<p>Having said that, it’s possible to “ignore” any member you find annoying - just add that member to your ignore list, and you’ll never be troubled by their posts again. :)</p>
<p>Delayed response because I’ve had a very busy few days and have been on CC very little and this is not a response that I could dash off in five minutes. </p>
<p>
Yes, I’m sure that some would rather not include comments on any of the above. It’s called “framing an issue to one’s advantage” and results in blocking out relevant considerations. The very framing of the topic, “Partisanship vs. Principles,” is a false, self-serving dichotomy, of which I will say more anon. And, of course, it is about specific posters and specific views, no matter how much anyone might choose to tapdance otherwise.</p>
<p>
Let’s take some cases in point. Objections have been raised to my use of the metaphor of oral sex to describe John McCain’s relationship with the Republican establishment in general (and George Bush in particular) after his defeat in the 2000 South Carolina primary by shameful Rovian tactics and the phrase “would-be ayahtollahs” to describe the agendas of many anti-Choice leaders and voters, particularly those whose view is in conjunction with other elements including anti-contraception, anti-fact-based-sex-education, and the teaching of “Creation Science” [sic] in lieu of evolution.</p>
<p>As to the former, the image of McCain performing oral sex upon the Republican establishment is chosen deliberately to evoke and mirror the Republican’s malicious and pointless partisan impeachment circus of Bill Clinton over such an episode. Also please note, delicate sensibilities not withstanding, the metaphor is not “graphic.” I couldn’t do “graphic” without violating CC’s TOS but if you think that that metaphor is graphic, please PM me and I’ll give you an idea what “graphic” or even “excessive” and “over the top” are. (There are degrees of expression…I chose the tamest description that fit, eschewing both the vernacular for the particular act or even more explicit language using body parts in Saxon terms…now that would be offensive.) And I have this sneaking suspicion that so many of those who would be squeamish about that description of McCain were more than happy to put the country through two years of hell over Bill Clinton’s indiscretion involving a similar activity.</p>
<p>As to the repeated use of the phrase “would-be” ayahtollahs in various contexts, it perfectly describes the impulse of certain organizations and voters to impose their narrow sectarian religious beliefs as the basis for civil law. The fact that one is Islamic and another Christian, that one takes place far-away countries with people, many of whom are hostile to the USA, dress and talk funny while the other are proper upstanding American citizens does not matter. [Note to the irony impaired: the preceding is a deliberate riff on the xenophobic ignorance that colors the attitudes of some Americans in fighting radical Islamist terrorists.] </p>
<p>Posters are free to identify with elements of the would-be ayahtollah agenda or not but if they so self-identify and are offended thereby, it’s a case of wearing the shoe after fitting it. One of those who has expressed the most offense at the phrasing says something to the effect of, “But I’ve never said that I support of all of that.” Well, abortion was the topic under discussion and I do suppose that with the American would-be Christian ayahtollahs as with their foreign Islamic counterparts, there are “moderate” and “radical” versions, which doesn’t make much of a difference to me. [Note: The preceding should not be read in any way by sloppy readers as an indication of anti-Christian sentiment; the fact that one of my most frequent and vocal adversaries on this site is a co-religionist tickles my sense of irony.]</p>
<p>But as people may be offended by my posts, I am surely not less offended by posts suggesting that waterboarding is okay, that the executive has the right to do anything it wants without check or oversight (e.g., warantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, lying to Congress, ad infinitum) in the name of the “War on Terror” [sic], or that Bush’s actions in Iraq have made the U.S. safer or virtually any of the screeds quoted about Bill or Hillary Clinton. Or to suggest that imposing their religious beliefs on others is okay. To credit the former sense of being offended and not the latter is merely self-privileging self-entitlement, a disease that runs rampant through this Bush so-called administration and its Bushevik supporters. Moreover, in both cases I’ve found it very telling that the responses to my posts are more in the tenor of “that’s not nice” than “that’s not accurate.” (Oh God…someone is probably now going to complain about “Bushevik.” Do I have to draw those parallels out too?)</p>
<p>[Side note: there’s a bumper sticker to the effect of “Nice women don’t make history.” Personally, in that vein I can probably think of at least 20 personal characteristics that I value more highly than being “nice.” The minute I start worrying about whether people outside my circle of family & friends think I’m “nice” or not is the minute I start to sell my soul in craven pursuit of popularity. “Nice” doesn’t bring about social or political change, be it women’s suffrage, labor rights, or desegregation. There’s a difference between attacking another poster, thereby violating the TOS, and not being “nice.” And I’d be more impressed if posters refuted the points I make rather than attacking how I make them.]</p>
