FinnAgain, good effort. But don’t you see? There’s no point in replying to a twit. They feed off of it.
See, this is the sort of post that Polerius and Tomndebb were talking about. See how little it adds to even a pit thread? Do you see how lame this backhanded attempt at an insult is?
I would really love to see this sort of post go the way of pulls up a chair and watches the fight
I sure hope I’m misunderstanding you Liberal. (It’s possible, since I haven’t read the GD link.)
First of all, just because Hitchens is an unreliable critic of Michael Moore (something, that BTW, is hardly common knowledge), doesn’t mean he’s an unreliable critic of Mother Teresa.
More to the point, Hitchens commands a good deal more respect than, say, either Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. This doesn’t mean that Hitchens is right. (And, BTW, I no longer read the guy at Slate because, well, I don’t consider him a reliable source. Or especially entertaining, for that matter.)
Rather, it means that airing his views --and refuting them where appropriate-- advances the fight against ignorance.
The best antidote to bad or mediocre speech (Hitchens, IMHO) is more speech.
Hm. I guess we’re talking about a Hitchens citation as evidence of bad faith. Again, I don’t buy it: AFAIK, Hitchens has a decent reputation (probably undeserved, but that’s just MHO).
Er, Harborwolf, I think Redfury was implying:
“There’s no point in replying to a twit. They feed off of it.” = DNFTT,
except that the former is technically within the rules.
At any rate, I think it would be best for this twit meme to die a quick death, preferably in this thread.
Sometimes, I thinki it has its uses Harbor. At least in the Pit, one should be able to say “She’s an idiot. Arguing with her is like arguing with a brick wall.”
The two acronyms really are different.
Trolls are here just to stir shit up, they are bannable and they love attention. You shouldn’t reply to them because that’s exactly what they’re looking for.
Twits… well, do you really need to know why it’s not worth it to respond to them?
I’m not advocating any changes in GD rules (why would I? I haven’t been there in a while).
If the board wants to try “Referee Rules”* , though, I would recommend it be tried as an option for the original poster (which must be initialized in the OP), during a limited-time evaluation period.
- Referee Rules: Mod has the right to lock the thread for, um 6/12/24/whatever hours, if (s)he thinks things are getting out of hand, in his or her subjective opinion.
Precisely. Though through no fault of mine.
How is this different than 98% of the threads on this board? It is pretty common practice in any casual argument (as opposed to a formal debate) to cite sources one likes in ways that support one’s arguments. It is not an “indisputable academic argument” but a bunch of people trying to persuade others on a message board. As to the conflicts between Chatterjee and Hitchens, I would only see that as an issue if one contradicted the other or one denied the evidence of the other. I see that as qualitatively different from truncating a quotation in a way that reverses the intent of that quotation. It is generally up to the opponents in a thread to check the tactics that the other is using and call them on missteps, logical or rhetorical. I do not see why a Mod needs to step into such a situation. I spend too much time on this board, now, without adding to my responsibilities the need to cross-check every citation on every topic on every thread to see whether each citation has met some rigorous standard of objective fair play.
You are correct, for example that the Wikipedia article is labeled controversial–a point that any participant in that thread will see simply by clicking on the link as well as a point that you mentioned in that thread. However, a number of charges laid against Mother Teresa have not yet been rebutted either in the thread or in the Wikipedia article: the collection of enormous sums of money with no accounting for its disbursement; the failure to administer minimum levels of analgesics to those in pain; the reluctance or decision to ignore the Dr. Fox’s offer to establish guidelines for triage. I do not know whether those charges are true, false, or exaggerations. I also do not see how or why that is a Moderator’s job to discover the level of truth of those claims. Such claims should normally be hashed out by the thread’s participants. If Dr. Fox, who wrote the Lancet article, had later written a follow-up article that recanted all his original claims, then that is a point to be cited by the defenders of Mother Teresa, not by the SDMB staff. If a poster claimed to quote the doctor’s hypothetical follow-up article and changed “I withdraw my accusations” to “I stand by my accusations,” then we have a matter for a Mod to investigate.
Similarly, Hitchens may truly be the scum of the earth, but the question is not whether he is a good person, but whether he has presented facts when condemning Mother Teresa. Chatterjee may have condemned Hitchens’s presentation as “sensationalist,” but I have seen no statement presented from Chatterjee that described Hitchens as having published errors of fact. “I am not happy with how Hell’s Angel turned out, especially its sensationalist approach…” hardly rises to the level of eliminating Hitchens’s report as an accurate presentation of Mother Teresa’s actions. So how does this become a matter of Moderating? (It may be hypocritical for some posters to embrace Hitchens when discussing Mother Teresa while scorning him on the topic of Michael Moore. Again, how does this require the intervention of a Moderator? It would seem to me that any poster could point out that if the same poster embraces and rejects Hitchens, that poster has a credibility problem.) If you are implying that the fact that Chatterjee did not like the “sensationalist” nature of Hell’s Angel somehow discredits the information in that work, I am afraid I do not accept that premise. If Chatterjee has condemned Hitchens for inserting lies into his work, then that would call into question a citation linking Chatterjee and Hitchens.
