Sigh.

Good for you, and US. If we can't keep up the level of discourse about (as you say) ideas around HERE, where else can we even hope for it? Those idiot SOBs who...just kidding. We could all look more closely at the quality of our reasoning, and eliminating ad hominems is a good place to start.

Thanks! Let''s have full support for this 1gm initiative!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attack

Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".

All that sarcasm, wasted.

What happens if you and Charles are the next ones to use personal attacks? Will we all just have to comment on blank posts?

Reach Out to Everyone in O8.

<3 U Red

When I last saw the comments, before they were all deleted, they were a quite substantive critique of your ideas, Norm.

I imagine you'll be deleting yourself as a consequence.

When I last saw the comments, before they were all deleted, they were a quite substantive critique of your ideas, Norm.

I disagree.

yo guys, hows it going? having a bit of a family feud I see.

Come on! these are lovely times, enjoy them!

No need to be all dense.

If people had to sign their real name to the abusive posts I don't think they would be so cavalier.

When attempting to correct the behavior of the group, one must make the plea with humility. The use of the word "everyone" in this case was not sufficient to convey the idea that Norm was including his own behavior in the list of activities to be avoided in the future. Following up with threats is also a poor choice, as it can alienate the more moderate voices and non-offenders. Threats also run counter to a stance of humility. Of course to increase the chance that a change in behavior will stick, one must be the change one is looking for.

I for one, denounce and reject personal attacks and look forward to joining Norm and the OGM community in further civil discourse.

See you all Wednesday... I'll bring the cool(sic)-aid, you recycle those signs ladies.

Smugness is a defining quality of left wing smartypants, lets make sure not to cut off the collective nose, yadda yadda.

"If people had to sign their real name to the abusive posts I don't think they would be so cavalier."

Well my real name is Robert Jay Hume II...but as you can see blinky, it doesn't really change the fact that you don't know me...so why everyone is being so sensitive on here is completely beyond me!

No doubt thaddeusphoenix is about to be banned... he has questioned the wisdom of the lord god Norm.

Democrats bicker amongst themselves. In the meantime

They are tricky Texas Republicans. They have a choice in Tuesday's presidential primary election between Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who seems to have pretty much wrapped up his party's nomination with about a 700-delegate lead over former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

So if there's no real point in confirming McCain or throwing it away on Huckabee, is there anything else to do besides stay home? Yup. Go vote in the Democratic primary.

It's no big deal paperwise to switch over for a year or two. And this way -- wait for it -- these Republicans could vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton. Yes, that one.

Now, why would Republicans cast a ballot for a woman they've loved to hate for oh so long? The point would be to give her ...

... a Lone Star victory over Sen. Barack Obama and prolong the increasingly bitter Democratic struggle until, say, at least late April's primary in Pennsylvania. Or potentially even until the August convention in Denver.

That not only gives McCain more essentially uncontested pre-convention time to unify a GOP with a doubting wing of conservatives. It also reduces that low-key run-up time for a Democratic nominee by some six weeks and maybe boosts the lingering hard feelings among Democrats on the eventual losing side. Polls also indicate McCain doing better against Clinton come fall than against Obama.

WAIT A MINUTE...BLINKY?..ARE YOU BLINKY ROCALSKY FROM MIDDLEBURG HIGH!?!?! WE WERE ON THE SAME CHESS TEAM TOGETHER!!! I BOINKED YOUR SISTER AT THE SENIOR PROM REMEMBER!?! LONG TIME NO SEE BUDDY!!!

lol

It seems to me that some sort of middle ground is necessary here. While it isn't the case that all of the comments that were deleted were substantive critiques of ideas, some were... and others were substantive critiques, if not of ideas then of rhetorical approach. A subset of this second type are those that rightly pointed out hypocrisy on the part of the one condemning personal attacks.

In the case of these last two, while they don't fall under the category of commentary on argument, they are valuable, especially when the topic at hand is rhetoric itself. Even when the principal post is not itself about rhetoric, however, it seems to me that comments on rhetorical style ought not be taken as personal attacks, since they address the argument structure, if not its content directly. Under this broader idea, while a hypocritical statement may nonetheless be valid, it is important to note hypocrisy when it occurs, because it does undermine the position of the person committing it.

All of this is not to say that there haven't been a number of ad hominem attacks, not only by Norm and Charles, but by various commenters opposing their positions, and those are rightly condemned. If this post is narrowly directed at those comments, then fine. The level of discourse would indeed improve without people calling each other foolish or shaming them, etc. However, my sense is that a broader class of comments is the intended target of the present post, and I would caution against adopting too strict a stance in limiting comments to those which address specific content in a post and only in the driest manner possible, since, as I've noted, there is value to comments that do not meet this strict standard. If too narrow a filter is imposed, I believe the discussion will suffer.

Further, I for one would like to see a bit more self-policing on the part of the blog owner, as well as equal criticism of those he agrees with (e.g. Charles) as of those with whom he doesn't, if he is going to be so adamant in his opposition to personal putdowns. A stronger admission of guilt on his own part regarding the commission of personal attack (rather than a single, scolding line in an update about how of course he included himself in his warning), would, in my opinion, strengthen his position when condemning personal attack.

(I don't know exactly why I used the third person in the preceding... I don't mean for it to sound pretentious or condescending... Sorry if that's its effect.)

And on the part of those criticizing Norm and Charles, whether for the substance or rhetoric of their posts, it seems to me that a bit more civility is indeed needed from some. Then maybe we can all get along and have productive debates? That'd be nice.

I saw that too JoAnn but this is so much more fun.

I was speaking earlier today by phone with a friend who teaches at Wake Forest. We were talking about our experiences on the blogs and how bitter we are. Then he said something quite brilliant.

You see when you criticize Obama, you're not criticizing Obama but rather his supporters' own persona. You are telling them that their conversion narrative is false because their connection to Obama is a personal one. Say something bad about Catholicism to Bill O'Reilly and you have attacked him, not Catholicism. Obama is a substitute for a religious experience but that's not uncommon in American politics. Obama has managed to only telfon-coat himself but his supporters. That's why things became uncivil. Obama can attack, but you can't. He doesn't take criticism well.

