The growing consensus is that you should make the death of a divisive public figure you admire about you and the unruly lot of trolls whose trollish behavior angers you.
That the best way to pay respect to someone you purportedly admire is to transform the occasion of their death into an opportunity for you to vent spleen at ideological opponents.
That the best means of protecting the deceased’s family from the inhumane remarks of anonymous strangers is to reprint them, prominently, on your website.
The mind reels.
Outrage at the existence of anonymous assholes on the internet is necessarily feigned. Therefore:
If you claim to be shocked by the behavior of trolls, you have an agenda.
If you claim to demonstrate the abiding truth about your political opponents via the behavior of trolls, your agenda is partisan and obvious to all.
If you claim to be defending the honor of someone who has recently passed away via the behavior of trolls, you are exploiting the death of the person you claim to admire in the service of your partisan agenda.
If you exploit the death of the person you claim to admire in the to forward your partisan agenda, you are behaving in a way decent people find repugnant.
If you claim you are only behaving in a way decent people find repugnant because trolls did it first, please consult this map to locate an appropriate venue in which to peddle your complaint.
63 comments
July 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm
JP Stormcrow
I know you are, but what am I?
July 13, 2008 at 3:03 pm
SEK
I’m rubber, I suppose that makes you glue.
July 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm
JP Stormcrow
He said “rubber”, … heh … heh, heh.
July 13, 2008 at 3:25 pm
eric
And how was your weekend, SEK?
July 13, 2008 at 3:37 pm
andrew
Nuh uh.
July 13, 2008 at 3:59 pm
blueollie
my reply :)
Seriously, are you talking about Tony Snow or Jesse Helms?
July 13, 2008 at 4:10 pm
David Block
Snow.
July 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm
urbino
I’m not sure the agenda isn’t more personal than partisan, even.
July 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm
David Block
In Snow’s case, I’m not sure why it should be either one.
Helms?? That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
July 13, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Darleen
A lie unchalleged is a lie that becomes “truth.”
Isn’t it funny, Scott, how you are still claiming that pointing out and challenging the bullies in the room makes the pointer a bully, too.
Indeed, you seem to be more exercised that the existence of bullies has been held up to ridicule than by the bullies’ behavior in the first place.
Yes, I suppose you’ll teach your children that if they observe a bully beating up some other little kid on the playground, they should avert their eyes and pretend it isn’t happening. Because if you don’t acknowledge it, it never happened. And if they tell the teacher, they’ll be just like the bully.
Stability above all.
July 13, 2008 at 8:55 pm
happyfeet
So you can’t link to the post cause that would be compoundy or something. This is getting kind of confusing, cause you said sometimes you have to agree to disagree, which I wish that had been more of the spirit in the thread at PW. But people didn’t want to go there.
People really genuinely love Tony Snow is part of the deal I think. Jeff wasn’t being opportunistic or exploity; he was genuinely upset by the vitriolic and really inhumanly crude stuff at Kos. They weren’t really trolls. That’s sort of not the right way to describe them. They are accepted community members at Kos, and also apparently at the LA Times as well.
I guess where I’m left is that Jeff sure made a lot more of a point than the people at Kos did. For real, there’s a hatefulness that’s kind of perplexing. It’s a sustained thing over there at Kos, not just a special hatefulness for Tony Snow. I don’t think you can ignore it. I mean I can and do mostly ignore it but for your argument I don’t think you can ignore it. Meaning, what does all that hatefulness mean, Scott? It just seems glib to say well there you go that’s the internet for you.
What does it mean?
July 13, 2008 at 9:03 pm
happyfeet
Also I really have to reach to accept a description of Tony Snow as a divisive public figure. I’ll accept that, given the reaction on the left, but I’m not sure that’s the best way to put that. It’s like you hate NPR so you key David Sedaris’ car. I think the hate was really a very proactive hate, not really something that was instigated by Tony’s divisiveyness. It’s just my sense of it anyway.
July 13, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Rich Puchalsky
I have nothing to say about Tony Snow. He’s dead; I really didn’t know much about him … every death is a tragedy.
