Moderators seem biased [Moved to the Pit for continued inter-poster bickering]

[FinnAgain]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

My first use of “flattened” wasn’t in selling any rhetorical point at all, nor was it in the context of a discussion. It was in detailing my reasons why I no longer support Israel

You’re claiming that your argument based on an admittedly exaggerated and thus not strictly-factual claim about the actions of Israel wasn’t a “rhetorical point” and discussing your reasons for a conclusion, in * Great Debates*, wasn’t in the context of debate.

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

The point only became a discussion when you decided to challenge its use.

So… a claim in Great Debates was challenged. I suppose that’s why it’s not called Great Sermons and Issues You Want to Hold Forth Upon Without Discussion?
It’s rather odd to say that it’s somehow “insidious disinformation” to state that you’d voiced a position for discussion in Great Debates using rhetoric that was exaggerated rather than strictly factual.
But okay.

[Noone_Special]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Again, I cannot let this little insidious bit of disinformation go unchallenged. My first use of “flattened” wasn’t in selling any rhetorical point at all, nor was it in the context of a discussion. It was in detailing my reasons why I no longer support Israel, re: their epic overreaction in Lebanon. The point only became a discussion when you decided to challenge its use. Frankly, I do not care one iota if you find my use of “flattened” to be in contravention of what you’ve decided the facts are: it’s not going to change my support of Israel one way or the other, which is the important point, not whether you believe Lebanon qualifies as being “flattened” under some insanely narrow reading of the term.

While I’m clearly not objective on the matter, I hope you’ll accept that I’m not trying to be a pure Contrarian here, either.
Anyway – not to rehash the whole thing, but my initial reaction to your first post (about how “Lebanon was flattened”) was also an internal “exaggerate much…?”
Now yes, you did make it clear later that you were engaging in hyperbole; and yes, I think the best reaction would have been to call you out politely and let you explain and let things drop, but I still hope you see that in a loaded situation your initial contribution on that topic didn’t help keep things calm. Not attacking you, it happens and you got IMHO way too much shit for it, just pointing it out.

@xtisme

I’ve noticed that the Mods only seem to be biased when they are busting chops on someone who has an ideological chip on their shoulders. That’s why you see so often veiled (or open) references to the Mod Squad being biased to a left wing (or whatever) point of view. It’s because when someone is vehement in their posting and, perhaps, feels a bit harassed or harried, and then says something that crosses lines and gets hammered, they naturally think it’s because of their position, instead of the manner and tone of their posts. I followed the thread in questions (which, honestly, I think the Mods would have been justified in shutting down or sending to the Pit), and I find it ironic that the OP of this thread repeatedly seemed to ignore Mod hints and even warnings and kept on doing the same provocative things over and over. Frankly, I don’t understand why the OP wasn’t suspended, at least, since I seem to recall several dire warnings to cease and desist which were (again, seemingly) ignored. It just seemed (to me) that the Mods in that thread were bending over backwards to NOT ban or suspend anyone, and they kept saying, in effect ‘Stop doing this! We REALLY mean it this time! Seriously! Really Really!’, over and over again.

It’s definitely a touchy subject, and there is a lot of heat on both sides (I know from my own perspective that some of what I think of as knee jerk opposition to anything Israeli sets my teeth on edge…which is why I don’t participate fully in these kinds of discussions anymore, not wanting to get banned or anything).

-XT

To be fair, it was fairly clear that the OP was “playing catch-up” by responding as he(?) read and had not yet read the warnings about continuing the Lebanon hijack when he did just that. This point was acknowledged by the mods as the reason why no severe action was taken against him, and it seems reasonable.
It’s probably a good idea to read the whole thread before responding, though… Just sayin’. But not doing so should not be a punishable offense.

Damuri Ajashi – as **Marley **said, **FinnAgain **can be grating and annoying (and personally, I think his form of argument is often counterproductive to the goal of convincing the other side, but that’s neither here nor there…) but he does stick to the rules of GD, and he does in fact stick to the facts, even if you think his interpretation of them is incorrect (which is obviously your prerogative)

[aldiboronti]

In my experience the only problems FinnAgain creates are for people who find it unpleasant to have their high-flown and heated rhetoric undermined by bothersome facts.

