Subject: Tree Is Gone: Let's Be Nice To Each Other
Posted by: Boxman
- [571114225] Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 19:20
Allright. Everybody here is guilty of slinging mud at one point or another; whether it is in defense of one's self or not.
Tree stated in The President Obama thread that he's going away for 10 days. Let's be real honest and objective about him. He's more part of the problem than he is the solution. We have a chance to enjoy ourselves and maybe even have a substantive debate or two while he's gone.
What do you say?
1
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 20:23
I'd be up for a substantive debate. Seriously.
However, there's someone else whose name starts with a B in this forum that is apparently incapable of one. If he promises to play nice, I'll be happy to as well. But I'm otherwise sick of his absurdities, so if those continue, so will I.
PS: I notice you didn't call Boldwin out for wishing death on PD (literally) in the "cornucopia" thread: "I am glad you are not a border guard and you should be too, because you'd be a dead border guard sooner or later."
In the cumbaya spirit of Christmas, I'd appreciate it if you'd also remind HIM about those pesky forum rules you're fond of spamming the board with.
2
G's phone
ID: 111039719 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 20:32
Dwetzel
read your quote over above. Boldwin said he was glad PD WAS NOT a border patrol guard. He was saying in his opinion if PD WAS a border patrol guard that his poor decisions as a guard would lead to someone shooting him. He was glad that isn't happening.
Boldwin was saying exactly opposite of what u are saying he said.
Merry Christmas
G
3
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Thu, Dec 25, 2008, 21:21
Hmm.
Quite right.
I'll retake Literacy 101.
Oops.
(He's still an idiot though.) ;)
4
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 13:40
When the ranting gets to be nothing but venomous and does nothing to carry forward a debate it get's pretty worthless to read those posts and makes me either skip over them or wonder why I am here.
I don't mind passion in beliefs and aggressive defenses but at times it just turns into a spitting contest and all involved look ignorant.
anything to shift the mood and content of the forum from those tactics would make me a more regular and interested poster.
5
weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 15:29
#4 I agree. When someone needs to resort to name calling you have to question the validity of the argument they are trying to make. Some of the people who post on the TSN boards are morons and it needs to be pointed out from time to time. On these forums the vast majority of posters are fairly intellegent and make decent arguments. We may not agree with the poster's position but the name calling is unwarranted and unfounded.
6
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 16:00
Has anyone figured out who G's phone is? I don't know who he is but I wanted to thank him. (famous phrase around recent superhero departure)
7
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 16:51
The other observation about the postings here is how so many of the beliefs and concepts of members are decided solely by their partisanship.
The Democrats always defend the Democrats and revile the Republicans and visa versa.
I see little ability to simply analyze issues on their merits alone. I see little desire of posters to see nuances in arguments and to look dispassionately at different sides of an issues.
There are many posts that have indoctrination written all over them. Talking points pulled from the latest right wing talk show or the liberal blogs.
You virtually never see a Democrat side with a Republican on anything and they can never find fault with their own politicians. The same is true of the Republican posters.
I understand people sometimes have heart felt ideologies and truly believe them, but it is so knee jerk here (And I suppose in the broader country) that it borders on comical if you step back and look at it, it's almost written as a farce.
Again I have no problem with people being passionate about their beliefs, but when it comes across as scripted, robotic and fanatical, it makes one wonder why bother debating a Pavlovian dog.
8
Perm Dude
ID: 2411492711 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 18:10
To some degree that is exactly right, nerve. But let's not dance around the issue (nor give into PC-like "let's all just get along" ideas without discussing the real problem.
The forum has done downhill in direct proportion to Baldwin's unhinged like posting. And the lefties on the board (whether moderate or marginal) have decided not to take the crap:
Baldwin's "Cult of Personality" thread: No marxist leader can be complete without a 'cult of personality' and Obama is no exception. Or take a look at "The Workcamp Cometh."
I've detailed numerous issues regarding this particular recount that heavily and suspiciously favor Franken including Soros involvement in rigging the state aparatus...
Don't forget the "Obama isn't a citizen!" and many, many other claims. The claims themselves are bad enough (and represent a person who doesn't mind that his online persona seems completely unhinged and is nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-Obama crap, sometimes (as you've pointed out, nerve) completely at-odds with himself. The problem is the continual sneering putdowns which represent the poorest type of posting, one which allows even facts in response to be merely representative "tools" of evil.
This isn't a tree problem (though he has a tendency to react more emotionally than anything else). This is a problem with many of us who are tired of the crap, frankly.
9
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 18:26
I really don't know what kind of forum PD would like to see since he can't bear to hear anything outside the zeitgeist or from the right. There are left wing echo chambers out there if that's all you want to read, PD.
What viewpoint that isn't from the Obama cult would you not call crazy? What pundit or source on the internet that doesn't fawn all over Obama would you even find interesting? I'm really curious what space you are willing to allow anyone who doesn't feel exactly like you do the day Obama takes office?
10
weykool Leader
ID: 41750315 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 18:45
The forum has done downhill in direct proportion to Baldwin's unhinged like posting. And the lefties on the board (whether moderate or marginal) have decided not to take the crap:
I think this pretty much proves the point that NC was making in post #7. Were you responding to something Baldwin was saying when you started your Tony Snow thread? While you want to point the finger at the other side lets not forget there are 3 fingers pointing right back at you. Take resposibility for your own posts and stop trying to blame others.
