Monday Open Thread
Here is the latest on the London bombings. New polls show increasing discontent over Iraq. (link
) We just finished the deadliest quarter in Iraq for American GIs. (link
) Sunnis are being blamed for this by the US. (link
) One bright spot is that the number of Iraqi civilian casualties went down in June. (link
)
What's on your mind this Independence Holiday Week?
Submitted by Mike Pridmore on Mon, 2007-07-02 08:42
Tags:
Comments :
Fast Track Trading is Dead
Bye-Bye
Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new era, of free and fair trade.
I'm only half stupid
Still a bumpy
road ahead on this one. Many of the powerful elite among the Democratic leadership are still pushing free trade instead of fair trade.
It's a bit ugly
I am looking for a site that explains this. I will try and link it as soon as I find it.
It's pretty darn interesting the way it works. The trade deals are set before the Congress even votes on them.
I know Rangle (whom I like) has been guilty of supporting erroneous trade deals.
There is no satisfactory explanation for unlimited unregulated free trade that opens up an enormous downward pressure on US businesses and US wages, and exploits resources of other countries while unscupulously paying pitiful pennies a day to foreign workers at the same time destroying and disregarding their culture and the land.
I'm only half stupid
Iran Has a Message. Are We Listening?
Link to WaPo article
qui tacet consentire
It seems the General is interested in a dialogue.
I hate to say this but I don't think the leaders in our administration are much interested in actual or real discussions. I think they are really only interested in putting out talking points to their base, and acting victorious over their foes. And if it can be played out on Phaux News, all the better.
"Hey Condi.....We got an Iranian General on line 2 that want's a word with you. Do you want to talk to him?"
"I'm sorry General, Our Secretary of State is unavailable to talk to you right now. Can I take a message?"
Another Iran thread...
Do we want a press corp that actually does their own investigative work? Do we want a press corp that repeats someone elses press release as a fact?
Michael Gordon has an article in todays NY Times titled: "US Ties Iranians to Attack That killed GI's
".
Glenn Greenwald pulls up Defense Department releases from the last day or two and shows how Gordon's article was taken directly from the Army Press Releases
without any sources or independent verification.
Is stenography the same thing as reporting? Apparently the Grey Lady thinks so.
Isn't the NYT...
...part of the liberal media conspiracy against conservatives, though?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A lesson in silliness, via Redstate
Look here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/buzzbrockway/2007/jul/02/poor_oppressed_ji...
The thesis of this thread is that the idea that economic oppression is a root cause of terrorism cannot be because some terrorists are actually rather well off.
Rather than waste a lot of time explaining why this is false let me just ask one question: Were any of the founding fathers rather well off when they rebelled against England's economic oppresion of the American colonies?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
News of the surge
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?ei=5090&...
Hint- not particularly good.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
More recent news
is more encouraging (and note that the military escalation only began mid-June). As Mike says, civilian casualties are down (although the military is not claiming that is a definitive result of the surge -- welcome realism), and the percentage of neighborhoods in Baghdad under coalition control has increased
by 16% to 48% from your article.
Obviously this is still far short of acceptable, but there is measurable progress. Let's hope it continues.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Speaking of realism...
Civilian casualties are low in June compared to other months this year. It'll be interesting to see if that continues or is a statistical blip.
And the 48% neighborhood control? Well that's great other than that their plan called for 100% control by mid summer. Now, granted, for this war making 48% of your goal is doing a lot better than usual.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reily:
"I'm more of a man than any liberal.
"
Don't hate me Pico. I didn't say it, (M)Ann said it.
I have a certain admiration for Ann
She is a one man(!) self promotion machine whose entire success is based on the outrage of gullible liberals.
I think that the symmbiosis between her and the Edwards campaign was illustrated nicely, and, to tell you the thruth, it would not totally shock me if they had not planned the Hardball confrontation in advance, for their mutual benefit. They both are women, after all, who are known to be devious and to play to men's fascination with cat fights.
She's sort of the Paris Hilton of politics (and not the only one), whose only claim to fame is being her public persona.
Still, I often wonder why anyone pays any attention to her. It particularly amazes me that a liberal would ever mention her at all. It amounts to paying her for being her.
Do you also have a certain admiration for Paris
Since you compare the two.
I'm only half stupid
Paris
Nice town.
Hilton seems to have fallen into it.
Ann seems to have had to actually work at it. Once she realized that liberals were such unwitting dupes, it was off to the races.
But how can anyone fault either for taking advantage. if people want to aid you in you making of money, why should we criticize you for taking it?
Who knew that one could simply make clever and outrageous statements, direct them at liberals, and these fools would keep your name in front of the public, and your "books" would sell to those who delight in the discomfort of liberals?
I was once in a class on Zen Buddhism where one of the students played a tape of an interview she had done with John Cage, as part of her master's thesis project. On it, he explains the alleatory methods he used to generate music, such as rolling dice, throwing the I Ching sticks, writing with his eyes closed, all attempts, he said, to wall off his emotions and consciousness from the music. Finally she remarks to him, "But anyone could write music that way." Cage responds, "Yes, that is true. But i did, they didn't."
Same thing here. Seems to me that anyone could write Ann's stuff. But she did. And liberals have been helping her out ever since.
Hey, liberals are nice people.
Nah
Liberals buy her books? Liberals watch her on TV
? Liberals invite her to speak?
Certainly some liberals are too quick to pay her undeserved attention, but she's not a liberal creation.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I think if youi read
what i wrote, you will see that i said none of those things.
But if she had not shocked reaction from liberals, you would never had heard of her.
And yes, liberals watch her on TV/. The average time between one of her appearances and it's reporting on liberal blogs is about ten seconds.
One thing Ann and liberals have in common
They both can't wait for George Bush to get out of office.
Yep she said that. She has joined the cult of the Bush bashers.
I'm only half stupid
Makes sense
Then she can spend her time bashing president Clinton!
Odd for someone who
claims no hold to a particular ideology, you certainly are defending 'classicl liberals' or libertarians stoutly with lot of little barbs for those that don't see eye to eye with your analysis.
Ann is a product of Bob Novak school of journalism. The effort to 'take back the country' from the dirty effing hippies. It's not like she hasn't had the full support and backing of Fox News, her book publishers and her mentor Bob Novak. Why does she get so much play in the media? Who gets her these gigs? Rupert Murdoch. The Heritage Foundation. Ann is lost without her little cadre of right wing fans that follow her everywhere to be schooled on 'correct thought' about liberals. Yes her little cadre of inbreeds that drool over her everyword, and then laugh. How easy is it to pick on the kid with pimples? Ann will be there..... mocking. Does she have a philosophy of her own, or is it just mockery for its own sake?
