Extremist rhetoric doesn't help the conversation.

I regularly see people on here (one person in particular, though I'm not here to name and shame) use incredibly extreme rhetoric when describing the government or politicians they oppose. It actually seems to be a general theme found throughout the conspiracy theory community.

People call their opponents: crooks, thieves, totalitarians, fascists, communists, socialists, murderers, theocrats, robber-barons, etc.

I'm sure I'm guilty of this myself at some point before I mellowed out a bit.

Honestly, it doesn't help the conversation to just shout names at people. There is in fact a specific logical fallacy named for this tactic, argumentum ad hominem.

Do you hate the FED? Well, I might actually listen to your points if the people who were speaking up about it didn't call them thieves and puppet-masters. If you just show me your point in a clear cut fashion, I'll listen.

Don't agree with the FDA? How about you lay out, in a rational and easy to understand fashion, exactly what your problems with them are. Calling them fascists and totalitarians isn't going to make me listen.

If we, the people who are technically on the 'fringe' in American society, are going to get heard by people, we need to stop with the name calling, extremist rhetoric, and aggression. People like listening when you're calmer.

So please, clean up the conversation here on ATS, stop calling institutions names. Even if those names fit, an argument demonstrating that is infinitely more effective then simply declaring it to be true.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Is this a topic about mnemeth1?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


this is supposed to be one of the guidelines that everyone should follow, and is easily thrown aside. well worded. in the end, they are all just people. its one thing to call out names of people that have become "corrupt" or more commonly just care about themselves. its another thing entirely to take steps to inform the public about ways they are commiting this subtle selfishness, and ways it could be stopped. one way is the scientific aproach, and the other is the political smear campaigns and only destructive to the causes they are wrongfully upholding.

thinking is always more productive than shouting

Well, I might actually listen to your points if the people who were speaking up about it didn't call them thieves and puppet-masters

I don't see a problem with stating the facts as they are...the truth is the truth...

Originally posted by WhizPhiz

Well, I might actually listen to your points if the people who were speaking up about it didn't call them thieves and puppet-masters

I don't see a problem with stating the facts as they are...the truth is the truth...

Agreed. For example, I totally believe that George Bush is a murderer because of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.
You don't mention context....and you overgeneralise by saying every time these terms are used they constitute an ad hominem attack.

I'm tired of people wanting to impose censorship on ATS because of their own personal sensitivities. If people are breaching the T&C, just point it out to them. If not, live and let live.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

People call their opponents: crooks, thieves, totalitarians, fascists, communists, socialists, murderers, theocrats, robber-barons, etc.

It's always funny to see that socialism is such a dirty word in the US. It doesn't seem all that long ago that it was mainstream politics in the UK (Tony Blair infamously purged "Clause 4" from the Labour Party in 1995) and many European countries still have political parties with "Socialist" in their names, if not necessarily their manifestos.

reply to post by WhizPhiz


If the shoe fits...show that it fits instead of simply stating that it fits. If they're thieves, show them stealing money from others and we can logically deduce that they are thieves for themselves.

reply to post by wcitizen


Well, if you say he is responsible of the death of 3000 people and the deaths of countless more because of two wars...why bother calling him a murderer? It's implied by the statement.

Adding that extra 'murderer' actually takes away from the conversation. Simple, logical proof of his involvement and culpability is more than enough for anyone to draw that sort of conclusion if your premise is true.



I, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this, simply switch off when people use certain types of language to describe people or institutions that they're against. The more extreme that language gets, the more I switch off. If someone is against Hillary Clinton and calls her a prostitute or promiscuous woman in some capacity, that automatically makes me switch off or even support her slightly.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm tired of people wanting to impose censorship on ATS because of their own personal sensitivities. If people are breaching the T&C, just point it out to them. If not, live and let live.

Oh yes, I forgot to reply to this.

I'm not trying to censor anyone!

Why is it that whenever I politely explain to people why certain types of actions harm rational discourse I'm accused of trying to impose censorship?

I'm not saying that you have to listen to me, this is just a very polite and very level-headed explanation of how we could improve our discussions. More people might listen and participate if we changed things a bit.

Also, it doesn't really offend my personal sensibilities. It just makes me realize that you don't have much to say if you resort to name calling.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm tired of people wanting to impose censorship on ATS because of their own personal sensitivities. If people are breaching the T&C, just point it out to them. If not, live and let live.

Oh yes, I forgot to reply to this.

I'm not trying to censor anyone!

Why is it that whenever I politely explain to people why certain types of actions harm rational discourse I'm accused of trying to impose censorship?

I'm not saying that you have to listen to me, this is just a very polite and very level-headed explanation of how we could improve our discussions. More people might listen and participate if we changed things a bit.