11
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 19:04
"Baldwin is just unhinged suggesting there is a cult of personality surrounding Obama reminiscent of totalitarianism. Now let's all unite in that magical moment when 'the one' brings everyone together. Anyone else should be committed." - PD
12
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 19:29
Baldwin:
Have you considered that rather then equating Obama with Stalin, you simply take real world examples of his policy statements and critique those as starting points?
What has he specifically done or said that equates him with a man who killed 12 million of his own people?
Why do you feel a need to go barreling into a room, guns drawn shooting at anything that moves before you've even seen the whites of his eyes? (yeah I know his mother hung out with Marxists in college...damn, so did I)
Frankly based on his picks to lead his economic team, the European Socialists, let alone the Marxists are going to be gravely disappointed.
13
Perm Dude
ID: 2411492711 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 21:14
weykool: I defended my use of language in the thread in question. My use had nothing to do with any other poster, and was never directed at anyone else on this board.
While I was confronted by people questioning my use of my language at Tony Snow, that criticism (and the discussion in general) was directly on-topic, political, and never personal with anyone here.
None of which disqualifies me from confronting Baldwin on his crazy theories. Even when given evidence he still insists upon sneering "you're just naive" responses.
Does he still believe Obama is a non-citizen? That we'll all be in workcamps next year? That Soros will kill off people he disagrees with? If you don't then you are part of the "cult."
14
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 22:25
Nerve
I know a lot about the future but not exactly about Obama specifically.
I have not yet read Saul Alinski or Antonio Gramsci to get a feel for the specific roadmap he is following. In other words I do not know exactly how much of a hurry this particular marxist is.
What I do know is the range he may be headed towards. They range from:
1) A continual slow march thru the institutions. He will have far too much opportunity [for more radical action] to take that road in my estimation but it is possible. Even if he is that benign, his pick of a Bill Ayers' likeminded Annenberg Foundation pick for education secretary tells me that that alone dooms America as the grade school kids get taught radicalism instead of competence. Between that and illegal immigration and the the globalist giveaways he has planned [Kyoto, carbon taxes and every other UN boondoggle], America is lost.
2) On the other side of the range, he may just deliver the dream his favorite professors at Columbia had. In which case, concentration camps - here we come. Those are the paraphrased words of Obama's circle of friends, not mine. I've posted the insider report of what they actually said. They were eager to kill millions.
15
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Sat, Dec 27, 2008, 22:27
Nerve
And the USSR killed 100,000,000 people, not less than 20 million.
16
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 00:42
What I do know is the range he may be headed towards. They range from:
Again Baldwin, coming across like drug induced ramblings rather the lucid insight.Rather then just making these outrageous implications can you please flesh out how you are arriving at them? Footnotes would help, documentation of your thesis.
For example: Those are the paraphrased words of Obama's circle of friends, not mine.
Can you provide a quote and a location where you found it?
Nothing you said in 14 is backed up with any evidence, it just comes across as fringe lunacy until you show everyone your cards.
17
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 02:10
#8 is, in a nutshell, exactly right, and the posts in between it and this one prove it.
I haven't been an active participant on these boards for terribly long, but I have been lurking for a much longer period of time.
And, truthfully, while I disagree with various posts made by many people (on both sides--honest!), and while I think we all tend to fly off the handle a bit from time to time (myself definitely included), Boldwin in particular has become pretty much hostile and willfully ignorant in his posts. Which is too bad. Because I've been lurking long enough to remember when he was one of those posters with whom I disagreed, but who at least brought a real argument to the scene.
Now, in all honesty, he has become a caricature of himself. I could make decent money, I think, selling refrigerator magnets (you know the kind--with about 300 different words or phrases, you can mix and match) with his posts all chopped up.
Arguments have been replaced by inflammatory buzzwords (see: "zeitgeist"). And THAT is the problem. Not the beliefs. It's the total lack of effort in seeing anyone else's point of view, and the total lack of effort in producing REAL evidence to support his own.
It's fine to have a political debate. It's even occasionally fun. But if the other person is just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalala Soros lala zeitgeist lalalala liberal", what's the point?
In an effort to remain civil, I invite all posters to simply ignore all such posts, as if they didn't even exist. They are void of content anyway. THAT is probably the nicest way to behave.
18
walk
ID: 139332920 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 11:04
I agree with a call for forum decorum, but disagree in creating a thread to have such decorum by singling out one individual...it's actually hypocritical. We can make a call for increased politeness without blatantly blaming somone who is not even here to respond. That's not really cool.
19
biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 20:46
I appears it may not be Tree after all...
20
Taxman
ID: 3985420 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 22:39
Walk... VERY WELL SAID
but as long as we are here:
DWetzel.. "I invite all posters to simply ignore all such posts: [meaning posts with " total lack of effort in seeing anyone else's point of view...and ... effort in producing REAL evidence " as if ... [the posts] didn't ... exist." A superb idea to stop the endless jibberish, however it suggests creating two poli boards:
1)The first I'll call "The Queen's Rules Politics Forum" requiring referenced evidence and links supporting the views of the poster/disagreeing with posts of another and absolute forbiddance of attacks or "labeling" (see: "zeitgeist") another poster and permit "labeling" a post's subject matter only with refernce link, evidence and/or with clear statement by poster "owning" personally the labeling thought/opinion. Not sure how to treat labels/conclusions supported only by references based entirely on supposition and/or "guilt by association": see Label by Association { Obama + Stalin} There need be even-keeled moderators, not to delete posts, but for moving forbidden posts to a corresponding thread in the other poli board. This thread would allow "pure" (my term) expression of political/social thought without distraction.
