quote:

---

you might notice that he must read at least 3 books a week, and usually at least one of those is non-fiction.

---

quote:

---

The man is probably far more educated than you are.

---

quote:

---

In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.

---

quote:

---

This isn't exactly true, either. At several times in ancient greece, the relationship between certain men would be much more recognizable to us as a marriage than that between the men and their "wife". The culture was very different. In fact, it is hard to pin down exactly one relationship in ancient greece that corresponds to marriage today: http://www.pogodesigns.com/JP/weddings/greekwed.html There were several (4 as commonly understood) which were similar in type to marriage, but a marriage today would encompass at least two of the types. We have ascribed the term marriage to the heterosexual relationships because they are between men and women, and western experience with marriage is that it is between men and women -- now OSC wants to say that because it is marriage, it is between men and women. This is a circular argument.

---

quote:

---

But anyone who has any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play, will realize that this new diktat of the courts will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating

---

quote:

---

And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother.

---

quote:

---

This just isn't true. For instance, there have been several societies on earth which have had tribal marriages, where every woman is married to every man and vice versa, and children are raised by the group, not by any paired couple.

---

quote:

---

So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family. This is precisely what large segments of the Left would like to see break down. And if it is found to have unpleasant results, they will, as always, insist that the cure is to break down the family even further.

---

quote:

---

Prove it. I and others have been citing for a bit now the wealth of statistics that all agree this just isn't true in the case of homosexual couples. Furthermore, even if it were true, so what? We allow single parents to raise children. We allow effeminate men married to effeminate women to raise children. We allow many combinations of people to raise children that do not in the core include a role model of both sexes.

---

quote:

---

And in those families where one or both parents were missing, usually because of death, either stepparents, adoptive parents, or society in general would step in to provide, not just nurturing, but also the appropriate role models

---

quote:

---

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

---

quote:

---

Oh really? Lets see, longest lasting civilizations . . . I'd say the greek civilization has been one of the longest lasting so far, and their strategy involved numerous things we wouldn't approve of -- spartans allowing their wives to be impregnated by other men (if they're weak), and impregnating other women (if they're strong), concubines, marriages to close relations in order to carry on the family line.

Then there's roman society -- lets see, men were both allowed and societally encouraged to sleep around.

Perhaps chinese society, that civilization was continuously around a while. Lets see, multiple wives, concubines.

Then of course, there's Indian civilization. Again, multiple wives. Not only that, but marriage occurred between the ages of 8 and 10 in certain castes.

Perhaps OSC has some different ideas on which civilizations were long lasting. None of the ones I could think of had anything less than societally sanctioned infidelity, and several (of the longest lived, too) had legally sanctioned arrangements clearly not compatible with the idea of monogamy

---

quote:

---

Most kids won't be swayed, because the message of the hormones is clear for them.

---

quote:

---

. . . there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way

---

quote:

---

The heart of conservatism is religious. It is the belief that a wise and all-knowing Creator put man on earth in order to make him an agent unto himself.

---

quote:

---

Liberalism on the other hand seizes an individual's agency---and the responsibility respective to it---and transfers it to the state, effectively nullifying a person's ownership of their own life and destiny. Under liberalism, the state is responsible for an individual's or family's well-being.

---

quote:

---

Conservatism recognizes and governs by principles. Liberalism recognizes problems and reacts, trying to correct the perceived problems---often without a thorough analysis of the principles involved or the effects of short-term solutions on the long-term future.

---

Liberals probably govern MORE by principles than conservatives do - they are simply different principles: equality of the classes, compassion for the weak, peace above all, and so on...

And conservatives often react to perceived problems without considering long-term future effects or about the principles involved. One need not look any further than the reaction to 9/11 to see this. Conservatives wanted to invade Iraq as a response to the threat of terrorism, skipping over the traditional American principles governing warfare and paying little attention to the long term hatred such a war would cause nearly everywhere in the world.

All of the above are false attempts to not true differences between conservatives and liberal - and in fact I suspect you could find other conservatives arguing exactly the opposite way in each of the above cases. I know I've heard conservatives argue that liberals pay too much attention to principles and not enough attention to practical problems. I know I've heard conservatives argue that the government has too little control on the values of our society.

What is the real difference between the two?

I think the two groups are very vague and constantly changing, so it's hard to pin down specific differences. However, I think there is at least one major continuing theme that defines the two:

Liberals want to change the flawed foundations of society based on mankind's newest understanding. They are afraid society will never attain its ideal.

Conservatives want to protect the time-tested foundations of society from mankind's newest confusions. They are afraid society will become corrupt and fall, like Rome did.

Edit: Just to add, I also think Bush's policies are as much liberal as they are conservative. I mean, he has pursued a course of big government, imperialism, and has broken with many traditional American values. You can call this neoconservative, but aside from his views on religious issues, it's not very conservative at all. There is no major conservative in this election.

[ October 21, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm not sure why Ami started this thread, unless it is just to vent. That's okay - we all need to vent sometimes. There not really any productive or polite discussion, considering whose board this is, that could come from it, however.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
beverly: If you go back to the article, he's stating that most people aren't swayed to homosexuality (by abuse, as he asserts large numbers are, despite a lack of factual supporting evidence) because their hormones are clear, and then he starts strongly implying that most people who call themselves homosexual could be heterosexual if they were properly taught how to be so, because they're really just confused sexually.

This isn't necessarily contradictory, no, but it can be.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I'll read those articles and add my two cents when I come back. I have to go.
But, I do disagree with a lot of OSC's articles at times. I also wish he'd stop using terms like intellectual elite or stating that folks like me want to destroy civilization because that isn't my aim.
More later....
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
An interesting thread to say the least.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Amka,
If you think that article sums up feminism, you're both innaccurate and being ungrateful to people who worked very hard for the status and rights that you, as a woman, now enjoy. As I've said before, feminists didn't start classing women who stayed at home or women as a class as inferior. That was done by the conservative forces for centuries before the feminist movement. The current face of the feminist movement has, in my opinion, taken up a lot of bad positions, one of which is propogating the idea that all women who stay at home are the oppressed victims that some of them still are. However, to say that this is what the feminist movement means to you is like saying that the corruption and laziness of some unions sums up the entirety of the Labor movement.

As for OSC, there have been some glaring factual errors in some of his columns, but that's almost not the point. I don't respect his columns mainly because he is knowingly engaging in demogougery. I don't respect the writings of anyone who does that. Labeling, name-calling, emotional appeals, casting everything the other side does as an attack, extreme simplification of the issues, apologetics, and, above all, the attempt to get your readers to turn people into things are things that any respectible essayist should be fighting against, not embracing. And what makes it worse for me is knowing that OSC knows what he is doing, knows what the probable effects are, and does it anyway. He'He's Grego shouting in the town square, knowing that the people he's shouting to are going to attack the nearest Piggies they can find (although OSC's impact is obviously much, much smaller).

As for why he believes what he believes, I've given this some thought and analysis and I think one of OSC's core beliefs that he is writing from and that he thinks justifies his behavior is that there are in fact a highly influential class of people who hate and are dedicated to the destruction of the family, which, before their opposition was a wonderful, almost flawless institution. If I believed that such a group existed, I'd likely try to oppose them with the same vigor if not the same tactics as OSC has been.

