A General Feedback thread

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can it not be construed as simple hyperbole though? The kind that is extremely common in political debate?

Setting aside of course the idiots who think universal healthcare is a form of communism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's complicated. Someone is entitled to hold nonsensical views within certain conditions.

e.g. The whole Barack Obama is a communist thing is a lot more straightforward than say, all forms of communism inevitably lead to totalitarianism or all forms of libertarianism lead to anarchy if fully applied. In the latter two we're talking about theoretical viewpoints rather than matters of fact and are much more complex to police.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm setting it aside because I think they're ideological idiots and there's not much that can be done for them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We would deal it with it to the extent that it's factual. For example, someone is entitled to the view that same-sex marriage is wrong. They're not entitled to claim that it has been conclusively demonstrated that it's bad for kids, because it hasn't been.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, libertarians call him a troll. The problem is that there are no facts involved. If the poster holds the view that the kind of minimal government espoused by libertarians would lead to a lawless society, there are no facts to prove him wrong. You believe he's wrong, obviously, but then he probably believes he's right.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure - because 'argument to the contrary' is just that, argument. Again, it isn't a question of facts, but of someone holding a silly opinion - and, to be fair, only an extreme of a relatively common right-wing viewpoint.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

People routinely ignore facts when it comes to their political views. If they start claiming facts we'll step in but we're not going to censure someone for holding a particular view. i.e. the difference between "I think the best place for a child is between a loving father and mother" and "Raising a child in a hetrosexual family is best for children". One is a view, the other is a statement of fact.

Permabear wrote: »

In this case, the poster in question repeatedly claims that libertarians wish to bring about a society that would resemble lawless Somali warlordism. When confronted with reasoned argument, with references and quotations from libertarian philosophy, he disregards all counterargument and goes back to repeating his claim. That is why people call him a troll.

Eh, a reasoned argument with references and quotations is just a mere argument it is not a statement of fact. The problem here, as with most theoretical political arguments, is that they consist of opinions not facts and as such are not like a debate about facts and can't be moderated as such.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Depends on whether you are stating an opinion or claiming a fact. We'll intervene if it's the latter.

Scofflaw

So are you saying that if someone were to come on to the forum and insist in the face of all argument to the contrary that universal healthcare is communism, the mods are fine with that?

Depends on whether you are stating an opinion or claiming a fact. We'll intervene if it's the latter.

How could "universal healthcare is communism" ever be regarded as a factual question, though?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

How could "universal healthcare is communism" ever be regarded as a factual question, though?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

I'm pretty sure someone could construe it that way if they were trolling.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure someone could construe it that way if they were trolling.

Not sure - I mean, they could say that it was a fact, but that doesn't mean it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure - I mean, they could say that it was a fact, but that doesn't mean it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

On and on and refusing to back up their claims...Like this sort of thing?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70130974&postcount=13

LeixlipRed

Well that's just hilariously innacurate so you couldn't back that up if you tried

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As you seem convinced that the thread in question was to do with trolling, whereas setting up a thread wanting an argument with libertarians is anything but. The OP was very clear in this regard.

Scofflaw

Lockstep wrote: »

As you seem convinced that the thread in question was to do with trolling, whereas setting up a thread wanting an argument with libertarians is anything but. The OP was very clear in this regard.

Sure - and we're not about to outlaw threads in which people of one political persuasion attack the politics of another group and aren't convinced by anything the other group says in response, because we wouldn't have a Politics forum if we did that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Just to interject with my own two cents, its clearly not trolling to provoke a debate on an idealogy you disagree with and want to dance around the handbags on. If you understand an idealogy, and you dislike it - grand. No problem.

However, can that defence of a posters right to disagree be exercised should they actually request instruction on what an idealogies utopia would look like? Surely they already have a good idea of what it would look like, which is the reason why they disagree with it?

You can disagree with an idealogy passionately, or you can play the fool requesting instruction on the idealogy and its utopian society but surely you cant do both at once honestly? If a poster dislikes a particular idealogy, they shouldnt need other posters to explain the idealogy to them. They should already understand it, given their knowledge of the idealogy is why they dislike the idealogy so passionately. They should be able to summarise the idealogy and highlight the particular strands they disagree with, *why* they disagree with them and what alternatives they consider more acceptable. Discussion then folows.

On another point - in the spirit of that sticking a smiley at the end of an insult doesnt make it any less of a personal attack, does laying one cards on the table in a post by declaring youre intense dislike of a particular idealogy have any merit when considering the rest of the post?

nesf

Sand wrote: »

If a poster dislikes a particular idealogy, they shouldnt need other posters to explain the idealogy to them.

I disagree, someone can dislike an ideology but not fully understand it. e.g. I think very hard left political theory is nonsensical but I'm not deeply read in that area so it would not be out of line for me to ask someone to explain some of the theory to me while still disliking the ideology in general because I believe the utopia is untenable.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I disagree, someone can dislike an ideology but not fully understand it. e.g. I think very hard left political theory is nonsensical but I'm not deeply read in that area so it would not be out of line for me to ask someone to explain some of the theory to me while still disliking the ideology in general because I believe the utopia is untenable.

I'd go further, and point out that "explain how your ideology works in respect of x" is a classic attack tactic, where the better you know the ideology you're attacking, the better the trap you can lay.

