]
Nope.

Hentor, I never said that all liberals walk in lockstep. I certainly never said that you, personally do (you weren’t even in **Shodan’s ** list of “usual suspects.” I agree that it is possible to hold ones’ own in the conversation, but you can’t really be telling me that it is just as easy to do it when you are one against, say, 10 or 15 people? I find that I can do it on some topics, and not others…it depends on, as I say, how steeped you are in the specific subject at hand. Obviously, being challenged is part of the debate, but obviously, a whole team being challenged is easier than one person being challenged. Sometimes it’s like playing 10-on-1 basketball.

I’m not trying to do that at all. My only point is that it is very easy to dismiss the “usual suspects” as not having an impact on the board, when it is perfectly obvious from the other side that they DO have an impact.

465

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, smugness come from within. While I have noticed a certain smugness among those who are comfortably in the majority, I have noted no less smugness among those who take minority views. There might almost be a direct correlation between the smug self-righteousness of those who insist that they are holding out for “Truth” against the hordes of complacent majoritarians and the smaller size of their “group.”. (I am unwilling to attempt to quantify this phenomenon, as I see such an attempt as nothing more than a trigger to have more people fling insults at others, but I do not think that accusations that smugness provides specific support among the majority have much traction when it is a pretty universal trait regardlesss whether one is in the majority or minority.)
[/QUOTE]
You are right that smugness comes from within. I just think it’s easier to form that smugness when you tend to be around a lot of people who agree with you. Believe me, I have seen the same phenomenon around people who listen to conservative radio, as well. It has nothing to do with which side you are on, but it comes from not being challenged enough.

466

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I certainly never said that you, personally do (you weren’t even in **Shodan’s ** list of “usual suspects.”
[/QUOTE]
Interesting, given your assertion about people not being critical enough of their own side, that you seem to assume that Shodan’s list of “usual suspects” are, in fact, guilty of what he accuses them. That assumes facts not in evidencce, as far as i can tell.

467

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It has nothing to do with which side you are on, but it comes from not being challenged enough.
[/QUOTE]
That’s something I can definetly agree with. Obviously if you’re wrong, a challegne can help you change your position, but even when you’re correct a challenge can help you refine your argument and your ideas. Sadly, I seem to be more of the former than the latter. :wink:

468

I, for one, am not smug because I share the views of the majority of the posters here, especially because there are are many of those views I don’t share. I’m smug because I’m usually right.

469

[QUOTE=mhendo]
Interesting, given your assertion about people not being critical enough of their own side, that you seem to assume that Shodan’s list of “usual suspects” are, in fact, guilty of what he accuses them. That assumes facts not in evidencce, as far as i can tell.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s just say that I think they tend to have some of the more extreme leftist views, that’s all. I don’t think even they would argue with that.

470

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
My only point is that it is very easy to dismiss the “usual suspects” as not having an impact on the board, when it is perfectly obvious from the other side that they DO have an impact.
[/QUOTE]

A few comments…

(1) “The usual suspects” is an incredibly NONuseful way to talk about things, because of its vagueness. If you say “Der Trihs and Diogenes do X”, then I am free to agree or disagree or not care or what have you. If you say “the usual suspects do X”, then I have no way of knowing who you’re talking about, whether it includes me, whether I should feel personally attacked, whether I should defend myself, etc. Furthermore, there’s a big difference between a board in which 0.1% of liberals are usual suspects, in which case, who cares at all, there are always idiots, vs. a board in which 5% of liberals are usual suspects, and a board in which 40% of liberals are usual suspects.

(2) While it may be frustrating for you to get 10-to-1 piled on, it’s just as frustrating for someone who is trying to debate with you, but who you can’t respond to. Not that I see any way to get out of this situation, other than recruiting more thinking conservative members. (I suppose we could raise the subscription fee high enough that must liberals, being unemployed welfare-abusers, wouldn’t be able to afford it :slight_smile: )

(3) I should point out, on the topic of smugness, that the more liberals there are, the more STUPID liberals there are. Just as it makes it easy for us to assume that what we believe to be true is true, just because so many people around agree that it’s true, it’s also easier for you to believe that dumb liberal stereotypes are true, because whereever you turn, hey, there’s at least one dumb liberal.

471

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This argument suggests that a corollary should be true - that posts by right-wingers should by necessity have evolved to the point where for sheer self-defense they are extremely well-constructed with recourse to proper cites and relevant links. But I don’t see any evidence that right-wingers’ posts are generally superior in this regard to leftists’ posts. Sloppiness is just as common on the right as on the left, and I give you as evidence not only the OP for this thread, but this one as well.

I can sympathize with the difficulties of defending an unpopular proposition. I’ve been on the receiving end from the majority in a number of debates, and it’s not particularly fun. I don’t however recall feeling the need to wail about the “hyenas” stalking my position* or to excuse my lack of responsiveness on the grounds that there are just too many on the opposing side to pay attention to, or that their arguments are not “substantive” (“insubstantial” is not synonymous with “too tough to refute”).

If “hyenas” are pouncing on one’s arguments, maybe that’s because they are giving off the stench of a rotting carcass.

472

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Go read post 434. When come back, bring apology.

[/quote]
You wrote post 434. I did not.

I guess the misattribution was deliberate after all.

Gosharoonies, a left-winger being deliberately dishonest in a effort to derail a Pitting of someone being anti-Bush. Who would ever have predicted it?

It is an important word. It is also a word that you made up and attributed to my posts.

Not in this thread. In this thread, you are both dishonest and stupid.

One of the Usual Suspects, in other words.