All in all, this is pretty small beans for me. I certainly don't look to OSC for political opinions. I don't really look to him for opinions at all. He's a writer whose books I've really liked. The only real problem for me is that I believe that his recent books have been of poor quality because of his extra-curicular activities. He could rant about politics all he wants and if he could keep turing out very good books, I'd say more power to him. He has a very minimal effect on the political landscape. I'd still take exception to his demogougery but it would be, as it is now, criticism aimed at a representation of what people do in the general case and not for the specific case.

[ October 21, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
I haven't read many of OSC's political essays, but I have read a few. I will state for the record that I lean toward a more liberal stance than he on many issues.

I have no doubt at all that OSC is highly intelligent, well read and even compassionate to those whom he disagrees with (I mean, he hosts Ornery which is home to more than it's fair share of differing viewpoints).

I also have no doubt that many here are also well educated and so forth.

But having read OSC's political essays, it's apparent that he has a flare for hyperbole. I think fugu, that many of your examples are perfectly valid arguments for OSC's point-of-view that, in a more subtle form, would be much less likely to draw such attention to themselves as being blatantly false or absurd. I believe OSC has a pretty clear idea of how his "flagrant" rhetoric affects readers -- he is well educated and he's got a good grasp of how language is used and how it works. This is only an assumption, but he probably doesn't have the time to sit down and write every essay with as much consideration as they may be due -- but his essays do have (I believe) an encouraging effect nonetheless. By bringing the issues he writes about to public light and using a bit of hyperbole to assert his beliefs and convictions he allows for public debate to follow which will hopefully lead to a more detailed discussion and debate of the subjects.

A problem occurs here, however, when, instead of dissecting the issues and looking at them in nuance, we allow ourselves to only respond with hyperbole of our own. That's when discussions often start leading to name calling.

Maybe my theory is completely wrong, but this is how I've always viewed this issue since I've been reading Hatrack. I don't respect OSC any less for his political views because they differ from mine.

I mean, it's not like he's an actual politician worthy of disrespect or anything...
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
It's not OSC's views that are so bad. It is the way in which he attempts to justify and argue for them.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I do so much want to destroy civilization.

But I cannot get OSC to write so much as a single sentence about me.

:SIGH:
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
For some reason, I feel real sympathy for OSC after Xapo's last post....

[ October 21, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Don't worry, Scott, I'm probably doing enough to destroy civilization for the both of us. Me and my marriage like mating pattern. OOOoooOOOOooo be afraiiiiid.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.

---

quote:

---

As opposed to characterizing people who disagree as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God?

---

quote:

---

I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.

---

quote:

---

It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.

---

Hmmm... Maybe I haven't read enough of his essays, but I've never got that impression from him. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that from the few I've read he seems to be saying that there are forces at work that could be characterized in such a way, but not that anyone who disagrees with him are those forces. But, as I've said, I've only read a few of his political essays (for the reason that he does seem to use so much hyperbole in them -- I like my political readings to be meatier).
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Okay, I've thought about it. I think I can sometimes be derailed too easily, and I will watch for the tendency, but I don't think I was so much defending me record in my reply to Chad as reiterating what the issue was here, because I did not believe Chad's reply addressed the issue, but simply stated the irrelevant fact that there are a lot of rude people, and his belief that some Hatrack's posters are numbered among them. I will stop now, though, before I get derailed.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Chad,
This site is OSC's property and he can do with it whatever he wants. His words of themselves, on the other hand, should be held to a standard no matter where they are written. I'll never dispute his right to write whatever he wants on his own property, but, if he puts those words into the public domain, I have the right to analyze them based on a set of standards. You were seeming to say that people didn't have a leg to stand on in saying that OSC's words fail to meet some standard because other people somewhere else who disagree with OSC also have failed to meet that standard. That's just silly, although sadly in what is supposed to be the most sober, mature parts of the our society, that idea is somehow consider ok.

[ October 21, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Chad: and yet, that doesn't make it okay in either case .
 

---

Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
 
aspectre:

quote:

---

Which proves absolutely nothing other than the books happened to be on my parents' bookshelves, and that I was a compulsive reader.

---

 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
BananaOj:

Done, do it yourself sometime.

Sometime's the best advice one can give another, is best suited to the giver.

quote:

---

NFL, maybe you don't understand -- if the Republican party adopts homo-hating as its official platform, and you identify yourself with the party, you are effectively declaring yourself a homophobe.

---

quote:

---

Would I? No. But then, I wouldn't call a male homosexual "a gay" either. That would make me sound like a homophobe.

"Yeah, John's got a boyfriend. Didn't you know he's a gay?"

It sounds homophobic. I only use "gay" as an adjective. Unlike "lesbian", which does perfectly fine as an adjective or a noun, "gay" does not sound at all right as a noun.

---

quote:

---

When God comes out, I'm going to point at all the homophobes who used the Bible as justification for their bigotry and laugh.

Oh, come up...

---

quote:

---

I've never used homophobic to mean someone who doesn't like homosexuality. I've always used homophobic, when I've used it, to mean someone who hates homosexuality without reason. -phobia, to me, always suggests irrational fear.

Not everyone who disapproves/condemns homosexuality is homophobic, and not all homophobes are secretly gay.

---

quote:

---

His words of themselves, on the other hand, should be held to a standard no matter where they are written.

---

And what "standard" is it you propose to hold them to? By what right do you claim such?

I found that interesting.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
::thought better of::

You know what, I'm not going to argue. I've stated my feeling. I will continue to read this thread. Arguing will only result in me engaging in behavior which I am pretty certain would not be appropriate in the Card living room, which is why I try to stay out of these threads.

[ October 21, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Icky
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lets see, one is by Lalo, who routinely gets smacked down for inflammatory rhetoric (and does in that instance), the second is a discussion of the use of language to describe homosexuality and how certain usages have been coopted by people who are homophobic, then there's another by Lalo, and the last is by someone who's clarifying that he's doesn't use homophobic to refer to people who disapprove of or condemn homosexuality, but only those who seem to have an irrational fear or hatred of it.

Oh yeah, you sure showed us that there are tons of people here who accuse people who oppose them of being homophobes. You found one.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I've set out the standards that I think that OSC violated in my post about it. Other people have also made characterizations about his writings and what standards he failed to meet. You've even implicitedly agreed that he has done this when you said in effect, "Yeah, and other people have done the same thing."

Oh, and you're not actually questioning my "right" to do this. As a thinking being, I have the "right" to judge pretty much anything. As to Hatrack, it's a more or less public forum. I have the "right" to post anything that doesn't violate the rules of the this forum. What you're questioning is my authority to say this.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
What is there to argue? You disagree with OSC's views and don't like his labels of certain stances/movements or beliefs. No problem there.

My post merely showed that if you hold a standard against OSC for his views, you can't except the posts of others on this forum from the same standard.

I don't think you are disputing that. At least I don't think you are.

I just find it odd that those that attack OSC do it in the same way he does of the views he opposes.

Two sides of the same coin.

That's just my thoughts, agree or disagree, but you can't argue with my thoughts being mine or OSC's being his or yours being yours.