I actually don't mind the attacks personally on me. I think a few are quite funny. One comment this year will be my Holiday card.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

One of the sites I regularly view is "photo.net" where people post their photographic portfolios. The comments are honest and respectful. Everyone uses their real name. It seems like a good idea. I didn't expect to be flamed for suggesting it.

Nailed it, JoAnn.

I was going to comment along these lines on a previous thread, but was having trouble getting through the machine...

Where I live (Dobson and Haggard country), it makes next to no sense to be a Democrat. Some of the most vile Repugnants percolate out of here, and it takes Republicans like me to vote against the worst of the worst. The local elections are the most important... the national stuff is icing on the cake. This, incidentally, is why I voted for McCain in the primary. Better than Stooliani, Shuckabee, Moroni... at least McCain has talked the talk regarding reforming campaign finance laws.

I was betting I'd never get a chance to vote for my first or second choice (Kucinich, Edwards), and I was right. In the general, I plan to vote for whomever can beat McCain first... and if it seems hopeless, only then do the Greens get my vote.

My bet is that a significant number of people have been gaming the broken system, which is why we are facing a showdown between McCain vs Clinton/Obama and not between Giuliani/Kucinich-Edwards. This system really bites.

"One of the sites I regularly view is "photo.net" where people post their photographic portfolios. The comments are honest and respectful. Everyone uses their real name. It seems like a good idea. I didn't expect to be flamed for suggesting it."

Hey no man I was just teasing...Thanks for the heads up though, I will go check it out. :) Sorry, my sense of humor rarely translates threw text...or sometimes even english. :P

Stephen Muth said:

This system really bites

Does it ever.. :(

Democracy in the U.S.A... right...

Dar,

Yep, sounds like what we're doing here alright...

That's why things became uncivil.

Oh yes, the incivility didn't start with your attacks and the offensive analogies, it was our irrational love for obama.

Please, post more comparisons between us to O'Reilly. It warms the cockles of my heart.

Makes me feel all civil.

why would Republicans cast a ballot for a woman they've loved to hate for oh so long?

Makes sense to me. At the suggestion of a friend, I did something similar in 2000 -- I voted for McCain in Massachusetts, not wanting Bush to be the nominee. You see how well that worked out.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thedailydish/2008/03/comments-upda-1.html

I would remove posting if I were you. It seems to be having a negative impact on the "normal" blog postings here at onegoodmove...

I have been a reader for the last couple years. The last couple months have made me want to stop checking in here.

Andrew Sullivan is debating adding comments to his posts. One reader brings up a very valid point. Enclosed is a link.

You know delete his comments if you want, but RedSevens is funny! lol

Once again, JoAnn does a fine job of cutting to the heart of the matter.

It seems that even comedian Rush Limbaugh is telling his Texas listeners to cross over for Hillary just to keep this "soap opera" going a while longer.

Setting aside my own feelings about Clinton and Obama for a moment, I can't help but begin to worry that ideological in-fighting among the dems is going to lead to self-destruction in a year that, by all accounts, should be a Democratic sweep.

"why would Republicans cast a ballot for a woman they've loved to hate for oh so long?"

Yeah it does make sense, the Republicans want to run against Hillary in the worst possible way. Just wait until she gets the democratic nomination, Karl Rove is going to drop an A-bomb of dirt that he's been digging up on Hillary for YEARS now! A Republican victory over Hillary will be looked apone by the Republicans as a victory over Bill Clinton...the Dem they could never beat.

Hey, No personal attacks from me.

Norm hasn't banned sarcastic compliments yet.

"[A]ll I get for my efforts to raise the level of discourse are more personal attacks...."

That's 'cause people who don't like personal attacks suck! ;-0

Here is an example of what my friend is saying. Ambassador Joe Wilson writes a very critical piece on Obama questioning his judgment and more on the Huffington Post.

Here's a comment he got:

It's sad Wilson knows nothing about wisdom, compassion, and moral courage.

Let's see this man was our Ambassador in Baghdad in 1991. He stayed until the last moment to make sure all Americans got out safely. No doubt his job but people make career decisions to serve their country. He then wrote on how the evidence the Bush Administration was presenting on the Niger connections was false. But no, none of that demonstrates wisdom, compassion and moral courage. I wonder who does. Oh, Barack Obama does according that commentator. That's problem people think any criticism of Obama is a criticism of themselves. Thus they lash out. And I note these observations they then lash out at me because I am criticizing their behaivour. The Crossing the Mara-Mara is perfect example. I noted that it was only SOME of Obama's supporters responding in such behaivour but that according to Canetti they were just responding to the "now or never" language common in Obama's speeches. You know who else talks in "now or never" terms. Michelle Obama. Her comments refer to if her husband doesn't win it now, they won't run again. He is 46 years old. How do they know that? It is marketing technique of BUY IT NOW. Richard Nixon did this as well. In 1962 he told the country when he lost the race for governor of California that "you won't have Richard Nixon" to kick around anymore." I have heard this all before. Obama is Richard Nixon reborn. Paul Krugman thinks so too. Funny how Paul was my first economics professor. Funny how he taught us how economics is politics, the sum of all our decisions. Read his column today. We sound like broken records. True because as Canetti wrote blind men at their blindest when they suddenly think they can see. That is an observation of social behaivour and not a reference to anyone in particular but you take it as an attack because you think it applies to you. No, it applies to guy on the Dan Savage video who said Obama was infallible, that he can't fuck up. That is someone who thinks he can see but is clearly blinded by the light of Saint Obama, our new Pope.

See many people in that video over 40? Nope. I wonder why.

Poor Thomas Paine, he must be rolling over in grave.

Carlo il radicale con senso sensible

No, it applies to guy on the Dan Savage video who said Obama was infallible, that he can't fuck up. That is someone who thinks he can see but is clearly blinded by the light of Saint Obama, our new Pope.

Charles, you do know that was a comedy piece right?

Aglee said:

Makes sense to me. At the suggestion of a friend, I did something similar in 2000 -- I voted for McCain in Massachusetts, not wanting Bush to be the nominee. You see how well that worked out.

