Gay Patriot Header Image

Tolerance to certain liberals

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:30 pm - May 18, 2012.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Liberal Intolerance

They’ll tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.

–James Taranto, Best of the Web, May 17, 2012

Share

218 Comments

  1. Hi Dan,
    I know you will be shocked to learn that many liberals think the exact same thing about conservatives…

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - May 18, 2012

  2. I should clarify that–”MANY conservatives.” :)

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 1:06 pm - May 18, 2012

  3. tol·er·ate /ˈtäləˌrāt/
    Verb:

    1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
    2. Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

    Synonyms:
    endure – bear – suffer – stand – support – abide

    I think I’ve managed to live my life tolerating conservatives and conservatism. Exactly what would it mean to not tolerate conservatives though? To tolerate someone certainly does not mean you have to like them, nor does it preclude you from opposing their actions. Respect and politeness may come under the definition, but with your fellow bloggers and their Leftist Nutjobs tag, proof of such a definition of ‘intolerance’ being bipartisan is to be found very close to home.

    Comment by Serenity — May 18, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - May 18, 2012

  4. Wow, sounds like something a gay man would say in the 1950s.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 18, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - May 18, 2012

  5. Who gives a ****? Tolerance is overrated and of questionable value as personal trait.
    Its more to the point that tolerance is a subject that the idiots on the left harp about constantly, but almost never practice themselves, which is the point of Taranto’s post. What Taranto posits as the left’s version of tolerance is spot on, and who shows up with the standard “well, you’re just as (blank) as we are, so there!” equivocation defense but the two clowns who’s comments precede mine on this thread
    It’s another example of the left’s tormenting of the clear meaning of words in the English language; if those on the right disagree with a positiion taken by a leftist tool, they simply write it or say it (think 1st amendment here). And what to the Marxist carnival barkers do in the same situation? They ban you from shopping at the mall.
    That’s their latest example of tolerance.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - May 18, 2012

  6. So, JA61, what is your understanding of what “tolerance” means?
    Vblockquote>left’s version of tolerance
    What is the “right’s version of tolerance”?

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - May 18, 2012

  7. My apologies,
    That should be:

    left’s version of tolerance

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - May 18, 2012

  8. Hmmm. Lets talk about “hate speech.” Do we “tolerate” it or prosecute it?

    That depends. You see, labeling something as “hate” speech is a judgement of guilt from the outset. Therefore, who in world tolerates “hate” anything? Right? No. Not if you do not buy into particular use of the word “hate.”

    Godwin’s Stupid Law is a form of preemptory “hate” speech warning/stipulation that “tolerance” will not follow, let alone apply.

    Liberals use “tolerance” as a political correctness sledge hammer. One is directed to “tolerate” or be “a something-or-other-phobe”. The shorter lib word is “bigot.”

    “Tolerance” for libs has entirely escaped its meaning. When the libs use it, it is code for their political agenda and what they want imposed by law on others. Like gay marriage. For libs, the word “tolerate” is the front door to everything they want to cluck and scold about that is wrapped up in their minds as “intolerance.”

    Libs do not tolerate intolerance. Period.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - May 18, 2012

  9. I may be way off base here but for me, I tolerate other people’s ideas and principles. I do not tolerate violence, hurtful language and stereotyping. A person having different ideas and principles than mine is no reason to hate that person.

    From the left : my partner and I were asked to leave a dinner party by the lesbian hostesses because the McCann/Palin sticker on our truck made their guests uncomfortable. 2 gay man refuse to play tennis with me again after finding out I am a conservative.

    From the right : multiple lunch/dinner invitations from people we met at the Glenn Beck rally. A cruise invitation from a very conservative couple from Texas that we met on a cruise. Many visits from 2 local conservative representatives.

    You decide.

    Oh also, all of my liberal high school chums have de-friended me on Facebook. None of the local gun owner group members have.

    Comment by tnnsne1 — May 18, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - May 18, 2012

  10. I gave you the two versions, and Heliotrope went into more detail.
    The short of it is (topic doesn’t merit the ‘long’):
    –When someone on the right disagrees with someone, they will (most often):
    1) Express the disagreement in words spoken or written.
    There are occasional symbolic expressions (Tea Party), but those are far less frequent

    –When someone from the left disagrees with someone, they will (most often):
    1) immediately label them “a something-or-other-phobe” (h/t to HT!)
    2) get them fired from their job
    3) get them disciplined, including expulsion from their college or university
    4) bring other societal pressure and disapproval to bear, to wit: you are no longer welcome to set foot in the mall, as just happened with Mr. Pacquiao (sp?)
    5) protest and riot – damaging and destroying public and private property

    The right will engage in 1st amendment remedies, almost always.
    The left will try to silence you and bring you to heel, and hew to their orthodoxy. If the (alleged) apostate does not comply, the high priests of the left will go so far as to destroy that person’s entire life.

    Which sounds more like 1940′s/1950′s style ‘blacklisting’?
    Which sounds more ‘tolerant’?

    I’ll reiterate, though, that I see the whole ‘tolerance’ discussion/debate as having little value. I don’t rate tolerance very high on my list of desired traits/values.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - May 18, 2012

  11. OK, here’s my “short” version. When a lib sets out to rant about “tolerance”, I get the trots.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2012 @ 6:33 pm - May 18, 2012

  12. Hi Dan, I know you will be shocked to learn that many liberals think the exact same thing about conservatives

    Well known. The more interesting point/question is: are they right to think that? A question which liberals usually overlook.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - May 18, 2012

  13. Hi ILC,
    You raise an interesting point, and also one that liberals wonder about many conservatives as well…

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 8:27 pm - May 18, 2012

  14. *** FALSE EQUIVOCATION ALERT AT #13 ***
    Did you learn that circular BS at college, or did you come up with it all by yourself?
    Why don’t you try answering #9 and #10 (#10 in response to your #6)?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 8:35 pm - May 18, 2012

  15. Heh.

    The more so because, just a few comments up, conservatives do address the question of whether they are right, when they think it. It is as if Cas wants to pretend that certain comments were never posted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - May 18, 2012

  16. Pardon me, ILC, but its not “It is as if…”, but “It is exactly…”. I was asked a question. I answered (politely, too!), but it WON’T be answered because the very act of acknowledging the truth of it is ‘a bridge too far’ for the poster’s fragile self-image and worldview.
    Any answer will be some BS that’s been seen MANY times before and will contain multiple conditional phrases, clauses, and tap-dancing around the topic.
    I think it was VTK (on another thread) who referred to the Strawman Chorus in Cas’ head.
    I think its more like the Strawman Symphony Orchestra.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 9:04 pm - May 18, 2012

  17. I’m going to re-establish the references here, since they are getting vague.

    1. Taranto (and Dan by quoting him) said: [Liberals will] tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.
    2. Cas said in effect: [Liberals believe it to be true of conservatives, that conservatives will] tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.
    3. heliotrope, tnnsne1 and jman1961 explained pro-actively why conservatives are right to say it of liberals (or what conservatives mean).
    4. I questioned whether liberals are right to say it of conservatives. And whether liberals ask themselves that question enough (i.e., most probably don’t).
    5. Ignoring that “3″ happened, Cas gave a ‘tu quoque’ type of non-answer to my question.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - May 18, 2012

  18. Jman – Yes, do pardon me :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - May 18, 2012

  19. Cas’ #13 was essentially a cut and paste of #1, also by Cas. Fine examples of meeting the subject ‘head on’.

    Wait……is this where the woodwind section comes in?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - May 18, 2012

  20. Liberals’ delusional fantasies of persecution do not interest me; much less the distorted moral equivalence that arises from them.

    Comment by V the K — May 18, 2012 @ 10:09 pm - May 18, 2012

  21. Hi all,
    False equivalences–be still my beating heart…

    I watch as week in and week out, conservatives spew ad hominem attacks at liberal minded folks; and I see the same in return; but … conservatives on this site are “tolerant.”

    Right.

    Sorry folks, I do not buy it. If this site is supposed to be an exemplar of this “tolerant” thinking, I say–fail. I do so, because I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here.

    Your definitions–at #5 & #10, JA61–speak of exercising 1st Amendment rights. So, is it consistent with your understanding of tolerance for you to insult people (as long as you do not offer “fighting words,” etc)? Would that be a correct reading of your position, JA61? I do not agree with that, if that is what you think. I think tolerance denotes a process of rational engagement. Ad hominem attacks are not rational; therefore, this is evidence of non-rational engagement, and hence NOT evidence of tolerance. Ad hominem attacks are rather features of non-toleration or intolerance. And there is plenty of that stuff being thrown around here. You can complain about Libs doing it (How often does one hear the justification of: “They started it” from both sides?)

    After reading HT’s comment at #9, I am still unsure what he thinks conservative tolerance looks like; would it be safe to assume you think along the lines of JA61, HT?

    Also, I find this interesting:

    Liberals use “tolerance” as a political correctness sledge hammer. One is directed to “tolerate” or be “a something-or-other-phobe”. The shorter lib word is “bigot.”

    I find it interesting because the person who uses this term the most on this site (as far as I can tell) is in fact a conservative.

    For these reasons, I think “re-establishing the references” at #17, ILC, does little good. We clearly do not approach the topic the same way. You have a frame of reference, but it is not the only one, I am afraid.

    And since many of you are pretty convinced that you are justified in behaving in this ad hominem way when you get frustrated in an argument with a liberal/progressive, and that argument doesn’t pan out the way you think it should .. well, I think I am quite justified, thank you very much, to make my claim at #13; because I see ongoing evidence of this behaviour, on this site.

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 11:52 pm - May 18, 2012

  22. To the virtuoso # 21: you took 3h55m to come up with that? You’re pathetic.
    What lies behind the smoke and fog of yet another one of your tiresome windbag solos is that you refuse to deal with the larger examples given in my number 10, and the posts at #8, 9, and 17, and returning to post essentially what I said you would at my #16. Good job.
    You think that folksy and phony ‘Hi, —’ bit of yours makes you tolerant, “because (you) think civility is a part of tolerance”?
    Try this: Hi, Cas. You’re a simpleton. You write as if you believe that the mark of tolerance is to NEVER be impatient or strident with an allegedly adult poster who REFUSES to address valid points made by another person (a behavior that you display constantly). You keep pushing this as a false front so that you can, at some future date, make the BS claim that since you never engage in that type of exchange that you are a tolerant person. More self congratulations and unearned self esteem from the left. YOU ARE INTOLERANT because you won’t respond to valid arguments from conservatives in an intellectually honest manner. How do you like that ‘take’ on the word (tolerant/tolerance)?
    Aside from that, you condemn both sides to be intolerant, because you admit that “conservatives spew ad hominem attacks at liberal minded folks; and I see the same in return”. You have it backwards, it’s almost always the left that plays the ‘ad hom’ card first, and despite what you say, ‘who started it’ DOES matter.
    Then you write “I think tolerance denotes a process of rational engagement”. You may believe that but you sure as hell don’t conduct yourself as if you do, because as ILC has stated “It is as if Cas wants to pretend that certain comments were never posted.”
    Prove ILC wrong. Prove me wrong. Answer these questions, and do it directly and precisely, please.
    What side of the political divide most often:
    1. Calls any speech that they disagree with ‘hate speech’. Left or Right?
    2. Calls for boycotts of advertisers/sponsors of television and radio shows where guests or hosts say things that they don’t agree with. Left ot Right?
    3. Calls for prosecutions (again, ‘hate speech’) of people who say things that they don’t like. Left or Right?
    4. Calls for ‘sensitivity/diversity training’ for people who say things that they don’t like. Left or Right?
    5. Asks people to leave their dinner parties because they have a bumper sticker of a politician who they don’t like. Left or Right?
    6. ‘De-friends’ people on Facebook because they hold political views that they disagree with. Left or Right?
    7. Shouts down and disrupts speakers at college commencements because they hold views that are disagreeable to them. Left or Right.
    8. Bars people from their property (shopping mall, for instance) because they hold views that are in opposition to theirs. Left or Right?
    9. Threatens violence against people who say things they disagree with. Left or Right?
    10. Pisses and moans to blog owners because other posters are ‘being mean to them’. Left or Right.
    Go ahead, Cas. Answer these. And try as hard as you can not to engage in your usual bloviating, as it wastes everyones time.
    Thank you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 1:11 am - May 19, 2012

  23. Cas: “I think tolerance denotes a process of rational engagement.”

    Then you are one of the most intolerant posters here, because when you are confronted with an argument that factually and/or intellectually contradicts any claim that you have made, you retreat to your ‘we’ll have to agree to disagree’ or ‘I just don’t see it that way’ arguments.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 1:37 am - May 19, 2012

  24. …or you just pretend that the post(s) contradicting/challenging your’s don’t exist.
    So much for ‘rational engagement’. So much for your vaunted ‘tolerance’.
    Geez, I wish I could be more like you! Gosh darn it!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 1:40 am - May 19, 2012

  25. I think you hit it exactly, Jman.

    Cas is the most intolerant and bigoted poster here, simply because Cas refuses to acknowledge that anyone other than itself might be right or that the facts belie its predetermined conclusions.

    And Cas is the most incivil poster here, since its bigotry requires it to namecall and tear down anyone who disagrees with it, or blather endlessly until the person no longer has the patience to deal with it and leave.

    This is why Cas is suddenly bleating about “tolerance” and “civility”. For the first time in its perverse life, it is being called on its bigotry AND outlasted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 19, 2012 @ 2:02 am - May 19, 2012

  26. JA61
    You make my point for me when you devolve into the ad hominem.

    I was asked to justify my claim at #13. I have done so. You do not like my argument. OK–but that means we have a difference of opinion. But why the vitriol? What does it add to your argument? And being “strident”? I don’t think that helps you at all, JA61; rather, it again helps make my point.

    Can I agree that there are intolerant people on the left?–damned straight I can. That they can organize boycotts and act in non-rational ways, shouting people down? Can you find anecdotal evidence to support your claim? Sure! So? I am not denying that intolerance exists on the left. I just deny that it is just the province of certain liberals. Conservatives get in fist fights, spit on people, call for boycotts, shout people down, etc. Intolerance is not seen on one side of the political spectrum alone, JA61. And conservatives do their fair share of personal attacks when “arguing.” It is intolerance. This is also the province of certain conservatives–to borrow Dan’s construction.

    And again, I ask you, as a matter of clarity: “So, is it consistent with your understanding of tolerance for you to insult people (as long as you do not offer “fighting words,” etc)?” Or should I take what you say above to mean that a little bit of ad hominem is OK now and then, tolerable (you might say) and a sign of tolerance, as long as you think it is justified, JA61?

    Comment by Cas — May 19, 2012 @ 2:02 am - May 19, 2012

  27. bigotry

    Comment by Cas — May 19, 2012 @ 2:05 am - May 19, 2012

  28. Actually, Cas, your hypocrisy just becomes more and more obvious.

    Jman has you cornered for a very simple reason; you cannot condemn the behavior of your fellow leftists, or do the same finger-wagging about “civility” and “tolerance” toward them that you try to use to shut conservatives up.

    And the fact that you acknowledge bad behavior of liberals but refuse to condemn it in the same way you do of your imagined bad behavior of conservatives demonstrates that you are an intolerant bigot who will justify anything your fellow liberals do, regardless of how repulsive.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 19, 2012 @ 2:09 am - May 19, 2012

  29. Let us demonstrate again what the bigot Cas and its fellow “progressives” consider to be “tolerant” and “civil” dialogue.

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    Fully endorsed and supported by Evan Hurst and Wayne Besen.

    Fully endorsed and supported by JennofArk and PeeJ.

    Fully endorsed and supported, posted on an Obama Party “progressive” website.

    This is your version of “civil” and “tolerant” behavior, Cas.

    And hence why your lies no longer work. People recognize the true hatefulness of your behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 19, 2012 @ 2:16 am - May 19, 2012

  30. I’ll do it this way: unless and until you answer, directly, questions that I, or anyone else here poses to you, I will not answer your’s.
    I’ll also point out your clumsy side-stepping of the topic of this post, which was NOT about tolerance (or the lack thereof) ON THIS BLOG, but on the left and the right IN GENERAL.
    It’s another example of you not addressing the topic directly, but evading and shifting (a tactic PREDOMINANTLY employed by the LEFT).
    I NEVER made any claim that intolerance is EXCLUSIVELY on the left, nor has anyone else here, to the best of my knowledge. More topic shifting and slanting from you.
    And if the presence of what you call ‘ad hominems’ (be still, my beating heart!, to quote YOU) moves you to ignore any other valid argument presented in a post, then this too is emblematic of the cowardly dodges that are a familiar and pathetic part of your repetoire.
    Not that it would occur to you, but it is HEALTHY. in fact, to be INTOLERANT of certain things. Perhaps by applying a bit of NUANCE (which the left is always proclaiming it has in abundance), you can understand that.
    It is NOT EQUIVOCAL: the examples I listed occur FAR MORE OFTEN with the left directing them towards the right than the reverse.
    Denial of that FACT is either dishonest or delusional. It’s a 2 item menu, and you can decide for yourself which one of those is true in your case.
    Lastly, if you’re planning on directing comments/questions towards me in the future (and I’d rather that you didn’t, given that you don’t engage people here in HONEST debate) then please get my ‘screen name’ right.
    Thank you and goodnight.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 2:44 am - May 19, 2012

  31. Here’s another fact, Cas. I could whisper sweet nothings in your ear and regale you with $5 words until doomsday, and you still wouldn’t answer the questions posed to you here. You’ll forever be trotting out your horseshit ‘ad hominem’ and ‘tolerance’ routines as a cheap curtain to hide behind. I know 6th graders who could see right through it.
    And if a couple of names (er, ‘ad hominems’) throw you off course, how is it exactly that you’ve surivived in this rough and tumble world?
    Oh, wait. I know: by pissing and moaning about everyone else’s incivility and intolerance. That’s how.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 2:55 am - May 19, 2012

  32. And thank you, NDT, for your compliment!
    And I really am tired of IT. IT should patent and sell ITself as the world’s best sleep inducer, because that’s what IT has done to me (IT’S only positive contribution to this blog, at least at 3AM).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 3:11 am - May 19, 2012

  33. …in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a…

    I just LOVE being told what I believe by folks who have never met me. In my personal expeience it’s usually always progs wh have done this.

