Personal Attacks

cav- You beat me to it. When you were discussing your grandparents, I realized that they had the pork chops and corn to smooth the political differences. Politics were only a small part of a much larger, more complex relationship.

On the internet, often the political differences is the only affiliation that we have with another person. Maybe that enables people to be less than empathic when we discuss these differences.

0 Replies

Good point, Cav. I've thought about that and realize that in person I often get the reaction that "women ought not to be that opinionated"! Also I've noticed that adult siblings, discussing adult matters like presidential politics, will resort in disagreement to sibling put-downs which have the same nasty (and often funny) flavor as many of the personal attacks here in A2K: "You were always a *&!@#$! ever since you were about ten, so any opinion you have on this issue is worthless!"

0 Replies

Code....lovely relevant Python bits...thanks very kindly.

deb...you asked if I think that invective and insult are more effective (more than reasoned discourse). I think the answer depends entirely upon the conversation in progress. You may or may not be familiar with the debate styles of Coulter or Limbaugh or O'Reilly (and many others) in present US political life, but it is bottom of the barrel stuff - loud, interruptive, filled with ad hominems and generalizations - and its goal is NOT (in the case of those three and many others) to gain balance, but to upset balance. Discourse of this sort is, I have sadly concluded, not best met by Queensbury rules and intricate logical structures. The recent treatment of Bill O'Reilly by Al Franken http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8168&start=0 (not to mention the titles of Franken's books - "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" and "Lies, And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them") are examples of an arrow one presently needs in one's quiver. Satire has always been a very effective political discourse tool, and it has always been despised by those in power because it is as effective as it is. It is NOT a sin to demean the pompous and arrogant and unthinking among us, it is a civic duty.

That being said, I think there is a civic duty which precedes that one - which is to actually go to the work of learning about issues as carefully and objectively as one can. Satirization and attacks of the sort mentioned above are only justifiable where one has done this previous step.

0 Replies

Hmmm - now satire - is that a different thing altogether?

0 Replies

Blatham - I wonder if these people you mention (I have now read LOTS about Ann Coulter!) are like the "shock-jocks" we have here? These are very conservative radio people who run immensely popular talk-back programs - they have enormous influence over large numbers of people, or so it seems, in Sydney and Melbourne - full of diatribe and paranoia-inducing nonsense. No dissenting voice is allowed to be heard, either from listener who rings in, or from any on-show commentator.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I do wonder if the anonymity of the internet possibly gives people the false courage to attack people in a way they never would if they were sitting face to face at a table. Perhaps before attacking someone personally, we should all ask ourselves how we would state things if we were face to face with that person, in public.

Well, I'm not anonymous at all.

And in fact, I think, I'm more 'agressive' in political discussions in "real life" (which is mostly due to the fact that I speak German at that time).

0 Replies

Walter, I kind of summed up my feelings about that on the other thread, but again, you have never struck me as one who attacks people personally on A2K, so however you conduct yourself among friends, colleagues and peers in real life, it does seem that you recognize that here, a different sort of conduct should be observed, for the sake of the strangers and newcomers. Wink

I think what I meant by anonymity is that those who are prone to insult people have the internet to hide behind. If they never want to get face to face with the people they insult, they have that option.

0 Replies

I really enjoyed a photo of Ann Coulter in the NYTimes yesterday -- full page ad, full-length Coulter. Here's the deal: as you age, you notice how other physical types age, too -- some gracefully, some a mess. There are signs in Coulter's jaw-line that she has trouble ahead, maybe as little as four years or so ahead. Not to mention the thickening thighs. I'm awaiting all this with pleasure. Coulter with a drooping mouth, dull eyes, angry expression, and saddlebags. How's that for personal provocation!!

0 Replies

deb

Yes, that is the style. And I consider it directly responsible for the decline in political discourse.

The question becomes...how to counter it? It is, by it's nature, bullying. Even generalizations or ad hominems can be understood as a species of intellectual bullying - uncareful and insensitive to nuance.