About living right wingers, however; they keep being surprised when people think that they’re miserable, evil, scum of the earth creeps. I really wonder why? They *are* creeps. Especially anyone who ever served in the Bush administration. Yes, and even the sad twerps who blogospherically cheered for the Bush administration. They’re going to be hearing that for the rest of their lives. After a decent period of silence when they die, their descendents are going to be hearing it about them, until their descendents change their names in disgust.
But for Tony Snow, let there be a decent period of silence.
July 13, 2008 at 10:34 pm
happyfeet
Every death is not a tragedy. That’s just silly talk. Also I am not a sad twerp.
July 13, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Rich Puchalsky
That last comment made me very, very happy.
July 13, 2008 at 10:37 pm
happyfeet
It’s what I do, Rich.
July 14, 2008 at 12:57 am
Ben Alpers
I guess where I’m left is that Jeff sure made a lot more of a point than the people at Kos did. For real, there’s a hatefulness that’s kind of perplexing. It’s a sustained thing over there at Kos, not just a special hatefulness for Tony Snow. I don’t think you can ignore it. I mean I can and do mostly ignore it but for your argument I don’t think you can ignore it. Meaning, what does all that hatefulness mean, Scott? It just seems glib to say well there you go that’s the internet for you.
Why does that seem glib, happyfeet? Have you read LGF or other blogs on the wingnutosphere lately? That is the internet. Now perhaps we shouldn’t be complacent about that fact. But to pretend that it’s just one site or just one side of the political spectrum is a bit ludicrous….especially when the blogger whose reaction to dKos is at the center of this discussion, Jeff Goldstein, is perhaps best known online for threatening to slap someone with his cock.
July 14, 2008 at 3:47 am
Adam Roberts
I had a look at that map you linked. I can’t seem to find London on it. Something wrong with my server, perhaps.
July 14, 2008 at 5:03 am
Vladimir
“Yes, and even the sad twerps who blogospherically cheered for the Bush administration. They’re going to be hearing that for the rest of their lives. After a decent period of silence when they die, their descendents are going to be hearing it about them, until their descendents change their names in disgust.”
It’s as if a million voices all cried out at once and were suddenly silenced.
July 14, 2008 at 5:45 am
B Moe
Have you read LGF or other blogs on the wingnutosphere lately?
Have you? http://tinyurl.com/6ljmdy
….especially when the blogger whose reaction to dKos is at the center of this discussion, Jeff Goldstein, is perhaps best known online for threatening to slap someone with his cock.
You just can’t make this shit up.
July 14, 2008 at 5:55 am
Rich Puchalsky
“But to pretend that it’s just one site or just one side of the political spectrum is a bit ludicrous…”
Oh, yeah, let’s go for equivalence! Let’s see, one side of the political spectrum:
* engaged in aggressive war, killing nearly a million people
* tortured prisoners, and claimed that torture was necessary and good
* said that civil liberties were a luxury that we couldn’t afford, because we should be so scared of the terrorists
* let a major American city go underwater and didn’t do squat, except to blame black people
* justified all of the above, plus various economic inanities, through constant, screaming shit-throwing
While the other side:
* were Dirty Fucking Hippies who were annoyingly always right
* said mean things, such as that Bush White House press secretaries perhaps would not be remembered by history as paragons of virtue
Yeah, that seems even.
July 14, 2008 at 6:30 am
Ben Alpers
Rich,
I didn’t mean to suggest that the two sides were at all equivalent. I only meant to point out that you can’t cherry pick nasty comments from dKos (a site at which thousands if not tens of thousands of people post) and conclude that there’s something especially rotten and vile about dKos and by extension the “left”.
My point was that the internet does seem to encourage some people, left and right and center, to engage in rude behavior. And this is no longer news.
Speaking of which….
BMoe,
Here are some choice comments from the LGF thread on Ted Kennedy’s illness that you linked to, presumably as an example of good behavior on the part of the right of the blogosphere:
I could go on…
Are these quotes typical? Well there are a lot of them. Of course there are a lot more respectful comments (though most of them are framed by expressions of how superior LGF is to the DFHs over on dKos). But frankly most comments at dKos tend to be respectful, too.
Once again, if the goal is to discover that there are people behaving rudely online, it’s not a difficult thing to do.
July 14, 2008 at 6:40 am
Rich Puchalsky
“I only meant to point out that you can’t cherry pick nasty comments from dKos (a site at which thousands if not tens of thousands of people post) and conclude that there’s something especially rotten and vile about dKos and by extension the “left”.”
