Attack on poster history is unwarranted March 4, 2005 8:58 AM Subscribe
A number of recent contentious discussions have quickly devolving into attacks on the past history of the individuals under discussion or justifications that break down to “They do it too!”. Would it help improve the tone of discussions to ask posters to consider the direct relevance of their comments on the topic under discussion, rather than firing off ‘unrelated’ repsonses that read like cheap shots or weak justifications? [mi]
Would it help improve the tone of discussions to ask posters to consider the direct relevance of their comments on the topic under discussion, rather than firing off ‘unrelated’ repsonses that read like cheap shots or weak justifications?
Well, of course it would. But the type of person who wouldn't consider the relevance of his comment before won't change by having his habits pointed out to him. Especially because at the time it can seem like you're actually making a good point.
posted by kenko at 9:10 AM on March 4, 2005
Well, of course it would. But the type of person who wouldn't consider the relevance of his comment before won't change by having his habits pointed out to him. Especially because at the time it can seem like you're actually making a good point.
posted by kenko at 9:10 AM on March 4, 2005
Would it help improve the tone of discussions to ask posters to consider the direct relevance of their comments on the topic under discussion
Would it help to ask? Probably not. Would it help if people would actually do it? Most likely. Would doing the former lead to the latter? Almost certainly not.
I wish I could be more optimistic, but making decrees about how to conduct conversation is, as Morris Day reminds us, like making ice cream castles in the summer time.
Some people rely on firing off ‘unrelated’ responses that read like cheap shots or weak justifications. They don't have the background or the smarts to use anything else. You're not trying to discriminate against the unintelligent, are you?
posted by squirrel at 9:13 AM on March 4, 2005
Would it help to ask? Probably not. Would it help if people would actually do it? Most likely. Would doing the former lead to the latter? Almost certainly not.
I wish I could be more optimistic, but making decrees about how to conduct conversation is, as Morris Day reminds us, like making ice cream castles in the summer time.
Some people rely on firing off ‘unrelated’ responses that read like cheap shots or weak justifications. They don't have the background or the smarts to use anything else. You're not trying to discriminate against the unintelligent, are you?
posted by squirrel at 9:13 AM on March 4, 2005
The Muslin terrorists are cutting hostages' heads off, and all you can complain about is our avoiding the real argument by making facile moral-equivalency claims?
By the way did you know that we're at war? With Muslim terrorists? Who cut off hostages' heads? Shouldn't you really be complaining about Muslim terrorists who cut off heads?
In other words, I completely agree with you. Yes, China has a terrible human rights record, Senator Byrd was in the Klan, and I guess that Lloyd Axworthy's budgetary decisions weren't always the best. But that doesn't speak at all to the real arguments being advanced: that China now has real justification to condemn the U.S. human rights record, that Byrd is very worried that our system of checks and balances is threatened, or the Lloyd Axwothy, as a Canadian, is offended when the U.S. Ambassador to Canada tells him that Canada, by not going along with U.S. plans, is alienating part of its sovereignty.
Sine I have seen some evidence that most Mefites, regardless of political ideology, are brighter than the average netizen, I have to assume that the commenters who avoid the real questions and make facile moral equivalency claims or ad hominem attacks know what they're doing. I take it as evidence that they really don't have an answer, or at any rate an answer they are comfortable with, to the real questions raised.
Surely, any Mefite knows that whether or not Byrd was in the Klan, whether or not the Senator is currently Satan's High Pope, Byrds's argument must be accepted or rejected on its own merits. Hitler, we can agree, was an evil man, and Martin Luther King, I think most of us will concur, was a good man. But if Hitler said the earth was a sphere, and Martin Luther King said it was flat, the Earth would still be a sphere, and we'd still need to judge the argument and not the man.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that believes -- perhaps from watching too much Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes -- that the point of debate isn't to come to a rational conclusion or even to make reasoned arguments, but to shut up one's opponent by forcing him to spend his portion of the debate defending the indefensible.
