When I was an undergraduate at Williams, given that few other conservative students were as outspoken as I, I was a frequent guest on the “Community Affairs” program on the college’s radio station, WCFM. And there, I experienced the worst and the best of liberal ideas and left-wing attitudes toward then-President Reagan and the policies of his Administration.
The worst experience was when, at the last minute, I was asked to debate a professor from Smith College upset that her school had invited then-United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (another Athena figure) to address that all women’s college’s graduation. In our discussion, the professor repeatedly misrepresented Mrs. Kirkpatrick’s views. And when I called her on it, she refused to budge, insisting that Mrs. Kirkpatrick held the views she didn’t have. That woman spoke highly of Joan Didion’s Salvador so I suggested that I read that book and she read Kirkpatrick’s book Dictatorships and Double Standards and we meet again to consider the issue. She refused, saying she already knew what that good woman “stands for,” even as she continued to attack not the real Jeane Kirkpatrick but the villainess of her imagination. (In the end, Ambassador Kirkpatrick did not address Smith’s graduation ceremonies.)
The best experience was when we were debating whether students staging a hunger strike in favor of the college’s divestment from corporations doing business in South Africa were leaders. I maintained that these these students were short-sighted and put forward an argument in favor of institutional neutrality (supporting the college’s policy) but also making clear how investment benefited South African blacks, then living under the horrible system of apartheid. Michael, a left-of-center classmate, having not previously heard the case in favor of investment in that troubled land, came up to me afterwards and told me how impressed he was with my argument. We left together and after stopping in the snack bar for some sodas, walked back toward our dorms.
At the point where I had to turn off, we stopped and continued the conversation even as the snowfall increased. A few days later, we met for lunch and talked until they started setting up for dinner. We rarely agreed, but each came to respect the other’s point of view. It was the first time Michael had engaged a peer who dared to defend Ronald Reagan. We remained friends until he decided to transfer to St. John’s in Annapolis.
When I joined GayPatriot, I had hoped that by posting to a blog with an open-comment thread, we might generate the kind of discussion that began that snowy night in the 1980s, where, when we rationally put forward ideas at odds with those of our left-wing peers, our critics would come to appreciate our arguments, even when they disagreed. And we have seen a good deal of that kind of discussion in the comment section. To keep such a conversation going I have occasionally e-mailed critics who have put forward thoughtful dissents to encourage them to keep contributing.
But, alas, too often, our critics, and sometimes, even our defenders, are like that professor from Smith, persistently attacking ideas (and the “offensive” ideas’ proponents) which they refuse to understand. One of those civil critics (with whom I correspond) e-mailed me frequently during my very busy phase to complain about the tone of some of our defenders. Following up on his e-mail, I read the comments in question and saw how, those defenders often compromised their own solid arguments by calling our critics names.
Friends, you make a better case when you leave out the ad hominem.
I could go on and on (and on) about the number of our critics who use our comments section not to take issue with our ideas or engage us in serious discussion, but to bait us, issue outlandish (and inaccurate) broadsides against Republicans and conservatives in general and the president and gay conservatives in particular. One of our more thoughtful defenders e-mailed me last night to say he will no longer contribute, observing:
For far too long now, your site’s actual debate on issues has been hijacked by trolls who have shown no willingness to actually debate. The obvious result is a site largely dominated by liberals who simply cannot tolerate the mere existence of a conservative worldview. The end result are comment threads largely dominated by responses to trolls who refuse to answer any substantive questions put to them.
He makes a valid point. Too many of our critics do refuse to tolerate the mere existence of gay conservatives. They see us as delusional self-hating dolts, eager only to be embraced by those who (they claim) hate us. Theier own comments make clear they have no idea who we were, what we believe or even those with whom we socialize.
I have wondered sometimes whether we should delete these angry comments. We have banned a number of individuals from this site, critics who regularly insulted our readers — and us. I am generally loath to ban critics, believing that their own diatribes discredit their causes. Their comments show that many on the Left refuse to take conservative arguments seriously, particularly those of gay conservatives. Moreover, the angry vacuousness of their comments proves they are running on emotions, not ideas. In short, they simply don’t understand the gay conservatives they belittle.
I put extra care into most of my posts because I want to make solid arguments and want also to address concerns that our critics might bring. I strive to eliminate any expression which might be offensive to responsible people — or easily misunderstood. And to put forward facts about my own experience as an openly gay man in conservatives circles (and an openly conservative man in gay circles.) I delight in the exchange of ideas and make every effort to put mine forward in most readable means possible.
Given the effort I put into my posts, I would hope that others would respond with a similar care. And sometimes they have. All too often, alas, they have not.
On that snowy day in the 1980s, I discovered the true pleasure of a serious discussion with an intellectual adversary. In the spirit of that evening, I hope you will join me in showing respect for those with whom you disagree and for the ideas we put forward on this blog.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
* I previously posted on the topic here.
WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!
