However, today’s another day and so I think we should look forward and concentrate on calming things down and avoiding the inflationary use of certain ‘red rag’ words.

At the same time, this shouldn’t lead to a total censorship of phrases. I don’t think anybody should be stoned here.
Even… and I want to make this absolutely clear… even if they do say, ******* *****
[distant sound of stones hitting a human body]

You may have noticed that I defended Shaun in reference to political discussions of the 35W bridge.

And being marginally better in tone than LGF or Crooks&Liars is hardly something we should be aspiring to.

Finally, I would think that you would want to be better than those you label “wingnuts” rather than emulate their tactics. This pattern that some people have of responding to every criticism by saying “but the other side is worse” is bizarre.

Well, Rudi, until name-calling, misrepresentation, slander and lying are a part of “debate”, what I am suggesting more commenters to do around here isn’t “stifling debate”.

I may go over board on occasion, but may commenters and some of your “favorites” will enter the debate without reading the backround links and pushing their agenda. A good example was the linguist mentioned in a New York paper or magazine. Much of the comments in that post were assertions based on your hyperbole. Most comments here are civil compared to LGF, BalloonJuice or Crooks&Liers. Joe used to have a couple of Indian posters here, they tended to be “liberal” or “internationalists” in their posts, go back and look at the attacks on them from the Wingnuts.

Generally I try to avoid making emotionally responses because that is a very dangerous path.

And I also try to avoid taking up with the wrong sort. Other Liberals go onto RedState frequently. Few make it past the first day. But seeing them come in with clear intent to foment trouble gave me an understanding of the types of comments and arguments that really have no value.

Some people like to get under people’s skin. Once you let them do that, it’s over.

Note: I am referring to no one here since I don’t know anyone. Well other than casualobservations who is a RedState quasi-liberal as well.

I mentioned earlier that I am a frequent poster on RedState which has taught me a lot about how to discuss and debate without letting clear instigators pull you into the weeds.

Please teach me that. For some reason, I keep letting myself get sucked in to “just one more response” with commenters who have long since proven their unwillingness to be honest or charitable towards disagreement.

Perhaps I should post on RedState instead. At least then, I would receive equal abuse from “the right”.

You sure you ain’t the problem?

Perhaps. If that is really the consensus of the readers here, I will be happy to do what many other former TMV contributors have done and simply quit posting. I don’t need to spend time trying to write good posts just so a few ideologues can constantly misrepresent them and hijack the comment threads. Alternatively, I might do what several other TMV contributors do and simply don’t participate in comments. I personally think that comments threads are more fun for readers if the posters actually participate in a give-and-take, but it is unreasonable to expect posters to submissively subject themselves to endless lies and slander from a minority of prolific commenters who hijack the comment threads.

Bottom line – shorter JS: Write what I like = no complaints.

Claiming to be able to say what someone else believes more than they themselves can is the very height of rudeness.

But you have made your position clear now, thank you for that. You should expect reaction in kind. You can hardly expect to behave as you have towards me and receive a friendly response. The best you should expect if you keep up with it is no response at all.

And yes, I DO remember you from several months ago.

While I generally dislike terms like “talking points” or “meme” or “known facts” or the various other barbs thrown at people to discredit them, that doesn’t mean there aren’t times where it is appropriate particularly when a person is simply parroting comments without any real understanding of what they are saying.

Seems like most of the people are above that sort of thing here at least in the little I have seen. However it does seem like there are some running feuds going on.

All blogs will have some vitriol and intimidation. I would hope that post people can just ignore that sort of thing if necessary.

I mentioned earlier that I am a frequent poster on RedState which has taught me a lot about how to discuss and debate without letting clear instigators pull you into the weeds.

In defense, I want to present as evidence #1 the top graphic of this blog. It praises, and I quote verbatim, ‘irreverent comments’. I rest my case and go to bed. GN.

Several of the people who I consider excellent commenters and good debaters disagree with me politically, so neither you nor Gray can hide behind the fiction that I criticize your tactics only because you disagree.

Bottom line for you and Gray and a couple of others: If you want fewer posters and even fewer posters who are willing to actually talk to commenters, keep up what you are doing. If you want actual debates, consider modifying your approaches to be less abusive and more honest about what other people individually say and believe instead of always mindlessly lumping them together as “lock step” members of “the right”.

There are some really good posters and commenters of various political stripes who remain, however, like domajot, Lynx, Rambie, MvdG, C Stanley, Iconic Midwest, and Dr. E. I personally try to respond only to them and to ignore some of these others, but their very prolific nature and penchant for hijacking thread after thread makes their dominance of the forum difficult to counter.