Anyone can get attention for being inflammatory. You have proven that. But how often does someone like Ann get to go on Good Morning America and wish out loud on Tee Vee that Edwards was dead.
Imagine if Good Morning American had allowed some hack liberal to go on the air in 2,000 and call George Bush a faggot, oops was that too harsh, I meant I wisht he was dead. Oh it's just free speech, she said innocently. Why are you trying to shut me up.
I'm only half stupid
I'm defending the truth
I have also battled lies about liberals. (One sometimes hears on Christian bopards that liberals want to ban all religion from America. I've battled that one more than once.)
She has nothing to do with Bob Novak. How shallow can one get. You might not agree with Novak's opinions (he's a paleocon), but he is a journalist. Ann is not a journalist.
But how often does someone like Ann get to go on Good Morning America and wish out loud on Tee Vee that Edwards was dead.
Just to see if you are awake, why did she say what she said about Edwards? What was the quote? Did she say she wished Edwards was dead? (No, she didn't.)
Do your homework, or be judged a fool.
(Again, I know the distinction is a little above your r seeming ability to comprehend, I'm not defending Coulter, who is a cunt, but I am simply insisting that we report accurately what she actually said.)
IN this case
you have your facts wrong.
Ann is a Bob Novak protege, unless Bob is a liar, because he said so on your favorite show 'Crossfire'.
(You also have you facts wrong on your bottled water story from Katrina, but that's a different story.)
So far all I have seen you do is call liberals a cult.
I gleefully note that Ann has joined the the BashBush cultists on the 'left', although for different reasons. The underlying theme seems to be Bush's Incompetence, both from the left and the right. Poor George.
Poor sweet little Ann...... everyone takes her out of context, and she is every so
innocent of wishing people were dead.
I'm only half stupid
Just get the facts
What was the Coulter quote on Edwards and death.
So, you are telling me that Wal-Mart delivered no water during the aftermath of Katrina? Show me. That was my fact.
Here
is one report from the time.
Right here
is a "corrected" story from WaPo. My bet is that Wal-Mart inflated the relief truck figure by including their own merchandise deliveries with it. that would be the Wal-Mart we know and love.
Poor sweet little Ann...... everyone takes her out of context, and she is every so
innocent of wishing people were dead.
What is it exactly that justifies your lying in this case? Just tell me what she actually said. full quote, with the context.
You still didn't answer my question.
What would happen if a liberal hack in 2,000 had said about GWB, 'Oh I realize now it is so un PC to call George a faggot. Next time I will just wisht he had died in a plane crash.
You can have your Wal-Mart story. Good for them for delivering water to those that were thirsty. Clap Clap Clap.
I am talking about the sub-contracters hired to deliver water that never got there because of complete incompetence of 'leadership' and direction.
You can say I am not lying about Ann....... trust me I really and truly don't care.
I just wonder why she was allowed on Good Morning America after defiling the 9/11 widows for their point of view, since she believes in free speech and all, and if they would let a liberal hack come on and say the same kinds of things.
I'm only half stupid
Again
What would happen if a liberal hack in 2,000 had said about GWB, 'Oh I realize now it is so un PC to call George a faggot. Next time I will just wisht he had died in a plane crash.
You have the dishonesty to leave out the context. Why?
Believe me, there were enough hacks in 2000 saying un-PC things on both sides.
I just wonder why she was allowed on Good Morning America after defiling the 9/11 widows for their point of view, since she believes in free speech and all, and if they would let a liberal hack come on and say the same kinds of things.
Well, I bet the do. Is that the network of Rosie?
Thing is, you got it wrong. She didn't just "defile" the widows for their point of view, which is, after all, just another exercise in free speech, but she impuned their motives.
She was more vvile than you make it out.
Perhaps now you can see why the National Review, that vaunted left wing publication (and web site), dumped her five years ago or so for saying such things.
Thing is, missliberties, when I see you and hear you in my mind's eye and ear, I see Ann Coulter. You have a lot in common.
Bye. Have a nice life.
I'm only half stupid
Thank you
You're very kind.
Have a nice life yourself.
Ann Coulter does have a history of the kind of rhetoric
that does call for some type of action, which is not defended as free speech under the First Amendmant. For example, it wasn't that long ago that Ann Coulter actually and openly advocated assaulting and beating in the heads of liberals and gays with baseball bats.
Fire one.
Hrrrm.
Apparently she did wish him dead. You can watch her say it here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/26/ann-coulter-attacks-john-edward...
The verdict is in, MS.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I believe
he's referring to what Coulter said just before that.
Guys, there's gotta be something more interesting to discuss than Coulter.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
There would be
but the dirty little secret is, she speaks for the right. She actually says what they think out loud.
I'm only half stupid
And you know this
how? You have, in order to make this statement, read the mind of every single person on the right?
Since I know for a fact that you couldn't read a mind accurately if your life depended on it, why don't you simply ask the rightists here if Coulter speaks for them. for starters. As you then go on to ask the same for everyone on the right, you can keep us updated.
See the reception
she got at the conservative convention. She is their little darling. They all have a grand time laughing at liberals. It is what they do best. Cause they certainly don't seem to be able to run the country.
I'm only half stupid
I'm looking for you
to back up your statement that she speaks for the right. Not just some people on the right, but for "the right."
You are slipping and slikding like...well, like Ann Coulter.
Am I the only one getting a flashback?
P1 - "My lawyer represents me"
P2 - "Oh yeah, what about your representative? Don't they represent you?"
P1 - "Well yes, but ..."
P2 - "Well, which one is it? When are you going to admite you are a dishonest ideologue? Pat Robertson and Herman Goering would be proud!"
I'm getting this sense of deja vu back to the days of Hoplite only rather than "gentlemen sitting around and discussing politics over mint julips" and "planting our flags on a hill" we have "Sorry, I thought you were intelligent" and "Stop making assumptions, and I can tell you are making assumptions because I can read minds"
But we have to be nice or we'll be subject to another GBCW series.
I can tell when people read minds
when they tell me what I'm thinking. or when they tell me what "the left" or "the right" thinks. (I don't think either is the kind of thing that thinks. But even granting that this is a generalization from all members of the right or the left, it can't be that the person making the statment has asked every member of those groups what they think, so, to me, it is no leap of loigic to think that they are mind reading.)
Usually, we can tell when someone makes assumptions when they say something that is conterfactual as if it is true, espceially when it is about ourselves.
For instance, if someone were to start out a post to you with, "I don't trust people whose names are Mendelev, so I don't trust you" in all probability, you will conclude that they made a wrong assumption about you. Unless, of course, your name actually is Mendelev, in which case you would say, "Great guess on my name." Otherwise, you might say, "stop assuming."
