The Case for Fake Posts

The BBQ Pit
1

This is a topic that lends itself to GD - except for the fact that, in some respects, it is a discussion of how this board is run; for this reason, I am placing it in the Pit. (I suppose ATMB might be a valid choice as well, but since it’s at least obliquely criticism of a board policy, this seemed wiser).

Having established venue, so to speak…

There are, amidst the cool and reasoned heads here, some poster that are neither cool nor reasoned. These posters represent the epitome of what I find irritating about partisan debate: they respond much more to the politics of an issue than to its merits.

It it were revealed that George W. Bush did X, these posters will immediately characterize X as a bad, terrible, thing. If it were revealed that, say Howard Dean did X, these same posters will minimize the evil of X, deny that it represents anything bad at all, or similarly wriggle about justifying Dean’s action.

Of course, there are also posters who act in reverse: Dean’s action Y is terrible, a morally despicable proof that the man is not fit to be dogcatcher. But if it were Bush doing Y, then Y is not only necessary to the security of a free state, but well-nigh ordained by God Himself.

They piss me off, these posters.

What pisses me off most is that they nearly universally deny their bias - that is, they make no room for the possibility that they’re judging the quality of the act by looking to the actor, not on the merits of the act itself.

One way to get such blindness confronted is to test the waters with a phony tale. “Dennis Kunich says Z.” Then, after the rounds of criticism against Dennis have thoroughly established how despicable Z is, it’s revealed that, in fact, it was Karl Rove that said Z. This seems a worthwhile method of exposing the hypocrisy of partisan posters.

Something similar to this was done, of course, a while back. It was a reason, though not the only one, for a banning.

I’m suggesting that this sort of tactic has a place.

I invite discussion on this point - am I mistaken?

  • Rick
2

I think it would open up the door to so many false and trolling posts that it would cripple the forum. Nobody would be able to trust a quote without a link (which they shouldn’t anyway, i suppose).

3

I think the more rational posters here are capable of recognizing blind partisanship. Oh and GWB is the Anti-Christ :smiley:

4

deliberately misleading in order to collect the evidence? (cue up “bong” sound from Law & Order)

I agree that folks of that ilk are irritating to the extreme. Disagree that proving anything would result from the tactic described.

If nothing at all else, consider this point - context does indeed matter. and " who" is part of the context. Don’t we all have a different opinion of baby dangling out of a window if the ‘dangler’ is Michael Jackson vs. Fireman Jones??

5

That’s just precious that the first reply to the OP is from one of the very people often involved in the threads the OP talks about.

The problem with your proposal Bricker is that if such a tactic is foisted upon one of the posters of whom you speak, it’s not like they’re going to say “Well, you got me. I won’t be a conservative/liberal hack any more.” They’ll just get upset that it was a fake post, ignore it, or some other BS.

6

When have I ever denied being biased, asshole?

7

Bricker- I agree those dudes are despicable one trick ponies. But one can’t combat them with a dirty underhanded unfair trick, either. Sorry- although you DOmake a good arguement- as would be expected.

8

Diogenes, oddly enough, doesn’t really fit into this category. While he’s pretty vehement about the Republicans being the Source of All Evil, he’s also, in my experience, been relatively upfront about feeling this way. Admittedly, he doesn’t use a warning sig (“The above post may contain intense partisan bias; consult a spin doctor before using” or some such) but he’s basically admitted he weighs the politics heavily as part of his judgement. I think, were he confronted with a switcheroo such as I envision, he’d cheerfully acknowledge that he was making a judgement based on the actor as much as based on the act.

(I may be wrong, and if Diogenes wishes to correct that impression, I’m all ears, or eyes, or whatever).

So while Diogenes himself is sort of sui generis, the point TaxGuy makes is a good one: the blindest partisan posters are unlikely to be swayed by this sort of tactic.

9

I think most posters here are clever enough to distinguish between blind partisanship and well-reasoned argument.

If they can’t, what problem is it of ours?

I like to think that people wouldn’t deliberately mislead me. Too much of the tactic described in the OP would make me much less trusting of the stuff I read here.

Oh, and DtC: good on you. Everyone’s biased. The problem is people who think they’re not.

10

I don’t agree, Bricker, that this would prove to be useful in the long run. While there are a lot of Dopers on this board who tend to be somewhat disingenuous when it comes to admitting truths about themselves (especially when it comes to anything remotely related to politics), there are even more Dopers who strive, IMO, to be honest and forthright about their views. Such attention to their posting integrity is one of the greater strengths of the SDMB.

I feel that, eventually, if such a dubious entrapment were allowed, the level of trust in what another person says would erode to the point where it would seem that nearly every post would require a cite. (I exaggerate, sure, but I don’t think by much.)

11

It is as a result of this wide-spread Utism* that I try to stay away from political discussions. The disdain that some people on the left show for those on the right (and vice-versa) disgusts me. One side demonizes the other by default and intelligent exchanges fly out the window to, sadly, be replaced by insults and demeaning attacks on the character of the ‘them’.