Yes, indeed. The NYT article as well as what you said, as well as another article posted here about Republicans voting for Obama is summarized quite well by Rush Limbaugh,and the Republican party faithful are paying attention.

Pimp Yourself: Vote for Hillary

RUSH: I talked earlier about what's happening in Texas in terms of Republicans voting Obama. It's a Houston Chronicle story: "In Democrat Primary, Expect a GOP Turnout; Perhaps Fueled by Clinton Dislike, Many Republicans to Vote for Obama." I understand I've got a big challenge here to try to get Republicans to change their minds on this and vote for Hillary to keep her in the race, to keep that party at war with itself. This is how the story begins: "At John's barber and styling shop in the historic downtown of this conservative community southeast of Austin, politics is clearly in the air these days. What has particularly struck stylist Pete Campos is how many of his Republican customers are talking about voting for Barack Obama [next week] motivated more, he surmised, by a strong dislike of Hillary Clinton than a strong attachment to Obama. 'I think Hillary scares some people,' said Campos, an independent who is leaning toward voting for the Illinois senator.
RUSH: I know I'm fighting an uphill battle here, folks, on trying to convince you Republicans in Ohio and Texas to cross over, pimp yourselves for a day, vote for Hillary to keep this campaign going, this Uncivil War, Democrat Party. I know what's going to happen. Even if I convince you to do it -- remember what this is, this is about us winning. You have to understand, it's not about Hillary winning; it's about us winning. It's about our party winning. It's about those people losing. They've got some problems in the Democrat Party. It's not all sweetness and light over there, and we need them to continue warring with each other. We love these stories of black people claiming they've been threatened with violence or their lives because they're not supporting Obama. We want all this kind of stuff out there. We want the Clinton campaign to keep pumping out these pictures of Obama dressed up as Bin Laden. We want this kind of stuff. If Hillary loses this thing, all of that's going to come to a screeching halt. We want all the disruption in that party as possible. It's about us winning.

> >

"See many people in that video over 40? Nope. I wonder why." Perhaps because it was made at Ohio State -- just guessing, but I have a hunch there may have been an inordinate number of college-age people around.

Quoting myself!

The NYT article

That should have been LA Times... My apologies.

Charles, you do know that was a comedy piece right?

That's strange the majority of comments on that thread don't seem to reflect that people recognized it as comedy.

Norm, it seems curious to me that a thread about civility, prompted by the admonishment to "Criticize ideas. Do not criticize people" should be turned once again into an attack on Obama and his supporters. That's okay? "Obama is a substitute for religious experience." "Obama is Richard Nixon reborn." These comments count as "ideas"?

All I can say is, I'm not a fan of progressive ideas-focused websites suddenly turning into political hit sites targeting only one candidate solely while virtually ignoring the faults of others.

Also, considering which side of this debate has called Obama "stupid", has called his supporters "cultists", or saying such things as "You're smart but I don't know how you vote for Obama", I think we need to rethink where the personal attacks are coming from.

This is very childish.

Maybe we could just call a halt to the threads on Obama-bots, Nader-haters, and Clinton bashers. These threads all go the same tired route.

It's just as easy to criticize w/o jabs as it is to add pot-shots. Non ad-hominems take up less space.

Keep up the humor. Though sarcasm is tough to convey on the web, add punctuation and emoticons to help. Dry wit gets a check plus. You can always splain yourself leater.

Here is an example of what my friend is saying. Ambassador Joe Wilson writes a very critical piece on Obama questioning his judgment and more on the Huffington Post. Here's a comment he got:

It's sad Wilson knows nothing about wisdom, compassion, and moral courage.

What is the big deal here. Some random person posts a negative thing on Huffington and suddenly we have the equivalent of a vicious mob?

Hardly representative of your average Obama supporter and it is in response to attacks on Obama not just a remark on positive Clinton push.

You could certainly argue that Obama is every bit as qualified as Bill Clinton was in 1992 when Clinton beat establishment DC insiders with a message of hope. Yet Wilson speaks as though electing someone like Clinton would have catastrophic effects today.

I voted for Bill, I ain't dead. The argument stinks and being lied to, pisses people off.

One more thing, I'd just like to respond to a recent post by Charles Lemos where he equated Barack Obama with stupidity.

I'm not going to make personal attacks, but let me just say one thing - Barack Obama is an elected official, a United States Senator. Prior, he studied at Harvard law school and graduated with distinction. He is also a respected DEMOCRAT.

I have no more comment on this.

bob:

Yeah it does make sense, the Republicans want to run against Hillary in the worst possible way.

Yup, and that's exactly how they'll do it.

(I'm here all week, folks. Tip your waitress, try the lamb.)

One more thing, I'd just like to respond to a recent post by Charles Lemos where he equated Barack Obama with stupidity. I'm not going to make personal attacks, but let me just say one thing - Barack Obama is an elected official, a United States Senator. Prior, he studied at Harvard law school and graduated with distinction. He is also a respected DEMOCRAT. I have no more comment on this.

You might want to look into what Charles said and understand the phrase before you assume he called Obama stupid.

"Stupid is as stupid does" is not calling someone stupid.

Charles, the quote you offer seems indicative of the genre of Obama criticism. Make an incendiary attack like calling him a "cheerleader," and his supporters "religious," and then respond to the evidence from legislative record, public statements, and analysis by calling them "irrational" and speculation about their motives with charged label like "sexism." I myself am not perfect on this score, and perhaps my remark about HRC's suitability to be a "Whiner'n Chief" was as excessive as calling Obama a "cheerleader" (although I think your charges of sexism against me are groundless).

I usually enjoy your comments and postings on here, and I am not blaming you alone for the rising tone acrimony. But just know that remarks like that contribute to it.

Two more quick remarks.

(1.) Charles, you've been making many appeals to authority lately, for instance, what your "academic" friends tell you. I myself am an academic, as are, as you might have guessed, many of my own friends, and I suspect, more than a few of the other commenters here have advanced degrees. The reason I don't say mention this is pretty much because the authority of claims generally consists in the reasons and evidence offered for them, not the status or degrees of their purvayer, including my own. (There are exceptions: k. had a marvelous and elegant clarification on a thread about pharmaceuticals, mentioning that he is familiar with them as a trained psychiatrist; but he (or she?) didn't just cite his/her credentials, he offered extended argument and evidence). Citations to authority carry rational force only to the extent that the authority in question can herself illuminate the matter by appeal to evidence, experience, and argument.