Do you see anything wrong with this kind of perfectly normal discussion?
Hmmmm...
Hmmmm....I'm not even positive that Ann Coulter speaks for the majority of Conservatives, either, frankly, especially since she's openly advocated beating in the heads of gays and liberals with baseball bats, for instance. That being said, I think the people that she really does speak for are the Radical Conservatives who're completely and totally unhinged mentally.
Like I said, Tlaloc
do your homework.
Why depend on Brendan to do it?
btw, it's not as if Coulter comes off any better in the entire context. But honesty means striving for accuracy, not just cherrypicking what you can use.
And the verdict...
I guess giving you video of her saying it, after you denied she had said it, just isn't enough for you.
Somehow I'm reminded of a terrified octopus squirting ink to hide itself from a threat.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I guess you just don't get it.
Go read Brendan's link. You will see, if you hve even a scintilla of honesty, that she did not say or mean to imply that she wished the Edwareds would be killed or would have been killed.
That people trimmed the quote to make it somehow seem that way, and you gladly depend on that parial quote says a lot.
Say it isn't so.
And the squirting continues
Here's the full quote with the context you insist changes everything:
Wait...
I missed the part where that in anyway changes what we've been talking about. She's still right there saying that she wishes him death and intends to say so the next time she says anything about him.
Your claims that the context change the quote are what we who are intellectually honest would call "false." And typical for you, as you lie and lie again you accuse everyone else of dishonesty. Ballsy, especially since your lies were so outrageously transparent.
Now you've been confronted with both the video and a transcript of the relevant portion. Are you going to lie again and claim she didn't wish him to die?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Wrong
But something i've come to erxpect from you.
No where in that did she sate that she wants Edwards dead, nor that she will in the future.
She is saying, and you know it, that to avoid controversey in the future, she will do as Bill Maher did, that is, simply wish him dead as Maher did Cheney. (Maher's comment actually was pulled off the Huffington post, so there was some controversy.)
So, are you going to lie in the face of of the transcript and say that she said she wished him dead?
What do you think we are, non-English speakers?
For Maher's part, he claimed that he didn't really wish Cheney was dead, but rather was merely saying that the country would be better off if he were.
For a larger context for the whole thing, go here.
the original stuff had to do with when Cheney was aborad and mortars landed near by.
And I will gladly read all the stuff you wrote taking Maher and the bloggers cited to task.
Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite.
But then, if you can simply lie and distort as you have here......
Shorter version
Madscientist: "No where in that did she sate (sic) that she wants Edwards dead, nor that she will in the future."
Ann Coulter: "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he has been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
Yeah...
Funny how in your world expressly saying "I will say that I wish him dead" means never having said or intending to say "I will wish him dead."
I can't imagine why you bother making and repeating such outlandinshly transparent lies, and yet you do, over and over again. Do you crave the negative attention of being revealed as a tool? Is that it? I mean here you are expressly denying a thing that is definitive. Even after it has been shown to you in multiple forms. It's reminiscent of flat-earthers and their utter incapacity to admit what is obvious and concretely proven.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Listen idiot (sorry Brendan)
The statement says that since she got in so much trouble over saying "f-word" with regard to Edwards, she will simply say what Bill Maher said about Cheney and wish him dead.
You know it. I know it. Brendan knows it.
So does every honest person in the world.
She is saying what she will say in the future to avoid being controversial, because, she says, Bill Maher said that and there was no controversy.
More generally, if i say, for any reason, "then I will say that I wish to have my kaboodles back," it does not mean, "I wish that I had my kaboodles back."
Do you crave the negative attention of being shown to be a dishonest liar, even going so far as to provide the definitive proof? Is that it? I mean her4e you are expressly denying a thing that is definitive. Even after it has been shown to you in multiple forms. It's reminiscent of Ken Ham and his young earthers and their utter incapacity toi admit what is obviously and concretely proven.
Except that i think tha Ham is just deluded, being led astray by his faith.
I have no idea what evil lurks in your heart.
Finally, a resolution.
Thank you!
If you had just admitted that in the first place we could have saved an awful lot of time correcting your mistakes.
Indeed which is why it was so weird that you spent so long denying it.
Neat, and irrelevent. She is in fact saying she wishes him dead and intends to say so in the future. What larger point she thinks this addresses is besides the issue.
Or do you assume people always say things they don't mean? I'm beginning to see why you might feel that way based on your own actions.
Wow, case in point. Apparently you feel no particular need to have what you mean and what you say align. For honest people saying that "then I will say that I wish to have my kaboodles back," does in fact mean "I wish that I had my kaboodles back." You are stating that you want such a thing and that you intend to make that desire explicitly known in the future. That's what honesty means- saying what you actually mean/believe/know.
Apparently the entire problem here is that you somehow never got the concept of honesty. That does explain quite a lot. Really.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You ae simply wrong
and you know it. Yet you dishonestly fog on. Why?
Here's a conversation for you:
B: Would you ever say that you want your kaboodles back?
A: Never. I hated my kaboodles.
B: What if someone, say a terrorist, held a gun to your head, and said that if you didn't read from the script, they would blow your brains out on camera, and send the tape to your mom? Let's say that "I want my kabboodles back" was on the script.
A: Then I would say that IO want my kaboodles back.
Now, does A want his kaboodles back now? And would he want them back in those circumstance? Or is this just about what he would say if....?
Here, Coulter never said she wanted Edwards dead. she didn't even say she'd want him dead in the future. what she said, and you know it, is that IF she wanted to avoid the uproar that occurred when she used "f-wpord" with regard to Edwards, then she would do what Bill maher did without an uproar, and say, that she wanted Edwards dead.
For the average third grader,. to use the kind of language that knocienz loves, this is simple. They understand the difference between saying and wishing.
You--not so much.
For honest people saying that "then I will say that I wish to have my kaboodles back," does in fact mean "I wish that I had my kaboodles back."
You should post this at some good English site and see what they parse it as. Generally, in english among native English speakers, the way to say that you want y our kaboodles back is to say, "I want my kaboodles back."
When the Maypo cereal company ran that ad in the 50s, the kid said, "I want my Maypo," not, "then i will say that i want my Maypo." My bet is that despite your claim that these two statemenats mean exactly the same thing, people would have been confused. In fact, they might ask, "did I miss something," as in context.
During the 60s, a rally leader might shout: Whata we want?" to which we never responded, "then we will say that we want an end to the war." Normally, we responded, "an end to the war." In fact, the mere fact that we did not have to be coached as to the exact wording of the answer tells me that this is the normal way to express a wish. I think you could have gotten all the rally leaders for all the years of the war all over the country, and they would say that no one, ever, responded by saying, "then we would say that we want an end to the war."