Racism is perhaps the foremost "secular sin" of our age; having racist beliefs is considered not simply a variant ideology, but a moral failing -- anti-racism has been taken out of the realm of ideology and raised up to be an unquestionable "religious" tenet of our society. Racists are not tolerated but are considered a sort of heretic to be burnt and expunged from our society lest its contagion infect us all. Otherwise good liberals (admittedly this example is from outside the U.S.) indulge in fantasies of vigilantism and violence when confronted with racism.
So by reminding us that Byrd was once a sheet-wearing member of an organization with the sole purposes of arranging lynchings and propping up Jim Crow, the "debater" attempts to put his opponent(s) in a bind: either defend Byrd and be vulnerable to the charge that defending a (former) racist is tantamount to defending racism, or abandon Byrd and his argument and capitulate in the debate.
Similarly with China: rather than confront the charge that America's recent human rights record is appalling, try to make your opponent give up that claim or waste his time futilely trying to show that China's record isn't also appalling. try to make your opponent appear to be an apologist for China's crimes, and then smear him with that.
Again, the whole point is to shut up one's opponents by making them defend the indefensible strawman you've set up. It's a technique that while effectively advancing one's immediate cause, ultimately makes reasoned debate (and thus democracy, an exercise of debate followed by a vote) less and less possible.
It's an unworthy technique that really does hurt America. Stop hurting America.
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2005
By the way did you know that we're at war? With Muslim terrorists? Who cut off hostages' heads? Shouldn't you really be complaining about Muslim terrorists who cut off heads?
In other words, I completely agree with you. Yes, China has a terrible human rights record, Senator Byrd was in the Klan, and I guess that Lloyd Axworthy's budgetary decisions weren't always the best. But that doesn't speak at all to the real arguments being advanced: that China now has real justification to condemn the U.S. human rights record, that Byrd is very worried that our system of checks and balances is threatened, or the Lloyd Axwothy, as a Canadian, is offended when the U.S. Ambassador to Canada tells him that Canada, by not going along with U.S. plans, is alienating part of its sovereignty.
Sine I have seen some evidence that most Mefites, regardless of political ideology, are brighter than the average netizen, I have to assume that the commenters who avoid the real questions and make facile moral equivalency claims or ad hominem attacks know what they're doing. I take it as evidence that they really don't have an answer, or at any rate an answer they are comfortable with, to the real questions raised.
Surely, any Mefite knows that whether or not Byrd was in the Klan, whether or not the Senator is currently Satan's High Pope, Byrds's argument must be accepted or rejected on its own merits. Hitler, we can agree, was an evil man, and Martin Luther King, I think most of us will concur, was a good man. But if Hitler said the earth was a sphere, and Martin Luther King said it was flat, the Earth would still be a sphere, and we'd still need to judge the argument and not the man.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that believes -- perhaps from watching too much Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes -- that the point of debate isn't to come to a rational conclusion or even to make reasoned arguments, but to shut up one's opponent by forcing him to spend his portion of the debate defending the indefensible.
Racism is perhaps the foremost "secular sin" of our age; having racist beliefs is considered not simply a variant ideology, but a moral failing -- anti-racism has been taken out of the realm of ideology and raised up to be an unquestionable "religious" tenet of our society. Racists are not tolerated but are considered a sort of heretic to be burnt and expunged from our society lest its contagion infect us all. Otherwise good liberals (admittedly this example is from outside the U.S.) indulge in fantasies of vigilantism and violence when confronted with racism.
So by reminding us that Byrd was once a sheet-wearing member of an organization with the sole purposes of arranging lynchings and propping up Jim Crow, the "debater" attempts to put his opponent(s) in a bind: either defend Byrd and be vulnerable to the charge that defending a (former) racist is tantamount to defending racism, or abandon Byrd and his argument and capitulate in the debate.
Similarly with China: rather than confront the charge that America's recent human rights record is appalling, try to make your opponent give up that claim or waste his time futilely trying to show that China's record isn't also appalling. try to make your opponent appear to be an apologist for China's crimes, and then smear him with that.
