So I guess we really DIDN'T mean it this time

About This Message Board
101

I’d like to offer a comparative example here, if i may, and ask Jonathan Chance (and anyone else who wants to chime in) what he makes of it.

All bolding is mine.

Here is the exchange that led John Mace to open this thread:

And here is an exchange that Jonathan Chance had just this morning with a different poster:

I know that the two examples are not perfectly symmetrical. After the initial caution by the moderator, Der Trihs and lekatt took different strategies in responding. Der Trihs chose to argue that his “broad brush” characterizations were actually accurate, while lekatt simply made another “bland assertion.” But it seems to me that, in terms of actual contribution to the debate, and in terms of the spirit of honest debate, this is essentially a distinction without a difference.

Not only that, but lekatt explicitly made clear that he had made his most recent post before seeing the caution posted by the moderator. i find this very easy to believe, especially since he noted this before receiving his warning.

I’m just not seeing the substantive differences between these two cases, and i say that as someone who has far more in common with Der Trihs, politically and intellectually, than with lekatt. You offer essentially the same advice to each poster about what constitutes reasonable debate—advice i agree with, by the way—but only one gets a warning.

And this goes back to the issue of long-term patterns of behavior. You will probably argue that lekatt was filling that thread with bland assertions, while Der Trihs only made a single problematic post before you cautioned him. But, as others have pointed out ad nauseum, this debating style is par for the course from Der Trihs in GD threads. It’s not new behavior, any more than lekatt’s was.

102

Ok, you’re making a number of claims. The first is that the quote doesn’t apply to Hickman. The second is that it is taken out of context (but does apply to Hickman??)

Anyway I’m cool with providing a cite - and give props for the inquiry as the claim is pretty extraordinary in my view. Right? I mean you’d have to be a nutcase to write something like that. My contention is that Ayn Rand’s position was that if you ignore the murdering and dismembering bit, that Hickman was a swell guy, based upon his statements to the press. Which normal people thought were sociopathic.

My source is The Journals of Ayn Rand (1999), p. 36-37. As for context, how many sentences do you want me to quote before and after the passage? Look again and note the length of my quote and the absence of ellipses. The description given was under the heading The Hickman Case. So, yeah, she was referring to William Edward Hickman.

I deny any expression of hatred: I was just reporting the facts. Full disclosure: I do confess to a certain amusement. Apologies to the mods for this hijack.

It’s harder than it looks. People sometimes try in the Pit and it’s just not the same.* If Der was banned I can’t say the fight against ignorance would suffer much, but for me the entertainment value of the board would plummet. And to be clear, I’m not laughing with him. Recall that he sometimes targets agnostics, of which I am one.

The behavior that bothers me most on this board are false claims of fact. Because it takes me longer to track them down and correct them than it does to fabricate baloney. Der’s arguments, in contrast, can be annihilated with a single word. Here, I’ll show you how it’s done:

Cite?

  • Although admittedly post 98 was a brave and true effort.
103

Because there is none. Jonathan has dug his heels in and he’s made it clear that that’s the end of it. That’s fine, it’s in his power and prerogative. The unfortunate part is that he seems to think because he has the final say that make him right. That has led (in my opinion) to his belittling other posters in this thread for their observations and comments.

Per his earlier post, any moderating he has done in other parts of his life (however righteous they might have been) are irrelevant to this issue. The moderation on this board has made it clear in the past - ‘Don’t like my moderation? Take it to ATMB’. I have seen many warnings given for “making their case” after a mod note.

In my opinion JC dropped the ball on this one. And now it appears he is outraged that his objectivity has been called into question - and that outrage is clouding his judgment.

104

I am curious as to why TPTB continue to hold this “we don’t treat poster “x” differently” mantra, when clearly the evidence suggests otherwise.

Tubadiva’s interesting moderation in this thread is a case in point… Clearly, the staff, mods, and whoever has a coffee cup (free, not purchased) all see the same thing, while the TM overwhelmingly have echoed the opposite viewpoint.

Are we all ganging up on one poster? I don’t think so. Is this some coordinated effort to get someone banned? No. Is this a poster that holds a conservative viewpoint which is most definitely in the minority on this board, and that’s why he’s being singled out? Nope.

The board membership is a group of people of incredibly different backgrounds, beliefs, experiences, and even motives who have seen time and time again what they perceive is one person being held to one set of standards, while the rest of the members are held to a different, and more restrictive set. Consistency is all that is being asked for, and yet it seems impossible to achieve. Why?

I have read all of the posts, and the reasoning given by the mod. And here is my thought. If DT’s posts were to appear with any other USERNAME attached to them, then mod action would be swift and predictable. However, for some reason, when DT’s name appears, “modspeak” comes out, and leniency is justified.

It can’t be EVERYONE’S imagination, can it?