I disagree with your premises, Ben. What if it wasn’t cherry picking? What if Kossacks did nothing but write nasty comments about the warmongers and torturers of the right, nonstop? It’d be deserved, because the right wing *actually kills people and supports that killing*.
And wouldn’t any reasonable person already know that cherry picking comments from a site like Kos is ludicrous? Yes, any reasonable person would. Therefore, by reasonably telling them that, you’re participating in a charade in which we pretend that the right wing is composed of something other than shit-throwing monkeys and feeble-minded, authoritarian nutjobs.
At some point, saying “the Internet encourages some people to rude behavior” becomes a lie by omission.
July 14, 2008 at 6:52 am
Ben Alpers
Rich,
Please stop attacking me. I was suggesting no equivalence whatsoever. I was saying, perfectly openly, that people behave badly across the internet.
You say, absolutely correctly, that the right wing has done infinitely more damage in the real world than the “left” (if we want to call the Democratic blogosphere that) has done. You are entirely correct. Nothing I said called that into question. I agree with you entirely. Nor was I saying or suggesting that the left and right blogosphere are in any other equivalent to each other. I was talking about something quite specific.
Here’s the nub of the matter….
And wouldn’t any reasonable person already know that cherry picking comments from a site like Kos is ludicrous? Yes, any reasonable person would.
Well, Rich, I was actually having a disagreement with someone who was defending cherry picking comments from dKos and arguing that doing so somehow proves that the “hatred” is “a sustained thing over there at Kos, not just a special hatefulness for Tony Snow.”
If you think that it’s not worth having such a disagreement, the correct response to my comment is to ignore it, not to pretend that I was saying something that I was not.
Since we’re really not disagreeing about anything other than what I was trying to say (which should now be clear to you if it wasn’t before) I hope we can draw this dialogue to a conclusion.
July 14, 2008 at 7:09 am
Ben Alpers
Rich,
Let me also explicitly agree with your point that scorn and bile are reasonable when directed at those promoting wars of choice and torture (though as the votes on the AUMF in 2002 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006 show, the Republicans had some help from a number of Democrats in these ventures).
July 14, 2008 at 7:32 am
Rich Puchalsky
“Well, Rich, I was actually having a disagreement with someone who was defending cherry picking comments from dKos”
Right. So the proper response is not “But to pretend that it’s just one site or just one side of the political spectrum is a bit ludicrous”. The proper response to that person is “you are a dishonest, feeble-minded authoritarian nutjob.” I mean, let’s tell the truth.
And saying “It’s the Internet, everyone is rude” implies an equivalence, as if LGF and Kos both had this regrettable fringe of rude behavior. While the truth is that people at Kos can be as nasty as they like, and it’s justified, while the people at LGF should be spending the rest of their life doing good works and being silent in the vain hope that they aren’t going to Hell. You might not intend this equivalence, but it’s still there.
Lastly, I’m not “attacking” you. I’m disagreeing with your premises. Civility is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and let’s not dignify it.
July 14, 2008 at 7:53 am
Ben Alpers
Civility is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and let’s not dignify it.
I guess I disagree, in part, with this.
There certainly are some things worth getting uncivil about. But other things are not worth getting uncivil about. And anonymous online discourse can encourage incivility even when incivility is not appropriate (I’m sticking to that story).
Of course, you’re also kinda saying “don’t feed the trolls.”
And since I agree with that principle, perhaps I should never have started this subthread in the first place (though it’s hard to resist when Jeff Goldstein is being sold as a great tribune of civility).
July 14, 2008 at 9:06 am
Rich Puchalsky
Yeah, I’m sorry if I dragged this out, but it’s a much more interesting disagreement (to me, anyways) than the latest version of let’s-try-to-explain-to-the-hypocrite. Should civility really be a value, in the sense that incivility is sometimes required, but civility should be the default state? (Just as honesty, say, is the default value, although no one would really blame someone for lying in order to e.g. save someone’s life.)
My sense is that it no longer is. It has been permanently devalued by the kind of disgraceful Kabuki that the right wing is pulling with e.g. this latest incident, just as patriotism now pretty much just means jingoism and nothing else.