UPDATE: Please note that I made a minor correction in this piece since initially posting it. Thinking that this phrase (in the original post), “persistently attacking ideas (and their proponents) which they refuse to understand” might be unclear, I modified it thusly: “persistently attacking ideas (and the ‘offensive’ ideas’ proponents) which they refuse to understand.”
UP-UPDATE: A reader writes in to share his experiences with friends who become “absolutely unhinged when Bush’s name, or any conservative for that matter comes up.” I thought the e-mail so good, I publish it here (with his permission):
I am most amazed at their willing ignorance. For example: a few were positive Saddam had no terrorist ties. Fine, there’s plenty of kool-aid!! (After having read Stephen Hayes’ excellent book, AND parts of the 9/11 report) I decided to just present a few facts: Salman Pak, Ramseh Yousef, Ansar al Islam, Ayman al Zawahiri, etc., etc., and they refused to believe any of it. In fact, the response was, “Saddam was secular, bin Laden a religious …”
“The same Saddam who offered UBL asylum in 1999?”Silence. (Not surprising!!)
“Oh, and Hitler and Stalin signed a pact. Imagine that, fascists and communists…”
“They did?”
I kid you not, they really asked that.
Civility comes from knowledge, having a base of knowledge upon which to base your ideas. I do have one colleague, who is liberal, but was a lawyer and is very well educated and scholarly. We discuss many things, politics to philosophy, etc., and while the debate fierce, always civil. Why? Because he’s arguing from a position of knowledge, as am I, and we know that about each other.
Where does hatred, of gays, of blacks, of Jews, etc., come from? Ignorance. Same with hatred of Bush and/or all things Republican.
Dan: People respond to incentives.
The current comment system basically encourages left-wing nutjobs and game-players (Ridor et al) to try to hijack it.
P.S. One thing you might try is to create short reminders of the dos and donts, that will appear on the comment facility. Tammy Bruce does it.
Name calling can go both ways, i have no clue what a moonbat is, but i been called that several times.
Yes i’m a liberal, but i do enjoy a fair and open debate. i don’t see how people can highjack a blog, if it is a fair and open debate, speak up if you disagree with their views, as all did with me today, and to be honest it was a little entertaining.
Robert, because of your wild claims and/or weak follow-up to my questions in this thread and this thread, I personally (ie., speaking for nobody else) disagree with your claim to be a person who is into fair and open exchange.
Dan, I wanted to point out a couple last things:
People respond to models. With great respect both for you and for Bruce, your styles may be at cross purposes. Let’s say that Bruce states the truth in a much more provocative way, which (without making him at fault) may tweak the emotions of commentors.
Finally, battle fatigue may have set in for some of us (who should probably then leave). For example, I personally have gotten very tired of the 19 millionth moonbat claiming Saddam somehow didn’t have growing ties to al Qaeda.
In the short time I’ve een commenting here, I have been called all manner of names but have refrained from responding in a like manner. In a true debate, advocates from each side put forth arguments defending their position. It is not necessarily the rule that one side has to give up and admit defeat. Folks on the sidelines will observe the debate and come to their own conclusions even if each advocate refuses to budge. It is the arguments put forth and their counter-arguments that make a comments section vibrant. Do you really want nothing but preaching to the choir.
That said, I think there are a lot of ad-hominem attacks and I think both sides should refrain from such if for no other reason than it devalues whatever argument you were trying to make.
So, let me guess, you’re the good cop and Bruce is the bad cop. š
disagree with your claim to be a person who is into fair and open exchange.
Well you are welcome to think that, but i doubt i would run a blog with another republican, and link to many other conservative blogs, and debate with many people i differ with, and often have a very civil conversation, that has never resulted in “moonbat” bombs, or whatever your point is, but i won’t debate your personal feelings of me, you have every right to feel that.
The only thing i ever offer is my opinion, different as it may be, call me a whacky liberal, call me a bigot, call me racist, call me a moonbat, the bottomline is, name dropping will get you no where in here, or anywhere else in life. I think i have been pretty civil, and stuck with the point of my argument, even if it goes against what other people think here.
But if liberals are not welcomed here, i will gladly not return, and if people have problems with dissenting points of views, just say so, no problem with that.
I found this blog, at a friends web site, and also Andrew Sullivan has linked here before, i think website like this are important, it shows the diversity in the gay community.
Thanks for the debates though, it’s been rather interesting.
You make an excellent argument. Here’s hoping everyone takes it to heart.
Ian: In a true debate, people don’t willfully waste the opponent’s time with repetitive empty criticisms that childishly refuse to grasp or acknowledge a very obvious point that the opponent himself has already agreed with or made.
You know what I’m talking about, from a thread earlier today.
Moreover, Ian, wasn’t it you who was going around calling people “Christianist” the other day? As an ad hominem.
#7 – “The only thing i ever offer is my opinion, different as it may be, call me…a bigot, call me racist…”
Purely for the record: I have not. Nor have I seen others.
