I think your reasoning is badly flawed. Romney has zero credit with his base, no leeway, huge amounts of suspiscion and a party with a history of challenging their candidates from the right. A Romney Presidency would have to cater very closely to the desires and moods of his base if he wanted any shot at re-election. Assuming that he's blowing smoke with his hyper-neocon promises is one thing but assuming that he'd somehow reverse all of that and adhere to some kind of hidden principles after being elected strikes me as contradictory.
#2 i actually agree. I was pretty uncomfortable about the original post, thus my #3 comment.
#3 I agree but would add a caveat here that you have demolished a position that I do not believe anyone in the thread has taken. The closest has perhaps been me when I asserted that rudeness is self defeating and self destructive but certainly I would never say that a point delivered rudely is invalidated. Just that it's unlikely to be communicated effectively.
If they are BlaiseP then I'd say it could work and good on em. Also inasmuch as they don't really harm other gay organizations elsewhere or divert resources from them (I'd say currently they don't) then they're probably a good thing indeed. It's when, however, they start appealing to gay voters and saying "overlook what the GOP says and does to you and vote for ‘em anyhow" that I feel my hackles bristle. As an advocacy group from gays reaching out to the GOP I think I’m all for em. But as useful idiots reaching from the GOP out to try and bamboozle gay or gay sympathetic voters I really am wary. But hell, there’s little danger of the latter scenario for the most part (though it’s also why Log Cabiners and GOProuds are generally viewed like beaten wives by other organizations and people) so I’m willing to be an optimist and hope they do well.
Still, I'd observe that Liberalism has been somewhat ill served by the Leagues population. There are a lot of libertarians and a good collection of esoterics and some very cunning conservatives but up until Elias came round liberalism has been represented most by either very weak tea liberals like myself or very angry liberals (who don't really sell it well). I wish we had a few more regular full on liberal bloggers here.
Density, perhaps you should reread the comment thread immediately preceding my previous comment? You inquired as to why anyone should care if they're being rude. My subsequent observations regarding the efficiency of rudeness and its effects on ones causes and arguments are not a clever ad hominem; the rudeness (or buffoonery) is not an accusation, it’s the subject of the conversation. I’ll note in passing though that the way you phrased it was cute.
I would also like to thank you sincerely for able your demonstration of my point. Intentional rudeness allows people to spend entire posts kvetching about slights rather than addressing the subject at hand. When the danger of misreading or miswording presents the minefield of unintentional slights why on earth would one wish to intentionally trigger such unproductive exchanges?
Oh I think we're on the same page for enforced equality. My issue with GOProud is more of precisely what you point out. The say "Well other than the fact that they think that people like us are moral and social cancers the GOP has good policies and deserves our financial and electoral support." Well other than the shooting Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?
Everyone beat me to most of the punch here DD so I'll just note in passing that you are either being very disingenuous or you badly undervalue your worth in this medium. Commenters and comments most assuredly sway opinion; sure we’re not quite in the blogging league of opinion shaping but we’re still doing it (personally because I can’t cut it as a blogger). People read your comments (a lot more read comments than reply to them) and opinions are shaped by what they read. If any person wants to pop off loutishly about a given subject (and many do) then there’s little preventing them from doing so. But they shouldn’t try to persuade themselves that their incivility is immaterial; they are harming the causes they support and helping the causes they oppose by behaving like buffoons. Sure every little comment is a tiny minute movement of the needle but the needle still moves and out of the sum of those tiny moves is popular opinion formed (and yes I believe in voting too).
Yes, I certainly didn't intent to suggest that outreach is pointless. But I would submit that while outreach is definitly advisable empowering the conservatives like GOProud goes over far.
They'd never say anything about one being right, they'd simply screech about the rudeness. Besides, the person you're arguing with on the internet is only a fraction of the audience. The silent readers are the main target and they can tell when someone is wriggling out. Rudeness and incivility just clouds the issue and makes it harder to persuade the undecided.
I'm pretty sure the conservatives have been pretty much written off. There really aren't enough homosexuals to attempt to sway two parties, they can barely get one of them to listen to them.
Bush the lesser was reputedly quite friendly to gays individually even as he was just fine with writing policy against them. Veep Dick has a gay daughter for goodness sakes. One of the things about homosexuality is that you don't necessarily have to do outreach. Gay relatives pop up among the ranks of conservatives all on their own in a way that Muslim relatives are very unlikely to do. And of course the history remains that those very gay relatives were generally driven onto the streets by their families to wash up in the major cities and found the refuges from which the gay communities and gay movement formed.
No, the sad writing on the wall appears to be that we're going to have to let the current spine of anti-gay sentiment shuffle off this mortal coil and that their moderated children and downright libertine grandchildren will temper the conservatives all on their own.
Yes Liberty, but sharp and forceful argumentation is weakened, not strengthened, by rudeness and incivility; it merely affords your opponent an opportunity to change the subject to your behavior rather than addressing your argument on its merits and offers an avenue of escape for them to end the discussion citing your rudeness. Better to be mercilessly polite while applying the blade of your points and your reason to strip away the obfuscation and lay their vile arguments bare. That hurts your typical peddler of such nasty ideas far more profoundly than name calling or incivility. Rudeness and the like is what they expect. They feed on it.
