by von
Please keep in mind that a goal of ObWi is political diversity, even though the commenteriat may lean decidedly left of late. This is not an activist site for the Democratic party. (Nor is it, obviously, an activist site for Republicans.) Please also keep in mind that you need to stay away from personal invective in your comments, per the Posting Rules. You’ll be a more effective commentator by thinking about and responding on the merits to someone else’s post, rather than snarking by it, instantly dismissing it, or getting into pointless arguments about who is a "troll" or what is "trolling."
Finally, I’m about as loose as they come among the regulars (past or present) when it comes to personal invective and Posting Rules violations. I’ve never banned a commentator. When I shut down comments to a post, it’s probably because things are pretty out-of-whack. Cool down folks.
UPDATE: The first sentence originally read, "Please keep in mind that the goal of ObWi is political diversity." Katherine rightly points out that this is too strong, so I’ve corrected it.
Thanks for the housekeeping.
You’ll be a more effective commentator by thinking about and responding on the merits to someone else’s post, rather than snarking by it, instantly dismissing it, or getting into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is “trolling.”
I’d say that misses the entire point, or at least MO, of trolling.
I, for one, pledge to no longer get into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is “trolling.”
von is banned!
that should have been followed with a “;-)”
“When I shut down comments to a post, it’s probably because things are pretty out-of-whack.”
I’m more than a little unsure that the fairest response to everyone is to punish everyone by closing an entire thread to everyone, in response to a couple or more people, rather than dealing solely with the people responsible by, as per the stated policy, warning them, and then banning them as necessary.
I’m not aware of any provision in the posting rules that says that if three people, say, are trolling, everyone should be punished by closing a thread.
But, of course, it’s your blog, and yours to make up new, arbitrary, unwritten rules, as you like.
And I can’t say I’ll get weepy about that particular thread.
I’d say that misses the entire point, or at least MO, of trolling.
I say the following without regard to the comment stream that inspired this Housekeeping post (i.e., no one should read anything into this regarding my personal views):
The only thing less interesting than watching a troll at work is reading a dozen comments containing variations of: “You’re trolling.” “Am not.” “Now that’s trolling.” “Stop feeding the troll.” “Why are you feeding the troll?” “X is a notorious troll from troll.com.” “Y invented trolling before trolling was cool, and I hear she got banned from trolling at notroll.com.” Etc. Really, people. Just converse. If you don’t want to converse with a particular poster because you can’t stand them at the moment/on this subject/ever, don’t respond at that moment/on that subject/ever.
Thanks, von.
I’m not aware of any provision in the posting rules that says that if three people, say, are trolling, everyone should be punished by closing a thread.
But, of course, it’s your blog, and yours to make up new, arbitrary, unwritten rules, as you like.
Given that the conversation was going nowhere fast, and I’d rather not ban folks for making a stupid post in the heat of the moment (the only realistic alternative), I thought shutting down comments was the best route to go.
I’d rather not ban folks for making a stupid post in the heat of the moment (the only realistic alternative)
I’m going to suggest this again, even though nobody’s listened the last five times I’ve suggested it (going back years now): disemvowellment. It’s less punitive than banning, and it has the advantage that if you decide to, you can restore the vowels later.
Wow. A few completely self-serving front page posts about the war, with commentary that – all things considered – pretty politely points out just how revisionist and self-serving the posts are, and suddenly along comes a troll.
A faily well-known troll, whose minor cliam to fame is that he managed to get himself banned from one of the most free-form of the political blogs.
A very RW, dishonest, malicious, wholly-without-redeeming-value troll.
A troll who wastes no time reducing the level of commentary on ObWi with defamatory irrelevancies.
Why, it’s enough to get von to actually shut down the comments!… which he does, but without actually banning the troll or, indeed, without actually calling the troll a troll.
Instead, von resorts to one of those false “both-sides-are-to-blame” cop-out, and tells everyone except the freaking troll to behave themselves.
Because we certainly don’t know a troll when we see one.
And, lo, the first person to thank von for telling us to behave ourselves is…. the troll!
von, my hat’s off to you. Seldom have I seen a more dishonest double-reverse responsibility-evading fakement.
Just converse. If you don’t want to converse with a particular poster because you can’t stand them at the moment/on this subject/ever, don’t respond at that moment/on that subject/ever.
wonderful advice.
anybody know if DNFTT has ever worked, in the history of the internet?
anybody know if DNFTT has ever worked, in the history of the internet?
Pfff… no. I know of one troll who’s been infesting the same newsgroup for at least 15 years now. No matter how often people say “DNFTT”, people still respond.
Wow. A few completely self-serving front page posts about the war, with commentary that – all things considered – pretty politely points out just how revisionist and self-serving the posts are, and suddenly along comes a troll.
Casey, have you ever read a post on any blog from any poster that was not self serving? Anyone stand up and say: “I have decided that I will not disavow my opinions about X but will continue to hold to them as correct. Now, let me tell you why I’m an idiot who should be ridiculed ….” I mean, really: When Publius writes that Drum is wrong and he is right, it’s a self serving post. When Hilzoy writes about what a stupid thing Trevino wrote, it’s a self serving post. When Andrew writes about how foolish X is and how folks should change their ways to Y — which happens to be his way — it’s a self-serving post. They’re all self-serving posts. That’s the point of a blog. Indeed, that’s the point of communication.
And, lo, the first person to thank von for telling us to behave ourselves is…. the troll!
And here we go again.
Hi, Casey : )
disemvowellment
…. takes a very long time to do right. Time’s at a premium, I’m afraid.
Hi, Casey : )
Is it just me, or did that seem mocking and provocative?
dpu. get used to it.
…. takes a very long time to do right. Time’s at a premium, I’m afraid.
No. It doesn’t. It’s trivial to do programmatically; I know there’s a plugin for Movable Type that will do it, and while I’m not certain that the same thing exists for Typepad, it’s worth looking into. Worse comes to worst, you can always use this page to copy and paste.
Is it just me, or did that seem mocking and provocative?
The only way to determine whether it is would be to have all of us post on it, taking opposite sides and using increasingly-accusatory rhetoric.
On another subject, I’m looking forward to an all-Midwest Superbowl: Colts v. Bears.
It’s trivial to do programmatically; I know there’s a plugin for Movable Type that will do it, and while I’m not certain that the same thing exists for Typepad, it’s worth looking into.
Perhaps to programmers (or those with any competence whatsoever in programming, a group that does not include me) ….
As I said, von, I pledge to not get into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is or is not “trolling.”
I recently did a poll on my sekrit livejournal account asking “What is the most-needed new font convention?” The “sarcasm font” won in a landslide. All we have to do is agree on a convention and World Peace™ will be ours!
may lean decidedly left of late
May?!? LOL.
I have, BTW, tried to encourage some right of center types I interact with elsewhere to participate here. Alas, they seem to prefer the echo chamber to having to defend their opinions on a blog like this.
On another subject, I’m looking forward to an all-Midwest Superbowl: Colts v. Bears.
Saints v. Colts would be better (especially cause Manning grew up in Nawlins’ and his father is still a hero there).
Perhaps to programmers (or those with any competence whatsoever in programming, a group that does not include me) ….
There are plenty of programmers who read this site. I’m sure there are one or two who’d be more than happy to help as a public service. Or, like I said, you can use the webpage I linked to, which will do it for you. Then it’s just a matter of copying the offending comment, running it through the webpage, and then pasting the output in place of the original comment.
“anybody know if DNFTT has ever worked, in the history of the internet?”
Yes. It always worked very well on rec.arts.sf.fandom, and reasonably well on rec.arts.sf.written, during the Nineties, as well as to some extent on a handful of other newsgroups I followed.
This is largely self-selection, though; if a newsgroup didn’t have a majority of participants with a strong sense of community, and their responsibility for maintaining the community and its norms, it wouldn’t be able to generally withstand the disruptive effect of trolls, and it wasn’t a newsgroup that I would be hanging around in.
I certainly grant that such newsgroups were the exception amongst Usenet newsgroups, but, then, there was almost a practically infinite set of newsgroups, particularly if one includes the alt hierarchy, by the mid-Nineties.
However, in an unmoderated piece of the internet, DNFTT is the only effective way to deal with a troll; I believe it’s still a key part, along with with that “everyone takes some responsibility for maintaining the community and its customs, according to local custom” behavior, of minimizing trolling, and its effects, even in places where moderation and banning are possible and practiced. (Particularly when moderation isn’t rigorous, consistent, and quick.)
“Casey, have you ever read a post on any blog from any poster that was not self serving?”
Good lord, yes. Mostly I try to avoid blogs that go heavily into self-serving.
“They’re all self-serving posts. That’s the point of a blog. Indeed, that’s the point of communication.”
Disagree. Strongly. Endless numbers of posts are simply informative, and/or simply consist of posts with links to informative articles.
I will happily link to as many posts as is reasonable to ask for, that consist solely of linking to non-self-serving information, to demonstrate that your claim is factually, provably, wrong. How many will it take?
How self-serving is, say, Engadget, or The Lede, or Blogometer, or Cute Overload?
Here is a post on my front page about James Brown: how is it self-serving? Here on Jews and Christmas: same question. Here on geeky animals: same question. Here on tv during WWII: same question. Okay, that’s three posts in a row, and I can keep going for, you know, thousands, asking the question.
(And do please remember that you asked for any post, ever — it only takes a single post, anywhere, to falsify your assertion.)
“Indeed, that’s the point of communication.”
So if I ask a volunteer guide at a museum where the bathroom is, their point in responding to me is to be self-serving? If people are searching in a forest for a lost person, and they’re shouting “Helllloooooo!,” their purpose is to be self-serving? If I ask a police officer if she knows the time, her purpose in responding is to be self-serving? That’s the only type of communication that exists?
I have, BTW, tried to encourage some right of center types I interact with elsewhere to participate here. Alas, they seem to prefer the echo chamber to having to defend their opinions on a blog like this.
Any speculation as to why this is the case? This is generally a moderate-tone place, today’s embarrassing exception aside. Is it because there’s a swarm effect, and too many liberal/left-wing commenters already?
Thinking about politics can be hard work. You have to think carefully and critically. Every single substantive post in the now-locked thread by Charlie had the effect (perhaps not the intention; I’m not a mind-reader) of making critical thought more difficult.
He defended the claim that the threat from Saddam could come in the form of a “mushroom cloud” by saying that conventional weapons and, yes, volcanoes can produce mushroom-cloud-shaped residue. This idea is utterly ludicrous. The result of reading it and trying to take it seriously is to push discussion backwards rather than forwards. There are two options here. Either (1) Charlie did not know the effect this claim would have, in which case his mental abilities should be questioned; or (2) he did know, in which case his interest in promoting intelligent discussion should be questioned.
Similar clouding (pun, sorry) of the issues occurred with respect to the question of WMD. “WMD” is already a term that makes careful thinking more difficult (as opposed to speaking clearly about the different effects of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons). Charlie took this one step further and started calling even conventional weapons and airplanes “WMDs” in the sense that they can cause destruction on a wide scale. This, again, is extremely unhelpful to anyone trying to think carefully. It introduces irrelevancies. It completely derails attempts to discuss whether or not Saddam possessed WMDs in the relevant sense. Once again, Charlie either knows that this type of rhetorical move makes rational thought and communication more difficult, or he doesn’t know that. Either way, his presence is bad news for the rest of us.