#10 Frankly, I don’t understand why “Christianist” would be an ad hominem. Indeed, I would think Christians who DON’T believe in forcing their views on others via government fiat would want a way of distinguishing themselves from those who do. But I am prepared to not use the term “Christianist” if it offends.
Of course you don’t, Ian. Of course you don’t.
I explained it in the other thread. No value in trying again.
I will not name any names but I have noticed only one person, at least in this thread, who is being uncivil. Ad hominems are just that, whether cloaked in civil language or not.
but have refrained from responding in a like manner.
Actually, you barely respond to anything at all. A true debate does not include reading your posts and accepting it as gospel truth.
DuWayne, the civility I’m familiar with includes stating what you intend to state, or not expecting people to decipher your code.
“When I joined GayPatriot, I had hoped that by posting to a blog with an open-comment thread, we might generate the kind of discussion that began that snowy night in the 1980s, where, when we rationally put forward ideas at odds with those of our left-wing peers, our critics would come to appreciate our arguments, even when they disagreed.”
It is hard to take this post seriously when the other half of gay patriot seemingly enjoys his shock jock methods of communicating.
I try to read the posts from the West precisely because they usually attempt to construct a civil argument. But the posts from the South are not all conducive to a discussion or the rational presentation of ideas. There is no appreciation, in the posts from the South, for arguments from a classical liberal, modern liberal, left or Left perspective. In fact, those perspectives are conflated and caricatured in those posts and reified in the notion of “the Left” used by both main posters. Until I read more thoughtful posts on a consistent basis, I imagine that this post is really a request made of those supporters of the blog to stop making the main posters look bad by association in the comments sections.
Love, a peaceful moonbat, whatever that might be
Ian’s new ad hominem, here has me wondering about some questions.
What counts as an ad hominem? In this forum, it seems largely in the eye of the beholder.
I think the first and most basic level (to be avoided) is plain name-calling on another commentor of the “you ass” variety.
More generally, I understand ad hominem to be any attack “on the man” as a substitute for having or expressing an effective argument. But: I must distinguish that from reporting conclusions drawn, with reason about a person, position or argument.
At times, I have found myself concluding that a given argument or position was thoroughly false, in some cases downright offensive; or that a certain person’s behavior deserved criticism (for the behavior as such); or even, in a few extreme cases after very long experience, that a certain person was deeply wrong (in my view) in their characteristic way of dealing with issues.
In those cases, I base such conclusions (as best I am able!) on evidence – preferably, on first-hand experience.
Hence, or for example, in #3 Robert said “I claim to be way XYZ”, and I responded “Based on my experience with you earlier, which is my only evidence, I must disagree”. When challenged, I often (or usually) provide the evidence.
Is that an ad hominem? Or is it me reporting a conclusion I reached? I say it’s reporting a conclusion I reached after considering the evidence available in front of me.
Further – In my time here, I’ve noticed a lot of people (usually liberals) taking ADJECTIVES (grammatically not a “you ass” type of comment) as ad hominems. Example: in #0, Dan himself characterized his opponents or their arguments as “angry” and “vacuous”. Are those adjectives an ad hominem attack by Dan?
I say no. But I’m posing the question anyway.
Dan: I’m circling back to the “guidelines” thing here. You could decide what’s an ad hominem and give us brief “donts” above the comment window itself.
Finally, there is the question of ad hominem-by-implication. Ian: I’m circling back to your linked ad hominem on Christopher Hitchens.
You didn’t call him “a drunk”. But you took your best shot at implying he’s a drunk, and that was your answer to his (or actually, my) argument. It also raises the question, Dan, about whether you also want to avoid ad hominems on third parties in our discussions.
Sorry, back link. This is the link to Ian’s.
I must first take responsibility for my having resorted to name-calling and the taking of assorted cheap shots. I do sincerely apologize for this behavior, and I thank Dan for having written this article. There really is no excuse for my occasional descent into “battle fatigue,” as I have always had the ability to either ignore certain individuals, or simply trump them using my intellect and a little concept commonly known as “the truth.”
That having been said, I think it crucial for everyone here to point out the elephant sitting in the middle of the room, namely, that the more liberal-minded folks who participate in this forum have absolutely no intention of debating us. Rather, I fervently believe that their only mission here is to disrupt, by any means necessary, this exchange of ideas. Anything any conservative says here is utter bullshit to them, and must be striken. Whether through mockery, sarcasm, distortion, or outright deceit, most of the so-called liberals who frequent the comments section simply cannot abide a conservative worldview. To these people, we are nothing more than ignoramuses being duped by the most evil chimp since “Planet of the Apes'” General Ursus (I know, fellow geeks; he was a gorilla. Work with me here, will ya?). The President, judging by the opposition’s wildly varying opinion, seems to be the most clever, evil, decietful stupid man in the history of clever, evil, deceitful stupid people.
Get the picture? If you acknowledge that this is the starting point for our leftist guests, then how the HELL can you continue to strive for civil discourse? It is futile, and I, for one, reached this conclusion yesterday in attempting to discuss Judeo-Christian theology with a self-described atheist who clearly hadn’t the first clue about scripture. The only thing more absurd than this fellow’s outright distortions was my continuing the argument.