    Isn’t there a word for people who judge entire groups of people based on faulty perceptions or stereotypes? Hmmm…

    Comment by AF_Vet — May 19, 2012 @ 9:52 am - May 19, 2012

  34. If this site is supposed to be an exemplar of this “tolerant” thinking, I say–fail.

    You’re still able to post here. Ergo, you’re conclusion is bullshit.

    Comment by 4277 South Florida Ave. — May 19, 2012 @ 1:39 pm - May 19, 2012

  35. Jman, you left out one important… who created the whole concept of ‘hate speech?’ The left. Why was the concept of ‘hate speech’ created? As a vehicle to silence people with any opinions that could be deemed hateful.

    Cassive Aggressive, Insipidity, and that whole lot are treated much better than conservatives are treated at lefty blogs. Of course, most of us conservatives have better things to do than hang out at lefty blogs and antagonize the zoo animals.

    Comment by V the K — May 19, 2012 @ 2:15 pm - May 19, 2012

  36. Of course, most of us conservatives have better things to do than hang out at lefty blogs and antagonize the zoo animals.

    Agreed. Although in the zoo animals defense, they don’t know better. You’d think our enlightened betters, the so-called “progressives,” would.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 19, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - May 19, 2012

  37. Hi Jman61,
    Let us take #30, one step at a time:

    I’ll also point out … the topic of this post, which was NOT about tolerance (or the lack thereof) ON THIS BLOG, but on the left and the right IN GENERAL.

    Hmm, so, does that mean that the use of evidence, i.e., examples showing “intolerance” are not to be used? Because if that is the case, what are your points, 1-10 in #22, exactly?
    And also, the topic of this post is: Certain liberals are intolerant. Not that “liberals are more likely than conservatives to be involved in these specific acts.” Do I mind you changing the topic? No; because I also changed the topic to include the possibility of conservative intolerance in the conversation. Would you just prefer a conversation in which conservatives just circled up and faced each other, slap each other on the back, and agree with the claim? Do that for 40-50 comments, then call it a day? I would find that boring, but your tastes might be different to mine.

    I NEVER made any claim that intolerance is EXCLUSIVELY on the left

    And I never said that you did, and if you think I did, please point to where I said so? I made the point that intolerance can be found on left and right, and that many here don’t much value it as a trait anyway (which shows in comments); as you said of yourself: “I don’t rate tolerance very high on my list of desired traits/values.”

    it is HEALTHY. in fact, to be INTOLERANT of certain things. Perhaps by applying a bit of NUANCE

    I am sure there would be some (many?) things that you and I would agree are intolerable. So, let me use a little nuance, “which the left is always proclaiming it has in abundance.”
    You ask me my opinion of whether or not your action item list 1-10 in #22 is practiced far more by the left than by the right. Is this list finished, or would you allow other items on it? Because, if you do, I want, “uses ad hominem attacks on …. ,” well, you get the idea.

    In answer to your question about list 1-10; well the answer is (drum roll, please)—I do not know. This is an empirical question. If I watch FOX (and I do on occasion), and inhabit right wing blogs (again on occasion), the answer is definitely YES! If I look at liberal media sites, the answer is—well, I am sure you can guess what the liberal blogs say. And frankly, I am moved neither way. I think both sides show intolerance. On this blog, I suspect that conservatives are more likely to devolve into ad hominem attacks, so I think they are more likely to be intolerant. I could be completely wrong about that, because I do not usually follow the threads I do not participate in, but I have begun to do so, looking at “ad hominem” patterns. To really know, we would have to take a period of time, and study the comments, and work out ad hominem patterns in a systematic manner, to see what the data shows. You want me to be moved by your action list, to agree with you Jman61, and I can be persuaded to do so, with two provisos: consider broadening your list a little more (one suggestion above I kindly provided) and find me some scientific statistically valid studies that deal with the issues. Anecdotal evidence does not prove your thesis of “more liberals than conservatives” and it never will. It does prove your thesis that certain (i.e., some undefined subset) liberals are intolerant. I grant that claim—anecdotal evidence supports that claim. You claim this action list together with your “more liberals than conservatives” claim as incontrovertible fact—show me the studies that deal with this sort of thing. Please be aware that I would appreciate the links to the studies themselves, as I would like to read the methodology and confidence intervals for them. As far as I know, there are no valid and robust studies on this action list, 1-10, or some other action list that you might like.

    Nuance doesn’t always agree with a “2 item menu.”

    I am not arguing that ALL conservatives act with intolerance; I argue that certain conservatives on this website act with intolerance, given my argument in #21. And there is plenty of evidence for that anecdotal claim.

    Comment by Cas — May 19, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - May 19, 2012

  38. From Comment # 25: “And Cas is the most incivil poster here, since its bigotry requires it to namecall and tear down anyone who disagrees with it, or blather endlessly until the person no longer has the patience to deal with it and leave.”

    That’s really hilarious when you realize who wrote it.

    Comment by Richard R — May 19, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - May 19, 2012

  39. It must be an onerous task to have to depend on ‘scientific studies’, with all the attendant data re: methodology and confidence intervals in the conduct of one’s daily affairs. I don’t think a person relying on these data to make everyday decisions would be able to get anything worthwhile or necessary accomplished.
    I don’t need ‘studies’ to tell me that fire is hot, that water is wet, that ice is cold, etc., etc.

    I go by this rubric: ‘scientific studies’ confirm what common sense, native intelligence and adult observation tell you, or they’re wrong.

    As to your assertion that I changed the topic: do you imagine that the blog owner(s) who posted it are more in agreement with my generalization that intolerance, as defined by some of the SPECIFIC behaviors I listed in prior posts, is to be found far more on the left than the right? And that these blog owner(s) had this in mind when posting this topic?
    Hmm, I’m guessing that they’d be more likely to cast their votes for my position, in which case I did NOT, in fact, change the topic, but its a sign of progress that we now have your post (#37) wherein you admit that YOU did, in fact, change the topic. Thank you for that much.

    Do regular, right leaning posters here ‘devolve’ (love that Darwinian term!) into what you regard as ‘ad hominem’ attacks? Yes, they and I do. But we already have you at this thread’s #21 saying “I watch as week in and week out, conservatives spew ad hominem attacks at liberal minded folks; and I see the same in return”, an admission that, given this ONE and VERY SPECIFIC example which you’ve harped on repeatedly, its a ‘wash’, and an example of ‘low level’ intolerance. J-walking or ‘spitting on the sidewalk’ intolerance. And all this time taken up on ‘misdemeanor intolerance’ while you have NOT YET addressed the multiple examples of ‘felony level’ intolerance (which emanate predominantly from the left) that I have provided more specific examples of, as have numerous other posters on this thread.

    Lastly, you say at #37 that “…(certain) liberals are intolerant. I grant that claim—anecdotal evidence supports that claim.”
    Where are your anecdotal examples of the right commiting those ‘felony level’ acts of intolerance, that include but are certainly not limited to, the examples which appear in abundance on this comment thread?
    Which side of the political divide created and deploys the ‘hate speech’ charge? Hint: it’s NOT the right.
    Which side of the political divide created and deploys ‘political correctness’ speech codes, in the workplace and at the university? Hint: it’s NOT the right.

    Well, after all of this verbiage and nearly 40 comments, we now have your answer: “I do not know.”
    And at that point you broke into the “needing scientific studies” shuffle, and that’s where I started this reply, so its time I wrap it up.
    I find your premise(s), ahem!. unpersuasive (where have I read that before on this blog?).

    Most of the regular center-right (and furthur right) posters here don’t need to consult the NOAA and NWS to discover that they’re standing underneath a bright blue sky on a sunny day or that they’re being rained and snowed upon on a cloudy one. Neither do they need ‘scientific studies’ to tell them that the vast majority of all ‘felony level’ intolerance comes from the left, regardless of your repeated attempts at equivocating on that point.
    Apparently, you do need these ‘authorities’ to make these same conclusions.
    You have my sympathy on what must be a debilitating and soul burdening handicap.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 19, 2012 @ 8:52 pm - May 19, 2012

  40. The Serenity showed up @ #3 with this:

    tol·er·ate /ˈtäləˌrāt/
    Verb:

    1. Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
    2. Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

    Synonyms:
    endure – bear – suffer – stand – support – abide

    Check out the synonyms. There is nothing “positive” about the word. When you “tolerate” you are just gritting your teeth and letting is slide.

    It is easy to be intolerant and, for the most part, it is a clear sign that someone has gone “too far.”

    However, to be “tolerant” hardly means to be “approving.” The Dutch “tolerate” women sitting in a show window half naked as form of advertisement for what awaits inside the establishment. That simply means that the Dutch have decided not to get involved in prostitution at that particular advertising level. However, it does not mean that the Dutch allow prostitutes to hand out discount cards to elementary students who earn high grades to take home to daddy.

    The left has made a virtue of “tolerance” and consider it to be one of their superior strengths which conservatives (read Neanderthals) do not generally exhibit (according to the judgement of the left) in “normal” circumstances. The left dearly loves to talk about what they are willing/able/predisposed to “tolerate” and they wear it as a badge of honor.

    Conservatives, generally speaking, do not “suffer fools gladly” or give much latitude to people who come to expect to be immediately forgiven for their indiscretions.

    Since the left “feels” intensely, it is understandable that the definition of “tolerance” on the left includes avoiding making someone “feel” bad about themselves for what they do.

    This is all part and parcel of moral relativity. Just think about it: what if you were a homeless, drug addicted prostitute with crabs? How would you “feel” if mean people on the right wanted you off the streets and kept away from general society? This is the crisis of tolerating nearly anything and enforcing the concept of rights and responsibility.

    On the other hand, the left is incredibly intolerant. They adore “diversity” and will come down hard on people who seem not to “tolerate” it. It does not occur to the left that “diversity” encompasses admitting dwarfs with no coordination and sporting an artificial limb or two as Army Rangers. The left would guffaw at such an example, but that is only because their purview of “tolerance” has been exceeded.

    Which brings us back to James Taranto-

    They’ll tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.

    Stated differently:

    They will tolerate anything, as long as it does not deviate from either their orthodoxy or their doxology.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 19, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - May 19, 2012

  41. Hi Jman61,
    So, it appears that you agree with me that you did also change the topic, so, it is not an assertion, if we both agree with that.

    Good.

    As to whether it is a “wash” or not, I have already described to you one method to find an answer, rather than assert an answer. Given that there are more conservative commentators on this block (or conservative comments), one could claim, a priori–well, it is possible that conservative do more ad hominem attacks than progressive posters, in absolute terms. Or that difference might also be a relative difference. Or, maybe a possible big spike in conservative ad hominems might be due to just a few conservative posters who love them their ad hominems. Somehow you KNOW it is a “wash”, though how you do, you do not bother to share. I have given you some ideas on why I think as I do; I acknowledge that this and other threads you and I have shared may not be representative of the whole. RR’s point at #38 is well taken, however.

    OK, so now you offer a new distinction concerning “misdemeanor” and “felony” intolerance. We could also add “citation” intolerance to the mix. It is an interesting idea. Perhaps you might tell me where in the mix, your ten, now eleven points (thanks for considering my addition, I appreciate that. Could liberals add more of their own thoughts on examples of intolerance to your action item list?).

    As for actually reading and understanding scientific studies being “onerous,” let us just agree to disagree about that. I think that anecdotal evidence will get you so far, and no further, Jman61, so I am less sanguine than you are about the power of common sense. Sometimes it takes a scientific study or three to reset “common sense” and “adult observation.” Who would have guessed that water vapour is lighter than air? Or what Zimbardo and Milgram would find? If you really want to understand what is going on, I believe that the scientific studies you disparage are actually an important part of the story.

    I suspect that your answer to the question I raised earlier in #26, is that ad hominem attacks are NOT evidence of tolerance; rather actually evidence of [misdemeanor] intolerance.

    Let me know if I have misunderstood you.

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 12:02 am - May 20, 2012

  42. Hi RR,

    That’s really hilarious when you realize who wrote it.

    Yep… :)

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 12:04 am - May 20, 2012

  43. No, I didn’t change the topic.
    A big misread on your part after I was very clear about it. And take a look at the category tags for the post: Liberal Hypocrisy,Liberal Intolerance. Fits nicely with my premise on topic-changing at #39. Who put those tags on the post? What larger categories do they think THIS post fit into? Its right there if you care to read it.
    YOU changed the topic, and that’s NOT an assertion. So we’re gonna disagree here. What a surprise!

    As to your endless filibuster on intolerant comments on this site and who posts more of them, in absolute numbers or as a percentage: you over-analyze. Try being ‘plain’ for once. Being verbose and obtuse might make you appear more erudite to some, but (as I wrote elsewhere on this blog recently) one sure sign of wisdom is the ability to take a complicated situation or concept and SIMPLIFY it. This doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.
    One reason you may not be as ‘sanguine’ as I am about the power of common sense is that you appear to possess precious little of it. This dovetails with my prior remark concerning wisdom. I keep the simple things simple and attempt, with great success, to make the complicated and arcane less so. You move in the opposite direction. Maybe you’re not a common sense fan because you see few people who exercise it, but that’s not an indictment of the trait itself, but of it’s scarcity and misuse. “Common sense is not common.” You’ve heard of that one before, haven’t you?

    As to the studies you’re enamored of: in the hard sciences, fine, if the methodologies are sound and if the results can be replicated, consistently. In the social sciences and regarding human behavior, which is remarkably malleable, for those who are observed and the observers themselves, they’re very often worthless.
    Never heard of Zimbardo, but I’m very familiar with Milgram, going back to my being 12 or 13 and seeing video of some of the experiment as it was actually conducted on some network documentary (might have been 60 Minutes). My parents remembered (as I do, to this day) for years afterward what my reaction was: right when I was told that for each wrong answer I would have had to administer an electrical shock to the subject, I would have put the researcher up against the wall and threatened to crack his skull open if he didn’t stop.
    Amazing that you were surprised by the results; I wasn’t. Most people behave like herd animals and are in thrall to anyone with a degree or a title. I don’t give a s**t about those things, nor ‘alphabet soup’ after a person’s name, nor honorifics (Dr., Sen., Hon.) in front of it.
    Character, above and beyond all other things, is what counts with me. Degrees and titles don’t confer character upon anyone, and give no indication as to whether a person possesses it or not.

    Given those, I’m NOT surprised that you WERE surprised by the results of the Milgram experiment. Most people would go along with the program. Sorry to say I suspect that you would have, as well.

    There’s another old saying that I like a lot:
    ‘Be wary of giving advice. Wise men don’t need it and fools won’t heed it.
    But I’ll take a shot here: get yourself out of the weeds, and be more plain. Perhaps then you’ll appreciate the great value of common sense and you won’t have the need to consult ‘studies’ to see what, in most cases, is right in front of you. But you do have to look to see it. You’re clearly very intelligent, but, excuse me here, you’re not very smart.

    Intelligence: the set of tools that God gives us to ‘dope out’ the world.
    Smart/Wise: when, where, and how a person uses those tools and to what end or result.

    You’re heavy on the former and light on the latter (not to offend you; just an observation, if you care to consider it). I think you’ve spent too much time in and around the academy, but I could be way off the mark.

    Thanks for the ‘back and forth’, but I feel some carpal tunnel pain coming on so I’m going to say ‘goodnight’.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 1:09 am - May 20, 2012

  44. sleep well

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 3:15 am - May 20, 2012

  45. Kudos to Jman 1961 for staying in the ring while Cas continually pummeled herself and hung on to the ropes and then claimed to win every round.

    Words have meaning, unless you are a liberal. Liberals just hi-jack a word and create whatever meaning they need from it.

    For Cas, “tolerance” is a virtue so long as you “tolerate” according to her orthodoxy.

    See how much she writes and twists and bends and stretches to prove James Taranto to be correct?

    You too could be “tolerant” if you would not deviate from Cas’ orthodoxy.

    Oh, yeah, and about civility: if you don’t “tolerate” the holocaust, don’t let anyone draw a parallel with anything Hitler, because that is “uncivil.” Verboten. Denied. Ex-communicated. A cardinal sin against “tolerance.” “Hate” speech. A crime against civil humanity. Too awful to contemplate. Neanderthal. Being a dirty birdie. Just really icky and bad.

    I wonder if one could possibly compile a liberal dictionary where all the words have a “relative” meaning based on the shifting sands of liberal orthodoxy?

    Have a “hopey-changey” day, Cas.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2012 @ 8:42 am - May 20, 2012

  46. Does this mean we have to clean the cage today?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:04 am - May 20, 2012

  47. Because of the ‘dirty birdie’, that is.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:05 am - May 20, 2012

  48. And thank you, HT.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:14 am - May 20, 2012

  49. Ok, just got through reading up on Zimbardo. I’m familiar with the study but not who conducted it.
    Once more, ANYONE who would be surprised or shocked by the results of this study is sorely lacking in wisdom and common sense.
    It’s closely related to Milgram. and while interesting, only confirms what wisdom, native intelligence and adult observation would tell you.
    Moral of these studies: havoc is almost always wrought by anyone given too much power over others (we need studies to know this?).
    Which is why I reject virtually all left/’liberal’ ideologies as they all prescribe ever greater power for a few in ordering the affairs of everyone else.