Long may he continue to create such problems.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@amanset

Including refusing to accept the dictionary definition of the verb “starve”, his lack of knowledge of what malnutrition is (see his comments about obesity in the US - obesity is arguably malnutrition) and his sudden decision that we were discussing Gaza AND the West Bank instead of accepting his error and moving on?

Your example here kind of highlights why I have trouble following your side of the argument (but really, the fault could be on my end.)

It wasn’t, from my point of view, the definition of ‘starve’ that was the issue.

Starvation is a such a loaded term to use. It exaggerated the situation, sensationalized it. It was used to create an emotional response.

If you want to use such a word to describe the situation, imho, you’re better off not arguing definitions but backing it up with a strong cite to people *actually * starving or the life expectancy lowering or mass nutrition related sickness.

If one uses big, scary words, one must have big, scary backup.

FinnAgain made more sense to me during this conversation arc because he wasn’t using such loaded words.

But - I am no expert, and I enjoyed the debate you both had. It was nice to see the different points of view.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@FinnAgain

You’re claiming that your argument based on an admittedly exaggerated and thus not strictly-factual claim about the actions of Israel wasn’t a “rhetorical point” and discussing your reasons for a conclusion, in * Great Debates*, wasn’t in the context of debate.

It was agreeing with an earlier post by amanset. But you knew that.

[The_Second_Stone]

Yes, the moderators do this. You will notice that the support for the Mods in this thread is from the conservatives (Shodan, xtimse). The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether FinnAgain is arguing well or not, but notice all the mods and the conservatives trying to make that the subject.

The purpose of the thread is to show that when someone is hijacking are arguing bizarrely in a thread that it isn’t the person (usually a conservative) who starts the crap told to knock it off, but both liberal and conservative are told to knock it off.

Anyway, if anybody is expecting the moderators to hold conservatives and liberals on this board to the same standards, they had better enjoy being disappointed. The mods will only try to divert attention from their bias by talking about anything other than their very obvious bias. Any other item mentioned in those threads is fodder for distraction.

[FinnAgain]

@Lady_of_the_Lake

.
Starvation is a such a loaded term to use. It exaggerated the situation, sensationalized it. It was used to create an emotional response.

Yes, that was exactly my point. That’s why I elaborated at one point that a discussion of, for instance, the numbers suffering from various types of malnutrition and the associated risks would have been a reasonable topic of conversation whereas “The Gazans are starving!” was overblown.

Amanset most likely understood that on some general level even if not the one specific to Gaza, which is why when it was pointed out that many obese Americans are also malnourished in some respects, he didn’t claim that “Millions of fat Americans are starving!” but that “Obese Americans can be said to be suffering from malnutrition.” Because using “Fat Americans are starving!” would sound silly due to its status as an emotionally loaded term rather than a cleanly analytical one.

@Noone_Special

it happens and you got IMHO way too much shit for it

Well, part of the problem there was that he didn’t simply say it was hyperbole and then try to put forward a reasoned, evidence-based position. He kept talking about how the south was “completely flattened” or something like “the whole of Lebanon” or “the entire country” was bombed. He also went on to claim that the south had, in fact, been “totally obliterated”.
All while avoiding using the same exact metric to talk about Hezbollah’s rocket attacks of the exact same time period.
He wouldn’t have gotten any shit for it if he’d simply said “Israel’s bombardment is estimated to have destroyed X number of houses, done Y damage in dollars and killed Z number of innocent civilians.”

But I pointed out the problem with the hyperbole he was using to advance his rhetoric and I stand by that. “All Palstinians are terrorists!” is objectionable, for the same reason, as “The whole of Lebanon was flattened!”