Let me end this by recounting a conversation I had last year with Penn Jillette, he of the wonderful series “Bullshit!” on Showtime. I was attending a seminar at the Los Angeles Film School, where he was a participant. If you haven’t watched this show, you’re really missing something. Now, if you know anything about Penn at all, you know he’s about as liberal as they come, but if there’s one thing he and I agree on, it’s the rampant dishonesty in American culture. I really love this guy. He & I disagree on just about everything, but his devotion to exposing bullshit wherever he finds it is to be commended, all the more so when you consider that the overwhelming majority of people he’s dissected on his show are liberals.
In any event, I asked him if he found so much bullshit in his fellow liberals, why he couldn’t bring himself to just come out of the conservative closet and get it over with. His response, “Oh, there’s plenty of it on the right. I just happen to believe I need to look into the mirror before I start pointing fingers.”
We spent the next half-hour discussing the war, and at no time did either of us feel the desire to scream at each other.
It’s amazing what truth can do to the tone of a debate.
Eric in Hollywood
GPW, I apologize for going off subject, but there are times we need some Open Threads to bring up miscellaneous topics. And I have one:
It appears the next President of the United States will be traveling around the world in aircraft manufactured in France. Yes, good ole pro-anything that’s anti-America France! It surprises me that there hasn’t been more media attention to the Bush Administration’s decision to award France’s Airbus a contract to deliver two A380s for use as presidential aircraft. The world is certain to take note of the U. S. government’s thumbs down on America’s Boeing Company. I guess we’re no longer concerned about American jobs and the balance of payments.
The two 380s will be configured for VIP accomodations for up to 300 passengers. The first will be delivered in 2008, the second in 2010, replacing the Boeing 747s currently used for presidential travel.
As an American citizen and a lingtime Boeing stockholder (not a big one) I am pissed!
My last entry for the night.
Ian, I do apologize for the names I called you in one earlier thread. That’s not an endorsement of your comments there or a change in my view of them… But, I was wrong to have gone down the “you dumbass” type of pathway there.
As for my stinging rebuke to a couple people in this thread, I just can’t/don’t apologize. The suggestion that Islamo-fascism and terrorism are āour fault in the first placeā is too false and outrageous. If my big mouth gets me banned over that, now or in the future, I’ll live with it.
PLEASE IGNORE MY COMMENTS IN NUMBER 21 AND ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES!!!
My entry was based on an Airbus “press release” forwarded to me (and dozens of others) by a highly respected retired Air Force general. Just minutes ago I received a follow-up e-mail from him, in which he reports he’s learned that the Airbus “press release” was a fake. Apparently a couple of wags in France put together a very authentic-appearing April Fook’s Day gag.
No wonder I couldn’t find anything about it in the news media. I’m terribly embarrassed (as well as concerned since Airbus is really in competition with Boeing for a contract to deliever a new air-refueling tanker fleet to the Air Force).
#5, Ian, in the short time you have been here, you have admitted you don’t want honest debate, you just want to shill for democrats.
And, addressing GPW, the other side of the coin is that there are a few people in this forum who begin whining about “name-calling” the second anyone challenges the substance of their points.
#25 – Errr… More than a few!
A moonbat defines ad hominem as any fact with which they disagree.
As a stranger here, may I just offer an alternative view in favor of emotional expressions? Although there are some variations in the details, most of the comments above seem to agree on the idea in the main post that emotions should not be involved in the debate, that emotionally-toned expressions are failures in some way. I understand and respect the old adage “attack the problem, not the person.” At the same time, that strategy calls on us all to deny obviously strong emotions, to control and get past them, in other words to ignore them. The problem with doing so is that it will leave us lost in thought – incapable of action. Action is predicated on preferring one outcome to another, and that preference is an emotion. If we weren’t outraged by the attack of September 11th, we wouldn’t be angry enough to go to war in our own defence or (if this is your feeling; it’s not mine) to vilify George Bush for his conduct of the war.
The strong emotions tell us something, if only we will think about what it might be. The strong emotions are something that we might see ourselves as sharing even if our analytical positions on the war are different. If you dislike my argument and call me an idiot, your diagnosis might be correct. But it might be wrong and your anger might tell you something, perhaps that you are worried about the same things that I am worried about, or that you feel, as I do, that things you value dearly are in some jeopardy.
Perhaps an alternative to banning emotion from our interchanges is to cultivate some interest in expressed emotions, our own and other peoples’. For one thing, it seems very likely that if we banish emotion from our discussion and then talk about what the future might bring and how we might respond to it, our emotionless predictions of future emotion-filled responses will be less useful. Just a thought.
A suggestion, perhaps practical, perhaps not:
Why not have a two track comments section, where the serious comments go in one track and the rest in another? The choice could be made either by the moderator or automatically by some sort of reader rating system like ebay feedback.
