Pitting The Republican for no reason whatsoever

The BBQ Pit
41

Actually you can belittle it all you want, but Sam is correct. There are far more liberals on this board than conservatives and, hence, there are for more liberal dipshits.

Unless you dispute the fact, that there are more liberals than the rest follows logically.

A single conservative usually debates half a dozen or more liberals in any given political debate.

He faces more dipshits and gets less help.

What makes it worthwhile are the liberal worthies like RTF, Spiritus, Svinlesha and many others who debate honestly and in good faith and have no problem stomping total idiots no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall on.

While December is a conservative, I find I often disagree with him. Nevertheless, there are numerous occasions where a valid or strong point that he makes is ignored or belittled simply because it comes from him, and his adversaries have the strength of numbers on their side. It takes a special type like Polycarp to go back after victory has been declared and conceed a point.

As for the Republican, I found his post to be not too terrible for a first effort. He has demonstrated intelligence and a willingness to concede a point when one of his cites was challenged.

His OP was mostly old territory and the problems with it would be easily ripped apart by anyone who hangs around and participates. I would support such a gleeful thrashing. That would be fighting ignorance. That would be debating. One would hone their own skills while honing The Republicans as well. Fun would be had, and if the Republican couldn’t deal with having his arguments shredded that would be his problem.

Instead, it appears to me that the part where we engage our opponent’s arguments, debate and refute them was simply skipped.

Instead y’all went right for the part where you attack him, make fun of him, launch inside jokes and innuendos.

Instead of dissecting what he says you’re dissecting him. He’s being pitted just for the fun of the pile-on, and I think it sucks and I think that those that are doing it are cowards and assholes.

Put yourself in his shoes. This kind of an overwhelming attack as a greeting would drive most people away shaking their heads at the insular assholes that show no courtesy to a new member.

Show him the ropes then beat him up, if you can.

42

Sam Stone, I for one would welcome dialogue with an informed and courteous conservative who does not slant his statements of position to a have-you-quit-beating-your-wife-yet misrepresentation of the left. Bluntly, they have been in short supply. December, always courteous even when faced with hostility (as I regretfully have reason to know), does tend to slant and misrepresent. I had for a long time thought you an exception – the rara avis of my first sentence, until your recent post voicing agreement with Ann Coulter.

For a long time I’d regarded Ann as just another right-wing demagogic hatemonger, a young female Rush Limbaugh. With the publication of Treason, that changed. Any person who would agree with someone who considers the efforts of Tail Gunner Joe to vilify and browbeat every person with views different than his, and use the powers of Congress in the effort, as the work of a Great American Hero, and in particular someone who is on record as considering every Democrat and every liberal as a traitor, has forfeited any claim on my respect.

I’d intended merely to ignore any of your posts henceforth. But the principle of giving fair hearing to people with views different from mine, which Ann is opposed to, and mby implication you are as well, demands of me that I give you opportunity to exculpate yourself.

43

Not at all, friend Scylla, but did you ever wonder why that is? Why a board devoted to rational inquiry and reasonable debate should develop what you regard as a left-ward tilt?

Don’t you find that decidedly odd?

44

Is it just me, or is it Whiny Republican Month at the SDMB? Seems like you can’t step foot into a political thread these days without some poor 'Pubbie whining incessantly about how many Democrats there are on the board, and how they’re always persecuting the conservatives, and blah blah blah, you’re all a bunch of liberal meanies.

Suck it up, guys. The Republican barged in with the same tired old shit that was done to death years ago, generally acted like an arrogant asshole, started in on personal abuse as soon as he got called on his behavior, and is now well into his poor-widdle-me-the-martyr act. Anyone who pulls that shit in GD is gonna get nailed, new poster or not.

But if you wanna welcome him into your club, I’m sure his stigmata will get him past the door.

45

Polycarp:

Actually you bring up an interesting point. I have generally found Ann Coulter despicable for her anti-muslim tirades following 9/11. However, not everything she says can simply be dismissed because she is a rabid bitch.

I similarly agree with the statement that Joe was a despicable human being. I am willing to start with that as a given. Unfortunately many who rightfully despise him have sought to use his villainy as proof that their was not a very real and serious communist threat occuring that needed to be addressed. Every cloud has a silver lining and Joe did publically put America on guard against a legitimate threat no matter how despicable the manner in which he did it was.

Too often I have seen liberals move to demonize their opponents as a way of demonizing what they are standing for. I think it’s a real problem that faces the left right now.

I started listening to Rush Limbaugh specifically because he was so demonized on this board.