<p>One poster attempted to trivialize my position by calling it something along the lines of bullying political choices. Taxes are a political choice. Environmental policy is a political choice. Trade policy is a political choice. The agenda of the would-be ayahtollahs is not mere politics, it represents the imposition of sectarian beliefs by a very vocal bloc and runs contrary to the essence of a pluralistic American society. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and most of the Founding Fathers would be proverbially rolling in their graves. </p>
<p>
Perhaps if people choose to self-identify with the would-be ayahtollahs, they deserve to be offended if not shamed. But as I said earlier, posters are free to choose whether they wish to identify with those positions and then decide whether they’re offended or not. The “I’m more offended than you are” card is doesn’t play well. </p>
<p>But I do understand the frantic push-back. As a former [mediocre] tournament chess player and a moderately sophisticated reader of military history, I see it’s a matter of positional warfare: the comparison of the American Christian would-be ayahtollahs to their Islamic counterparts is not a comparison they can allow to stand but neither can they refute the comparison, so attacking the way the point is made rather than the point itself is the only option. And there’s really no way to make the point that the would-be American ayahtollahs have a lot in common with the Islamist ayahtollahs without saying it, you know what I mean?</p>
<p>For my part, I am under no illusions that I will cease to be offended in political discussions on CC or elsewhere any time soon and my experience with such leads me to give some friendly advice to those who are offended by my posts: Get used to it. Deal with it. One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian and what is regarded as a fair statement of noble fact by some is nothing short of incendiary propaganda to others.</p>
<p>Futhermore, I find it amusing on a cosmic scale that many of those offended by my posts are the same people whose statements echo, or at least countenance with equanimity, the vitriolic splenetics of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Fred Phelps, the lunatics at the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Captain’s Quarters, Little Green Footballs, RedState.Org et many alia…at least my observations are rooted in reality, not suggesting, for instance, that 9/11 was God’s punishment on America for abortions and gays. </p>
<p>
Just so you understand, as with the initial framing of partisan versus principled, I take exception to this. It is my sense of justice and principles that say that the America founded by Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington et alia is not a place where one sect can impose their religious beliefs on broader society. It is my sense of principles that makes me ashamed of John McCain’s craven prostitution of his principles for the sake of his ambition.</p>
<p>I take considerable umbrage at any notion that I engage in partisanship without regard to principles (or sense of justice) and were we face to face and you were to suggest that I was doing so, we would be having what Tass in the good old days would have called a frank and comradely discussion in terms that would most certainly violate CC’s TOS. But as I noted earlier, one person’s “fair” or “reasonable” comment is another’s outrage and in these precincts I will let it stand after registering my objection this once, for as I’ve said, expecting not to be offended in a political discussion is an unreasonable expectation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So done. And as Roger says, the’re always the “Ignore” list, though I’ve never used it myself.</p>
<p>[Side note to another post: ZM, fwiw, I hold you in considerable esteem. I would be a lot less angry and feel better about the prospects for the country and the world if more Republicans exhibited both your grace and your nuanced views.]</p>
<p>In my experience on this forum and others, the reasons are a lot less noble than you all have been speculating. Usually you dont call out your political allies when they screw up, because you want them to cheer you on when you get mixed up in ideological debate. The more people on your side that like you, the more “backup” you have in debates.</p>
<p>“Side note to another post: ZM, fwiw, I hold you in considerable esteem. I would be a lot less angry and feel better about the prospects for the country and the world if more Republicans exhibited both your grace and your nuanced views.”</p>
<p>Thanks TD and FWIW to you, I don’t find your posts particularly offensive. For me (and ONLY ME) it’s abusive behavior toward other posters that disturbs me, not the content of the posts. I’m not sure if the distinction is clear, but I hope it is. I’ve seen you take off on posters, but I’ve never seen the stalking type of behavior exhibited by you. You know I don’t agree with you a lot of things, but for example your post on another thread about John McCain resonated with me because I’m not a supporter. I have to say though, that I’ve never seen the oral sex reference. Heck, I’ve never typed the words “oral sex” in my entire life. How 'bout that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, at least we’re not beating around the bush. I’m not sure we’re actually co-religionists, are we? If you’ve been through RCIA, and been Confirmed, I’d like to welcome you to full membership in the faith.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since most of your posts are opinion pieces, it’s not appropriate to say, “That’s not accurate.” You, and every other poster, have the right to share an opinion. When a post contains inaccurate statements, other posters and I point that out. When your posts cross the line of civilized behavior i.e. “oral sex” and/or “ayatollah” I’ll point that out also. Hence, the “That’s not nice” type of comment.</p>