I don’t know whether he should be called a “troll” or a “bullshitter” (in the technical sense) or what. Whatever you call it, none of it is a useful contribution to debate. This type of obfuscation of issues should incur some sort of penalty. At least 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct and a bench warning.
jmho.
“…. takes a very long time to do right.”
Huh? It takes maybe five seconds to cut and paste into a program/web page. Do you think people do it by hand?
“Prhps t prgrmmrs (r ths wth n cmptnc whtsvr n prgrmmng, grp tht ds nt ncld m) ….”
You can’t cut and paste? What sort of programming skill do you think is necessary to do that?
This is generally a moderate-tone place
That opinion is wholly in the eye of the beholder, dpu.
Yes. It always worked very well on rec.arts.sf.fandom, and reasonably well on rec.arts.sf.written, during the Nineties, as well as to some extent on a handful of other newsgroups I followed.
while i was typing my comment, i knew you were going to reply with an example; but i couldn’t decide if you were going to answer with a newsgroup or with a BBS. 🙂
However, in an unmoderated piece of the internet, DNFTT is the only effective way to deal with a troll
i’ve never seen it work in places with any kind of traffic, it only seems to work where the community is basically static, and out of the way. otherwise, new people show up to participate legitimately, but end up FTT when one stops by … and flame leaps forth.
What sort of programming skill do you think is necessary to do that?
Well, personally I’d like a GreaseMonkey script that allows me to keep both an ignore list and a disenvowelment list, but still display the comment page as-is.
Is this too much to ask? 🙂
In other news, Sen Chris Dodd introduced legislation today making it illegal for Charlie to post comments on blogs without the explicit approval of the FISA court.
Developing.
That opinion is wholly in the eye of the beholder, dpu.
But this beholder eye visits a lot of blogs. I find it extremely moderate in comparison to most of the mosh-pits out there.
If it’s in fact a rowdy joint, I’d really like to visit others that you consider more moderate.
Actually, Kent, I didn’t defend that claim but was instead showing that it only takes a single other cause for mushroom clouds, anywhere, to falsify the assertion made on that thread.
Very funny, Davebo.
P.S. cleek — thanks for telling me about this place ; )
Seriously, this is what we’re left with at ObWi these days? For the sake of balance, I’ll play the right winger, and promise to keep it substantive. But this is just illustrating the fact that it takes much longer to clean a bag of trash off of the interstate than it does to dump it out the window in the first place.
Actually, Kent, I didn’t defend that claim but was instead showing that it only takes a single other cause for mushroom clouds, anywhere, to falsify the assertion made on that thread.
I can make little mushroom clouds in my kitchen with flour and a ball bearing. This, in turn, falsifies your counter-assertion.
For the sake of balance, I’ll play the right winger, and promise to keep it substantive.
No offense, Pooh, but I think I’d make a great right-winger. Better, even.
So, linking to the New York Times and quoting from the U.S. Constitution is not considered “substantive” enough around these parts?
“but I think I’d make a great right-winger”
But how’s your slap shot, eh?
My counter-assertion was that there are other causes for mushroom clouds than nukes — how exactly is pointing out even MORE causes falsifying mime?
Seriously, this is what we’re left with at ObWi these days?
What is the antecedent to ‘this,’ Pooh?
dpu,
My observation was more regarding the political slant of the commentariat than the general degree of mayhem in threads. Today’s right and left begin from such different paradigms, effective communication can be daunting at best.
mime = mine
“but I think I’d make a great right-winger”
But how’s your slap shot, eh?
I was thinking this kind actually. Dip of the shoulder and off I go…
I don’t know if it’s bad manners to get into this, but I do think it’s worth saying that this —
— is almost as complete a fairy tale as the original WMD claims. Moreover, it’s a fairy tale that was born and promulgated in exactly the same way as the WMD claims. Anyone who believes it has really, really, really, really not learned anything from the past four years.
What is the antecedent to ‘this,’ Pooh?
Who knows, something just seems…different today, and I can’t quite put my finger on it.
So, Jon (S), the report ordered by the UN and criticized by Blix as incomplete was NOT prepared by Iraq?
“otherwise, new people show up to participate legitimately, but end up FTT when one stops by … and flame leaps forth.”
Sure, it’s an imperfect process, and it doesn’t work instaneously, and no, it won’t work in a place where hundreds of new people are coming along every day, but that isn’t the case here (and if this should ever get to that point, I, for one, would be outa here, for just that reason).
It can take, by itself, upwards of a week, or maybe even a bit more, sometimes, to be effective. But usually it only takes a couple of days, or even just an hour or so. And that’s without being able to use the tool of banning IP addresses, although use of killfiles is helpful (but self-discipline will do the same job, if you have it).
It’s entirely simple: the purpose of trolling is attention. Deprived of attention, trolls, always go elsewhere. And if they didn’t, but no one replied to them, it doesn’t matter.
I didn’t follow the logic Von used in his post, incidentally:
It seems to me that shutting down comments is a vastly stronger, un-“loose,” way of dealing with a couple of trolls, than simply banning them. By definition, if you shut down comments on a thread, you are affecting every single person who reads the blog who might want to comment. You are punishing dozens, perhaps hundreds, perhaps more, people.
If you ban someone, you are affecting one person.
Basically, to equal the unloose effect of shutting down comments, you’d have to have banned several hundred people. So how shutting down comments demonstrates a happier-go-lucky approach than banning individuals after a warning (especially when there’s no announced policy about that sort of thing, so it doesn’t only affect everyone who might have commented, but does so arbitrarily), I have no idea.
That it’s a lot easier to do when you only want — or have — a minute to spend on the blog in question’s troll problem, I do understand. But that’s a different explanation.
My observation was more regarding the political slant of the commentariat than the general degree of mayhem in threads.
Ah, sorry, mistook the usage of “moderate.” I meant that discussion and debate are more likely to break out here than at most places, and that it was therefore a more likely place to present one’s views, whether dissenting from the mean or not.
Hey I’m a right wing troll at AngryBear, fun! 🙂
To avoid the charge of “no substance” (in case you really don’t know who Hans Blix was):
During the Iraq disarmament crisis before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Blix was called back from retirement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to lead United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in charge of monitoring Iraq. Kofi Annan originally recommended Rolf Ekéus, who worked with UNSCOM in the past, but both Russia and France vetoed his appointment. Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for “cat and mouse” games and warned Iraq of “serious consequences” if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission
In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003, Blix claimed that “If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament — under resolution 687 — could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix
JonS: …is almost as complete a fairy tale as the original WMD claims.
I disagree. Hussein did block investigators a great deal, and while it’s unlikely that he was trying to fool the world into thinking he had WMDs of some kind, it’s quite feasible that he wanted the Iranians to at least consider the possibility.
Sorry, Gary, but I pledged above to not get into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is or is not “trolling.”
Andrew: “My observation was more regarding the political slant of the commentariat than the general degree of mayhem in threads.”
Uh, hang on: you responded:
D-p-u made a statement about the tone here; you asserted that that was subjective. In response to his request that you name a blog with a more moderate tone, you say that you were referring to “political slant”; I’m sorry, but tone and political slant are two entirely different things; I suspect you may agree, upon consideration. No?
dpu,
No apology necessary. I probably should have used a more precise term.
But while it is true that more reasonable debate seems to be the norm here, the opinions rarely if ever change, so ultimately I can understand why some might choose not to bother. Being dismissed politely is to be preferred to being shouted down, but the end result is much the same.
“Hey I’m a right wing troll at AngryBear, fun! :)”
Note to all: do not taunt happy fun right wing troll Sebastian.
But while it is true that more reasonable debate seems to be the norm here, the opinions rarely if ever change, so ultimately I can understand why some might choose not to bother. Being dismissed politely is to be preferred to being shouted down, but the end result is much the same.
That’s a pretty bleak view of things. I find that I generally become better informed about issues when they are discussed here, and even have my opinions dinged somewhat. I also find that I gain insight into the mindset of those with differing opinions than my own, which is always valuable.
If simply changing people’s minds was the goal, I’d spend a lot more time just watching the Flintstones or House, and much less time on these internets.
Andrew,
In your experience, how long does it take for opinions to change? In mine, it’s a slow accretion of experience, unless it is some sudden absolute shock to the system, like grabbing a hot kettle or nearly getting run over by a car, experiences that are not on offer here. You seem to be taking a universal human feature and making it a failing of ObWi.
I’m a bleak guy. Didn’t you know? To throw back to von’s earlier thread, I’m the dark one fondling his weapon in the corner.
Or am I the hooker with a heart of gold? I can never remember.
In mine, it’s a slow accretion of experience, unless it is some sudden absolute shock to the system, like grabbing a hot kettle or nearly getting run over by a car,…
Slightly OT: Yesterday, while cutting up chicken, I sliced a finger. This morning, while chopping garlic, I put the knife-blade neatly into the same cut.
On the plus side, the son got hit by a car a few weeks ago. While mostly recovered now, he says he’ll henceforth avoid getting hit by cars because it stings.
The moral is that he should be commenting here, and not I. 🙂
d-p-u and Gary:
For the record, in the locked thread, I did try to first simply inform those posters that there were other causes for mushroom clouds besides nukes. I didn’t, right off the bat, post some exhaustive list and schematics. I still have yet to see anyone point out ONE single post of mine worthy of having me banned.
It’s worth noting that a dedicated troll isn’t half so destructive without an audience on the other side willing to set aside decency and restraint in the pursuit of him. The fact that a lot of us find Charlie a troll isn’t license for others to piddle all over the rest of the thread, I don’t think, and were it me, I’d ban “anti-trolls” as fast as trolls. The “but I’m right so I can do whatever I want” arguent is as damaging and repulsive in weblog comments as it is as presidential policy.
double-plus-ungood:
Yes. But the motivation was fear for his own safety, not some kind of bluff. The Iraqi regime believed (accurately) that UNSCOM was infiltrated by US spies trying to gather information on his whereabouts and security personnel.
This is covered in the Duelfer report:
Interestingly, the incident at the Baath party building in 1998 was one of things cited by Clinton as a justification for Desert Fox.
Note also that in the buildup to war in 2003, the case was constantly made that Iraq was obviously hiding something — but there was no mention that it might be something other than WMD. Even though the US spying had been thoroughly reported years before, it somehow dropped out of history.
So, Jon (S), you are retracting your assertion that “the evidence for and against WMDs was at best muddled, in part intentionally by Hussein” is almost as complete a fairy tale as the original WMD claims?
lj,
While I was applying it to ObWi, I hardly see it as a failure unique to ObWi. I was simply offering a hypothesis regarding dpu’s question.
Sorry, Bruce, but I pledged above to not get into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is or is not “trolling.”
BTW, d-p-u, saddened about your injuries — as you said, it could have been worse — glad to hear you and your son are doing well though.
Understood, Andrew, but I liked your 6:03 response better. ;^)
Anyway, I’m headed out the door right now, but will try and have a bleed off thread on TiO as soon as I can.
dpu: Any speculation as to why this is the case?, may take several responses on my part to clarify. Some of it though is because I am in the minority – once I comment I may feel obliged to respond to the others who disagree with me, and often that can be a lot of people and a lot of responses.
Speculation on my part, but I would say that they are just the kind of people who prefer spending their online time with those of similar views. There is debate and disagreement, but it is usually just a matter of degree, of fine points. This is not to tar any broad group, I’m just thinking of a couple of commenters whom I encouraged to join the fracas here. They just had no interest in it, and I get the feeling they wouldn’t even if it was a 50/50 split here.