In my quest for knowledge I’ve found that most of the important issues in life tend not to be black and white. There are about a million shades of grey in between. But to listen to some of these folks you’d think that the world consisted of nothing but two shades and whole numbers. I am always appalled when I hear statements like “All liberals are naive and dangerous” or “All conservatives are greedy and heartless”. As a result of this kind of political fanaticism, my Ignore list runneth over. I simply haven’t the time or the desire to entertain these foolish dogmatic notions of a crystally clear dualistic world. Pure disgust for this state of affairs has resulted in my abstaining from voting, ever. Partisan politics leave a real crappy taste in my mouth. Things don’t seem to be even close to changing, so I won’t be in a voting booth anytime soon.

As for the specific issue at hand, I can see where the tactic could be useful, but on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance the deliberate presentation of misinformation seems out of place. One could post the info without any name at all to gauge reactions, but I can’t endorse a deliberately untrue statement, even if the goal is to show the unreasonable biases of one of these rabid partisan types . . .

DaLovin’ Dj

*(defined: Utism is short for ‘us-versus-them-ism.’ Dogmatic adherence to a belief system can create an ‘us vs. them’ mentality in the believer. The ‘us’ group consists of people who share our beliefs, and the ‘them’ group consists of those who hold conflicting beliefs.)

12

Unfortunately, I believe the end result of allowing such tactics would be the spreading of misinformation and ignorance. Not everyone reads an entire thread; not everyone reads as carefully as they could. Plenty of people would take the initial (fake) quote seriously and go on to spread it in other venues. Pretty soon large numbers of people would be believing the statements as attributed. Look at how often we have to debunk the lost legends from Snopes.

For this reason the proposed tactic is a very bad idea. In addition, as others have said, it is extremely unlikely to work against die-hard partisans anyway.

13

Bricker , I share your sentiment. As a major lurker, I read far more than contribute and these kinds of partisans don’t do much to advance any cause. I also see where your proposal would be entertaining, but it would only work once IMHO and would encourage exactly the kind of behavior and distrust that Diogenes the Cynic postulates might occur.

If the hampsters (yes, I know) could take it, maybe what is really needed is a new forum, possibly called “Partisans Shouting At Each Other”. Posting rules might be cursing allowed, rationale arguments kept to a minimum and insluts (again) expected. I think Manhattan could be brought out of retirement for mod duty.

14

That’s pretty much accurate. I pretty much try to be up front that I’m coming from a biased (and often facetious or hyperbolic) position. I wouldn’t try to kid anybody that I was objective. I’d get flayed alive.

FWIW, I don’t think I’d be likely to fall for the quote-switcheroo tactic because I’d always want to see a link for any quote. I always want to see the context and source for a quote before I comment on it. That’s the reason that I didn’t fall for december’s trap when he did it.

I also was never as upset by december as some other people were. I found him provocative but challenging. I tended to chuckle at his threads more than I got enraged at them.

15

I just find it ironic that all the conservatives like this idea, given that it was a convervative who was banned for it. Betcha if it’d been a liberal who’d been banned for it, the conservatives would howl in protest at such a sneaky, underhanded tactic.

:wink:

Daniel

16

Geez, DtC, I can’t believe how casually you and Bricker are treating your admitted dumbassery.

So you’d agree that “If a liberal does X, then I’ll say doing X is fine, but if a conservative does X then I’ll say doing X is akin to child rape and Nazism.”

Never mind that you are up front about it; why do you feel that it’s OK to hold this view in the first place? Seems rather stupid to me. Or did I misunderstand you?

17

Taxguy - yes, indeed, context is important which does include ‘who’ said or did it. Again, see my post above wrt “baby dangling” . the ‘who’ was very relative, and yes indeed we can indeed say “when Michael did it it was awful, yet when Fireman Jones did it, it was a good thing”

18

TaxGuy, for shits and giggles, do you consider yourself biased?

Daniel

19

No. Terrible idea. One of the things that makes this board what it is, is that falsities are generally identified as such and rejected by the board readership at large. Generally, posters make it obvious as to whether or not they are biased through their posting history. Allowing fake quotes, IMO, would accomplish very little more, other than to force readers to waste time researching the provenance and credibility of every quote presented here.

I’m not specifically slamming DtC here, but IMO calling exaggerations concerning one’s political opposition “hyperbole”, is just a prettying up of the term “lying”. There’s more than enough lying in political discource in real life, why do we need still more here?*

*note: I am in no way proposing the impossible task of trying weed out and ban all false, politically-motivated statements in these forums. I’m just suggesting that those who use “hyperbole” as a primary debating tactic ought to think hard about how its overuse tends to undermine their credibility, that’s all.

20

Well, depends on what you mean by biased, Left Hand of Dorkness (nice name, BTW). I’m economically conservative and socially liberal, so I like and hate both major parties about equally, but for different reasons.

I do think I am able to discuss whether or not I think doing X is a good or bad thing without letting my feelings about the person that did X get in the way.

wring, Fireman Jones would presumably be dangling a child out of a window to either rescue it or allow it to get a breath of fresh air. God knows why Michael Jackson did it. The difference in the two situations is not who did it, buy why they did it. If Fireman Jones dangled his baby in the exact same way that Michael Jackson did (i.e., to show a crowd), then it would definitely be a bad thing to do. So in short, I don’t see your point.