And do you believe that Captain would have had a positive response to “Well of course Israel waged war against Hezbollah, Hezbollah totally obliterated a number of cities in Israel!”
How about, since Israel is justified in some things that they do, if someone claimed “Israel is absolutely justified in everything it does.”
Would Captain have most likely agreed with that or at least let it stand without challenge?

@Noone_Special

and personally, I think his form of argument is often counterproductive to the goal of convincing the other side

Well, to be fair, that’s not my goal. While it may have happened at some point, I haven’t personally seen many of the usual members of “the other side” change their point of view.

As I pointed out, for instance, Damuri recently claimed that one of the ways that we knew that the UN created Israel (despite the resolution being non-binding, never implemented, not agreed to by both involved parties and that it didn’t inform the geography of the resulting states) was that the Arab armies invaded right before the partition plan was supposed to take effect (or right after, or something). I pointed out that, in fact, it was right after the Israeli Declaration of Independence and was moths ahead of the schedule for the partition to take effect. He admitted that his timeline had been inaccurate… before making the same mistake again later, this time in all caps to emphasize just how important he thought the (mistaken) timeline was.

More often than not I do not aim at convincing the people I’m debating with, I aim at showing the errors in their arguments. I think I have a very solid reason for this belief and while Marley may disagree, there are some people who I no longer try to come to an agreement with, I try to point out why and where they’re wrong and that’s it.
See below, for example, of a reason why I most often just point out the facts rather than attempting to change some people’s minds.

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

It was agreeing with an earlier post by amanset.

Of course you weren’t.
This is the post you were responding to, and it was a post about you, in response to you, discussing things you said in the other thread. Obviously that was the only post you were responding to because you quoted it and responded directly to it and nothing else. At which point I directly responded to your statements, which were to me, about something I had said in regards to your comments in the other thread. And then you claimed that I was somehow dishonest because you were really only agreeing with an earlier post by Amanset.

[FinnAgain]

@The_Second_Stone

Anyway, if anybody is expecting the moderators to hold conservatives and liberals on this board to the same standards, they had better enjoy being disappointed.

Ahhh, the oft-heard Liberal’s Lament.
Of course, during the Bush years I was accused of being an anti-American traitor due to my opposition to the US policy on torture and such.
It’s interesting that whether I’m a “conservative” or a “traitorous Liberal” or a “neocon” or whatever depends on whether or not I agree with someone on a specific subject.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Moreover, it is not quite kosher ( ) to come into a thread on page 11, without having read it, pick up a hijack that the mods have already warned people to drop, and then complain about derailing the thread.

I apologized for that when I caught up. Now I know to read the whole thread through before I respond but DAMN that thread was moving fast.

There were several exaggerated claims made - that the IDF was engaging in piracy, that all of Lebanon was flattened, that Gazans were being starved

Northern Lebanon wasn’t even touched.
I am saying that Israel does not have the right to defend itself.
Yeah SEVERAL exaggerated claims.

Yes, FinnAgain can get carried away, but he knoweth his shit about Israel.

No doubt… and he uses that knowledge like an assassins blade. I have a reasonably good grasp of the history of the area but I am not invested enough in the area to have the granular level of knowledge that Finn seems to have and instead of telling me how and why I am wrong, he plays gotcha. This in itself is frustrating and I believe this is bad faith.

“he made me look bad” is not being a jerk.

There are plenty of other things that make him a jerk but the “he made me look bad” (not in this thread but in another thread where he nitpicked me to death about the specific date Israel declare independence relative to the date that the brits were going to leave palestine and he UN partition plan was going to go into effect (I thought it was the same day, it turns I was off by a day and he busted my chops about it for half a dozen pages) part is not why he is a jerk.

In that same thread I had arguments with him about the relevance of the UN Partition plan and the Balfour declaration and he was a jerk. He was swinging wildly and accusing me of having agendas (I read that to mean I was an anti-semite) being disingenuous (I read that to mean he thought I was being dishonest or at least arguing dishonestly), he was just a general all around jerk, then I saw that I was not the only person to bring out the jerk in him. I have seen him comment on other topics and he is a jerk in those threads as well (even when he is correct). In that same thread I had the same arguments with malthus and things never got heated between the two of us.