    “Power corrupts…..”.
    See, THAT’S common sense.
    Works for me.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 10:41 am - May 20, 2012

  50. Oh, yeah, and about civility: if you don’t “tolerate” the holocaust, don’t let anyone draw a parallel with anything Hitler, because that is “uncivil.” Verboten. Denied. Ex-communicated. A cardinal sin against “tolerance.” “Hate” speech. A crime against civil humanity. Too awful to contemplate. Neanderthal. Being a dirty birdie. Just really icky and bad.

    Wow, I really did hurt you in that debate, didn’t I? Guess you weren’t expecting anyone to stand up to you.

    @Jman1961: Cas’ “endless filibuster”? Both of you have made multiple tl;dr posts in this topic, you criticizing on that subject is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - May 20, 2012

  51. The Trans-Atlantic Twat sticks her nose in the tent.

    So, that’s the one place where, in your opinion, my arguments came up short, is it?
    Fine, and I’ll leave you with this:

    Go f**k yourself, you UK welfare whore.
    And that’s as much civility as YOU merit, douche bag.

    And I PROMISE not to petition the blog owners to ban you from posting here, as a sign of my TOLERANCE.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - May 20, 2012

  52. Charming.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 2:53 pm - May 20, 2012

  53. Charming

    I wasn’t mean to be, you dizzy bitch.
    If you want to come here and play ‘mix it up’, then bring your helmet and pads. Otherwise, F**K OFF!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - May 20, 2012

  54. And you’re not the one to lecture or chide anyone, anywhere on the subject of ‘charm’, seeing as you possess not of it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - May 20, 2012

  55. ….NONE of it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - May 20, 2012

  56. Hi HT,
    As always, good marks for rhetoric, not so good on content.

    For Cas, “tolerance” is a virtue so long as you “tolerate” according to her orthodoxy.

    So HT, what is this “orthodoxy” that I preach, and of which you high-mindedly disapprove?

    Hi Jman61,
    I am pleased that you read up on Zimbardo, but I think you must have got the Reader’s Digest version, because, as much as I can say–sure, power corrupts–I also look at the results that suggest that you would have fallen into line and behaved eventually like a docile “prisoner” had you been put in that role; rather than tell folks to stop the experiment, and get out when they decided to do Abu Ghraib type stuff to you (remember, no one did). I have a feeling that, given what you know of yourself, and from what you have said in earlier posts, that result sounds pretty counter-intuitive to you. One thing to consider: is part of the reason why you think this is so “obvious” today, is because of the work that Milgram and others did, back in the day? At the time, this was not so “obvious.”

    Also, Jman61, you and HT may thumb your noses at civility, but I think your comments towards Serenity in #51 are over the top. Way over the top.

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - May 20, 2012

  57. It’s been obvious to writers and philsophers for CENTURIES. Or are you another one who thinks that all knowledge and wisdom began around the time you first appeared?
    It was obvious to me when i was 12 or 13, as I stated earlier. This was well before I’d ever heard of Stanley Milgram.
    And you don’t know me for shit, Cas dear, and I’ll thank you to stop projecting what you know to be true about yourself onto me.
    I’ve spent my entire adult life NOT going along with the crowd when I knew the crowd had its collective head up its ass.
    Apparently it gnaws at you to know that there are some of us in this world who won’t play ‘go along to get along’ and in the process f**k up all of the predetermined academic conclusions that your cherished ‘scientific studies’ arrive at. Your numbers, anyone’s numbers don’t define me. I define myself. Got it?

    And I don’t give a flying f**k re: your opinion of my response to that jerkoff from Great Britain.
    Stop playing Miss Manners and let Amy fend for herself. If she’s going to dish it out, she’d better be prepared to take it (hey!, another common sense bromide). Or have you two made a pact to protect each other from all of us mean, nasty, uncivil and intolerant right wing meanies?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - May 20, 2012

  58. Seeing as each of you has come to the other’s defense in 2 of the last 7 comments.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - May 20, 2012

  59. Hi Jman61,

    If she’s going to dish it out, she’d better be prepared to take it

    Fair enough, if what she is dishing out deserves what you give. Unless there is something I do not see, what drew your vitriol was this, at #50:

    Cas’ “endless filibuster”? Both of you have made multiple tl;dr posts in this topic, you criticizing on that subject is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    How does that merit the level/intensity of demeaning language you used at #51/#53?

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - May 20, 2012

  60. Because I decided that it did, that’s how. I’m a devout believer in my own agency. I make the determination.
    And who are you to say what is and what isn’t appropriate when it’s directed at someone other than you?
    Do you have a study that you can refer to (with a 98.6375 or greater confidence interval) that determines exactly what response(s) is/are proportional?
    It’s like this: if that was all she could comment on of all the writing I’d done on this thread prior to her post, then all she was doing was looking to get her ‘digs’ in. I gave her a ‘taste of her own medicine’ (x10).
    But like I said, let her do her own talking; it’s not like she’s not capable.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 5:45 pm - May 20, 2012

  61. @Jman1961: I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to get out of me (probably trying to provoke me into an insult you can use against me later, as North Dallas Thirty once did), but it seems I’m going to have disappoint. I’m not in the mood for a fight today.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 6:33 pm - May 20, 2012

  62. I would use this exchange as an example of what tolerance is, but it fails the criteria listed above as I’m not actually angry at Jman1961, nor do I even find him particularly unpleasant. At the moment I’m just rather confused at what I did to make him so angry at me, he’s given no justification beyond “Because I decided that it did” and I don’t recall us having much of a history here, so I’m at a loss.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 6:38 pm - May 20, 2012

  63. 1. I’m not trying to bait you into anything. You post exactly as you please.
    2. You conveniently don’t mention that I did give my reasoning; you either read past it, ignored it, or now to choose to lie and say I gave none.
    3. I don’t need a ‘justification’. I’m not on trial.

    I’m not in the mood for a fight today.

    You wouldn’t know it from your wise ass entry at #51.

    Look, I lightened up with Cas on this thread; I have no problem doing the same with you, under the ssame general framework that I’ve outlined previously.
    Enjoy your evening.

    One thing I like; I’m getting the hang of this HTML jazz.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - May 20, 2012

  64. But I had to litter a few old threads before I started to figure it out………..

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - May 20, 2012

  65. Hi Jman61,
    I find these to be three interesting comments:

    And who are you to say what is and what isn’t appropriate when it’s directed at someone other than you?

    Because I decided that it did, that’s how. I’m a devout believer in my own agency. I make the determination.

    I define myself.

    I have three observations/answers to your first question. First, norms. Whether you like it or not, your agency on this site (as with me and all others who share it) is tied to an implicit acceptance of the moderators’ stated positions and norms with respect to civility. Whether they enforce them or not is another question; and whether they think your approach is OK or not, I cannot definitively say; but FYI, here is the link to the piece that Bruce posted in January 2012. I think you are outside the norms with the comments from #51.

    Second, you do not subscribe to a principle of proportionality of response; I do. That matters to me, because when I see you doing that, I stop and question you as to why. And I make the judgement that it was “over the top.” The question I say back to you is simple: “Why do I NOT have the right to question or judge your action, when it is directed at someone else in this community?”

    Third, if you really believe I have no right to make a judgement in this community, when your action is directed at another, then symmetry would suggest that the same would be true of people who also make judgements concerning your actions with others, whose judgements you like. You appreciate the kind words of those who agree with you–these are “appropriate”; don’t be surprised that if they find your approach “appropriate” and you accept their praise, that others who disagree with you will offer a different opinion that you disagree with. You may “define yourself” as you say, but clearly, you are still sensitive to comments–BOTH positive and negative. The ones you like, you accept; the ones you don’t…

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - May 20, 2012

  66. I watch as week in and week out, conservatives spew ad hominem attacks at liberal minded folks

    What’s the matter, Cas? Outmatched? Don’t like it when tactics of the Left are turned against it? (or you)

    is it consistent with your understanding of tolerance for you to insult people

    It’s consistent with my understanding of tolerance to tell the truth. As others have pointed out, tolerance means: suffering or enduring the existence or presence of something or someone which is distasteful for some reason. Tolerance does not mean that I have to shut up about it, or participate in group denials of the truth about it.

    Ad hominem attacks are rather features of non-toleration or intolerance.

    Only when they’re untrue, and/or grossly irrelevant. If, for example, we are discussing (say) the morality of murder and you are in fact a murderer, then I am not engaging in ad hominem by calling you a murderer; I am telling a relevant truth.

    We clearly do not approach the topic the same way.

    Of course we don’t, Cas. Your approach includes such gross incivilities as repeatedly pretending that your opponents haven’t said what they’ve said; trying to impose the imaginary discussion that you wish were happening, rather than respond to the discussion which is actually happening; etc. As I and others have shown you doing, many a time.

    You know, I was going to respond to more of your blather but there isn’t enough time in the day. It’s just too boring, Cas. Suffice it to state briefly that real civility is a matter of real purpose and intent, not a matter of outward form. With the crudeness of a child, you focus on the form and attempt to deploy that as a weapon – an hypocritical contradiction in terms. You come to this blog with little or no civility in your heart, i.e., little or no real intent to have an intellectually honest discussion, then cluck your tongue at others who may name-call as an emotional response to your incivility. I don’t like graphic name-calling (and I usually avoid name-calling in general, with certain exceptions such as when I address Pomposity by that moniker), but I understand why people do it. You are not, in moral fact, any better at civility than commentors on GayPatriot who engage in name-calling. Same goes for Pomposity and Cinesnatch, btw.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - May 20, 2012

  67. The Serenity:

    My comment whizzed into one of your ears and came out the other without any brain cells obstructing it.

    You are the one calling Godwin’s Stupid Law as an “intolerance” foul if any reference whatsoever is made to Hitler. You see, The Serenity, you have marked out the rules and drawn the lines and call the fouls. That is not only a totally tilted playing field, it is a game played in the instant possible relativity of your own infertile imagination.

    Suffice it to say, you did no wounding in our exchange about Hitler comparisons; you completely showed your bare hind end.

    However, if you feel better believing you have finally gained an inch of traction in all the spinning and reversing and shifting you do here ….. just go ahead and high five yourself and blow yourself an air kiss in the mirror.

    The reason you liberals can not gain respect, let alone an upper hand, is because you insist on boring people to near death with the superiority dance you leap into when you succeed in having a bowel movement or exhaling or growing finger nails.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2012 @ 9:02 pm - May 20, 2012

  68. 1. I’m not trying to bait you into anything. You post exactly as you please.

    I will.

    2. You conveniently don’t mention that I did give my reasoning; you either read past it, ignored it, or now to choose to lie and say I gave none.

    The closest I can see to anything resembling reasoning is “If she’s going to dish it out, she’d better be prepared to take it”, which still leaves the question of what the hell ‘it’ was, with you seemingly being the only person here who finds it self-evident.

    Otherwise, “Because I decided that it did, that’s how. I’m a devout believer in my own agency. I make the determination.” is the exact answer you gave Cas when he asked about what you said in posts #51/#53, which I thought to be your final answer.

    3. I don’t need a ‘justification’. I’m not on trial.

    “I gave you justification! Even though I didn’t need to! But I still gave you one! Because that’s what a great person I am!

    I’m not on trial here!

    You wouldn’t know it from your wise ass entry at #51.

    My ‘wise ass entry’ is at #50. #51 is where you told me to go f**k myself. I thought it best to get the facts straight.

    Look, I lightened up with Cas on this thread; I have no problem doing the same with you, under the ssame general framework that I’ve outlined previously.
    Enjoy your evening.

    As I said before, you’re not bothering me now so why would I care? I’m curious, not offended. I’m also still enjoying this exchange, so let us continue.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - May 20, 2012

  69. Cas-

    Since the degree to which I’ve stated it previously has not been sufficient to gain your understanding (and I thought you were intelligent), I’ll say it this way:

    Mind your own f**king business. You got that, professor?

    I answered Amy, who, I forgot to mention, likes to play the poor bewildered waif who is ‘at a loss’ for my (or anyone else’s) attacks when she comes in here spoiling for a fight and winds up with one.
    To my knowledge, you haven’t been appointed the Civility and Tolerance Officer of the GayPatriot website, er, ‘community’. Now ain’t that nice?
    If the owners deem it necessary to reprimand, chastise, lecture, or otherwise punish me for infractions here, I’ll deal with that if and when it happens.
    Is it that obnoxious sense you have of your own rectitude that causes you to continuously speak for others (like Amy and the blog owners)?

    ILC has you down cold at #66: you’re pounding the table with your ‘Emily Post Symposium’, and I’m not the least bit interested. You still FAILED to address anyone’s points on this thread concerning tolerance re: each side of the larger political divide, choosing instead to sidetrack it into a finger wagging diatribe about the lack of manners of both myself and certain other contributors to this site.
    You can ‘still’ that quavering finger by sticking it up your a**!
    I tried civility with you, and for one brief, shining moment it looked like we might be getting somewhere. But I was wrong. I’ll bet bucks to bullshit that you’ve never posted a similar sentiment about yourself. And you know why? Because you’re always right. Isn’t that what you believe?
    And I just know that you have the ‘scientific studies’ to prove it.
    You’re an insufferable phony and a waste of time.
    If the coarse discourse is so upsetting to you, why don’t you simply FO and not come back. Or hasn’t there been a study conducted yet to tell you what do in this situation?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:06 pm - May 20, 2012

  70. You are the one calling Godwin’s Stupid Law as an “intolerance” foul if any reference whatsoever is made to Hitler.

    I wouldn’t go that far (I mentioned Hitler myself here recently) but I do draw the line at comparisons to Hitler or the Third Reich to modern politicians or political tactics, which I consider without basis and beyond the bounds of civil debate. It’s not even a debating tactic so much is it a smear against political opponents, which is the prime reason why I objected in our earlier debate.

    Even when it comes to corrupt dictatorships or banana republics, I still consider Nazi references unproductive as they’ve been so overused throughout the years that they no longer even carry any force. Godwin’s Law is actually a symptom of this, people throwing around the word ‘Nazi’ with no thought about who the Nazis really were.

    You see, The Serenity, you have marked out the rules and drawn the lines and call the fouls.

    I can’t make you play by my rules, but I don’t have to play by your rules either. I try to be fair, but I have standards. There are some lines I think should not be crossed, and if you insist on crossing then, then I simply won’t play with you any more.

    I think it would be very easy for you to criticize Barack Obama and the Democrats without invoking the Nazis, and your criticism would have more force if you actually focused on articulating why you hate them, but I hold little hope that you will as reversing course would constitute a ‘defeat’ at this point.

    Suffice it to say, you did no wounding in our exchange about Hitler comparisons; you completely showed your bare hind end.

    Which is why, of course, you decided to spontaneously raise it in this thread without any sort of prompting. Because I didn’t have any impact on you whatsoever, so you decided to talk about how completely not-wounded you are.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - May 20, 2012

  71. for one brief, shining moment it looked like we might be getting somewhere

    One of her ploys… bait-and-switch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2012 @ 9:25 pm - May 20, 2012

  72. Stupidity @62:

    At the moment I’m just rather confused….

    Stupidity @68:

    As I said before, you’re not bothering me now so why would I care?

    Well, you didn’t say it before, so that’s a lie.
    Which one is it? I’ll choose it for you: confused (a condition you surely suffer from regularly).
    As for not caring: you don’t care so little that you don’t keep coming back. Do you often find yourself engaging in self-contradiction?
    Stupidity, again @68:

    I gave you justification! Even though I didn’t need to! But I still gave you one! Because that’s what a great person I am!

    More classic leftist projection. Christ, you’re terribly insecure, aren’t you?
    Stupidity- don’t you have something more productive and rewarding to do, like planning that next shopping spree; the items pucrchased with the proceeds of your latest welfare check?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:31 pm - May 20, 2012

  73. True ILC!
    Say, I’m starting to get the HTML down. How do you do that ‘smiley’ bit?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:32 pm - May 20, 2012

  74. Stupidity again:

    and if you insist on crossing then, then I simply won’t play with you any more

    Then why do you keep stalking HT with this subject? More self-contradiction? More confusion? More of your addle-brained, off-your-meds rants?
    Which one is it, bint?
    Tell us, twat!
    We’re all dying to know!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:36 pm - May 20, 2012

  75. Which one is it? I’ll choose it for you: confused (a condition you surely suffer from regularly).

    Well yes, I’ll admit I’m even more confused now. The two statements are not in contradiction. I am confused, but you’re not actually bothering me.

    As for not caring: you don’t care so little that you don’t keep coming back. Do you often find yourself engaging in self-contradiction?

    I addressed this as well. I’m enjoying posting in this thread, I’ll post in it until I stop enjoying myself. What I don’t care about is whether or not you’re ‘civil’ to me, the meaning of which I fail to see if your exchanges with Cas are what pass for ‘civil’ to you.

    Is this your new tactic? Try and quote mine me into insulting you? That worked for ND30 one, never again. Try something else.

    More classic leftist projection.

    What am I justifying now?

    Christ, you’re terribly insecure, aren’t you?

    I don’t know. What do you think?

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - May 20, 2012

  76. Stupidity @75:

    Is this your new tactic? Try and quote mine me into insulting you? That worked for ND30 one, never again. Try something else.

    “…mine me”? That’s your confusion again. The rest you said before, and that’s paranoia.