(2.) Norm. This is your blog, and you are free to treat comments by whatever policy you deem appropriate. I also am a little mystified by some of the more personal attacks against you, and the occasional conflation between your own view and those of Charles. While we almost never agree lately, I think when you've responded to my criticisms, at least, you've always kept it about the argument.

That said, I have a policy I myself will abide by and that I encourage other commenters to use. Typically, I and many others research our claims before commenting and provide links and evidence. (Although, lately, I've become bored and impatient by citing the same things over and over only to have them get passed over and go unanswered). If a comment of mine like this gets deleted, I will never post here again because the time invested in a sincere effort to further discussion has been wasted, and is plainly not appreciated if it's simply going to be deleted.

(3.) I think we should also distinguish between "excessive" remarks (calling Obama a "cheerleader", my calling HRC "Whiner'n-Chief") and deliberately incendiary remarks (calling HRC something that rhymes with "witch", calling Obama something that rhymes with "rigger"). Remarks of the latter kind plainly deserve to be deleted. But I haven't seen any of that variety yet, at least, not here at 1GM--and at this point in the primary, the former are to be expected, even if we make an honest effort to avoid them, because passion and the stakes in which they are invested, on both sides, is clearly running very high.

This country deserves Barack Obama. Charles I couldn't agree more. Stupid is as stupid does. To quote a great American of the celluloid variety. Kinda matches Barack, doesn't it?

Kinda sounds like he is saying Obama kinda matches Forest Gump.

Excellent summary Adam.

I think it is also worth noting that making attacks on groups does not negate ones responsibility. There seems to be this continuous attack on "Obama Supporters" and then when someone responds, they say "How dare you respond, I didn't mean you as an individual."

And its bull.

Attack a group and you have to defend your statements to the members of that group.

Also comparing people and groups to unpleasant things, like Cults, robots, mobs, etc. Is indeed an insult.

I am all for having fun cursing at one another if that is where Norm wants this to go, but the fained, "you are irrational cultists for even thinking that I just insulted you." crap needs to end if civility is to be restored.

RedSeven, Norm and Nowhere Man have become monks and vowed to never utter a single word, except every three years in March when one of them can say whatever he fancies in one sentence. On that first momentous day, RedSeven declares: - Obama IS God. The next year, Norm looks angrily at Red Seven, and announces: - Obama is NOT God. Another year goes by. Finally comes Nowhere Man's turn. He looks at the two of them and says: - Are you two guys gonna stop fighting or what?!

Folks, folks, let's keep one thing in mind: whatever happens, this time next year, George Bush ain't going to be in office.

I'm for Obama, but Clinton or McCain would be a vast improvement upon Bush. That said, I don't think we really need 24 years of straight Bushes and Clintons. And I wonder if some of you have really considered that.

Calling Obama stupid is stupid - or at least ignorant. Calling him inexperienced is inaccurate and vaguely complimentary.

A while back I'd have been more ecstatic about a Clinton presidency; but with her "experience" has also come a lot of baggage - and I'm talking about healthcare industry contributions, not her personality, rendering her original intentions neutered.

RedSeven declares: - Obama IS God.

Thanks jpaul, not insulting at all. It turns out that being a cultist and not wanting to be called a cultist(as part of a group) are exactly the same thing.

Itsa Catcha 22.

Attack a group and you have to defend your statements to the members of that group.

Might want to rethink this because you are setting a president than few can meet.

People often use generality to define the actions of many and excluding the use of those generalities because a few or one exception might take offense limits the discourse.

PS

Forest Gump is not stupid IMO

facepalm

Is it now manditory that the left have to turn on themselves whenever in a position of relative strength?

Neither candidate is perfect but to be honest I've been impressed by both - for different reasons - and will be cheering the winner on from the sidelines come November.

Adam said:

That said, I have a policy I myself will abide by and that I encourage other commenters to use. Typically, I and many others research our claims before commenting and provide links and evidence. (Although, lately, I've become bored and impatient by citing the same things over and over only to have them get passed over and go unanswered

If a comment of mine like this gets deleted, I will never post here again because the time invested in a sincere effort to further discussion has been wasted, and is plainly not appreciated if it's simply going to be deleted.

That is precisely how I feel Adam. The comments backed up by research are never responded to, while the personal attacks are always repsonded to, and I too have become bored and impatient.

Norm said:

also find it annoying how often threads are hijacked to promote some individual agenda

Everyone posting here has a personal agenda including yourself, myself and Lemos.

Might want to rethink this because you are setting a president than few can meet.

oh I agree, but I think if you want to outlaw the obvious response to such insults you need to outlaw the insults too.

Forest Gump is not stupid IMO

So what is your interpretation of his remark?

Dar, I don't think the line of RedSeven's is meant to exclude the use of the generalities you mention. He's saying, if you DO use those generalities, expect individuals to take justifiable exception, and don't try to silence those individuals by hiding behind the generality.

At least if I understand him correctly.

D'oh, I should have realized RedSeven can speak for himself. :)

I set the agenda

Got it.

This will be my last post here on onegoodmove. This is a sad day for me and I hate that is has to be this way, but i guess that this is what this divisive primary has brought to us.

Goodbye JoAnn. Sensibly incensed people will miss you.

Hope you consider coming back next november.

Aglee, you said it better then me anyway.

It is indeed very sad that this blog has turned into a one-sided partisan attack piece. I hope the Clinton camp is at least funding the effort, as it will likely result in lower ad revenue.

Well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the obvious revenue streams are doing great!

Back to no commenting and simple video downloading/viewing for me.

Someone, PLEASE sweep the 4 primaries tomarrow, and end this garbage, so McCain will get the focus he so desperately needs, to show all his dark corners.

Keating 5 anyone?