I don't see any argument there.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Heh, Icarus, I think you're quite right on this discussion not being worth continuing.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
MrSquicky that is the whole point. He (OSC) holds your views to his standard, and you hold his views to yours.

I don't think there really is an argument on this.

I think Amka's original post hit the nail on the head. And the rest of the posts in this thread are more evidence of that.

OSC has views and a standard and has stated them.

In response people have views and their own standards and hold him up to them.

Great!

I don't see the problem with that.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh yeah, you sure showed us that there are tons of people here who accuse people who oppose them of being homophobes. You found one

---

• In which I spew out my political opinions October 21, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  First use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.
• Religious stereotypes of a people September 24, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.
• Help! They're after me... September 05, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Lalo- Arguably one of the most controversial and non-mainstream posters on the entire board (The liberal CStroman if you will, though he generally brings better references to the table when pressed)
• My only problem with the whole "gay and lesbian" thing . . . September 05, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Verily The Younger. I believe he's conservative, but in any case it was a very specific discussion on semantics of words.
• Methodist court says homosexuality "incompatible with church teachings" May 03, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Lalo again, Multiple people using the word to say that it is retoric and shouldn't be used and Pooka, a consdervative saying that she is one (the thread died before the discussion between her and Tom D continued and I would have liked a clarification, couldn't tell if it was in jest or not.)
• Good GOD, OSC... February 27, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Dagonee a conservative used the word to illustrate the rediculousness drivel on *both* sides of the argument.
• How do you feel when God comes up? January 23, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Lalo again, in an entirely humorous thread.
• Finding out your parent is gay... January 08, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  pooka, a conservative again, in a semantic context
• Episode 5,324 in Hatrack's continuing discussion on homosexuality September 11, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  PSI, a conservative, using it in a hypothetical sense of being called one, even though the word hadn't been used prior in the thread.
• I'm not gay but..................... August 19, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  An odd post by a rare poster, and thus a relative newbie, that is a self-proclaimed prior homophobe and LDS member.
• Gay Bishops? August 11, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  Ryan Heart, a conservative, self-proclaimed homophobe in his early posting. Wonder what happened to him and what he'd say to Chad now?
• Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen.... August 10, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  A single post by a poster who only has one post. Don't know if it was a troll, a screen name throwaway or what.
• Homosexuality: The Biggest Problem Facing America Today August 05, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
  
  Potemkyn, newbie only posted during July and August of 03 and hasn't posted since

quote:

---

First use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.

---

quote:

---

Use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.

---

quote:

---

I didn't bash a single liberal in this thread. Go back and read the thread again.

Own up to it or use the edit button.

---

Chad this merely proves your nearsightedness. If you can't see how liberals or *anyone* (cause some conservatives disagree with you to) could call your stances on either of those threads as "liberal bashing" you've got major issues with your perception of reality.

AJ
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
And again Chad, if someone had saved Hitler's brain and we reanimated it and put into the body of a convicted child molester and he accurately said that someone was doing something wrong, it would still be childish to respond with "Oh yeah, well you're the reanimated brain of Hitler in the body of a child molestor, so nanny nanny boo!"
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*Hugs Mr. Squicky*

AJ
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Amka's point, and mine as well, were that as "bad" as OSC's posts on his own website are. The posts by his "guests" are just as bad.

Some people disagreed.

The last couple of posts confirmed it as a fact (and yours didn't help the cause either.)

Don't the people here read this thread and see that the exact same thing they accuse OSC of doing, is exactly what they are doing? In this thread no less?

Amka was right. The vitrol by those with differing opinions than her (and me apparently) or OSC, is on Par or surpasses OSC in this thread alone.

I have said NOTHING attacking anyone in this thread at all.

NOTHING, directly or indirectly.

But the vitrol level of the responses really show that what Amka was saying, was in deed correct.

That's all I'm saying.

She's right in my opinion. And this thread backs me up.
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 

quote:

---

BananaOj:

Done, do it yourself sometime.

Sometime's the best advice one can give another, is best suited to the giver.

---

quote:

---

Ooooh, bitchslap! GO AJ!

Chad, even when using only the search-phrase "homoph" you only get 43 hits. Your claim of 50+ is incorrect.

---

How is this the same as characterizing someone as "enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes" or "bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God"


 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Amka's point, and mine as well, were that as "bad" as OSC's posts on his own website are. The posts by his "guests" are just as bad.

Some people disagreed.

---

quote:

---

You really think the level of inflammatory rhetoric on Hatrack is at the same level as that in OSC's columns?

---

AJ, I've got to say I see at least the same level of inflammatory rhetoric on Hatrack as in OSC's columns. The difference being that, in a forum, the reprimand is more immediate and closer to the disfavored behavior.

The rhetoric on Hatrack is also diluted far more by the wonderful general level of posting. A fair comparison to establish the level of inflammatory rhetoric might be to shuffle OSC's articles in with his books. In that context, I doubt he looks as bad or worse than Hatrack.

We did get pretty inflammatory a couple weeks back.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*pies Dagonee -- with a pie en flambe!*

How's that for inflammatory posting?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I believe that's called inflammatory pastry...

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I've always considered cooking techniques that involve flaming alcohol to be a waste of perfectly good alcohol. That's the real crime, here, fugu, and you'll burn for it. In a nice non-alcohol flame, of course.

Dagonee
P.S., has anyone seen a Hibachi chef make a tower of onion rings, fill it with sake, and make a volcano out of the burning alcohol?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Hmm Dags, I see the level of inflamatory rhetoric at Hatrack greatly decreasing after Ornery began.

I guess I also see what inflammatory rhetoric that does come, coming from specific people on the fringes and not "mainstream" hatrack. And that it generally is reprimanded internally.

But maybe you are right. It could be that I just take OSC's columns more personally and therefore "feel" they are worse because they hurt both me and people I know and love, while you may take other stuff that is more directly opposing you in the same manner and in reality they are about the same.

AJ

*and I do wonder whether Chad would survive, thrive or get eaten alive at Ornery.

[ October 21, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Amka, to get back to the original topic, I'm happy that you believe your political philosophy to be sound, sensible, and ultimately good for humanity; it would be depressing to believe otherwise, I think.

That I disagree with you should not come as a surprise -- but, then, I think the problem with OSC's article is not that he's not entitled to define what he believes are the primary aspects of conservatism but that, as a self-proclaimed conservative, he is perhaps less entitled to then define the primary aspects of liberalism than someone who understands their own reasons for adopting that philosophy.

In other words, it's a good thing that both you and OSC have reasons for believing what you believe. It's when you speculate -- or, even worse, insinuate -- on the reasons that people have for disagreeing with you that those people are right to take offense.

-------

"I do wonder whether Chad would survive, thrive or get eaten alive at Ornery."

Chad would fit in just fine at Ornery, which has a long tradition of conservative "thought" in his vein.

[ October 21, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Thanks Dagonee for your response.

quote:

---

But Chad, you started in with that accusation when no one in this thread had done so.

---

quote:

---

The people registering their objections to OSC's tone did not use that tone themselves. They didn't use the means of delivery they were objecting too.