July 14, 2008 at 10:22 am
neocynic
Just as honesty, say, is the default value, although no one would really blame someone for lying in order to e.g. save someone’s life.
Paging Dr. Kant. Dr. Immanuel Kant, please report to the internet.
July 14, 2008 at 11:32 am
B Moe
But frankly most comments at dKos tend to be respectful, too.
That is why the post and comment thread that started this got nuked, I suppose, Kos was embarassed by how respectful all his followers were.
…let a major American city go underwater…
I think the word you are looking for is “flood”. Proper vocabulary is important even with generic, boilerplate rants I think.
Civility is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and let’s not dignify it.
Except when negotiating with terrorists I suppose?
July 14, 2008 at 11:40 am
Rich Puchalsky
No one expects the deontological inquisition.
All right, insofar as I understand the categorical imperative, civility should not be a moral value. It would be impossible for society to function if people were always civil. In cases where someone is a hypocritical, lying right-winger complaining that anonymous commenters on the other side are being mean and that this means that liberals are meanies — they should *want* to hear the proper and truthful, necessary, reply, which is “You are a deranged pillock.” Anything else would a) be a lie, and therefore against the categorical imperative; b) keep them from having to chance to recognize what a maleficent twit they’re being.
July 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm
neocynic
I actually agree with all of your points, Rich, but the pedant in me would not be slienced. I was lucky to keep him to a single joke.
July 14, 2008 at 12:07 pm
neocynic
And by “slienced” I clearly mean “garrotted.”
July 14, 2008 at 12:38 pm
B Moe
civility
Main Entry:
ci·vil·i·ty
1archaic : training in the humanities2 a: civilized conduct; especially : courtesy, politeness b: a polite act or expression
Civility doesn’t require that you lie, Rich. It means that you disagree politely, and try to work out differences. It is related to diplomacy, which most leftists seem to hold in high regard as a concept, even if they seem a little shaky with the actual execution. I find this a very curious statement:
It would be impossible for society to function if people were always civil.
since in most people’s minds I would say quite the opposite is true, a basic sense of civility is required for society to even exist.
July 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Vance Maverick
B Moe, those two propositions are not opposites — pretty clearly they’re both true. We need norms of behavior, and yet we can’t function if they’re literally always obeyed.
July 14, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Rich Puchalsky
B Moe, this thread has long since exceeded expectations with “Every death is not a tragedy. That’s just silly talk. Also I am not a sad twerp.” Can we add to that work of self-proving genius? Probably not. But let’s try.
Remember what the categorical imperative means? No, cross that out. Can you wiki the categorical imperative? No, never mind. Let me start again.
Once upon a time there was a happy wonderland where people were always civil. In this exceptionally unique place — which all agreed was a model for the world — prisoners were civilly tortured, wartime killings were a model of politeness, and good manners reigned whenever black people were being turned back at gunpoint from fleeing a disaster area.
Now, some people didn’t think the torturings, wartime killings, and blatant racism should go on. Those people spoke up — civilly! “Please,” they declared, “it does not seem quite right to take these actions. Perhaps we should consider a different course.” But the minority of 28%, which was firmly in favor of killing, torture, and all manner of evil — and which was also in control of the government, due to 5 very civil judges, and due to the cowardice of people still hiding under their beds seven years after terrorists had struck the country — civilly declined to change their actions. And nothing could ever change, because the people who objected could, after all, be ignored — they were not willing to ever do or even say anything uncivil, so no one bothered to listen to them.
Now, one of the 28% had just been very civilly saying that liberals didn’t believe in being civil except when negotiating with terrorists. And suddenly someone was so overcome by the spirit of truth that they forgot to be civil. “You’re a prat, aren’t you?”, that person said. “You’ve been supporting killers and torturers, and you routinely claim the worst of your political enemies. And now you want us to be civil? Piss on you, you tawdry little goon. What you mean by civility is authoritarianism — that no matter what the situation, no matter whether ‘negotiations’ have already been tried and failed, people should continue to honor the customs of a sick society, designed to keep them quiet, and pretend to respect the opinions of poltroons like yourself.” And then people lost their interest in civility, and instead openly laughed at the 28%, who after all were the sickest, stupidest, most dully evil examples of humanity to be found. And the country passed into a better day. The end.