2) The second, No Holds Barred Politics Forum would be as exists today in the Rotoguru Politics Forum which continues to ignore: Forum Standards
21
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Dec 28, 2008, 22:52
I have absolutely no idea what you just said (I blame the Nyquil), but I think I like it.
I'd suggest that we really only need one of those two boards though. The second one can probably be accomodated by simply leaving the board and going to listen to (choose one, depending on your political views and/or cold medication of choice):
1. An endless loop of Limbaugh 2. An endless loop of Maury Povich (You Are The Father!) 3. An endless loop of Michael Moore movies.
In other words, if you don't want a debate, but just want to spout off to prove your alleged superiority... don't bother!
22
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 14:18
Nerve
I have a long post half completed in response but it still requires me to pull out the URL's from a dozen posted links you didn't read the first time. It's composed on another browser page and hopefully the computer doesn't freeze first.
Taxman
I don't see how zeitgeist is a label that should be banned from the discussion. It's a commonly polled thing discussed by serious people. Magazines track it. Some people believe things merely based on the strength of the zeitgeist backing them and when people do not present better backing that fact merits mentioning. When I am beinmg heckled merely because I do not have the zeitgeist wind at my back, that deserves mentioning too.
On another of your examples, I fail to see how intelligent people can discuss abortion for example if they are required to 'see the other person's POV'. How can I be required to give partial credence to that? 'While I concede you may have a point suggesting killing babies should be allowed...' Nah, that doesn't work for me.
23
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 14:36
The second, No Holds Barred Politics Forum would be as exists today in the Rotoguru Politics Forum which continues to ignore: Forum Standards
Well Tax that's sort of a delicate subject. The forum rules were originally written to keep a fantasy sports forum civil. Then along came a political debate forum, out of the ashes of the debacle that was the 2000 presidential election and a war in 2003.
Is it fair to assume the similar level of decorum when discussing issues literally involving life and death in the same way one discusses baseball?
I'm not arguing it wouldn't be a good thing if we were all more civil, but I don't think it's exactly the same thing as a baseball discussion when we are discussing people dieing.
Also reading the forum rules I don't know how much applies here. He seems to be addressing people who are specifically just making abusive posts rather then people who are passionately arguing a political point in a perhaps less then civil matter.
I think the forum would be a better place if we all calmed down before posting and used wit and intelligence rather then aggressive tactics (Myself included) but I do think politically heated exchanges have a different context then an argument over baseball and it's probably why Guru (Rightly so in my mind has taken a hands off approach.
Who's the level head that decides this for all of us?
I'd rather see us do exactly what we are doing now, discuss the short comings of the debate tone rather then heavy handed policing of political speech.
I do think vulgar and offensive language is inappropriate and is best avoided if one is trying to make an intelligent point though.
24
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 15:41
I don't see how zeitgeist is a label that should be banned from the discussion. It's a commonly polled thing discussed by serious people. Magazines track it. Some people believe things merely based on the strength of the zeitgeist backing them and when people do not present better backing that fact merits mentioning. When I am beinmg heckled merely because I do not have the zeitgeist wind at my back, that deserves mentioning too.
*shakes head* There's a big difference between that and between what you do, which is mock something merely BECAUSE a group of people believes it. In fact, it's become your buzzword for "I know a lot of people believe this without having any hard evidence, and I don't really have any hard evidence to back up my view either, but if I use this big scary-sounding word, maybe people will think I'm smart."
If you want to legitimately attack an IDEA, do it by presenting logical evidence that that idea is wrong. Don't come in here saying "you buncha liberals think it so it must be wrong". That's a dumb way of arguing which is either designed to piss people off (and in my case it often succeeds) or talk down to them. Neither has a place in reasoned debate.
On another of your examples, I fail to see how intelligent people can discuss abortion for example if they are required to 'see the other person's POV'. How can I be required to give partial credence to that? 'While I concede you may have a point suggesting killing babies should be allowed...' Nah, that doesn't work for me.
It's hard to argue that point, in general.
However, if you know that you are never going to be convinced of "the other side", and I know that I am never going to be convinced of "the other side", and we both know that the other person is never going to be convinced... then why even bother to bring it up as a point of discussion, right? The only prupose of such a thing is to yell at each other.
25
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 15:47
And I'd further point out that when YOU use that term, you often completely fail to recognize that some people who believe what the "zeitgeist" believes do so for what are (to them) informed, logical reasons--and fail to recognize any arguments coming from those people as a result.
Which, again, makes any form of reasoned debate a total waste of time.
26
Perm Dude
ID: 01102910 Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 15:50
No one is asking Baldwin to given an inch on abortion. The problem is that Baldwin treats every issue as though it were an abortion issue, in which even asking him to consider another opinion is cause for a guffaw in response, a "as if!" auto-responder which takes it for granted that he cannot change his mind on political issues.
We've been churning along that way for years, until the attacks by Baldwin suddenly reached a frenzy with this past election. The one in which he still refuses to budge an inch while throwing out there unchecked (and unchewed) outlandish, contradictory theories he picked up on WND, RedState.org, and other red meat sites.
God forbid someone would assert that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen. You'll be attacked for following the zeitgeist.