I agree with what Al Franken said the day of that wonderful kerfuffle with O'Reilly - (paraphrasing) "The left has been taking this crap for a long time. To hell with them, we're not taking it any more".

But one does need to thread a path carefully. Some satirists, particularly Gary Trudeau and Matt Groenig, are exquisitely talented and bright, and go about their work with an enviably deft and light touch, even while clearly suggesting that Bush is too dumb for words or that America is, in many ways, a very fucked up place. Or there is Twain or Mencken. Such a light touch is much easier, however, when one is just composing at some distance from real time interaction. One can imagine how hot Twain might get if he were here today and sitting next to Coulter on a tv show. He'd slice her to bits, mercilessly and deservedly I expect.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

I don't personally attack anyone.

Just as a group.

YOU PEOPLE ALL SUCK!!!

YOU SUCK!

YOU SUCK!

AND YOU SUCK, TOO!

Ah Slappy....always there with a comforting word or a bit of wisdom.

EVERY village needs a Slappy.

BTW Slap...hate to tell you this, but we're trying to trade you for Gautam.
:wink:

0 Replies

jjorge*197982* wrote:

BTW Slap...hate to tell you this, but we're trying to trade you for Gautam.
:wink:

And 2 third round picks to be named at a later date! Very Happy

0 Replies

and a utility infielder to be named at a later date.

0 Replies

Unlike the Slapster, Gautam would have SHOWN UP at Vinny T's!!!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

cav- You beat me to it. When you were discussing your grandparents, I realized that they had the pork chops and corn to smooth the political differences. Politics were only a small part of a much larger, more complex relationship.

On the internet, often the political differences is the only affiliation that we have with another person. Maybe that enables people to be less than empathic when we discuss these differences.

I think this is an important point, but I think it DOES have a bearing on the Internet. I don't recall seeing McGentrix talking about anything BUT politics, for example. He's not Digressing, he's not talking about first date jitters, he's not offering practical advice on gardening or home improvement or cars. He's just, or at least overwhelmingly, in politics.

I do think that affects how people interact -- it's easier to be tolerant of someone when you know he gives great practical advice, or has shared some heart-stirring stories, than when it's all politics, all the time.

0 Replies

Good observations Phoenix/Soz.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
cav- You beat me to it. When you were discussing your grandparents, I realized that they had the pork chops and corn to smooth the political differences. Politics were only a small part of a much larger, more complex relationship.

On the internet, often the political differences is the only affiliation that we have with another person. Maybe that enables people to be less than empathic when we discuss these differences.

I think this is an important point, but I think it DOES have a bearing on the Internet. I don't recall seeing McGentrix talking about anything BUT politics, for example. He's not Digressing, he's not talking about first date jitters, he's not offering practical advice on gardening or home improvement or cars. He's just, or at least overwhelmingly, in politics.

I do think that affects how people interact -- it's easier to be tolerant of someone when you know he gives great practical advice, or has shared some heart-stirring stories, than when it's all politics, all the time.

Exactly!

0 Replies

Just by the way, I'm sure glad I didn't lose Montana's friendship over political disagreements.

0 Replies

Sozobe -- You're entirely right about what goes into making tolerance. I think some seem to join A2K straight out of some PAC, bent on harassing those who disagree with them, not interested in much else (not even their opponents' arguments, often). Single-minded and seemingly bent on destroying colloquy altogether.

My greatest enjoyment (and education) comes from those who've "got a life"! There's another forum going on about empathy. Empathy (or its absence) certainly plays into these conversations.

0 Replies

I don't think McG has any more of an agenda than do, say, Tartarin or blatham or PDid or... most everyone else in politics.

I also see that many posters have 'politically inflammatory' sigs and avatars...

While I see sozobe's point about socalization, I don't think it is a fair excuse to be rude to someone who hasn't spread it around on the other threads.

Not so much taking McG's side, as I haven't read all interactions. Just a generalized opinion.

0 Replies

Humorlessness is much more offensive to me than an opposing political opinion.

0 Replies

Personal Attacks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know