I would oppose this rule. Online reuptations are earned. This type of rule would force the slate to be wiped clean between posts. Consider the ramifications if lekatt, or Seethruart, or Justhink, or any other well-known kook were to take advantage of this rule.
I can understand the frustration of posters on the recieving end of a pile-on like Sam Stone describes, but to muzzle posters seems the wrong way to go about it. Pile-ons where all the detractors are shrill ideologues reflects more on them than on the person they are trying to bring down. I believe the average reader in GD, or the board in general, can tell the difference between a thoughtful and fact-supported position and mindless bashing.
If something must be done, then I think it would be safest to do it in the name of keeping the thread on-topic. In the chain of posts used as an example by Sam a moderator could say “Posters B, C, D, E, and F, the topic of this thread is [Topic] not your opinions, however justified or unjustified, of Poster A. If you want to talk about your opinion of Poster A, then take it elsewhere(probably the Pit). Either address the topic or don’t bother posting in this thread again.”
The on-topic enforcement at the SDMB is remarkably lax for a moderated discussion forum. I realize some hijacks take on a life of their own and have sparked some of the SDMB’s most memorable threads(Ah, the 1920’s style “Turdburglar”), but this is unlikely to happen when the hijack is one questioning the character, analytical capabilities, or motives of fellow posters.
Enjoy,
Steven
Too much work for moderators; too easily abused and “played for” (like filibusters); too subjective; too likely to produce ridiculously pedantic disputations, counter-disputations, appeals and counter-appeals; too much pressure on mods to be absolutely impartial and even-handed.
Also, I don’t like rules that seek to address behaviour that is so puerile, at least so long as such behaviour is reasonably uncommon (as I think it is now). By addressing it thus, you dignify it.
Sure, you get these nanoswarms, as I call them, but, really, they’re so pathetic that they demean only themselves. As Patsy so wisely counselled Edina in Absolutely Fabulous: “Ignore her, Eddy”.
If one person continuously transgresses, then warn him/her as a jerk.
I think we need to retain the “pile-on”, but only for extraordinary circumstances.
If you don’t want to hijack but still want to pursue a tangent, then why don’t YOU start a thread elsewhere? I’m afraid this “let me have the last word in this thread” business won’t fly.
Actually, my remarks about a god of fire were much more charitable than remarks I’ve made over the years about a god of the Bible. I have admonished many a Christian on this board for worshipping a book. I reject any god of the gaps for the same reason you do.
That is obviously such a false dichotomy that I’m surprised a person of your intellectual acumen fell into it. We all face many events and experiences in life that are neither choice nor something inborn. On the two occasions when I was mugged, I do not believe that I chose to be mugged, nor do I believe that I was born to be mugged. And it would be psychotic for me to deny the experiences. The intrusion of God into my life was not something I chose, and in fact was something that I had for years expressly believed could not happen. I can no more deny my belief in God than you can affirm yours. Now, you might wish to play semantical games and say that my experiences are not with God, but with Zaxabu or something, but by whatever name you use, the experiences are the same.
I would imagine that the fellow who mugged you chose to do so, though.
Definitely. All of them. One was a lone fellow with a gun, and the other was a gang of three, one with a knife. Their choice invaded my being, as did God’s. But I certainly didn’t choose any of it. Nor am I choosing to believe that all of it happened.
I’m not sure I would characterise God as invading our being (in the case of those of us who believe in him). But C.S. Lewis talks of being sought and found by God, I think. But ‘invaded’? Does God really do that? It’s the element of force, as in coercion, that I find troubling, not the idea that he can break through our barriers.
Now you’re losing me.
FinnAgain had suggested that belief is either chosen or inborn. As I explained in my response to him, I did not choose to believe that I had the experiences of being mugged. Nor was I born to believe that I had them. I believe I had the experiences simply because indeed I did have the experiences, and I cannot possibly believe otherwise.
Gotcha
You asked a question, I answered you. This is, I figure, a topic that you wish to discuss. I take it that my answer was not sufficient, and you still want to talk about this topic. If that’s the case, it makes little sense for me to start a thread to discuss your bone of contention. This isn’t about having the last word, it’s about how there’s a topic outside the scope of this thread that you’d like to discuss.
Measure for Measure, I know what he was implying. Doesn’t make it any less retarted. I think the “twit” thing will die a rapid death after the holiday weekend because it’s pretty much the new dodge of the word “troll.”
FinnAgain, this is the pit. You can come right out and say “Liberal, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.” Why make the backhanded comment?
You’ve also completely made my morning Finn, I’d never seen the whole “twit olympics” skit.
Sorry for using you in the example Liberal. 
Eh, why not?
I guess this is an issue for our jackbooted overlords to work out. I honestly don’t see a problem with it, although I can see where y’all are coming from.
My pleasure. Glad you liked it.