---

quote:

---

To put it in your baseball terms, a person is not precluded from claiming it's "foul" to bean or walk a heavy hitter on your team because a sportswriter favorable to your team has urged the beaning or walking of heavy hitters on opposing teams.

Dagonee

---

But it is hypocritical to say it's wrong when it's your team, but ok when it's the opposing team. Or that the rules apply to them, but not to me.

Amka's original post was pointing out something that my post most definately hit upon.

I don't see what the problem was in my post, but I definately see what Amka was saying in the responses.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Tom
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It was a parallel that there is a flip side to the same type of 'labeling' that OSC does, by those that attack OSC."

But, see, there's no proof of this, Chad.

You SAID it; that doesn't make it true.

When people asked you for evidence, you cited the specific example of the phrase "homophobe." When Anna then went and showed you how rarely, in fact, the phrase "homophobe" has been used, you somehow used the fact that she proved you wrong to argue that, by disagreeing with you, her "vitriol" somehow proved you right.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

P.S., has anyone seen a Hibachi chef make a tower of onion rings, fill it with sake, and make a volcano out of the burning alcohol?

---

quote:

---

In other words, it's a good thing that both you and OSC have reasons for believing what you believe. It's when you speculate -- or, even worse, insinuate -- on the reasons that people have for disagreeing with you that those people are right to take offense.

---

quote:

---

Hmm Dags, I see the level of inflamatory rhetoric at Hatrack greatly decreasing after Ornery began.

I guess I also see what inflammatory rhetoric that does come, coming from specific people on the fringes and not "mainstream" hatrack. And that it generally is reprimanded internally.

But maybe you are right. It could be that I just take OSC's columns more personally and therefore "feel" they are worse because they hurt both me and people I know and love, while you may take other stuff that is more directly opposing you in the same manner and in reality they are about the same.

AJ

---

quote:

---

No, how do they do that? What keeps the sake from just pouring out from the gaps between the rings, or if they're all fitted together from pouring out the bottom?

---

Filling up was a misnomer. The onions are raw. He takes one fairly thick slice, and breaks out the rings. He stacks them on top of each other and then pours in the sake. It’s not enough to overflow even the lowest ring, which is on a very flat grill and is cut very smoothly, so there’s little leakage. After about 2 seconds, a blue flame shoots out the top. It’s very cool.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that no one here opposes OSC or Amka, although plenty of people disagree with them on a handful of issues. That OSC might actually oppose people here, without having that sentiment reciprocated, has been a concern among many of the long-time posters; he has certainly insulted whole groups of people -- groups to which many of our regulars belong -- in a number of his articles, and in general the response of those same regulars, while dismayed, has been fairly reasoned and mild.

There's a certain "playing house" insult, in particular, that I remember literally bitch-slapped the breath right out of my lungs -- and yet the people on this board to whom that insult would most directly apply were, to a man, unfailingly polite about it.

I disagree that OSC is more educated than I am, or necessarily more educated than the average Hatracker. I do believe, unlike Amka, that some of his opinions are indeed formed because they represent party positions into which he has bought, made necessary by his decision to commit to a larger (and presumably more important) principle. And I think he has fallen into the deliberate role of Demosthenes -- or Grego -- without first providing for the existence of a Locke or Olhado. With every column in which he tries to Make, he seems unable to avoid letting loose with some throwaway insult, some gross generalization, which Unmakes all his intentions. I think it's more than a little tragic.

[ October 21, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Oh, okay Dagonee, that makes sense--I was imagining some towering onion structure.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I'm trying to figure out what vitriol I spewed.

I think the worst thing I've called Chad specifically in this thread was nearsighted?

As far as "liberal bashing stance" goes, which is the only other term he could possibly object to. If I'm a liberal (let's assume for the sake of argument I am, though that is debatable) and I felt his stance was "liberal bashing" by his comments then doesn't the term apply?

AJ
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

But, see, there's no proof of this, Chad.

You SAID it; that doesn't make it true.

---

quote:

---

When people asked you for evidence, you cited the specific example of the phrase "homophobe." When Anna then went and showed you how rarely, in fact, the phrase "homophobe" has been used, you somehow used the fact that she proved you wrong to argue that, by disagreeing with you, her "vitriol" somehow proved you right.

---

quote:

---

As opposed to characterizing people who disagree as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God?

I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.

Just my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Oh, okay Dagonee, that makes sense--I was imagining some towering onion structure.

---

The stack is about 6 inches hgigh or so - maybe 10 rings. If he'd filled that all the way with sake, I'd probably still be blind.

A night at a Hibachi grill is an awesome group activity. I highly recomend it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

I felt his stance was "liberal bashing" by his comments then doesn't the term apply?

---

quote:

---

So would you agree, Chad, that the words "bigot," "homophobe," etc. are in fact used -- and I quote, here -- "very rarely" in criticism on this site?

---

quote:

---

Chad, you seem to have this odd opinion that members of this forum are responsible for the postings of other members of this forum.

---

quote:

---

While we may care to various degrees how other people use rhetoric, it is not particularly relevant.

---

quote:

---

I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.

---

quote:

---

Icarus, as the second paragraph denotes, I was talking in generalities as it relates to this forum.

---

quote:

---

I challenge you to use the "search" function on this board and search "homophobe" and see how many times it actually comes up. And how many people that used the word were actually on the conservative side of the aisle. (Excluding this posts itself, I only believe one liberal poster widely known for being outrageous and who has been chastened by the mods several times has ever used the word in the last year.)

(Another interesting number is how many newbies used the word in inflammatory rhetoric)

AJ

---

quote:

---

The correct arguement would be: "Yes it has happened in the past, but not very frequently and usually by newbies who come and go" ....You can defend that. You can't really defend it never happened and then do a search and still try to defend that stance.

---

quote:

---

bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God

---

quote:

---

Chad, there's some serious confusion here.

You posted an explicit analogy stating that people who do Y should not criticize other people who do Y.

As you've now clarified, the people criticizing OSC for doing Y don't do Y. None of the people who do Y have criticized OSC for doing Y here.

What was the point of posting that analogy?

Dagonee

---

quote:

---

My point, in case some missed it, is that some board members are as guilty as OSC in their "delivery" and to keep that in mind when attacking his.

---

quote:

---

Why should the fact that other people have qeustionable deliveries be kept in mind when by people attacking his delivery? That's the part that is unclear to me and, I think, several others in this thread.

Dagonee

---

quote:

---

Was I wrong in pointing out in a thread bashing OSC's delivery that the delivery employed by some in bashing him or ideals he espouses in this forum are just as bad?

---

quote:

---

Chad,
What is the definition of bash that you are using here? It's not one I'm familiar with.

---

quote:

---

Would you care to elaborate as to which board members?

---

quote:

---

So...you don't know. You answered a request for elaboration with an insult.

---

quote:

---

Because as a poster, we don't want to be hypocrites do we?

And the simplest answer Dag I can give you is to re-read your question, and answer it yourself.

---

quote:

---

Chad you haven't been around long enough to see the outspokeness against some of OSC's deliveries. The people who were outspoken against them have often been made to feel unwelcome and as a result many are no longer here or post infrequently and rarely.