Okay, so I am not setting the pieces back up, I am just watching and commenting. I have been following onegoodmove for several years now – before the last presidential cycle to be sure. I usually just read the posts and extremely rarely posted – I’m shy that way. If I did post, I made sure I researched what I said and/or felt strongly about my position because I knew the 1GM crowd was sharp and would shred unreasoned arguments to pieces otherwise.

I thought at some point before Edwards dropped out the M.O. was to talk about why a given candidate was superior. There weren’t really any negatives except towards republicans. After Edwards dropped out, most of us looked at the situation as a who is better Clinton or Obama contest. With all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer, Lemos posted what appeared to be an essay (for a peer-reviewed journal no less) on how Obama’s speeches reminded him of Stalin/Franco and pro-Obama folk behaved like the followers of other great despots in history. That may be a dramatization, but not far from it. As far as I know, that was the first time Norm let anyone post besides himself. So, naturally people assumed that Norm felt the same way.

All of sudden we weren’t in Kansas anymore. Lemos’ piece was apparently misunderstood by most, and the resultant debate over what was really meant revolved in some way around whether or not Obama should be held accountable for the actions of his followers. In the larger picture, I think Lemos’ point changed the tenor at 1GM because (again AFAIK) it was the first instance (ie 1GM post) of attacking a candidate as opposed to bolstering a candidate. To add fuel to the fire, most of the responses comparing Obama to Clinton were ignored or selectively answered. Some, including myself, cried foul because it seemed that you had better have a better argument than “Look how sheep-l-ke his supporters are” when conformed with arguments bolstering the candidate. Whether or not it was a zero sum comparison? until Nader IMHO it was. If you attack Obama (or in this case his supporters) you should expect to defend when people say “but Clinton…” and there was no defense of Clinton, ony renewed attacks on Obama (or in this case the behavior of his supporters)

So now Norm was in the position of hosting a blog which was clearly pro-Clinton, not because he supported Clinton overtly, but because he (via Charles) was attacking Obama (or in this case…) which was previously not standard operating procedure at the site. If Lemos had said “I think Clinton is better because of her UHC policy” and “policy a” and “policy b” and “policy c” and left it at that – we would be in a better place right now. Y para que sepa ud, es una falta de respecto hablar con un grupo de colegas como si fueron estudiantes.

Norm has said he will support whoever the democratic candiate is (begrudgingly). Lemos has said Obama offends him and will wait for Edwards 12. The site no longer even pretends to be unbiased or based on the rigorous debate. Okay, it pretends to be.

The regression is easy: only posit things in favor of Clinton or Obama. Let the audience determine who is better in that category. That’s it, no more negative posts. If Clinton wins Ohaio and/or Texas tomorrow this could all get a lot uglier – or we could be positive and really show why either candidate is so much better than McCain.

And please don’t feed the trolls.

I'm only a part-time poster here, not a regular. And my memory is not the best. But I don't recall the comments on this blog being overwhelmingly mean-spirited until the response to Charles' first post and, more particularly, the response to that response. There were always the snide, superior posts from some quarters against anyone who didn't believe scientific orthodoxy to be our salvation, but it wasn't until the whole thing turned to politics that it became mean, as I recall. Which is weird, since I would guess that well over 75% of us vote the same way for President. It's almost as if, failing the presence of a foil for our need to be aggressive, we turn that need against members of our own tribe. I think Vonnegut may have been right about us as a species.

Norm - I haven't checked this blog in a couple weeks, but I am not surprised at the current content. This primary is a very important one for the Democratic party and for the progressive movement.

I consider Obama a much better candidate and leader and someone who can bring millions more people into the progressive movement and have been insulted by the personal attacks of you and Charles on Obama supporters. Funny, though that all the snide and innuendos about Obama people being cultish are not a personal attack...

I'll check back in a few more weeks (unless there is a good Bill Maher or Dawkins clip up to watch).

This will be my last post here on onegoodmove. This is a sad day for me and I hate that is has to be this way, but i guess that this is what this divisive primary has brought to us.

Joann. Please, I understand your frustration. Allow me two quick shills on keeping you here, as I believe your not commenting here would be a huge loss for all of us (or for me, who always enjoys the common sense, insight, and level-handedness you characteristically bring to often fraught discussions).

(1.) I think you and Norm are talking past each other. Norm was frustrated that people push "personal agendas" in the sense of going on tiraids about topics sometimes utterly unrelated to the explicit topic of a thread. That seems to me a reasonable complaint, because it makes focused and productive discussion impossible (although please correct me if I'm misreading you Norm). If the thread is on health care we should, willy nilly, talk about health care. On the other hand, I think you're frustrated because you might have interpreted the "personal agendas" remark to mean only people like you and I, who support Obama, have "agendas," and in that sense, you're right, everyone has one! I just don't think that's what Norm meant when he sets "the agenda" (the topics for discussion), not what counts as an acceptable opinion on those topics. (Although again, Norm can speak for himself).

(2.) If Hillary (a.) closes the gap in OH and TX, or (b.) doesn't close it but persists in the nominating contest, I honestly can't take it any more. I'll just be quiet until after the nominating season is over. That's not anyone's fault, and no one's to blame, but feelings are running really high on all side, and I think many of us feel invested in the outcome of this race. But us squabbling won't help much. So: Joanna, maybe just take a short-break, at most? At least 'til people calm down a little?

JoAnn wrote:

This will be my last post here on onegoodmove.

Argh!

So it's almost 11:00PM and I'm the last one at the office and I'm trying to articulate my reactions to all this before going home, and nothing I write seems to work.

Let me just say to JoAnn: I hope you'll be back. Hell, at least tell us where you're gonna be.

And to Adam: I like what you do here. It helps me.

Good night, folks, and peace to all.

I have seen this before. i used to comment quite a bit on a very conservative site called galt's gulch (the galt being the hero from an Ayn Rand novel) The board fell apart when the conservatives drove off the few liberals that bothered commenting.

Its normal for people to disagree, but we should never resort to personal attacks. The alternative is to go the way of the dodo, as galt's gulch did.

So, has anyone started a petition to request that JoAnn reconsider her withdrawal? I'm obviously not a regular commenter, but her on-point research and witty banter would be greatly missed on this site.