And you attack the Left for stifling debate at universities – LOL. Comment is an open discussion, yet you judge what others say. I wonder if debate should depend on favorites…

I guess the real truth is, we are at opposite sides of the spectrum, and you simply don’t like opposition. Simple as that.

Well, Gray, you blew it again.

First, as a centrist, I am unlikely to be at the opposite end of any political spectrum from anyone. I get heat from “the right” whenever I post about immigration or gay rights and I get heat from “the left” whenever I post about national security issues.

Second, being in that middle position does give me an opportunity to assess the relative volume and tactics from each side. Frankly, the tactics are pretty similar, including the “talking points” slander. But the volume is much higher on TMV when coming from “the left” as the number of aggressive/abusive commenters coming from that side is much higher.

Third, as a debate competitor and coach for over a decade, I not only like opposition, I’ve spent thousands of dollars of my own money to seek it out and promote it. What I DO hate is opposition based on stereotypes, misrepresentations and non-responsiveness like accusations of “talking points”.

Fourth, the fact that several of the commenters I specifically identified as good commenters are people who often disagree with me politically pretty much refutes your misrepresentation of my position.

The thing I do prize in argument is fairness. When an individual’s argument is shoved aside with a sneering accusation that it is just “talking points”, I react badly. I also react badly when I see bullies beating up disproportionately on one side. That means when I am in a right-wing dominated forum (like any family gathering I might go to), I tend to defend lefties more. And when I am in a forum dominated by lefties like TMV is right now, I tend to be seen defending righties more.

Bottom line: If some of the abusive/aggressive commenters here switched to focus more on substantive issues and less on crude ideological stereotypes about their opponents, they would find me a lot less objectionable regardless of whether they agree with me or not.

If you doubt me, maybe you should try me.

“As you are already seeing, it is a simple matter of a small number of extremely aggressive and repetitive commenters who have, unfortunately, succeeded in driving a lot of people away by simply harassing them every time they post anything.”
Uh huh. Take, for instance, me. I’ve been away from this blog for some months while I moved. Now, where are the statistics showing the substantive boost in clicks and comments during my absence and the dramatic decline in the last days? Hmm?

I guess the real truth is, we are at opposite sides of the spectrum, and you simply don’t like opposition. Simple as that.

“their very prolific nature and penchant for hijacking thread after thread makes their dominance of the forum difficult to counter.”
You call it hijacking, I say it’s just answering when someone posts a comment here. Still too many threads here where readers offer an honest comment and nobody responds. Imho that’s frustrating. Also, pls note that I’m in the european timezone, so how can I hijack threads when the bulk of responses comes when I’m asleep? This doesn’t make sense.

The more frequently someone mentions the “Left” or the “Right” as monolithic entities, the less likely they are to have a cogent and reasoned argument.

Hear, hear.

Around here, unfortunately, the accusations of “talking points” and other questionings of honesty and integrity are directed towards “the right” FAR FAR more often than “the left”. As you are already seeing, it is a simple matter of a small number of extremely aggressive and repetitive commenters who have, unfortunately, succeeded in driving a lot of people away by simply harassing them every time they post anything. It has dramatically shrunk the level of political diversity found on the comment threads. There remains somewhat more political diversity among actual contributors, but several contributors have cut way back on their posting also due to a nasty atmosphere on the comments threads.

There are some really good posters and commenters of various political stripes who remain, however, like domajot, Lynx, Rambie, MvdG, C Stanley, Iconic Midwest, and Dr. E. I personally try to respond only to them and to ignore some of these others, but their very prolific nature and penchant for hijacking thread after thread makes their dominance of the forum difficult to counter.

It’s ironic that NYT’s is Liberal, untill they publish the O’Hanolan piece. I wonder who many at TMV actually read the piece and then looked for honest retort?

When someone comes into a discussion about Scott Beauchamp and starts talking about Global Warming and the nefarious “Left”, which is in full control of the MSM, why should their comments be treated as reasonable and rational?

Here’s my own corollary to your point. The more frequently someone mentions the “Left” or the “Right” as monolithic entities, the less likely they are to have a cogent and reasoned argument.

Perhaps you think that even a child could debunk the statistics of Liberals. Personally I’m not even sure who he is talking about since the comment is so vague as to be utterly meaningless.

And if you have a decoder ring that helps explain what his last paragraph said, that would be very helpful as well.

Rudi,

Thanks for the welcome. I have to say I’m not sure who snarky shark is though.

Snarky Shark says hello to the “Komrads”.

Personally, I think that whenever a commenter levels an accusation that something they disagree with is just “talking points” it is a pretty clear indication of inability to come up with a substantive response. After all, if all you have to rebut something is the claim that some other group of “bad” people wrote it up into a “talking point”, then that is really, really weak sauce.