27
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 06:24
PD
I'd love to see the shoe on the other foot and McCain's only proof of citizenship be posted on WND. But you're ok with Obama's only proof being posted on his hometeam website.
Wilmer McLean
ID: 161122816 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 08:42
Barack Hussein Obama Sr.'s Magic Spoogie.
As long as a non-Annenberg fact checking site claims, "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible," then there will be conspiracy theorists and maybe a future Oliver Stone-like movie in the future.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
"The sad thing is we may never know the real truth." - Seinfeld
(Roger McDowell)
31
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 10:20
Request to keep on topic.
We're not in this thread to debate these issues--we're here to debate the debating, so to speak.
Though, I do think that, once again, post 27 shows exactly what's wrong. And allow me to preempt Boldwin's "he brought it up" with the following: Yes, he brought it up as an example of your, um, unique debating style. Which you have again demonstrated.
Boxman, as the starter of this thread, do you think that was appropriate?
(Post 30 was mine, self-deleted, because I can't type.)
32
biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 11:09
This thread is like what I stumbled on deep in my new job's internal corporate website. It was a section titled "Policy on policies."
I thought, "Jeez, now that's bureaucracy for you!"
And they say government is bad.
Now this website has a debate on debating.
33
DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 11:41
I guess we could all just sort of keep ignoring each other and shouting over each other back and forth, if you prefer. If that's what people want, let me know. I'll just go watch Jerry Springer if I want that.
34
biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 12:13
Naw, it's probably a useful, needed thread if folks took it to heart (which I so far don't see much of), I just find it funny.
Tree in the title, when he is just one of many offenders (including myself, on occasion) probably dooms it to failure, but I suppose it's good to try.
35
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 17:17
Asking someone [any conservative] to ignore Tree's provocations only goes so far when he enjoys your tacit approval in the eyes of the lurkers. He inexoribly draws you down to his level.
I'll admit my own diminished patience for this abuse has played a role.
36
dwetzel on BB
ID: 559392915 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 18:40
And if someone started a thread when you go on vacation titled "Boldwin is gone, let's be nice to each other", an identical post would be written about you.
Would that bother you?
37
Razor
ID: 181051618 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 19:26
Tree's sometimes caustic posting style is a symptom, not the cause. I am all for a healthy debate, but there is a lack of quality arguments from one side these days. We can't even have a basic discussion about the incoming administration because every thread, including this one, gets dragged into the gutter by talk of marxism, gulags, the zietgeist, Saul Alinksy and the hundreds of people the Clintons have sexual assaulted, murdered or sexual assaulted and then murdered. When you try to have a substantive debate without any substance, all your left with is a bunch of bickering and name calling, which is exactly what has happened to this forum. If you want the quality of debate to rise, find myboyjack, Madman and some other conservatives tell them to start posting more.
38
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Tue, Dec 30, 2008, 23:05
There is a lack of conservatives period. You all let a pack of swine trolls run them off and frankly I don't see much to draw a conservative into the swine-pit this has become. They won't throw pearl one if they are wise, until things get policed, not by moderators but by demanding intelligent posts. That is all you ever had to do. But no, you had to pat them on the back with every dropping, implicitly by your silence or explicitly.
39
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 00:24
If you don't demand intelligent posts of yourself, how can you demand them of others?
40
Perm Dude
ID: 3111212919 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 00:41
You all let a pack of swine trolls run them off ...
Is this what they said? I think you are projecting in order to maintain your martyrdom status, Baldwin.
Madman left because he didn't have time (got married, had children). Toral certainly left in a huff, but he was no friend of yours. MBJ still posts, but has stated he doesn't like the poor quality of the posts.
I think before you make such a statement you should take the time to make sure it is true. The hallmark of an intelligent post, I might add.
41
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 07:48
So sure?
If this isn't too much telling tales out of school, I well remember shortly before Madman left, an e-mail from him just shocked at the way I was being treated [particularly over the span of that specific week]. So don't be so sure that Madman's departure was entirely a matter of lack of time. Granted he may have made that graceful exit explicitly over family and business reasons. And granted there are more serious pursuits for a man of his rigorous analysis.
I'm not trying to force him to take a stand here with me, but feel free to ask him if there wasn't such an e-mail. I'm not real comfortable revealing that but I have been sorely tempted to bring that up many many times.
42
Building 7
ID: 3111252013 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 08:17
I am all for a healthy debate, but there is a lack of quality arguments from one side these days.
That's classic.
43
biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 08:17
There was certainly a golden age in this forum. Maybe a year or two, when the discussions were far more civil and depth of discussion and research were both expected and rewarded. I remember the first few months after I discovered the baseball forum, I found myself checking it in the middle of the night. Interesting people saying interesting things, and responding positively when you said something interesting.
Why that went away is probably multi-fold.
Other outlets appeared - 10 years ago this one of only a few open, public forums in existence on the net. Now there are millions.
Over time, when debating the same people and similar topics, people just naturally become entrenched in their ideals, and the forum becomes more partisan. Any past slight is less easily forgiven. You become less interested in trying to see other, more nuanced points of view, and more interested in scoring points.
The world became more partisan. 9/11 for a year or two brooked no dissent. This is what originally turned me off. Even with strong research and well-thought-out and presented ideas, I was essentially called a traitor every time I poked my head in and suggested the Iraq war might not be such a swell idea.