Heh come back joann, they even said they love your posts....

thank you adam by the way for the complimentary comment. with regards to he/ she... i have been at times called... well it rhymnes with witch.

aggghh! i'm in a different time zone than most of you and i just woke up. what is going on here? norm, what have you done? we all have personalities here, i know you yourself often play the "hard ass" and i, of course, am one of many "wise asses". there have been some epic battles here in the 2 years of my participation, including plenty of personal attacks (as someone else pointed out, the "scientific orthodoxy" v. "religious orthodoxy" arguments have been particularly acrimonious- and enjoyable imo).

now all of a sudden it's "just the facts, ma'am"? the facts we can get for ourselves, nothing personal, without 1gm.

i'm so naive! i thought there was some kind of community thing going on here, some grand, global experiment, with room for all kinds of opinions, and someone had to be a real, consistant asshole to be excluded. is this just because chuck gets all huffy? we're losing jo ann, of all people, the voice of reason and tolerance! wake up!

A suggestion, Norm: if you are indeed banning commenters, then perhaps you might make it known to the rest of us when a particular person is banned... in case anyone else would care to make an appeal to you on their behalf. I'm assuming that your goal is to lead a community of discussion, not to create an intellectual police state where individuals are merely made to disappear on the whim of the "government"... a sort of academic habeas corpus perhaps? We're all in favor of that right, aren't we?

"blinky": Yeah, and we'd be really freaking civil if we had to submit our home addresses, current employers, passport photos, and fingerprints. You first.

norm, it's you who sets the tone for discourse here. you're a bare-knuckle fighter yourself. are you saying you're going to give this up, and reign in your annointed knight as well? that you want 1gm to become a dry, academic exchange of ideas? or that you're the only one who gets to blast someone if it should strike your fancy? because you obviously have this right. but i don't think i'm the only one who'll be very, very dissappointed.

an analogy: pepper isn't very tasty. no one eats it by itself. but cuisine would be pretty boring without it.

I really did used to like this site. I used to like to agree and disagree with people here. I loved the comedy clips. I thought the level of conversation was a few pegs higher than the typical blogs. I saw lots of good links. Now, I'm going away for a while. At least until after the democratic party race is decided. I'm hoping Norm will snap out of it and return to the old Norm we knew and respected. Is that Ad Hominem? Anyway, toodle-oo all!

"This will be my last post here on onegoodmove. This is a sad day for me and I hate that is has to be this way, but i guess that this is what this divisive primary has brought to us."

Well that's terrible! I actually liked reading her posts a lot, even though I may not always agree with her point of view, you can't argue that it isn't a highly informed one. I agree with Adam, just take a break JoAnn and come back later when the primaries are over. People are just acting crazy right now. :P

"an analogy: pepper isn't very tasty. no one eats it by itself. but cuisine would be pretty boring without it."

I like that. :)

i know what's gonna happen. jo ann's gonna come back, saying she's accepted norms (or adams') explanation of what he really meant, and gently berate the rest of us to be less combative. at least, i hope that's what happens.

One more thing: was "Obamabots" in the previous post supposed to be an example of "Criticize ideas. Do not criticize people"?

I have seen this before. i used to comment quite a bit on a very conservative site called galt's gulch (the galt being the hero from an Ayn Rand novel) The board fell apart when the conservatives drove off the few liberals that bothered commenting. Its normal for people to disagree, but we should never resort to personal attacks. The alternative is to go the way of the dodo, as galt's gulch did.

Are you sure it wasn't because they started harvesting Adam out of little girls and experimenting with genetic engineering?

That seems to bring the downfall of Ayn Rand-ian inspired utopias.

"Its normal for people to disagree, but we should never resort to personal attacks."

I'm still confussed, where are all these personal attacks?

I know what's gonna happen. jo ann's gonna come back, saying she's accepted norms (or adams') explanation of what he really meant, and gently berate the rest of us to be less combative. at least, i hope that's what happens.

Don't hold your breath Jon. Even if she does come back, what is there return to. Norm and Charles seem to not car if they completely destroy the community that has grown around this site.

What is clearly a real hatred for Barack Obama seems to be the unifying principle of this site now. If you don't share it, you are just another idiotic Cultist.

I hope things get better after the primary is over, but judging by Charles comments, I really doubt that it will.

While Hillary’s throwing the red telephone at us,

Charles:

Yet another sexist comment. The implication is that women throw tantrums. The sexism and misogynistic remarks must stop.

Charles called someone a sexist, delete all his comments. Come on now. Norm, man of your word?

I think it's ironic that you chastise people for getting personal in their posts and then call Obama supporters "Obamabots". Don't you think that is hypocritical? I initially supported Edwards, but switched to Obama after he dropped out. On policy positions alone, I probably like Clinton more than Obama. That being said, I think Clinton has run a pretty bad campaign. It's lack of preparation for a post super tuesday fight was arrogant, and their use of race in this campaign has stained my previously positive feeling for both Hillary and Bill. I also think that if Obama had lost the last 11 contests, Mark Penn would be feasting on Obama's corpse and demanding that he drop out.

Obama has holes in his campaign and his experience, but I think he's run a better, more inclusive campaign without channeling the republicans like Hillary is doing. He has also not been afraid to fire right back at the GOP and their surrogates when they say something stupid, like Obama isn't patriotic.

This site is clearly for Clinton, KOS seems to be for Obama... everyone is picking sides. Pretty soon this nonsense needs to stop. If Hillary doesn't win both Ohio and Texas tonight, she needs to think about the party and the general election and do what is best for everyone, not just her own political ambitions.

In the end, if Clinton wins the nomination, I will support her vigorously, but I will still be dissapointed that to get the nomination she had to confirm the far right belief about the clintons that they will do anything to win.

Good night and good luck. Peace to all my democratic breathren and sisters.

So...

Calling groups of people Obamabots is an argument

And

Calling individuals obamabots is name calling.

Perhaps I am not a nuanced guy. Can one use the N-word to refer to groups of people as long as I never refer to individuals by that term.

Logic seems to hold.

BTW: Robots don't have emotions. You may remember the character of Commander Data on Star Trek. "Obamabots" would be a criticism that Obama supporters mindlessly follow instructions.