Andrew: effective communication can be daunting at best
the opinions rarely if ever change, so ultimately I can understand why some might choose not to bother
Good points. To expand on that, I’ll just say that it is a lot of work to comment here. Some of that is the communication aspect. A lot of it is that I really try to avoid doing a drive-by.
What I mean by that:
If I see something interesting on a RW blog, I feel free to pop in and spend 5 minutes on a comment and be off for the day. It is not going to be very far out of line with the opinion of 90% of the others who may read it. Even if I have only a few minutes I can do that and not think twice about it.
I can’t do that here. One time in particular I did, inadvertently. I posted a comment early in the day, then a crisis broke out and I never made it back around that day. Later I discovered that there was a pile-on and back and forth that I was not there to respond to and the entire thread was pretty much queered.
So now when I want to comment, I resist unless I know I have the time that day to be able to follow up – I try hard not to do any drive-by’s. (Now that only goes so far – some of the regulars here seem to comment right around the clock. If you don’t see a response from me after say 10PM it’s because I am done for the night.)
Some of that is just communication. My opinions, being so alien to many here
So to me anyway – participating here represents a time investment, if nothing else.
I do know how you feel there. Before the war, I was one of the few vocal liberals on a forum with a lot of vocal conservatives, and would get into these arguments with four or five people all arguing at once. It’s exhausting, particularly when you have the sense that if you don’t answer someone’s argument, no one else will, and then you’ve conceded that it’s correct by remaining silent.
It’s hard being outnumbered.
It’s hard being outnumbered.
That’s why God invented automatic weapons.
What’s amazing is that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall this fracas has emerged from the desperate attempts of the right wing — in a meme that has spread faster than herpes at spring break — to not admit they were wrong about things that they were, well wrong about. Really, really sad, when you think about it.
Actually, based on what Drum is saying, this one comes from hawks on the left.
That’s why God invented automatic weapons.
Oh man – that made my day 🙂
Actually, based on what Drum is saying, this one comes from hawks on the left.
i first encountered it at Jane Galt… assuming we’re all talking about the same fracas-meme.
So to me anyway – participating here represents a time investment, if nothing else.
Thanks, that was informative, and appreciated. There are one or two right-wingish blogs where I am among the minority opinion, so I can appreciate the difficulties.
Andrew: Actually, based on what Drum is saying, this one comes from hawks on the left.
Yeah, but look at who’s taking it up and running with it here: one of the hawks on the right. (Though I haven’t checked the batting table. Possibly Von bats center. I don’t understand baseball, except where it’s just like rounders.)
Also, I haven’t noticed any hawks on the right standing up and saying “Yeah, we were wrong – Bush lied, and we should have realised sooner he was lying”.
Do hawks stand up? Don’t they take flight? Someone gave me a book for my birthday which includes answers to useful questions like why don’t penguins freeze their feet, and why don’t birds fall off trees when they go to sleep.
(i first encountered it at Jane Galt…)
yes, i suppose she was responding to libhawks. but she took it to a level all her own.
It has probably come from various sources. As I noted at my own place, anyone who supported the war has good reason to argue that their opinion should not be completely set aside in future discussion. This particular argument, on the other hand, seems about as useful as the attempts by those who were right to elicit endless mea culpas from those who were wrong.
Also, I haven’t noticed any hawks on the right standing up and saying “Yeah, we were wrong – Bush lied, and we should have realised sooner he was lying”.
How many hawk blogs do you read? As I mentioned in another thread, there have been some impressive mea culpas.
More, actually, than I noted from the liberal/left front over the Rather memo fiasco. Then again, less died in that one.
To me, much of the fun of a discussion is just the back and forth swordplay of ideas. I don’t think that any one hhas to chhange their mmind inn order for the converaatio to be productive. The fun of thhe sword play makes it productive, plus one gains knowledge of other views.
About the people-who-were-wrong-on-the-war: I don’t mind thhem beinng held up as opinion leaders if they realize thhat thheyy weere wronng. It does piss me off when the ones that are STILL wrong get presented in thhe media as worthy of our attention.
Maybe not endless mea culpas, but when someone who got important things spectacularly wrong comes around with suggestions, it’s not really unfair to ask ‘well, why should I follow your advice?’ To which a perfectly fine answer is ‘here are the three things that show that my current position is sound: [explains and supports on the merits].’ On the other hand ‘you’re a whiner, I wasn’t wrong at all’ isn’t an answer that’s going to persuade anyone of anything.
The right to have an opinion isn’t cast aside. Judgment is called into question. Indeed, when any of us makes a mistake, we’d be wise to call our own judgment into question.
my take is that Chait started it with a couple of columns in the Sunday LA Times which were pretty dismissive of those who opposed the war before it started.
but as best i can tell Chait is a charter member of the Beltway punditry, and is very concerned about the ability of bloggers to pull up old columns in just a few seconds and compare then to now.
This particular argument, on the other hand, seems about as useful as the attempts by those who were right to elicit endless mea culpas from those who were wrong.
i think some of it comes from the fact that the big name pundits and bloggers who got it all wrong have never had to pay any kind of price, while the people who got it all right are still missing from mainstream punditry. this is Atrios’ “dirty fncking hippy” complaint. big-name pundits like Krauthammer, Kristol, Klein, Goldberg, Broder, Freidman, etc. – they’re all still doing fine; apparently none of their management has stopped to think “hey, these guys are never right about anything… why not give someone who was right, one of those people we’d call ‘anti-war’, a chance ?”
and then you guys start telling us ‘oh, you were only right by accident,’ or ‘you weren’t specific enough,’ or ‘i don’t remember hearing anyone say anything about X,Y or Z’ – well, it pisses people off.
“I’d ban “anti-trolls” as fast as trolls. The “but I’m right so I can do whatever I want” arguent is as damaging and repulsive in weblog comments as it is as presidential policy.”
I’m of two minds on this, but when I’m thinking with the one that agrees, I still can’t help but notice that merely by commenting openly about it, you are joining the anti-anti-troll party. This comment, of course, is anti cubed troll.
My own feeling about the Obi Wi ideal of polite debate is that it’s not really workable with some issues–that’s why Obi Wi is so heavily dominated by one faction. Happily, in my view, the left. And even the conservative regulars here all agree that torture is bad and that Bush’s war in Iraq has been a disaster. How friendly would we be if there were torture-defenders present?
(Perhaps there are.) Or, to take a different example, imagine how, um, interesting the I/P debates would be (which aren’t exactly calm anyway) if people defending the Palestinian viewpoint also defended suicide bombing as at legitimate tactic (as I have seen a tiny handful of leftists do).
It’s probably unrealistic to think that you can have a nice friendly debate about fundamental moral issues. Think of how the slavery debate turned out in the US–it might have been resolved peacefully, but only if the wrong side had been badly outnumbered. In fact, if you put too big an emphasis on civility what happens is that extremists who think slavery or torture (or in this case, preventive war) is vile and inexcusable are pressured by their more “civil” peers to moderate their opinions, or shut up altogether. Which, IMO, is what happens in mainstream political debate.
double-plus-ungood:
He wasn’t talking about Rathergate, but:
Dick Cheney, May 30, 2005:
Not really the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe the black hole which from which no light can escape calling the kettle black?
Not to toot my own horn, but I did write a rather detailed explanation of how I came to change my position on the war.
If I can defend Truman dropping two nukes killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS, I can defend torture of one terrorist.
Jon (S):
Are you retracting your assertion that “the evidence for and against WMDs was at best muddled, in part intentionally by Hussein” is almost as complete a fairy tale as the original WMD claims?
If I can defend Truman dropping two nukes killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS, I can defend torture of one terrorist.
By the same logic, one could defend the torturing to death of two terrorists. Or the children of terrorists, if need be. Or hundreds.
The comments didn’t really seem that whacky.
Anyway, it really was black and white though there is lots of history re-writing underway trying to show otherwise. The UN could -not- find any weapons even though we claimed we were telling them where the weapons were located. The president was already a clear idiot and liar. Why tell stories now? You either thought – somehow – that there was magic the idiot-and-chief knew and you didn’t and the UN didn’t, etc. etc., or you thought that invading another country without good reason made no sense. That still looks pretty black and white. It still seems a pretty good test for judgement.
Don N.
I can defend torture of one terrorist.
Now you’ve done it. ‘Night all. Time to find a book to read I think.
That still looks pretty black and white. It still seems a pretty good test for judgement.
Just a guess, but I suspect this is a large factor in the continuing argument and the reluctance of many hawks to concede error.
OCSteve, I want to say explicitly that I appreciate your being willing to put the attention into follow-ups. I do notice it, and it does matter to me. Thanks.
Well, if I had to torture one terrorist to save a nuke from exploding over Los Angeles, I would do that.
When that situation comes up, Jack Bauer, you let us know. Until then, let the grownups talk and you go play with your Gameboy.
I thought your side was all up in arms because Bush did nothing in response to the PDB about terrorists flying planes into buildings? If he would have done what it would have taken to prevent 9/11, you and the ACLU would have been all over him in Court. But, yeah, Phil, I will leave you to your “Housekeeping” thread instead.
As I noted at my own place, anyone who supported the war has good reason to argue that their opinion should not be completely set aside in future discussion.
Well, except that you (judging by the rather good essay at your place) didn’t figure out in time that Bush was lying the US into war. (Indeed, last time I recall discussing it with you, you still hadn’t accepted that Bush and his administration lied the US into war with false claims about WMD.) So, while your opinions should not be thrown aside with great force, they can be set aside because they are based on your undue credulity, and your unwillingness to acknowledge that you were lied to, and believed the lies.
What’s “my side,” Kreskin?
And if all it would have taken to prevent 9/11 is the torture of a single individual, I’ll eat your dirty underwear.
(Indeed, last time I recall discussing it with you, you still hadn’t accepted that Bush and his administration lied the US into war with false claims about WMD.)
Without wanting to nitpick too much, I can certainly see the possibility that lies were not involved. I think of it as incompetence and eagerness rather than a cunning plan.
And if all it would have taken to prevent 9/11 is the torture of a single individual, I’ll eat your dirty underwear.
I think the better question would be whether Charlie would torture an innocent three year-old child to death if it would prevent 9/11, or a discover the whereabouts of a terror nuke in LA.
How about two of them? Ten?
I thought I was supposed to go play my Gameboy?
Nope, that’s your reward after you dazzle me by telling me what “my side” is.
d-p-u-g: Without wanting to nitpick too much, I can certainly see the possibility that lies were not involved.
I can’t. (With Bush, just possibly, if we allow that he was given speeches to read and had no idea that the information in them was known to be false, and if we further allow that the President of the United States is not responsible for the lies written for him by his staff for him to read aloud.)
If we presume that (for example) the Bush administration really believed the lie about the aluminium tubes, or the lie about the yellowcake uranium from Niger, then we presume that the Bush administration, having been handed information they liked, were too incompetent to check the information in any way, and therefore it wasn’t a lie when they repeated that information as if it were true – even though the fact that the information was false could be confirmed via Google from public websites. At that point we’re haggling between “they lied” and “they weren’t interested in the truth”.
But we know they lied when they claimed to know for sure there were stockpiled WMD in Iraq: we know they didn’t know for sure – and we know now that they didn’t bother to set up any taskforce to secure/destroy the stockpiled WMD they claimed they knew existed and were invading to secure/destroy.