When I asked my wife, "will you marry me," I would have been puzzled and confuse if she had replied, "then I will say yes." I would wonder what I missed. I would, in fact, be more puzzled than if she had said "no."
Why is it so important for you to put words into Coulter's mouth? Don't the ones she actually says provide you enough ammunition? And why isn't it equally important, other than your hypocrisy, to put words in Bill Maher's mouth?
Just askin.'
Shifting goal posts like crazy.
None of which matters. It would matter *if* you had argued that Coulter didn't really mean what she said, but what you argued is that she didn't say what she said.
No. Again: lies. What she said, and I've given you the video is that the next time she is asked to say anything about Edwards she will explictly say she wishes he'd been killed by terrorists. Now what she "meant" by that or what her point may have been doesn't really matter to the issue at hand which is your continuing denial that she said it at all.
Sure, but if you say "Tomorrow I announce that I want my kaboodles back" it doesn't mean you don't want them back until tomorrow, it means you announce it tomorrow. You wanted it now it was simply undeclared. Similarly saying "Next time I'll just tell them I wish he was dead" means you already do.
if you were even slightly honest you'd never ask such a question. let's count the number of flase proposition here:
1) I put no words in her mouth, in fact i have provided her direct quotes several times since you keep saying she hasn't said what the video shows her saying.
2) I have zero interest in "ammunition" again Coulter. She means nothig to me. This is and always has been about your lying in the matter. A trend you have continued here.
3) Even assuming that I was complaining about her churlishness, instead of your mendacity, that does not require a similar argument against Maher since no one has proven (as I did with Coulter) that he wished someone else dead. Maybe he did, but whereas I've shown you the video of Coulter doing it we have so far only Ann's word that Maher did.
Can you even type a single sentence without getting multiple things wrong? While I really don't have a high opinion of your mental faculties I don't think you are really this dumb, hence it implies you are being willfully ignorant and deceptive. Making these outrageously stupid claims as a way to muddy the waters rather than out of true retardation.
Bravo! The only thing you can currently contribute are questions, by all means do ask and learn.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Please stop
with the accusations of dishonesty (Edit: that plea applies to everyone).
Your interpretation is not widely shared.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Okay brendan...
...but please tell me what I should call it? I have no idea why you choose to defend his actions, but no matter, tell me what I should call it when a person, confronted with facts, chooses to insist on the opposite of those facts?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Am I lying? Is Ender lying?
Is MS lying? Is skymutt lying?
Sometimes when people don't share your interpretation of a situation it's not because they are dishonest.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Differences
Here's what Ender said (paraphrased) "Ann Coulter made a dumb joke, it isn't a big deal." That isn't a lie. That's a statement of opinion.
Here's what MS said (paraphrased): "Ann Coulter never said she wishes Edwards dead." That's flat out false. It is *not* a matter of opinion in the slightest because he is denying what she actually said, not what was meant. And what she said was provided to him in evidence that was uncontestable. And he continued to claim she never said what the video shows her saying. That is a lie, a thing known to be false and yet claimed anyway.
There is a huge difference there.
That's true, but this matter has nothing to do with interpretation. This more akin to denying the holocaust. The thing happened. Saying it didn't requires one to either be ignorant or lying. MS was given the evidence to prove the thing which eliminates the ignorance defense.
Coulter said she wished Edwards dead (by way of saying that would be her stated position in the future) denying that is not a matter of interpretation but deception.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Grrr
What MS initially said was "Did she say she wished Edwards was dead? (No, she didn't.)"
Well, she didn't. You're demonstrating an incredibly stubborn resistance to conditional clauses and the future tense, as well as ignoring the deliberate construction of her quote to parallel Maher's remark. (Edit: the last part is more relevant to what she meant than what she said, and I understand your distinction.)
Fine, you disagree. Reasonable people can disagree. (By the way, Ender also said "It wasn't even close to actually having a death wish for Edwards. Not in the same hemisphere.") In this particular case, you don't get to wrap yourself in the mantle of truth and disparage the other side as dishonest.
If you really want to keep pursuing this, I think Purpleface's suggestion of moving it to a separate diary is a good one. You might include a poll to see what people think. It would be just incredibly lovely if the discussion could continue, if it must, without the presumption from either side that the other is dishonest. Comments may certainly be evaluated for accuracy but IMHO the discussion will be best served if this is done with as much objectivity as possible.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Last comment
And then I'll leave it alone.
My position is based not upon a presumption but evidence of dishonesty.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tlaloc, you are wrong
Moreover, it's ridiculous to call MadScientist a liar over this.
What Coulter said amounted to a joke in the poorest of taste, but not a death wish for Edwards. If you can't see that when you read the quote in context, I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it to you, but here's a crack at it:
Imagine you're at a party with your girlfriend. At this party, you spend some time chatting it up with some other girl, who happens to be quite attactive. So of course, on the ride home, the girlfriend lets you have it, accusing you of all kinds of illicit activity. Exasperated, you say "Well next time I'll just screw her brains out!" Is this actually expressing any intent at all towards this other girl? Of course not. You're merely contrasting the minor offenses you have been accused of to a much greater hypothetical offense of which you are not guilty.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry, no.
Let;s take your example.
Later your girlfriend accuses you of having said "I'll screw her brains out." Is she right?
Hell, yes, she is. In exactly the same way that Coulter *did* in fact wish death on him. Now maybe she didn;t really mean it. I don't care frankly. In fact *I* don't care whether she said except in so much that she did and MS is lying about that fact. Coulter is irrelevant as far as I am concerned in the greater scheme of thing. but boldly declaring she never said what we had video of her saying requires correction.
Whether it is a joke or not, she said it. MS has admitted that (finally), so we're all on the same page.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
tlaloc you are making a big deal
out of an obvious joke that wasn't all that funny. It wasn't even close to actually having a death wish for Edwards. Not in the same hemisphere.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender, you misunderstand,
I'm not making *any* kind of deal about Coulter's joke. I really honestly don't care. Notice I didn't say a thing about it until MS had to lie about the matter. All I've done since then is confront him with the evidence of his lies. If he's willing to admit them, as it seems, then everything is kosher and the topic's done for me.
It's not the joke- it's the deception. And it's not Coulter, it's MS.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
All right Tlaloc
you tell me exactly what words Coulter said, with all the context, that show clearly that she wants Edwards dead.
that is what the argument is about.
ERven the dishonestly truncated quote doesn't say that. even if you truncate it down to the last phrase, it doesn't say that.
And that, is all I've been saying.
Delay, huh?