Having done so, I am convinced that most, if not all of the charges against him are baseless smears. He is extraordinarily careful in his factual statements and quotes multiple sources and places them on his website. He produces the original soundbite or article that he discusses. He clearly seperates opinion from fact. He is clearly biased and has an agenda, but he makes no bones about it. In response to the smears against him he has hired an independant firm to monitor his factual statements for accuracy and report. These reports are available for perusal on his website (for which you must pay, though.) Currently he is running at 98% and change for accuracy.

I think that’s pretty good.

I think the attacks and demonization have become the main tactic of the left in general.

As for me, I distrust any formula for blanket dismissal. Ann Coulter is capable of the occasional truth. She exists sadly, because there is fertile ground upon which she can feed. To ignore something because it comes from her, or Limbaugh, or December, or Sam Stone would be a mistake resulting in the furthering of your own ignorance and insulation.

While I often fail, I think to be as rational as you can you have to be extra careful not to dismiss sources you distrust or dislike. The moment you let yourself follow that instinct you lose rational perspective.

To be rational you have to be suspicious and skeptical of what you like and trust, and be extra careful to give fair examination to those things you dislike and distrust. You have to do this specifically because your instincts are to do the opposite.

This is part of the reason why I hang out on this board. Most people disagree with me.

This has served to alter some of my perceptions, but oddly reinforce others.

One thing that has been highlighted for me that surprised me is the liberal penchant for demonization.

Yes, everybody does it. But it seems to me it’s an expected tactic of the left.

I would be interested in your thoughts on the accuracy of this supposition of mine specifically because I notice that you do not tend to practice this tactic.

46

This, by the way, is completely false. All of the threads started yesterday by TR have resulted in substantive debate of the questions he raised. This occurred despite his repeated refusal to provide authority for some of his key assertions, and despite his general unwillingness to offer any additional substance at all in follow-up posts, which most often took the personal abuse/“You’re all a bunch of meanies”/“How do I hammer in this second nail?” approach to pointless partisan bickering.

47

Not when the parent publication is the Chicago Reader.

Snopes, and Randi.org do a fair job without the overwhelming leftism.

48

Substitute “partisan politics” for “the left” and you have a defensible statement. Otherwise, I think there’s a mote that needs removing from your eye.

49

Minty:

I don’t think so. Let’s just look at the Gore election thread. Where is the point by point refutation of discussion?

What I see is people telling him that it is simply wrong or stupid or old or been done. The main exception early on is when one of his sources is attacked and the Republican concedes a point.

Other than that, I’m not seeing much.
Actually on review, I take that back. It appears a substantive debate has materialized on page two, though it doesn’t have a lot to do with the points raised in the OP.

If you like, we can count instances of arguments directed against The Republican versus arguments directed against his OP. On a casual persusal the former seem to outnumber the latter by a good margin.

So, I think my point stands… unless you and I would like to count and compare results.

50

It’s possible you are correct. I am not offering this assertion as a concrete fact, but rather as my opinion as to what has been going on. I have seen certain liberals both on this board and even Lieberman himself lamenting that the Democrat party seems to stand more for attacking their opponents than for any concrete agenda.

But, I could be wrong. Despite the derision you cast upon Republican cross-climbing the fact is we are outnumbered on this board an their is some very real validity in the complaint.

Personally though I think I’m worth ten of you, so to me it’s not a problem, but all the rest of the Republicans can hardly expect to live up to my example.

(due to past literalistic interpretations of my hyperbole I feel compelled to note that there is an obvious smilie ommision in my last paragraph.)

51

Boo fucking hoo, Scylla. You make it sound like Santa Ana is just about to kick your ass, Jim Bowie. Except, as I have suggested before, it is this misperception that you are a lone warrior against the world that is part of your conservative mentality. Of course as a conservative you are going to feel persecuted - it’s part of who you are.

Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

52

Scylla, that’s just silly (get it? HA!)

Dollars to your maiden aunts cherry that 99.99+% of the posters on this board have never even seen the Reader. And I’d bet that 50+% never even knew what kind of paper it was. Hell, I’m a publishing executive and I’d never heard of it before I landed here. I found the SDMB through the books (the first one was a present from my mom).

As for our current problem child (and he is one at the moment) I find him guilty of nothing more than:

A) Not knowing our customs
B) Throwing himself into the fray without doing a little searching first.

Both of those things are self-correcting over time.

I admit, when I saw a ‘Bush-Gore’ thread with a thread-starting handle ‘The Republican’ my first thought was, “Oh my…here we go again.”

Really, I’d support a knew rule banning anyone who brings it up again. None of you are accomplishing anything.