If it were possible to read a thread without username’s appearing, but instead a generic poster_1, poster_2 labeling be used, I wonder if the same results would occur. I suspect the answer would be yes, but only because DT’s posting style is so distinctive, and most people can recognize it now. However, if it was possible to go back and do this from the beginning, I’m confident that DT would have bounced himself out of this community long ago.

Just MHO, of course. YMMV.

105

This is what I’m saying too. And your initial quote does not at all represent this. The ‘except for the murdering and dismembering bit’ is quite important. If you think Hannibal Lecter is a fascinating character, ‘except for the murdering and eating people bit’, would that be wrong in some way? Because he is, and millions of people think so.

106

I don’t think they treat him any different than anyone else. I don’t think JC made a bad call.

I do think they need to clamp down on DT a bit more.

107

Huh? If you don’t think they treat him differently than everyone else, why would they need to clamp down on him a bit more?

108

Fascinating? Odd but I guess ok. Heroic? Normal people don’t think like that. Let’s reroll the tape with emphasis: “It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal…” To me kidnapping and murdering a 12 year old girl pretty much pegs the needle insofar as sin is concerned.

Look there’s more. Rand goes on for pages and pages about the guy.

109

Serious question, do you think if I posted as he did and questioned a mod note in the thread that I got it in, I would be immune from a warning?

Honestly, I’m not seeing the logic in your post.

110

Do you deny that Lecter was the main character of books that have sold millions of copies? I think lots of people liked his character.

Yes, and in my opinion you misread those pages, and are quoting out of context, as is usually the case with Rand’s critics. The specific paragraph you quote for instance, reads to me more like a rant at mobs in general.
Further, this whole Hickman thing is overblown in my view. She saw this case in her early twenties, which inspired her to attempt a story, which *she didn’t ultimately think was worth writing, and left some notes in her own private journal. *The main character of which was, in her own words

She further goes on to say, in the pages and pages you refer to

And when you take that one of the primary precepts of the philosophy that she laid out at great(really, really great) length over the years was the non initiation of violence against others, it’s quite strange that people keep wanting to point out that she ‘idolised a killer’.

Don’t get me wrong, she is far from flawless, and her ideas and writings have plenty of failings, but the way in which criticism is usually done, including what you’re doing, is just petty character assassination. We should be better than that.

P.S Sorry mods, this will be my last post on this subject in the thread.

111

Maybe if Libertarians don’t want to be insulted, they shouldn’t start threads in GD claiming women are inferior? Just a thought.

112

Ah, I see. So, if, oh, say a guy who is sympathetic to liberals says something stupid then it can be open season on all liberals, with respect to insults. Is that correct? Glad we cleared that up then. Let’s see if the Mods are on board with this loophole in GD rules that will allow for insults to entire groups. I think they might be, as long as the poster is DT and the target is Libertarians/Conservatives/Republicans/Theists/Whoever Is Pissing Him Off This Week™.

Just a thought…

113

I’m sure they’ll put that on the agenda at the next Libertarian Council Meeting under: Mandatory Thread Starting Rules for All Libertarians.

:rolleyes:

But it’s not really about “insults”. It’s about threadshitting in every thread about Libertarians-- taking a dump in every thread with the same unsupported crap.

114

Meta:
My initial post on the subject addressed the plausibility of a claim made by a poster. I think I’ve done that. Now we’re in GD territory. I haven’t read all of Ayn Rand’s thoughts on Hickman. I’m going to let you have the last substantive post on this subject (above). No, I don’t endorse it. If I get around to slouching through Rand’s treatment of the child murderer, I’ll consider opening up a GD thread.

:confused::confused: Um: I understand that there is a loophole for insulting entire (non-racial, not gendered) groups. As I try not to snuggle up to within an inch of the rule-line, I’m not sure about its exact contours. But I see broad insulting generalization about ideological groupings all the time by a variety of posters. That they don’t reach Der’s level of vitriol is only because that sort of posting style tends to make the writer appear ridiculous.

I don’t see “Befuddllement”. I see, “Gunning for the Big Ban Stick”. Across multiple threads. It seems obvious to me that Jonathan Chance wants to raise the level of debate in GD. Slowly. And after he takes some time to get his bearings. For all the outrage voiced by our resident libertarian apologists, I see little interest in that: they are too obsessed with what appear to be vendettas. Ironically!

AFAIK, Der dumps more on Christians (while actually targeting fundamentalist Christians). I’ll observe that the rules on threadshitting are rather less restrictive in GD than they are in Cafe Society, as challenging premises is part of what we do there. Still, that’s a possible angle - the insult gambit wasn’t going anywhere.

To be honest though, I suspect what’s going on is that JM got frustrated with challenging Der with basically the same critique (cite?!?!?11) sometime near round 500. Since I’ve only done it a few dozen times, the amusement hasn’t quite worn off yet. Maybe in a few years, I’ll be pushed over the edge too.

115

Nope. He’s perfectly fine in CS, but his common behavior in GD serves no purpose other than to lower the tone of debate in that forum and to spread ignorance in a message board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance. In fact, the warning that precipitated this thread insinuated excluding the poster from GD unless the behavior changed. We’ll see if they “really mean it” this time.

