To all the december-bashers...

The BBQ Pit
1

Look, I realize that arguing with the guy is frustrating beyond all belief. I realize that he has an awful habit of using biased sources, and of using op-ed pieces as evidence. I’m not even going to try to defend him on these grounds, because criticisms to these effects are usually spot on.

But can we at least let the man make an argument before dragging out the tar and feathers? I’m noticing recently, at least in the only two december threads that I’ve actually opened, that he can’t seem to even start before people leap in with comments to the effect that december is a troll who can’t cite properly, or some such. It’s true that his citations leave something to be desired, but if it says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the OP, what in the fuck does it contribute to the thread?

Consider here, where two of the first comments made were “DNFTT,” and “I note you use an opinion piece as your ‘evidence.’”

Now, perhaps my reading comprehension skills are utterly deficient, but it seems to me that december hadn’t even advanced an argument yet, so he can hardly be said to be using an op-ed as evidence, can he? Certainly, he wanted a debate on the merits of the opinion piece, but where’s the claim that the opinion piece is accurate?

Similarly, here, december wanted to discuss the standard for op-ed pieces. Given his unfortunate proclivity for using them as citations, it could have been, perhaps, interesting and relevant. Unfortunately, not ten replies into the thread, we get the throw away comment that december’s posts don’t meet his own standards for op-ed pieces. Fine, and true, but… how does this add anything to the discussion of standards for op-ed pieces? Unless there’s some great big secret that people have failed to alert me to, GD threads don’t get printed in the Washington Post opinion section!

I’m as sick as the next person of seeing columns used as evidence, and seeing biased sources, and all the rest, but is it really too much to ask that we refrain from chastising him on some particular faux pas until he’s actually made the faux pas, and that we refrain from injecting random december bashing in a thread in which december bashing isn’t relevant?

2

I used to agree with your viewpoint, gr8guy. I used to shake my head at all the posters who would just dismiss december as if he could have nothing valid to say. In fact, last summer I could have been the one starting this very thread.

You’ll learn.

3

I for one love having december on this board. As a result, I’m always aware of the official Republican counter-arguments and have an idea of the best way to refute them when I get into political arguments IRL.

4

Dude, we’ve seen this movie hundreds of times. The ending is always the same. Not walking out at the opening credits would be a waste of time.

5

I don’t like the instant pile-ons either, though I can understand people’s frustrations. I used to be jolly rude to him too, but I changed my ways when I saw how polite and controlled he is in the face of barrages of abuse. Sometimes he can be awfully annoying, but there’s no point in being abusive - I think it just makes you look smaller.

6

Considering that calling people trolls is against board rules, and that there are people openly calling december a troll, I have to wonder what the mods are doing (I’ve already reported a message that openly called december a troll, and haven’t seen anything about it).

7

People do react - even overreact - very rapidly to a decembric OP.

However sadly, by the end of the resulting trainwreck, further decembric postings have usually more than validated any earlier criticism.

8

He most often posts in Great Debates. Therefore:

you’ve answered your own question.

9

I get particularly tired of this.

failure to use profanity/name calling does not = “polite”.

he doesn’t swear. he doesn’t call specific posters names. he doesn’t use insults.

however, he is most decidedly not polite.

Suggesting ‘gently’ that your position can be seen as bigotted is another way of saying ‘you hold bigotted thoughts/you are a bigot’ for example.

Condescention is not polite. He is the master of that.

smug is not polite.

When faced with evidence that the basis of your hypothesis was false, the polite thing to do would be to admit that you may be wrong. the december thing to do would be to admit that although the basis for your hypothesis seems ‘not as clear’, your conclusions were still valid.

10

Yes, of course he’s almost inevitably going to do something worth bashing him about, in any thread. I accept that (I have, after all, been here for a while). And when he does, call him on it, and I’ll pat you on the back and send you on your way with a congratulations on a job well done.

This in no way excuses the simple lack of common courtesy. Pre-emptive bashing is rude, plain and simple, and frankly says more about your own lack of manners and civility than it does about him. There’s a place for pre-emptive bashing. We’re in it now. There’s a place for making actual arguments, too, and there is not a place there for pre-emptive bashing.

If you don’t want to participate in one of his threads, because you have the virtual certainty that it will be replete with opinions cited as facts, the polite thing to do is to avoid participating in the thread, rather than to wander on in and accuse him of using an opinion as a citation when he isn’t. If you want to participate because you think he’s worth arguing against, argue against him rather than taking cheap shots that aren’t even on the mark. Even if you are convinced he’s going to work in something stupid like citing the op-ed page of the WSJ to support his arguments, wait until he actually does before calling him on it.

In other words, I’m asking y’all to show a little common courtesy. Is it really that bloody difficult?

And on preview, Ludovic, read the linked thread and then come back and explain to me how asking a bunch of questions based upon an op-ed article is equivalent to using the op-ed article as a factual citation.