AJ

---

quote:

---

Then if you are so concerned about the "delivery" of OSC, why aren't all the posters here crying foul over his?

---

quote:

---

So this was a generic warning to people not to engage in a particular undesirable behavior that they weren't engaging in?

Again, none of the people criticizing OSC's delivery are engaging in these delivery methods.

Dagonee

---

quote:

---

Then if you are so concerned about the "delivery" of OSC, why aren't all the posters here crying foul over his?

And yes Dagonee, that is exactly my point, which mutes the arguments against OSC's deliveries.

The outspokenness against his deliveries by those posting here, and the silence at some of the vitrol in the deliveries in this thread towards my posts.

It really hurts the validity of "crying foul" when one is so selective of it.

---

quote:

---

Stroman: Fair enough - I was implying that your reticence was due to ignorance.

What is it due to instead?

---

How about the fact that I'm not a dictionary and that blatant bashing has occurred on this thread directed at me, DIRECTLY.

And that I am only one person trying to respond to the bashing, questioning attacks of multiple people at once.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You and Tom should bond about that. That happens to him a lot.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Chad, this is not bashing. This was an attempt to get you to answer questions in a fact-based substanitive way.

And to be slightly snarky I admit intentionally, "If you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch."

In other words EVERYONE else posting in this thread is capable of and has in times past had to deal with rebutting mutiple people at once on a controversial subject (quite often we've done it to each other.) Don't whine about it. It isn't becoming and we don't sympathize.

AJ

[ October 21, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
I've heard of martyr complexes, but around here, some days there's a competition for the pariah complex.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
But the silence of posters, who cry foul in this thread at OSC, but say NOTHING at the "delivery" of others here, makes their arguements moot.

And I'll say this again ONE last time. If you can't understand it, then that is your problem. The original post was aimed at those who used those terms in the past (and I make an emphasis on TERMS as in Plural for those who purposely ignored it) on this board, the posts since then have been more evidence of "foul deliveries" by people in this thread which have backed up the original post.

They cry foul at OSC's deliveries, and then spew vitrol in their deliveries aimed at me. Some..not all, but it's YOUR responsibility to read the thread and see who those with foul deliveries are.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Stroman, you've missed Dag's essential point which is that is it DOES NOT MATTER what other people are doing (which is NOT a concession that other people are doing it) when discussing what OSC is doing.

Which is why I don't understand the purpose of this thread, because this, rightfully, couldn't be an open discussion because of the location.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What few things that might be construed as insults here have been rather mild. Spewing vitriol is more than a bit of an overstatement. OSC says things like that the deep, dark, secret of homosexuality is that many homosexual are converts due to sexual molestation and rape, which is several levels up from any insults that have occurred in this thread.

Second, OSC's insults (that we take offense at) are mostly aimed at whole populations, and can be refuted for many specific members of those populations. Many of the insults at you have been warranted; I fail to see a need to defend you from insults you have earned.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

Don't whine about it. It isn't becoming and we don't sympathize.

AJ

---

quote:

---

Many of the insults at you have been warranted; I fail to see a need to defend you from insults you have earned.

---

quote:

---

Stroman, you've missed Dag's essential point which is that is it DOES NOT MATTER what other people are doing (which is NOT a concession that other people are doing it) when discussing what OSC is doing.

---

It may not matter to you, but it hardly makes OSC "odd" when others do the same. It deflates the argument that he is doing something that others don't. Especially when it comes to those attacking his views.

That it doesn't matter to you, is your opinion. Glad you finally got it out there and tied it to the original thread.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I would be happy to hear what labels you think I have earned .
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Hey AJ,....search for it.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

So far I'm the worst offender other than the bitchslap comment which I didn't make. And the worst things I've said about you specifically personally directed is that you are "nearsighted" and that whining won't gain you sympathy here.

---

That you think I'm actually seeking it, is "nearsighted" snarky.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Uh, yeah Chad, I went through the last three pages of this thread in pretty excruciating detail to pull those names and failed to find the "it" you are talking about. Perhaps you can help me?

AJ
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What people here have been saying OSC is unique in what he does? That's a silly position. People here have been saying OSC uses rhetoric in ways that polite people making well-reasoned arguments do not.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
*sigh*

Does it really take 12 people to debate Chad? Couldn't you take turns? Draw a number out of a hat or something, or at least take shifts.

I hate to see some of Hatrack's finest wasting their time here. Of course, I enjoy a "gotcha" game as much as anyone, but I'm not a pillar of this community.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

They cry foul at OSC's deliveries, and then spew vitrol in their deliveries aimed at me. Some..not all, but it's YOUR responsibility to read the thread and see who those with foul deliveries are.

---

quote:

---

People here have been saying OSC uses rhetoric in ways that polite people making well-reasoned arguments do not.

---

Funny, comming from the rudest threads active on the forum at the moment.

Actually, hilarious.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 

quote:

---

And this isn't looking for sympathy? And I looked for the vitriol and I haven't found anyone, so what should I do now?

AJ

---

quote:

---

Funny, comming from the rudest threads active on the forum at the moment.

---

quote:

---

And I looked for the vitriol and I haven't found anyone, so what should I do now?

---

Bake up some cookies. And send them to me.
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
Well, it was nice deflecting all your attacks for the day. I actually got alot of work done while doing so (didn't have to think too hard to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, etc.).

Have a Good night!

Try the veal!

[ October 21, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Chad, perhaps it may not yet have dawned on you that Amka may not want you to pose as a stalwart defender of her reputation, for many remarkably good reasons.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, it was nice deflecting all your attacks for the day. I actually got alot of work done while doing so (didn't have to think to hard to explain the same thing over, and over, and over, etc.).

---

Here's a hint - if you're saying the same thing over and over in response to others' posts, you might want to at least consider that you're missing the point of those points.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
He loves it - he loves the attention. I think most of the people here are bored, and we're too polite to argue with each other. Either that, or we've all heard the same arguments a million times and it's fun to have a new matador waving a flag.

[ October 21, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I think you're wrong Katharina.

Frikking idiot.


 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You're so cute when you try to be insulting, Icky.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
While Chad may very well fit in at ornery, I strongly encourage him not to show up. Far too many of our worst problems over there have trickled over from hatrack, some, I suspect, because they've been told they would fit in better over there....

Its rude. Stop trying to send the hatrack problems to ornery. We don't want them THERE anymore then you want them here. Shoving people out your front door, and telling them to go bother the neighbors, is just plain rude.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
--er, no . . . wrong button. Yes, that's it. definitely




 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Sure, Paul. Stick your silly post in before my reply to Kat.


 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Next time I'll ask for permission before I post
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Sorry to derail this terribly fascinating derailment, but I saw something I wanted to comment on. Back on the first page, Icarus mentioned something that is basically a restatement of one of my favorite gripes about debate and disagreement.

My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.

I have found that it is easiest to detect this deplorable tactic when it is used by someone who disagrees with you, placing you within the category of dolts, liars or fiends. When the tactic is used by someone with whom you basically agree, it is more subtle.