Some lies aren’t cunning: they’re stupid. To lie the US into war with Iraq with bogus claims of WMD was stupid. But lies were told: no point claiming otherwise.
Or, more to the point, tell me who I voted for in:
1992
1996
2000
2004
…then we presume that the Bush administration, having been handed information they liked, were too incompetent to check the information in any way, and therefore it wasn’t a lie when they repeated that information as if it were true…
But my point is that I believe that they are that incompetent.
But we know they lied when they claimed to know for sure there were stockpiled WMD in Iraq: we know they didn’t know for sure…
My point is that it isn’t a lie if they believed it. I think they did, otherwise they would have picked a lie that could not be so easily proven to be a lie later.
But lies were told: no point claiming otherwise.
Other than the fact that I see no reason to believe that they were lying, that is. And I’m not sure why it’s important to believe that they were lying rather than incompetent. They’ve certainly proven that they were capable of staggering incompetence, and I never blame on malice etc.
DNFTT. Please.
> Other than the fact that I see no reason
> to believe that they were lying
Other than the fact I believe in the tooth fairy I don’t understand why you believe my parents put the money here, etc….
If somebody wants to claim red is black it is time to disengage. The real sad part is that the same people will make the same mistake again. That is the issue at the heart of the “not black and white” sort of comments. Hopefully, not in my lifetime again since it isn’t clear there will be an America worth caring about if this evil repeats.
Don N.
I don’t think we’ll be able to know if “they” were lying until we read the minutes of meetings and emails of this Administration. Which we may never read. But there certainly is enough circumstantial evidence, and there is the past behaviour of key players (on “Team B”), to suggest adeliberateness to their actions.
Oh, and they’re grossly incompetant too.
I don’t think we’ll be able to know if “they” were lying until we read the minutes of meetings and emails of this Administration.
Agreed. And, at the very least, they were untruthful in picking one reason to invade that they thought the best in order to win support and not being as forthcoming with the others.
dpug: But my point is that I believe that they are that incompetent
And my point is that while it’s certainly evidence of their incompetence, it’s a hairsplitting line between “I know this isn’t true” and “I don’t care if it’s true or false, and I’m certainly not going to check it out in case it turns out to be false”.
My point is that it isn’t a lie if they believed it. I think they did
And yet, they failed to behave as if they did.
otherwise they would have picked a lie that could not be so easily proven to be a lie later.
Or they could just be so arrogant that they would assume they could get away with lying the US into war. (So far, they seem to have been right.)
And I’m not sure why it’s important to believe that they were lying rather than incompetent.
It’s important to acknowledge that, as well as being staggeringly incompetent, they also lied. (It’s not an either/or. They were certainly incompetent, whether or not you prefer to believe they were honest.) It’s important because when they told lies to Congress and to the US public to push the US into war into Iraq, they committed a crime.
Probably most of them thought they were framing a guilty man. But they certainly did do the framing — ie, conscious lying — part. There really is no question about this.
Of course, you’re also correct that it doesn’t matter what the proportion was of self-deception to conscious deception of others. It’s not a defense of Saddam to say he honestly believed Kurds were subhumans scheming to destroy the great Arab Nation. (And I’m pretty sure he did believe this.)
PIMF.
dpug: And, at the very least, they were untruthful in picking one reason to invade that they thought the best in order to win support and not being as forthcoming with the others.
Fair enough. I think we’re on the same page. (No Foley jokes, please.)
Well, Phil, I know you were in the military but some of those people fragged their commanding officers, so that’s not a sure thing. The few Republicans you have voted for, you did so for very particular reasons; since coming to libertarianism, you have not voted for a single Republican, because of their “complete moral bankruptcy and their being in thrall to the Religious Right”. Does any of this sound familiar?
To get to the point, you voted for the LP candidates for President in both 2000 and 2004, and while you don’t regret the former, you greatly regret the latter. Only in hindsight, though — at the time, you genuinely felt Kerry hadn’t earned your vote.
For the record, you: A) are not homosexual, B) have not used and have never tried pot, C) had a vasectomy in 1995 and so you are completely unworried about abortion, D) have never owned a firearm, are almost militantly antismoking, and aren’t worried about Democrats banning your other hobbies (although Hillary pandering to the PTC crowd gets my dander up), and E) hate taxes but generally see them as a necessary evil and would rather fund SS and Medicare, and a sensible defense budget, than a lot of other things you could think of.
Unless that was a different “Phil” using your same email address?
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/06/libertarians_an.html#comment-18590008
Can I go play my Gameboy now?
A census taker once tried to test me, Phil. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Has anyone mentioned yet that there were, in fact, no WMDs in Iraq?
Actually, based on what Drum is saying, this one comes from hawks on the left.
Drum doesn’t exactly qualify as a hawk, does he?
As for the substantive issue, I can kind of understand his point. It’s true that a lot of people got Iraq right, but there were also commentators who made similar predictions about Gulf War #1, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, and those were inaccurate. I don’t think many people have trouble stomaching even very harsh criticisms of the war from people like Al Gore, who was also right about the other situations. But if an Iraq war opponent for whatever reason gives off a vibe that they would have guessed the same thing about every other conflict, then I can see why war supporters might resent them as stopped clocks right twice a day. Of course no one actually knows what Atrios’ or Sawicky’s positions on these other situations were so it may be unfair to make assumptions about them.
I think a better argument for a war opponent would be something like: As a matter of policy, when in doubt it’s always better to guess that a war will fail even if you’re only right a minority of the time, b/c the failures are so bad they’ll outweigh a lot of non-failures. I think that would be a fair argument that wouldn’t rankle nearly as much. It would also have the advantage of being the view that (I think) most war opponents actually believe in. But that isn’t the argument I’m hearing. Instead, I usually hear stuff like: Of course I could see that Iraq was going to be a s—storm on the ground, why couldn’t you? That’s a fair argument for Al Gore to make, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean too, and maybe even for you, but for others it’s not. I’m not saying it was impossible to distinguish Iraq from the other situations (the distinguishing factors are now pretty clear in retrospect) but I don’t think it was easy at the time. Al Gore’s a pretty smart guy.
Actually, based on what Drum is saying, this one comes from hawks on the left.
Drum doesn’t exactly qualify as a hawk, does he?
Out of curiosity, how does the second sentence follow from the first? Drum’s status as hawk or dove has zero relevance that I can see to where this particular dispute originated.
von: The only thing less interesting than watching a troll at work is reading a dozen comments containing variations of… *snip* …If you don’t want to converse with a particular poster because you can’t stand them at the moment/on this subject/ever, don’t respond at that moment/on that subject/ever.
That’s all well and good, but a) that’s just a more articulate version of DNFTT and b) that’s not what you said originally. What I took issue with was the following:
You’ll be a more effective commentator by thinking about and responding on the merits to someone else’s post…
To amplify on my admittedly cryptic comment above, this carries with it the implicit presumption that both commenters are debating in good faith. The point I was trying to make is that this is precisely what distinguishes a troll from a legitimate commenter: the good faith attempt to engage the other side in debate. If you respond to a troll by thinking about and responding to the merits of their post, you’ve already ceded them the most important ground by legitimizing their (by definition) illegitimate attempts at hijacking the conversation. The correct response to a troll is not “Well, that’s a nice point but here’s how I think you should look at it”, the correct response is FOAD, however politely expressed.
It’s remarkably similar IME to the peril of engaging lunatic views in debate. I’m talking anything from Young Earth Creationism to the theory that Bush secretly planned 9/11 or whatever the whacko view du jour may be. The problem is that as soon as you engage them in a good faith debate — or, arguably, at all — you’ve automatically legitimated their position in defiance of the fact that their positions are illegitimate on their face. This isn’t to say that one shouldn’t oppose such lunacies from becoming widespread, merely that the proper form of opposition doesn’t consist of pointing out where these people are wrong as one might a legitimate but incorrect theory (Copernican universe, phlogiston, whatever) but rather something of the point-and-laugh variety.
[This is why, for example, I paid no heed to the guy who stood outside our library a few years ago ranting that Bush had killed more people than Stalin ever had (?!). As long as he was impotent — as he clearly was — I didn’t want to legitimate his… well, his existence, to be frank, by acknowledging his lunacy. And in the interests of equal time, I did the same for the Palestinian advocacy group that was comparing Sharon to Hitler.]
To be a little snarkier than I intend, that kind of time-wasting might be worthwhile if you’re being billed by the hour, but those of us on salary — and crap salary at that — have better things to do with our lives.
One other minor point:
I say the following without regard to the comment stream that inspired this Housekeeping post…
With regard to that comment stream (and now this one), it’s one thing to say that a new commenter sans history is getting gang-tackled by the rabid lefty mob. [Sorry OCSteve 😉 ] It’s quite another when said commenter is (AFAICT) one of only two people Kevin Drum has ever banned — freakin’ Kevin Drum, who refused to ban one particular commenter even when literally dozens, if not hundreds, of people were begging him to — and who then proceeded to flout that ban under about five different pseudonyms while disrupting several hundred threads over the course of about two or three years. You’re obviously free to do what you like, but please be cognizant of what’s going on here.
ok then – charlie is a bot and actually Al
I don’t understand why people have to feed trolls. Is it the safety of arguing with someone who can’t come up with an idea that could challenge your perspective? Because you’re not going to actually convince them of anything, since a proper troll isn’t just someone with an ideology very different from yours, but someone who will say anything, whether or not they believe it, just to piss people off.
Please remember the immortal words of Seanbaby: Getting bothered (on Internet forums) is like reading “FUCK YOU” on a bathroom wall and saying, “Fuck ME!? H-how DARE they!!”
A census taker once tried to test me, Phil. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
If the unnamed not-a-troll knew how to read, he’d know that should be a “big Amarone,” not a “nice chianti.”
“the goal of ObWi is political diversity”
Hmm. It wasn’t mine. Not THE goal–and if one among several goals, not the one I’d put anywhere near first. So perhaps I was the saboteur who turned the site left, though I didn’t especially mean to do that, either.
I can’t believe I missed all the fun.
But I do tend to ignore the trolls as not worth the trouble, and dedicate my time to making my friends and allies miserable.
Well, at least allies.
So what is the goal of Obsidian Wings?
“So what is the goal of Obsidian Wings?”
Ammunition for kittens.
Did I scare Phil away?
I, too, missed all the “fun.” Sometimes it’s worthwhile spending all day at the clinic.
FWIW, Von, I think you screwed up. Twice. By not banning “Charlie” and by closing a thread which, without him, might actually have inspired some interesting discussion.
And a third time by this lame attempt at justifying your decision.
As others have said, it’s your blog. You can do with it what you want. But if this continues, you can do it without me.
I do not say this as any kind of threat, because I know my contribution to ObWi is minuscule compared to many others. You may in fact regard this as a plus, since when I do chime in I’m usually among those commentators “from the left” whose dominance seems to distress you.
And I don’t imagine I’ll forswear ObWi completely, or forever. It’ll just be among those “Favorites” of mine that are relegated to what I literally call the “B List” – and somehow never get around to reading.
And now, like the cat who ate cheese, I shall sit and wait to see what develops, with baited breath.
Charlie: “Well, Phil, I know you were…” and “To get to the point, you voted for…”
Phil may have told the internets all that stuff on some past occasion. It is, however, up to him if he wants to tell us all that stuff again. If you disclose anyone’s personal information again, you will be banned.