I've already given you the quote. I've given you the longer quote. I've given you the video of the quote. Is you best tactic now to delay by asking for what you;ve already gotten?
No the argument is about whether she says she wants him dead, which the quote most certainly does. Whether she means it is not the argument.
Lesson for next time:
If you had said "Well I know she said she wishes him dead but it was just a joke" (as Ender does) then I wouldn't have cared. But when you claim she didn't say what she clearly said then someone is going to catch you in your BS.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I agree with what MS says
in response to you. He just says that Ann Coulter did not say that she wants Edwards dead.
And in general, jeez guys, why are you squabbling over this? :)
I mean you are almost ready to kill each other over this minor thing...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So it's acceptable to talk/joke
about wishing Presidential candidates dead?
Let's all remember that the next time some democrat makes a funny joke like that on a prominent national television program.
We can all have a good laugh, when Al Franken jests about how it's too bad Rudy Guliani wasn't in the towers when they collapsed...... cause you know he is a comedian. He makes jokes. Ha ha. That would be so funny.
Gulliani stuck in the trade towers on 9/11. Oh, Al doesn't really mean dead dead. He was just being witty.
I'm only half stupid
Just for fun
At the bottom of the link I put up for a fuller context (where Barney Franks and Mill maher laugh about the unfortunate circumstance of the bomb missing Cheney (Frank: "They wasted the bomb." Maher: "Now that's a funny joke.") I found this in a comment, and, in fact, I remember it. it's a Maher tour de force:
Hitchens: "It must be to [George Bush's] credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman."
To that, Maher replied: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason ..."
Manages to compare Bush to Hitler and call his wife a bitch all in one sentence!
Funny stuff.
Paid cable TV.
Not the public airwaves that is Good Morning America.
His own show. Not public television.
Can you see the difference?
I'm only half stupid
So let me get this straight
All this and your only objection to what she said was that it was on broadcast TV?
If she had said this on Maher's show, you'd be saying how clever she was?
You'd think she was just as funny as Barney Frank saying they wasted a bomb when they missed Cheney?
Sorry, I didn't know you were one of those prudish types who want the FCC to clean up the airwaves.
Did you write a letter on the great breast exposure at the Super Bowl? How could they? Children could be watching!
Of course, she didn't really say what you want to say she did.
Here's what I think. Coulter was discussing John Edwards, in 2003, and discussing his talking about his dead son. She said:
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers?
To me, this is absolutely disgusting. But to you, this must be ok because it wasn't on normal over the air TV, but in her own internet column. Am I right on that?
To me, saying on over the air TV that to avoid the controversy that befell her when she avoided the "f-word," that she would take a clue from Bill Maher and just say in the future (like Maher, she says) that she wishes that he was killed by terrorists is not nearly as offensive as the dead son on the bumper sticker remark, which is actually hateful and hurtful.
But maybe if you put out an appeal here, you can collect some money for your "clean up the airwaves" campaign.
Ignorant or just dishonest?
Barney Frank was quoting someone else as saying that they wasted a bomb. He clearly did so to relate context for a discussion which was, at least up to that point, about censorship.
That's right.
He was mentioning that as one of the comments made at Huffington post.
According to the standards of analysis here, he said it, that's all that matters.
What we can say is that Barney Frank repeated a joke he had read at the Post, and Maher identified it as a funny joke. (Maybe Frank should have started with, "Did ya see the one about....") Hey, it got laughs. In fact, Frank's remark was the comic high point.
In the end, Maher says that statements wishing for others' deaths should not be censored.
Are you going to contribute to missliberties clean up the airwaves fund?
I did a little noodling, and I found Huff's removal of the comments curious. One of here FPers Tony Hedra, wrote last Thanksiving:
Good thing this wasn't on Good Morning America!
The Maher show was actually a pretty funny show. Video here.
It's kind of funny until you get to Mia Farrow, so talks about more serious subjects. Stay through "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond" bit, it's funny.
Anyway, except for that hateful bumper sticker remark, I can't see this fake outrage as any more than political bullexcrement. More ladies of the tea party gasping for air.
"Oh my God, she said something over the air. Get me the smelling salts!"
Do me a favor Mr. Mad
If you can't respond without even a modicum of respect, and contemptous innuendo please don't respond. I would appreciate it. I am speaking for myself only.
Your personal attacks belie an undue partisanship which you will not claim.
I don't take kindly to bullies. Your scornful, supercilious and sanctimonious insults add nothing to the conversation, are disrespectful and do not persuade.
I'm only half stupid
You made the distinction
and I respected it, drawing some logical corollaries from it, as Freedem likes to do.
I see nothing disrespectful in what i said.
If you want to read into what I said so that you can feel put upon, that is really your prerogative. If you must make what i said into "contemptuous innuendo" so that you can feel outrage, do so if you enjoy it, just don't blame me.
Did you not say there was a difference between Maher's remarks and Couters just because his were on paid cable and hers on normal over the air TV? (You said "public," but I interpreted that in the best light, and didn't pedantically take you to mean PBS.)
I think you should stop reading into what I say, which is scornful, supercilious, sanctimonious, insulting, disrespectful, and indicative that you have nothing with which to persuade.
Although, in this case, I'm notyt sure what you would disagree with, since i merely drew logically from your own remarks about the difference between cable TV and over the air TV.
Hey Mad
We took a vote while you were out and decided we were sick of discussing Coulter. Feel free to come play in the active threads if you'd like.
Hope the concert was good.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Concert
is tonight.
I'm just getting my little bag ready to go.
Oh, that makes sense
Dunno why I assumed otherwise.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yeah
broadcast channels are not just for left wing propaganda. We also don't have Fairness doctrine censorship anymore. So anyone can say anything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What if skymutt said
"Maybe i should say I'll screw her brains out!"
And then is girlfriend accused him of saying that he said he wanted to screw her brains out. Is she right?
Duh.
If skymutt had said "next time I'll just screw her brains out" then he would in fact have said he was going to screw her brains out. He may not have meant it but he most certainly said it. If he said "If anyone asks I'll tell them I wanted to screw her brains out" then yes he is in fact saying "I wanted to screw her brains out." Again he may not mean it, but he is declaring that to be his position on the matter, i.e. his answer to the question going forward.
(Ann put no "maybe" in her sentence)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It depends on whether he's been screwing around
Your analogy is very good. Let's add on the additional piece of information that the male in question constantly cheats on his girlfriend and I'd say that it IS a statement of content.
Ann Coulter has a long habit of making death threat "jokes". (I'm really not sure what the humor is in such a hope, perhaps someone could explain the laugh?) She joked about how it would have been better if McVeigh had blown up the NY Times, how "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee"
etc.
