Try harder. Show evidence of your effort.
I love these threads full of bile and bullshit. I only read a couple of posts but gee they are entertaining.
Twaddle.
Given your recent stated displeasure with the confrontational, and often outright hostile, nature of political threads on the SDMB, why would you ask the, admittedly pointed, question? Does it matter to you if RTFirefly is principled or not? What difference would it make?
I’m looking at the comment and trying to see it as relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. goon squads personally organized and run by Tom DeLay’s campaign manager. I’m not seeing it. I can’t conceive of a line of discussion which would spring from that question which would be anything but a defense/attack of the character of a board poster versus a discussion of the actions of those wielding political clout in our system.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hogswallow. Horsefeathers. Humbug. Poppycock, trash, tripe and twaddle.
So there, poopyhead.
Poppycock, silliness, and gibberish!
Dammit, how’d you get poppycock before I did?
At any rate, we can continue this back and forth until the thesaurus runs out, if that’s what you’d like. If you’d like to explain why Mr. Moto’s constant shifting of accusations isn’t beneath him, you could always do that instead.
Daniel
Interesting. Do you contend the first post Mr. Moto made in the “DeLay’s goons” thread did not call RTFirefly’s character into question? Or are questions of personal character things we should simply expect and take no offense at?
Enjoy,
Steven
I don’t know, but I want it on a bumper sticker.
Hogwash.
Nope, don’t question that at all. But I don’t see that an apology is in order, either. The facts, as Moto stated them are entirely accurate and consistent with the subsequent information. If it be facts which are an assault on character, then no apology is necessary. Again, as I’ve argued in recent threads in recent days, if one is offended by facts, then that’s because one is viewing them thru the filter of bias.
I think questions of character are something that can reasonably be expected. They do, after all, come from all quarters - not merely in arguments over political ideology. Whether one chooses to take offense, is a quite different matter, however. One should only take offense after a dispassionate evaluation of the questions, the logical inferences which can be made from them and then contrast those with the known facts. If the results of this introspection are found to be at odds with the facts, then one may take offense.
To use a classic example, Uncle Beer, you’ve not yet stopped beating your wife, so I don’t think your opinions on this subject carry much water.
The offense you take at the factual statement: is this only because of your bias filter? Or is it because I deliberately phrase the facts to make you look bad?
Language is far subtler than you’re giving it credit for, and people can intend and cause offense through artful arrangement of objective facts.
Daniel
Except this isn’t a factual statement. Moto relayed actual historical facts then verified from the record. Your example is: a) known by me to not have any basis in fact from the outset, and b) isn’t supported by anything. So, yeah, it’s reasonable to take offense at that; it is a quite deliberate smear, and one known to be untrue by yourself.
I agree. I just don’t think this particular instance fits that analysis very well.
Except that in the thread that started this all, the “Goon Squad” thread you linked to at the start of your OP, you appear to offer the same criticism of Delay:
You’re in effect demanding that Delay respond , and drawing an invidious reference by his apparent lack of response.
You chose to start an entire thread about violence when the source was apparently a cause you don’t like. It’s reasonable to ask why you didn’t choose to comment when the source was apparently a cause you support.
But the guy who organized this is on Delay’s payroll. Doesn’t that hold Mr Delay to a higher level of accountability than some anonymous guy on a message board? Shouldn’t we EXPECT to hear something from Mr Delay?
,and what did Mr. Delay have to say about what happened to Mr. Moto?
CMC fnord!
As LHoD appears to be attempting to demonstrate, questions can be offensive regardless of the facts. Allegations can sometimes be as damaging as a conviction. Allegations should be made when necessary and not before.
I tend towards believing an honest and fair debate should avoid questioning the character of the participants. Some of his comments in his recent “I’m not renewing my subscription” thread make me believe Mr. Moto also believes debating an opponent’s character is a divisive and hostile approach which creates antagonism instead of undersanding. Thus my question to him above about why he asked about RTFirefly’s character instead of engaging on the topic.
The character of a debate participant can be important, but usually is not. Why begin an engagement with the tactic of questioning your opponent’s character? It will probably not be relevant and it makes a debater look like they’re wanting to avoid engagement on the real issue. When this kind of unprovoked, and unwarranted, stone-throwing becomes commonplace the result is exactly the kind of atmosphere Mr. Moto is saying has made the political threads of the SDMB places he doesn’t want to be. Since I don’t want them to be that way either I may call people out if I see them throwing stones at other posters versus addressing the issue.
Or I may not, I’m a fickle and lazy bastard at heart.