People become lazy. You need strong positive feedback and reciprocity in order to keep spending the time to present cogent, well-researched theses and analysis. If the response is juvenile or non-existent, you stop making the effort.
The primary posters got older and have less free time. That was certainly true for me.
When the majority of discourse is course, it attracts those looking for course discourse. Easy cheap-shots are really what some people think of as political discourse these days, and what they actually seek out. It also turns off people who aren't interested in that. We created a fertile ground.
I don't think we can recreate that golden-age again, but we can certainly try to be more civil, and create a more rewarding environment for those who the time and patience to present more well thought-out and non-partisan ideas. I don't have the time to devote to trying, however.
44
Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 08:44
For the record I had personal correspondances with him as well. If you recall, he and I endeavored to overhaul the polibaseball drafting system in 2005. Our proposal was met with an absolutely vicious response from Toral for failing to adhere to the proper proposal format of emailing the thing to the commish so that he could vet and present it to the league.
Madman played out the 2005 season and then politely announced his returement from the league and quietly left the forum soon after. If you question my chronology consider that Boxman arrived in mid 2006 and has since wondered aloud if Madman's actual posts really lived up to the pedistal some of us put him on, clearly indicating that he was gone before Box arrived. Anyway, I tend to think that if Madman's departure had anything to do with eroding decorum here, that experience had as much to do with it as anything.
But there's little doubt that chatting current events at Rotoguru took a backseat to family, education and work. At his own blog he's authored but 28 posts since July of 2007.
45
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 09:19
My objective experience at this forum really has been something interesting. This isn't the only forum (albeit the only political one) I post on. I frequent xbox.com amongst others to chat about videogames and I have more civil debates and discussions with 13 year olds than I have had with the majority of people here in the political forum.
If you think a 13 year old can't get fired up, tell him that COD4 multiplayer really isn't all that great (whether you actually believe that about the game or not).
Boldwin really has hit the nail on the head when he says that in the end it's the Tree/Sarge/Zen trio that wins here. And it's really hard to fault the conservatives here when they are outnumbered at least 5 to 1 and they get sick of the piling on and respond to the venom. Yes at times we should act better, but if enough bullies poke a kid on the playground enough times somebody is gonna get a bloody nose. That doesn't make hitting OK, it's just how things work.
I think one thing that makes this forum weak is that it is not by any stretch a representative sample of real life. The country is roughly 50/50 Democrat to Republican with moderates eating up the middle 10 - 15 on each side. That is nowhere near the case here.
I found this place as the result of a google search and noticed it was a kind of "one stop shop" which I found really interesting. Could these same people all have intelligent conversation about such a diverse set of topics?
At one point we had tech, gaming, real sports, fantasy sports, and political discussions. My efforts were thanked when I helped out people in the tech and gaming discussions so I spent a lot of time there. I was unable to resist the political forum especially given the times in which we live.
When I started posting in this forum there were discussions about SCOTUS appointments and rulings and I tried to learn about that because I think my lack of interest in those topics is primarily due to ignorance. Do any of you imagine Tree or Sarge or DWetzel (perhaps Zen) having a discussion about that now without it resorting to telling Boldwin to fvck off or challenging me to a real life fight?
I made a serious effort for a while to talk about the things I am passionate or knowledge (or both) about: namely our foreign policy, taxation, and the market. For a while that was interesting but things died down and other topics reared their heads.
In the name of partisan unity, this forum was never policed properly. The Trees were never shown the door by the collective and I still believe a primary reason for that is the other forums on this site and the fantasy leagues. How weird would it be to ban or shun him on the political forum to then discuss the Tex signing on the baseball one?
46
Razor
ID: 181051618 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 09:59
When I started posting in this forum there were discussions about SCOTUS appointments and rulings and I tried to learn about that because I think my lack of interest in those topics is primarily due to ignorance. Do any of you imagine Tree or Sarge or DWetzel (perhaps Zen) having a discussion about that now without it resorting to telling Boldwin to fvck off or challenging me to a real life fight?
Well, this was touched upon a couple of weeks ago, and Baldwin claimed that Ann Coulter would be the best Supreme Court justice. You can feel free to evaluate the quality of that argument. Did you chime in and state the absurdity of that claim?
47
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 10:22
If the quality of an argument is lacking, is the appropriate response telling somebody off?
48
Perm Dude
ID: 01129319 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 10:29
Sure, sometimes.
49
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 10:45
What would those circumstances be?
50
Perm Dude
ID: 01129319 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 10:58
I think that the "problem" is one of familiarity. Ironically, I think we're more likely to blister someone we've known for years on this forum than a new user.
So when someone we know makes a weak argument (particularly in a snarky way), they are likely to get a telling off.
51
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:01
You dodged. When is it OK to plaster someone given the quality of their argument? Is it really only the length of the relationship?
If that's the case, explain the hostility towards me essentially since I got here. None of you know me from Adam.
52
Perm Dude
ID: 01129319 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:18
When is it OK to plaster someone given the quality of their argument?
As noted: When they are snarky.
There may be other reasons, I dunno. That's the one that comes to mind.
As for how you were treated, I'm not about to explain anyone else's action or treatment of you. For myself, I know we've gotten in some heated (and not-so-heated) discussions. But I've never, to my knowledge, told you off in anything close to the same way I tell off Baldwin, because your posts (particularly lately) have been on a much different level.