July 14, 2008 at 1:44 pm
SEK
A lie unchallenged is a lie that becomes “truth.”
That people think Tony Snow is despicable because he used his not unsubstantial talent and charm to deflect criticism of the policies of the administration he represented isn’t a lie, Darleen. People really do think that. So what’s the lie you’re talking about here?
They weren’t really trolls. That’s sort of not the right way to describe them.
They’re angry people who vent their hate anonymously on the internet, happy. In my book, that makes them trolls.
Meaning, what does all that hatefulness mean, Scott? It just seems glib to say well there you go that’s the internet for you.
But that is just the internet for you. I share their hatred of the current administration, but I don’t let internet anonymity rob me of basic human decency. Others dustbin it because they think that’s what the internet is for, and so, for them, it is. But they’re not the majority of people on the left, so capitalizing on the death of someone you purportedly admire to claim they are seems to me a bit hypocritical: “I hope Tony Snow will be remembered for my glorious of defense of him against unhinged trolls on the internet.”
After a decent period of silence when they die, their descendants are going to be hearing it about them, until their descendants change their names in disgust.
But for Tony Snow, let there be a decent period of silence.
For 99.99 percent of deaths, this is as it should be; however, I reserve the right to gloat when people who are truly evil die in horrible ways.
I’ll go one step further: for true rat-fucks, I reserve the right to demand death-by-contrapasso.
Therefore, by reasonably telling them that, you’re participating in a charade …
I wouldn’t say that. You’re informing them that we can see the little echo chamber you’re building there. That if you misrepresent ideological opponents in righteous anger, you’re only strengthening erroneous convictions both about your noble, tireless self and your repugnant, inhuman enemies — and that mythologizing everyone thus ain’t healthy.
The fact that my pointing this out unleashed another torrent of circular myth-making — e.g. Darleen posting more examples of trollish remarks from online forums and saying, to my ears, “See! More examples of trollish behavior proving the perfidy of leftist ideology!” — is evidence that the first deluge successfully drenched them.
This makes me sad.
Should civility really be a value, in the sense that incivility is sometimes required, but civility should be the default state?
Given the particular tendencies exaggerated by the medium, I’d say that online, yes, civility must remain the default state. Otherwise, we’d get a richly deserved virtual Hobbes.
July 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm
B Moe
What you mean by civility is authoritarianism…
To be honest, I have no idea what the hell that even means, but what I mean by civility is exactly the definition of civility I printed above. to try to be courteous and polite in relating to other people. What many call respectful disagreement. For instance when you first posted this:
let a major American city go underwater and didn’t do squat, except to blame black people
Since it was mostly off-topic and kind of silly, I tried to make light of it rather than pointing out that New Orleans flooded because when the Corps of Engineers tried to build proper levees back in the 60s and 70s the city refused because the best design would have required condemning too much commercial real estate to be acceptable to the civic leaders at the time, so the hopelessly inferior floodwall on sheetpiles design was used. In light of the actual facts, only a complete fucking retard would accuse Bush of “letting the city go underwater”, but to say that would lack civility so I went for the joke, hoping to be diplomatic.
But as your post at 1:31 proves, you guys are a little weak at actually pulling diplomacy off.
July 14, 2008 at 2:15 pm
neocynic
But as your post at 1:31 proves, you guys are a little weak at actually pulling diplomacy off.
What, is it stuck to something it’s not supposed to be? What are we pulling it off of? Why am I not in this loop?
July 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Rich Puchalsky
Heckuva job, B Moe! But sadly I’m not interested in your attempt to rewrite history and ignore the preventative actions not taken in the years immediately before the hurricane, and the bungled reaction to it, in favor of blaming civic leaders in the 60s and 70s as if that was the last chance we had to do anything.
But, you know, calling me a “complete fucking retard” — that’s not very civil. I mean, I didn’t call you a cowardly anonymoid who was too stupid to understand what “authoritarian” meant, and whose natural thuggish habits emerged two seconds after he was done coyly pretending to be something other than the shit-pile that his chosen politics have helped him to be. No, I didn’t say anything like that. I think I deserve an apology for your incivility, B Moe.