Malthus just presented his arguments and evidence and while I don’t agree with him I saw his point of view. I still don’t understand Finn Again’s point of view and he doesn’t seem interested in having anyone understand his point of view. He just wants to score points, even cheap ones.

[Marley23]

@FinnAgain

It’s interesting that whether I’m a “conservative” or a “traitorous Liberal” or a “neocon” or whatever depends on whether or not I agree with someone on a specific subject.

On this subject, at least, I know exactly how you feel. Speaking of which, if a conservative poster accuses the SDMB staff of being liberal and a liberal posters accuses the staff of being conservative, and it happens in the same thread, does the universe explode?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Tom_Tildrum

Without my having to read a really long thread, it seems to me that there’s difficulty in what Damuri Ajashi is proposing, because someone who is challenged over a seriously-intended but wrong-headed remark could just claim “I was indulging in obvious hyperbole,” and sic the moderators on the challenger.

Well thats not exactly a good characterization of what happened.

Capt. was saying that he used to be pro-Israel until Israel flattened all of Lebanon in that war.

Finn Again called him on it and said ALL of Lebanon was not FLATTENED and he proceeded to state that the North of Lebanon wasn’t even touched.

Capt. said he was speaking idiomatically or something (which basically acknowledged taht ALL of Lebanon was not LITERALLY flattened.

Finn wouldn’t let it go and kept using this statement as evidence to impeach everything else Capt. had to say.

This goes on for a few pages.

Capt. brought up the fact that the North of Lebanon had actually been bombed as well and linked to a wikipedia map to show that even he doesn’t always mean LITERALLY what he says.

Finn couldn’t let it go considering it wasn’t even tangential to what was being discussed. No, he had to argue that the map was inaccurate because it was published by anti-semites (wikipedia is not gospel but it is at least to some extent peer reviewed, especially on the more controversial topics.

Capt. rightly labelled that an ad hominem attack on the providers of the map.

Finn came up with an alternate definition of ad hominem attack where it is only ad hominem if he attacks Capt.

This goes on for a few pages.

etc.

We were discussing the flotilla.

[XT]

@The Second Stone

You will notice that the support for the Mods in this thread is from the conservatives (Shodan, xtimse).

I still get a kick out of being called a ‘conservative’ around here. My dad would laugh his ass off hearing me called such.

It’s also pretty amusing that the Mods around here get accused of bias from both the left and right (granted, there aren’t many ACTUAL righty types on this board, but such as they are). They just can’t win for losing.

The purpose of the thread is to show that when someone is hijacking are arguing bizarrely in a thread that it isn’t the person (usually a conservative) who starts the crap told to knock it off, but both liberal and conservative are told to knock it off.

Instead of the righty being told with righteous wrath to take a hike because the Mods SHOULD be lefties and favor them instead, ehe? Pretty much off the charts here. ‘Hijack’ is all in the eyes of the beholder, and bias certainly plays a part, but I think the Mods are pretty balanced, by and large (even when it’s me getting the smack down)…they go after pretty narrowly defined offenses, whether they come from the right, left or middle (or, as seems often the case, outer space). That you don’t see this is pretty amusing, to be honest.

The Mods are only human (and unpaid ones at that, volunteering their time and energy to police a bunch of whining babies that we all collectively constitute), so obviously they are going to be biased from time to time. But I’ve never noticed anything overt in how they toss out warnings, with the possible exception that they seem to try and go easier on the more established ‘dopers and bring the hammer down more readily on newbies who come stompin’ in here all full of piss and vinegar.

Anyway, if anybody is expecting the moderators to hold conservatives and liberals on this board to the same standards, they had better enjoy being disappointed. The mods will only try to divert attention from their bias by talking about anything other than their very obvious bias. Any other item mentioned in those threads is fodder for distraction.

Too funny.