I'm not sure why this is regarded as something outrageous on a politics forum. Politics isn't religion, it's not supposed to be a matter of faith, spirituality or emotion - if you follow a political ideology, you should be able to defend it, and you should expect it to be challenged.

The thread in question was in the Political Theory sub-forum, was explicitly laid out as an attack on libertarianism, and was provocative in order to provoke responses from those who would defend libertarianism...and is there, in some way, something I'm missing here? Because that seems to me to be a completely unexceptionable thing to do in a Political Theory forum. Political ideologies are supposed to be able to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and a discussion forum, surely, is explicitly part of that marketplace.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It could have had something to do with the ball sucking comment as well

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

At this point, this whole argument reads as "My sacred cow is more holy than yours". I have seen no less hysterical statements in threads on social democracy, unions, and threads that dare to hint that government policies can in fact be beneficial to citizens.

It is patently obvious that many of those who criticize libertarianism don't actually understand what it is; it generally gets lumped into the 'neo-liberalism = bad" category. But it is equally obvious that there are plenty of posters who do not understand that the difference between social democracy, socialism, communism and totalitarianism are. The only difference is that there are more threads generated about the former than the latter.

I also think that in-depth knowledge of the literature is often used to beat others over the head with, whereas what I think what a lot of people really want to discuss are the actual political and social outcomes under leaders/governments who espouse these principles, rather than the internal debates among the high priests of a given theory. So, to use an oft cited example, posters who dare to raise the issue of the Pinochet's regime close relationship to acolytes of Friedman are shouted down with theoretical treatises. Of course, many of these same posters will then turn around in any debate on socialism and immediately raise the issue of Stalin and Mao, skipping by any serious discussion of how socialist principles often become social democratic policies in practice. While this may be more appropriate in the Political Theory forum, on the main page this is a bit disingenuous.

Let me also add that just because a post is written in an elegant, pithy way, that does not make it any less goading. I suspect that this is another element of these kinds of tit-for-tat threads attacking certain political ideologies: at its core, a post wrapped in well-crafted prose may be just as ridiculous as one wrapped in hyperbole, but the latter is easier to dismiss outright than the former.

At the end of the day, yes, we can report posters who continue along a certain trajectory when confronted with specific empirical evidence, or who are continually disrupting threads. But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying (come on, when will you people see the light on a national list system!) but such is life in a Politics forum.

Laminations

Permabear, to be fair you could be guilty of your definition of trolling. You would continually argue against me as if I was a statist who supported the current actions of government. You would cite examples of how social democracy has gone wrong as if I didn't agree it needed to be changed, I just disagree it needs to be a libertarian solution. You constantly strawman your opponents position to the extreme statist/socialist opposing point, and cannot argue against a centrist or someone who agrees with more government control in some areas and less in others. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am a social capitalist but you still refer to me as a statist. You credit libertarianism with any improvements where more liberal policies have been implemented while ignoring the co-involvement of other factors such as increased democracy, access to information etc. while at the same time blaming the slightest government intervention for any failures in quite liberal systems. You state as fact the opinions of libertarian thinkers, as if something is true because Hayek or von Mises said so. Philosophical argument does not trump actual evidence and your evidence is always a mix of libertarianism and <something else> because it exists nowhere in its purest form. And like I said, in these instances you credit libertaianism and ignore the 'something else' as if it couldn't possibly be the balance that results in greatest benefit.

Now you can construe the following statement as trolling but it is my honest assessment of your devotion to an ideology. I love ice, you add it to whiskey, it makes it better, add it to coke it makes it better, add it to water it makes it better, therefore we should push for just ice. ICE FTW

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Being from Munster isn't an ideological choice.* I'm pretty appalled you don't understand the difference, because it's exactly the same difference as between, say, political ideology and ethnic origin - neither geographical nor ethnic origin are something an individual has any control over.

somewhat appalled,
Scofflaw

*yes, even if it sometimes looks like it is

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote:

At the end of the day, yes, we can report posters who continue along a certain trajectory when confronted with specific empirical evidence, or who are continually disrupting threads. But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying (come on, when will you people see the light on a national list system!) but such is life in a Politics forum.

Exactly.

Laminations wrote:

Permabear, to be fair you could be guilty of your definition of trolling. You would continually argue against me as if I was a statist who supported the current actions of government. You would cite examples of how social democracy has gone wrong as if I didn't agree it needed to be changed, I just disagree it needs to be a libertarian solution. You constantly strawman your opponents position to the extreme statist/socialist opposing point, and cannot argue against a centrist or someone who agrees with more government control in some areas and less in others. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am a social capitalist but you still refer to me as a statist.

And exactly - Permabear, you also do exactly the same to other social democrats. You've certainly done the same to me, as have other libertarians. If I banned the OP of the thread that so exercises you and other libertarians, I should by rights follow it up with bans of many of you for exactly the same kind of behaviour.

And really, that's enough time wasted on this non-issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If we thought it would make the forum a better place, I suppose we'd do it. I don't think any of us think it would, though. Misinformed attacks on ideologies, institutions, parties, individual politicians are just par for the course in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I'm well aware you don't agree with me and although you succeed in winding me up (on occasion), I do enjoy debating with you, although on libertarianism I think we've reached a stale-mate, a point where neither will convince the other and any continuation is just rehashing old points. And I know, moreso than with other posters, that when debating you that it is not disrespect, just utter disagreement.