July 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm
B Moe
But, you know, calling me a “complete fucking retard” — that’s not very civil. … I think I deserve an apology for your incivility, B Moe.
You are really quite dense, aren’t you?
July 14, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ben Alpers
Otherwise, we’d get a richly deserved virtual Hobbes.
Ah, the online State of Nature: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and INTERMINABLE!
July 14, 2008 at 4:34 pm
neocynic
Going way back:
It is related to diplomacy, which most leftists seem to hold in high regard as a concept, even if they seem a little shaky with the actual execution.
Maybe you can provide citations for “leftists” who have endorsed civility but then failed to practice it.
Because otherwise that’s a fairly empty statement. One which might be a bit shaky in the execution.
July 14, 2008 at 5:21 pm
B Moe
Maybe you can provide citations for “leftists” who have endorsed civility but then failed to practice it.
The sentence is referring to diplomacy, do you really need cites for progressive/Democrats endorsing diplomacy these days? But for all the diplomacy they advocate as foreign policy, it seems to be in fairly short supply domestically. For evidence of that, well, start with this thread and follow your Google.
I am still mystified by Rich’s assertion that politeness and courtesy can be a hindrance to a functioning society.
July 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm
neocynic
For evidence of that, well, start with this thread and follow your Google.
Is it really that simple? Google me some.
July 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm
tpb
“I am still mystified by Rich’s assertion that politeness and courtesy can be a hindrance to a functioning society.”
Lots of social theorist, starting with the Jansenists, argued that civility was a both bad and good for society. Good because it allowed intrinsically evil folks to get along; bad because it allowed intrinsically evil folks to cover their intrinsic evil with a “veil” of politeness. If we behaved, the argument runs, as we actually were there would be a stronger motivation to improve ourselves. Rousseau and those who followed in his wake despised the “masks” of civility because it created artificial societies instead of authentic ones.
July 14, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Rich Puchalsky
Of course, that bit was in the context of a discussion of deontological morality, which is just one of many things that poor B Moe is mystified about. Like shoelaces. What I actually believe — since I’m not Kant — is that within our degraded country, civility means “traitor liberals shut up”, just as patriotism means “America tortures #1 woo hoo!” As long as wingnuts form any significant part of our discourse, any respect paid to civility just plays within their game.
July 14, 2008 at 7:07 pm
B Moe
If you believe in discourse and diplomacy as a means to settle disputes rather than violence, I fail to see how basic civility isn’t a requirement. Insulting rants and wishing evil on dead compatriots does nothing to advance peaceable resolutions.
I tried to make an example of that above, but unfortunately it seemed to sail right past Rich. I disagree completely with his assertions about Katrina, but is insulting his intelligence while making my counter-argument really going to help my make my case?
I fail to see how resigned acceptance of abhorrent behavior is in anyway beneficial to a healthy society. Since Kos nuked the post, I suspect he secretly agrees.
July 14, 2008 at 7:10 pm
B Moe
What I actually believe — since I’m not Kant — is that within our degraded country, civility means “traitor liberals shut up”
Then I guess you can just go on arguing with the phantoms in your head. Have fun.
July 14, 2008 at 7:13 pm
neocynic
For evidence of that, well, start with this thread and follow your Google.
Is it really that simple? Google me some.
Waiting . . .
July 14, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“If you believe in discourse and diplomacy as a means to settle disputes rather than violence, I fail to see how basic civility isn’t a requirement. ”
Why, are you threatening violence?
No? You mean, in fact, you’re actually just an Internet blowhard? Why is civility a requirement when dealing with you, then?
July 14, 2008 at 7:35 pm
urbino
Personally, I think violence is much underutilized as a dispute resolution modality.
July 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm
B Moe
Waiting . . .
and it only took four minutes…
Why, are you threatening violence?
No? You mean, in fact, you’re actually just an Internet blowhard? Why is civility a requirement when dealing with you, then?
July 14, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Rich Puchalsky
Huh. You know, the question was: “Maybe you can provide citations for “leftists” who have endorsed civility but then failed to practice it.” Cool, I must have endorsed civility in this thread — when I thought I was doing just the opposite!
July 14, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Walt
Wow, you guys got lured into an argument about civility with B. Moe? Suckers.