Two options:
Threaded comments — then the pointless threads die for lack of Follow-up.
See if you can get your blogging software to allow the managers to lighten the color of type a shade each time you ding a commenter for writing crap. The lighter the type, the more willing readers will be to skip over the comment. Maybe the commenter will get the hint.
A great post with sentaments that needed to be said.
We all have an inbred Idiotarian Spotting Radar, but most of us are unaware of it, how to use it, or of its usefullness.
Being an idiot, or a practitioner of idiocy is NOT reserved for folks of one city, one county, one state, one nation, one ethnicity, one party, or one government.
The minions of Idiotarianism are Legion!
Secure in my Branch Maceyugoserbulgarigreekadonian Compound I long ago solved the problem of dealing with offensive posters, and out of control representatives of The Minions of W.A.C.K.I.E. ( World Allied Conspiratorial Kongress of Idiotarians Everywhere ) by having my cat Nikita deal with them when the need to smack someone upside the head, grab them by the shirt collar, and, none to gently, toss them out the door of SEJ, and into the parking lot.
He first truly earned his pay when dealling with the Moonbats who came out in droves during the Blogoverse reaction to the Nick Berg beheading, and spent more time attacking Conservatives, and supporters of the Liberation of Afghanistan, and Iraq, than condemning the terrorists who threaten the West, and its values, and flaunt their hatred with bombings, kidnappings, and beheadings.
Nikita sits, regally, with a stern look on his face, in my Left Sidebar, helping me in Fighting W.A.C.K.I.E. in all its variety ( Left, Right, Far Out, whatever )and his Motto is direct and to the point:
“You No Giva Me Problems, I No Giva You Smack!”
The idea of Caraloto giving advice on civil debate has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read this year. Made my day.
Although I’ve maded an exception in this case, I no longer read comments. They usually are worthless and I have to wade through too many attacks from those such as Caralato or mattmichigan to find anything of value worth reading.
I also think that GP (not GPW) makes ad hominem attacks all the time. So I don’t think you can call for civility so long as that continues.
Go ahead and more aggressively prune the comments. If it’s insulting, just toast it, regardless of the espoused viewpoint.
Frankly, the world has literally millions of open threads. But I don’t know anywhere to go for good rancor-free debate.
Don’t let any false sense of obligation stop you from creating the site you want to have; it is yours, after all.
People will accuse you of things. They will anyways. So what?
A moonbat defines ad hominem as any fact with which they disagree.
I kind of figured that, usually when people don’t have much to stand on, they resort to calling people names, that’s the new age of Politics.
I think for now on, i will just comment on the post at hand, and not try debating with the “regulars” here, because they have no idea what a debate or being civil is, they like name calling and personal attacks, it’s the new age of the Hannity/Oreilly republicans, ego’s to big to even hear someone else.
Robert, if you did so, instead of making big charges that we can only get you to define or substantiate very slowly and painfully, it would be positive.
#33 – For the record: Here is a recent and fairly typical Gryph comment.
It speaks for itself. But let’s have a contest: How many bitter ad hominems can you count?
Gryph: It’s you.
I like the commenter-controlled comment monitoring idea. MetaCafe has a cool system, I think. A commenter can rate other comments (once per person per comment) and the comment shows a running tally of its feedback. Too much uniformly negative feedback and the comment gets censored. Of course, the site host should have the ability to restore any comment that was unfairly ganged-up upon by overzealous censors.
Example of the MetaCafe system on a contentious thread:
Dagnabbit. Here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/95277/islam_teachings/
“They see us as delusional self-hating dolts, eager only to be embraced by those who (they claim) hate us.”
My simple solution is to establish a default “You guys suck!” comment and have it automatically posted first. This steals the thunder from any randomly wandering troll, leaving him/her to move on looking for vacant pastures to soil.
It is true that one man’s ad hominum is another’s stong rebuke, but there are also some who seem eternally poised to be offended or insulted. One key lies, I think, in if the comment or term relates to the topic or idea at hand or if it is meant to more generally apply to the author without context. For example, if one composes a lengthy diatribe about Bushitler’s role in allowing 9/11 to happen as part of his plan to exterminate the large gay population of Manhattan, I would not see the aprobation of “moonbat” as being ad hominum in light of the clear deviancy from reaity exhibited. On the other hand, if one tries to throw that moniker about simply because their opponent believes gay marriage should be legally recognized it seems much clearer that it is intended to denigrate the author and not the idea.
“stong” rebukes….
What type are those?
Hee, hee. ;-D
Dan,
Thanks for such a thoughtful post. And while many have already responded with their comments, here’s a few extra thoughts to weigh in.
As I read this, one thing became clear to me: Don’t worry.
Trolls serve a good purpose; they underscore our position.
Namely, their behaviour so often validates the merits of an argument. Or at least they color in the perspectives. Whether it be anti-war, anti-military, anti-capitalism, anti-religion, anti-American, trolls (playing the role of liberals) confirm the concerns which we, as conservatives, express in our writings.