Considering her long history of "Joking" about wishing her political opponents were assassinated, it is perfectly reasonable to read this "joke" as her setup to do the same. In fact it would be rather odd to do otherwise IMO
I wish all dems were like you
That goes for GOP as well.
People like Coulter would fade into obscurity because nobody would care enough to make so much out of her.
Coulter is an venomous hack and a polemic of the worst sort. Whatever redeemable thoughts she has are being more eloquently and sensibly conveyed by others far more worthy of respect than her. She's unworthy and represents what's wrong with politics.
That's all I'll say about her.
But then, again,
Then again, It's also true that today's ultra-radical-conservative rightwing politics, and politics in this country generally, helped give rise to Ann Coulter.
Agree!
I think that noticing that she is over the line is okay, and her polemic hack venomousness, especially when she is given an opportunity to speak in high profile media platform and continues in the same polemic and 'comedic' vein.
I'm only half stupid
For the record
(as I pop in briefly, since I love a pile-on), I'm with Madscientist on this particular quote, as well. Coulter was clearly responding to Maher, even though she seems to be de-contextualizing Maher's comments, as well. In other words, she's guilty of the same selective comment-picking as the people who are picking her own quote out of context.
She did call Edwards a faggot, though, and then denied it. Can anyone please explain to me how this
is a remotely reasonable reading:
In other words, "I didn't call him X: I said I'd get into trouble if I called him X so I'll just keep my mouth shut." Er... isn't that the same thing? Am I blinded by my liberal lenses, or she trying to pull a semantic fast-one that wouldn't fool a kindergartener?
Why people still choose a person with that much class to be their keynote speaker is beyond me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
When I wrote about it,
I said
she essentially describ[ed] Edwards as a "faggot."
I don't see that it matters that much, it's clearly ridiculously out of line no matter how you parse it. I wouldn't say, as MS did above, that she's a c--t, but I agree with the general sentiment.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The "C" word
Did you notice that i am systematically testing very word in the English language for inclusion on the "offensive to the tea party ladies" list?
Next week, I am going to start quotes from literary works to see if they get starred. I've got a nice passage from Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer ready to go. That book was banned in Boston when I was a young. Literally. We'll see if literature is banned at SC.
And I'm looking for my ancient copy of Last Exit to Brooklyn. Who could forget the adventures of Tralala?
I didn't star it out
We don't have an official policy. I wasn't sure whether that one warranted being censored.
If you're not sure, pick a different word... you've got no free speech rights here!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
No free speech
I realize that this is not Congress' site!
I'm just going about it in a scientific manner.
Just questioning nature to see which frelling words are not allowed.
btw, Brendan
I've been told by many women, but not all, that the "C" word is more offensive than the "B" word.
Try calling a woman near you each to find out.
That's the impression I've been given as well
but I'm not interested in testing it now, thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hmmm
It certainly is. So refrain. Your use of it WRT Ms Coulter was apt, so you got a pass.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
For someone who prides herself
on being "more of a man
" than liberals, she's very quick to backtrack, as well.
That was an interesting discussion over at the Forvm, by the way - thanks for the link.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yep
It's usually "I was joking," for the most outrageously hateful comment, and then she acts hurt.
Why aren't you studying....:+)
I don't understand why Good Morning America choose to feature her again?
After the vile thing she said about the 9/11 widows....... Like featuring her on the nightly news.!
The emesem gave her yet another high profile platform , as if to validate her 'sense of humor'.
Bill Maher has his own show that you have to pay more money to see and it's HIS show. I don't even get it cause I don't have HBO. So I couldn't watch it if I wanted to. Everyone with a TV gets Good Morning America.... even if they don't have cable.
I'm only half stupid
I know, I know!
I'm going back into my musty, book-filled cave. Cheers, everyone!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
And here I thought it was a room with a view.
An ivory tower on high.
Good luck!
I'm only half stupid
Everyone with a TV
is under no requirement to watch Good Morning America.
In fact, I have it on good authority that there are actually some people who don't.
So, once again, it's OK on cable, paid cable, to (supposedly) wish someone dead, but not ok on over the air TV to not wish someone dead.
Further, even though everyone can get to the Huffington Post if he has a computor and access to the internet (hey, he coold go to the library), but you haven't said that the death wish for Cheney in a column on that site I quoted above is wrong. Is it? If it is, would it be okay if you had to pay to access the site?
Here's the full context
from a generally partisan source, but this is accurate as far as I can tell: link
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
They're both women.....
I guess you're talking about Elizabeth Edwards & not John there....
Mrs. Edwards
did the actual calling in to make it into a cat fight.
But the symbiosis existed between Ann and the campaign before that cat fight and continues now.
One will sell more books, the other will get more contributions.
Wife had
the baby this morning. I'll probably be away from the keyboard for a few days for understandable reasons.
I'll post a pic when I can. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Congrats!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Let me be the first to say Congratulations!
dang it...... the second to say congrats
enjoy the new love of your life.
(oh yeah, and if you need a good pic.... I'm available. Special discount for liberals with newborns who post at Swords Crossed and live in my neighborhood. Just let me know ;)
I'm only half stupid
Congratulations! (nt)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
We want pics!!!
And congrats!!
More Baby Pics!!!!
Not making demands, mind you, but since Markos is on vacation, we need our fix....
Credit where credit is due
Please pass the congratulations on to your wife (and take some for yourself)
Have fun
Living with a new baby is a bit like being in a cult.
I mean you are obsessed with the wants and needs of a charismatic central figure. You don't get enough sleep, sometimes don't eat well, and generally negolect your own health for that of the charismatic leader. Your thoughts are rarely apart from the charrismatic leader, even when away. Even wiith other people, your conversation tends to be about that charismatic person, and you often show pictures of that person, talk the person up, as if trying to convert others to the cult.
Your own life seems to get lost in your obsession with the object of your infatuation. Your own goals suddenly seem shallow and insignificant.
Thing is, I miss it very much.
Good luck, and enjoy every second.
congratulations
...from all us lurkers.
congratulations!
I am still away for the long weekend, but very happy to drop by and see this! How awesome!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Congrats Specter!
Tally up another Democrat ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
congratulations!
and say good bye to regular sleeping hours!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Woo hoo!!
Happy baby time! Congratulations to Mom & Pop.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Congratulations to you and your wife, Specter.
All the best.
Economic accuracy. "What is 'an oxymoron,' Alex?"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jul/02/predicting_with_a_ha...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
correction, not pardon
but commutes Libby's prison sentence.
Well that is good.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Bummer!
I'm only half stupid
Hmm
Wonder how the Tradesports contract will interpret that?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Libby
The prison sentence was commuted, the probation time and fee stand. All in all I think it's a pretty fair decision on the Whitehouse's part. A pardon would have been bad. Libby (AKA "fallguy") serving five years really didn't serve justice.