July 15, 2008 at 5:34 am
B Moe
You know, the question was: “Maybe you can provide citations for “leftists” who have endorsed civility but then failed to practice it.”
No. My point was that diplomacy is the keystone of the left’s stated foreign policy, but doesn’t seem to be a factor domestically. The common lack of civility and acceptance of abhorrent behavior was given as evidence. Or do you think that publicly cheering Arafat’s death and fantasizing about him getting ass-raped in Hell would be a useful negotiating tactic with the Palestinians?
July 15, 2008 at 6:01 am
Rich Puchalsky
Now, now, Walt. Where else are you going to get laughs like this? Admittedly, still nothing as good as “I am not a sad twerp” but — not understanding that when Kant was brought up, we discussed the categorical imperative, and labeling this “phantoms in my head”? Treating me as the creator and exemplar of the left’s stated foreign policy? I mean, I can go on and on about how stupid right-wingers are, but people don’t actually believe me unless they see this kind of thing once in a while.
July 15, 2008 at 11:19 am
Ben Alpers
Or do you think that publicly cheering Arafat’s death and fantasizing about him getting ass-raped in Hell would be a useful negotiating tactic with the Palestinians?
From the Department of You Can’t Make This Shit Up:
Here’s a Little Green Footballs thread speculating that Arafat died of AIDS.
Here’s the very first comment…
And here’s a comment a little further down…
And another…
And another…
And another…
Needless to say, it goes on….
So tell me B Moe, is this “incivility” all A OK with you because you wingnuts don’t believe in “diplomacy” in the first place?
July 15, 2008 at 11:51 am
Rich Puchalsky
As usual, the wingnut argument is just based on projection. They’re uncivil, so this becomes a fantasy flaw of anyone who disagrees with them.
On a more serious note than the B Moe taunting, of course, I haven’t actually *behaved* with unflagging incivility — actually, I said that we should observe a decent period of silence for Tony Snow. That’s because the right-wing nutcakes can’t actually demolish ideas like civility or patriotism. They still survive, but they must survive as personal ideas or commitments, not the societally devalued bits of decaying flesh that dribble out of the conservative’s mouths. They must be publicly derided, privately observed. My own behavior is civil exactly when I have decided that it should be, and has nothing to do with the reaction of anyone else — most certainly not the kind of fear of violence that the likes of B Moe, judging from the introspection of their cowardly hearts, think is the only human motivator.
July 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm
B Moe
So tell me B Moe, is this “incivility” all A OK with you because you wingnuts don’t believe in “diplomacy” in the first place?
It isn’t okay with me personally because I don’t want to go there, no matter how vile I thought the man while he was alive I don’t see the need for that type of behavior. But that is beside the point, which you all seem hell bent on avoiding.
but — not understanding that when Kant was brought up, we discussed the categorical imperative, and labeling this “phantoms in my head”?
Uh, no, Rich. The phantoms in your head comment was to this,
What I actually believe — since I’m not Kant — is that within our degraded country, civility means “traitor liberals shut up”
After I had twice explained what I meant by civility, and why I thought it was important. You continued to argue against statements no one had made here. Still are for that matter, as in your last statement.
…the kind of fear of violence that the likes of B Moe, judging from the introspection of their cowardly hearts, think is the only human motivator.
I am interested in how you were introspective of my heart, I would think you would need a warrant for that.
July 25, 2008 at 9:28 pm
happyfeet
That if you misrepresent ideological opponents in righteous anger, you’re only strengthening erroneous convictions both about your noble, tireless self and your repugnant, inhuman enemies — and that mythologizing everyone thus ain’t healthy.
I get this, and you should have been treated much better I think. Mostly I think you got off on the wrong foot when a more subtle and dialectical approach might have made your points better. But none of what you argued seemed out of bounds to me. You were just asking what Jeff’s post meant I thought, mostly. It was definitely fair argument, especially since this sort of thing is gonna happen again and again. And now you never come over and play with us anymore. Karl did a post on Batman you could have added a lot to. I wanted to link your acephalous ones, but I didn’t think that would necessarily work out in a happy way.
July 25, 2008 at 10:02 pm
ari
He hasn’t been playing much here, either, happyfeet, if that makes you feel any better.
July 26, 2008 at 12:24 am
happyfeet
Oh. Thanks. It does a little.