-XT

[FinnAgain]

@Damuri_Ajashi

No doubt… and he uses that knowledge like an assassins blade.

That’s the nicest compliment I think I’ve ever been paid on the Dope.

@Damuri_Ajashi

No, he had to argue that the map was inaccurate because it was published by anti-semites

Anyways, your characterization of the intial stages of the discussion is inaccurate, but I’ve already pointed out why. This second bit displays that you are using the exact same error, again. I cannot understand how you have made the same mistake yet again. Not only is that claim false, but I’ve pointed out the actual truth of my statement in this thread. What is the source of your error, should you be Warned?
I pointed out that absent reliable confirmation, the map should not be taken as accurate. I never, ever, ever claimed that it was inaccurate. You cannot quote me saying that, because it is not true. Likewise, I never claimed it was published by anti-Semites and have corrected your mistake on that point once in this thread already. You cannot quote me saying that, because it is not true. I stated, correctly, that as the people who produced it referred to Israel proper as “Occupied Palestine”, that their neutrality was violated and taking claims on their say-so alone would be improper.

Now, under your own standards, you deserve moderator action.
Are your standards wrong, or is your conduct something that you’d object to if you thought that I was to engage in it?

@Damuri_Ajashi

Capt. rightly labelled that an ad hominem attack on the providers of the map.
Finn came up with an alternate definition of ad hominem attack where it is only ad hominem if he attacks Capt.

Likewise, this is a very strange error that is based on nothing that I ever said, anywhere, at all. You cannot cite or quote me saying that, because it’s not real.

Captain made up a definition of the ad hominem whereby pointing out that a source isn’t credible and their mere say-so isn’t proof without confirmation is a fallacy. Then he shifted the burden of proof to claim that I had to provide cites to show that “Thus and such a village was not bombed on such and such a day” or else the map had to be taken as accurate. Nor did I ever say, anywhere at all, that it would be an ad hom fallacy if I attacked Captain.

Again, under your own standards you now deserve moderator action due to how you’re arguing.

@Damuri_Ajashi

We were discussing the flotilla.

Again your standards seem quite malleable. Captain opens up the war in Lebanon for debate by using dramatic exaggerations to prop up his rhetoric. I disagreed with him. He defended (and/or modified) his claims. He went back and forth for a while.
And you’re upset at me because, after all, if I respond to someone then I’ve done wrong. And if someone responds to me then I’ve done wrong.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Northern Lebanon wasn’t even touched.

I’ve explained what I believed I was responding to in context, and that I was stating that the north was not touched by the type of bombardment which really some areas to rubble. You’re quibbling about what I meant, do your own standards apply to your own arguments?

@Damuri_Ajashi

(not in this thread but in another thread where he nitpicked me to death about the specific date Israel declare independence relative to the date that the brits were going to leave palestine and he UN partition plan was going to go into effect (I thought it was the same day, it turns I was off by a day and he busted my chops about it for half a dozen pages)

Likewise, this too is incorrect, do you require moderator action?
I corrected you once, you admitted your mistake… and then you came back later and used the same exact mistake, in all caps, as a reason for why your claims were correct. Of course I “busted your chops” about that. If a clear factual refutation does not have the power to alter your argument, expect me to bring it up.

[FinnAgain]

By the way, didn’t mean to ignore anybody. Thanks Baal, Lady and aldiboronti.

@Marley23

On this subject, at least, I know exactly how you feel.

By the rules of the Dope I believe that also makes you a Zionist agent traitor spy.
Sorry.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

Should you now be “moderated” since you’re trying to quibble over what my words meant in context?

No because my engaging in the tactics you use is an attempt to show you your own hypocrisy.

Are you the only one who’s allowed to disagree with claims?

Nope, I discussed the implication of your claims amount to an argument that after “one bite of the apple”, Israel would not longer have the right to invoke Article 51 to justify self defense via blockade and it wouldn’t get a second chance at a “bite of the apple”.

OK, let me walk you through this.