Again, the whole point is to shut up one's opponents by making them defend the indefensible strawman you've set up. It's a technique that while effectively advancing one's immediate cause, ultimately makes reasoned debate (and thus democracy, an exercise of debate followed by a vote) less and less possible.
It's an unworthy technique that really does hurt America. Stop hurting America.
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM on March 4, 2005
I think you can claim all you want that "pot, kettle, black" isn't a valid logical argument, but hypocrisy always undermines a point. Surely there are reports by Amnesty International that critique the United States' human rights record and that would have more authority than a report by China who wants to draw attention away from its own record and so has an axe to grind. Anyway, I have trouble seeing how the post referenced would have been best of the Net even if the discussion hadn't gotten unpleasant. Political posts turning ugly: go figure.
posted by anapestic at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by anapestic at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2005
i tried, i sincerely tried, to preemptively derail the derail.
to no avail.
and now i'm fucking gilbert and sullivan.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:53 AM on March 4, 2005
to no avail.
and now i'm fucking gilbert and sullivan.
posted by Hat Maui at 10:53 AM on March 4, 2005
and now i'm fucking gilbert and sullivan.
At the same time??
slut.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on March 4, 2005
At the same time??
slut.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on March 4, 2005
I'm much more concerned about ad hominem attacks against other MeFi members. I actually think that there is every reason to talk about the past life of politicians and countries. Too often we're supposed to just forget it. It may be beside the point, but I think that it's up to people who want to argue that it is to argue that it is.
posted by OmieWise at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 11:08 AM on March 4, 2005
There's also a big difference between talking about something that Senator Byrd said or did thirty years ago and something that China still does today. I think there's some sort of statute of limitations on hypocrisy charges, particularly if someone's later behavior is consistent with what they're saying or doing currently.
posted by anapestic at 11:11 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by anapestic at 11:11 AM on March 4, 2005
I'm with you lirio. What one person says 35+ years ago follows them around forever as a mark of Cain. As if 35 years isn't enough time for someone to change their opinion or do their penance. On a related note, hypocrites can speak the truth, even if they don't follow it. Facts are stronger than the people who speak them. Who cares who says what? This shouldn't be about counting coup, it should be about proving truth and finding justice.
posted by sciurus at 11:13 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by sciurus at 11:13 AM on March 4, 2005
Hm. I posted the Lloyd Axworthy story and I thought the discussion was quite good. Sure when you post anything about someone well-known someone's going to say "I hate him" but I think the signal-to-noise ratio in this type of discussion is better on metafilter than almost anywhere else on the web. I don't see how it can be much better actually.
posted by winston at 11:18 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by winston at 11:18 AM on March 4, 2005
(talking to myself)
If someone makes unwarranted assertions in a discussion, it's up to the other people in the discussion to call him/her on it. That's what discussion is for. I don't think you can prevent it from happening in the first place
posted by winston at 11:20 AM on March 4, 2005
If someone makes unwarranted assertions in a discussion, it's up to the other people in the discussion to call him/her on it. That's what discussion is for. I don't think you can prevent it from happening in the first place
posted by winston at 11:20 AM on March 4, 2005
The nice thing is, if the world is in fact round, you can almost always ignore the fact that Hitler believes it and find someone more palatable expressing the same viewpoint. If you can't find anyone else, maybe the idea isn't all that after all.
Conversely, if the idea doesn't seem to go anywhere regardless of how many prominent people are expressing it, perhaps the idea doesn't really have the legs you wish it had, and you should find some other way of convincing people of how much Bush sucks (because that's what we're talking about here, let's not fool ourselves).
posted by kindall at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2005
Conversely, if the idea doesn't seem to go anywhere regardless of how many prominent people are expressing it, perhaps the idea doesn't really have the legs you wish it had, and you should find some other way of convincing people of how much Bush sucks (because that's what we're talking about here, let's not fool ourselves).
posted by kindall at 11:21 AM on March 4, 2005
At the same time??
slut.
the two bespoke and dandy men,
writing plays of their invention
have found themselves the objects of
unsolicited attention;
a constant spate of rogerings from
a man we shall not mention
posted by Hat Maui at 11:30 AM on March 4, 2005
slut.
the two bespoke and dandy men,
writing plays of their invention
have found themselves the objects of
unsolicited attention;
a constant spate of rogerings from
a man we shall not mention
posted by Hat Maui at 11:30 AM on March 4, 2005
Hat Maui writes "and now i'm fucking gilbert and sullivan."
