The Lefty Boom

Tartarin wrote:

Perc -- I think it makes sense to have (as happened informally in Abuzz) threads in which the host is the moderator, dis-inviter when called for. Probably something satisfactory could be set up within the "usergroup" category -- where you can start with your own "guest list."

I believe a self policing type of mechanism is most needed on the politics forum----emotions run high and hot as you know.

Dlowan;

Why would you describe it as "preaching"? As I recall you have as sharp a tongue as anyone.

Hobit

As everyone can recall you can be both condescending and foul mouthed----but yes we would probably not last long on each others threads but I might surprise you as you COULD surprise me but as the old saying goes, a leopard never changes it's spots. I suspect however that your spots may be for real and mine are only a disquise :wink:

Perc -- Let me thank you here for not including a personal jibe at me when you responded to my suggestion!

But it's as well to point out for the record that the second sentence in your response to Dlowan is unnecessary, unfair, and hurtful and could well provoke -- PROVOKE -- a response. The same is true of your response to Hobit -- you just had to get off an ad hominem attack. It's gratuitous, sickening to read, and it isn't palliated (for me, anyway) by a little ha-ha face.

Self-policing starts at home.

Only a moderator should have the power to eject people from a thread. As already touched on, the thread host would have too much temptation to be arbitrary.

I think many people on these forums appear to have that itchy trigger finger on the post reply button. Including myself, I think counting to ten and re-reading what one is posting is a positive action. The golden rule should apply and I realize that is the ideal -- we wouldn't have a TOS and moderators on this forum if there wasn't a need to oversight on this privately owned forum.

Dlowan;

Why would you describe it as "preaching"? As I recall you have as sharp a tongue as anyone.

Er - you need to read the whole comment, perception - "preaching to the converted". My point was that it sounds as though setting up such threads might well mimic the private political group thing. Might not. No skin off my nose if people want to do that.

And I was making no claim to be either sharp, or blunt, tongued.

dlowan, its called preemption.

Pre-emption to the converted?

The point is indeed self policing. A bit of forethought and reflection prior to clicking "Submit" is often a good idea ... even just click on "Preview", and take a look at how the post will appear before etching it in pixels on the thread could save some folks a bit of embarrassment, and save others some inconvenience. Think before you post is the golden rule here. Who started what where and how is absolutely immaterial; what is germain is that everyone knows what is and is not acceptable. If one refrains from unacceptable behavior, one shields one's self from the consequences of unacceptable behavior. Be adult, be civil, be considerate, and have no problems. The choice is simple, and each individual makes the choice.

Rant over.

Thanks, timber -- not that I've been in that kind of bar lately but those beach bars on the Balboa peninsula always had those characters that were there to pick a fight. I think it's okay to address someone's style, logic or reason without resorting to barroom epithets aimed at their character. You can know someone's personality in these forums but unless you're married to them, you don't have any idea about their character from a smattering of political views. Not to say that some don't get into some depth about their personal political structure but it's rare. Let's try and save the barbs for the politicians who really deserve it!

yes, character assassination should be reserved for politicians, who expect it........after all, it's part of their job description, or it has been lately. That will at least remove it one step to "My politician can beat up your politician." "Lefties are better than Righties."

It may be that, as strongly as most of us feel about politics these days, we'll be unable to step back further than that. So much is at stake........and some of those suckers out there are cheaters!

Condescending? Perhaps. Pedantic? More and more so in the last few years. Let us just say that I have embraced my "inner Niles Crane."

Actually, I seem to recall that it was the far right that embraced the personal attack style of jounalism in politics wiht the advent of Faux news (FOX: We decide, you concur!).Wasn't Colonel Blimp (Limbaugh) originally on Faux ? Anne Coulter (she of the large manly hands and pronounced addam's apple) is ther too, isn't she?

I liked it when Niles talked dirty.

From A subjective comparison of Germany and the United States, done by a German, who now lives since more then ten years -first as a student, now as a college techer- in the USA:

Really interesting, Walter. Some thoughts:

...US have no problem talking about an outright "cultural war" (between the left and the right) and regularly accuse their opponents of everything from stupidity to adultery.

We do the same thing in our movies. Win/lose, right/wrong. Compromise is considered "moral relativism" (a sin of the left!) We're not into complexity, ratiocination, long-term solutions.

But when it comes to physical political violence, Germany is far ahead. If a leading politician gives a speech in the open, he can expect having foul eggs thrown at him. People will shout and whistle in order to disrupt the speech. None of that ever happens in the US. The president can actually give a speech at a university and everyone will be polite and listen -- a very strange concept for German students.

This is less and less true, but you don't see it on TV. Whereas dissent and disruption are expected in Germany as part of the process, the process here is cleaned up by the local gendarmes in association with White House "advance men" who do their best to make sure dissent is lateralized, kept far away: far away from the cameras. There have been increasing numbers of reversals in the media (particularly newspapers) which, a day or so later, "admit" that there was a significant protest which had been forced out of sight and sound...

This is even more astounding if one takes into account that the difference in viewpoints between the Left and the Right in Germany is much smaller than that between the Left and the Right in the US.

