Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think the primary reason for the great divide in this country on abortion is that the issue was settled overnight, via judicial decree, rather than through open political debate, popular vote and legislation.

eta: the Economist had an excellent article on this very topic in June of last year (need registration to get link) - and why in Europe it is not as divisive an issue

Slave, you know that I love you like the reactionary, Yankees-loving brother I never had, but the reason for the great divide in this country on abortion is that a substantial minority of the population people think that it involves killing babies.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Oh, for fuck's sake. Slave is talking about Edward Said. Edward Said was the last fucking person who would have considered himself representative of the views of Democrats or liberals.

Actually, I was talking about Professors Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad.

But thanks for reminding me Columbia actually had a Chair named after Edward Said.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch

.....my general point being that you had your head up your ass when you made that statement now tell me why I should give a shit that someone who gleefully accepts comments about how I am a racist and anti-Semite because of my party affiliation granted my "general point"

You know, I wrote out this long line-for-line response to this post, but I decided to delete it because I did not want to down that road.

Therefore, I am only going to say that I was merely pointing out that listening to certain members of the liberal elite (she said "liberal" not Democrat - go back and look), you certainly could see where that statement comes from. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, I was talking about Professors Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad.

But thanks for reminding me Columbia actually had a Chair named after Edward Said.

You're welcome. Does that me a racist or an anti-Semite?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You know, I wrote out this long line-for-line response to this post, but I decided to delete it because I did not want to down that road.

Therefore, I am only going to say that I was merely pointing out that listening to certain members of the liberal elite (she said "liberal" not Democrat - go back and look), you certainly could see where that statement comes from. Nothing more, nothing less.

And neither Chomsky nor Said nor the others would describe themselves as "liberal." Don't use their words to paint me. Just because Coulter does it doesn't mean it's accurate.


eta: I am honestly sick and tired of Repubs -- including people I consider to be personal friends, like you -- thinking that this attack-dog style is acceptable. I know that Dems do it too. But I don't do it to you. I don't defend people who say "conservatives are racists" by pointing to a few conservatives who are racists, and I certainly don't do that in any context like what we are seeing today -- a context in which Hello says that the only reason that I could possibly disagree with him about his radical "section 8" plan is because I'm a racist living in a segregated white suburban enclave.

eta2: If you weren't following that thread, and just jumped on the wrong train, then I can kinda understand. But Coulter, at least as referenced in your post and the one that preceded it, said nothing about "elite." It said "liberals," and you gleefully pointed out how a few people who despise the term liberal would, if actually (1) liberal and (2) representative of liberals, would prove her point.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If I read Chomsky or attended classes at Columbia, I'd have to believe her.

Chomsky an Anti-Semite? I can't wait for Not Me's comments on self-loathing. What does his wife look like?

eta: I liked Tiger's self-loathing better.



eata: whoops. wrong one. The sentiment re: Tiger still stands, though. http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~osa2001.../rIMG_0723.jpg

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by baltassoc
"Orientalism" is a pretty incredible book (and doesn't discuss Israel in any meaningful way, if at all). Ushered in a new era of thinking about colonialism and culture.

I haven't really followed his more recent work, but I do have to wonder if something didn't get blown out of proportion. I could easily see an academic exercise being taken out of context. I still want to see the cite.

Nevermind, I found it. I'm not going to defend the statements of the most radical professors at Columbia, which seem to go beyond the most radical statements of Said (who was admittedly anti-Israel, but I think clearly not anti-Semitic). I will note that a few professors at one university do not a liberal conspiracy make.

Northwestern University has a holocaust denier on the faculty (Arthur Butz). That's the breaks when you grant tenure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, I was talking about Professors Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad.

My apologies for suggesting that David Duke was anywhere near as prominent as Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad.

Or for suggesting that he could attract anywhere near as many "conservative" voters as they could "liberal" voters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
eta: I am honestly sick and tired of Repubs -- including people I consider to be personal friends, like you -- thinking that this attack-dog style is acceptable. I know that Dems do it too. But I don't do it to you. I don't defend people who say "conservatives are racists" by pointing to a few conservatives who are racists, and I certainly don't do that in any context like what we are seeing today -- a context in which Hello says that the only reason that I could possibly disagree with him about his radical "section 8" plan is because I'm a racist living in a segregated white suburban enclave.

Good luck with that. Debate used to be an exchange of competing views. There was a gentelman's agreement that you would engage in honest hashing out of the issues on the merits. usually, both sides would walk away with an understanding of the opposition's position. They wouldn't agree with it, but they'd understand it. This would help smooth political differences. that was beneficial because the thinking was then the competing views could comprimise. And the business of governing could go forward.

NOW, nobody debates anything. They chuck soundbites at one another and change the subject when cornered. There is no interest in addressing anything on the merits. All that matters is who's got the best soundbite. Compromising on anything is viewed as being a traitor to your views. Stubbornness is now a fucking laudable quality.