<p>As for your continuing tendency to tie a variety of viewpoints together, as I mentioned before, that’s generally referred to as the “Halo effect.” So if I object to being lumped in with your “ayatollahs” who are anti-BC, anti-sex education or homophobic, why should you have a problem with that? It is illogical to debate different issues as if they are one and the same.</p>
<p>Finally, rationalizing coarse and vulgar commentary as being appropriate because your opponents are “Busheviks,” does not make the comments any less coarse or vulgar. In the past, you have alluded to some writing you’ve done. These kinds of comments do not improve your communication or stature as a writer. I think you can do better than that.</p>
<p>What’s the point anyway? Do you think anyone who is on the fence is persuaded to your point of view by this approach? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>In spite of what I learned in high school debate, I generally ignore obnoxious posters or those who make ridiculous claims. If they aren’t someone who I would have any desire to interact with in real life, why would I do so on a forum when I don’t have to? I figure that they’ll score points with those of their own ilk, and others will view them much as I do–whether or not anyone replies to them.</p>
<p>The politeness rule as espoused by some, is that a person is allowed to lie, but no one is allowed to say thats a lie. This of course is a perfect rule for the forces of darkness; they can spread evil with no consequences to themselves. </p>
<p>I worry about a society that allows demagoguery in the name of politeness.</p>
<p>I also do not find TheDad or ANY person here with passionately-held ideals offensive. And frankly, I do find the op just a wee bit of a ‘setup’. ;)</p>
<p>Look, when a person with strong ideas strongly expressed crosses paths when another with equally strong ideas strongly expressed, invariably you get a passionate, interesting, enlightening argument. But, disagreeing with someone is NOT disrespect. Too often, here on CC, I see the two confused. What is disrespectful is denying someone their opinion…and playing backchannel victim, claiming abuse where none exists, or deliberately and inappropriately parsing words just to punish a person who dared disagree is an attempt to strip that person of their right to an opinion… and that IS the ultimate disrespect.</p>
<p>“or deliberately and inappropriately parsing words just to punish a person who dared disagree is an attempt to strip that person of their right to an opinion… and that IS the ultimate disrespect.”</p>
<p>That is very disrespectful, as is the habit of attributing to a poster words that were neither typed or intended. I see that habit much less now than I did when I first started posting here, which I think is a great improvement.</p>
<p>ldmom06, I don’t think that anyone here has a problem with differing ideas. I certainly don’t. I do object to vulgar, abusive comments or those which put words in another poster’s mouth.</p>
<p>Tommybill - well put. I had elected to take the OP at face value, but seeing as how we’re talking turkey now I will note that there is a contingent here who are apparently not used to having their comfortable world view challenged, and who accuse anyone of contesting their flawed factual assumptions of being “mean.” Those of us on the moderate left have gotten used to being vilified and our views misrepresented, while slickly packaged “big lies” are casually repeated as truth. I have observed the very name of the honorable social philosophy of “liberalism” converted into an epithet - a vile demagogical triumph of the most cynical type - who amongst the “politeness” contingent here has protested that?</p>
<p>I honestly have felt many times that we have some posters who are so used to being agreed with by their like-minded friends that they sincerely view the expression of a contrary opinion as being rude and disrespectful. Those folks literally have no idea what it means to be vilified for your opinions, or be subjected to underhanded and unfair tactics.</p>
<p>P.S. The only actual graphic sexual reference I have seen here on CC was a post obsessing about the last President to preside over a national budget surplus, a man whose primary actual offense, as far as I can tell, was a failure to be a Republican. And no, it wasn’t an analogy.</p>
<p>There are people who have very different perspectives from mine who I enjoy interacting with because they aren’t just trying to score points and aren’t angry and hateful. That doesn’t mean that they don’t communicate forcefully, but they can do so without vitriol and attempts to twist others’ words and opinions. </p>
<p>I’ve often suspected that some posters spend so much time on CC because few people in their real lives want to interact with them.</p>
<p>“I honestly have felt many times that we have some posters who are so used to being agreed with by their like-minded friends that they sincerely view the expression of a contrary opinion as being rude and disrespectful. Those folks literally have no idea what it means to be vilified for your opinions, or be subjected to underhanded and unfair tactics.”</p>
<p>Well this couldn’t apply to me, being a conservative in NYC. You haven’t been vilified till you’ve been outed as a conservative during the counter-demonstrations at the last republican national convention. Personally, I find that it’s not only the political threads that can get out of hand. The thread I repeatedly refer to as containing the post that I reported wasn’t political.