    Let’s see – confusion, paranoia, insecurity. What could that mean? Let me consult the DSM V (latest version).
    Dum, de dum, la la la, be bop a bo bop…..
    Ahhhh, here it is, under Personality Disorders
    It says you’re suffering from “F**ked in your Head
    It also says there are no effective treatments at this time.
    I’m so sorry.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - May 20, 2012

  77. The basic smiley is two characters: a colon, followed directly by a right parenthesis. Like this :)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2012 @ 9:52 pm - May 20, 2012

  78. You can also do a semicolon, followed by a right parenthesis to get more of a winking effect ;)

    There are web pages out there somewhere that explain all of the “emoticons”, as they are called.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2012 @ 9:53 pm - May 20, 2012

  79. Thanks, ILC!

    How about other faces? Is there an online reference I could use, instead of bugging you?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - May 20, 2012

  80. Scratch that last one.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 9:54 pm - May 20, 2012

  81. Watch out for numbering lists with a right paren, like 1), 2), 3), etc.

    As many have found, when you get to number 8, it prints as a face with sunglasses: 8)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - May 20, 2012

  82. What I don’t care about is whether or not you’re ‘civil’ to me

    Dynamite! Because given your conduct here, you don’t deserve it, and I won’t extend it.

    if your exchanges with Cas are what pass for ‘civil’ to you.

    They were for civil enough for her and I to exchange a lengthy back and forth just yesterday. Are you jealous?
    And what’s with this thing where you and Cas speak for each other?
    Are you unseparated Chinese twins or did you swap Powers of Attorney with each other?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - May 20, 2012

  83. Thanks for all of that ILC. I appreciate it! 8)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - May 20, 2012

  84. One more thing, Amy dear: you’re either ‘curious’ and ‘at a loss’ (meaning you’re searching for answers) or ‘you don’t care’. The former 2 and the latter 1 are mutually exclusive.
    It’s your confusion thing again.
    Keep working on it. Maybe it’ll clear up someday.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 10:18 pm - May 20, 2012

  85. Whoops! Siamese twins

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 10:20 pm - May 20, 2012

  86. The Serenity:

    You and I agree (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) that the holocaust, the Nazis and Hitler in general are horrendous blots on human history.

    You refuse to allow leftists to be compared to similarities in the rise of Hitler and on that we totally disagree, because I think you should learn important lessons from the immediate past.

    So, who is it that is protecting whom? Even Noam Chomsky realizes that Bush “tortured” his enemies, but Obama murders them. (What, pray tell, happened to Gaddafi on Obama’s “NATO” watch while he was trying mightily to have KSM tried in civilian courts? And why is The Won so stand-offish about doling out the same in Syria or Iran?)

    You leftists think you can be too clever by half and no one will notice your game.

    But why bother? Most of this will just zoom straight through that air shaft between your ears.

    Apparently you have not read Goebbels, Alinsky, Sanger, Shaw and the Fabians, Edmund Bernays, Upton Sinclair’s EPIC Plan and so many of the fascist/socialist plans for statist supremacy. Fine. Be an ignoramus that just warms to a death by boiling because of incremental increases in applied elevations of heat. The useful idiots are always served up first and you are near, if not at the head, of the line.

    How about this: take some time in the next day or two to chat up some of your Muslim radicals about softening Sharia to tolerate and celebrate the wonders of homosexuality?

    Be sure to run right back here with your wild successes at turning them around and getting them on the happy, productive, felicitous track of honoring diversity.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - May 20, 2012

  87. I wouldn’t go that far (I mentioned Hitler myself here recently) but I do draw the line at comparisons to Hitler or the Third Reich to modern politicians or political tactics, which I consider without basis and beyond the bounds of civil debate.
    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 9:22 pm – May 20, 2012

    And yet, as I pointed out in that very thread, you and your fellow Barack Obama supporters and “progressives” are consistently doing it.

    So you’re a liar and a hypocrite.

    Meanwhile:

    Hi RR,

    That’s really hilarious when you realize who wrote it.

    Yep… :)

    Comment by Cas — May 20, 2012 @ 12:04 am – May 20, 2012

    Yet, Cas, both you and Richard Rush endorse and support this statement:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    So given that, you and Richard Rush really have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to tolerance or civility.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 20, 2012 @ 11:42 pm - May 20, 2012

  88. Stupidity @70

    Which is why, of course, you decided to spontaneously raise it in this thread without any sort of prompting. Because I didn’t have any impact on you whatsoever, so you decided to talk about how completely not-wounded you are.

    This gives your game away, UK Psycho.

    Do you have some very personal search engine algorithm that detects the name ‘Hitler’ when it’s posted anywhere on the Web and like one of Pavlov’s mangy dogs you come a-running to defend ‘civil debate’, as you put it?

    The second giveaway? You’re pissing yourself with the thought that you ‘wounded’ HT.
    It’s not about any honest debate for you, just like it isn’t for Cas-hole. It’s about WINNING, right?
    Figures you’d take your lead from Charlie Sheen, a notorious psychotic and crack addict.
    You really are one sick, pathetic little b***h!
    Cas-hole ought to move to the UK so you two can get married (if you’re not betrothed already).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 20, 2012 @ 11:53 pm - May 20, 2012

  89. Hi ILC,
    Pleased to see you back in the discussion, and having a look at my argument in #21, though you appear to suggest that you will again leave, before I answer you. OK, can we count that as an incivility; though not one that is covered under the moderators comment policy?

    Even though you will not likely be here, let us look at your argument:
    1. A taunt.
    2.

    Only when they’re untrue, and/or grossly irrelevant. If, for example, we are discussing (say) the morality of murder and you are in fact a murderer, then I am not engaging in ad hominem by calling you a murderer; I am telling a relevant truth./

    Putting aside the fact that it is hard to fathom why you would use such an example, when we are in fact talking about ad hominem attacks on GP comment threads, a couple of things stand out to me about this argument. I agree–if you are a murderer, ILC, calling you a murderer is telling the truth. Out of curiosity, are you holding to an objective standard of truth here ILC, for it not to be ad hominem in your opinion? Or is thinking it is the truth enough for you? Just checking.

    In any case, I do not understand how that could be construed as an ad hominem attack in the first place. Isn’t it a statement of fact? How could the murderer construe this as a personal attack?

    I liked the part about relevancy more. For example: “I do not have to listen to your views on General Relativity Theory, ILC, because you are a murderer” doesn’t make a whole lot of logical sense. On the other hamd, “I do not have to listen to your views on Ethical Theory, ILC, because you are a murderer” may be more reasonable; but them again, I cam think of scenarios where it might depend on what was said. So I like that, since that fits in with the definition of an abusive ad hominem argument–an argument that usually relies on “insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent’s personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent’s argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.”

    So, when you dismiss my argument about ad hominem arguments as uncivil and examples of intolerance because you think I use other incivilities, why, that is an ad hominem attack. Who would have guessed? I like the fact that you want to broaden the discussion. We can do that, I think, since I did it myself. Out of curiosity, do you think the comments against Serenity in #51 are actually ad hominem arguments, verbal abuse, or a logically constructed arguments?

    Finally,

    Suffice it to state briefly that real civility is a matter of real purpose and intent, not a matter of outward form. With the crudeness of a child, you focus on the form and attempt to deploy that as a weapon – an hypocritical contradiction in terms. You come to this blog with little or no civility in your heart, i.e., little or no real intent to have an intellectually honest discussion, then cluck your tongue at others who may name-call as an emotional response to your incivility.

    Let us accept that you can see into my heart ILC, and know my intent with such clear vision (must be the all-seeing eye you have access to, I guess). You might as well hold up a mirror around here ILC; as far as I can tell, given the standards you offer, many people who actively comment on this blog, including yourself, have done this as well, I am afraid to say, though I cannot see into hearts, I admit; just seeing outward actions. Incivility is not just a bugbear of the left, ILC. It beats strong within the right as well. :(

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:36 am - May 21, 2012

  90. GO F**K YOURSELF, CAS-HOLE!

    You’re a relentless malignancy that a lot of folks here would like to be rid of.
    Since cancers won’t remove themselves, they can be excised, or they can be bombarded into remission.
    Which treatment would work best on YOU?

    You’re a sick, twisted person. You really are.
    And I’m not going to let you get the last word in this thread, either. So keep up that pathetic Cassive-Aggressive schpiel of yours; you lurk in the shadows for a few hours, waiting for the thread to settle, then pop in and leave another one of your bullshit screeds, and I’ll be right here to call you out.

    Now its ILC who’s a bad guy.

    There’s no rewarding or satisfying or even reasonable way to interact with you; it’ll be your way or EVERYONE ELSE is uncivil. intolerant, vitriolic, presumptuous, harsh, cruel. But oh, no, not you. You’re the antithesis of all that’s bad, all that’s degrading, everything that’s evil and wrong in the world. You’re perfect. You’re a god.
    Have you EVER, in your entire life, just once, been WRONG?
    Have you EVER been laid in your entire pathetic, parasitic existence? Have you ever had a close and loving partner? Do you have now, or have you EVER had even one, close trusted friend? Do you have any hobbies or outside interests? Or do you exist simply to come to places like this to torment, taunt, shift topics, lie, evade, dissemble, and distort? Is this routine of yours what brings you any joy in life? Do find this fulfilling? Are you ever happy?

    You might as well hold up a mirror around here ILC

    No, Cas. YOU hold up the mirror. YOU take a good look into it. Do you like what stares back at you. Are you comfortable and at ease with your reflection?

    You have a sick soul, Cas. You really ought to get some help.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:25 am - May 21, 2012

  91. Hi Jman1961,
    Given how you started your comment, I will skip the rest of your post (never having been a fan of verbal abuse, why bother reading it?), and just end with your own words from #30:

    Thank you and goodnight.</blockquote

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 2:09 am - May 21, 2012

  92. You didn’t skip it, you sick, sad, pathetic creature.
    You’ll just pretend that you can’t, or didn’t see what everyone else can read, like you do with every other comment thats ever been posted here that calls you out for the prodigious phony that you are.
    You have a sick and twisted soul, and you need help, desperately.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 2:16 am - May 21, 2012

  93. So, when you dismiss my argument about ad hominem arguments as uncivil and examples of intolerance because you think I use other incivilities, why, that is an ad hominem attack. Who would have guessed? I like the fact that you want to broaden the discussion. We can do that, I think, since I did it myself. Out of curiosity, do you think the comments against Serenity in #51 are actually ad hominem arguments, verbal abuse, or a logically constructed arguments?

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:36 am – May 21, 2012

    Actually, Cas, the reason is because you support and endorse Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, Serenity, JennofArk, Richard R, and others who declare this to be logically constructed argument.

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    So that’s why you are called an incivil bigot, Cas. Everyone sees what you say, everyone sees who you endorse, and everyone sees what you do. If you were so concerned about “civility” and “ad hominem”, you would not be supporting and endorsing the people who write and make such posts, especially if you have the respect you claim to have for Dan.

    But you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 2:20 am - May 21, 2012

  94. Guys: I appreciate the perceptive defense, and I know well the benefits (for oneself and others) of identifying the precise ways in which the malignant narcissist leftie is wrong. There is a point however, where they’re not worth it. That point is when your resting blood pressure goes up more than 20 points or so, and/or when you’ve spent more than 20 minutes on them in a given day. Think of it as a 20-20 rule :-)

    I stand by what I said: Cas, having little or no intellectual honesty in your tactics and little or no civility in your heart, you have no business clucking your tongue at anybody. None. Fix the log in your eye, before so helpfully taking on the mote in others’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 10:30 am - May 21, 2012

  95. Cas @ #21:

    Hi all,
    False equivalences–be still my beating heart…

    I watch as week in and week out, conservatives spew ad hominem attacks at liberal minded folks; and I see the same in return; but … conservatives on this site are “tolerant.”

    Right.

    Sorry folks, I do not buy it. If this site is supposed to be an exemplar of this “tolerant” thinking, I say–fail. I do so, because I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here.

    And with this simple shift, spin and twist, Cas marches forward to argue about “civility” and to focus on ad hominem and chalk up one score after another in her game of False Cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) of establishing a causal connection between “tolerance” and “civility.”

    Note the original post which I quote here in its entirety:

    They’ll tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.

    –James Taranto, Best of the Web, May 17, 2012

    What better proof of the quote than Cas bringing her orthodoxy concerning “civility” to the fore while sublimating “tolerance” altogether?

    Cas is like a refined whore who insists on tea and biscuits before she gives the john access to her various portals. She insists that she is not a whore, because whores don’t do tea and biscuits as the opening activity. But a whore is paid the same for spreading her legs, no matter what else is part of the game.

    To bring Godwin’s Stupid Law into the mix, it is interesting to note that Herman Keyserling examined Social Darwinism and found that certain people were born to rule and he developed the “Führerprinzip” from which Hitler chose the title “Der Führer to out do Il Duce Mussolini who got under his skin.

    Hitler had a strong sense of Auctoritas which made him the “authority” over issues of right and wrong and demanded total obedience and loyalty. Thus, Der Führer could do no wrong. Put another way, you must obey and you must adhere to the ideology.

    So, Cas has taken the self-anointed role of Der Führer of the comments thread. She has authored “civility” as fundamental to “tolerance” and any disagreement or “incivility” automatically makes the “guilty” party “intolerant”.

    It is all very predictable. Cas sets up a Maypole and then orders the commenters to weave the ribbons around it. In the end, you have a Maypole no one ordered all festooned with the drapes of tripe Cas hung on it.

    Cas completely ignores the quote and any reference to tolerance that is not dutifully shifted to her preference to defining “civility.”

    Cas probably walks away from countless encounters where she moves the topic far afield and feels enormously superior for having “prevailed” by frustrating the other party into exasperation.

    But, here, we have her words and one can read them and unwind her shifting and sashaying and tripping and ignoring and oozing and eeling and twisting and spinning and twirling and gamesmanship.

    Albert Speer wrote a terrific account of how Hitler’s Führer’s mentality paralyzed the Third Reich. Since he was the fount of all authority over right and wrong, he “taught” his people to be very careful to keep things as tacit understandings rather than to write them down. When everything is subject to change and change is a constant, you must never be caught being inconsistent with the new doctrine. Therefore, you must shift, dance, twist, slide and always have an underling (useful idiot) you can shoot, if necessary.

    Think about it. This is really how liberals like Cas operate.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 10:33 am - May 21, 2012

  96. (continued)

    the all-seeing eye you have access to

    Sux to have people see right through you, eh Cas? LOL :-) To have people be onto your game. At least Pomposity can admit its negative intent here.

    Speaking of Pomposity though, same thing applies in a different way. The Left cannot afford to have people remember the historical truth that fascism was a socialist, left-wing workers’ movement. So, if people remember, time to attack them for it and try to shut down their clear-seeing. How DARE people remember that the New Deal was at the time partly inspired by fascism, or notice that that modern leftists’ ideas about the role of government in society bear a remarkable resemblance to it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 10:43 am - May 21, 2012

  97. Sound analyses and advice from ILC and heliotrope.
    The ’20-20 rule’ is a good reference for this venue, but what about in the ‘real’ world?
    Ignoring these people in that venue is one ingredient in the toxic recipe in which this country is slowly stewing at this very moment.
    Ignoring the sick and twisted types like Cas only allows them to jack up the heat.
    I’m commited to shutting the burner off and, if I have to go so far as breaking the hands of Cas and everyone like ‘it’ to keep them from turning up the dial, I’ll do it.
    I refuse to live in a country where sick creatures like Cas feel empowered to rule over me, and I have no intention of leaving here. Either Cas and its herd will learn how to relent, and leave me alone, or I’ll teach them how to do it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 11:24 am - May 21, 2012

  98. Jman1961,

    You are correct. The universities are chock-a-block full of “perfessers” who prattle and dazzle and feed the party line, but brook no disagreement or systematic debate. The MSM is full of ideological “thrill” (as up their legs) seekers who report their “feelings” and mock their targets.

    You will recall the “cause and effect” of why Gabby Giffords was shot. Sarah Palin put her in the crosshairs and the Neanderthal redneck TEA Party spread the hate and lo! and behold! she was shot. So, the only thing to do was to rally around her tragedy and do a one-sided, ideological “civility” crusade and piety dance while handing out T-shirts and collecting campaign donations.

    That is how the left schemes, postures, capitalizes on “victimhood” and manipulates its useful idiots. No charm, no wit, no wisdom, no class, no intellect, no debate, no subtlety, no relent, no remorse.

    You either stand up to it or you let it feed unmolested. It is like “tolerating” cancer. (Which, of course, you must do in a “civil” way.)

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 11:58 am - May 21, 2012

  99. It is like “tolerating” cancer

    Why I referred this blog’s notorious ‘IT as a malignancy at #90, because that’s what Miss IT is, both here and in the society.
    Wake up, folks. It’s a cancer that’s slowly killing us. And cancer almost never goes away on it’s own.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - May 21, 2012

  100. Jman, excellent point.

    We need only look at what Pomposity and its screaming, welfare-addicted ilk were doing in the UK last year.

    We need only look at what Cas and its fellow children like Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, JennofArk, and Richard R are doing in the United States now.

    We have already seen the Obama Party and its representatives, including one personally endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, call for Republicans to be murdered — without Cas, Pomposity, or any of the other liberals here saying word one about “incivility” or “tolerance”.

    We have already seen Obama Party representatives like Little Kiwi call for conservatives to kill themselves — without a single word of reproach or hand-wringing about “incivility” or “tolerance” from Cas, Pomposity, or any of the other liberals here.

    Again, that is to Heliotrope’s point. Cas and its ilk CANNOT condemn outright any tactic or activity, lest they end up like poor Cory Booker, having his entire political career threatened by the Obama Party for daring to criticize Teh Won’s inept attacks.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - May 21, 2012

  101. Hi ILC,

    Cas, having little or no intellectual honesty in your tactics and little or no civility in your heart, you have no business clucking your tongue at anybody.

    Interesting assertion, ILC.

    I will offer one interesting empirical point for your consideration. As much as there are commentators on this thread thinking that verbal abuse and ad hominem attacks are pertinent and applicable (on occasions they deem “appropriate”) because those on the left who argue not to their liking “deserve it,” I haven’t seen the flip side of that thinking.

