When they quack like a duck

[tomndebb]

Nothing happened in it. If you read the first two pages, you read the whole thing. In fact, I was in the midst of composing a smackdown to the OP that either he provide a citation for his bullshit “science” or I was going to shut it down when Sam discovered his earlier incarnation and banned him, following which another staff member removed the thread so as not to enshrine his nonsense and his sock’s name on the board.

[Larry_Borgia]

I was being a little facetious, but I have to admit my morbid curiosity draws me to train wreck threads.

I do understand why the thread was deleted.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tomndebb

My only objection was to the couple of posts at the very beginning that tried to accuse him of racial bigotry before he had actually made a blatantly racist remark.

Interesting . . . in my reading of the OP, it was full of blatantly racist remarks. Had it not been, I wouldn’t have posted as I did.

In any case, I just have two more things to say:

@me

But I reserve the right to say, “I told you so!”

I told you so!

@Liberal

I don’t think you’re always a good judge of what is or is not dishonest debate

You, too: I told you so!

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Dammit, what good is smugness wrapped in bad coding, I ask? No good, no good at all.

In any case, I just have two more things to say:

@me

But I reserve the right to say, “I told you so!”

I told you so!

@Liberal

I don’t think you’re always a good judge of what is or is not dishonest debate

You, too: I told you so!

[tomndebb]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Interesting . . . in my reading of the OP, it was full of blatantly racist remarks. Had it not been, I wouldn’t have posted as I did.

Those of us who have been around this block a couple of hundred times recognize the code words. My point, (and the point addressed by barracuda, although he may agree more with you than with me), is that we are also playing to some number of unknown people in the audience who may not recognize the code words. Charging that “you don’t want to have to deal with black people or Jews” when he has not made any point that even mentions such people or claiming that he is a visitor from the SF board when he has made no such admission simply allows him to accuse you of “witch hunting,” potentially damaging your arguments in the eyes of the viewers at home.

As to telling us so: true. But, then, I was hardly surprised–I also read the OP.

[Aeschines]

@tomndebb

Charging that “you don’t want to have to deal with black people or Jews” when he has not made any point that even mentions such people or claiming that he is a visitor from the SF board when he has made no such admission simply allows him to accuse you of “witch hunting,” potentially damaging your arguments in the eyes of the viewers at home.

In this case it is “racist hunting,” or, rather, “racist outing,” to which I doubt very much that most home viewers would object. Again, it’s not as though the fool was rudely cursed. Rather, Dopers simply said, “You mean that you are for racial discrimination, right? That’s your real position, right?”

I can’t imagine why so saying would cause lurkers to view the idiot OP favorably. To the contrary, I should think that Dopers’ astute perception of the code words and speedy outing of the racist-fascist in combination with clear and cogent arguments against his stated and hidden positions would show lurkers what the SDMB is all about.

IMHO.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tomndebb

My point, (and the point addressed by barracuda, although he may agree more with you than with me), is that we are also playing to some number of unknown people in the audience who may not recognize the code words. Charging that “you don’t want to have to deal with black people or Jews” when he has not made any point that even mentions such people or claiming that he is a visitor from the SF board when he has made no such admission simply allows him to accuse you of “witch hunting,” potentially damaging your arguments in the eyes of the viewers at home.

I absolutely agree with all of that; as I see it, in many ways it’s a no-win situation (he’s probably off telling folks even now that his banning and the deletion of the thread was proof of your inability to handle the truth, despite all evidence to the contrary).

The way I see it, it breaks down in two ways:

1. Nobody names the game early on, and so the game proceeds with him knowing what’s being played, experienced posters knowing what’s being played, and some inexperienced posters not knowing what’s being played and thinking that they can enter a straightforward discussion with someone who’s debating honestly. My first couple times I encountered a version of the OP, I was that inexperienced poster, and it was, to say the least, unpleasant.
2. Somebody names the game early on, and so the game proceeds with him denying what’s being played, experienced posters knowing what’s being played, and inexperienced posters being forewarned about the game. Sure, it allows him to claim a witch-hunt; but at that point, at least, folks who choose to engage with him aren’t left in the extremely frustrating position of trying to debate honestly with someone who has no intention of returning the favor. And at any rate, when someone’s debating dishonestly, I’m not too concerned about what dishonest claims they make about me.

I definitely agree that it’s good for someone to refute his points instead of just calling him on his from-the-start deception, and I do not in any way want to try to shout down those who do the necessary work of refuting the points. You’re right that the audience at home needs to hear those refutations. I just disagree that it’s best for both sides to pretend that the racist is debating honestly. You can call him on his deception, and then refute the points. This, I believe, fights ignorance more effectively, giving folks a context in which to understand the debate.