53
DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:29
Well, since I've been called out, Boxman, let's look at the thread which I assume prompted this "can I make an intelligent argument". I think I certainly TRIED in the "Stealing Their Way to 60" thread. Not that it went noticed. I know you're familiar with the thread, but for recap value...
14: My first post in that thread was a simple link to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune site, which is showing every single ballot that is being challenged, as well as the results. Without comment (except that "my goodness, people are stupid", which wasn't directed at anyone here, but at the people who can't be bothered to color in a circle).
19: My second post was in response to Boldwin and WiddleAvi in posts 15-17, in which Boldwin cherry-picks one example showing how Franken is obviously stealing the election. WiddleAvi responds with a similarly obvious ballot which Coleman is challenging, showing that this type of behavior is not exclusive to one side. Boldwin says in 17 "There is a conscious decision to match the other side with the same sorts of protests. If Franken is contesting examples similar to #16 than Coleman forces will too because of how it would play out in court." In other words, Franken people doing one thing is Evil, but Coleman people doing the exact same thing is just because they're innocents who are being picked on. Of course, unless you have preconceived notions about who is Right and who is Wrong which you're never going to change, this is a poor logical argument. I try to point this out in 19, wherein I observe that both sides are political hacks doing their jobs. Note I didn't say that Franken is Right and Coleman is Wrong. I said they are both equally right or wrong. Which is, essentially, the lesson that most people learned in the toddler room at day care: just because someone hits you doesn't mean that hitting back is the right move. (Admittedly, I sometimes fail this lesson myself.)
Boldwin's next, reasoned post (#21): "There is a reason why you are so confident of the outcome even this late in the recount and without the lead. You know your side will shamelessly stop at nothing until they steal this, and the MSM will never tell them to give up already, you lost." It's tough to argue with someone who responds in that way.
In posts 23 and 25, WiddleAvi and nerveclinic make essentially that same point that I tried to make above. So, that's three people pointing out the same gaping logical fallacy. Unless you think that they are both flying off the handle as well.
Boldwin's next posts are in 32 (wherein he responds in a Pavlovian fashion to the mention of George Soros in a link in 31), and in 33 a link to an Ann Coulter opinion piece, which I presume given the source he believes is hard evidence that it's actually true.
37: My next post, a single link, refutes Boldwin's assertion that "all" the statistical anomalies favor Franken. Note that he doesn't bother to respond (or, I presume bsaed on the evidence, read it).
Boldwin's next post, a week later, on Christmas Eve, ignores the link in 37 and Tree's mention of Coleman shenanigans in 39--no doubt hoping that if he waits long enough the fact that he ignored them will go unnoticed-- is a snide remark about Franken's book. Of course, the link is about the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision that Coleman is full of crap in him legal arguments--as has virtually every court involved. The logical conclusions there are either that a) A vast legal conspiracy encompassing all levels of state government is working against Coleman, or b) Coleman doesn't have a leg to stand on and is making bad legal arguments. I know which is easier to believe, but of course I also know which one Boldwin believes. Hint: they're different.
Boldwin's NEXT post, in 42, is another snide remark about the book title, along with a still-unsubstantiated claim: "Mighty rich book title from someone in the process of stealing an election." It's hard to argue with that, not because he's right, but because there's no evidence to pick apart. Again.
Boldwin's next entertaining post (#44) is: 36 I've detailed numerous issues regarding this particular recount that heavily and suspiciously favor Franken including Soros involvement in rigging the state aparatus, recount figures that only move toward Franken, no other candidate slots on the recounted ballots showing similar party shifts, suspicious activity always in precints that tend democratic. Just like in Florida the election riggers are all democrats. I've been seeing this stuff from Dems in Chicago all my life and we seem to have that particular export market sown up."
This one needs a bit of exposition. Let's recap how wrong this post is.
I've detailed numerous issues regarding this particular recount that heavily and suspiciously favor Franken. False. One blog link in the initial post, one ballot picture (countered by one ballot picture one whole post later, which he dismisses, not to mention ignoring the ballot which BOTH sides are challenging)...
including Soros involvement in rigging the state aparatus, recount figures that only move toward Franken, no other candidate slots on the recounted ballots showing similar party shifts, suspicious activity always in precints that tend democratic
Second man in on the Soros thing (with an opinion piece presented as "evidence"), recount figures that don't always favor Franken (see link in 37, which he steadfastly ignores), possibly even true about the "no other candidates" thing, but point me to the evidence presented, and ditto on the last one--though I am certain that if I tried I could find one or two anomalies in Coleman-leaning counties, not that I would bother because they would be summarily either ignored or dismissed as Coleman people defending themselves against the evil Soros machine.
"Just like in Florida the election riggers are all democrats. I've been seeing this stuff from Dems in Chicago all my life and we seem to have that particular export market sown up.
Obviously, this is opinion and not fact by any means, and not worth arguing about.
Once these arguments are called into question in the following posts by Tree and PD, Boldwin's response, rather than trying to back up his arguments with, you know, evidence and facts, says in 47:
"If every surprise ballot box discovered in someone's trunk just happened to always happen in heavy Coleman precincts you of course wouldn't find that odd.
You guys have long since lost common sense and the ability to recognise the truth.
I used to think that the web would one day be censored to death. Perhaps their plan was to deconstruct it to death all along. Zeitgeist puppets would just lose the ability of independent thot until the web collapsed like Babylon at the confusing of the languages."