    What I mean by that: I have yet to see you, ILC, or HT, or Jman1961 or NDT, and some others actually grant a single claim from “the other side.” Something along the lines of: “You raise a good point, etc …” for example. Of course, that could be because “the other side” has nothing useful to offer, because you have “the truth.” Even as I suspect that IS in fact what certain commentators here believe, I just point out that infallibility is not usually understood to be a human condition.

    You talk a good game, ILC, but I am serious when I say–look in the mirror. I watched as you were engaged by rt on a previous thread, who was as sympathetic as anyone could be to your economic position, without actually holding it (mal-investment/ mal-consumption, etc..). He brought up points/evidence that did not gel with your understanding. Your approach was to restate your position in such detail, that the point that rt was making, got lost in it. I don’t think he got back to you on that when I was checking out that thread; did he eventually do so? I even added a question (twice repeated and alas, twice ignored) about the evidence you relied on concerning inflation. This is your right, ILC. But I thought it was sad. That was not a discussion. It was you giving a lecture in support of what you already believed; and in the process, you lost a valuable opportunity to explore your belief system with a sympathetic though critical individual (rt) who might have been willing to help you sharpen your own thinking. A word of advice: You should cultivate those folks.

    You may look down upon me from your great all-seeing height delving into my otherwise invisible heart, ILC, but I do something I don’t see any of the rest of you I named doing. And you may dislike it that I don’t do it enough for your tastes, but, I at least practice it: I accept that there are times I will be wrong or that I needed to broaden my thinking. “You raise a good point…”; “You are right–my argument needs work” etc. I also haven’t seen a single apology for, what has been at times, disgraceful rhetoric.

    And I don’t expect it, because I have come to realize that that there are some commentators here who will not offer it or practice what they say they hold dear to them, when it comes to “the other side…”.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - May 21, 2012

  102. It’s so weird that Cas would be on a high horse about ad hominem… when, from her very first comment in this thread, she has employed little more than tu quoque… which is ultimately a form of… ad hominem.

    I mean, once you understand her game, it isn’t weird that she would try it. But it’s weird that she thinks we might buy it, after so many proofs that we don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 12:27 pm - May 21, 2012

  103. Hi HT,
    I find this claim interesting. if a tad unclear:

    And with this simple shift, spin and twist, Cas marches forward to argue about “civility” and to focus on ad hominem and chalk up one score after another in her game of False Cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) of establishing a causal connection between “tolerance” and “civility.”

    As for the “shift”, I have made no secret of the fact that I wanted to broaden the discussion; something that other commentators had already accepted by actually discussing within its framework.

    Since I said that “I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here,” you believe this to be “causal.” Why exactly is that HT? What exactly in the statement I make: “I think civility is part of tolerance” tells you that this is a “causal” argument that requires reference to your “post hoc” claim?

    Once I have that clear, I think I will be quite happy to talk some more about it.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - May 21, 2012

  104. Hi ILC,

    little more than tu quoque… which is ultimately a form of… ad hominem

    Hmm. I am not claiming that Taranto and/or Dan are wrong because conservatives do it as well. I am claiming that “Certain conservatives are intolerant” and ““I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here.” In terms of this thread, that is quite true. I have no problem with the claim that “certain” liberals act in the fashion that Taranto and Dan suggest. Empirical data suggests that there is good evidence for that claim. So, what exactly is the ad hominem here?

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - May 21, 2012

  105. I accept that there are times I will be wrong or that I needed to broaden my thinking.

    ROFL :-) I call bullsh*t.

    What I mean by that: I have yet to see you, ILC, or HT, or Jman1961 or NDT, and some others actually grant a single claim from “the other side.”

    Make valid points, and I grant them. In fact, I routinely say “I was wrong about…” or “You were right about…” But you’re unhappy, because I don’t say it to you. I don’t say it to you, because I’m still waiting, Cas, for you to make a logically valid, factually grounded, relevant and non-obvious point for once in your time here.

    (Added “relevant and non-obvious” because I needn’t acknowledge you for noting correctly, say, that the sky is blue.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 12:50 pm - May 21, 2012

  106. I even added a question (twice repeated and alas, twice ignored)

    Wow. You seem to think that to be given my time, is your entitlement. (Rather than my whim.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - May 21, 2012

  107. To Miss ‘IT’ @101:

    but I do something I don’t see any of the rest of you I named doing

    Miss ‘IT’ @89:

    I like the fact that you want to broaden the discussion. We can do that, I think, since I did it myself

    Anyone notice a pattern here? Self-referential, self-congratulatory, moral preening.

    And my observation @90:

    There’s no rewarding or satisfying or even reasonable way to interact with you; it’ll be your way or EVERYONE ELSE is uncivil. intolerant, vitriolic, presumptuous, harsh, cruel. But oh, no, not you. You’re the antithesis of all that’s bad, all that’s degrading, everything that’s evil and wrong in the world. You’re perfect. You’re a god.
    Have you EVER, in your entire life, just once, been WRONG?

    I just point out that infallibility is not usually understood to be a human condition.

    How poignant, as you are this site’s quintessential example of that maxim ;)

    That was not a discussion. It was you giving a lecture in support of what you already believed

    This from the foremost practitioner of honest, open debate.

    you lost a valuable opportunity to explore your belief system with a sympathetic though critical individual (rt) who might have been willing to help you sharpen your own thinking. A word of advice: You should cultivate those folks.

    But you’re thinking is as acute as the most potent minds alive today, thus it needs no sharpening. That must account for your obnoxious condescension.

    I accept that there are times I will be wrong or that I needed to broaden my thinking

    Translation: I haven’t been wrong up to this point, but I may theoretically be wrong at some indeterminant point in the future.

    I also haven’t seen a single apology for, what has been at times, disgraceful rhetoric.

    As you’ve offered up your ‘mea culpas’ when called for so we should just follow your example?

    And I don’t expect it, because I have come to realize that that there are some commentators here who will not offer it or practice what they say they hold dear to them, when it comes to “the other side…”.

    You trumpeted yourself as an examplar of ‘proportionality of response’ @65: …”you do not subscribe to a principle of proportionality of response; I do”

    Actually, we do too, and the niceties for which you so desperately yearn aren’t granted you because you don’t grant them to, as you would say, ‘our side’.

    but I am serious when I say–look in the mirror

    So was I, @90:

    No, Cas. YOU hold up the mirror. YOU take a good look into it. Do you like what stares back at you? Are you comfortable and at ease with your reflection?

    The lack of self-awareness and introspection on the part of MISS IT has reached clinically diagnosable heights.

    You’re sick, self-satisfied, deceitful manipulator. Get yourself fixed.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - May 21, 2012

  108. Re-posted to correct formatting—-

    To Miss ‘IT’ @101:

    but I do something I don’t see any of the rest of you I named doing

    Miss ‘IT’ @89:

    I like the fact that you want to broaden the discussion. We can do that, I think, since I did it myself

    Anyone notice a pattern here? Self-referential, self-congratulatory, moral preening.

    And my observation @90:

    There’s no rewarding or satisfying or even reasonable way to interact with you; it’ll be your way or EVERYONE ELSE is uncivil. intolerant, vitriolic, presumptuous, harsh, cruel. But oh, no, not you. You’re the antithesis of all that’s bad, all that’s degrading, everything that’s evil and wrong in the world. You’re perfect. You’re a god.
    Have you EVER, in your entire life, just once, been WRONG?

    I just point out that infallibility is not usually understood to be a human condition.

    How poignant, as you are this site’s quintessential example of that maxim ;)

    That was not a discussion. It was you giving a lecture in support of what you already believed

    This from the foremost practitioner of honest, open debate.

    you lost a valuable opportunity to explore your belief system with a sympathetic though critical individual (rt) who might have been willing to help you sharpen your own thinking. A word of advice: You should cultivate those folks.

    But you’re thinking is as acute as the most potent minds alive today, thus it needs no sharpening. That must account for your obnoxious condescension.

    I accept that there are times I will be wrong or that I needed to broaden my thinking

    Translation: I haven’t been wrong up to this point, but I may theoretically be wrong at some indeterminant point in the future.

    I also haven’t seen a single apology for, what has been at times, disgraceful rhetoric.

    As you’ve offered up your ‘mea culpas’ when called for so we should just follow your example?

    And I don’t expect it, because I have come to realize that that there are some commentators here who will not offer it or practice what they say they hold dear to them, when it comes to “the other side…”.

    You trumpeted yourself as an examplar of ‘proportionality of response’ @65: …”you do not subscribe to a principle of proportionality of response; I do

    Actually, we do too, and the niceties for which you so desperately yearn aren’t granted you because you don’t grant them to, as you would say, ‘our side’.

    but I am serious when I say–look in the mirror

    So was I, @90:

    No, Cas. YOU hold up the mirror. YOU take a good look into it. Do you like what stares back at you? Are you comfortable and at ease with your reflection?

    The lack of self-awareness and introspection on the part of MISS IT has reached clinically diagnosable heights.

    You’re sick, self-satisfied, deceitful manipulator. Get yourself fixed.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - May 21, 2012

  109. To say it more precisely: I’m still waiting to -learn something- from Cas: for Cas to make a point both that is valid, and that I hadn’t already heard or thought of myself. Generally when others do, I acknowledge them. As a former longtime leftist, I am already educated in most of the arguments that I’ve ever seen Cas offer – and why they’re wrong.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - May 21, 2012

  110. Miss ‘IT” again:

    As for the “shift”, I have made no secret of the fact that I wanted to broaden the discussion

    BULLSHIT! You tried tonarrow the debate to THIS SITE, and threw in your ‘civility’ shit to try to steer it in a different direction. Or is that a by-product of your twisted logic, as you’ve stated elsewhere, that all of this “ adds ‘needed’ complexity to the issue?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:15 pm - May 21, 2012

  111. I also haven’t seen a single apology for, what has been at times, disgraceful rhetoric.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 12:22 pm – May 21, 2012

    And yet, Cas, we haven’t seen you finger-wagging at and demanding apologies from Richard R, Evan Hurst, Wayne Besen, JennofArk, PeeJ, Serenity, or any of the other myriad liberal commenters who have wholeheartedly endorsed and supported this as truth:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    So basically, you are demanding apologies left and right — except for your fellow liberals who are posting, repeating, and claiming these things about Dan as gospel truth.

    You are an intolerant bigot, Cas, and you are finally for the first time in your life being held accountable for it. This is why you are wiggling and squirming and trying desperately to claim everyone else but you is wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - May 21, 2012

  112. Once more, with passion:

    Miss IT, you’re a sick, self-satisfied, deceitful, lying manipulator.
    You’re a malignancy, at this site and in society.
    Cure yourself, before sane and rational adults force the cure on you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - May 21, 2012

  113. Hi ILC,

    Make valid points, and I grant them. In fact, I routinely say “I was wrong about…” or “You were right about…”

    Wow. With those on the left? Really? Where exactly was that? I grant that they are threads I didn’t follow. And you are confident that this is a pretty routine occurrence for you. I can accept your claim (and happily say-in your case, “ILC, I was wrong!” :)) if I could please see some examples of evidence–say on economics issues–with someone who is clearly a progressive/lib/leftist/communist/socialist; i.e., from “the other side.” Thank you.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - May 21, 2012

  114. …if I could please see some examples of evidence…

    Come uo with all of the examples showing where you have done it, Madame Malignancy.
    No one here has to prove shit to you.
    As the self-appointed exemplar and paradigm of all that’s righteous and good at the GayPatriot blog, you show us how it’s done.
    Your ‘table turning’ and ‘burden (of proof)’ shifting ain’t gonna cut it here anymore.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - May 21, 2012

  115. Once more, with urgency:

    Miss IT, you’re a sick, self-satisfied, deceitful, lying manipulator.
    You’re a malignancy, at this site and in society.
    Cure yourself, before sane and rational adults force the cure on you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - May 21, 2012

  116. I also haven’t seen a single apology for, what has been at times, disgraceful rhetoric

    It’s not my job to apologize for others. But I may indicate (and I did, in this thread) when I don’t entirely support their rhetoric.

    Now Cas, here is an example of a logically valid, factually grounded point that you can’t bring yourself to concede.

    The Nazi party was the National -Socialist- German -Workers- Party. It competed with the Communist Party for the support of German -workers-. It advocated a Welfare State run for the benefit of the working class. Its top theoreticians said things like, “Basically Marxism and National Socialism are the same”. By contrast, the (actual) German Right consisted of traditional monarchists, Prussian aristocrats and various religious people; its support for Hitler, such as that was, came late and was lukewarm, at best. (Example: The German military supported Hitler only *after* he became head of State, and at some points, tried to replace him or assassinate him.) In economics, fascism (both Italian and German) advocated a mix of socialism and government-backed corporatism that inspired FDR’s New Deal and corresponds to modern American Left thinking about the economy, and the proper role of the State. American Nazis today differ from the mainstream Left in their racial doctrine, BUT, continue to stress their socialist roots and that their socialism is more important to them than their racism. For all of these reasons together, Nazism is far closer to being a movement of the Left, than of the Right.

    That’s a logically valid, factually grounded point. Can you concede it? Do confound us with your open-minded, self-expanding example.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - May 21, 2012

  117. Maybe we shouldn’t be asking it questions and, in doing so, inviting it back for more useless rounds of rhetorical shadowing boxing.
    On ther hand, maybe it will finally run out of steam, ‘vapor lock’, and go away for good.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - May 21, 2012

  118. On ther hand On the other hand,….

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 1:54 pm - May 21, 2012

  119. Hi ILC,

    It’s not my job to apologize for others. But I may indicate (and I did, in this thread) when I don’t entirely support their rhetoric.

    I know from my own experience on other threads, that this is a true statement. You have made clear on occasion when you “don’t entirely support their rhetoric.”

    That’s a logically valid, factually grounded point. Can you concede it? Do confound us with your open-minded, self-expanding example.

    I would love to debate that topic with you, when it comes up in a thread where it makes sense to debate it. At the moment, it is not relevant to the thread, so I won’t get into it with you here.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 2:00 pm - May 21, 2012

  120. I would love to debate that topic with you, when it comes up in a thread where it makes sense to debate it. At the moment, it is not relevant to the thread, so I won’t get into it with you here.

    ‘Topic relevance’ is important, but only when it allows you to duck a debate in which you’d get your ass kicked.
    Hmmm, what could we call the invocation of principle to provide cover for unprincipled, dishonest behavior?
    How about cowardice!
    Not that I’m saying anything that most people here haven’t known for a very long time.

    And remember what I said about you trying to get the last word in this thread, miscreant: I won’t let you do it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - May 21, 2012

  121. Since I said that “I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here,” you believe this to be “causal.” Why exactly is that HT? What exactly in the statement I make: “I think civility is part of tolerance” tells you that this is a “causal” argument that requires reference to your “post hoc” claim?

    A (civility) + B (unstated) = C (tolerance). [ "Civility is (a) part of tolerance."]

    C (tolerance) – B (unstated) = A (civility).

    We are waiting on tenterhooks to learn what “B” is so that we can hone our understanding of “tolerance”.

    Perhaps “civility” is not so causal as it is integral. In other words, you have established a special form of false cause by creating the requirement that
    without “civility” you can not have “tolerance.”

    But that can not be so, because nowhere in the definition of the word “tolerance” is there any reference to or even synonym for “civility.”

    In other words, your orthodoxy requires civility to be tolerant and, as James Taranto points out:

    They’ll tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy.

    Ergo, in your definition of “tolerance” one must conform by being civil, because civility is causal driver in tolerance.

    You flat out refuse to discuss tolerance, except on your dictated terms. And, curiously, you can not quite bring yourself to see your “Führerprinzip” role in this. You are intolerant of any tolerance discussion that does not accept your special definition.

    Beyond this, Cas, I can not explain more. This post is not so much clarifying as it is repetitious of what has “confused” you before. I am sorry that your confusion over comes you, but perhaps that is a convenient cove in a storm.

    Have people here been “uncivil” toward you? Yes. Have people here refused to respond to you? Ask the ones who have not commented. Have you made any valuable contributions to the discussion of what Dan posted? You opined that civility is a component of tolerance. Your contribution was rejected. You kept coming back for more. And still you were tolerated. Now, finally, you are about to be “not” tolerated. One by one, those of us who have attempted to communicate with you are fast becoming more interested in talking to a rock.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - May 21, 2012

  122. I would love to debate that topic with you, when it comes up in a thread where it makes sense to debate it. At the moment, it is not relevant to the thread, so I won’t get into it with you here.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 2:00 pm – May 21, 2012

    Actually, it is very relevant, Cas.

    You blathered and spun and screamed that you were so open-minded. Prove it.

    Hence the problem again. You make all these grand pronouncements, and yet, when confronted with the opportunity to actually make good on your words, refuse to do so.

    That is because, as Heliotrope so aptly described you above:

    Albert Speer wrote a terrific account of how Hitler’s Führer’s mentality paralyzed the Third Reich. Since he was the fount of all authority over right and wrong, he “taught” his people to be very careful to keep things as tacit understandings rather than to write them down. When everything is subject to change and change is a constant, you must never be caught being inconsistent with the new doctrine. Therefore, you must shift, dance, twist, slide and always have an underling (useful idiot) you can shoot, if necessary.

    Think about it. This is really how liberals like Cas operate.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 10:33 am – May 21, 2012

    You cannot actually act on what you say because that then creates a point on which you can be held accountable. So far, your actions have only reflected that on which you feel comfortable being held accountable — which is your belief that conservatives are ignorant lying bigots and that you are always right.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 2:11 pm - May 21, 2012

  123. One by one, those of us who have attempted to communicate with you are fast becoming more interested in talking to a rock.