Norm, by the same reasoning, any number of ad hominem slurs could be justified as criticizing ideas, not people.

Good point, RedSeven. I think "Obamaniacs" would have been the more apt term for criticizing the idea (not the people!) that Norm had in mind.

Remember, hate the ideas, love the idea-havers.

I think "Obamaniacs" would have been the more apt term for criticizing the idea (not the people!) that Norm had in mind.

That works for me. It doesn't seem less offensive. Right Red, would your criticism have been the same if I'd used Obamamaniacs?

What descriptive term would you use to describe those supporters of any candidate who do so for mostly emotional reasons?

Would it imply criticism, or perhaps praise? If it implied praise would it no longer be name-calling?

So if Charles says people have Sexist ideas, thats not a personal attack.

Isn't the definition of a sexist: A person with sexist Ideas?

So if the personal attackers (bad Bob and the like) start saying that you have racist ideas rather then calling you a racist, that's just fine by you?

If it implied praise would it no longer be name-calling?

Name calling is name calling. All depends on the intent.

If you want to make your uninformed Obama arguement go ahead, but to date I haven't seen it grace this website.

You call groups of people names and then you point to some commedy bit and then you get defensive when people fire back.

Lets here it. lets compare what people know of CLintons record to what people of Obama's record and see who's followers know their candidates record. Or, you could just knock it the fuck off and stop pissing off your readers.

There is a difference between ad hominem as a fallacy and calling someone an idiot.

True. I made the mistake of using "ad hominem," which has a technical meaning, when I should have said "personal," which is the term you used.

With that correction, my point remains: you could take any of the name-calling you've seen here, whether accompanied by substantive arguments or not, and argue that the epithet in question was merely a criticism of some "idea."

Obamabots vs. Clintonistas!

WOOT!

Oh, and Norm, I should have said I did (sort of) get your distinction between name-calling accompanied by reasoned arguments and name-calling as a mere potshot. But you didn't make that distinction in this post. You flatly said, "Do not criticize people." And in case it seems I'm taking that line out of context, here is the exact post as it appears now:

A note to everyone, both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters, knock off the personal attacks they are getting out of hand. Criticize ideas. Do not criticize people. If you include another commenters name in your post it had better be about an argument they made not them.

update: I said everyone and I include myself in that. How disappointing, all I get for my efforts to raise the level of discourse are more personal attacks. I don't know, perhaps I'll just quit accepting comments. In the meantime I'm deleting the comments on this thread so we can begin again. The next personal attack I see from anyone will result in their commenting privileges being revoked.

Sure, if they also provide evidence to support the charge. The can also just call me a racist if they also provide evidence of it. What they can't do is simply make the charge sans evidence.

And how is this a change in tone? What exactly is the point of this post and discussion if not to restore some civility to this discussion.

And to make a rational arguement, I think ad hominom attacks are sometimes valid lines of discussion. The term refers to criticisms of the messenger and quite frankly the intentions of those making arguments are reason to be suspect of their points.

Charles seems to viemently hate Barack Obama, to the point where he seems to lack enough consistency for me to have any idea why.

I would point to his recent remarks about the incident in Texas where Obama turns religion on a crowd displaying some homophobia. Same incident Savage praised him for.

I find his arguements less valid because of that. I don't see how it is unfair to state such opinions.

I agree with you on that point, though I thought it unfortunate that it was necessary to employ religion as the reason. I find that offensive, but understand why Obama used it.

Religion is their reason for being homophobic. Its the obvious point to call them on.

That's their problem, not Obama's

the intentions of those making arguments are reason to be suspect of their points.

i don't know why but this makes me uncomfortable.

So simply saying someone is an Obama hater to discredit arguments he makes is faulty.

simple logic. but it should still be allowed. hey, i'm for free speech. i think you are too, norm. shouldn't the blog set an example? why? why not?

So simply saying someone is an Obama hater to discredit arguments he makes is faulty. Tackle the argument itself.

So, on one side of this coin, my experience is that the majority of the human race isn't ready to have a rational discussion about why they are/aren't a moronic Cultist-bot.

In the other side of the coin, If someone has a clear bias, and repeats it in argument after arguement, you don't think you have every right to say, your irrational and you have no arguement.

It seems to be the exact charge lobbed at obama supporters, but when it is challenged, but never well defended and eventually Obama supporters tell the perveyers of the insult that they are indeed the factless assholes in the arguement, we have to be threatened with removal from the site.

It's a long way from a rational debate. I would argue that the problem is not the criticism of individuals or groups, but the use of insults to do it.

You seem to be saying the opposite.

Interested said:

Okay, so I am not setting the pieces back up, I am just watching and commenting. I have been following onegoodmove for several years now – before the last presidential cycle to be sure. I usually just read the posts and extremely rarely posted – I’m shy that way. If I did post, I made sure I researched what I said and/or felt strongly about my position because I knew the 1GM crowd was sharp and would shred unreasoned arguments to pieces otherwise.

I thought at some point before Edwards dropped out the M.O. was to talk about why a given candidate was superior. There weren’t really any negatives except towards republicans. After Edwards dropped out, most of us looked at the situation as a who is better Clinton or Obama contest. With all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer, Lemos posted what appeared to be an essay (for a peer-reviewed journal no less) on how Obama’s speeches reminded him of Stalin/Franco and pro-Obama folk behaved like the followers of other great despots in history. That may be a dramatization, but not far from it. As far as I know, that was the first time Norm let anyone post besides himself. So, naturally people assumed that Norm felt the same way.