Moreover: the rules say that people who are here must do certain things. The Obwi hivemind, however, is the arbiter of the rules. If we decide that someone’s presence is entirely counterproductive, we can ban them anyways. Personally, I have never understood why someone would want to be stupid and destroy other people’s conversations for the hell of it. I, of course, cannot decide to up and ban someone without its being reviewable by the hive. However, if I were just wandering around disrupting other people’s discussions for the hell of it, I’m not sure I’d take any great comfort in that.
Myself, I’ve always thought that the purpose of ObWi is various and multifaceted. We all normally find ourselves in communities of like-minded people: ObWi tries, however unsuccessfully, to be a place where we can try to find non-like-minded people. We also try to be a place where people of wildly divergent views treat one another with respect, and try to argue, not to call one another names. I (I dunno about ‘we’) try to enact the claim that one can care deeply about one’s views, and argue passionately for them, without that somehow implying that one must hate one’s opponents — that impartiality has nothing to do with lack of passion, and fair-mindedness is not wimpiness. With how much success, I do not attempt to judge.
I imagine we all have our own purposes, and the success (or lack thereof) of the site depends in part on whether they form what Rawls would call an overlapping consensus.
“Myself, I’ve always thought that the purpose of ObWi is various and multifaceted.”
I still want your babies. I know I can’t have them. I’ll be happy to instead sit for them if ever asked, and otherwise do what I can to help. I will still be happy as I exit, hoping, well, for a good end to this sentence.
Everyone dance now!
Cues up Gloria Gaynor
Am I the only who sees the irony displayed in these posts? One person states they encourage righties to come and then smacks them upside the head for staying in what they define as the “echo chamber” I smell a little condecension.
And then the next person echos the sentiment and talks about the moderate-tone while admiting there is a swarm affect. Last time I checked a swarm doesn’t really bring about a “moderate” tone.
And most likely the tone feels “moderate” to them because they tend left. I doubt all the right leaning posters have stopped posting here because of the “moderate” tone.
If anything these two posters epitomize Obsidian Wings. A little condecension thrown in with some arrogance.
I must admit I personally try to reflect the tone that I receive from the other posters here.
I know it’s obnoxious. But you take someone like Hilzoy. She goes on an on about the culture of corruption when the Republicans control Congress and then all but ignores it when its the Democrats. I personally believe that if people like her would have just cut the administration a little slack along the way we wouldn’t be in the current situation. Many now seem so willing to overlook poor behaviour from the Democrats now that they are in control of Congress. My god, some even tried to defend the Fairness Doctrine. 3 months ago you would have gone batsh*t.
If so many of you hadn’t been so vicious when the Republicans were in control I would be willing to cut you some slack, but to go for the jugular with one and not the other is just hypocritical to me and offensive.
So many of you here really do want to see Bush fail. You hate Bush. You hate what he’s done to the country. There’s no moderation in that tone.
That “moderate” tone has helped get our soldiers killed and divide our country. It’s become cliche to say this, but the troops worry about the moral at home, not in Iraq. I know this for a fact. The moderate ton has helped embolden our enemy.
Like I said I worked for quite awhile to reflect the tone that I perceive at Obsidian Wings and its not moderate… it’s obnoxious.
I forgot to add that there is no reason for a rightie to defend their post here. It’s a waste of time. There are so few posters open to other viewpoints.
That’s why I stopped trying to make any argument. I’m practicing what so many of you have done… only offering criticisms that don’t help anyone.
If we decide that someone’s presence is entirely counterproductive, we can ban them anyways.
I’m just sayin’…
Interesting position, bril. Wanna debate a specific point? 🙂
hilzoy:
Phil ASKED me to divulge said information.
I have to agree with Dr. Ngo.
I realize that it takes time for a group as diverse and just plain busy as the collective to consult and reach a decision, and I’m not in a rush. I’ll just go into idle mode and see how it sorts out.
That would be a plausibly good point, if it wasn’t a Right of Center type making the observation you quote, Bril.
I’m happy to include OCSteve and Slarti on our side if it were possible. Draft picks, current farm team members, talk to me.
Andrew, in my case:
–Having a place where people would read what I wrote.
–Reading good writing by others
–Good conversation.
–Procrastination!
Political diversity can contribute to those things, when it leads to us doing things like inviting you to post…but there are plenty of conservatives I would not say that about, and I’ll take Bill Moyers over Crossfire any day. It’s never made much sense to me as THE raison d’etre of a place–it’s such a relative thing.
One person states they encourage righties to come and then smacks them upside the head for staying in what they define as the “echo chamber” I smell a little condecension.
Bril, I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean here. Where did I smack anyone for staying inside and “echo chamber?”
I personally believe that if people like her would have just cut the administration a little slack along the way we wouldn’t be in the current situation.
I think it’s somewhat unrealistic to expect that there would not be dissent, intelligent or otherwise, in any democracy, especially for something as contentious as a war. And if you believe that any such dissent can actually cripple a democracy, then I have to wonder which system you’d prefer.
That would be a plausibly good point, if it wasn’t a Right of Center type making the observation you quote, Bril.
Ah, okay, that explains some of the confusion. Bril thought that OCSteve was a leftie. Possibly because we weren’t at each other’s throats maybe?
DPU, of course OCSteve’s a lefty now. Didn’t you see that Hilzoy convinced him not to vote for Steele? How much more disloyalty to Our Leader does he need to demonstrate?
“So many of you here really do want to see Bush fail. You hate Bush. You hate what he’s done to the country. There’s no moderation in that tone.”
See Bush fall? A couple feet too far with a short rope? Of course, after a fair trial and all legal niceties observed.
That “moderate” tone has helped get our soldiers killed and divide our country
OK. No more moderation from me. I support the troops.
Dr Ngo: I’m fascinated by this cat and cheese stuff, because I never imagined that a cat’s bad breath could be bait (particularly for a mouse). But the anticipation of someone who is waiting with baited breath makes sense if they are lying-in-wait as you imply (I mean: you’ll need some bait, whether the smell of it is spewing from your throat or not). Oddly, I hear that’s not the correct spelling, and the origin of the phrase is something different and surprising.
FWIW, Von, I think you did NOT screw up.
An Unjust War II
…Andy Sullivan on what he calls “moral aspects” of the war:
“But the laws of warfare – the moral guidelines for just warfare – insist that an invading and occupying army is responsible for the basic security of the population under its care. We broke it; we own it. The violence that has taken so many did not happen immediately. It grew slowly, with forewarning. It took off after the bombing of the Samarra mosque last February. All of it was foretold; and many urged passionately for more troops to maintain order from 2003 onward. The president and his war-criminal of a defense secretary heeded not a word. They sent no more troops.”
W.A.R. C.R.I.M.E.S.
As in Himmler, Speer, Heydrich. Am I really supposed to make nice with people who think Bush is the Churchill of our time?
Oh wait…Churchill authorized gas in Iraq.
Sorry to go OT, but I didn’t get a chance to comment and I have some small constructive point to make. I hate to say it, but I’ve really moved on from the pro- or anti-war argument. It’s pretty clear to me that we’ve got one of the greatest debacles in American history on our hands. The biggest Leftist underestimation was the scope of the mismanagement of the war, even though many thought it a sure thing that they would bungle it this badly. I’m not sure anyone was prepared for this degree of incompetence.
I’m really no longer interested in debates about whether there was justification based on humanitarian intervention or whether it was justified based on the evidence we thought we had. For this case, all these questions have been settled, and all that’s left are hypotheticals interesting for the philosophy-of-just-war crowd, but not really for practical policy.
My only interest, at this point, is designing political institutions in such a way to help minimize the likelihood that this garbage (the War) happens again.
Which is a question I put to people who even tentatively supported the war: who does this change your personal decision-making processes? And how can we reform American institutions to prevent incompetent and belligerent Presidents from taking advantage of media and the public trust?
So, we agree then that Bush is the Churchill of our time, Bob?
“So, we agree then that Bush is the Churchill of our time, Bob?”
Well we are lucky that there were several Churchills. A man who could grow and learn from his mistakes.
But you did make me laugh.
Oddly, I hear that’s not the correct spelling, and the origin of the phrase is something different and surprising.
Not surprising to me, Ara. Not at all. Not for the last forty years or so.
What may be surprising to you, Ara, is that this was supposed to be a joke! How about that?
I’ll tell you what I frequently tell my wife (the inestimable mrs dr ngo): “You may not have realized that it was a joke just because it wasn’t funny.”
“And how can we reform American institutions to prevent incompetent and belligerent Presidents from taking advantage of media and the public trust?”
We really can’t, but we don’t need to. There already exists adequate fora and institutions, we simply have to make it absolutely clear that America is a citizen of the world, and not outlaws leading irresponsible henchmen.
We must hand the highest Bush administration and Pentagon officials over to the Hague for trials under int’l law. The Dutch and Swedes and Germans are not deranged monsters who hate America except to the degree America deserves hate. They would provide Bush and Rumsfeld and Franks fair trials.
There would certainly be domestic costs and consequences for such actions, but America needs to pay a price, and not merely in reparation dollars. I would suggest that HRC or Edwards not make it a campaign promise, but simply send the FBI to pick up the accused and fly them to Brussels without warning or due process. Immediately after inauguration. I know such a recommendation includes internal contradictions, but Hannah Arendt managed to survive the guilt.
And no, this country is no longer to be trusted to police itself. We must reestablish our committment to int’l law and our acceptance of the judgement of the whole world.
(PS:When I asked Andrew not to go to Iraq, it was not only his life and health I was concerned about. I am not his good buddy, and that isn’t my business. Andrew, IIRC, may be imbedded in an Iraqi company of Kurds,Badrs, and Mehdi with the mission of pacifying Sunni Arab neighborhoods, and may be pforced into circumstances where his safety and his honor come into conflict. It very likely will be an ugly summer in Iraq, and although my request does not absolve my complicity, it is sightly better than simply ignoring the possibilities of what may be done in my name, on my behalf.
Andrew’s honor and soul isn’t my business either. But I somehow felt what little honor I have, which ain’t much, required a gesture.
“…hypotheticals interesting for the philosophy-of-just-war crowd”
Since a surprisingly large number of Catholics are at the heart of the conservative movement, they take their just war philosophy very seriously. While some still claim that jus ad bellum was met, they base that almost entirely upon a motive which the administration only offered as tertiary to the main ones of WMD and Al-Qaeda links. So in that alternative universe, we went in to liberate the Iraqi people.
Where the argument really falls apart is when you get into the so-called “flypaper strategy”. This is clearly immoral under any definition of just war and the fact that the administration would even suggest such an absurd thing is sufficient reason to oppose them. For a recounting of all the strategic mistakes that were made, Kenneth Pollack lists them in detail:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20061214.htm
I have confidence in the ObWing hivemind, and am certain therefore that Charlie will be banned soon. Meantime, his presence makes me appreciate all the more commenters whose presence I normally spit at. Big squishy hugs to all. (Except Charlie, of course.)
Dr Ngo: Oh, okay. I didn’t realize you were punning. I actually didn’t know the right spelling myself and looked up the phrase and came back here, thinking I was sharing my riches. I guess I’m like the cat who shows up with a mouse in its mouth at its master’s door, only then to be shocked that its gift is not so appreciated.
On non-feline matters: I cast my hivemind vote for not banning Charlie, just because (and it’s about all he and I will agree on he hasn’t said anything that deserves banning.