In post 569 Xtisme asks what I think Israel should have done. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12524503&postcount=569

In post 579 I reply: Stop the blockade, go back to 1967 borders, resolve the refugee problem. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12524606&postcount=579

In post 581 you say:Denying that Israel has any right to self defense makes it quite clear that the argument is not about how best to balance Israel’s need for self defense with the Gazans’ standard of living. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12524639&postcount=581

In post 639 I say that I don’t remember ever denying that Israel has the right to self defense. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12525938&postcount=639

In post 645 you reply by saying I denied that Israel had the right to defend itself when I said that I think they should stop the blockade. and you add that saying that Israel does not have a right to continue the blockade means that it lacks the right of self defense and Hamas can freely arm and launch another war. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12526091&postcount=645

In post 662 I say WTF! You can’t go from my suggestion that Israel drop the blockade to my denying that Israel has the right to defend itself. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12527035&postcount=662

In post 676, you continue to pretend that “Israel should drop the blockade” = “Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself” http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12527230&postcount=676

At this point you keep saying “Israel should drop the blockade” = “Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself” and I keep saying WTF, how the heck do you figure that?

This is also the post where I notice your odd use of the word prohibited.

Again, are you the only one who gets to disagree with the implications of a statement?

You weren’t talking about implications. You took what I said, transmogrified it into something infinitely easier to argue against and proceeded to argue against it. And when I called you on it, you stick to your guns and continue to act as if “Israel should drop the blockade” = “Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

The issue is not whether poster X is difficult to debate with, but whether someone whom one finds difficult to debate with should be therefore subject to moderator action.

To my mind, the obvious answer is “no”. The mods are not there to police that sort of thing, and moreover should not be there to police that sort of thing.

He’s not difficult, he’s disruptive.

[The_Second_Stone]

@Marley23

On this subject, at least, I know exactly how you feel. Speaking of which, if a conservative poster accuses the SDMB staff of being liberal and a liberal posters accuses the staff of being conservative, and it happens in the same thread, does the universe explode?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Besides which this is again trying to change the subject from bias in moderating actions to political leanings. Jim Lehrer is a very liberal journalist, but conservatives are fine with him acting as a moderator because he is even handed.

What we the posters want is even-handedness. One poster should not be noted for calling a position intellectually dishonest and then in another GD thread be told to cut it out when he is called an “asshole”.

We don’t even expect moderators to admit when they are wrong or sorry. A baseball umpire may be big enough admit error in miscalling a perfect game, but we certainly expect our moderators to stand by their calls regardless of miscellaneous considerations.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@amanset

Whilst we are talking about this. I got two warnings in that thread. What is the deal with warnings? Is there a maximum and then you are banned?

I got three. I win.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@xtisme

It’s also pretty amusing that the Mods around here get accused of bias from both the left and right (granted, there aren’t many ACTUAL righty types on this board, but such as they are). They just can’t win for losing.

I’m not saying that the moderators are conservative or liberal, I’m saying that they are biased towards Finn Again and tolerate his shit to an extent they do not tolerate other people’s shit. There are several debates where I agree with Finn and I think he is a jerk in those threads as well.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@FinnAgain

Disagreeing with you is, in fact, not dishonesty, nor is it in bad faith.

Disagreeing with me is not bad faith, the WAY you go about disagreeing with me is bad faith.

Speaking of which, recently you made some claims about the facts surrounding the implementation of the partition in '48 and the date of the Arab invasion.

I was off by a day. You went on for pages about how that lack of knowledge of basic facts makes everything I say suspect. This is what you do. You pick a frikking picayune detail and beat the crap out of it until you have proven that I was mistaken about some irrelevant detail and then proceed to beat me over the head with my mistake on that irrelevant detail. What got me incensed was the fact taht the “flattened” argument was even MORE irrelevant than being off by a day. Capt. was explaining why he no longer supported Israel and you picked up on a rhetorical flourish in the explanation (which had NOTHING) to do with the flotilla) and commenced to beat the crap out of it and not let it go. Then the moderators moderate both of you. WTF?