116

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
It seems obvious to me that Jonathan Chance wants to raise the level of debate in GD.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder what would be a good first step in accomplishing that?

For the record, so far I’m a fan of Jonathan Chance and his Manhattan-like style in general. I just wish he would apply it equally.

117

I’m going to nitpick. Lower the tone of debate? Definitely: methinks Der is our resident GD sub-woofer. Spread ignorance? I don’t think so. Contentless and unsubstantiated characterizations are noise, not falsehood. There’s a difference. I suppose you could argue that he creates a hostile ignorance-fighting environment, but that’s different and an over-statement besides.

Crosspost PlainJane:
“I wonder what would be a good first step in accomplishing that?”

  1. I think his first steps have been fine.
  2. This might be due to the posts I’ve read, but I don’t see a Manhattan-like style. Manhattan ruled GQ with less coverage, a gruff demeanor and a hammer-like fist. This is the guy who modded GQ singlehandedly for several years. It was an exciting time as the teeming millions competed neck and neck with Manhattan’s sanity until the latter finally collapsed from exhaustion. It was a noble battle. Later mods tightened up the mizzen-masts: there’s less nonsense in GQ now (IMHO).

I see JC as more of a careful, deliberate mod relative to the mod-emeritus Manhattan.

ETA: If Der is banned from GD, I’m going to beg and plead for a Der Trihs Amnesty Week. Celebrate it once a year in GD, when scum-sucking moonbats and garbage encrusted wingnuts can join hands and make preposterously broad characterizations of one another without hurtling direct insults against posters themselves.

118

You do realize that you just admitted that Der did in fact insult posters in GD?

You’re not helping his case.

For the record, I’m hardly a right-winger much less a libertarian.

I also wouldn’t present Der as a big defender of women since he claims that he thinks that “the typical American woman” including by his own admission most of the board’s female posters, are so untrustworthy and so vile that men should secretly videotape their sexual encounters to make sure they don’t falsely get accused of rape?

Incidentally, would you be such a big defender of someone who made such arguments about blacks or Muslims?

119

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Um: I understand that there is a loophole for insulting entire (non-racial, not gendered) groups. As I try not to snuggle up to within an inch of the rule-line, I’m not sure about its exact contours. But I see broad insulting generalization about ideological groupings all the time by a variety of posters. That they don’t reach Der’s level of vitriol is only because that sort of posting style tends to make the writer appear ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that’s the point though, isn’t it? Yeah, you see people insulting ideologies all the time, but there are limits. As I said before, if I went into a thread about liberals and used the sorts of terms that Der COMMONLY uses against conservatives, libertarians, Americans or the religious I’d be banned…especially considering that, unless I’m a fucking idiot I would know that, you know, there would be a liberal or two participating in the thread where I’m flaming. Unless you feel HE is a fucking idiot, then this whole dance and shuffle is just stupid. He went into that thread where pretty much everyone else was just making fun of the OP and decided to insult all Libertarians and call them and their philosophy psychopathic, knowing that there are a few Libertarians/libertarians who post on this board. But it’s cool, because most of the board doesn’t like libertarians, so nuke away. And the funny thing is…for him, this was pretty mild. Go back and look at some of the stuff he has said about the other groups I brought up. In anyone else this would be ban hammer territory.

What irritates me about this, and is increasingly irritating me about this as more folks weigh in as you have, is the level of sophistry. You KNOW what he’s doing…so do the Mods. So does everyone else. And so does HE. He’s not a stupid guy, and obviously he’s able to control himself from flying off the handle in other discussions in other forums. We have the Pit for the kinds of nuclear flaming he is fond of…why does he get a fucking pass in GD? Because he is the way he is? What a load of horse shit.

Why? Why do we need to allow his sort of ridiculous antics in GD? We have the Pit for that after all. And this isn’t about getting him banned, it’s about having him show some small level of restraint when he’s in GD…and haven’t the Mods, who are generally top shelf on this board actually enforce the rules of the board and MAKE him show that restraint.

It would be a travesty to ban him right now. I mean, why SHOULD he restrain himself in GD? He never has had to before after all because, for whatever reason the Mods have allowed him to run wild and free and do whatever he likes. It’s not helped him, and it’s not helped this board either.

120

I think pointing to a thread that was specifically made to attack people based on their gender and political beliefs with “look how mean he is here, see, I told you” is really damn silly, is all. Maybe you should maybe not hold up proof of “Look how nasty he was in a thread started where somebody was claiming that the vast majority of everyone in the world was inferior to him”. It weakens your case.

I also find it really sad that some of the people bitching about DT are people who think it’s OK to make racist jokes in threads where people are talking about how racist jokes hurt them, but don’t you dare say anything about Christians or Republicans especially if it’s true. Maybe we can crack down on some of the racism and sexism, too, although that really isn’t a popular thing to do for some reason…