Personal Attacks

Setanta- Exactly. I hope that we have gotten past the "my fodder's betta than your fodder" nonsense!

Sorry Frank, didn't mean to steal your thunder.

Was that a fart?

Re: Personal Attacks
McGentrix,

On Right Wing Conspiracy you posted a post about how proud you were to be "attacked" several times here and made reference to how you like to iritate liberals with your signature "saving the world, one liberal at a time".

You have also used an avatar that you thought would irritate liberals intentionally.

Now you are here complaining? Get real! Three out of four moderators are largely conservative, it's not like you get an unfair shake. You came here with the intent to provoke liberals.

There are conservatives here who are never flamed. Ever.

What I am suggesting is that the exchanges you have had here are not examples of you being blindsided. It's an example of you seeking to irritate liberals and reaping what you sow (though I concede that I have seen you blindsided when you were being civil and that was dealt with by the moderators).

I have seen you go back to your right wing sites and laugh at how you got the liberals riled up so don't ask for sympathy here.

Incidentally personal attacks in general have gone up and is something that the moderator team has noticed and will deal with.

I hadn't noticed that Craven, but I won't argue with you, because, you are a meticulous*#@&%#

Re: Personal Attacks


And in real life I am no where near the staunch conservative that I appear to be . But, we are talking about what happens here, so let's keep it here.



And that attacks anyone PERSONALLY how? Doing something to get a rise out of someone is a far cry from insulting anyone. I find the term "The Shrub" insulting, but I don't mention it because it doesn't matter. Isn't that also just to get a rise out of the right? No one is innocent here, but the personal attacks are uncalled for.



I came here for perspective from others. Not to be belittled, ridiculed, or condescended to. We are all adults and should have the ability to discuss a topic without it boiling down to gets the last dig in. I have said nothing about getting a fair shake, or about people attacking me. I am saying that overall the personal attacks have gotten out of hand.



Maybe you could PM me about the other board, as I don't recall talking about THIS board there.

If I didn't see a problem I would never have brought this topic up, but there is a problem and it should be addresses publicly.

The post that made me make this thread wasn't even about me, but someone else.

I personally don't tread much in political threads since some people get so heated on the subject and no matter what forum you go too, political subject will at times get out of hand. I also stay away from religion subjects for the same reasons. Politics is a messy subject, so you need to expect anything when you step foot in those deep dark waters. I've seen you dish out the insults as well, so you can't expect it not to come right back at you.

McGentrix, did you catch Craven's comment?:



If your only complaint is that overall the personal attacks are getting out of hand, Craven addressed that directly.

Let's look at a couple of things here.

First, let's differentiate a personal attack on a poster with something like an insult of a public figure. On the one hand, I might say "Scrat is a big fat nincompoop". In the other case, I might refer to Ann Coulter as a repellant logic-pig in a miniskirt. Or perhaps, in that second sense again, to the President of the United States as cocaine snorting liar.

The second of these 'personal attacks' falls directly under the protected freedom of expression principle. Anyone offended is simply poop out of luck.

The first is the only relevant complaint here. And it is relevant. I know that I have been far more guilty of this over the last six months than previously, and I think that is true for many of us. However, I must say that I've had a change of mind during this period of time regarding the lattitude I give myself. That change of mind stems directly from two factors (or perceptions) - first, that Bush's administration poses a dire threat to internal freedoms, the environment, progressive social policies, and to world peace. These guys have made me seriously serious. The second factor/perception is an unhappy acknowledgement that reason and careful, educated thought does not inform the rhetoric of the loud and ubiquitous voices on the right such as Coulter, and those here who copy her style, and thus, that reason alone is insufficient to meet it in battle.

Do you think, Blatham, that the language of insult and invective against the opponent's front people (which I have not, really, seen you use, BTW) is any more effective?

I am seriously serious, too - but I really find the personal denigration of others, whether personal or directed at public figures, just ridiculous - (especially when I do it!) - and not conducive to anything except ridding oneself of a little bile.

I am surprised, as it happens, to see McGentrix complaining about personal attacks here, as I would have seen him as a prime offender in this regard - but, perhaps he escapes this charge by denigrating everyone with differing opinions en masse - thus escaping the "personal" charge?

If so, 'tis a legalistic quibble, methinks - but I probably need to go and re-read his posts, since I admit my eyes go out of focus once I start reading anyone's invective, pretty much.

Obviously, personal attacks against members are against the A2K TOS, and are not acceptable under any conditions.

I understand that attacks against politicians are a part of free speech, but I look at it this way though. By calling names, "shrub" "un-president", "slick willy etc.", I find that it elicits an angry, negative emotional reaction in me. Since I am not that emotionally involved in politics, and get the reaction that I do, I can just infer the sort of emotional reactions that these name callings elicit in those who are very passionate about politics.

I would expect then, that these sorts of name callings of politicians might just be the catalyst that would engender personal attacks on members. So it goes back to what people have been saying for a long time. It would be far more productive, and less contentious to stick to the
SUBJECT, and control the impulse to lash out with nasty names against public figures.

How one characterizes a public figure is miles away from how one characterizes those with whom one interacts here. Public figures are "fair game" by the very fact of having sought public prominence.

Setanta- Yes, they ARE fair game. Their gaffes, their missteps, ARE fodder for public consumption and discourse. I think that the name calling though is NOT directed to the public figure, (who has no idea that we are talking about him) but to the person with whom one is interacting. I think that the name calling is DESIGNED, (probably unconsciously) to create a hostile, antagonistic, adversarial atmosphere.

The next thing that, IMO, we need to think about, is what is the purpose of these discourses amongst members? Is it to share opinions, and maybe learn something new in the process, or is it just for our own self aggrandizement, to show how smart and right we are?

Certainly that indictment could be widely applied. I think that i may often be misunderstood here, since i can type without hinderance when my tongue is permanently lodged in my cheek. But i cannot agree with you about public figures--i call Bush the Shrub, and have done so since before the election, because i have no regard for the man. I don't care how others take that, and i don't use the term to provoke--those who get provoked have identified with the Shrub in a thoroughly unreasonable manner, since how i characterize him in no way speaks to the matter of how i would or do characterize them. If they take offense, the are unreasonably identifying with the man.

Maybe so. But is not identifying with a public figure, or political party, part and parcel of of the persona of individuals who are passionate about politics?

Well, I have no truck with Bush - I am horrified by his policies, in fact - but I still find the use of names like "Shrub" puerile.

I do not think they breach any TOS, though - and therefore, folk may Shrub themselves into a shrubbery backwards and come through forwards again. I will still think they look silly - but I won't try to stop 'em.

If sort of asked I will say what I think, though.

As you will use the cognomen Shrub, oh thou puerile bunny . . .

What exactly did Monty Python foretell about A2K and the politics of today?

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/python/events/homecoming/parade88.html
"You must bring us...a shrubbery!"
"That rabbit's got a vicious streak a mile wide!"
"That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!"

Sound clips at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Mezzanine/4781/python.html
"No chance, English bed-wetting types!"
"That's no ordinary rabbit"
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who"
"O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade..."
"We've found a witch may we burn her?"

(Hah! Listening to "#26 French Insults" sets the whole tone right there! )

dlowan- No, I never even suggested that using nasty names for politicians breached the TOS....they don't. But as you have noted, I agree that it is extremely immature, and really diminishes an intelligent conversation.