Also, I don’t think banning trolls is a sound policy. My friend tells me I’m the head of the Slippery Slope Fan Club (because I make lame Slippery Slope arguments all the time), but I hope we can agree that what trolling is is too nebulous a concept that involves too many presumptions of troller-intent for us to manage.
Don’t ban trolls, but do ban those who destroy conversations rather than participate in them. When someone is clearly not listening, slipping around responding, and baiting the exciteable, they should be banned. Want to set up a temporary ban (1 day off or something)? Fine. But get them off.
Who decides? Well, the people who run the blog. Don’t like how they decide? Go someplace else.
While it’s charming to think that the place would self-regulate, one need only look through recent threads to see that it doesn’t.
Small actions from the moderators could lead to vastly more productive conversations and ideas forming here. I read here occasionally, mostly for the comment threads. I came in specifically to read the comments on the closed thread and was left with the desire to never see this place again. After that cooled down, I decided to post this.
That’s why I stopped trying to make any argument.
I must have missed when you started, bril.
You know you’re doing something wrong when you’re seriously annoying the right-wing contingent, here.
but I hope we can agree that what trolling is is too nebulous a concept that involves too many presumptions of troller-intent for us to manage.
given many years worth of posting history, it can be easy to tell…
Ara- I agree with your January 18, 2007 at 01:10 AM. I think that the most important thing we can do is try to make sure the people who bedded this particular mutt are never in a position of responsiblility again. That means not only voting against Republicans at every opportunity (and voting against certain Democrats in primarys) but also trying to take steps to punish dishonest news organizations.
mcmanus- Duchmarbel has made it pretty clear the Hauge can’t help us here. I like your idea of having the new President sieze them without due procces though. I think sending them to Iraq after we have evacuated our troops is probably our best move.
I must have missed when you started, bril.
Hmmm…a bit tetchy, this morning. Let’s strike the above and replace it with “if you can’t be bothered to advance an argument, don’t expect others to be bothered to give your comments any regard”. Or something like that.
But still: I think I missed when you were actually constructing arguments. In my memory, it’s all been drive-bys.
Gary —
You can’t cut and paste? What sort of programming skill do you think is necessary to do that?
1. For future reference, a less assholish way of responding would be to assume that I wasn’t aware of that particular website.
2. I previously made the point that blog posts are all self-serving. Regarding your argument in response that certain of your blog posts are not self serving because they communicate information, I would point out that (1) you chose the information they communication (2)which was presumably of interest to you or (3) which you thought would lead to higher traffic, payment via tipjar, or personal satisfaction. Moreover, given that the coerced blogger is likely a near-nonexistent breed, I think my point that all blog posts are self-serving stands.
Regarding your example of the policeman and the inquirer, you tacitly concede that the inquirer’s request is self-serving. Admittedly open to debate is whether the officer’s response is properly viewed as self-serving, although I think that the issue is much closer that you seem to recognize.
Katherine —
The reason Moe invited all of us here in the first place was to have a dialog between left, right, and center, with the hope that interesting conversations would result and common ground would be found. If you had a different agenda, that’s fine, but you might have informed Moe and me.
FWIW, Von, I think you screwed up. Twice. By not banning “Charlie” and by closing a thread which, without him, might actually have inspired some interesting discussion.
I may have (made a mistake), but I disagree that the discussion in that thread was salvagable. And there were folks behaving far worse than Charlie.
Ara,
Like Frank, I think the most important way to prevent this sort of debacle from happening again is to affirmatively take steps to prevent bad actors from holding governmental positions. And I said many months ago, I suspected this Administration was going to be historically bad because they were determined to appoint Iran-Contra veterans (Poindexter, Abrams, etc.) to positions of power.
If we are going to learn from the mistakes made, we are going to need to find some way of making the persons who were part of the process and are still young enough to serve in a future Republican administration (Yoo, Addington, etc.) radioactive. And no, I have no constructive suggestions short of a war crimes tribunal to do so.
I suspected this Administration was going to be historically bad because they were determined to appoint Iran-Contra veterans (Poindexter, Abrams, etc.) to positions of power.
and now they’re doing things like appointing Rove’s head of oppo-research to a US Attorney spot. Nixon must be proud.
Also, I don’t think banning trolls is a sound policy. My friend tells me I’m the head of the Slippery Slope Fan Club (because I make lame Slippery Slope arguments all the time), but I hope we can agree that what trolling is is too nebulous a concept that involves too many presumptions of troller-intent for us to manage.
Having weathered accusations of trolldom while debating folks at LGF — yes, yes, it was fairly stupid on my part to try to engage — I am fairly sympathetic to this view.
As for the suggestion (don’t know by who) that a troll is somehow who fails to debate in good faith & therefore it’s not only important to ban them but necessary, I don’t know any sound measure of “bad faith.” I do know that personal attacks and excessive ad hominem is disruptive, as are completely off-topic posts. But I can’t determine whether (for instance) Dr. Ngo is posting in good faith or whether he’s the alter ego of Donald Trump engaged in some sort of crypto-advertising for his next show “THE BLOGPRENTICE,” and that, although his plans are currently unclear, we’ll all realive that we’ve been played for fools in the fall of ’09.
like hil said, “varied and multifarious.” I realized that was one of the goals, I was just being a nitpicker.
As for the suggestion (don’t know by who) that a troll is somehow who fails to debate in good faith…
’twas me and I didn’t suggest it as much as flat-out say that that’s the very definition, having seen it played out hundreds of times.
…therefore it’s not only important to ban them but necessary…
It’s technically possible to convert a troll into a legitimate poster by convincing them to engage in good faith, but I’ve only ever seen it done once and he used to throw — or threaten to throw — a trollish tantrum whenever he felt inadequately respected. Unsurprisingly, this was a regular occurrence.
Otherwise… I ask in all seriousness, have you ever managed to sustain an online community in the presence of a troll attack, let alone one with high signal-to-noise ratio, under a strict regimen of DNFTT? Because I haven’t. Nor do I know anyone who has.* It’s a nice theory but it simply doesn’t work. I can’t recommend this essay enough; the money quote, to me, has always been:
It sucks, but as Shirky says, “if you don’t accept them upfront, they’ll happen to you anyway.”
* As a long-time lurker on rasw in the 90s, I disagree with Gary’s contention that they maintained their integrity with DNFTT. Many members didn’t, I agree, but there was a vocal and excessively literate contingent who used to shred anything vaguely trollish until said troll cried uncle. They were a joy to watch, I have to admit.
I don’t know any sound measure of “bad faith.”
Fair enough, I suppose, if one is looking for ironclad soundness. Would you accept a three-year track record as sufficient evidence of this proposition? Because this was my original point: while you might be unaware of the history (and fair enough, you have a life), many of us aren’t and we’re jumping up and down trying to get your attention.
And that’s leaving aside the simple heuristic that someone who does a random driveby Declaration Of True Faith, unadorned with meaningful arguments and insulting to a large swathe of regulars, is 99% likely to be a troll from the get-go. If said poster were to stick around and justify their position and engage their opponents’ arguments — instead of, saying, indulging in a passive-aggressive Socratic barrage — you should obviously rescind that decision, i.e. one shouldn’t pull the trigger too quickly, but beyond that, life’s too short and signal’s too precious.
I was going to reply to Ara about that, but didn’t want to make this a discussion of definitions of trolling, but since that seems to be a portion of this discussion…
While what may separate a troll, who purposely ignores counter evidence, from someone who truly believes that Sadaam and OBL were bestest buddies and feels that any evidence is false or epiphenomenal, is some effable notion of intent that can’t be accurately determined, the functional appearance is identical. If I understand it correctly, somehow, the true believer deserves to stay, but the troll deserves to be booted, but we can’t tell the difference so we have to let trolls stay. If we were talking about death or imprisonment, I could understand, but when it is a question of simply carrying on a conversation, I think that argumentation is really weak tea.
Unfortunately, if intent becomes the defining factor, then those arrayed on the other side tends to pile on in order to try and generate some discrepancy that can then be used as evidence of trolldom and this is corrosive. This is not where I want the place to go, but my opinion only carries as much weight as you are willing to give it.
I’d also second Anarch’s comment, and point out that as a regular, any evidence that he points to should (imo) be given some weight.
Bril: One person states they encourage righties to come and then smacks them upside the head for staying in what they define as the “echo chamber” I smell a little condecension.
I mentioned in a follow up that I too spend some time in the RW echo chamber. Being a rightie myself, I’m not sure how it is condescending for me to challenge other righties to spend some time conversing with others who do not automatically reflect their views. Help me out here…
It’s early in the day so I’ll try to hold off on my “condecension thrown in with some arrogance” for now. (Too late?)
Sweet. A couple of the more contentious threads of late and the only person I take issue with is presumptively on my “side”.
Jes: Thanks for the hug (squishy or not).
I think it difficult to impossible to make definite rules about who’s a troll and who isn’t. As a general rule, someone who is not interested in engaging in discussion but only making drive-by provocative comments is engaging in trollish behavior. But, the difference between a drive-by troll, a regular who’s sometimes trollish, and a newcomer who drops a provocative opinion in the middle of a discussion, isn’t something I would want to have to pin down in posting rules.
In the specific, however, Charlie is a well-known troll from Washington Monthly, and is behaving now on Obsidian Wings very much as he was accustomed to behave on Washington Monthly. I trust that if he continues to do so, the Hive Mind will decide to ban him.
like hil said, “varied and multifarious.” I realized that was one of the goals, I was just being a nitpicker.
OK, got it. And corrected the front page as well.
OCSteve: Sweet. A couple of the more contentious threads of late and the only person I take issue with is presumptively on my “side”.
Look, I already apologized for you getting gang-tackled. Don’t make me apologize for you getting gang-huggled!
Charlie is a well-known troll from Washington Monthly
I’ve gone over there to take a look, but unfortunately Kevin Drum (or the admin, if it’s not Kevin) has deleted many of Charlie’s comments. But: yes, it appears to be the case. I’m not sure, though, whether Charlie is worse than those who absolutely cannot resist rising to the bait.
That aside, I think we’d be well shut of him. Whether shutness is accomplished by everyone else acting as if they were adults, or by a banning…the end is the same.
Not that I’ve demonstrated much in the way of adultry, mind, but I expect better from the smart people.
Look, I already apologized for you getting gang-tackled. Don’t make me apologize for you getting gang-huggled!
Great. Now I’m going to have to pick a fight with Jes today just to attempt to restore my wingnut cred.
😉
I’ve gone over there to take a look, but unfortunately Kevin Drum (or the admin, if it’s not Kevin) has deleted many of Charlie’s comments. But: yes, it appears to be the case.
google ‘site:washingtonmonthly.com “posted by Charlie”‘
or ‘site:washingtonmonthly.com “posted by Cheney”‘
or ‘site:washingtonmonthly.com “posted by Thomas1″‘
or ‘site:washingtonmonthly.com “posted by Jeffery”‘
or ‘site:washingtonmonthly.com “posted by DougM”‘
but, a lot of the newer results are going to be from people spoofing him. there was a week or two just before they banned him (november?), when spoofers outnumbered the real Charlie/Thomas1/Jeffery/etc.
Slarti: I’ve gone over there to take a look, but unfortunately Kevin Drum (or the admin, if it’s not Kevin) has deleted many of Charlie’s comments.
Fortunately Charlie employed enough pseuds that I doubt Kevin got them all. If you ask around — IIRC, PaulB, Secular Animist, Apollo 13 and cmdicely all eviscerated him on a regular basis, and there were plenty more — I’m sure they’ll be able to provide you with additional links.