In my case, I tend to agree with most of the points OSC makes in his essays. Even when I don't, I often find his arguments persuasive. But I do notice that he has a bad habit of resorting to this, my least favorite debate tactic, with dismaying frequency. Since I agree with his basic points, I find that the blameworthy passages, though annoying, tend not to distract me much -- at any rate, I can either ignore them or rationalize them. To be honest, I find myself thinking, "That's not really what he means. He just didn't express himself as carefully as I would like." Alas, I am fooling myself.

I sympathize with those hatrackers who have felt disturbed and even personally insulted by some of these unfair generalizations when they read OSC's essays. I know I don't enjoy it when I find myself on the receiving end of such a remark.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Back to the original derailment:

For the record, I am one of the most patient people I know. Seriously. It takes a herculean effort to get on my nerves (unless you happen to be my own child). That being said,

I am now officially fed up with this CStroman person.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.

---

quote:

---

My version of the gripe is that I find it unbearably frustrating when someone's argument for their position is made in such a way as to imply that anyone holding an opposing view must be either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil. People do this in a number of ways, from accusing the opposition (shotgun fashion) of nefarious motive, to simply expressing their inability to comprehend how anyone could hold a particular view.

---

I dunno. I--once--expressed an inability to comprehend how anybody could hold a particular view on this board, and was promptly called to task on it. (In fact, I read the post with a growing sense of dread that UofULawGuy was laying the groundwork to quote me and call me a hypocrite.) The thing is, I was certainly not implying that anybody who held that view was "either stupid, dishonest, or just plain evil". Maybe a little background is in order here . . . I have always considered my greatest strength to be my ability to see things from a variety of viewpoints--my "moderateness," if you will, though I know the word is 1) made up, and B) inappropriately used here. This is one thing that drew me to OSC's writing, that I felt like I saw myself in many of OSC's characters who were capable of understanding other people's viewpoints to the extent that they could see those people how they saw themselves. And, of course, I'm sure I'm not the only one. And so, in addition to indirectly expressing my belief that people who disagreed with me in this case were wrong (which is okay, that's what we do every time we debate), I was really reflecting on my own failure to empathize, and expressing how it baffled me. I stated this because I felt that something that was usually a strength of my character was oddly absent, and I was confused by it. I was expressing this confusion.

I don't believe it is reasonable to infer from this that I believe, or wish to imply, that those who disagree are evil, stupid, whatever. And, quite frankly, I would hope that I have earned a reputation--regardless of whether or not Chad would agree--that would allow people to give me the benefit of the doubt on that point.

If not, what can I say?

I think it is way out of line to equate, "I don't understand why some people feel this way," which is, after all, phrased explicitly as a statement of failure on my part, with statements explicitly characterizing people who hold certain political viewpoints as enemies of families or dupes.

I have more to say, but I'll split my post up and finish in a later post.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
No, no, no, Icarus. You've completely misunderstood me. Perhaps I didn't express myself very well.

On the first page, you said this:

quote:

---

It's not the hyperbole I'm objecting to. It's the characterizations of people who disagree as enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes.

---

I fully agree with that gripe, and I gave my own version of it. You see? You're not the target of the gripe; you said something that sounded like a gripe that I share, and I didn't want to let it pass without giving it a "hear, hear."
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
There is a difference between someone saying “I just can’t understand how someone could think X” with the subtext, “I’ve honestly tried to understand this position, and I don’t get it. I’m obviously missing something, but I can’t figure out what” and someone saying the same thing with the subtext, “therefore the people who do must be idiots.”

Unfortunately, unless you know the poster it can be hard to tell the difference.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Usually I can tell the difference pretty easily by the second or third post after that, though.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Dag, so which did you decide it was, in my case?

(And no, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I honestly want to know if I succeeded in explaining myself, because, as I recall, it was you who thought I was rude or presumptuous in that thread.)
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Chad has accused many people of posting not on topic. He has not named me specifically, but that's no guarantee that he doesn't mean me.

My posts to this thread have been entirely on topic. Part of the topic (arguably, the central part of the thesis itself, if there is one) is OSC's essays, and the rudeness of those who disagree with them.

And I agree, at least to an extent, with those who see this as the Card living room. And I agree that it's rude to criticize your hosts. And so I am having an entirely real and not-disengeniuous (I'm all about the made-up words, today) moral dilemma here. And I'm trying to decide if my behavior is unacceptable, or if I have managed to skate by on the correct side of the line.

I certainly do not believe I have engaged in name calling, either explicit or, as UofU sees it, implied. I have tried to live by the motto of speaking with passion and listening with respect. And I say this not to say that I have been successful, or to fish for others to say it, but simply to report how I view my own actions. Pretty much everybody on this thread illustrates the point that we each believe that we have the best of intentions, whether others would see it that way or not.

Obviously, there is room here for people who disagree with Card's views. The TOS codifies this, and the existence of threads where this disagreement is expressed, sometimes quite vehemently, is evidence of this.

But agreement or disagreement with OSC is not, as people have attempted to point out on this thread, the issue. It's okay to disagree with your host and discuss your opinion in his house. But when you criticize your host himself, and when you say that your host has, in your opinion, been rude, well, then a line has been crossed. Regardless of whether you're correct in your assessment or not.

My really good friends could tell me in my house that I am out of line, and not wear out their welcome. Is it presumptuous to assume for ourselves this rank? (I dunno . . . nobody who is not a really good friend could call himself a "regular" in my living room. And yet it seems to me that this probably is presumptuous.)

I'm not worrying about getting banned. As Kristine has pointed out numerous times, all kinds of vile things are said about OSC here, and very few of them are suppressed, and very few people are banned. Most rudeness is tolerated. Clearly, there are people much more outspoken, and much ruder, than I am. What I am worried about is the conflict between speaking my mind and being rude. I don't want to think that I am tolerated as a necessary evil. I don't want to be endured. Nobody would ban me, but I think I would rather leave voluntarily than be considered an irritant.

So what I want to know if if that's the category I fall into if I admit, as meekly as possible, that some of OSC's recent rhetoric has struck me as a bit aggressive, a but rude, to those who are people of good will who simply have a different opinion of what the world needs at this point in time. (So the question is quite personal, to me, and it is really quite irrelevant for Chad to point out that other people are really really rude, because I am not wondering about my fitness to continue posting on any of their websites.)

If I criticize OSC directly, do my charm, wit, and all-around good looks make me still desireable company?

(And it does me no good to hear my friends say they want me around. Of course they do. By definition, this is what makes them my friends. So why don't I ask the Cards directly? Because they might answer, and I might not like that answer. I have seen what the responses look like when people call out the Cards, and say, "I don't like what you do; why don't you tell me what you think of me?"--EDIT TO ADD: Every once in a while you see a post where the author's thinking clearly seems to have run along the course of, my post on Why OSC is Wrong about Everything will be so compelling, so eloquent, so adroit, that he won't be able to help but break down in tears and admit that I am right, and change his ways, and use his considerable literary connections to get me a lucrative writing contract. Needless to say, that is more than a little naïve.--It would sadden me greatly if I made it on to the Card, er, pooplist. END EDIT Better instead to ask someone who seems to share a similar worldview to that of the Cards if my behavior is inappropriate for the living room. If that person thinks it is, I can excuse myself from the living room before I have a chance to attract the host's attention with my boorishness. And so I'm kind of hoping that Amka will answer me, even though it's been three pages since I asked.)