The Left in the US still understands the power and validity of the two/multi party system, thinks in those terms. The Right is trying to reframe thinking here, validate the prospect of a one-party system. One recent criticism of the New York Times, which is considered a "liberal" paper, and is a paper which I read, is that it tends to support the notion of a one-party system. I think that's true.

The logical next step is then political terrorism, which in Germany exists both on the left and on the right but is (at least in its organized form) almost unheard of in the US. It fits the picture that the terrorism that the US sees either comes from foreign countries or is the deed of fringe individualists.

Well, I think we define terrorism in a way, here, which makes it seem like an alien visitation. But we have domestic terrorism. Many see police and federal law enforcement as using terrorism when it wants to. Many saw "Waco" as terrorism -- same with Oklahoma City (which was originally assumed to have been caused by "Arabs").

Tartarin wrote:


Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:09 am Post subject:
Perc -- Let me thank you here for not including a personal jibe at me when you responded to my suggestion!

But it's as well to point out for the record that the second sentence in your response to Dlowan is unnecessary, unfair, and hurtful and could well provoke -- PROVOKE -- a response. The same is true of your response to Hobit -- you just had to get off an ad hominem attack. It's gratuitous, sickening to read, and it isn't palliated (for me, anyway) by a little ha-ha face.

Self-policing starts at home.

Let's take your first sentence-----Your response to me was sincere so why would I make a "jibe" at you?

Hobit's :
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 12:15 am Post subject:
So, posters who said things like
"Why don't you get on your broom,"
"Give it a rest Alice,"
"Oh, I see you're from Old Europe, no wonder you don't understand..."
etc... would be told to leave, eh?

Was clearly meant to provoke so I replied in kind.

Dlowans reply---I don't know?

But all in all your response of taking sides against me was not unexpected so I guess it's back to Status Quo---see who can draw the most blood.

How thin is the line between "organized form" and "fringe individualists"? In the deeds of political violence we despise most, we often all too quickly see a great extent of organised terrorism and intricate conspiracy, whereas cases of politically inspired violence that somehow seem too close to home are all too often rationalised away as "the act of a fringe individual". Kinda like with the freedom fighter / terrorist thing.

Re;the Freddom fighter/terrorist dichotomy, consider that teh IRA is not considered a terrorist organization by the US government. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Walter

Thanks for your perspective on the similarities and differences as a close up observer of both cultures---very interesting

Why, though?

(Hi again. Thanks for your compliment above ;-).)

I mean, I dont mean to sound flippant. But why would you have to "respond in kind"? Why not just let it go?

Cause that could have all kinds of advantages:

1. When a topic is dear to our heart, we get oversensitive, and we often perceive a deliberately hurtful insult where there was only an ironic jab, and an ironic jab where perhaps no putdown was meant at all.

I mean, I think this goes for many of us - I grapple with it, for sure. The consequence is, that if we "reply in kind" to something we might well have 'overestimated', our reply will come down to upping the ante. And considering the other guy will suffer from much the same reaction, he's likely to do the same - and escalation tends to be instant on the web.

Better keep on the safe side and sometimes just assume that, even if the other guy was jabbing at you, he might well not have meant it the way you took it. Saves a lot of follow-up aggro you can do without.

2. Follow-up advantage here is that you'll quickly find out if there is someone who's really out to get you. Since those who didnt mean anything serious in the first case, will not follow up if you dont respond, those who do continue to heckle you without provocation will stand out all the more clearly. And its always good to recognize your true enemies among the multitudes of those who are merely sceptical.

3. Important one: if they did show unnecessary aggro towards you, and you dont respond or respond in good nature, its they who look bad, while you'll seem a wiser person. With the added benefit that you'll then eventually be listened to more seriously on other threads and topics as well. You dont have to roll over: just stick to arguments when they do insults. You'll be the winner.

3.a. Variety on above: if you dont react to what they might have said wrong, you wont just have the readers on your site, but the moderators, too. Like they said, they dont care who started something. That means that as soon as you "respond in kind" to anything resembling a violation of the TOS, you're as deep in trouble as your 'challenger'.

4. I assume that you're here to discuss topics of interest to you. Any "responding in kind" will distract from whatever it was you had wanted to talk about, especially if your detractor insists on "responding in kind", too. Food fights can be fun, but its a pity about your thread.

"Responding in kind" just makes sure you're not worse than your detractor. Not responding in kind makes sure you're better than your detractor. :-D

I'm sure this post will be perceived as pedantic and condescending. <grins>. (Not to mention showcasing a recklessly liberal world view. I wasnt much one for the arms race of the 80s, either). But I know I didnt mean it to be - so there wont be any need for me to respond if I get aggro about it ;-).

One thing I have noticed about those who are far to the right, both in their politics and their personalities, is that the seem to be motivated by the more base aspects of humanity, especially revenge. Again, I think this is nurtured by their tendency to buy into the comon narative and not expand their horizons. Regardless of the the reason, there is a definite tendency to attempt to retaliate for anything that is seen as a personal slight.
On the level of states, this was demonstrated by the near immediate retaliation against Afghanistan (!) for the 11th September bombings, and the plans for pre-emptive war as policy.
As both Afghanistan and Iraq have learned, though, follw-through is not one of their strong points. My cats have longer attention spans!