Not that I’ve demonstrated much in the way of adultry, mind
Y’know, I misread that at first… and I still found it appropriate!
Now I’m going to have to pick a fight with Jes today just to attempt to restore my wingnut cred.
Hamster pile!
The “mushroom cloud” derailment is the clearest evidence here of trollery. I don’t understand what other explanation people are able to convince themselves of. That’s not being a true believer, or a true idiot. It’s being a troll.
“Not that I’ve demonstrated much in the way of adultry, mind
Y’know, I misread that at first… and I still found it appropriate!”
I saw it, too, and decided that a response would send this discussion into one which belongs on unfogged.
Yeah. I’m not using the word troll, but jumping up and down about how ‘mushroom cloud’ doesn’t necessarily refer to nukes, it could mean volcanoes, is not something that anyone attempting to have a reasonable discussion could possibly do. As a one line gag, to lighten things up, maybe, but not insisting on it.
It could mean clouds of mushrooms! Or just a cloud that happened to be shaped like a mushroom! Or a cloud that looks like any ol’ fungus!
I can’t determine whether (for instance) Dr. Ngo is posting in good faith or whether he’s the alter ego of Donald Trump engaged in some sort of crypto-advertising for his next show “THE BLOGPRENTICE,” and that, although his plans are currently unclear, we’ll all realive that we’ve been played for fools in the fall of ’09.
Hint 1: All my hair, such as it is, is my own. (And not just in the sense that I paid for it, either.)
Hint 2: I am currently continuing my own blogprenticeship (I do like that term) under my own pseudonym as guest blogger on Magistra et Mater, s.v. “The Making of a (Male) Feminist.” Read it and believe. (Or not, of course.)
Normally such a self-reference would be considered “blogwhoring,” but you, gentle reader, should not say that, or even think it, because it would hurt the ears of “Magistra,” who is a gentlewoman.
It could mean clouds of mushrooms!
i believe that image is © Jeff VanDerMeer.
Or a cloud that looks like any ol’ fungus!
I dunno. “King Alfreds Cakes Cloud” just doesn’t have the right ring:
http://www.aie.org.uk/fungi_base/aie_fungi_index.html
It could mean clouds of mushrooms!
It could totally happen on the
Mushroom Planet
One look at Charlie’s posts in this thread is enough to establish that von, well-meaning as he surely is, has simply emboldened the terrorists.
Oh, man, I loved the Mushroom Planet. I should go find a copy for my kids.
The clouds I associate with ‘shrooms haven’t been seen since 1972.
Although, I opened up a package of dried porcinis the other night for the risotto and the cloud of porcini dust made me sneeze.
Probably you’re going to have loads of free porcini soon, provided you don’t mind washing the snot off of them.
Good morning, Jesurgislac, Anarch, and cleek. I hope I don’t post anything today you consider trolling.
Thank you to Ara and von for casting your votes against banning me. If you have any helpful suggestions, or you can convince Sebastian to vote the same way, I would appreciate it ; )
As for “Housekeeping” and “mushroom clouds” I was simply proving there were OTHER causes for those other than nukes — in response to Eric Martin’s claim there were not — I never made the argument that all those other causes were what the Bush Admin were referring to . . .
P.S. to KCinDC — I don’t think Eric Martin was being a troll either.
I saw it, too, and decided that a response would send this discussion into one which belongs on unfogged.
Would it then be appropriate to ask if he brought pastries?
I’m so clueless when it comes to the netiquette at unfogged.
It’s because we haven’t got any. If you annoy me, I’ll tell you I don’t like you. If you annoy enough people, they’ll start demanding you bring cake, or baked goods generally. If you’re truly demented in a timeconsuming way (this was one guy, once), you can get banned.
But no actual netiquette.
I don’t know about that, Liz. On the occasions I’ve ventured into your threads, people have seemed generally quite reasonable, even those who are aware of my terribly retrograde opinions. I was pretty impressed by what I saw, admitting it was only occasional.
One genuinely funny campaign slogan that Charlie came up with in August 2004: Bush/Cheney: don’t change Horsemen mid-Apocalypse.
But aside from that (and I don’t think Charlie was being intentionally humorous) I can’t think of a single redeeming moment.
Well, I did wish you a “good morning” this morning, but I’m not sure if that’s “redeeming” enough for your vote. I guess you can’t win them all.
I didn’t say our commenters weren’t generally nice — we are. I’m just saying there’s no rules. Hostility gets dished out on the basis of arbitrary personal reactions, rather than anything objective or fair.
I suppose it’s probably far too reasonable to suggest that the (what’s the opposite of fawning?) over Charlie is going to have the opposite of the desired effect.
Or not, if the desired effect is to keep him constantly engaged. Your choice, folks.
One genuinely funny campaign slogan that Charlie came up with
maybe he came up with it on his own, but on Drum’s site, it predates Charlie’s mention by at least 6 months.
what’s the opposite of fawning?
scab-picking ?
I wonder if there’s any chance that everyone will get their feeding impulses out of their system in this very thread. That would be an acceptable resolution.
Slarti: Or not, if the desired effect is to keep him constantly engaged. Your choice, folks.
Well, no. It’s up to the HiveMind if Charlie gets banned or not: if he isn’t banned, he’ll be here for years, doing what he did on Washington Monthly. There’s nothing that us plebs without the power to ban can do about it, one way or another.
doing what he did on Washington Monthly
Provided he continues getting a response, yes.
There’s nothing that us plebs without the power to ban can do about it, one way or another.
Agreed, providing you continue feeding him. So far, it’s been nothing but Haagen-Dazs bars from the “plebs”.
…and that’s all I’m going to say about that.
I take the pledge. He (or she) no longer exists. And I’m looking into a GreaseMonkey solution as well 🙂
I thought “the pledge” was to not get into pointless arguments about who is a “troll” or what is or is not “trolling”? For the record, that is “the pledge” I took above.
Slarti: Provided he continues getting a response, yes.
He always will. Regulars on Washington Monthly tried ignoring him, tried warning newcomers to ignore him, even succeeded on one thread (about Fahrenheit 911, which Charlie made a point of commenting on about eighteen times to tell us all that he hadn’t seen it) of not responding to him. Charlie keeps going. The only way to stop him is to ban him. I’m speaking from years of watching him operate on Washington Monthly: you’ve had, what, two days of him? Which of us is likelier to be right?
I think Bril is right. President Bush simply needs more slack.
If there’s anything I’ve posted in this thread which violates any stated rule(s), please advise immediately as that is not my intention.
Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?
Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?
I’d use Firefox for that. Share.
d-p.u.
i’d use it
Me too.
I’d use Firefox for that. Share.
I’ll have to write it first, and I’m just looking into the product now, but it looks promising. And fun. I’ll keep people posted.
Should be able to convert any particular user’s posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.
Rules are merely the minimum ENFORCED general understanding.
The idea of ObisdianWings (if I may be so bold) is to attempt to have fruitful/interesting discussions between people who don’t share much space on the political spectrum. Things that help this:
Trying to be polite.
Trying not to mischaracterize the positions of the people with whom you are discussing.
Trying to explain your position instead of merely asserting it.
Trying to understand the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.
Trying to empathize with the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.
We’re all human (I think). We probably can’t pull that off all the time. I know I have trouble. But like good governance, that isn’t an excuse to stop trying. You can be working against the idea of ObsidianWings even if you aren’t violating the rules.
So by all means don’t violate the rules.
But contributing to the idea of ObsidianWings would be even better.
Slarti: So far, it’s been nothing but Haagen-Dazs bars from the “plebs”.
That’s partly because we were upbraided by the Management for warning people not to feed him.
dpu: How about… the Borkinator!
Thanks for the info, Sebastian.
For the programmers in here, GreaseMonkey is indeed a powerful tool. You might want to take a glance at it.
For the programmers in here, GreaseMonkey is indeed a powerful tool.
i’m one step (barely) ahead of you. 🙂 trying to figure out how to run my little scripty, since the instructions there don’t seem to match FF 2.0x. looks like fun, though.
I’m about to hit the bookstore and pick up the O’Rielly book on it. This may be a new career path :->
Should be able to convert any particular user’s posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.
To whom? Have you seen The Dialectizer? It’s the verbal equivalent of Thai green curry sauce: makes anything sound better.
That’s just cruel, Jes, seeing as how I’m ill equipped to make a curry just now. And I’m hungry. On the plus side, my local Asian market is now carrying Thai eggplants which, in conjunction with coconut milk and curry paste, is a most satisfying base for a curry.
But no actual netiquette.
The worst I can say about Unfogged is that they tend to ignore the non-regulars. For verily, do I love the snark.
To whom?
If we went that route, we’d have to include Glasgow patter for yours. Although I do that mentally for your posts anyway, Jes.
dr ngo writes:
dr ngo is one of the two commenters whose comments I value most. His comments are a good example of what makes this blog special. Charlie’s comments are not. They’re an example of what could make it a typical political blog. I hope the Hive Mind thinks about that.
(Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)
The worst I can say about Unfogged is that they tend to ignore the non-regulars.
Argh. My apologies for that, and to anyone else who feels that way — I do really like having different people around; much as I love our regulars it’s awfully clubby and inbred. I will work harder on being welcoming.
dpu – for the non-programming types on this blog you might want to clarify “O’Rielly book” lest someone’s head explodes. 🙂
“Trying to be polite.” Thank you for your comment, BrianM.
“Trying not to mischaracterize the positions of the people with whom you are discussing.” You are saying that it would be a loss to ObsidianWings if Dr. NGO stopped posting.
“Trying to explain your position instead of merely asserting it.” I think it would be better for the purpose of fruitful discussion if NEITHER of us stopped posting because you and others could a) hear both points of view, b) learn something you may not have known previously, and c) decide for yourself which view triumphs.
“Trying to understand the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.” If you want me banned, I obviously disagree, but I am willing to listen to why you think that way, especially if you can post to ANYTHING I have posted that merits my banning.
“Trying to empathize with the positions of the people with whom you are discussing even if you disagree with them.” I again appreciate what a loss it would be for Dr. NGO to never post here. I’m sure you will miss him.
Although I do that mentally for your posts anyway, Jes.
I’m no a Weegie!
OT: I enjoy the last few days of front-pager diversity. While I love Hilzoy’s posts, I’m very happy to see so many other good opinions and topics brought up.
Should be able to convert any particular user’s posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.
Or, better yet, video. Surely some comments can be put to the tune (and imagery) of Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss singing Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me, or similar.
“what a loss it would be for Dr. NGO to never post here. I’m sure you will miss him”
I would. Dr. NGO is an historian, and his posts are extremely informative. He’s corrected a mistaken belief I had (along with many others) about how many people were actually killed by US troops in the Philippines (lower than I though), while informing me that the indirect number of deaths was even higher than I had thought. It’s a pleasure reading him and if he goes and is replaced by someone at the other extreme, who has said nothing worth reading in two days of posting, it will be a sad loss.
The problem with using a Greasemonkey script is that the posts in question ALREADY resemble the product of a greasemonkey script. Type ctrl-F and type “pointless” in the box, for example.
Surely some comments can be put to the tune (and imagery) of Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss singing Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me, or similar.
Frankly you had me at “video”. And “Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss”.
Donald Johnson:
I’ll take that as a hypothetical rather than a personal attack.
Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?