    Bring back Pet Rocks! :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - May 21, 2012

  124. Hi HT,

    Perhaps “civility” is not so causal as it is integral. In other words, you have established a special form of false cause by creating the requirement that
    without “civility” you can not have “tolerance.”

    Hmm. I am unclear what this “special form of false cause” is since you just ended up saying that “civility” and “tolerance” are not causally linked. “I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here.” I will just say that I think that civility is a property of tolerance. If you are tolerant, you are also civil. So, I do not have causality, but rather entailment.

    Ergo, in your definition of “tolerance” one must conform by being civil, because civility is causal driver in tolerance.

    I wondered about that some, but I have concluded that you are actually arguing for double or mutual entailment–that being civil requires you to be tolerant as well–rather than for causality. Would that be right? If that is what you think, I do not understand why you might believe that, HT. As far as I can tell, I can easily think of a case where someone who is very intolerant can appear to be civil, without fulfilling a definition of tolerance (because they do not actually endure something/something with forbearance, etc). That becomes clear, “if they let it rip” so to speak, and go after someone in a personal attack. Personal attacks are prima facie evidence that you cannot bear someone else or their behaviour. You may have plenty of personal justification, HT, for your behaviour, but it isn’t an example of tolerance, when you vent your spleen at someone else. But, if you are tolerant, I believe that you have to be civil.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - May 21, 2012

  125. You may have plenty of personal justification, HT, for your behaviour, but it isn’t an example of tolerance, when you vent your spleen at someone else. But, if you are tolerant, I believe that you have to be civil.

    Twisting, turning and hallucinating again. Has anyone prescribed Haloperidol for you?

    “if they let it rip”

    I’ll give it a ‘rip’: crawl back under that rock, you deplorable POS.

    Keep trying to get that last word; show everybody how determined you are.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - May 21, 2012

  126. but I have concluded that you are actually arguing for double or mutual entailment–that being civil requires you to be tolerant as well–rather than for causality

    Actually, I was attempting to pick a crust deep in my left nostril in hopes of facilitating sinus drainage, but my navel came unknotted in the process and the next thing you know I was whistling “Hello, Dolly” from both of my big toes with my clavicle keeping perfect time.

    I walked around and past a woman yesterday who was screaming “F-you” at me for having had the temerity silently determining not to give up some spare change. I tolerated her just fine. I was thinking, however, that I would very much have liked to set her hair on fire. But, alas, I lacked lighter fluid, a match and giving a royal crap.

    A nearby cop asked me if I wanted to make a complaint. I asked him if he or the boys and girls at the station wanted to put up with her psychotic behavior. He admitted that if I did not make a case, he would simply monitor her. Tacit understanding: she is not worth the frustration and abuse. Let her spew her rot demean herself in public.

    Now, there is tolerance laced with an inestimable amount of civility. I didn’t cold cock her and she didn’t bite me.

    And you, Cas, are damn near ready for a straight jacket.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - May 21, 2012

  127. Wow. This has been a fascinating thread to read…..

    Comment by Alan — May 21, 2012 @ 3:44 pm - May 21, 2012

  128. HT wrote:

    And you, Cas, are damn near ready for a straight jacket

    She’s crazier than a shithouse rat.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 3:53 pm - May 21, 2012

  129. I nominate Jman1961 for Poet Laureate of GayPatriot.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - May 21, 2012

  130. LOL!!! :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 5:05 pm - May 21, 2012

  131. I would love to debate that topic with you, when it comes up in a thread where it makes sense to debate it.

    In other words, no: you can’t concede it.

    It’s relevant because Pomposity and heliotrope had some friction over Godwin’s Law. It’s relevant because, in fact, we have debated it before, and you did not do well at all, yet you still could not concede the point. It’s relevant as a test of whether leftists have any ability to concede the obvious.

    It comes down to this, I think: You don’t really want to concede when your opponents have a point… only receive their concessions. For the leftist, “compromise” is: when the leftist wins. Then they go around saying “Oh these intolerant, incivil rightists! They never compromise or concede anything!” Which is relevant, because it brings us back near to Taranto’s original point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 5:13 pm - May 21, 2012

  132. (continued) I return to a point I made earlier. Real civility is a state of mind and heart. It involves, as one example, tracking and responding to the argument that your opponent actually made, rather than skipping over it and, at best, tracking the argument that you wish he’d made. You don’t come here to GP with real civility. You come with tongue-clucking faux civility, which the rest of us see through. I do not support the graphic language that some have used here, in response. Yet I understand their emotional reaction – their perceptive awareness of your true, underlying incivility – which drives their language.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - May 21, 2012

  133. She got the ‘civil” and ‘tolerant’ approach from me for a spell, and where did it wind up?
    With her pissing on the thread and deploying her logic/reason tormenting broadsides; not answering my points or questions; deliberately distorting my positions just a post or two after I make them, etc., etc.
    So what was gained for the offer of ‘civility? Absolutely nothing.
    And something else I’ve seen in most of her posts going back to a time well before I ever posted here:

    Behind all of that pedantic horseshit she bleats, and all of that condescension that oozes from so many of her (hare-brained) assumptions is a soft, barely audible ‘f**k you’ to whoever she’s ‘speaking’ to, but being the despicable coward that she is, she can’t be ‘plain’, as I suggested she do way back @43, and just say it.

    Am I proud of some of the language that I use here? No.
    Am I ashamed and remorseful for having used it? No.

    Miscreants like Miss It and Stupidity, when they come here to torment, taunt, dissemble, distort, shift topics, shit on threads, and lie, show vividly why they don’t deserve, and will no longer receive any of the niceties from me.
    A few of you nice people have NEVER used some of the language that I have, and where has it gotten you in your respective dealing with these two vile bags of trash?
    The same place it got me: nowhere.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - May 21, 2012

  134. Jman: You’re right. It’s just that the graphic language is jarring to read. I’m not saying that like it should stop you. I’m just ‘putting it out there’. It’s a bit like being a passenger in the back of someone else’s truck, where the shocks are on their last legs and the truck is speeding down a bumpy road. It may be necessary, or unavoidable. It may be justified. It may be that the driver is doing a great job, and criticism of the driver is therefore unjustified. Still, it’s a bumpy experience… something I don’t normally want to be part of.

    Also, one of the drawbacks of name-calling is that the action is basically telling other people what to think. Again, you may be right. It may be justified, in terms of the rightness of the issue and the depth of your passion. It’s just something that I personally regret or try to avoid, not out of misplaced respect for my target, but out of respect for my comrades. My comrades don’t need me to tell them what I think they should think.

    Now, I do not claim perfection in that area. For example (and again), I address Pomposity as Pomposity. In that case, I say, well sure I don’t want to be telling other people what to think, but… the word she uses as her handle is just too good for her; so I’m going to make that choice. And that choice shows my inconsistency or imperfection, maybe. I make a grownup choice to skate on the thin ice, there. And I think, you do too. When you call graphic names, you’re on thin ice. But you know what you’re doing. I respect your grownup choices, in other words, at no point in this thread have I tried (or intended) to correct you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 6:16 pm - May 21, 2012

  135. (continued) It wouldn’t be my place to, anyway.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 6:18 pm - May 21, 2012

  136. at no point in this thread have I tried (or intended) to correct you

    In know you haven’t, and I’ve never read it that way. :)

    It’s not as if I drop an ‘f’-bomb in every comment, because I don’t.
    It’s not as if I haven’t gone to great lengths to present my position on an issue with some tight logic and eloquence, because I have.
    I just have no more patience for the Miss Its and Stupiditys.
    I’m not telling anyone what to think. I express myself strongly and with conviction. I’m sorry if there are those here that find that upsetting.

    You and I have a point of disagreement. I don’t ‘bomb’ you because in the 4-5 years that I’ve been ‘dropping in’ on this blog (to read, not comment) I’ve seen you as a really nice, decent guy who has compelling things to say and points to make, as I do NDT, HT, VTK, Sean A, Rattlesnake, Sandhorse, Pat, My Sharia Moor, etc., etc.
    An honest, polite disagreement can NEVER be had with the two distaff clowns because neither of them are honest; neither of them are civil, regardless of the endless assertions to the contrary that one of them likes to make.
    I can’t get bogged down in debates about ‘uncivil’ language because these days, with the shitstorms that are swirling in this country (many of them just as likely to intensify as to subside) there’s just too much at stake to spend inordinate amounts of time prattling on about ‘Emily Post’.
    Thanks for your response, ILC. I appreciate it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 6:44 pm - May 21, 2012

  137. A few of you nice people have NEVER used some of the language that I have, and where has it gotten you in your respective dealing with these two vile bags of trash?
    The same place it got me: nowhere.

    So where do you think your new strategy will get you? The only place it can get you is being ostracised by the two of us no longer wanting to converse with someone willing to hurl such language at us with no specific provocation. If you consider that a ‘victory’ then go ahead, I consider it a self-inflicted loss myself.

    Also, yes you are beginning to bother me now. It took North Dallas Thirty months to get to the point where I refused to acknowledge any of his posts, but you’ve got half way there in just two days. However, if you want to get there instantly, just tell me now and I’ll happily ignore everything you post from now on.

    I address Pomposity as Pomposity. In that case, I say, well sure I don’t want to be telling other people what to think, but… the word she uses as her handle is just too good for her; so I’m going to make that choice.

    I’ve sometimes considered returning the favour, but I’ve never actually done so because I hate the concept so much that I can never think on it long enough to come up with any good ideas.

    Comment by Serenity — May 21, 2012 @ 6:54 pm - May 21, 2012

  138. Jman1961,

    You have used some coarse language. Fine by me. It is what it is and it is your choice to go there. I certainly do not judge you by your words over your intellect, your clear understanding and your entirely human frustration with disingenuous games that are meant to throw everyone into a turmoil.

    In many respects, I rather wish I had it in me to toss a fairly clear rejoinder. My highly valued research assistant is an Irishman of great and clever ability. When he says: “look at this ‘fookin shite’, I drop what I’m doing and look. He is always on top of his game; what amazes him is invariably key in the research. So, I don’t care if he calls it in his favored lexicon or says something that would receive the blessing of the Pope.

    Might I suggest that this is a hallmark of “T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E”?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - May 21, 2012

  139. Hi ILC,

    It’s relevant because Pomposity and heliotrope had some friction over Godwin’s Law. It’s relevant because, in fact, we have debated it before, and you did not do well at all, yet you still could not concede the point. It’s relevant as a test of whether leftists have any ability to concede the obvious.

    I am uncertain why debating this before or HT mentioning Godwin’s Law, or the fact that I do not concede your “point” or “the obvious” is related to the notion of tolerance and civility, when your claim may not be obvious to other people who argue in good faith (even if you think I do not), and who may take issue with the way you characterize things.

    And,

    It comes down to this, I think: You don’t really want to concede when your opponents have a point… only receive their concessions. For the leftist, “compromise” is: when the leftist wins.

    In that case, I have done a lousy job of doing that by acknowledging on occasion a valid point you made, or a mal-formed argument I made. Dang. If I am as you describe, ILC, why do I occasionally commend points or acknowledge flaws in my argument with those whose opinions I disagree with, like you?

    But, I agree with you about tolerance being about intent. That fits nicely with the point I was making (and the example I used) in #124 above.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - May 21, 2012

  140. Also, yes you are beginning to bother me now

    That shows that I’m making progress!

    …if you want to get there instantly, just tell me now and I’ll happily ignore everything you post from now on.

    I’ll tell you now: Drop dead, you cheap whore.
    There now, is that sufficient for you to grant my wish, and leave me alone?
    But be magnanimous and make the same offer to other people here; I’m curious how you’d do in the polling.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - May 21, 2012

  141. @HT:

    Good story!
    And yes, that IS “T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E”! ;)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:12 pm - May 21, 2012

  142. ostracised by the two of us

    If I may, that is like being refused to be considered for being a candidate for AIDS or typhoid by a carrier.

    You are welcome to this comment thread. Like you, I am a guest here. You are not required to respond to anyone. You choose what you say and you take what you get in return.

    I would suggest that you and your sister lib take a good hard look at how many commenters here come tromping in by setting new rules and then insisting that responses fit their template.

    Now, to be clear, many of us ask that you abide by the simple rules of logic and that you stick to the topic.

    Cas shows up and insists that no discussion can proceed without considering “civility” as an integral part of “tolerance.” Why should we do that? Your very own comment way back at #3 shows no hint of “civility” as being an integral part of “tolerance”. Nonetheless, Cas shifts and decides she would rather have a gab fest about “civility” than to address “tolerance”. So, is it some sort of “incivility” or “intolerance” not to play the game by the new rules Cas sets out?

    Surely, The Serenity, you are not too dim to appreciate this conundrum.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - May 21, 2012

  143. Could someone pass me a mop and bucket?
    A rabid mangy mutt just came in and shit all over the floor @139.

    If I catch the little bastard, I’ll take it to the vet and have it ‘put down’.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:14 pm - May 21, 2012

  144. ostracised by the two of us

    Self-important blather from the TransAtlantic Twat.
    I’m devastated that I might be expelled from that exclusive club.
    Bellevue.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:19 pm - May 21, 2012

  145. I am uncertain why debating this before or HT mentioning Godwin’s Law, or the fact that I do not concede your “point” or “the obvious” is related to the notion of tolerance and civility, when your claim may not be obvious to other people who argue in good faith (even if you think I do not), and who may take issue with the way you characterize things.

    Cas, can you possibly translate this into English?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - May 21, 2012

  146. If I catch the little bastard, I’ll take it to the vet and have it ‘put down’.

    Now, now, now! First you rescue and see if some soul is looking for endless vet bills and some sort of pathway to sainthood by adopting the cur. Let she who is without sin put it down.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - May 21, 2012

  147. Actually, it’s a riff on the old W.C. Fields joke:

    For our winner- Stupidity and Cas-hole respond to every one of your posts
    For our runner-up- Stupidity and cas-hole will never bother you again

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:27 pm - May 21, 2012

  148. A clear case of ‘winning is losing’, ‘victory is defeat’, ‘success is failure’.
    Perfect construct for those two miscreants.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - May 21, 2012

  149. Hi HT,

    Cas, can you possibly translate this into English?

    Thank you.

    It is unclear to me why the reasons you offer to talk about Nazi fascism are relevant, ILC. And of the reasons you offer, you appear to be saying that your interpretation is the one true interpretation, and that others should(?) “concede the obvious.” I think I will politely say no, especially when there are different thoughtful interpretations about that are at odds with yours.

    Not stated: And that difference can be the start of a fruitful conversation or not; and I suggest it be done in a tolerant and civil manner, on a different thread devoted to it.

    Comment by Cas — May 21, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - May 21, 2012

  150. If I am as you describe, ILC, why do I occasionally commend points or acknowledge flaws in my argument with those whose opinions I disagree with, like you?

    Hi ya there, Cas-hole!

    Hmmm, I’m not convinced, Cas-hole. This represents an assertion of mutual double jointed entailment of a ‘tu quoque’ ad hominem that lacks civility and tolerance and is a big bugbear that is characterized by hyperbolic vitriol and transactional analyses that cross-sectionalizes the median confidence interval of the likely probability that empirical evidence would suggest that perhaps conceding a point made on your head by the little yellow man in your bed and I buried Paul, koo koo kachoo.
    Don’t you agree? If that’s the case, I’d like to discuss this topic further, if we can get Zimbardo and Milgram, and Einstein and Rowan & Martin to commissiona panel to authorize a definitive study into whether you may or may not be out of your f**king mind!
    What do YOU think? ;)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 7:42 pm - May 21, 2012

  151. Jman1961,

    As I recall, “the woman piaba and the man piaba and the tan-tan cole bacalayman grass” is perhaps the Rosetta Stone to establishing the connection between Linear “A” and Linear “B” of the Nazca Lines as they impinge upon the Mayan Calendar in determining the placement of the Neolithic determinations of postholes in both England and upper Brittany. But, I might be wrong. I have not considered the ever present butterfly effect possibilities.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 8:05 pm - May 21, 2012

  152. If I am as you describe, ILC, why do I occasionally commend points or acknowledge flaws in my argument with those whose opinions I disagree with, like you?

    Presumably to keep your narrative going. You’d have to ask you.

    I am uncertain why… the fact that I do not concede your “point” or “the obvious” is related to the notion of tolerance and civility

    The ellipses yield the most that I could extract from the garbled sentence (h/t heliotrope). Assuming I extracted correctly, then in answer, I would remind you of your own comment #101, wherein you set up a holier-than-thou on your supposed readiness to grant your opponents’ points. I provided a test which showed the contrary. To increase relevancy, I had it touch on a subject that has come up both in the past (between us), and in this thread (between Pomposity / heliotrope).

    Really Cas, I could do this all day. I won’t choose to. But you make it easy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 21, 2012 @ 8:11 pm - May 21, 2012

  153. I’ll tell you now: Drop dead, you cheap whore.

    I’ll just leave this here.

    There now, is that sufficient for you to grant my wish, and leave me alone?

    Pretty much, I suppose this will be my last post directed to you.

    But be magnanimous and make the same offer to other people here; I’m curious how you’d do in the polling.

    No, I was looking for an excuse to drop you, most others here aren’t as deliberately unpleasant as you. If the others are willing to take on your tactic of ‘winning’ through insulting their opponents until they decide they’re not willing to listen to them any more, then I may reconsider.

    Comment by Serenity — May 21, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - May 21, 2012

  154. So where do you think your new strategy will get you? The only place it can get you is being ostracised by the two of us no longer wanting to converse with someone willing to hurl such language at us with no specific provocation.

    Comment by Serenity — May 21, 2012 @ 6:54 pm – May 21, 2012

    Actually, there is plenty of provocation right here.