[ October 21, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Icarus,

I assume you wrote this before my last post, wherein I tried to clarify that I had been agreeing with you, not targeting you. As far as I have seen, or can remember, you have not been guilty of the kind of conduct I was griping about.

You are in fact one of the most reasoned, measured and level-headed posters I have had the pleasure of becoming familiar with, on this or any other forum.

As one of those who, I think, tends to think like OSC, or at least to agree with him, I can say that you are more than welcome to speak your mind.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
UofU, thanks. I appreciate that. I wasn't actually still being sensitive about what you said. My last post was actually the post I had been intending to write, and so I broke it off into its own post to separate it from my reply to you. I guess I'm just exploring how far this living room analogy extends. I know there are bigger jerks than me (in fact, I happen to think I'm not a jerk at all), and I but I just don't want to cross the line into rude guest, even with the security of knowing that my rudeness will be endured. But it's not your post I'm replying to.

So, no, we're cool.

[ October 21, 2004, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't remember the instance you're referring to, Icarus, but I can't recall anything you've posted that struck me as pre-dismissive.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
hmm . . . maybe it wasn't you, then.

I dunno. All you right-wing nutjobs look alike to me.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Oh, I might be remembering the thread now. Let me see if I can find it.

Dagonee
Edit: OK, I can't find it. I don't remember it being about the word "understand," and if it was, then you either spelled it wrong or the search function is wonkier than usual.

[ October 21, 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
 

quote:

---

If you need me to define "bashing" and how "bitch slapping" another poster is bashing...I have nothing more to say to you.

---

quote:

---

While I appreciate the sentiment behind St. Yogi's words as one of support, "bitchslap" was not my intent at any point.

I was digging after the facts and will let them speak for themselves.

AJ

---

I'm sorry AJ. I attached the word "bitchslap" to your post, giving Chad an excuse to ignore it. I'd take it back if I could. I just got kind of excited I do that sometimes.

Now Chad, people are asking you to point out the things that you consider to be vitriolic. I don't even consider my bitchslap comment to be vitriolic. It was done in a joking manner to show my support of AJ even though I knew you'd ignore her and dismiss her points as "vitriolic". As I said, please point out all the insults to you in this thread. And if you can't(because there aren't any except my fact thing), then please acknowledge this. Just because you say that people have been insulting you doesn't make it true.

From http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll&r=f

quote:

---

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

---

It's amazing in how many ways you fit the description Chad. I know that you're probably just going to dismiss this as an attack but please look at the definition and try to see why people are so annoyed with you.

Ok, I'm sorry for further derailing the thread into revolving around Chad personally so I'll go back and try to refute Chad's points instead .

You're saying that someone who doesn't use the same kind of delivery as OSC can't criticize OSC for the way he delivers because they don't criticize people on this board who do the same thing. Ok...

But the thing is Chad, that they do. I have seen people spewing out garbage like that (and yes, I did just call what our host is spewing out for garbage) and Dagonee jumping on them. All of this has NOTHING to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the person's points. I've seen him do it with both liberal and conservative posters. I'm not sure if you know this, but Dagonee is actually rather conservative. He'd probably agree with you on most things if you actually showed any interest in other people's opinions and showed people some of the respect that you crave.

Now, when you post a reply, can you please point out the things in this post that you find offensive so that we can further understand your definition of bashing. And please don't respond with "If you can't see it yourself, I won't point it out to you."

Your argument is still "Other people do it too" Which doesn't excuse OSC. You say that other people on this board use the same tactics when criticizing OSC.

Prove it. And yes, I HAVE done a search using those words and there wasn't much. But even if there is a couple of people who do it, how does that invalidate our criticism of OSC?
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
CStroman,

Thank you for your defense of me in my absence, but might I offer a bit of critique? When you start to get into the realm of repeating basically the same thing over and over again, and pointing at people and yelling "See! See!", and start talking about who is winning, people stop listening, with good reason.

I know it is frustrating when so many people come against you. I know you want to be acknowledged as being right.

But you must know this: At least half of the time, and perhaps quite a bit more than half, people will think you are wrong. You cannot change that, no matter what words you use. If someone decides to change their mind about something, it will be their action and not yours.

So, sometimes you just state your case, defend the points of the case as people point out what they think is wrong, and let it go. Even if (in the same venue) people point out the same thing again, just let it go. Repeating yourself will actually lessen the impact of your argument.

But what is more, there are going to be several times when you are wrong. This isn't because you are CStroman. This is because, like everyone on this board, you are human and are working with limited data.

Every single one of us on this board holds a view that will ultimately turn out to be wrong. This is not a character flaw, so no one should get too defensive about it if they find that they are wrong. Just shrug, and think "Today I am more enlightened" and then go on an improved person.

When I came back to this thread at this obscene hour, the 4 pages frightened me initially, and excited me. When I read most of it, it saddened me. I considered deleting it. But this was my mess, and I need to clean up after it. Deleting things like that tend to leave a bad taste in the forum, I've generally found, and do not solve the actual problem except to cover it up. And people had brought up interesting objections.

The biggest thing that I've noticed come out of this is that people are 'okay' with what OSC believes but not in how he communicates that belief, and that it is not in the spirit of Hatrack.

Let me say this: he is giving Jatraqueros links to what he writes, but he is not writing to us as an audience. He is not reacting to us. Why should he? How many of us are here? If he coddled us, we might be satisfied and happy, but his audience would decrease significantly. He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard. He is reacting to "Bush is stupid" and similar vitriolic comments.

People have commented that when they met him in the old AOL folders, he was a lot nicer. But again, I think they forget that there, he was conversing with a handful of individuals. In his articles, he is conversing with a wide audience. It makes a difference.

So a more interesting and illuminating discussion would be OSC vs widely read media rather than OSC vs Hatrack. What, exactly, is OSC reacting to? Why does he react in such a manner?

I've missed a lot of points. Sorry. But this is the one that shouted out the most attention.

And again, I probably won't have time to post during the day, so be patient with me.

[ October 22, 2004, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Scott R's famous Guacamole

2 ripe avacados
2 firm plum tomatoes, seeds and pulp discarded
One bunch of green onions
One clove of garlic
The juice of one half a lime
One habanero pepper.
Some cilantro (not too much)
Some salt (not too much)

Halve the avacados, throw out the pit, and spoon the lovely green 'meat' into a blender.

Cut the habanero in half, chop up the green onions, and the garlic and roast them all together. Mmmmm. . .

Toss everything into the blender. Blend until blended. Serve with Scott R's famous fajitas, or with Scott R's famous homestyle tortilla flats.

[ October 22, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If he coddled us, we might be satisfied and happy, but his audience would decrease significantly. He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard."

So you would agree, then, that he is playing Demosthenes?

Personally, while I'm not particularly keen on being coddled, I wouldn't mind having a week go by in which he didsn't accuse me of hating America or being too stupid to realize that I hate America.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'd like to say that I'd be happy if someone would friggin recognize the culinary genius that is me. . .

But it doesn't make much difference to me. I'm Mr. Apathy, and I don't care that I don't care.