(I freely admit that I wasn’t planning on refuting his points: others had that angle covered with better-marshalled facts than I did, and so I didn’t see a “me too!” post as necessary. Nobody had named the game yet, though, which is why I posted.)

Daniel

[tomndebb]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

2. Somebody names the game early on, and so the game proceeds with him denying what’s being played, experienced posters knowing what’s being played, and inexperienced posters being forewarned about the game. Sure, it allows him to claim a witch-hunt; but at that point, at least, folks who choose to engage with him aren’t left in the extremely frustrating position of trying to debate honestly with someone who has no intention of returning the favor. And at any rate, when someone’s debating dishonestly, I’m not too concerned about what dishonest claims they make about me.

That is a fair observation. However, would it not be just as effective to insist on an example from him, first, then, if he ignored you or fudged on the answer, note that his logic was very similar to those other people who previously said that they did not “want to have to deal with black people or Jews”? And when he wriggled or cried “witch hunt” you only pointed out that you were asking a question for clarification and you did not see why he was jumping to conclusions?

I agree that there is a bit of “no win” about dealing with these folks and I do not claim that I have all the correct answers. (I do, however, have the Mod title, so I’m probably going to continue to call the shots in that Forum according to my perspective. )

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tomndebb

That is a fair observation. However, would it not be just as effective to insist on an example from him, first, then, if he ignored you or fudged on the answer, note that his logic was very similar to those other people who previously said that they did not “want to have to deal with black people or Jews”? And when he wriggled or cried “witch hunt” you only pointed out that you were asking a question for clarification and you did not see why he was jumping to conclusions?

I agree that there is a bit of “no win” about dealing with these folks and I do not claim that I have all the correct answers. (I do, however, have the Mod title, so I’m probably going to continue to call the shots in that Forum according to my perspective. )

That’s actually a pretty good idea, and with your approval, will be the approach I take next time these yahoos show up. I definitely don’t claim to have the answers either, and am frankly more interested in the discussion about how to handle the yahoos than I am in talking with them themselves; I always like the morally ambiguous discussions :). And I’m completely cool with your calling the shots there; again, I do not in any way mean this to be a pitting of you (whose actions are completely defensible), nor even of the dearly departed (whose actions are beneath contempt).

Daniel

[Smeghead]

GROUP HUG!!!

Awww

[SteveG1]

I was lurking in that now closed thread. I had to refrain from posting, because well, I just had to refrain. Jerks like that raise my blood pressure and could make me say bannable things. I’m glad gardenoflove is now banned. I was hoping it could have happened sooner, but hey that’s just me.

[Liberal]

@barracuda

As a new Doper, I’m hesitant to disagree with a Mod, but I really think you’re wrong here.

I grew up with the sort of bullshit posted by gardenoflove and my brainwashers (to use one of his favorite terms) employed the same tactics:

1. Enter into a ‘scientific discussion’ with people who you know will disagree with you - but be sure you have a less intelligent/informed/educated audience.

2. Throw around a lot of pseudoscience and ‘facts’ (that you’ve manufactured).

3. Never answer a direct question directly - tangents are your friend.

4. Wear the opposition down, until they throw up their hands and say, ‘You’re totally wrong, dude, but I give up trying to convince you.’ To many in the audience, this will mean you have won, therefore, YOU ARE RIGHT.

I hadn’t thought about it before, but the SDMB is a perfect target for this. It’s known for its straightforward debates on just about any subject you can imagine - and for the intellectual level of those debates. For every actual member, there are probably 1000 or more who just read, some of those readers would probably like someone to blame for the sad state of their life, and gardenoflove has just ‘proved’ (by their standards, anyway - Last Man Standing) that they’re right to blame ‘those people’ (whoever they are) for being the miserable fuck-ups they are.

The problem is, tom, that you’re thinking of the audience in terms of your own abilities, and most of them don’t have your ability to detect bullshit (not that they’d acknowledge that).

So, I say, when someone posts a long screed that boils down to ‘hate speech’, out 'em as quickly as possible.

And I think it was well done in the thread under discussion, when gardenoflove was provoked to describe his ‘preferred interaction with other-gendered, genetically differed’ people.

One way to deal with people like that is to treat them as a third party — an object lesson in bad logic. Talk to the observers rather than him. Break his post down into components and point out the non sequiturs, the strawmen, the red herrings, and so forth. Treat him with utterly confident and patient condescension. If you’re dealing with a real bastard, a combined Royal We and Silence of the Lambs grammar can be very effective.

For example:

We note from its post that it has no comprehension of the rules of inference. It says that because some Blacks are lazy, all Blacks are lazy. Of course, we all recognize its fallacy as an affirmation of the consequent. Perhaps it will clarify whether Whites are also lazy on the whole, given that some Whites are lazy. We await its response with bated breath.