    If you think I’m enjoying this, I am. A lot. No matter who wins the next election, everyone else in this thread will have multiple reasons to hate them. As for me, I stopped caring about two months ago. Makes very little difference to me either way, so I intend to antagonize all of you as much as possible and have some fun.

    Comment by Serenity — November 5, 2011 @ 6:40 am – November 5, 2011

    In short, Pomposity, you yourself have stated you have no interest in dialogue or discussion and are only here to antagonize and troll.

    Meanwhile, your quote of Joe Jervis only demonstrates the degree of hypocrisy which you practice, given how Jervis regularly compares conservatives to Nazis.

    And what did you say about that before, Pomposity?

    I wouldn’t go that far (I mentioned Hitler myself here recently) but I do draw the line at comparisons to Hitler or the Third Reich to modern politicians or political tactics, which I consider without basis and beyond the bounds of civil debate. It’s not even a debating tactic so much is it a smear against political opponents, which is the prime reason why I objected in our earlier debate.

    Even when it comes to corrupt dictatorships or banana republics, I still consider Nazi references unproductive as they’ve been so overused throughout the years that they no longer even carry any force. Godwin’s Law is actually a symptom of this, people throwing around the word ‘Nazi’ with no thought about who the Nazis really were.

    Comment by Serenity — May 20, 2012 @ 9:22 pm – May 20, 2012

    And what else did you say?

    But that’s just besides the point anyway. Hitler comparisons are the most loathsome, baseless, and just plain lazy tactics resorted to only by complete hacks who lack the capacity to think of anything else to say.

    And:

    This isn’t about politics, it’s about decency. Divorcing Hitler’s ‘blueprint’ from the man is just ludicrous, Hitler’s ‘blueprint’ was one of genocide on a scale the world had never seen before. The targeted destruction of an entire people. Have you so lost control of your faculties that you can’t even remember why Hitler became a historical figure? When you invoke Hitler’s name, you invoke the unforgettable events of Hitler’s Final Solution, and when you invoke anyone else’s name in conjunction, you tie that person to the same world-changing atrocities.

    That’s why it’s unacceptable. Not because of “political correctness” or “moral relativism”, because civil discourse does not involve trying to tie political figures to a complete monster.

    Comment by Serenity — April 10, 2012 @ 6:18 pm – April 10, 2012

    In short, Stupidity, you could not have done a better job of showing what a stinking, desperate, lying hypocritical bigot you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - May 21, 2012

  155. ….your tactic of ‘winning’ through insulting their opponents until they decide they’re not willing to listen to them any more, then I may reconsider.

    You don’t listen, period. you dizzy bitch.
    And you have a track record here, one that NDT just beat you over your warped head with.

    Why don’t you explain some your greatest hits, which NDT efficiently laid out?

    Twat.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 21, 2012 @ 10:36 pm - May 21, 2012

  156. Hi ILC,

    You’d have to ask you.

    Interesting. The all seeing eye is on the fritz, apparently.

    I would remind you of your own comment #101, wherein you set up a holier-than-thou on your supposed readiness to grant your opponents’ points. I provided a test which showed the contrary.

    I am sorry, but I am missing something here. First, why do you need a test when you have the record of this blog? e.g., “You raise a good point…” Your effort feels awkward and somehow, designed to entrap (though what exactly?). How is that evidence of good faith in argument, ILC?

    Second, if #101 said I was willing to grant my interlocutor(s) a point, it was because I thought they were right. You assume that the argument you used is CORRECT, so that I should “concede the obvious.” I do not grant your claim, and you assert that in so doing, I show bad faith! That is very strange, in my opinion.

    It may come as a surprise to you to learn that plenty of folks do not agree with your interpretation, for very good intellectual reasons. You can argue, using the all seeing eye (assuming it is working at that moment), that they must be doing so out of ignorance or bad intent or both, but the fact is that your claim is open to dispute, so your “test” falls apart.

    As I have said–rejoining conversation on the “test” topic will make an interesting argument on another thread–in its own right–when you are not trying to prove some other point with it.

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 12:25 am - May 22, 2012

  157. Cas-hole:

    You went past tiresome, exhausting, and exasperating a LONG time ago.
    You’re a sick, self-satisfied, deceitful, lying manipulator.
    You’re a malignancy, at this site and in society.

    And you’re not getting the last word that you want so desperately.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:31 am - May 22, 2012

  158. I am sorry, but I am missing something here

    In a review of the hospital records, we found that you’ve been ‘missing something’ since the day you were spawned.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:42 am - May 22, 2012

  159. Some people here didn’t get their mouths washed out with soap when they were kids and it shows.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 3:46 am - May 22, 2012

  160. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that plenty of folks do not agree with your interpretation, for very good intellectual reasons.

    Cas, please just pop-in and list, say, three of the very good reasons which you may cherry pick from the plenty of folks (who) do not agree with (ILC’s) interpretation.

    I will just leave these little guys here to hold your place:

    Crickets…….

    Crickets…….

    Crickets……

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 9:55 am - May 22, 2012

  161. Vince,

    That’s it? You have read this whole Cas and The Serenity dog and pony show and your delicate sensibilities are your only reaction?

    Get some sun and relax before you succumb to the vapors.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 9:57 am - May 22, 2012

  162. I am sorry, but I am missing something here. First, why do you need a test when you have the record of this blog? e.g., “You raise a good point…”

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 12:25 am – May 22, 2012

    Because we don’t, Cas.

    You have posted no links, no referenceable examples, no anything of the sort.

    And since you stated above that assertions and claims require links and references:

    You claim this action list together with your “more liberals than conservatives” claim as incontrovertible fact—show me the studies that deal with this sort of thing. Please be aware that I would appreciate the links to the studies themselves, as I would like to read the methodology and confidence intervals for them.

    Comment by Cas — May 19, 2012 @ 6:26 pm – May 19, 2012

    you have not in any way demonstrated the truthfulness of your assertions as is required by your own standards.

    And, since you refuse to answer ILC’s test case, you have provided no referenceable or linkable examples there, either.

    Now, either provide them, or have it demonstrated that you are an unscientific hypocrite who is unable to meet any of the demands that you yourself insist upon for accuracy.

    And next to Heliotrope’s, I leave these additional placeholders for your response:

    Crickets….

    Crickets….

    Crickets….

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am - May 22, 2012

  163. plenty of folks do not agree with your interpretation

    All leftists… engaged in denying the reality of Nazism, because they want to escape the shame of it.

    It doesn’t change the historical facts, though.

    You assume that the argument you used is CORRECT, so that I should “concede the obvious.” I do not grant your claim…

    Which is exactly my point, Cas. THANK YOU for finally arriving at the point where I already was, and which I set you up for.

    You see, when you call on opponents to “grant” some point, you assume your point is correct and that they should see what you find obvious. Exactly what you have just accused me of doing.

    See? I can also employ tu quoque when I want to. Zing!

    But the real point is this: Disagreeing – that is, finding your opponents’ points incorrect – is quite clearly OK when you do it. But when your opponents do it, oh are they (by that act) being incivil!

    In other words: “[Lefties will] tolerate you as long as you don’t deviate from their orthodoxy. -James Taranto, Best of the Web, May 17, 2012″

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 22, 2012 @ 10:24 am - May 22, 2012

  164. In short, Cas, I have “waited in vain” in many discussions for you to say something which meets all of these conditions:

    1) Is non-trivial, i.e., is significant in context of a discussion which I’m participating in;
    2) Is not something that in fact I already agree with or would think myself (which fact you may have overlooked, in your rush to impose your Straw Men on me, rather than comprehend or respond to my actual views); AND,
    3) Is logically valid and factually grounded, i.e., true.

    When you do, I’ll grant your point. As I have done many a time, with many others. Until then: if indeed I haven’t granted one of your points, it would be because I haven’t seen one from you meeting all of the above conditions. In short, it is not a matter of my incivility; it is a matter of your illogic. My moral right to take that stance is implied and protected by my general right to have my own opinions and reach my own conclusions; which right YOU have just invoked for yourself, in regard to my ‘example point’ on the nature of Nazism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 22, 2012 @ 10:46 am - May 22, 2012

  165. Helio >> LOL. Sorry. It’s all I got. I long for the day, where everyone actually reads everybody else’s post and stops repeating themselves and/or posting material deviating from the subject matter (something that, alas, I am guilty of here). Till then, all I can long for is a bar of soap–the same one–to wash all those mouths out. They say personal attacks are sign of weakness in argument, but I digress (yet again). Sorry, all, carry on.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 11:06 am - May 22, 2012

  166. Some people here didn’t get their mouths washed out with soap when they were kids and it shows
    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 3:46 am – May 22, 2012.

    And some people here haven’t had the holy living s**t kicked out of them as ‘adults who behave like children’ and it REALLY shows.

    Like a good leftist, CinePurseSnatcher plays ‘hit and run’ in the comments section.
    You’re a real tough guy.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:09 am - May 22, 2012

  167. Careful Jman, don’t dare him to hang in a discussion for a long time. He will. He’ll still be wrong … but he’ll be as persistent as you could ever wish.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 22, 2012 @ 11:15 am - May 22, 2012

  168. Good morning, ILC :)

    Be careful not to do the same for the ‘Mad Research Scientist’ of the GayPatriot blog. It only heightens her malignancy.

    That was a skillful takedown of the MRS, btw!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:23 am - May 22, 2012

  169. Vince,

    I am delighted you took my gentle ribbing in good humor. This thread, however has worn down to the bedrock and Cas has been shown raw tolerance without the veneer of her vaunted and “required” civility. Whether she can ever brush away her cognitive dissonance in weighing tolerance without civility as an issue is a matter for an bookie with vast experience in making odds of leftist orthodoxy and tectonic movement.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 11:31 am - May 22, 2012

  170. NDT @162:

    you have not in any way demonstrated the truthfulness of your assertions as is required by your own standards.

    And, since you refuse to answer ILC’s test case, you have provided no referenceable or linkable examples there, either.

    Now, either provide them, or have it demonstrated that you are an unscientific hypocrite who is unable to meet any of the demands that you yourself insist upon for accuracy.

    Exactly, NDT.

    Whenever ‘it’ shows up again I’ll be tempted to re-post #150.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:34 am - May 22, 2012

  171. Good morning, HT!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:35 am - May 22, 2012

  172. PurseSnatcher @165:

    all I can long for is a bar of soap–the same one–to wash all those mouths out

    I’ll extend you the courtesy of ‘wish fulfillment’, out HERE where it can be tested in the REAL world, but I’m gonna bet that you don’t have the balls to do the very difficult work that (I can promise you) it would take to realize your (wet?) dream.
    Or am I wrong?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:43 am - May 22, 2012

  173. Jman1961 >> I live HERE in LA. Dan has my info; he can share it with you so I can gladly show you where you can place your words in the REAL world.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - May 22, 2012

  174. 173.Jman1961 >> I live HERE in LA. Dan has my info; he can share it with you so I can gladly show you where you can place your words in the REAL world.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 12:05 pm – May 22, 2012

    Thats very cute; from a prettyboy.

    Say it out ‘plain’, PurseSnatcher.
    Post a comment that says this:

    Jman1961, I agree to meet you, in person, and (try to) wash out your mouth with soap

    Do that and we can continue with the arrangements.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - May 22, 2012

  175. Jman1961, while the bar of soap comment was general, it was initially inspired by Bastiat Fan. But, since you’re begging for a cleaning and it’s most important for you to defend a person’s right to be speak ignorantly in regards to the mentally-challenged, I agree to meet you, in person, and hand you a $0.50 bar of soap. However you react is up to you. I’m not your mother. Nor will I comment on what a swell job she did raising such an upstanding boy.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 12:19 pm - May 22, 2012

  176. I agree to meet you, in person, and hand you a $0.50 bar of soap

    You’re not as committed to what you long for as you think. That’s a surprise.
    You need more practice, tough guy.

    Well, now that you lived down to where I know you reside anyway, we can move on to new business:

    Nor will I comment on what a swell job she did raising such an upstanding boy.

    My mother, RIP, never claimed I was perfect (who is?), but was, if I’m to believe the things she said to me and to others, happy with how I turned out. Same for my father.
    I like the passive-aggressive ‘ ‘won’t comment’ comment’; a technique employed exclusively in precincts where cowards abide. But I had you figured that way, as well.

    You know something? You say you’re a big movie buff; if all we agreed to talk about were movies, I’d enjoy that, and you could avoid embarrassments like the one that you just brought on yourself with all of that false bravado you displayed. And I think you’d enjoy that, too.

    Wanna give it a try?
    If you answer ‘yes’, then……….what do you think are the 5 greatest movies ever produced?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 12:37 pm - May 22, 2012

  177. This is a polite requests to the blog owners:

    Would you gentleman consider posting ‘open threads’?

    Thanks!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - May 22, 2012

  178. Actually, Jman1961, I could be wrong (legal experts feel free to weigh in), but announcing publicly that one plans to stuff a bar of soap down someone’s throat is considered a physical threat and holds legal consequences. So, out of basic intelligence, I choose not to walk into that hole.

    But, again, if you want to deal with this in the “real world,” to quote you, Dan has my info or you can find it on the contact tab of my blog. I don’t post my email address on the internet anymore than is necessary, as my experience has been it attracts spammers every time I do.

    And, if you want to talk movies, I’ll be more than happy to at my blog. Or, if GP starts a thread on “the five best movies ever made,” I’ll gladly participate there. But, surely, The Silence of the Lambs will be on that list. If you’d like to come over for some fava beans and a nice chianti, let me know …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 12:55 pm - May 22, 2012

  179. Jman: Might be better to send them an email… Bruce/Dan both pretty busy, sometimes read the comment threads but often do not, esp. the long ones. Their emails are somewhere on the GP home page, I think.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 22, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - May 22, 2012

  180. Thanks, ILC….I’ll look for it.

    Cinesnatch: LOL!
    I always loved hockey, and I played it a lot when I was younger. But I have never looked at the game the same way (goalies, at least) since seeing that movie (and it was a great one).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:02 pm - May 22, 2012

  181. P.S. Being civil doesn’t require perfection. Willfully being uncivil only requires the lack of desire to even be 1/10th of a human being.

    Here’s a rather recent refresher, care of Dan Blatt, co-owner of Gay Patriot.

    While I haven’t been “perfect,” I do own up to the few times that I do slip. One thing I love about Helio is that even though I agree with him maybe 15% of the time, he doesn’t engage in name-calling. He is much more subtle and nuanced about the way he gets his barbs in. Perhaps that is partly from wisdom that comes with age and/or a generational thing. You could take a page out of his book. So could I.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 1:04 pm - May 22, 2012

  182. Jman1961 >> Um, LOL, you just schooled me. I’ve seen that film a million times, thought I knew everything. And then I had to google the title and “hockey.” Thank you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - May 22, 2012

  183. Vince:

    Point taken.
    However, Heliotrope had THIS to say ‘upthread’ (#138):

    Jman1961,

    You have used some coarse language. Fine by me. It is what it is and it is your choice to go there. I certainly do not judge you by your words over your intellect, your clear understanding and your entirely human frustration with disingenuous games that are meant to throw everyone into a turmoil.

    In many respects, I rather wish I had it in me to toss a fairly clear rejoinder. My highly valued research assistant is an Irishman of great and clever ability. When he says: “look at this ‘fookin shite’, I drop what I’m doing and look. He is always on top of his game; what amazes him is invariably key in the research. So, I don’t care if he calls it in his favored lexicon or says something that would receive the blessing of the Pope.

    Might I suggest that this is a hallmark of “T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E”?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2012 @ 6:56 pm – May 21, 2012

    To make this clear: I don’t bombard the MRS and Stupidity because I’m having a tantrum and my engine is overheating. I do it because behind all of their exhausting BS lies this: they’re doing it without having the basic honesty to ‘say it out plain’, as I like to put it.
    I type those expletives to them (and only them) because its an EXACT reflection of what they do to almost everyone here, although they lack the guts to, well, say it out plain.
    My hands are as steady and my countenance as relaxed when I ‘expletive bomb’ them as they are now as I type this to you.
    I don’t abide nor tolerate their kind, and I let them know it.
    And I regret that some here find that upsetting.
    But I’m not going to apologize for it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - May 22, 2012

  184. You’re welcome, Vince. :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - May 22, 2012

  185. Also, Vince, go back and read ILC’s fine comment on what REAL civility is.
    Neither the MRS nor Stupidity ever enter here with any real civility as their intent.

    Look- you and I started off with aggressive postures today, and look where we are now. And even with those stances, I didn’t send an expletive cascade crashing down on you.
    How do you account for that?
    And I want to head off one possible ‘knee jerk’ response: that I dislike women. NOT TRUE! Let’s get that one out of the way right now.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - May 22, 2012

  186. Hi ILC,

    All leftists…THANK YOU for finally arriving at the point where I already was, and which I set you up for.

    You rascal you! How clever of you. There is only one problem though. We do go into conversations believing we are correct in what we think. We believe what we think, ILC. But I also admit of doubt. I can be wrong. This difference allows me to grant my interlocutor’s point, if I think it has merit. You appear to not do so if it is “on the other side.” I get it: the other side’s position has no merit; is factually and logically incorrect. How can you go wrong with that attitude? I don’t think I could ever hold a position or attitude like that and dismiss the other side as wrong, simply because they are “righties.” If I have trouble with your claims, it is because I have trouble with your claims, ILC, not the characteristics of the person making the claims. In this, you and I are clearly different ILC.

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 1:56 pm - May 22, 2012

  187. Hi CS,
    HT may not be a name caller to you, but he obviously holds you in higher regard than me!

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - May 22, 2012

  188. the other side’s position has no merit; is factually and logically incorrect

    Dismissing the FACT that this phenomenon has, does now, and will occur in the future.