Ignoring for the moment the personal attack in the middle paragraph--do you have a problem with that, or is it okay because he's attacking people you don't like???--let's look at the one allegedly substantive bit of information in this, the first paragraph--in which he ignores YET AGAIN all evidence presented to the contrary via the link in 37, in which a ballot anomaly is NOT favoring Franken.
And at this point, after listening to piles of logical fallacies and the personal shot, I admittedly lost it. For which I do apologize. Shouldn't have done it, that's all I can really say. I'll try to do better in the future.
Once I called attention to 37, AGAIN (and I admit in a not-appropriate way), he completely misreads and/or distorts it to say the ballots should be counted twice, when simple reading comprehension (and again, I sometimes fail that as well when blinded by rage) says that the Coleman campaign doesn't want them counted ONCE. When someone flat-out lies about the argument you're making, after trying to pretend it doesn't exist, it's VERY VERY VERY HARD to have a reasoned debate, agreed?
So, there we have it. Trying, repeatedly, to have a reasoned argument/debate didn't work. So I lost it (and shouldn't have). It's sort of like speaking to someone that doesn't understand English very well--your first instinct is to shout louder, as if that will make them understand you. It doesn't work, of course, but everyone does it.
So, now that I've said my piece, I'll call you out Boxman. Do you plan to call out your buddy for not participating in said reasoned debate, or are you going to fall into the same trap that he does and that assume that because someone with your ideological view says it, it doesn't matter how it's done, it must be defended?
Look, ma, no insults.
55
Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:32
When is it OK to plaster someone given the quality of their argument?
Ask Baldwin. He was the king of ad hominem here long before Tree arrived. And I'm not trying to be snarky. If any single person is responsible for setting that tone it's him.
For example, back in 2001, were any insults thrown around in this thread prior to post 18?
On a side note, Roo, whom Baldwin called a "self-loathing leftist bubblehead" after criticizing his post as "standard liberal fare" wasn't the shrewdest poster in those days. Yet, contrary to some peoples' assessments of the left side of this forum, reading through old threads back when he used to post here will clearly show that both sides of the aisle frequently disagreed with him.
56
DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:35
To summarize my too long to read post, I'll answer this simply:
"You dodged. When is it OK to plaster someone given the quality of their argument?"
When reason doesn't work.
When they purport to want a reasoned debate, but steadfastly shun reasoned argument and in fact completely ignore evidence presented (prtending it doesn't exist), then blatantly distort or lie about what that evidence plainly says, it's hard to do otherwise.
I suppose the alternative is to just walk away. Which some people have apparently done in the past. That's the "right" thing to do, but it's very hard to do given both human nature and the nature of the medium, in which one does not have the capacity to ignore a particular user. I'd certainly do that with Boldwin--and ONLY Boldwin--given the opportunity to do so. I don't mind people who disagree with me. I don't even mind people who disagree vehemently with me. I just can't stand people who don't ever, EVER, bother to listen to reason.
57
DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 11:35
Bah. Stupid italics. I'll get 'em one of these days.
58
Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 13:22
explain the hostility towards me essentially since I got here.
You act like the hostility is a one-way street. I find that especially curious since you're a proponent of Ann Coulter uber-conservatism that promotes hostility and disrespect as a core principle.
You may think that characterizing those who have differing political opinions as traitors, Marxists, baby murderers, America-haters, enviro-nuts and terrorists is a good basis for civil debate, but I highly doubt it. It generally results in a hostile response, and it's especially unfortunate when those responses become personal.
I find it very uncomfortable when Tree and Baldwin degenerate into insulting pissing contests. Perhaps it's inevitable when an uber-conservative and an uber-liberal lock horns, but since I'm neither, I can only speak from my own point of view.
I'm not big on labels. Ironically, I live in maybe the most religiously oriented, politically conservative counties in the country. Most here would consider me a liberal. But when I go to California or Seattle, as I do several times a year, I find myself more often than not on the conservative side of issues.
Maybe standards would be higher here if we posted as if we were talking with someone in person instead of the relative anonymity of cyberspace. That could go a long way toward eliminating talk of ass kicking - with the possible exception of Sarge;)
59
DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 13:30
Well said.
60
Seattle Zen
ID: 5411323112 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 13:34
I've pretty much given up posting in this forum. Many people have left, fewer new people have arrived.
I've ignored 95% of Baldwin's posts for the past eight years. Back when they were 15% of the total posts, it was easy. Then in October when his posts approached 50% of the board's content, nearly all idiotic spittle, I decried his Ahab-like lunacy and feared for the life of the forum. All for naught.
For the past year I have sworn not to reply to any of Boxman's posts as I have found him to be a cretinous presence whose appearance foretold this demise. No matter how many times he tries to compare the animal/vegetable/mineral trio of myself, Tree and Sarge - you would be hard pressed to find three more different people - as one in the same, I ignored him, as I said I would. But this thread has drawn me out. Who are you to say, "Hey, Tree is gone, let's have fun at his expense."? Stick to giving everyone great investing advice, you know, like bank stocks and praising luminaries like Jim Cramer. What am I doing reading those posts, silly me, they are out of my pay scale!