And you know what Kluge? I’ve found that you’ve mellowed a lot in your posting since I’ve been here and as a result, I actually read your posts and learn from them because you have a remarkable style and wit when you so choose.</p>
<p>Boy, I wish I were surrounded by “like-minded” friends! Living in the bluest state in the Union, that’s just not possible. Actually, I’ve never lived in a red-state – might be interesting.</p>
<p>“Boy, I wish I were surrounded by “like-minded” friends! Living in the bluest state in the Union, that’s just not possible. Actually, I’ve never lived in a red-state – might be interesting.”</p>
<p>Same here. Hubby swears that if I lived in red state America, I’d be a raving liberal because I’m so contrary!</p>
<p>Ha! I’m confused about the blue-state/red-state thing…lol! Call me a political ninny, but I have to ask…do they switch 'em around or something? I distinctly remember Texas being a blue state at one point.</p>
<p>As far as twisting of words, I’m afraid that is a universal thing with perpetrators and victims lying on both sides of the aisle. But, I refuse to take issue with vulgarity as a literary tool. If I don’t like what you are tellin’ me, it won’t be because you gussied it up in a little scatological dress. It will be because I disagree with your point.</p>
<p>I think one needs a bit of thick skin to come to this playground. If you’re going to sit and whine to the recess lady… should you be out there?</p>
<p>I have never come across outright profanity on this site. I have come across very strong disagreements and some comments from both extremes of a situation are mean spirited, but hey, it happens.</p>
<p>If everybody agreed, why bother with a forum? </p>
<p>I think if you’re going to complain about an opposite pov, you have to also be open to the fact that your pov might be worth complaining about too.</p>
<p>From Post 32 I’ve often suspected that some posters spend so much time on CC because few people in their real lives want to interact with them.</p>
<p>Please be nice to other posters.</p>
<p>I am also puzzled by the point theDad is trying to make. I think that all of us understand that each poster (myself included) represents solely their own opinions, as stated on the board rules. Ive also made it clear that I dont question the discretion of the mods: as helpfully pointed out by Roger, the mods cant pay attention to every particular post, however, if the post has indeed been reported, and yet has not been edited or deleted, then apparently the subject, the tone or the language of the post is compliant with the board rules and the last thing I want to do it to challenge this situation: their board their rules, and I respect that. (Actually, it is may be helpful to use the existing posts as standards for appropriateness for this board). Further, as I pointed out earlier, I have never reported a single post the mods precisely fort the reasons outlined above.</p>
<p>However, since theDads chosen to volunteer himself as a study case, Id like to use this example to clarify my position. Regardless of whats considered appropriate by the poster and/or the mods, when the opponents explicitly state that a certain expression makes them feel offended or uncomfortable, continued usage of the same expression only reinforces the assault. Those of us who work in a corporate environment are very familiar with the key concept of a sexual harassment no means no, meaning that any unwelcome sexually oriented conduct or verbal expressions, which has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive environment are strictly forbidden regardless of the original intent or the context. For example, I consider waiving genitals or using (someones) ass as a footstool a graphic expression, whereas theDad clearly doesnt, but I have no desire to explore what is indeed considered graphic by theDad, although his effort is much appreciated. </p>
<p>To sum up my points, the opinions of any particular poster, his respondents or the mods are always explicitly clear and, therefore, do not merit any discussion, thus I suggested to avoid mentioning any specific names or examples. BTW, I dont think that I have objected any vulgarity in any of my posts (as I said before, I am not a mod), I have just pointed it out. What I thought is interesting, is how the other, seemingly uninvolved posters side up in these exchanges and do their political affiliations affect their views.</p>
<p>tommybill, if you are concerned that the posters are allowed to lie, I am afraid that your complaint does not belong here, but rather has to be addressed with the mods. Obviously, it would be very difficult to enforce such claims as they are often very subjective. However, if the mods choose to designate you the board lie consultant, all posters would be obliged to comply with your opinion.</p>
<p>“What I thought is interesting, is how the other, seemingly uninvolved posters side up in these exchanges and do their political affiliations affect their views.”</p>
<hr>
<p>^This is an interesting statement. </p>
<p>btm are you asking if some of us have TheDad’s back because we agree with him politically? Sorry if I have it wrong, but I’m stickler for just spittin’ it out…and I’m not sure where you’re going.</p>
<p>If I have it right, I can only answer for myself. I am a registered Republican who voted for Bush, who still thinks Bush was better than Gore and that Bush will always be better than Gore. I think Bush has accomplished good things but I also do not approve of a lot of things he as done during his term. I don’t think it’s wrong to hold Bush accountable for those things…it does NOT make me a bad Republican to do so. </p>
<p>TheDad and I are almost NEVER on the same page on political issues, but he has right to his opinion and a right to voice that opinion strongly if he so chooses. What one person construes as ‘mean’ another brushes off as nothing. But it’s disingenuous to give as good as one gets and then cry foul when one has had enough.</p>