All of sudden we weren’t in Kansas anymore. Lemos’ piece was apparently misunderstood by most, and the resultant debate over what was really meant revolved in some way around whether or not Obama should be held accountable for the actions of his followers. In the larger picture, I think Lemos’ point changed the tenor at 1GM because (again AFAIK) it was the first instance (ie 1GM post) of attacking a candidate as opposed to bolstering a candidate. To add fuel to the fire, most of the responses comparing Obama to Clinton were ignored or selectively answered. Some, including myself, cried foul because it seemed that you had better have a better argument than “Look how sheep-l-ke his supporters are” when conformed with arguments bolstering the candidate. Whether or not it was a zero sum comparison? until Nader IMHO it was. If you attack Obama (or in this case his supporters) you should expect to defend when people say “but Clinton…” and there was no defense of Clinton, ony renewed attacks on Obama (or in this case the behavior of his supporters)

So now Norm was in the position of hosting a blog which was clearly pro-Clinton, not because he supported Clinton overtly, but because he (via Charles) was attacking Obama (or in this case…) which was previously not standard operating procedure at the site. If Lemos had said “I think Clinton is better because of her UHC policy” and “policy a” and “policy b” and “policy c” and left it at that – we would be in a better place right now. Y para que sepa ud, es una falta de respecto hablar con un grupo de colegas como si fueron estudiantes.

The regression is easy: only posit things in favor of Clinton or Obama. Let the audience determine who is better in that category. That’s it, no more negative posts. If Clinton wins Ohaio and/or Texas tomorrow this could all get a lot uglier – or we could be positive and really show why either candidate is so much better than McCain.

And please don’t feed the trolls

I enjoyed reading this well-thought-out response which explained better than I could about how I feel about all of this.

Phidipides said:

I'm only a part-time poster here, not a regular. And my memory is not the best. But I don't recall the comments on this blog being overwhelmingly mean-spirited until the response to Charles' first post

I was a full-time blogger here and that is how I recall it. And I feel very sad about this change in the tone of this blog. Very sad!

Adam

You are absolutely correct about understanding how much I have always respected Norm. But this blog has become more a Charles Lemos blog.

Aglee I'm hanging out at Politics Plus right now because it is the only blog that currently has as its goal beating the Republicans instead of a blog which has its eyes on a particular candidate of the Democratic party which only results in giving more power to John McCain.

Jakash That was an unexpected comment as I don't remember a post from you. I'll no doubt be back after November when, crossing my fingers, the Democrats will have defeated John McCain. If McCain ends up winning, which I fear to the point that it really frightens me, well...

Jonathan said:

i'm so naive! i thought there was some kind of community thing going on here, some grand, global experiment, with room for all kinds of opinions

That's also what I thought.

bugjah said:

I really did used to like this site. I used to like to agree and disagree with people here. I loved the comedy clips. I thought the level of conversation was a few pegs higher than the typical blogs. I saw lots of good links. Now, I'm going away for a while. At least until after the democratic party race is decided. I'm hoping Norm will snap out of it and return to the old Norm we knew and respected. Is that Ad Hominem? Anyway, toodle-oo all!

I too hope that the old Norm will return after November.

Bob said:

just take a break JoAnn and come back later when the primaries are over. People are just acting crazy right now. :P

You are so right! People are just acting crazy now! I'll return after the democratic party race is over in November.

At this point, I'm already feeling too stressed out to read the rest of the comments.

See you all in November, and hopefully either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will at that time be the president of the United States.

jonathan said:

know what's gonna happen

I wish it could be that way, but i just can't take it anymore. See you this November. ;)

It seems obvious that you harbor a personal animus toward me,

Not true. Charles, yes, you no.

and it seems from my perspective that your approach to what I say is decidedly uncharitable. I'm tired of playing the game so you'll have to excuse me if I opt out of discussions with you.

Now, I am uncharitable, well that ends the discussion.

I

Drink

Your Milkshake.

Since posting the following:

When I last saw the comments, before they were all deleted, they were a quite substantive critique of your ideas, Norm.

I imagine you'll be deleting yourself as a consequence.

I've been banned. After discussion with Norm where I raised Charles' behavior (calling folk sexist, etc) into question, he decided to reinstate me. (Perhaps there is no connection between my criticism of the perceived double standard and his decision, and perhaps there is one.)

No doubt, most of you were unaware that I'd been banned and, by now, most of you have doubtlessly stopped reading this thread.

Still, there is a point which was raised by *Colin *which hasn't been addressed.

A suggestion, Norm: if you are indeed banning commenters, then perhaps you might make it known to the rest of us when a particular person is banned... in case anyone else would care to make an appeal to you on their behalf. I'm assuming that your goal is to lead a community of discussion, not to create an intellectual police state where individuals are merely made to disappear on the whim of the "government"... a sort of academic habeas corpus perhaps? We're all in favor of that right, aren't we?

Norm has now gone on to accuse RedSeven of being uncharitable. I'd like to see some evidence to substantiate his claim.

Following another post, to answer a question which was raised by Charles over in another thread while I was banned and unable to respond, I have no intention of further posting.

this:

"You see when you criticize Obama, you're not criticizing Obama but rather his supporters' own persona."

is an interesting critique. complete garbage, but interesting nonetheless. we have had for 8 years an un-elected president. forwarding an illegal and evil agenda. people are happy to now have a candidate who speaks to them, whom they feel speak for them. someone who is not a hateful, over-privileged pink faced war pig.

this thread is it for me, i'm leaving here too. thanks for the cool jon stewart and colbert posts, norm. and thanks for running one of the more interesting political forums i've come across. but this is a pro-Clinton site now, i realize, and i just don't get that. we can agree to disagree but the events of the last few weeks have made me realize just how much i dislike Clinton, and i find defense of her baffling and i'm done arguing.

farewell, 1GM, it's been fun.

Please. Let's find some way to work through the differences here. I am a long time lurker and had to sign up just to write a plea for a time out. Other sites I visit were irrational to start with; I hate to see this one go that way. I hope that there are some who have vowed to leave that would reconsider. I enjoy your insight and research on the topics introduced by Norm, and would hope not to lose some of the voices here.

Hey Joanna

Sorry, that's the best I could do on short notice. I'll look for a better one. Dar, maybe you've got one.

Oh stop it Asshat! You're gonna go and make me get all sentimental and shit!

yes, I used the "s" word again!

tears!

Asshat:

Link

All i got is a solution to the energy problem.

Norm wrote:

If you read the commenting guidelines, I do explain it at more length. Is it clear to you now.

Not really. The Commenting Policy doesn't say anything about being able to call someone a racist (or whatever) if I accompany that with an argument of some kind (not that I buy that distinction, just that the Policy doesn't mention it). Regarding personal attacks, as far as I can tell it says pretty much what this post says.