Kill the ad hominem

[chess9]

Too many people are resorting to name calling in this forum. Please bring the level of debate UP about 200 stories. Current practice has us 199 stories UNDERGROUND. We all know by now that everyone who disagrees with us is an "idiot", "un-American", a "Nazi", etc. It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board. I know very few of you would make these comments face to face. So why do it here? Some of the comments lately lead me to believe that the Mods have completely given up on this bunch.

I don't expect anyone to act like a Harvard Professor, but civility and modesty are virtues.

Mea culpa.

-Robert

 

[Czar]

lets just agree to disagree

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It goes in cycles. I remember some asshat posted a thread about this sort of subject and it was stickied. It helped for a while but the civility waned soon after it dropped. There have been more attempts too and all help to somewhat raise the level of discourse, but as always it goes in spurts. I think the reason it's lowered again is the lack of real issues being posted and more of the same old same old rehashed crap being argued.

Meh - politics is by nature nasty because of the ideological divides it highlights.

CkG

 

[Corn]

It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board.

Please help me to understand why it's OK to call a public figure a traitor but calling someone here one is somehow "bad". What's the difference?

Well, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that the forum member can defend himself personally from these so-called "attacks" while the public figure cannot.

 

[Red Dawn]

I save all my ad hominems for ATOT where they are appreciated

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn

It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board.

Please help me to understand why it's OK to call a public figure a traitor but calling someone here one is somehow "bad". What's the difference?

Well, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that the forum member can defend himself personally from these so-called "attacks" while the public figure cannot.

The difference is that public figures are "fair game." It's always been that way. Besides, if we couldn't make comments (positive or negative) about people in the news, there wouldn't be much to talk about, would there? I do know what you're getting at though ...

 

[Insane3D]

Repost!

 

[Czar]

I still think we ourselves should moderate the forum, that when some member goes over the top, brakes the guidelines then we all just ignore him or something alike

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corn

It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board.

Please help me to understand why it's OK to call a public figure a traitor but calling someone here one is somehow "bad". What's the difference?

Well, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that the forum member can defend himself personally from these so-called "attacks" while the public figure cannot.

The difference is that public figures are "fair game." It's always been that way. Besides, if we couldn't make comments (positive or negative) about people in the news, there wouldn't be much to talk about, would there? I do know what you're getting at though ...

Once you post something in the public domain, it's fair game, whether or not you are a public figure.

I almost forgot... and you're a stupid Nazi

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I almost forgot... and you're a stupid Nazi

Bite me white-boy.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Corn

It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board.

Please help me to understand why it's OK to call a public figure a traitor but calling someone here one is somehow "bad". What's the difference?

Well, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that the forum member can defend himself personally from these so-called "attacks" while the public figure cannot.

because then it gets personal, because we are not the issue in the discussions

 

[chess9]

Corn:

I should have guessed you would have trouble distinguishing the two.

Bush and Clinton, for example, are public figures and have plenty of defenders.

Calling someone here stupid elucidates nothing. It is a waste of time and debases the forum. No one here, or very few, are in a position to make any significant changes in public policy other than by voting, and perhaps discussing the issues. So, why would you bother? Calling Bush "stupid" on the other hand is a way of saying you don't like him or support his administration. As a public figure, he is subject to such condemnation. I find it odd that some people think it's absolutely awful to condemn Reagan but it is just fine to call someone here a weasel, idiot, or such nonsense.

All we are asking for here-or, rather, all we should be asking for-is rational discourse. I can't imagine it's very cathartic to call someone stupid, particularly if the poster is dead wrong on an issue and you have the facts to show his/her error. Stick to the facts and your opinion about public issues and figures. I assume you've read the header about flames.

Two years ago the mods would have been all over some of the posters here. Anand has done such a good job with the site, however, and we have so many posters now, the mods just can't keep up.

I've made many of the same mistakes myself-resorting to name calling and am not suggesting we need to turn this lively forum into a Miss Manners clone. All I'm suggesting is that we elevate the tone a few stories.... Think twice before you hit the send button. I know that's a wild concept for some of you..... I'm sure many of you would be my friend if we were neighbors. Even you, Corn.

-Robert

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn

It's one thing to call a public figure a traitor, etc., but quite another to use such language about someone on this board.

Please help me to understand why it's OK to call a public figure a traitor but calling someone here one is somehow "bad". What's the difference?

Well, as far as I can tell, the only difference is that the forum member can defend himself personally from these so-called "attacks" while the public figure cannot.

"He's a dick."

"You're a dick!"

See the difference?

 

[chess9]

Red:

I've never seen an off-color or inappropriate comment posted by you. I'm shocked. <brain seizure now commencing>

-robert

 

[Czar]

I think we need a thread like this at least once a week

 

[DealMonkey]

Is it time for the group hug now?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Is it time for the group hug now?