While we also get the occasional trolls, they serve as amusement. Laughable. Their anger gives energy to our purpose. And we don’t worry about readers being insulted because, as the ol’ saying goes, they should consider the source.
So, by all means, don’t worry about deleting them. They delete themselves, if you get what I’m saying.
More importantly, as conservative bloggers, we know that not everyone in our audience can be persuaded. Left-liberals will never learn.
As the cited email says: “trolls who refuse to answer any substantive questions put to them”
Frankly, who cares? We’re not trying to win them over. Would never happen. It’s a LostKos.
However, for all our “moderate” fair-minded, balanced readers (whether registered Democrat or not), trolls represent the Left and make it very unappealing. And, come election time, what does that leave?
“Trolls” don’t represent only the left, but the right as well, evidenced in the comments sections throughout this blog. Seriously, check out how many comments are from the same person on just this comments thread…
And there you have it, GPW: “Left-liberals will never learn,” says #43. So much for your hopes and wishes for a better dialogue in your original post.
What can I say, jimmy? Some of us are prolific – on certain days.
Prolific does not mean troll. If you would like to contribute more, I’m sure Dan would tell you to feel free.
Jeremy Bowers has it exactly right. It’s your blog: present the conversation as you would like it to have proceeded. If that means culling the vitriolic, useless, and brainless, please do so, and spare us from having to do so.
If I’m reading this blog, it’s because I’m interested in both the issue and your take on it; part of that “take” may well consist in you taking away the stuff you don’t think contributes to the search for truth.
I would welcome your discrimination and prejudice (terms I use in their most positive sense) in these comments sections.
Thanks for your blogging.
Question: Hypothetically speaking, if a commenter were to… oh, say… accuse Republicans of wanting to exterminate gay people, then denied saying it (although the comment was there for all to read), then finally claimed that what they wrote was not actually what they meant but was still a valid point, would it be “name-calling” to refer to such behavior as weasel-like? Or would it be truth in labeling?
Dan, with all due respect, I think you miss a fundamental difference between blog comments and the kind of civility expected and anticipated in rigorous public debates or q&a time during a college colloquium or at a candidates’ debate or attending to caller comments/opposing views at radio talk show. This isn’t CSPAN.
Blogs are treated more like conversations around a water cooler without worrying that your comments will be used by fellow employees or weasels to screw you with the boss, the team, the division, the company, regulators or investors.
Take for instance the kind of comments here that pass for informed opinions or contributions to debate from the Left…. most of them are neither well informed nor do they contribute to the discussion started in the post. Those folks –the Ians, Mr Mods, Patricks, GoBs, QueerPats, TimHs, NeoLibs and others are here to inflame, incite (not insight), bait and goad. They do it like bullies on the playground might say “Yo momma, man” as a put-down, a cut-down, or a take-down… and, as you know, it’s usually not effective.
Civility is great in an arena where the expectation and the anticipation of enlightened debate is met with good will. I can rightly recall hundreds of comments by NDXXX, Calarato, VdaK, Jack Allen, Peter, TCG, rwp, Synova, Vera and others which are civil, informed, thoughtful, and on point… many even humorous.
But when baiters and goaders and flamers strike, I don’t mind for a moment any of those who think calling a spade a spade is appropos for the comments which preceed it… I can read what I want, dispose of it or incorporate it in my own fashion, and move on with my day. Let’s drop the politically correct notion of editing comments –leave that to the BlogActive and DailyKos types.
Frankly, I’d like to see someone try to track the comments here by IP rather than ask the blogmaster to edit, cut, or limit comments in some fashion. It will help ferret out some of the notorious Lefties who like to goad and inflame like playground bullies trying out a new put-down.
Civility is great, Dan. But it’s sort of like having govt pass a law that says all citizens must be generous, hospitable, good Samaritans when confronted with an injured fellow citizen. You can’t make them extend a hand or be good Samaritans (sorry for the Christianistic reference Ian, Gryph) –you can’t make commentators here be civil or refrain from debate tactics that often work… you can encourage it, but you can’t MAKE it happen. GP can ban, but even in his infintie wisdom, he can’t make people be civil… a kind or firm word of reproach when it gets out of line, sure… but it’s still up to the commentators to reform, refrain, restrain their own comments.
BTW Calarato, you are no troll. Visit any liberal website of the GayLeft and you’ll find trollship raised to an artform –I’ve debated trolls and you are no troll.
thanks Matt š
Yeah, like you wingbats don’t go trolling on leftie sites. What a bunch of hyporcritical fucks.
#51 – Whoops, someone just crossed the 38th parallel. Good example of a lack of civility.
Regards,
Peter H.
vc… is that you God of Biscuits?
I never claimed I didn’t insult people when I thought it necesarry and justified. Some people just need to be called on it when they are being jackasses. My point was that it is silly to call for civility on this blog when it’s not praticed by the owner of the site in the first place.