You’ve got a little list? — You’ve got a little list?
They’d none of ’em be missed? — They’d none of ’em be missed?
posted by orthogonality at 11:49 AM on March 4, 2005
You’ve got a little list? — You’ve got a little list?
They’d none of ’em be missed? — They’d none of ’em be missed?
posted by orthogonality at 11:49 AM on March 4, 2005
Byrd knows very well that he'll always carry the weight of his past sins*, and rightly so. I don't see the problem, really. in Washington political and media circles it's considered bad manners to bring Byrd's past up and hence it's a big no-no. in the rest of the universe Byrd's past, like everyone else's in public life, is fair game.
*Catholic upbringing
posted by matteo at 11:54 AM on March 4, 2005
*Catholic upbringing
posted by matteo at 11:54 AM on March 4, 2005
anf this comes from somebody who agrees 100% on Byrd's stance re the Bush administration, by the way.
posted by matteo at 11:55 AM on March 4, 2005
posted by matteo at 11:55 AM on March 4, 2005
I wouldn't worry too much about Byrd's past -- the folks who keep electing him don't seem overly concerned.
My goodness me! What shall we do? Why, what a dreadful situation!
posted by cedar at 12:23 PM on March 4, 2005
My goodness me! What shall we do? Why, what a dreadful situation!
posted by cedar at 12:23 PM on March 4, 2005
If someone makes unwarranted assertions in a discussion, it's up to the other people in the discussion to call him/her on it.
Sometimes the best policy is to ignore such posts and continue with the main discussion. Yes, the person doing the posting may think "No one refuted me - I win!" But relevancy is (arguably) such a subjective thing that calling someone on it isn't likely to change their mind - they thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have posted it. And calling out a person can derail the thread. (If you don't believe a thread can be derailed by arguing about the relevancy of arguments, you haven't experienced usenet newsgroups.)
I also agree that the signal to noise ratio here is among the best that can be found on the Web, and about the best that can be expected. So let's focus on pony requests to Matt, instead, yes?
posted by WestCoaster at 1:34 PM on March 4, 2005
Sometimes the best policy is to ignore such posts and continue with the main discussion. Yes, the person doing the posting may think "No one refuted me - I win!" But relevancy is (arguably) such a subjective thing that calling someone on it isn't likely to change their mind - they thought it was relevant, or they wouldn't have posted it. And calling out a person can derail the thread. (If you don't believe a thread can be derailed by arguing about the relevancy of arguments, you haven't experienced usenet newsgroups.)
I also agree that the signal to noise ratio here is among the best that can be found on the Web, and about the best that can be expected. So let's focus on pony requests to Matt, instead, yes?
posted by WestCoaster at 1:34 PM on March 4, 2005
Sometimes the best policy is to ignore such posts
That too. Either way the way to deal with (allegedly) inappropriate comments is within the discussion itself -- whether debunking or ignoring or whatever. Just as you would if someone said these things to you in person. There's no technical or procedural way to prevent them (and still allow all the good comments)
posted by winston at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2005
That too. Either way the way to deal with (allegedly) inappropriate comments is within the discussion itself -- whether debunking or ignoring or whatever. Just as you would if someone said these things to you in person. There's no technical or procedural way to prevent them (and still allow all the good comments)
posted by winston at 5:05 PM on March 4, 2005
anapestic: I think you can claim all you want that "pot, kettle, black" isn't a valid logical argument, but hypocrisy always undermines a point. Surely there are reports by Amnesty International that critique the United States' human rights record and that would have more authority than a report by China who wants to draw attention away from its own record and so has an axe to grind. Anyway, I have trouble seeing how the post referenced would have been best of the Net even if the discussion hadn't gotten unpleasant. Political posts turning ugly: go figure.