    I don’t think I could ever hold a position or attitude like that and dismiss the other side as wrong, simply because they are “righties.”

    For your part, let’s just say that, at best, that’s highly debatable. There is ample evidence that your idealogical brethren practice this as a tenet of Leftist canon law.

    If I have trouble with your claims, it is because I have trouble with your claims

    As we on the right have had, now have, and will have, ahem, trouble with yours.

    In this, you and I are clearly different…

    Naturally……your position is superior, isn’t it?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:11 pm - May 22, 2012

  189. HT may not be a name caller to you, but he obviously holds you in higher regard than me!

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 1:58 pm – May 22, 2012

    Only because you outperform the most flexible human contortionists while moving heaven, earth, and the entire Milky Way galaxy to make yourself a special Cas(e) ;)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:16 pm - May 22, 2012

  190. And did you mean to type my moniker, where you had ‘HT’?
    Is that what you meant to say, love?
    I’ve not seen HT ‘name call’ anyone, ever.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:22 pm - May 22, 2012

  191. Hi HT,

    Cas has been shown raw tolerance without the veneer of her vaunted and “required” civility.

    On this, HT, you and I are going to have to disagree. There is nothing tolerant about verbal abuse. Why do you think that is a sign of tolerance? Further, as I finished reading your comment, my eyes alighted on short #143, and I read it it, and I have to tell you, I didn’t feel very good about that at all.

    A rabid mangy mutt just came in and shit all over the floor @139.
    If I catch the little bastard, I’ll take it to the vet and have it ‘put down’.

    #139 was my post, HT. You at least had the decency to not support his solution to the perceived problem, though finding the “cur” a good home doesn’t seem particularly friendly, either.

    I understand that this was meant as a joke, well at least I think this was supposed to be a joke. What I do know is that I think this went way beyond anything that remotely shows tolerance, and it obviously isn’t civil. Actually, I am shaking a little as I write this. I’ll come back later and continue the conversation.

    Comment by Cas — May 22, 2012 @ 2:29 pm - May 22, 2012

  192. I understand that this was meant as a joke, well at least I think this was supposed to be a joke

    It WAS a joke.
    You need to stiffen your spine a bit; keep it as stiff as it is when you keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back, and coming back, and coming back and coming back again, and again, and again, and again to continue on your relentless civility and tolerance harangues.

    Or is this a new schtick? Trolling for sympathy?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 2:37 pm - May 22, 2012

  193. On this, HT, you and I are going to have to disagree.

    The agreement to disagree is the basis of formal argument.

    You seem to use it as a conclusion that the case is closed.

    You will not discuss tolerance without it being tied to civility. Were I the least bit interested, I would demand that you define “civility.” But, if I did so, I would be playing your game of dodge the issue, shift the topic and create another race of chasing butterflies within the ongoing butterfly chase tied to the meaning of “tolerance” which you have already gotten underway.

    You can tolerate the pain and discomfort of amputation without being the least bit civil in your expressions toward the bumbling physician who overlooked the infection and allowed the gangrene to do its destruction.

    You can tolerate the torture inflicted in the Hanoi Hilton by people who stub out cigarettes on your forehead and slowing force a fingernail loose without thanking them and being a choirboy.

    You can tolerate people like yourself who dodge and duck and weave and continually lie. But no civility whatsoever is required.

    In fact, you can take your civility and shove it, and here is why: You insist that civility is a required component of tolerance. Ergo: anyone who does not treat you with your demanded perquisites of civility is not tolerant.

    Since none here is tolerant by your definition, what are we to do about it? Gather at your royal slippers and receive a swift kick for our intransigence?

    You have so succumbed to your delusions of intellectual grandeur that I wonder if your existence has so swirled down the swill hole that you come here for attention because self-respecting bed bugs won’t bite you.

    The Poet Laureate nominee pronounced you crazier than a rat dwell in a one hole out house. (Or words to that effect.) My knowledge of vermin in that environment is limited, so I can only admire the metaphor as succinct and colorful.

    George Sand:

    Language is a prostitute queen who descends and rises to all roles. Disguises herself, arrays herself in fine apparel, hides her head and effaces herself; an advocate who has an answer for everything, who has always foreseen everything, and who assumes a thousand forms in order to be right.

    For whatever reason, you can not understand what you are doing or you choose not to acknowledge what you are doing or you are so narcissistic that you are beyond being educated, reminded, guided or reprimanded.

    Commenting here is not a matter of winning or losing, it is a matter of conceding to play by the rules. You will not discuss tolerance without it being tied to your concept of civility. Fine. We do not agree. You may excuse yourself at any time and take your rules with you. You made your entire point way back at #21:

    Sorry folks, I do not buy it. If this site is supposed to be an exemplar of this “tolerant” thinking, I say–fail. I do so, because I think civility is a part of tolerance; and there is little civility here.

    REJECTED!

    What more is there to say?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - May 22, 2012

  194. In fact, you can take your civility and shove it

    HT, what, in the name of civility and tolerance, has gotten into you? ;)

    LOL!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - May 22, 2012

  195. The Poet Laureate nominee…..

    “If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve”.

    With warmest regards,
    (I Am Not) Robert Frost
    (ain’t THAT the truth!)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 5:04 pm - May 22, 2012

  196. And a person of Mr. HTs estimable erudition can be ‘pissed off’ to to the point where he posts his entry @193, then that says a TON (and NONE of it good), about the person providing the provocation.

    pronounced you crazier than a rat dwell in a one hole out house. (Or words to that effect.)

    I’ll say it again:
    She’s crazier than a shithouse rat.

    Picked it up from a friend and co-worker back in 1999 and loved it ever since.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - May 22, 2012

  197. You insist that civility is a required component of tolerance. Ergo: anyone who does not treat you with your demanded perquisites of civility is not tolerant. Since none here is tolerant by your definition, what are we to do about it? Gather at your royal slippers…?

    A fine distillation of Cas’ argument and attitude. Her attitude is fundamentally incivil: “I define you-all as incivil and intolerant, until and unless you satisfy me by dancing to my tune, including that you grant me moral authority.” Sorry, sister – I don’t play that way. The moral authority that you want to be granted as a gift, must be earned. You haven’t earned it, at least not from me. And yet I tolerate you. That’s the package you get from me. Deal with it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 22, 2012 @ 5:19 pm - May 22, 2012

  198. Jman 1961,

    You would not know this, but it is Cas who decided that I be HT rather than Helio or heliotrope. Out of consideration to her rights of nomenclature, I prefer real life people to avoid the HT and pick any other designation of his/her choice. And you still have my poet laureate nomination, declined or other wise.

    ILC,

    I am sure you notice that the crickets I set to chirping which were doubled by NDT are still chirping. And it is clear that Cas can not continue to reign over our meagre selves unless and until we kiss her hem. I change kitty litter and scrub toilets, but I don’t do hems.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - May 22, 2012

  199. whoa. . .ILC two snaps on that. ‘sorry, sister – I don’t play that way’

    will have to snag that response sometime and replace ‘He who must not be named!’ with Cas

    Comment by rusty — May 22, 2012 @ 6:47 pm - May 22, 2012

  200. and now 200. and once more, kudos to BDB and Bruce for GP. Tis a great way to gain other perspectives.

    Comment by rusty — May 22, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - May 22, 2012

  201. And you still have my poet laureate nomination, declined or other wise

    I’m flattered. I accept!

    I prefer real life people to avoid the HT and pick any other designation of his/her choice

    HUA, Heliotrope!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - May 22, 2012

  202. I change kitty litter and scrub toilets, but I don’t do hems.

    I don’t do hems, either. But I’ll wash the dishes.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - May 22, 2012

  203. If your argument is sound enough, it isn’t necessary to be anything less than civil. We’ve come a long way from being barbarians. But, if you want to give yourself license to be anything less than civil, your conduct speaks for itself. If you believe in what you stand by, it should speak for itself. Or, if you don’t care to take responsibility for your conduct, that also says volumes.

    What I would really love to see is every one of us at GP placed in the same room and then watch what happens. It would be a helluva more interesting and be ten times more telling.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - May 22, 2012

  204. And, yes, I’ve said the same things in the past on ultra-liberal site Queerty, of which I don’t visit anymore. Thank God.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - May 22, 2012

  205. <blockquote"We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception.”
    – Herbert Muschamp

    More hectoring about ‘manners’.
    The MRS and Stupidity get at least as much, and often much more civility than they afford others.
    If this ‘lack of civility’ is what gets your knickers in a twist, it’s a wonder you’ve survived this long in the cold, cruel world.
    It’s a minor issue, at best. And it’s another of the blunt instruments that the LEFT uses to silence their ideological opponents.
    And that ain’t gonna work with me.
    (Please take note that I have not used so much as one expletive in any of my posts today; a practice which you deem ‘unacceptable’).
    Am I now allowed to claim that I am something greater than ’1/10th of a human being’ (as you put it ‘upthread’)?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 8:04 pm - May 22, 2012

  206. … i meant the part about civility. I wouldn’t care to share a room with most people who visit Queerty. Never have.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 8:05 pm - May 22, 2012

  207. Vince:

    Yes. I understand that. We could be in the same room and get along just fine, I think.
    Is civility important? YES
    Is it more important than integrity? NO
    Is is more important than trustworthiness? NO
    Is it more important than dependability? NO
    Is it more important than honesty? NO
    Is it more important than truthfulness? NO, NO, NO
    Let’s keep this in a little better perspective.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 8:15 pm - May 22, 2012

  208. The definition of hectoring is to bully someone with words. I expressed an opinion: one’s argument stands for itself. No bullying there. How does an argument not stand for itself and how do personal attacks improve/change the quality of it? Must a person who tempers their opinions with facts, data, and logic be considered equally with someone else who speaks in generalizations and personalizes the debate? The people I ultimately want on my team are the former, not the latter. GP policy is that “each individual commenter is also responsible for maintaining the civil discourse at GayPatriot.” Yet, why isn’t there a more recruitment vibe here? If GP’s political beliefs are the way to go, then why not sell them to a bigger audience?

    I certainly am not an innocent. As ILC and ND30 will tell you, I made some poor choices in a post earlier this month, as well as at the beginning of March, as well as in January–all different mistakes I hope to not make again. I think we all can do better, on the left and the right. And we will.

    I read your list of things that take a higher priority than civility. Unfortunately, a lot of those qualities are subjective. Politics is a nasty game and I think we’d all be a lot better off not succumbing to its ills. If we’d call each other out more on the left and the right, rather than rushing to sink to their level, I theorize that it might elevate the level of debate here. I originally came to GP to learn another perspective. And I quickly lost that frame-of-mind and fell prey to the more malicious behavior. I’m hoping to get back to that. No, I haven’t been very consistent, one of the main components of integrity. But, before two years ago, I had never engaged in online political debates either. And, I’m not exactly a quick learner.

    Helio, for example, has integrity, from my experience, despite how rude I’ve been to him in the past. And, while I unfortunately haven’t learned much from GP in terms of the best and necessary economical roads to take, as I had hoped, I have aspired to have more integrity. I think we all could to stand to aspire to have characteristics in people we disagree with. It reminds me of the 60 Minutes Meryl Streep interview with her discussing playing Margaret Thatcher. She said we could discuss our policy differences, but where would that get us? Rather, she focused on what she had in common, and the Hollywood liberal learned she was more like The Iron Lady than she reckoned for.

    I’m thinking out loud, here, obviously. And, if that’s a crime, I’m sure there is someone here who will point it out.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - May 22, 2012

  209. I’m thinking out loud, here, obviously. And, if that’s a crime….

    Vince, I’m all played out on this topic.
    You’ll notice that my list includes ‘civility’ as well, but if all thses qualities are subjective, as you stated, then I have both a different definition of the quality, and a different priority for it’s use than you do. That’s all there is to say on that.
    I’m going to guess that you haven’t read anywhere near all of the posts in this thread, and certainly not all of mine. I posted many where I laid out cogent arguments, as did many others, but you seem to be ‘stuck’ on the ones that you deem to be ‘uncivil’.
    Ok, then. I have 2 suggestions:

    1 – Go back and read mine @183, if you want to. I explain it in more detail there
    2 – Consider the quote I posted @205, and here it is again:

    “We do not embrace reason at the expense of emotion. We embrace it at the expense of self-deception.”
    – Herbert Muschamp

    Reason and emotion aren’t mutually exclusive (if it were, we’d have a lot more Mr. Spock’s around), though I think it’s better for ‘reason’ to lead emotion. I think your dilemma might come from doing the reverse: your emotion leads your reason. It’s just an idea.
    If you have the time, let me know what you think.
    Thanks.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - May 22, 2012

  210. AAAAARRRRRGGGGH!
    It’s back to NO HTML if I keep this up!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - May 22, 2012

  211. Oh, that Muschamp quote is horrible. Reason trumps emotion. What this world needs is more Spocks.

    There was a thread in the last couple months, where I was taken to task for being uncivil. And, I was. My argument was sound (though the other arguer begged to differ), but I chose the wrong place and time, and was called out for it. Rather than say my piece and leave, I emotionally believed that reason would prevail. Had I been led by reason, I would have just walked way and took my argument with me and saved it for a later date (though, it’s hard to imagine another direct opportunity coming up).

    As far as what you asked me to read, this is my take. What I don’t get is Bastiat Fan’s derogatory use of the term “short bus.” One of my best friends works in special ed and has a brother with Downs. If she were posting on here, she would rip BF a new a–hole, and she is the sweetest, kindest, most giving person you’ll ever meet. I often watch her brother during visitis and the “short bus” picks him up and drops him off three times/week. Now, BF says he has worked with the mentally-challenged and I have to take him at his word. Perhaps, he is just burnt out on his job and letting off steam and I shouldn’t get my whities in a bunch because he’s so viciously careless with that term. But, I do. Because when he uses it, I think about my best friend and her brother and I get pissed off. BF can knock Obama all he wants by incorporating whatever stupid and uncreative names he wants into his full name, and I guess I just have to let it go.

    Serenity comes here with the full agenda of getting under people’s skin. She makes no secret of it. People refer to her as Pomposity and Stupidity (which I think are kind of endearing; and, if I were to guess, I would say she feels the same way) and it makes me laugh. Helio acknowledged the reciprocal nature of the relationship: Serenity doesn’t care if the people here tolerate her. In fact, she thrives on their negative energy. So, yeah, Helio mirrors it back. I get that.

    Now, Helio talks about reflexive arguing. There is someone else who “tries” to engage in that behavior and does so much, much, much less successfully. In fact, he’s not even doing it, but he purports too. Additionally, he will call people very nasty names. But, frankly, I haven’t seen it in a while and, as Martha Stewart used to say, “that’s a good thing.”

    Whatever the case, I still believe saner minds prevail. And perhaps that’s idealistic of me and that thinking has no place here. But, I’m stubborn.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 9:38 pm - May 22, 2012

  212. Vince,

    Stay with it. And don’t let the short bus get you down.

    A whole lot of threads ago, I encouraged to accept more credit for your ability to sort things out, and you clearly have done that.

    It is never about winning so much as it is about standing up for your belief system.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 22, 2012 @ 9:52 pm - May 22, 2012

  213. Vince:

    Like your opening line.
    Yeah, that Muschamp was a goofball. LOL!

    What I don’t get is Bastiat Fan’s derogatory use of the term “short bus.”

    Because you’re reading it with emotion first. He’s applying it to the current occupant of the Oval Office. He’s not smearing all handicapped people, and certainly not your best friend’s brother, who he almost certainly doesn’t know. And he can be as considerate and sensitive to mentally-challenged people and NOT be ‘burned out’ and still be referring ONLY to the President when he uses the term.
    I’ve read his comments where he uses it and that’s all I’ve gotten from it.
    And because you like your friend, and you care about her brother, both really nice things to do, your emotion clouds you’re reason.
    try leading with your reason when you see that term, or try blowing right past it. or, as you said yourself: …”let it go”.
    That’s all.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 10:10 pm - May 22, 2012

  214. Whatever the case, I still believe saner minds prevail. And perhaps that’s idealistic of me and that thinking has no place here.

    It most certainly has a place here, and anywhere else that good, honest people want to share ideas, sort out differences, and solve problems.
    :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 10:15 pm - May 22, 2012

  215. People refer to her as Pomposity and Stupidity (which I think are kind of endearing; and, if I were to guess, I would say she feels the same way) and it makes me laugh.

    Actually, no. The whole concept makes me skin crawl, which is why I refuse to do it to anyone else. I guess it’s the price I pay to engage in my own style of debate, I have to (per my definition 210 posts ago) tolerate it.

    Comment by Serenity — May 22, 2012 @ 10:24 pm - May 22, 2012

  216. Serenity, I am sorry for misinterpreting those names for you and thanks for bringing it up. I will keep that in mind the next time I see it. Thank you for also for reminding me that you don’t engage in the behavior of name-calling. None of that I’ve ever seen away.

    Thank you Jman1961 and Helio for your comments.

    While I have hit a very lucid high point here at GP, you all know my behavior to be very inconsistent, which it is. So, I hope the next time I slip, which I will, it won’t be as low as most other times. Have a great night.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 10:42 pm - May 22, 2012

  217. Goodnight, Vince!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 10:45 pm - May 22, 2012

  218. The whole concept makes me skin craw

    Wow, Pomposity. You come here OPENLY ANNOUNCING that you have no respect for the concept of rights and freedoms enshrined by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, and NO other intent than to amuse yourself by throwing stink bombs here and antagonizing people. And your skin crawls? Seriously? You’re not kidding us? I mean: it really doesn’t occur to you that it’s other people whose skin should crawl, regarding you?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 23, 2012 @ 1:25 am - May 23, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.