This is GP’s (Bruce’s) blog, he sets the tone. He has the option of doing things a different way. And he has admitted to purposely trying to provoke outrage, not just with his ideas but in the way he expresses them.
Dan doesn’t usually need to do this to get his point across, He doesn’t need to insult anyone or get into the usual hysterics that GP does. (except, I think on the subject of Andrew Sullivan, who I think just gets under his skin).
I don’t know about anybody else, but the closest I get to left-wing blogs, perish the thought, is DUmmie Funnies. Why would I? I get leftist crap every time I turn on the TV or open a newspaper. I have no desire to put up with more moonbattery, thanks very much.
#54 – “I never claimed I didnāt insult people when I thought it necesarry and justified. Some people just need to be called on it…”
Please let me make sure I understand.
In shortest essence: attacks on the person are good when you do them. Is that accurate?
Incidentally, Bruce’s response to your attack (in the #37 link) was civil, seeking to answer your substance (such as it was).
Also incidentally, here is another recent example of your calling Bruce names – in this instance, based on a misunderstanding or mis-analysis of Bruce’s text, as NDT catches a few lines down.
Mind you Gryph: I have no objection to these things – so long as you aren’t practicing a double standard. I’m obviously as much a guest here as you, and you can establish whatever reputation you would like to establish.
Caralato says:
Yup, thats exactly right. Bow down before my moral superiority.
Many of my readers wonder why I don’t ban commenters who resort to the ad hominem attacks, but I consider them useful idiots because they make their side look worse and ours better.
I’ve only ever banned three trolls — one of whom literally went by the online moniker “Troll Dolls,” and continued to stalk my daughter even after he lost his job at her high-school. That crossed a line. But most others I give a lot of slack.
#57 – That explains a great deal and thank you for showing your agenda so clearly, Gryph.
P.S. For the record:
Checking the thread I quoted in #56, I also notice that you don’t care to follow-up (much less apologize) when your attack on Bruce’s person is based on a clear misunderstanding or misrepresentation of his text.
I don’t seem to be left with a lot of choices but to infer that you intend (actively) to have a poor reputation here.
And hence, I wouldn’t feel guilty about any comments I have made or will make, reflecting that reputation back at you.
‘Nuff said – time for happy hour.
And which of the two is the more difficult?
Never mind, if you think being a Gay Conservative is bad enough, think of the plight of the Transsexual Conservative.
Zoe, it’s been more difficult begin conservative in gay circles than being gay in conservative circles, at least those conservative circles I have frequented in America’s “blue islands.”
Well said, Cathy in #58.
That strikes me as almost an ad-hominem in itself. Or a straw man, or something. Permitting pig-ignorant ranters to stand in for the whole viewpoint is at the very least an underhanded tactic. One that has often been used against conservatives!
BTW, please replace your javascript in the comment box, it’s slooooow.
Speaking of Old Trolls, I got an email from Gay Cowboy Bob last night insisting that, in light of DeLay’s resignation and guilty pleas from two aides relating to the Abramoff scandal, I make good on our bet, delete my weblog, and stop posting here.
My honest thought is at the time said bet was made, the Abramoff scandal had not broken yet, and it was limited strictly to Ronnie Earle’s charges against DeLay. However, I think I have an obligation to do the honorable thing and I don’t want to weasel out of anything. What say you all?
That parallels my own experience. Possibly it’s because the Left is so religiously smug of their own self-righteousness that they can’t see that someone else may differ, and not actually be wholly evil.
Conservatives, being rather less secure in their own convictions, often actually listen to their opponents, and debate the issues, rather than dismissing their opponents as morally bankrupt and unworthy of consideration
Religious Right paleocons do that dismissal trick too of course – but they haven’t hijacked the Right the way the Anti-Rationalists have the Left. And even then, if you start quoting scripture at them in return, they often listen.
We have to remember that most people, no matter how bigotted, homophobic or transphobic, whether left or right, see themselves as morally righteous. Even OBL does, even AH did. Many can be reached – but we must have the courage so that when debate ends, and we really are confronted with evil, or unrepentant moral certainty that serves evil, we don’t just sit on our hands and talk of “moral equivalency”, we do something about it, and stop the genocide.
#66 – DeLay resigned most likely as a tactical move in his fight against Earle’s charges, and will probably later try to stage a political comeback as the good guy who took one for the team.
I can’t remember your bet with GCB, but shouldn’t it have had something to do with DeLay being convicted/guilty? which we haven’t come near?
As for Abramoff – you just answered it – what would DeLay or your bet have to do with that?
#48 – V, it would be truth-in-labelling, and that gets to the problem with Dan’s hopes for this blog.
As someone suggested: How do you have a fruitful, civil and irenic exchange of ideas with commentors who, in fact, generally intend the exact opposite? (even consciously – see #57)
Dan, this thread’s seen several interesting suggestions now for how you could change the commenting incentives/culture. I’d enjoy seeing a follow-up post where you consider/answer them.
