@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Come now, that does not do justice to my legendary reading ability. I can read them better than the entrails of a goat!
Quote:In poker you can't tell what cards someone has till you see them either but that doesn't mean you can't read their pattern of actions and their tells and make a highly educated guess on what they are holding. You can even get good enough at this to make a living off of it, did that myself briefly.
And just like poker life presents the same case where what people say will not always be truthful and you can and should have skill in reading people beyond what they are willing to say about themselves. A gazelle should not wait for a lion to say "I'm going to eat you" to run and in life we must recognize less explicit patterns that stated intent.
Of course you make a valid point, and I feel I have a decent level of skill in this regard, but I didn't get the same impression from him that you did. I will admit though that I didn't read a lot of his posts, nor was I all that interested in figuring him out. There is also the fact that I seldom found myself arguing against him, not because I agreed with everything he wrote, but because
a) There were always enough people arguing with him to make anything I might write likely redundant,
b) The fact that so many people were arguing with him (many in a crass way) made joining in feel like piling on,
c) There is only so much time in a day and while I have been devoting an inordinate amount of time to A2K of late this is unusual. When I'm here, my time has been, generally, taken up on more interesting, challenging, or (sad to say) compulsive efforts than debating hawkeye, and
c) While he never considered himself "conservative" and insisted on describing himself as a leftist, I think there were enough areas of agreement between us to classify him as, if not a member of my "tribe," then a "neutral," or "free agent:" Someone who most often followed a far different road than I, but one which intersected with mine with some frequency.
I don't maintain a particularly tribal attitude in this forum, but, it would be disingenuous to suggest that tribalism doesn't flourish here. I think an honest observer would acknowledge that this is less the case among those who might be described as "conservative" than it is among those who we might, similarly, consider "liberal." One might argue, as an explanation, that "conservatives" are more independent than "liberals," and that may or may not be correct about the "conservatives" and "liberals" who participate in this forum, but I don't think it holds much water in general. I have seen plenty of tribalism displayed by conservatives in other settings. Why it's the case here, I can't say with anything approaching certainty, but I will add that if there is a general reluctance among the "conservatives" to criticize one of their fellows, there is also a similar reluctance to leap to their defense.
Nevertheless, I do feel an affinity towards the other "conservatives" here and to a certain extent it affects the way I interact with them. In this forum, the "conservative" viewpoint is in the minority and there is no shortage of members who will argue with or attack it. As a result, I, generally, avoid criticizing a fellow "conservative" when I feel that I could. Despite many people's insistence that I do, I never feel compelled to criticize anyone for the sake of some abstract notion like "truth" or "honor," and, generally, for the people who do or have done the insisting it's rhetorical device that is incorporated in an attack or argument made against me, so I don't take the self-righteous umbrage at my refusal very seriously. I will note that there are a couple of "conservatives" who have no reluctance to criticize others of their "ilk," but whether this is because they genuinely feel compelled to address "wrong thinking" wherever they find it or are simply intent upon establishing their bonafides as "objective" and "fairminded," I can't say. I can say that it doesn't bother me very much and I only find it irritating if I perceive it is clearly the latter of the two possible motivations. It's certainly never considered anything like a betrayal.
Since I don't feel I must address wrong thinking wherever I find it I am only rarely going to call out someone I like, who is a member of my very informal A2K tribe, or who I consider a "neutral" or "free agent," unless it is a special case. Given this general philosophy I don't usually examine the arguments of these folks with enough scrutiny to identify "problems," as I am far too busy examining the arguments of the Liberal Tribe members.
At the same time, I am sure that some of the things he said about gays, blacks and women simply didn't seem offensive to me in the way they may have to you and others. Whether or not this makes me homophobic, racist or misogynist is dependent upon the things he said which didn't trouble me, and boils down to a matter of opinion. I'm comfortable with where I stand in this regard, even if others are not.
To cap off this point I will say that I don't believe he was the personification of prejudice and bigotry, others believe him to be, and I don't think it was the duty of all decent people in this forum to either constantly call him out or denounce him categorically whenever given the chance. A number of people who have joined this thread have indicated they didn't find his threads interesting, inviting or of value. Some have expressed that they found his posts, at times, offensive. It seems to me this is fair commentary.
Quote:In any case being a bigot is not against the rules
Which is fortunate since if it were, there may not be many people here discussing politics or social issues. Bigotry exists outside of race, sexual orientation and gender.
Quote:We have typically allowed bigotry couched like that in order to have debate about bigotry but have never allowed it to get to the point of lashing out and using hateful slurs at other members here.
You have explained your reasoning in this regard before and I don't have a problem with it. I don't think, however, that it precludes me from making any of the suggestions I have offered concerning what should or should not be grounds for suspension. You've replied that the ostensible reason for his suspension was not something he wrote two and half years ago and I have no reason to question your veracity. If it had been I would be troubled and I see no reason to retract that statement.
Quote:There will be other bigots who will come along and take up his crusades and as long as they maintain the standards of tone and decorum the community has they will be tolerated too.
Well, since they are already here and have brought crusades other than those you ascribe to hawkeye, I'm sure this is the case.
Quote:I found no use for Hawkeye shortly after he got here and he made sure to try to annoy and attack me as much as possible, but he was tolerated for almost a decade with no interruption. It was his choice to start adding such slurs to his attacks in the last few years and this is not a community that allows that, it's just that simple.
I don't think you need to defend yourself, but I understand why you might want to. It all boils down to his violating known rules. The rule in question is a good one but even if it weren't he didn't have to violate it.
Quote:If he wants to be part of this community he can follow its rules, if not that's his choice but it's his loss more than ours for sure.
I would be surprised, but not shocked if he returns, and certainly the forum isn't going to fall to pieces if he doesn't, but I continue to believe that, to some extent, he will be missed, and that the entire "hawkeye saga" is not one of his sins alone. Much of what is wrong with this forum was brought to his threads and put on full display there by others, but if nothing else, I think his suspension and the discussion around it has moved the forum in a positive direction, and I don't mean because he is gone from here.