No

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

Why settle for a 'Group Hug' when Arnold has raised the bar to a 'Group Grope'.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why settle for a 'Group Hug' when Arnold has raised the bar to a 'Group Grope'.

Why stop there? Pass out the cigars and interns!

Sorry - fair is fair

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why settle for a 'Group Hug' when Arnold has raised the bar to a 'Group Grope'.

Why stop there? Pass out the cigars and interns!

Sorry, can't do it. I'm a born-again Metrosexual.

 

[Corn]

I should have guessed you would have trouble distinguishing the two.

Of course you should have, but more to the point, it's because for all practical purposes there is no difference.

My audience here is broad, access to over 100K registered users plus the uncounted shy whom don't post. Does this fact not also make you and I "public figures"?

I believe it does.

Calling someone here stupid elucidates nothing. It is a waste of time and debases the forum.

One would say that calling a public official "stupid" is a similar waste of time, and debases any legitimate criticism of said public offical's policy or person.

Calling Bush "stupid" on the other hand is a way of saying you don't like him or support his administration.

I suppose that's a "way" used by the more, shall we say, intellectually challenged posters among us to enunciate their displeasure of public figure du jour. Personally, I find it more gratifying to air my grievences in a more focused manner, than say "he's stupid!!!" Unless, of couse, when used for effect, or simply lowering myself to the already base level of the discussion.

Just a couple days ago I simply asked a forum member for the slightest smidgen of documentation, while even admitting I might have been wrong in my own assertions, to support his charge of shenanigans regarding an issue I'll leave to that thread. My humble request was met with contempt and insult. When I replied in kind I was met with cries of "stop being a vulgar dick!" While stunned by the obvious hypocrisy, I still remain amused by it even today.

Yes, I'm a dick. Not because I've ever unfairly "attacked" someone over something they've said or done, but because I have the gall to address anyone in kind.

I find it odd that some people think it's absolutely awful to condemn Reagan but it is just fine to call someone here a weasel, idiot, or such nonsense.

I, too, find that odd. Surely this does not describe me.

All we are asking for here-or, rather, all we should be asking for-is rational discourse.

Is this an example of rational discourse?

Of course I was a "dick" in that thread too............

 

[CaptnKirk]

Cad -
I agree, Fair is Fair.

But YOU have to take Monica !

And Gaard has to take the Bus !

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

I should have guessed you would have trouble distinguishing the two.

Of course you should have, but more to the point, it's because for all practical purposes there is no difference.

My audience here is broad, access to over 100K registered users plus the uncounted shy whom don't post. Does this fact not also make you and I "public figures"?

I believe it does.

Calling someone here stupid elucidates nothing. It is a waste of time and debases the forum.

One would say that calling a public official "stupid" is a similar waste of time, and debases any legitimate criticism of said public offical's policy or person.

Calling Bush "stupid" on the other hand is a way of saying you don't like him or support his administration.

I suppose that's a "way" used by the more, shall we say, intellectually challenged posters among us to enunciate their displeasure of public figure du jour. Personally, I find it more gratifying to air my grievences in a more focused manner, than say "he's stupid!!!" Unless, of couse, when used for effect, or simply lowering myself to the already base level of the discussion.

Just a couple days ago I simply asked a forum member for the slightest smidgen of documentation, while even admitting I might have been wrong in my own assertions, to support his charge of shenanigans regarding an issue I'll leave to that thread. My humble request was met with contempt and insult. When I replied in kind I was met with cries of "stop being a vulgar dick!" While stunned by the obvious hypocrisy, I still remain amused by it even today.

Yes, I'm a dick. Not because I've ever unfairly "attacked" someone over something they've said or done, but because I have the gall to address anyone in kind.

I find it odd that some people think it's absolutely awful to condemn Reagan but it is just fine to call someone here a weasel, idiot, or such nonsense.

I, too, find that odd. Surely this does not describe me.

All we are asking for here-or, rather, all we should be asking for-is rational discourse.

Is this an example of rational discourse?

Of course I was a "dick" in that thread too............

You sure were. I couldn't figure out who you were talking to. I couldn't find who you quoted. And that was a great thread. I posted in it.

 

[Corn]

I couldn't figure out who you were talking to.

See, Moonie is just begging me to insult him with this reply!!!

Keeping with the spirit of this thread, however, I shall refrain. Moonie please check the 9th sentence in the first post of that thread for the quote.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It goes in cycles. I remember some asshat posted a thread about this sort of subject and it was stickied. It helped for a while but the civility waned soon after it dropped. There have been more attempts too and all help to somewhat raise the level of discourse, but as always it goes in spurts. I think the reason it's lowered again is the lack of real issues being posted and more of the same old same old rehashed crap being argued.

Meh - politics is by nature nasty because of the ideological divides it highlights.

CkG

Ya, who was that asshat, what an idiot that guy was!