Oh, no, he totally has a point.
I, for one, am a validator of the group and invalidator of the individuals who are invalidated by a group of invalidators who invalidate individuals for not being part of an invalidating group of invalidators.
Your argument has some validity.
You know, I actually got a chuckle out of the above, Finny. It’s nice to know you can have a good moment.
Good lord, he’s multiplying!
Why is always the other person who’s being defensive? Have you ever asked yourself that? Why don’t you ask yourself that?
And only to the benefit of all.
So far, it always has been the “other person“ who’s being defensive. I can’t help that. I can’t control you.
When one is being offensive, one’s opponent is, almost by default, defensive. 
Sorry, I can’t call you a “tool.” You’re a mod that I respect.
Is it me? It’s him, right?
Quit being so fuckin’ defensive.
Quite the opposite! Only an idiot would pay $14.95 (let’s be accurate) to post at this place.
Hoa man, lemme tell you. I used to mucho (and still do someo) post at poetry boards. Poets are sensitive mutual-supportors, right? Fellow artists, no doubt? Holy fuck, the hatred, the competition, the invalidation, the ugliness! Egos wounded or destroyed with a touch! SDMB is Validation Central compared to some of the shit I saw.
It isn’t easy to communicate honestly even if you want to, and most people don’t really want to. They want to one-up, vent, percolate, and WIN.
That’s not really the problem, actually. The prob is that they half-ass their obedience to rules and adherence to basics of decorum and debating propriety, so that you always get these debating styles that are half-in, half-out, half-reasonable, half-devious, half-etc.
Or replace “stupid” with “totally uncommitted to subtlety.” Subtlety is just plain impossible in GD. If you try to make a sophisticated, nuanced point, you will ALWAYS be hammered back by yahoos who have simply plugged you into the typical template for that debate.
For example, my stance on abortion: It’s sick shit and a shame on our species, but I’m not sure we should make it illegal or can really do anything about it. If I say that, I immediately get the screechers, “It’s my body! My rights!”
And then someone might actually reply to my point, but then the signal-noise ratio isn’t good, and other Unsubtle Ones start battling the screechers, so the debate never really goes anywhere interesting.
Right, that is the correct attitude.
Right, they are not “in process.”
Speaking of “childish shit,” one could certainly point to my own “shit” in this thread. But they are unsubtle! They do not understand the difference!
This “childish shit” has been aimed at deconstruction. It is obvious shit, shit worn on my sleeve, so to speak. Nothing hidden (notice how they are thinking I was gaming you; they are searching for the “trick” when there was none!). This kind of “shit” is not dangerous. It is, rather, the shit that purifies.
What is dangerous are all the unsophisticated mind games, high fives, mutual hand jobs, straw men, cheap invalidations, etc. The shit that undermines good debate and the transfer of information. In other words, Bush-style thought processes.
Yes, an iconoclastic enlightening of the masses. The mods hate that, btw! And the worst thing you can do is refuse to take a beating in the Pit that’s deserved. If you do that, one of the Tools will enter the chamber and go, “Ahem! Cough. Let’s shut this train wreck down, shall we? This thread is no longer valid. And you [poster who won’t take beating] are trolling! That’s naughty!”
You didn’t take your beating, drmark2000, and gave one in return. Good for you!
I fail to see your point. You might have a subtle point somewhere in that hypothetical post about abortions, or you may not. However, you are also making the claim that abortion should not be, to which one appropriate reply is indeed “It’s my body! My rights!”
Personally, I think your problem is that you are projecting. You have incredibly transparent motives, and tactics, and are projecting that fact onto the other side. Is the other side not very subtle. Well, no. The thing of it is, though, they can actually prove their arguments. Of course, you would simply say they are merely “validating each other.” Seems to me, you simply want some more posters here “validating” your own opinion. Problem is, their side is not supportable, so they will wonder off, once they get tired of tearing down the same strawmen.
I’m not being defensive. I’m holding a mirror up to drmark in hopes of getting him to see what it is about his posts that gets people’s dander up.
If my count is correct, three mods have posted in this thread. An unknown number of other mods have read it. Please point me to the post where any of us have said what you claim we will say. Thanks much!
$14.95 is well within the range of both the idiots and the wise. So, the latter wait, and hope.
I’d like some urls for these sites. I’d like to toss some of my own work into the mix to see how people react. We poets are a rotten lot, especially at this point in history. If SDMB is “Validation Central” compared to poetry sites, I definitely want to give them a shot.
I think “subtlety” is the key, here. But it really only comes into play when you announce a point at variance with others’. Then, the screeching starts.
Let ‘em screech. Within there, somewhere, will be some information worth keeping. As to the issue of abortion, I’m mainly in favor of wmen not getting pregnant with children that neither they, nor anyone else, want. This would also be the man’s responsibility, but it’s quite another topic.
“The shit that purifies.” I love that. And indeed it does purify, if by nothing else than ridding one’s responses of (some of) the unsubtle.
Oh, man, have I ever seen it. Not in this thread, yet, but that is only because we have anticipated it and thus thwarted it. They don’t want to do what we’ve already told them they’re going to do. It’s good to corner them, force them to contrive some other way to achieve their ends, and then expose that for what it is. Really gets them furious.
I simply refuse to take a beating here. Giving one in return, well, that’s what they get for trying to give one. As the saying goes, turnabout is fair play.
Scotty contributes! It’s been ‘coon’s years, it seems, since I’ve heard from you. How, exactly, is that this “other side” of which you speak “can actually prove their arguments”?
I fear that drmark doesn’t care if he gets people’s dander up. Looks to me like he rather enjoys it. What does that say about him?
What is it, exactly, that you fear, Lutey? Why would I enjoy what you, yourself, fear? Why would anyone? What does that say about me? Nothing!
How funny! I use abortion as an example of a topic the debate of which is prone to be ruined by Unsubtle Ones, and an outright Retard comes along to prove it!
No fucking joke.
I do. My position is neither boiler-plate pro-choice nor pro-life.
No. I’m saying, “It sucks but there may be no choice but to have it legal,” and people screech back at me as though I was about to take their “rights” away, because that’s all they know how to screech about on the topic.
Another thing in GD: Someone responds who clearly, outright, unmistakably has not read the thread. In such a case, they guess or assume that the OP holds the boilerplate position, and they look like asses when it turns out that the OP does not. Fucking laziness.
Responding to what you have here literally written (and not trying to guess what meaning your little mind is trying to express), “transparent motives and tactics” are the very thing that is GOOD for GD. It’s the hidden motives and sly tactics that cause problems.
Dumbass. My hypothetical was illustrative of poor debating technique. However right you think the pro-choice side is, when they stupidly make boilerplate, non-sequitur replies to their opponents they are engaging in shitty debating methods.
Unintelligible.