He remains a convicted felon and will suffer a punishment, just not as harsh a puinishment. Personally I might have made it 6 months in prison to drive the point home, but I can live with 0.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
agreed
this sounds like a fair decision.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If Libby was in jail who knows what tune he would sing
Soft on Crime
I'm only half stupid
Who else here thinks Libby will be pardoned
bush43's last week of work in January '09. I'll bet anyone here who'll deny it.
The President has nothing to lose
with a pardon.
And his ratings are so low, he really has nothing to lose with a commutation.
I'm only half stupid
Fee? You're kidding right?
The "defense fund" will pay his fee. That's what Wingnut Welfare is for.
And I agree with the other comment, he'll be pardoned when Bush leaves office. After all, pardoning someone not even in prison isn't that big a deal. Then he won't pay a fine and he won't be a felon.
Bah
That's Amnesty!
This lawbreaker Libby is just going to get off with just a fine?! We are a nation of laws, and he broke them. This is amnesty no matter how you look at it.
Wait...this isn't the immigration thread? Oops...
*Resumes getting ready for work*
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I like this line of attack!
I think you're onto something here...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
apologies everyone
for my non-participation lately. I'm trying to finish up another dissertation chapter draft before the end of the week, so I'm likely to be quiet for a short while, then binge heavily on comments Friday night. I know I have a few outstanding questions/responses to get to - I promise, they're coming. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Drop everything
and bow to the wishes of the board, the collective will, our needs. We are bigger than you, and you swhould sacrifice yourself for the needs of the whole.
Sorry, overcome with the liberal ideology there. Please continue making decisions as you see fit.
Well once again members of the group
get embroiled in a matter that isn't hugely important, but can have significance to us individually.
Having gone through that ringer in a similar manner, I have some advice for the group.
Butt out. Let 'em slug it out and be done with it or at least finish one way or the other. People taking people's sides really doesn't help the board's vibes.
Not that we're all lovey feelie X heads or anything. Sometimes, you just have to put up. Sometimes, you just have to shut up. Sometimes you have to do one & you do the other.
Me, I found my place & more importantly my peace. I make my statement and then try not to run my head into a wall multiple times no matter how much they cry out for it.
Well yeah....
.... but too much pointless bickering can ruin everybody's fun, you know? We owe each other at least a little bit of editorial restraint, don't we?
I am going to make a statement here, and I say it with love in my heart:
NOBODY LIKES A KNOW-IT-ALL-SMARTY-PANTS!
(p.s. thepuppethead is known to sometimes be a know-it-all-smarty-pants.)
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
You mean a smarty pants like....
(____)?
Uh-huh, I am so not guilty.......
I'm only half stupid
missliberties
.... you are definitely a smarty-pants! You are at least 3 times smarter than I am, and also much nicer. Frankly I don't know how you live with yourself!
Hmm.
The same goes for all the rest of you! Bunch of overachievers...
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Glad
You noticed it too!
I can barely fit my head through the front door these days. Ha!
I'm only half stupid
While I understand...
...here's where I differ:
a forum is for the most part a self policed community. While moderators can do some in this regard they usually, except in the most rigorously controlled boards, cannot really keep things in check. That means it falls to the users to take an active role in shaping the forum itself. If you take a hands off approach then the less desirable elements will multiply and eventually squeeze out any useful signal behind a mounting wall of noise.
Yes, trying to discourage that kind of thing requires ramming your head against the wall a bit. It's not a lot of fun (well, okay, sometimes it is kind of fun but not as ofte as you'd think, they tend to be sadly tedius debaters, a good troll can be a lot of fun though). But if you want a decent sized or growing forum to remain a worthwhile place it really is needed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Give me an inch
. . . and I'll take a mile:
You and I do not always communicate well and often talk past one another. Despite my best efforts (and I do start off nice, admit it), frustration takes control and I lose my temper. I have to learn when to quit. I could take the safe route and just not respond to you at all. But the whole point of this site IS to talk to people who don't think like you do. And safe has never appealed to me ;}
But this cuts both ways. It would be great if you (and your opponents) would also recognize when you're taking things too far. WhoTF cares about what Ann Coulter "said" versus "meant"? In the bigger scheme of politics, what does it matter? Unless you can find a point more worthwhile than defining words, could you all please either (1) stop, or (2) take it to a diary where y'all can slug it out alone?
Kindness is right, Sometimes one just needs to shut up. If that's not possible and if one really wants to pursue these types of things until somebody hollers uncle, please take it out of the open thread and start a diary.
My two cents. Take it or leave it.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
My point...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If only I could take my own advice.
It is difficult here on occasion. Now, I pay more attention to whom I'm talking. Some conversation is more valuable than others. Some conversations are only worth the spinning of wheels.
I feel your pain though. I've been in the same position as you.
There is always the option
to simply state "In my opinion you're wrong, but I'm not interested in discussing it further" and to walk away.
Hopefully there are enough conversations in the open threads, in stories, and in diaries that everyone can find something to discuss in whatever manner they prefer.
I agree with your initial post on this.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That doesn't solve the problem.
Walking away is simply ceding ground to those who are contributing noise. To some degree they have to be confronted and shown for the tools they are. Of course it varies with the type. Some are happy for any attention, regardless of how it makes them look. Those should be ignored. Others want to be seen as contributers but are incapable or unwilling to bother with genuine arguments. They should be smacked on the nose and told they are naughty, often and loudly. Until they get the message that they aren't going to be allowed to get away with that kind of thing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No offense to anyone here
but I don't want people thinking other posters have to be "confronted and shown for the tools they are" like it's some sort of duty to purify SC of perceived falsehood. That kind of mindset really doesn't work well in an atmosphere of bipartisan debate, because people have rather different ideas of just who is and who isn't a tool.
Naturally everyone is encouraged to speak up if they note an inaccuracy or a logical error, but there's really no need to selectively confront those posters supposedly contributing noise.
We've got a boatload of moderators to step in if things get out of hand (Specter is obviously out for a while) but other than that I think SC works better with a live and let live philosophy.
Of course, sometimes it's stimulating and interesting to engage in a long debate with someone about a detailed point, and that's awesome as long as it doesn't devolve into personal attacks. It would be particularly nice if such side discussions could be housed in their own diary to make it easy for people to find them in future and to participate as they choose.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
*shrug*
I'm afraid I've seen that tried, and never seen it work. Nor does it seem to be working here, Brendan. Look at independentminded's post below for an example of what can happen.