VdaK, let’s step back the to 18thC and consult the code of conduct between civil men engaged in a duel. You made an honorable wager with a dishonorable man who has since been discredited –are you obligated to settle the wager simply based on your sense of personal honor? No. Both men must act in an honorable manner or no man is obligated to attend to the wager. But don’t waste the opportunity to duel.
I’d say, just shoot him at sunrise and be done with it. I’d miss your comments here if you were to abdicate in the face of a wager with a dishonorable man, irrespective of how you think honor commands your conduct.
Just shoot him, VdaK. And take out Patrick, Ian, QueerPat, raj the insufferable, TimH and the others… oh wait, that’d be a single shot pistol, eh? Then it’s GayCowboyBob by a long shot.
GrampaGryph at #33 “Although Iāve maded (sic) an exception in this case, I no longer read comments. They usually are worthless and I have to wade through too many attacks from those such as Caralato or mattmichigan (sic) to find anything of value worth reading”
What Patrick doesn’t tell you is that he routinely emails after nearly every comment I make here and chides me for my ignorance, partisanship, and flawed logic from his perspective… and then asks once again to meet for coffee. He’s even followed me to other blogs and routinely plays the bigot card or tries to flame me for being
–gasp!–
an unrepentant Republican Catholic gay Bush-supporter.
He doesn’t read comments like a pedophile doesn’t get aroused by child porn. Right. I’ve since stopped responding to him because I think his conduct is as close to stalking as blog-land can get.
Jeremy #34 wrote:
Frankly, the world has literally millions of open threads. But I donāt know anywhere to go for good rancor-free debate.
J, you can go to my blog and have all the rancor-free debate you want. Of coarse, you can do that only because hardly anyone reads my blog, so chances are you will be debating yourself:-)
Where is Stephen in all this to-do about ad-hominems??? I seem to recall having several back and forth comment with him about why his constant sabre rattling about someone using ad-hominem attacks against him, ad-nausium, does nothing to further the debate at hand. Hannity does this allot. He’ll have a five minute interview with a liberal on his radio show, spend maybe thirty seconds talking about substance, and then squandering 4 1/2 minutes accusing the guest of making ad-hominem attacks. What a waste of valuable air time. If someone is using an ad-hominem attack on you… who cares! The best way to defeat that attack is to stick to the meat and potatoes of the argument. It may not have the flash and fireworks of the ad-hominem, but if the facts bolster your argument, it’s the best way to get the job done.
PS. Do the host of Air America really think that using the term “druggie” everytime they mention Limbaugh bolsters their argument against him???
Oooops. Forgot to spell check. Sorry for any mistakes.
#70 — MIMatt, I am going to be in Michigan next week, if you want to meet over food and beverages. Your point on an honorable wager with a dishonorable man is well taken.
#71 — Creepy. Fortunately, Gryph hates me viscerally.
#71 – And if you should visit his blog, the anti-GP ad hominems are that much worse.
Gryph seems sadly attached to the GP blog, with “issues” he projects some as having, etc.
“GrampaGryph at #33 ā
It’s long past time for you to retire the “grampa” crap.
#70: “Just shoot him, VdaK. And take out Patrick, Ian, QueerPat, raj the insufferable, TimH and the others”
A post on ad hominem attacks and conservative comment degenerates into “joking” about shooting people with whom you disagree. Nice.
V the K-
I would like to issue a pardon to your bet with GCB who hasn’t exactly played fair himself on this blog or the “shadow blog” he operates.
I’d hate to see “Caption This!” go away due to a sucker punch by a blogbat!
Stay the course, mon! š
You hit the nail squarely on the head my friend: Irrational partisan hatred is plaguing the Democratic party and is going to keep them in the minority for 2006 and well beyond despite media predictions to the contrary.
America has learned to not accept everything the Democrat media says at face value, and outlets like DNN and Most Soitenly Nuthin’ But Crap and the Old Pork Crimes and the St Louis Compost Douchebag and the New Socialist Republic are losing circulation.
You are witness to the independent media rising to greater prominence not to mention our access to international news sources. Next to the controlled media AlJazeera actually appears fair and balanced.
Iād hate to see āCaption This!ā go away due to a sucker punch by a blogbat!
No chance of that. I only bet that I’d delete “my blog.” I have a couple of rarely-used back-up blogs no one would miss if I deleted. No one’s gonna miss “Reactionary Parrot” if I delete that.
After all, GCB was only willing to bet his worthless blog. Why would I have put up anything of real value?
#77 – Ian – by way of answer – Kindly see the middle (second) paragraph of #69. – In the face of what I’m talking about there, people do after all need to joke.
What a sad little whine from the gang that calls others “gay terrorists”, leading one of this blog’s principals to ban HIMSELF to escape the shame of it (hoped we’d forget, hadn’t you?). This pity party would carry a great deal more weight if the poster would own up to the fact that it isn’t just his defenders who have engaged in this sort of thing.
How long will this inconvenient truth remain on “a blog with an open-comment thread”?