You can't debate shit with Hello. He doesn't want compromise - he wants domination. He is right about one thing the Dems don't get - they don't understand the new rules of debate. they keep trying to win on facts and analysis. That. Doesn't. Work. Anymore.

Get in the pit, Sidd. You're either fighting like a guerilla or you're getting chewed up. I find this form of debate kind of fun myself - you don't need cites or logic - all you need is one or two salacious points and few bad facts about your opponent and you can beat him silly. Its fourth grade all over again. Speak, then see if the facts back you up. If they do, fuckin' a! Great! If not, just attack the opponent or change the subject.

Watch Bill O'Reilly. Thats not a talk show. Thats a "People being talked at" show. Thats the "New Debate". Learn it.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
He is right about one thing the Dems don't get - they don't understand the new rules of debate. they keep trying to win on facts and analysis.

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

Good one!!!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He is right about one thing the Dems don't get - they don't understand the new rules of debate. they keep trying to win on facts and analysis.

Sebby, that's nowhere near my point. Sorry. The Dems don't play the rough-and-tumble game as well, but they try to just as hard. And no one played it better than Carville, and if he could run the next Dem Pres campaign that would be fine with me.

But electoral politics are quite different than a chatroom discussion, especially one that includes any number of people who know each other personally. Defending a comment trashing liberals as anti-Semites, one made by Ann Coulter -- whose writing suggests that I'm a traitor (and, presumably, should therefore be executed), particularly in the context of a thread where hello is saying I'm a racist living in my white suburban gated community, and particularly when said by someone who knows me and has even been in my home -- that is far over the line.

I leave aside the utter absurdity of basing a general slam on liberals on professed "radical" Noam Chomsky and two professors no one outside of academia has heard of or cares about.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

But electoral politics are quite different than a chatroom discussion, especially one that includes any number of people who know each other personally. Defending a comment trashing liberals as anti-Semites, one made by Ann Coulter -- whose writing suggests that I'm a traitor (and, presumably, should therefore be executed), particularly in the context of a thread where hello is saying I'm a racist living in my white suburban gated community, and particularly when said by someone who knows me and has even been in my home -- that is far over the line.

Whoo, busy day for me. For the record, I actually said that I'm not saying that any of you or your parents are racists. Not that this needs to be said, but I don't read or watch Coulter either.

But, now that you've repeatedly defended yourself from accusations that were never made, I will say you are nuts. Its like, like you are hearing voices or something.

Anyway, its not like y'all are supposed to agree with me. Like yur gonna get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness for being cogs in an oppressive machine? But fixing what's wrong at home is where its at in the election cycle. Aside from who's fault it is, its easy enough for y'all to grab the high ground.

There were like 5 people who said I should sell it to the Rs. Just to repeat this for the 50th time for those with reading comprehension, trouble the Rs aren't buying it because they already have a plan to end this stuff entirely.

Anyhow, figure out where the problems are and figure out any way to solve them. Or watch your share of the electorate continue to shrink. Either way. I'd just rather see the country take the highest moral ground, whether its the Dems or Reps that do it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
But electoral politics are quite different than a chatroom discussion, especially one that includes any number of people who know each other personally. Defending a comment trashing liberals as anti-Semites, one made by Ann Coulter -- whose writing suggests that I'm a traitor (and, presumably, should therefore be executed), particularly in the context of a thread where hello is saying I'm a racist living in my white suburban gated community, and particularly when said by someone who knows me and has even been in my home -- that is far over the line.

I leave aside the utter absurdity of basing a general slam on liberals on professed "radical" Noam Chomsky and two professors no one outside of academia has heard of or cares about.

1) Someone says Ann Coulter says liberals are anti-semites.

2) I point out that some liberals - like members of the Columbia faculty - are.

3) You now allege I called you some racist traitor living in a gated community.

Can you fill me in here? I'm clearly missing something

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Someone says Ann Coulter says liberals are anti-semites.

2) I point out that some liberals - like members of the Columbia faculty - are.

3) You now allege I called you some racist traitor living in a gated community.

Can you fill me in here? I'm clearly missing something

1) Hello spends the day saying that I'm a racist living in a gated community (because I disagree with his view that, rather than order children be bussed, the courts should have directed the feds to forcibly integrate every community in America).

2) In response to Hello, Sebby cites Ann Coulter as saying that all liberals are anti-Semites

3) You respond to Sebby with, well, if I were to listen to Chomsky and these two other freaks, I would have to agree.

Perhaps you didn't mean to support Hello in this argument. Perhaps you didn't mean to support the Coulter view of me and other liberals.
Perhaps you really meant to say that Ann Coulter is a piece of shit, and that you disagree with her tactic of taking the worst elements of the hard, ivory-tower left and painting everyone left of Arlen Specter as being identical to those people.

If so, then I am missing something.

[Shape Shifter]

A review of Posner's new book. http://www.slate.com/id/2109600/

He estimates the "the cost of extinction of the human race" at $600 trillion. That should help with a little cost/benefit analysis.


*Except for the parts about killer robots. That's for sebby.