It is my sincere belief that such an invention would would SAVE THE INTERNET
ObWi Greasemonker Disemvoweler …
i can verify that it’s working for me. 🙂
Tht’s nt vry nc, clk.
Tht’s nt vry nc, clk.
I agree.
It is my sincere belief that such an invention would would SAVE THE INTERNET
Sadly, no. It still takes banning to deal with trolls. As we see…
Jesurgislac:
I believe the Rules state: “Although pointing out when a commenter is violating the posting rules in an ongoing thread is every participant’s best tool to help bring civility back to a discussion, if commenters wish to recommend a banning, per se, we ask that they do so via email. That helps take it offline and makes the roles of the authors in the banning process clearer to everyone.”
Thank you for abiding by the Rules.
Tht’s nt vry nc, clk
there’s nothing a programmer loves more than a programming challenge.
i promise i won’t make anyone use it.
Tht’s nt vry nc, clk
Because the letter “y” is sometimes a vowel and sometimes a consonant, I suggest that there are a variety of options on how to treat it. To remove it only where it is used as a vowel is not easily automated, as you know. Aside from an “all or nothing” approach, one option is remove a “y” only at the end of words, where it is virtually always a vowel. YMMV.
Cleek, you’re a mensch!
TEST
Out of curiosity, how many people here are running Firefox and would use a GreaseMonkey script that either ignores certain users or disemvowels their posts?
I already run the pie filter for balloon juice (changes all of a designated commenter’s posts to “I Like Pie!” which is a demonstrable improvement) so yes please.
Argh. My apologies for that, and to anyone else who feels that way — I do really like having different people around; much as I love our regulars it’s awfully clubby and inbred. I will work harder on being welcoming.
I actually like that about Unfogged. It’s like sitting in a bar with a bunch of old friends who you’ve just met. You may not get all the jokes, but the mutual good feelings are palpable.
I was just checking out “Unfogged” too.
Should be able to convert any particular user’s posts to Elmer Fudd talk as well, but that seems overly cruel.
Oh no, please do this. I found myself several times only just restraining myself from responding to provocations in this and the other thread (which is sad, really, given how infrequently I de-lurk to comment), but when I tried “dialectisizing” the comments, I couldn’t take them seriously enough to find them inflammatory.
(Yes, technically, I could do this myself, as I should count myself amongst “the programmers here”, but I won’t, as I must count myself amongst “the lazy programmers here”…)
Ok, I’m convinced.
What shall we talk about now?
My apologies; I just had an Al Haig moment.
LJ:
I like your argument against me, and all I will say to it in reply is that if the goal here is to facilitate conversation, you seem to suggest reasons (being obtuse, stoopid) which have nothing to do with trolling. Maybe you’re right about that: I’m an agnostic on it right now. I was just trying to address the narrow point of troll-banning, and it seems stoopidity is something broader than the notion of a troll.
Thanks for the kind words, BrianM.
(Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)
Coincidentally (I assure you) in today’s lecture I was talking about “fictive kinship” in Southeast Asia, e.g., ritual co-parentship (compadrazgo), informal adoptions, a variety of ways of turning people not biologically related to you into “kin.”
So I suppose something could be arranged. ;}
Grrr….can’t seem to install Greasemonkey. Might be restrictions at work, though we’re supposed to be able to install FF extensions.
How about this for a suggestion?
We take it to the street, figuratively.
Rather than banning, we make tighter guidelines on when a thread gets moved onto a related blog. Anyone who wants to pursue the sucker can pursue it there. ObWi remains civil and pristine. The brawlers can brawl in a place known for sharp confrontations. If the posts can be cross-referenced that will make it easier for people to move over.
Technologically, there is no really new technique needed because anyone who *doesn’t move it over* can be banned for being pointlessly uncooperative.
What do you all think?
“What shall we talk about now?”
Unfogged links?
Whether habeas corpus applies to us?
Mansfield Park?
Whether habeas corpus applies to us?
wow. Abu G is one twisted mofo.
Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.
Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.
For his sake, I hope he gets paid by the word. He’ll be rich!
Cella on “savage fire”. So bizarre.
It’s got a catchy title – “Burning at the stake, reconsidered”
gee, it must have been at least a whole three hours since i was last called a traitor.
Paul J. Cella has a book coming out.
i read too fast an inserted a comma after ‘book’. that changes things a bit.
i read too fast an inserted a comma after ‘book’. that changes things a bit.
heh
this priggish dialogue on civility is enough to make me want to french kiss a shotgun.
if you find yourself debating etiquettte, it means you probably shouldn’t have entered the substantive conversation in the first place. much like if you find yourself talking generally about bush being good or bad or about godwins law.
it’s not the uncivility that’s annoying, it’s the overwhelming volume of meta-dialogue about it.
As long as we’re considering cases: One thing that I don’t regard as directly Charlie’s fault at all is that some of his self-designated enemies set about spoofing him. A lot. If a script blocking posts by user comes into play, ObWi will need an authentication system of some kind, to judge from the Washington Monthly. It wasn’t just Charlie’s own trolling that helped to destroy discourse in comments, it was others further poisoning the stream with so many impersonations that only a handful of people had anything like reliable identities, and it turns out that when you have no reason to trust that the person you’re talking to this time is the same one with the name last time, there’s no history or advancement in an exchange.
LizardBreath: I will work harder on being welcoming.
Eh, no worries, I’m not at all offended. It’s cliquish in a good way, if that makes sense.
BrianM: (Unlike so many, I am not related to him.)
There aren’t *that* many of us…
Josh: For his sake, I hope he gets paid by the word. He’ll be rich!
Nono. Paid by the syllable.
I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren’t supposed to impersonate other commenters.
“What is past is past, including President Bush’s long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let’s give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory.”
you can almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing the background.
“Also, I don’t think banning trolls is a sound policy. My friend tells me I’m the head of the Slippery Slope Fan Club (because I make lame Slippery Slope arguments all the time), but I hope we can agree that what trolling is is too nebulous a concept that involves too many presumptions of troller-intent for us to manage.”
Not remotely. Trolls are very obvious.
What happens at Obsidian Wings when someone finally decides to support the President?
They get mocked…
And that my fellow posters… is the tone that is most often projected at Obsidian Wings.
Only one of those moderately toned swarms following this post would make the point clearer. ; -)
I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren’t supposed to impersonate other commenters.
I don’t think anyone did. Charlie impersonated himself, though.
Ah, Bril. Even you look good next to Charlie! *big squishy hugs*
“*big squishy hugs*”
DNHTT.
“1. For future reference, a less assholish way of responding would be to assume that I wasn’t aware of that particular website.”
I don’t know how to assume that, when it you were pointed to the link in the comment you responded to, Von. I’d have to assume that you didn’t read the comment your responded to. There doesn’t seem to be an alternative available.
“Regarding your argument in response that certain of your blog posts are not self serving because they communicate information”
That was not my argument.
“I may have (made a mistake), but I disagree that the discussion in that thread was salvagable.”
Where in the ObWi posted policies is a statement that says that if a blog-owner decides that discussion in a thread isn’t salvagable, the thread will be shut down? Is this a new policy you’ve discussed with the others, an old policy I missed noting, or something you’ve pulled out of your… creativeness, this week?
Will it be posted as policy any time soon?
“But I can’t determine whether (for instance) Dr. Ngo is posting in good faith or whether he’s the alter ego of Donald Trump engaged in some sort of crypto-advertising for his next show “THE BLOGPRENTICE,” and that, although his plans are currently unclear, we’ll all realive that we’ve been played for fools in the fall of ’09.”
I can! Sorry to hear about this perceptive deficiency on your part.
It’s actually entirely easy.
Sebastian: “I just want to reiterate that as a hard rule, you aren’t supposed to impersonate other commenters.”
If it’s a hard rule, I suggest that it needs to be put in the posting rules. If it isn’t there, it’s not a rule, plain and simple.
Very simple. Very emphatic. If it’s not checkable, it’s obviously not a rule.
How can the blogowners be insane monarchs if all the rules are out there for everyone to see?
The really beautiful part of that comment is that it works just as well no matter which way you take it. A carefully placed “Bwahahaha!” might disambiguate it. But where would be the fun in that?
So usually I just lurk here, but after going to that amazing American Spectator link cleek posted, I had to point out the fact that there’s an advertisement on the side there for a book entitled “In Defense of Hypocrisy.”
I really can’t think of anything I can add to that. I mean, there are things I could say about the editorial itself, many of which would violate the posting rules, but I don’t think there’s anything I could say about it, or the American Spectator in general, which that ad doesn’t say already. It’s as if they looked at the most cartoonish strawman ideas of what a conservative is like, and decided to actually become that stereotype. I particularly like the juxtaposition with the other ad for “Values in a Time of Upheaval”.
(on the subject of the thread, well, I agree with Jesurgislac and Anarch on that, but we’ll see how this turns out. I’ve seen trolls ruin the quality of discussion on moderated blogs by obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit, and I hope that doesn’t happen here.)
If you like that….
Dinesh D’souza has gone soft.
What happens at Obsidian Wings when someone finally decides to support the President?
oh bril, poor Bush-worshipping bril… the Iraq war is now less popular than the Vietnam war ever was. and yet, Bush insists on escalating it. no bril, Bush doesn’t need ‘support’; he needs restraint.
Spartikus, it’s worse than that: he actually admitted on national television that he agrees with the terrorists.
cleek, you are indeed a God. Nicely done.
Many of bril’s ideological comrades spent the 1990s accusing the President of rape and murder… but now, I see we are a kinder, gentler nation, where even gentle mockery is enough to warrant a complaint! Ah, progress.
Oh man, the previous few threads read so much better now. Thanks, cleek. Today’s meat-world commitments took precedence, and so I wasn’t able to work on the GM script. I shall take yours as inspiration.
cleek, you are indeed a God.
i am the God of Greasemonkey.
and i bring you…
even gentle mockery is enough to warrant a complaint
when the target is Bush, it’s not mockery, it’s blasphemy, to speak as i have done. and now i’ll burn in the fiery pit of bril’s disfavor, for all eternity! woe is me.
Crs y, clk. Crs y t hll.
Speaking of Dinesh, Colbert eviscerates him and then stiches him up. from crooksandliars
TST
Steve,
Are you talking about my comrades that voted for Clinton in 1992? That’s who I voted for.
I support gay people getting married. Are those my comrades you are referring to?
If people want to do drugs… I’m okay with that, too. Are they my comrades?
Abortion… don’t really care one way or the other. Guess I can’t get love from anyone there.
If I could be the one to identify my comrades they would be the ones who serve in the military and the people who actively support their mission.
I’m also for Universal Health Care. HSA’s sort of suck right now but they could be good if implemented properly.
I’m also against pollution and toxic waste.
I just priced solar panels for my house. I’m looking at investing 20K. I’m also looking a system from gridpoint it’s about 10K. I may just go with the gridpoint system to reduce my footprint because solar panels just aren’t quite effective enough where I live. By the time you pay them off you need to buy new ones.
Goodness, I’ve just discovered I’m a closet leftist. Someone please help me!
bril wrote:
So many of you here really do want to see Bush fail. You hate Bush. You hate what he’s done to the country.
You’re absolutely right. I DO hate Bush, and I DO want to see him fail. I want to see him behind bars, too. It’s not MY fault that he’s an incompetent boob who doesn’t understand the Constitution, or that he’s incapable of abiding by the law.
Rolf C Hagen
Its a wired world : the new networked economy / Anne C .Leer Der Bestse