Two things I’ve pointed out before, and which bear repeating -[ul][li]It is too easy debating knee-jerk liberals. No matter how outrageous the claim, some idiot will show up pretty shortly and demonstrate that it is perfectly valid. [*]Every time you condemn the Usual Suspects as fools and liars, some idiot shows up and acts huffy because you didn’t include him. And does everything in his power to show that he richly deserves inclusion in the Shit Head Hall of Fame. Congratulations on your membership.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

473

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Two things I’ve pointed out before, and which bear repeating -[ul][li]It is too easy debating knee-jerk liberals. No matter how outrageous the claim, some idiot will show up pretty shortly and demonstrate that it is perfectly valid. [*]Every time you condemn the Usual Suspects as fools and liars, some idiot shows up and acts huffy because you didn’t include him. And does everything in his power to show that he richly deserves inclusion in the Shit Head Hall of Fame. Congratulations on your membership.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

The amazing thing is his total inability to see that his whole Usual Suspects gig is a massive case of projection.

Daniel

474

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You are right that smugness comes from within. I just think it’s easier to form that smugness when you tend to be around a lot of people who agree with you. Believe me, I have seen the same phenomenon around people who listen to conservative radio, as well. It has nothing to do with which side you are on, but it comes from not being challenged enough.
[/QUOTE]
It’s interesting that you bring up talk radio. I know that when I listen to liberal talk radio, I’m listening for the topics to be supported, and I’m dissatisfied when they aren’t. I think that I am not unusual among liberals in this, and it’s my opinion that this is why liberal talk radio hasn’t developed the way conservative talk radio has. I would not generalize your experiences with listeners of conservative talk radio to liberals.

I also have a theory that conservative talk radio is/was as popular as it was because of the “woe is me” besieged mentality of many conservatives. “Here’s a guy (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) who speaks directly to me and to my concerns. Megadittos!”

475

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
If “hyenas” are pouncing on one’s arguments, maybe that’s because they are giving off the stench of a rotting carcass.
[/QUOTE]
Nice! I take back all those mean things I thought about you.

476

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
A few comments…

(1) “The usual suspects” is an incredibly NONuseful way to talk about things, because of its vagueness. If you say “Der Trihs and Diogenes do X”, then I am free to agree or disagree or not care or what have you. If you say “the usual suspects do X”, then I have no way of knowing who you’re talking about, whether it includes me, whether I should feel personally attacked, whether I should defend myself, etc. Furthermore, there’s a big difference between a board in which 0.1% of liberals are usual suspects, in which case, who cares at all, there are always idiots, vs. a board in which 5% of liberals are usual suspects, and a board in which 40% of liberals are usual suspects.
[/QUOTE]
I agree it’s vague, but I was specifically referring (in my OP on this), to the list Shodan put together in post #447. It was deliberately kind of a vague reference, because I was actually thinking about your post:

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
I will repeat something I’ve said before… there are a FEW posters on the SDMB who are rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush. And there are a LOT of posters on the SDMB who are anti-Bush. And I think the SDMBers who are pro-Bush, who (understandably) find it frustrating to be outnumbered and piled-on, tend to unintentionally conflate those two facts, and start act as if there are a LOT of posters who are rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush.
[/QUOTE]
and Bricker’s reply…

[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
This is what actually inspired me. I think Bricker is right here…it is really hard to maintain your composure. Some people may be giving thoughtful arguments, and meanwhile you’re fending off being called a baby killer or some such by Der Trihs.

A brilliant idea. I’m going to suggest it in ATMB! :wink:

Never thought about it quite that way, but I think you are right.

477

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
It’s interesting that you bring up talk radio. I know that when I listen to liberal talk radio, I’m listening for the topics to be supported, and I’m dissatisfied when they aren’t.
[/QUOTE]
Well, then, I guess YOU are the one who is morally superior!

I agree that some conservative programs do not encourage debate (I have said before that this is why I don’t listen to Rush, for example). Some, however, do engage in debate regularly, and the format of the show is geared towards this. Much more interesting radio, IMO.

478

[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
If only I had time to write an OP about Republican iniquity that trivial.

One thing of many that Suskind mentions in The One Percent Solution is that our bombing of the Al-Jazeera offices in Afghanistan was deliberate; we blew them up because we didn’t like their reporting.

If the authorization came from the President or Vice-President, I’d consider that an impeachable offense: abuse of power. I read about that a few weeks ago, in Froomkin’s column in the WaPo. You’ve seen my thread about that? No, you haven’t.

The other day, Condi Rice was saying absurd things about how we were witnessing in Lebanon the birth-pangs of a new Middle East, and how important it was to keep on pushing into that new Middle East, and not slide back to the old one. Excuse me, but can we rewind to 2002, and skip the violence and destruction this time forward? I bet you didn’t see my Pit thread about that either.

Today, Rumsfeld said to a Senate committee that he “never painted a rosy picture” of how Iraq was going. You haven’t seen my thread about that, either, although I did have the energy to post some counterexamples at DailyKos, if you’re interested.

And there’s my non-existent thread about how the Credit Union National Association - a group that should be about as white-hat as a business group can be - is publishing outright lies in order to help Joe Lieberman hang onto his Senate seat.

Or my equally non-existent thread about the folks who think it’s just a little innocent hyperbole to talk about the need to lynch the Supreme Court majority in Hamdan.

The fact is, the shit generated by the right is falling too thick and fast, these days, to worry about something on the level of Republicans making babies cry in an anti-Dem commercial.

479

I should add that I don’t want to debate any of those issues here; I’m just pointing out to Shodan how little attention I’d have reason to devote to a spitball amidst a shitstorm.

480

[QUOTE=Shodan]
You wrote post 434. I did not.

I guess the misattribution was deliberate after all.

snip

[/QUOTE]

Now wait a minute Shodan. Although he wrote the first quote, you replied that the quote was true. That makes you responsible for agreeing with the quote and asserting the point. Stop being dishonest here.