Enjoy,
Steven
Let’s get something clear right now. I have no reason to doubt RTFirefly’s character, from what I have seen of it.
However, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t a very biased and opinionated man whose opinions might well color what he sees to be important news. I’m similarly biased and opinionated, BTW, so it’s not like I’m claiming purity on this either.
People of very good character can be biased and opinionated. I’ve had the pleasure of debating many of these people with their diverse opinions on this board many times in the past, and I have enjoyed it.
I did not mean to question RTFirefly’s character. I meant to question his objectivity, which is a different subject altogether.
Unless you ever have beaten your wife, it is a factual statement to say that you have not stopped beating your wife. That’s the point of that classic example of bad arguing. Factual statements may intentionally cause offense.
I disagree. I think it’s exactly what happened: Mr. Moto offered something that was objectively true, but implied that it indicated something that it certainly did not indicate.
Mr. Moto, questioning someone’s objectivity is sometimes an important debating tactic. However, I believe that, like accusations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc., it’s something that should be wielded carefully against debating partners whom you respect*: unless the evidence is very strong for a lack of objectivity in a particular case, you’re better off not even bringing it up.
Daniel
- Added to prevent a certain camp-follower from linking to my own previous posts
Your’re right, I am. Maybe this will help:
And that’s just here on the Dope.
I’m not saying that one is never condemned by one’s silence. I’m saying there are certainly crude distinctions we can make. However, I am calling bullshit on the notion that we must condemn any wrongful conduct mentioned in any post that we see here on the Dope, else it open us to charges of hypocrisy when we criticize wrongful conduct of a similar nature at another time. Should we have the equivalent of post count parties where dozens of posters make sure they get on record as condemning a particular wrong, just to shield ourselves from bullshit nonsense like this?
Not to mention, there’s another distinction between different situations we might or might not comment on, that we have no connection with, and situations that we are directly connected with. If one of the people who works for me screws up - even if it’s just an honest but significant screwup with no moral implications - I kinda need to say something. Like, apologize to whoever’s not going to get our part of the project delivered to them on time for them to do their part by their deadline, and so forth.
Here, a guy who works directly for DeLay has done something pretty reprehensible, and because of that close connection, I expect a response - specifically, a disavowal - from DeLay.
It’s been repeatedly said here by assorted conservatives that Dems who don’t disassociate themselves from Al Sharpton are condoning his past behavior by their silence. I think there’s a pretty strong argument there. I think there’s a long list of people that Republicans might then need to similarly disassociate themselves from, like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. Going both ways, we’re talking about political allies who’ve said and done some outrageous things. but even still, these are people they’re connected to in some clear real-world fashion.
But pols have hundreds of allies, and there are gradations of bad shit their allies have done that they may have briefly been aware of. Is every politician obligated to mention and publicly condemn every instance of bad behavior by their allies that they’re aware of? For instance, is every pol that ran on the Christian Right’s morals-and-family-values-gays-are-bad agenda obligated to speak out when the Republican White House lets a gay male prostitute in for dozens of visits in addition to his nominal role as White House reporter?
I’d personally say not. There comes a point where you just aren’t obligated to speak up about something bad your ally has done. This doesn’t rise to that level, IMHO.
And same here. Something bad that someone on my side of the political spectrum did 12 years earlier that is referred to in one post here on the Dope that I might have seen briefly doesn’t rise to that level.
They don’t let you start partial threads around here. Integer quantities only, the mods say.
Fuddyduds. 
And it’s reasonable for Mr. Moto to look at his evidence himself before asking the question, to see what sort of question the evidence supports asking. As you point out, two of the three threads he keeps on referring to don’t support anything at all. And as I’ve already discussed in this thread, the weak reed of that third thread, for a host of reasons, doesn’t support ‘asking’ in such an accusatory way. You may feel it supports asking a question - like “you and I were in a thread two years ago when I mentioned that similar acts had been committed against me by union goons at a Clinton rally in 1992. While two posters condemned that instance of violence, you were among the many posters that didn’t. Why did you not speak up then, when you are speaking up now?” - and if you feel it supports that sort of question, I agree with you.
But note the rather significant difference in tone, and the extremely different (and more complete and accurate) presentation of the relevant facts.
And note as well that such a question almost answers itself.
BTW, if Harry Reid’s or Nancy Pelosi’s thugs (like they have any) ever beat up someone, I’ll be the first to condemn it. (Well, maybe not; some of our conservatives are pretty quick off the mark. But I’ll try for second or third, OK?)