Dead? Hogwash, more like unnecessary since their entire position has pretty much become the default stance of the party over all. If you don't believe me visit any liberal group and listen to the indignant and outraged shrieking.
I disagree LarryM. I think that rudeness and discourtesy is an impediment to the advancement of one’s ideas. If you make a telling point against a deplorable idea then rudeness and discourtesy serve only as smoke that impedes that success. Your opponent can (and will) seize upon such behavior to cloud the situation. Even absent that situation discourtesy and rudeness swiftly push conversation levels down to emotionalism, insult and hindbrain thinking. It is in these realms that the truly deplorable examples you cite flourish and thrive. Why would you voluntarily cede the advantage to Stalinists or Nazi’s by arguing the way they want you to? Additionally courtesy and manners generally prolong the conversation and make it considerably harder to squirm away from telling lines of argument or facts.
I argue and debate politely not because I necessarily love or even like the person I’m debating with (though I sometimes do) but because I hate their ideas and arguments. The more I hate an idea the more polite I try to be.
We are all ships passing briefly on this ocean of the internet, flying the colors of our competing philosophies. The rude and the crass may be content to rake a deplorable poster with blistering noisy insults, singe the rigging a bit and sail on complacently telling themselves they've done virtuous work. Feh, I am not satisfied with such empty displays. No, I want to come about my opponent; grapple him in iron lines of courtesy to prevent him slipping away and perform a boarding action with logic and debate. I wish to tear up the planks of his delusions; deconstruct the very fabric of his hull to expose the flaws and the dark pits in his ideology to the pitiless light of reason for all to see as he writhes bereft of an excuse to escape or obfuscate and then finally, with the contradictions and vacuity of his position broken open and demolished leave him to sink foolishly beneath the waves without a trace.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
I think your reasoning is badly flawed. Romney has zero credit with his base, no leeway, huge amounts of suspiscion and a party with a history of challenging their candidates from the right. A Romney Presidency would have to cater very closely to the desires and moods of his base if he wanted any shot at re-election. Assuming that he's blowing smoke with his hyper-neocon promises is one thing but assuming that he'd somehow reverse all of that and adhere to some kind of hidden principles after being elected strikes me as contradictory.
On “Stillwater’s Challenge”
Also even dictators die. Who takes over after Mr. Benevolent? What assures that the next dictator is also benevolent or that the transition is smooth?
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Hmm #1 is fine, no arguement.
#2 i actually agree. I was pretty uncomfortable about the original post, thus my #3 comment.
#3 I agree but would add a caveat here that you have demolished a position that I do not believe anyone in the thread has taken. The closest has perhaps been me when I asserted that rudeness is self defeating and self destructive but certainly I would never say that a point delivered rudely is invalidated. Just that it's unlikely to be communicated effectively.
#4&5 is fine. No worries there.
Good job.
"
+2 to what Chris said.
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
If they are BlaiseP then I'd say it could work and good on em. Also inasmuch as they don't really harm other gay organizations elsewhere or divert resources from them (I'd say currently they don't) then they're probably a good thing indeed. It's when, however, they start appealing to gay voters and saying "overlook what the GOP says and does to you and vote for ‘em anyhow" that I feel my hackles bristle. As an advocacy group from gays reaching out to the GOP I think I’m all for em. But as useful idiots reaching from the GOP out to try and bamboozle gay or gay sympathetic voters I really am wary. But hell, there’s little danger of the latter scenario for the most part (though it’s also why Log Cabiners and GOProuds are generally viewed like beaten wives by other organizations and people) so I’m willing to be an optimist and hope they do well.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
That's a laudible purpose to have in comments and I applaud you for it.
"
Still, I'd observe that Liberalism has been somewhat ill served by the Leagues population. There are a lot of libertarians and a good collection of esoterics and some very cunning conservatives but up until Elias came round liberalism has been represented most by either very weak tea liberals like myself or very angry liberals (who don't really sell it well). I wish we had a few more regular full on liberal bloggers here.
"
Density, perhaps you should reread the comment thread immediately preceding my previous comment? You inquired as to why anyone should care if they're being rude. My subsequent observations regarding the efficiency of rudeness and its effects on ones causes and arguments are not a clever ad hominem; the rudeness (or buffoonery) is not an accusation, it’s the subject of the conversation. I’ll note in passing though that the way you phrased it was cute.
I would also like to thank you sincerely for able your demonstration of my point. Intentional rudeness allows people to spend entire posts kvetching about slights rather than addressing the subject at hand. When the danger of misreading or miswording presents the minefield of unintentional slights why on earth would one wish to intentionally trigger such unproductive exchanges?
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
Oh I think we're on the same page for enforced equality. My issue with GOProud is more of precisely what you point out. The say "Well other than the fact that they think that people like us are moral and social cancers the GOP has good policies and deserves our financial and electoral support." Well other than the shooting Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?