You're all very welcome to live in the indifference and blandness that you call life.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I don't like Guacamole. In particular, I don't much care for avocados or peppers. If you could make guacamole without these things, I migh consider you a genius.
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
saw this, Geoff
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Why is it even called guacamole? The 'mole' part I understand-- what's a 'guaca?'
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I saw it too, Kama. I think he posted it just to make us look crazy.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Let me say this: he is giving Jatraqueros links to what he writes, but he is not writing to us as an audience.

---

quote:

---

He is reacting to the liberal side of the media, and he is reacting in such a manner as to be heard.

---

quote:

---

So you're saying that he probably has friends IRL who favor John Kerry, oppose the Patriot Act, and favor allowing same-gender marriages, whom he does not think are idiots or enemies of what he stands for, but instead merely believes are well-intentioned but mistaken?

---

quote:

---

About his purpose, I may be wrong because I'm certainly not him, but I think that his purpose is to counter the unbalance he percieves in the media, and this may be exactly why he gets heavy handed.

---

If that's his purpose, he may be defeating himself, because his writing style in his articles is a turn-off to those who disagree with his opinions. So, in essence, he is preaching to the choir.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
You know, I really liked quacamole until I got pregnant.

People say you get cravings. I don't. I get anti-cravings. Things I loved before, make me nauseous. Good things like popcorn, any kind of sausage like thing, bananas, and the aforementioned quacamole. At least I like breads this time around.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mmm. I love sausage. Sweet italian sausage with roasted peppers, garlic oil sauce and capellini pasta. . .
 

---

Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
 
Scott R, that guacamole looks good. Though it could use some more avocados. Oh, and here's the etymology of guacamole: it's literally "avocado sauce".
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mike-- I like my guacamole chunky, which is why I use fewer avocados.

Plus, I'm the only adult in my house that will eat guacamole. Small portions are the order of the day.

[ October 22, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
::understands Scott's reply perfectly::

::does not edit post::

[ October 22, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

That is exactly what I'm saying, and there is much evidence to back it up. Look at his reviews. Barring the non-fiction books he disagrees with, he has no compunction against writing a glowing review of something created by someone who is a 'flaming' liberal.

---

quote:

---

Personally, while I'm not particularly keen on being coddled, I wouldn't mind having a week go by in which he didsn't accuse me of hating America or being too stupid to realize that I hate America.

---

Removed from context, it isn't really possible to tell which side wrote this. (it was Tom, presumably talking about OSC). I see this as the basic problem with partisanship. Whenever we divide ourselves into labelled classes, horribilization of the other follows.

I don't make a point to eclecticize my political outlook, but it just happens that I don't agree with anyone on everything.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
hmm going with the whole Locke/Demosthenese idea, remember in the books how OSC had the person who actually disagreed write the article. Peter was Locke and Valentine was Demosthenes.

If I could believe OSC to be Valentine at heart, and just writing Demosthenes for the excercise of it, it would make it a lot more palatable.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Again, though, the approach would be irresponsible without ensuring a Locke for counterpoint.

(I don't think Micheal Moore would fit! )
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
If it makes a difference, I met OSC after I had publicly and at length argued with his column on homosexuality, both on Ornery and through e-mail. He still seemed delighted to see me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
He's a great actor, Chris. . .

KIDDING! KIDDING!

Sheesh.

Here's something appropriate:

What to do with you?

What shall we do with you, miserable mouse?
Cover you in peanut butter,
Throw you in the gutter,
Feed you grilled cheese 'till you swell up like a house?

Or maybe we'll send you to the place where oil is sent
When it's spent six days
In the grave of Willie Mays,
Or maybe do you worse and make you president!

Oh whatever we do will be hori-hori-horrible!
And when we're through you'll be sorri-sorri-sorrible!
For what you've put us through, and how you made us blue
We'll make you sad, sad, sad!
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Feed you grilled cheese 'till you swell up like a house?

---

(Mmmmmm ...)

Nice ditty, Scott.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
You see, that OSC is a really nice guy when he's not writing his columns speaks pretty well to my point. I expect him to be a nice guy. I expect him to care about other people. From what I know of him, this seems to be the person he generally is.

I'm not sure but I think that makes it worse. He is engaging in demogougery and, as you attested Amka, he is smart enough and well-educated enough to know what he is doing. The way he writes is designed for the purpose of increasing the aggression (so many people neglect the role that mental aggression plays) of the people who agree with his views against the people who disagree with them. It is intended to widen the divide between people by using rhetorical tricks.

OSC is not writing for reasonable people. His arguments are not intended to be persuasive. He does not intend for people who disagree with him to read them and think "Ok, I can see how reasonable people could disagree with me."

One of the things I brought up early in this thread is that using other people's bad behavior as an excuse for your own is immature. In that vein, saying "I'm doing this to counteract the Liberal Media." is a really poor excuse. The responsible way to fight manipulation is by providing people with the knowledge and the tools to be able to recognize the manipulation, to help people get to a point where cheap manipulations won't work on them, not to engage in manipulation yourself.

Acting out of hatred is a bad thing. How much worse is it to attempt to increase the hate-based acts of many others, even or maybe especially because you yourself don't feel this hate?

It's a rare thing in our country for people who hold opposing views to have a reasonable, productive discussion of those views. Most people have neither the maturity nor the dedication to truth that makes this possible. And yet it has been happening on Hatrack more and more these days. Amka, you say that OSC isn't looking to Hatrack when he's writing his essays. I guess I'm saying maybe he should be, or at some of the other places where people who strongly disagree still treat each other with respect.

I think it's pretty easy to judge the worthiness of your agenda if you have to get people to turn other people into labels and things in order for them to carry it out.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

And yet it has been happening on Hatrack more and more these days.

---

Sadly, the front page today does not seem to be evidence for this . . . there are multiple inflamatory, republican-baiting threads there.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
One thing all parties can count on:

I will never take you seriously.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yeah, I don't know if the proportion of quality has increased that much. We've got plenty of people who are content to wallow in the mud, but I think we're getting an increasing number of people who see that for what it is and decry it, regardless of their political affiliation. I don't think you can beat immature and poor quality stuff by fighting directly against it, but you can make some great strides by doing high quality stuff, as long as there is an audience around that appreciates it.

I think one of the big problems with the political climate in our country is that, as I've said numerous times, people tolerate and even celebrate behavior that we wouldn't allow from a 10 year old. As a big believer in group dynamics theory, I think that if people started standing up for actual principles, standards, and quality instead of schoolyard rhetoric and behavior, we might see a growing trend in that direction.

You're always going to have immature and short-sighted people on both sides of any strongly felt issue. The difference is how they and their actions are regarded. Right now, both political parties have these people front and center. I think here at Hatrack, there are some glimmers of hope that they are getting moved more towards the margins.

[ October 22, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Incidentally, I just wanted to say that I loved your "I'm not familiar with the particular definition of _______ that you are using" responses. Much better than "What the crap are you talking about"!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What the crap are you talking about?

I note that you have posted only twice directly to me, and am offended.

There is nothing more important than my poetry and my cooking.

Honestly, poetry and food-- are they really LESS important than whatever it is you all have your knickers in a twist about?

I don't think so.
 

---