A summary of the way that thread started would be:
december: quotes columnist, asks whether columnist is correct, has a point, etc.
Poster 1: DNFTT
Poster 2: He’s not a troll.
Poster 3: Here’s why the columnist is wrong.
Poster 4: You’re using a column as evidence. Here’s why the column is wrong.

Now tell me. In what way does quoting a column and asking questions about it constitute making an argument? I’m perfectly happy to assume that december thinks the op-ed is right, but until he actually advances an argument to the effect that the op-ed is right, all he’s done is asked a bunch of questions. Asking questions is okay, right? Precisely one of those many questions assumes the veracity of the column.

In other words, know whereof you speak before posting.

(In passing, emarkp, Poster 1 was called on it.)

In further preview, I agree with wring that he isn’t a paragon of politeness himself. But I submit that he’s a damn sight more polite than most of the people who essentially smack him every time he opens his mouth, without even bothering to find out what he said. Frankly, in the face of the kind of crap that gets pulled on him, I can’t say I’d do any better. And I’m certain that none of his bashers would do any better, since they’re already doing worse.

11

The crap on him is only a minor reflection of the crap he has spewed here.

Could it be that the vast majority of posters are actually rightly sick of his multitudes of misrepresentations and misdeeds? Nah, he must be oppressed!

:rolleyes:

12

I rather enjoy December. I rarely agree with him, but he certainly does find things for us to discuss, and the threads do go on for pages.

13

I rather like him, too. I disagree with him about 95% of the time regarding Bush, but the discussions he begins are usually interesting. The threads aren’t subpoenas, just ignore what you don’t want to read. Personally, I find his demeanor and temperment much more agreeable than that of Collounsbury.

14

Suffering from reading comprehension issues, are we, elf6c? Where did I ever suggest that he was being oppressed and that people aren’t sick of his posting style? All I’m saying is, to boil it down to the essential details,[ol][li]We all know that december is excedingly prone to misrepresentations and logical fallacies and whatnot.[/li][li]When he does something worth calling him on, call him on it.[/li][li]Until then, don’t be an asshole.[/ol]I don’t see how this is complicated, difficult, or unreasonable.[/li]
But then, I feel that common courtesy should actually be common.

15

Common courtesy != putting up with his shit.

16

I’m his polar opposite politically but december doesn’t really bother me at all. Some of his OPs and arguments are silly but so are some of mine. I think that he can be provocative in a useful way sometimes, and he manages to find unique angles on discussions that would seem to have been beaten to death already. True he uses op-ed pieces and blogs to support his arguments but at least he’s somewhat creative in how he forges his attacks. The most fallacious parts of his posts are refuted easily enough and I think he’s even makes the occasional legitimate point here and there. I think there are posters who fling a lot more shit and contribute a lot less than december does Some would put me on that list), so it kind of mystifies me why he seems to garner more pit threads than anyone else on the board. December is an SDMB fixture. We’d miss him if he was gone.

17

No I just didn’t buy your argument. Nice to see you go for the personal insult though. So much for the civility hall monitor sash I had ordered for you.

Right.

In your own words:

People don’t post in a vacumn here. december certainly doesn’t. As he seems to post on the same posts on the same topics over and over again, it is unsurprising he is getting quickly called out. Just a quick review of his posts on the topic of WMD and the Bush Administration will show that pattern, yet again.

Additionally, I agree with wring’s point. The lack of profanity does not equal lack of offensiveness. Some of the most offensive posters we had didn’t always use profanity.

Reap what you sow, and whatnot.

18

sigh Yes, Guin, common courtesy != putting up with his shit.

The flip side, however, is that calling him on something he hasn’t done yet = being a jerk. Is this really that hard to understand? Perhaps an analogy with a recent thread would clarify my point.

Consider the following situation:
Guin: “Blah blah OP.”
me: “Enough with the :rolleyes:. Blah blah address OP.”
Guin: :confused: “But there weren’t any :rolleyes: in the OP…”

Contrast that to the following:
Guin: “Blah blah OP.”
me: “Blah blah address OP.”
Guin: :rolleyes:
me: “Enough with the :rolleyes:.”

See what I’m getting at? The latter is fine and dandy. In the former, I’ve criticized you for something you haven’t even done yet, and in such a way as to have no relevance to the discussion at hand. That is, I have been a jerk.

19

It doesn’t. That’s my point. (There are precisely 3 options for a December-response:
1)None at all, despite requests for position clarification
2)Attacking the responder for making an assumption about the OP.
3)An attack on the responder’s argument on nitpicky, or occasionally major, factual or logical issues. This is only when the opportunity presents itself, which is rare.

The post you linked to is no different. No clarification on the OP as to what his actual views are.

There’s only two reasons I can think of for this “debate” style. #1, to have fun and rile up people.
#2, to score quick “points” in an almost unbeatable style which consists of NEVER revealing your true position until someone makes an assumption about it!

You know what I call someone who posts primarily to see if he can elicit anger or intellectually immature responses? You guessed it.

20

What Ludovic said.