Here's the bottom line, there are far too few people left that I want to hear from. There was a lot to talk about during the election. Now that President Obama about to take office with Democratically lead legislative branches, I will be far more interested in the daily political doings in Washington. I have basically ignored federal legislation the last 7 years, it's been too depressing and I won't be surprised if I lose interest in another year or two as I get disillusioned with the compromising that is sure to come. Years ago I would post my thoughts and feelings and get decent replies from many points on the political spectrum. Today, I'm just not interested in what the fewer remaining posters think.
61
Seattle Zen
ID: 5411323112 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:39
And just look at that post above. I call someone cretinous whom I've never met. I don't like the person I have become on these boards. Until I can act more civilly, I should walk away.
62
Baldwin
ID: 221172017 Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 14:47
I'd like to mention some positives. I think the most valuable things of a political nature I've learned this year were when we were forced to explain what was going on with the financial meltdown. I'd leave this place and have so often threatened to do so but how else would I run into a description and connection between Tier One capital and Fannie Mae prefered stock? Why else would I be forced to learn about credit default swaps, interest rate swaps and the enormous pitfall they represent? These things are crucial to estimating the risk of great depression and had I not been around I wouldn't have been forced to learn about it. I would not have found Nouiel Roubini. I would not have watched you-tubes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in action destroying the mortgage industry and by extention the whole world's economy. The Housing Bubble Thread which was a quality exersize [we should examine that and see why it escaped the usual fate] actually greatly effected the way in which my wife did business and the good timing involved with putting that in hiatus.
Debates here have lead my to supremely useful websites such as NARTH, I discovered instapundit here and blogs in general. I think this website had a role in developing the Conservatism Today blog [azdbacker/Scott Martin's] which is so professionally done I believe it will be in the top fifty nationally significant political blogs within a couple years. [no slight intended to dead parrots or MITH's blog. I just don't know them remotely as well]
I was going to list all the great websites I've stumbled upon researching for this site but they are far and away too numerous to catalog and that alone has made this experience worthwhile despite the negatives.
In some ways we were an early collaborative blog before blogging was invented and perhaps we suffer from an explosion of high quality blog competition. Would Dave Hall feel any grief over closing the doors to this wing of rotoguru? I'd love to hear his comments.
[I begged him not to open it in the first place knowing I'd get hooked]
63
jedman
ID: 552262217 Thu, Jan 01, 2009, 15:03
I'd like to add a few of my thoughts on this subject. I am very new to posting anything here and also new to just lurking in the past. The election this year got me very interested in political things given the sorry state of our economy. I was anxious to see what our candidates had to offer, so being familiar with Rotoguru I started reading this forum. Going into this, I would say I took everything said by Rush and Hannity as gospel. I am a pretty conservative guy. This forum has helped me see both sides of a lot of the issues. I mostly don't agree with a lot of what is posted here, but I also have become more open minded to other arguments and ideas. I now listen to Rush and Hannity a little differently and don't accept what they say as always accurate, but I still do side with them a lot of the time. I find myself listening to America Left on my XM radio now, trying to hear both sides, many times solidifying my opposition to their ideas and other times thinking they are not off base. I have been taken aback by some of the meanness that is on this forum and it has made me very careful when I post. I certainly don't pretend to be knowledgeable about our political system or situation, but I am trying to learn. I have learned a lot here and hope to add something of substance in the future. Happy New Year.
64
Pancho Villa
ID: 51546319 Thu, Jan 01, 2009, 20:22
hope to add something of substance in the future.
You already have.
65
nerveclinic
ID: 26107108 Fri, Jan 02, 2009, 07:52
Jedman I now listen to Rush and Hannity a little differently and don't accept what they say as always accurate, but I still do side with them a lot of the time.
I think that is the most important concept to grasp politically. There are often multiple sides to any debate and even the person you are disagreeing with isn't always wrong or have bad intentions.
The only way we can grow as a country and have a government we are proud of is through open minded, analytical and studied debate of all points of view.
This includes not taking a ridged position on everything just because it follows the party line. It also means not assuming people who disagree with you are "the enemy" or "evil", even if they are wrong.
Thanks for your post it offered a lot of insight and I hope you will keep it up.
Nerve
66
Tree
ID: 1311551521 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:25
i no doubt have participated heavily in the mucky muck around here, and i easily take the baldwin and boxman offered bait - too easily, but i'm too often fixin' for a fight - probably a mixture of the redneck texan i grew up as and the piss-and-vinegar new yorker i grew into.
but the fact of the matter is that the endless personal insults from Baldwin toward me - and i'm sure if you counted them up over the last 5 years, the number hurled by him would easily outnumber the same from me - not to mention things like THIS thread we're i'm called out personally as THE source of the problem (thanks to everyone who defended that lie, btw) - play a big role in my reactions and, admitted lack of civility in certain instances.
i'm sure not going to treat someone decently who has an absolute refusal to treat me as a human, and a complete disrespect for my RIGHTS to my opinions and thoughts.
it's one thing to disagree with someone. but it's a whole other kettle of fish to constantly debase and insult someone because they happen to think, for example, this country is heading in the right direction, finally.
my closest friend from High School is about as conservative as it gets. a dyed-in-the-wool republican and staunch Bush supporter who happens to work advance security for the Office of the POTUSA. my best friend's sister spent several years as Laura Bush's press secretary, and now works with one of the Bush daughters.
i can have endless conversations with them about politics, and while they get heated, they remain civil and never get personal.
it's impossible to do that here, because it's the interwebs, and everyone is a keyboard commando, quick with an insult because you know you won't get your teeth punched through the back of your head.