Actually, attacking the character or past of an opponent rather than discussing the merits of their argument is a logical fallacy. So, no, it's not a valid logical argument. See, the point of the post was that the USA publishes a list of Human Rights abuses every year and it failed to include itself. The entier world objected to that fact, not just China. The thread was about the OUR hypocrisy. Calling someone else a hypocrite as knee-jerk defense is neither constructive nor logically valid.
posted by shmegegge at 5:10 PM on March 4, 2005
Actually, attacking the character or past of an opponent rather than discussing the merits of their argument is a logical fallacy. So, no, it's not a valid logical argument. See, the point of the post was that the USA publishes a list of Human Rights abuses every year and it failed to include itself. The entier world objected to that fact, not just China. The thread was about the OUR hypocrisy. Calling someone else a hypocrite as knee-jerk defense is neither constructive nor logically valid.
posted by shmegegge at 5:10 PM on March 4, 2005
We demonstrate hypocrisy aplenty even in choosing the hypocrites we decry.
posted by boaz at 8:13 PM on March 4, 2005
posted by boaz at 8:13 PM on March 4, 2005
Good call, lirio. Comments like these occur all the time. A welcome reminder that we all need to check our game from time to time.
posted by nthdegx at 1:18 AM on March 5, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 1:18 AM on March 5, 2005
“X did a stupid thing once, so ignoring X is the way to go”
I've seen this illogic applied to AlexReyolds quite a lot. And I'm not saying that the famous blowout thread wasn't memorable. And I'm not saying that AR didn't do himself a lot of discredit in it. I'm sure he has his own well-earned regrets over it.
What bugs me is seeing people who rarely post a damn thing pipe up to take a swipe at him over it. I've seen him contribute good stuff to AskMe, and I think, barring that exceptional train wreck, that he's got potential. I hate to see people who would rather lurk pipe up to comment once just to have an easy laugh at his expense. That's just opportunistic schadenfreude.
"Ooh. Look. That guy said something. I have an easy way to make him look stupid. Haha. I am teh sm4rtzors."
Whatever. That's weak. Stand on your own knowledge and rhetorical skills or stay out of a contentious debate.
posted by scarabic at 1:27 AM on March 5, 2005
I've seen this illogic applied to AlexReyolds quite a lot. And I'm not saying that the famous blowout thread wasn't memorable. And I'm not saying that AR didn't do himself a lot of discredit in it. I'm sure he has his own well-earned regrets over it.
What bugs me is seeing people who rarely post a damn thing pipe up to take a swipe at him over it. I've seen him contribute good stuff to AskMe, and I think, barring that exceptional train wreck, that he's got potential. I hate to see people who would rather lurk pipe up to comment once just to have an easy laugh at his expense. That's just opportunistic schadenfreude.
"Ooh. Look. That guy said something. I have an easy way to make him look stupid. Haha. I am teh sm4rtzors."
Whatever. That's weak. Stand on your own knowledge and rhetorical skills or stay out of a contentious debate.
posted by scarabic at 1:27 AM on March 5, 2005
Homies. Stay off the crack, keep it real, and big up yourself.
posted by scarabic at 1:08 PM on March 5, 2005
posted by scarabic at 1:08 PM on March 5, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Recent discussions that involved Lloyd Axworthy, Senator Byrd and even a country, China, soon included comments about their past ‘discretions’ or ‘hypocrisy’. It makes sense that discussion of experience is relevant in that it establishes the extent to which a subject can authoritatively pass judgements. However, these comments and others like them seem to not be focused on “I don’t believe X has the knowledge to comment on Y”, but rather “X did a stupid thing once, so ignoring X is the way to go”, or “X does Y too, it doesn’t matter that Z does Y.”
Maybe no one will bother considering this type of relevance when they post a comment – maybe no one cares but me. But I do hope that some people might just pause a moment or two to consider what their comment adds to a thread.
I think it would make a big difference in helping generate health conversations.
posted by lirio at 9:00 AM on March 4, 2005