Here's why it particularly doesn't work in a site dedicated to bipartisan debate:
1) in a site where people are expected to have substantial and frequent disagreements on matters of priority it is critical to remove all the clutter, all the noise, so that the real issues can be resolved or at least debated. There is simply no chance of having meaningful debate if you do not actively police the spreading of falsehoods. It's hard enough to have a meaningful debate when only the facts are given sway, but allow falsehoods equal (or greater time) and it is simply impossible.
2) On a site like this the moderators are going to have their own partisan leanings and it is critical that they not get personally involved in squabbles that can make the site boil down to a constant struggle between "the moderators on our side" and "the moderators on the other side." That's why it is especially critical for the process of calling out falsehoods to be done by the people who are not moderators. The moderators should be policing the spamming, the porn, the language issues, and so on.
3) as another reason it is important not to rest this with the moderators is that then it is too easy for the moderation to become corrupt, and to create a self selecting environment. Whereas if this role is taken on by the general population of the site then it is being conducted not through a power arrangement but through social rewards and punishments. That is an arrangement that really cannot ossify because it is inherently fluid based on the social group.
4) What point is there to debate when you have no possibility of making any headway because anyone can lie at will with no repercussions? Tolerance for lying is anathema to the very concept of the site: honest debate between opposing viewpoints. What you are advocating is an enormous disincentive for the very behavior you want to attract.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Let me be very plain
The "calling out of falsehoods" when said falsehoods are not definitely established is detrimental to discussion. I wish everyone would do it less frequently.
We're pretty good about not allowing established falsehoods equal or greater time here. For example, see GoRight's diary about the Clinton body count -- a potentially ridiculous topic, unworthy of debate, but he approached it in a dispassionate forensic manner and so there's no problem there with falsehoods.
We haven't had any issues with moderators taking action of which the other moderators disapproved at all. Not many sites can say that. We have moderators of all stripes of political ideology and they seem to manage to set that aside in those rare instances when they intervene in an official capacity.
There are repercussions for lying -- people will be less likely to trust you in the future, to lend credence to your arguments. Ideally, people will be more likely to ignore you. As I said above, people are encouraged to jump in when they see something that is incorrect or a logical error.
People being people and hence imperfect, I think SC requires being able to walk away from some discussions, to start fresh on another topic. Pick your battles and all that.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Appreciated and reciprocated.
Only if attention is called to the facts in the matter. If the lie is allowed to pass unchallenged then it tends to get accepted. You see this constantly. It forms a major component of Bush speeches. You see it at redstate where they still insist that Plame was not undercover. Why? because the lie was said, it went unchallenged, and was then repeated until it became "fact" for them.
For me, personally, I hear the words and I see the actions and they seem to contradict. What I'm hearing is "challenge false statements" and what I'm seeing is "don't rock the boat." Maybe I'm getting it wrong, but that is *very much* the impression I am getting.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How about
challenge statements which appear to be false with a willingness to revisit that classification if contrary evidence is presented =)
The "don't rock the boat" impression you're getting is meant to be aimed at accusations of dishonesty (from whatever side) when discussing a non-obvious point.
It is subjective, there's no way around people using their best judgment, all I'm asking is that everyone be slow rather than quick to assume bad-faith argument from their opponent.
One other thought -- once a particular point is stated people can assess for themselves whether it is convincing. So as far as identifying "falsehoods" goes there's usually no need for a long repetitive argument, and that's the part that usually turns bitter. Sometimes it's worth making the point and then moving on if it's not acknowledged -- you might not convince the other guy but your target is everyone reading, and they got it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Generally speaking
the policy is be firm, if you wish, but nice. We did have a poster (I think it was Paul Rosenberg) who thought the whole process here was skewed toward the conservative end and that every time a conservative was challenged by intelligent observation the moderators jumped in to defend the conservative against attack. He accused me of being the Fox News Democrat here. I'm a little less quick than Brendan to cry foul usually, but I want this to be a place where legitimate debate can be had without namecalling. Brendan is right that whatever disciplinary matters occur are agreed upon by all the moderators. If you think someone is lying, show the evidence and I'm happy to discuss it.
Heh, yeah, good times
I remember Paul -- it's too bad he left, he wrote some good stuff when he wasn't railing at Mike or Ender. JFTR he was never banned, I think the only (non-spam) user we've banned was David Byron, who has the dubious distinction of getting himself banned at pretty much every blog I've ever heard of. I could be forgetting something but that's my recollection.
Mostly when I jump in it's in a nagging play-nice way rather than any official capacity, although I know I don't always do a very good job making that clear.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Good points, Tialoc.
I've seen forums disintegrate into total B. S. forums because the moderator(s) took too lax an attitude regarding "flaming" and other forms of abuse, and it got totally out of control. It was like the inmates running the asylum.
On one forum that I post(ed) on, which revolved around my alltime favorite moviei-musical, WSSS, had started out as a fun forum, where people, including actors/actresses who'd performed in both the original Broadway stage productions of WSS and the film version of WSS and who had lots of stories and knowledge to share, as well as big fans such as myself and other people, and even many young people, would come onto that board, post and share their viewpoints/knowledge/love of this great movie-musical classic.
Unfortunately an incident came up where another poster who clearly had some sort of emotional problems was taken advantage of by another poster, whose nasty side came out and stayed out as soon as the emotionally unstable person, who'd pretend to be a whole bunch of people on the forum, and fabricated stories about herself and them, made it clear who she was.
The nasty poster, whose name I won't "out" on here not only took advantage of this woman, but ran the original moderator-webmaster off of the forum and commandeered the forum for himself. The moderator/webmaster of the above-mentioned WSS forum did not make firm enough rules against any kind of abuse, including flaming, thus making it easy for the nastier poster to take full advantage of the situation and commandeer the forum/message board for himself, which he did.
In addition to all that, the nastier poster (who, btw, wasn't always that way, and had been a big fan of WSS since he was a young teenager), also took it into his mind to constantly bullyrag, flame, harass, insult and abuse posters who differed with what he had to say and who were more educated, levelheaded and better-mannered than he was, and he frequently made snide, nasty remarks about some of the dancers in WSS, many of who were gay men. As a consequence of this kind of abuse by the nastier poster, many people, both actors and fans, who had many stories about and much love of WSS to share, feeling totally antagonized by the nastiness of this particular poster, left the board, never to return.
All of this culminated in the board's being shut down for a period of time, and, when it finally re-opened, it was unrecognizable and merely a shell of its old self. The nasty poster, who hadn't always been that way(in fact, before the incident with the unstable woman poster happened, I, too, enjoyed some good discussions with him on WSS), had essentially destroyed the forum, drowning out posters who really had useful and intelligent things to say.
This is something that nobody wants to see happen, which is why rules really have to be implemented.