"
I'm always happy when you're happy. I just start humming Nearer my Tod to Thee in my head.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Everyone beat me to most of the punch here DD so I'll just note in passing that you are either being very disingenuous or you badly undervalue your worth in this medium. Commenters and comments most assuredly sway opinion; sure we’re not quite in the blogging league of opinion shaping but we’re still doing it (personally because I can’t cut it as a blogger). People read your comments (a lot more read comments than reply to them) and opinions are shaped by what they read. If any person wants to pop off loutishly about a given subject (and many do) then there’s little preventing them from doing so. But they shouldn’t try to persuade themselves that their incivility is immaterial; they are harming the causes they support and helping the causes they oppose by behaving like buffoons. Sure every little comment is a tiny minute movement of the needle but the needle still moves and out of the sum of those tiny moves is popular opinion formed (and yes I believe in voting too).
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
Yes, I certainly didn't intent to suggest that outreach is pointless. But I would submit that while outreach is definitly advisable empowering the conservatives like GOProud goes over far.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
How do you consider it rude? In what manner?
"
They'd never say anything about one being right, they'd simply screech about the rudeness. Besides, the person you're arguing with on the internet is only a fraction of the audience. The silent readers are the main target and they can tell when someone is wriggling out. Rudeness and incivility just clouds the issue and makes it harder to persuade the undecided.
On “Crocodile Tears for Gay Conservatives”
I'm pretty sure the conservatives have been pretty much written off. There really aren't enough homosexuals to attempt to sway two parties, they can barely get one of them to listen to them.
Bush the lesser was reputedly quite friendly to gays individually even as he was just fine with writing policy against them. Veep Dick has a gay daughter for goodness sakes. One of the things about homosexuality is that you don't necessarily have to do outreach. Gay relatives pop up among the ranks of conservatives all on their own in a way that Muslim relatives are very unlikely to do. And of course the history remains that those very gay relatives were generally driven onto the streets by their families to wash up in the major cities and found the refuges from which the gay communities and gay movement formed.
No, the sad writing on the wall appears to be that we're going to have to let the current spine of anti-gay sentiment shuffle off this mortal coil and that their moderated children and downright libertine grandchildren will temper the conservatives all on their own.
"
That's me, I'm just one big mother hen.
"
Well they have to do pay some kind of lip service to their gay conservatives otherwise one of them might leave and then it'd be gay conservative.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Yes Liberty, but sharp and forceful argumentation is weakened, not strengthened, by rudeness and incivility; it merely affords your opponent an opportunity to change the subject to your behavior rather than addressing your argument on its merits and offers an avenue of escape for them to end the discussion citing your rudeness. Better to be mercilessly polite while applying the blade of your points and your reason to strip away the obfuscation and lay their vile arguments bare. That hurts your typical peddler of such nasty ideas far more profoundly than name calling or incivility. Rudeness and the like is what they expect. They feed on it.
On “The Future of the GOP”
Dead? Hogwash, more like unnecessary since their entire position has pretty much become the default stance of the party over all. If you don't believe me visit any liberal group and listen to the indignant and outraged shrieking.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
I disagree LarryM. I think that rudeness and discourtesy is an impediment to the advancement of one’s ideas. If you make a telling point against a deplorable idea then rudeness and discourtesy serve only as smoke that impedes that success. Your opponent can (and will) seize upon such behavior to cloud the situation. Even absent that situation discourtesy and rudeness swiftly push conversation levels down to emotionalism, insult and hindbrain thinking. It is in these realms that the truly deplorable examples you cite flourish and thrive. Why would you voluntarily cede the advantage to Stalinists or Nazi’s by arguing the way they want you to? Additionally courtesy and manners generally prolong the conversation and make it considerably harder to squirm away from telling lines of argument or facts.
I argue and debate politely not because I necessarily love or even like the person I’m debating with (though I sometimes do) but because I hate their ideas and arguments. The more I hate an idea the more polite I try to be.
We are all ships passing briefly on this ocean of the internet, flying the colors of our competing philosophies. The rude and the crass may be content to rake a deplorable poster with blistering noisy insults, singe the rigging a bit and sail on complacently telling themselves they've done virtuous work. Feh, I am not satisfied with such empty displays. No, I want to come about my opponent; grapple him in iron lines of courtesy to prevent him slipping away and perform a boarding action with logic and debate. I wish to tear up the planks of his delusions; deconstruct the very fabric of his hull to expose the flaws and the dark pits in his ideology to the pitiless light of reason for all to see as he writhes bereft of an excuse to escape or obfuscate and then finally, with the contradictions and vacuity of his position broken open and demolished leave him to sink foolishly beneath the waves without a trace.
I’m polite because that’s how you win.
"
I'm going to hold my breath and try and think of this as kindof a public service announcement.
On “Big Rudder is Big”
Them there is a lot of turning.
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
I'll consider it Ward.
On “The Future of the GOP”
A long string of electoral losses?
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
You're a very insightful and reasoned individual to think so Tod.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.