53

Did someone seriously suggest that TR was in intel? Come on-- even the DIA ain’t that hard up! I guess he could be some meathead-- some throwaway wet jobber. They don’t need to think too much, anyway

54

What the? I thought he was banned last week for plagiarism & sock-puppetry.

55

I’m sorry…but anyone who uses a discredited idiot for his opinion on his first post on any politically oriented forum deserves what he gets.

56

Thank you. Right on cue.

Thusly attacking me with pure ad hominems while failing to engage my arguments you provide perfect evidence of my point.

You could not have done that better if i asked.

57

Scylla, you’ve made a point three times now, about december, Ann Coulter, and Rush, that sound points and arguments should not be dismissed simply of someone’s record.

I disagree.

If someone has lied, distorted, or otherwise abused objectivity, why should I listen to anything they say? Regardless of his fact-checkers, Rush Limbaugh has a history of spin, distortion, and deception to support his beliefs and his agenda. I don’t care is he’s sometimes right. If he’s right, I’ll get the same information from a polite and reasonable conservative. Ditto Coulter–if she has valid points, I’ll have to hear them from someone else; she has by her actions and her tactics, not to mention her outright lies, voided any slack I might have been willing to grant her.

Can someone’s ideas be divorced from that person? Not entirely, in my opinion, and certainly not if those ideas are within a demense that is questionable based on the person’s past. Sure, I’ll happily study Henry Ford’s business principles, but I’ll happily ignore anything he wrote about race relations. He might have some valid points, but I’m not interested in sorting out the accurate from the twisted, and I’ll always doubt his veracity in that field.

Similarly, I have no interest in listening to anything Ann Coulter, for example, has to say. She has been shown a liar in the past (to my satisfaction, at any rate), and whether or not she has valid points is irrelevant to me.

I think the idea holds for a community, even one of this nature, even more. I have a relative who is thoroughly and unabashedly racist. When he talks about race, I’m pretty much going to dismiss him. Even if he has solid points in this case, I’m not interested. Net trolls are the same. If someone has impressed me as a poster who regularly distorts and lies to serve his or her own ends, I just don’t give a shit to discuss any valid points he or she might present.

:shrug:

Maybe it’s just me.

58

[Gulp!]

59

This too is incorrect. Really, you gotta do something about that mote.

Let’s start by looking at the points TR raised in his OP. They are, in order: [list=1]
[li]Networks calling FL for Gore 11 min. before the Panhandle polls close.[/li][li]Appeal to authority with “a very well-respected economist” John Lott, “John McLaughlin & Associates,” and “Democrat strategist Bob Beckel”[/li][li]Alleged network favoritism in calling Gore states as opposed to Bush states.[/li][li]Rehash of Katherine Harris certification vs. Al Gore’s black-hearted refusal to take her word for it.[/li][li]Insult: “Anyone with half a brain could see where she was coming from.”[/li][/list=1]#1 was discussed by posters including Jonmarzie, anewthought, DMC, spooje, and BobLibDem. What more do you want?

#2 is essentially incapable of debate, since TR did not provide anything by which to judge the validity of his sources’ alleged claims. TR’s naked appeal to authority was therefore met with examples of the authority’s unreliability and untrustworthiness (which you, of course, immediately denounced, presumably because conservative authorities are presumptively good and valid, while criticism of conservative authorities is presumptively mean-spirited and meritless).

#3 is difficult to impossible to debate, since TR provided nothing to substantiate his claim. Plus, it’s pretty fucking pointless anyway.

#4: Been there, done that, couldn’t care less about rehashing it again.

#5: I find that when starting a debate, it’s always best to call the other side a bunch of retards, don’t you? That’s bound to result in a restectful, spirited exchange of ideas.

Is there a bunch of noise in that thread? You betcha. Anyone who behaved like TR did in that thread is gonna attract a lotta noise.

60

andros:

Actually he’s pretty polite on the air. As for the history of spin, distortion, and deception, IMO he engages in more spin (without apology,) But I would question the deception and distortion.

Everybody argues things to support the way they see them. I hardly see this as a reason to condemn a man.

I have no problem with you not liking Rush or Ann. I don’t like Ann much myself.

What I take issue with is the premise that because Anne, or Rush, of Foxnews says something it is either wrong or dismissable.

Anne says Muslims are scum. This is a falsehood wothy of derision. However it does not mean that if she says “the sky is blue” that is also a falsehood worthy of derision.

People are entitled to their personal preferences. I submit that it is stupid to assume something is wrong or dismissable simply because of who said it.