Also, it doesn't really offend my personal sensibilities. It just makes me realize that you don't have much to say if you resort to name calling.

Your name calling is someone else's fact.

Dictionary definition of 'murderer': Quote: a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being). Unquote

Since I do believemm based on the avukavke evidence available, that George Bush deliberately premeditated the killing of hundreds of thousands of people for political/economic gain and a gain of power, it is not name calling on my part to describe him as a murderer. It is to state wha I believe to be a fact, It is to use a noun in the English language in the way it was intended to be used.

So, your accusation that I am name calling is, in itself, a form of irrational name-calling, because it is not based on a rational appreciation of my use of that word. You may prefer that I express it differently, such as I believe George Bush is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people. But that is just a semanitc preference. One has no more intrinsic value than another in the context of level headed, polite discussion.

I agree that the same word could be used in a different context as an insult, as an irrational, slur or ad hominem attack. And I agree that to intentionally insult someone seriously detracts from rational discussion. This is, however, covered by the T&C.

I am glad you are not saying I have to listen to you - for that would indeed be quite a ridiculous statement to make.

I agree with you that polite discussion is infinitely preferable. Politeness and courtesy are already covered by the T&C. Level headedness, however, is very difficult to define and cannot be prescribed, in my opinion.

You ask: "Why is it that whenever I politely explain to people why certain types of actions harm rational discourse I'm accused of trying to impose censorship?'

I believe the answer to that question is that you are actually wanting everyone to discourse in a manner which is not unpleasant to you. I think that is unreasonable, and although you deny it, I believe it is to do with your personal sensibilities.

Finally, it is my experience that the huge diversity of people who participate in ATS, also participate for a vast variety of reasons. Some are here simply to insult people and disrupt threads. Others feel passionately about something and want to express that. Some people express themselves eloquently, others do not, some do not have that skill - their voice is, however, in my opinion, equally as valid as anyone elses.

I personally find it at times challenging, at times amazing, to be able to communicate with so many different people, and I have learned a lot from this opportunity. Of course, I understand that not everyone experiences it in the same way.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by WhizPhiz

 

Well, if you say he is responsible of the death of 3000 people and the deaths of countless more because of two wars...why bother calling him a murderer? It's implied by the statement.

Adding that extra 'murderer' actually takes away from the conversation. Simple, logical proof of his involvement and culpability is more than enough for anyone to draw that sort of conclusion if your premise is true.

 

Excuse me, but why is it that you believe you are in a position tell me how to express myself? What you are talking about is semantics quite simply, and you want me to change the way I use the English language to suit your personal tastes.

There are times when it will be appropriate to use a statement describing how many people I believe Bush has murdered, and other times when it is quite appropriate to simply use the term murderer. Or would you prefer that the word is erased from the English language completely? Because clearly, you seem to believe it should never be used.

If this rule of yours were to be adopted, a significant portion of English literary works would have to be censored too.

Your emphasis on the need for politeness lacks the specificity you are demanding from others.. As I am sure you are aware, one can politely say things which are very unkind indeed.

For me, unkindness is where I draw the line. If someone on here is being deliberately unkind I just won't enter into discussion with them, whether they are being polite and level headed or not.

In your case I experience your argument as being politely scathing of those who do not express themselves as you wish.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Disdain for criminal organizations is justified.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Disdain for criminal organizations is justified.

Now that's not fair.

Some of the felons in Congress have paid their debt to society by being paroled early and taking office.

I can't find the list but a large hunk of our legislature is made up of convicted criminals. Many times more by percentage than the citizenry.

So, If a third of our government is actually made up of felons is it rhetoric to point that out?

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Disdain for criminal organizations is justified.

Now that's not fair.

Some of the felons in Congress have paid their debt to society by being paroled early and taking office.

I can't find the list but a large hunk of our legislature is made up of convicted criminals. Many times more by percentage than the citizenry.

So, If a third of our government is actually made up of felons is it rhetoric to point that out?

You're kidding, rright?

second line

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your name calling is someone else's fact.

No, facts are objective. It can't be 'someone's fact', it's the universe's fact.

Name calling is the application of a label to an individual.

Dictionary definition of 'murderer': Quote: a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being). Unquote

Yes, and you may establish that an individual was responsible for the unlawful, premeditated killing of an individual without actually calling them a 'murderer'

Calling the individual a murderer does nothing but inflame emotional response. Emotional response then leads to tangents and further name calling. We would be better served without emotional responses.

Since I do believemm based on the avukavke evidence available, that George Bush deliberately premeditated the killing of hundreds of thousands of people for political/economic gain and a gain of power, it is not name calling on my part to describe him as a murderer.

Emphasis mine.

That's the problem, you believe that. You're not going to convince me that it is true if you call him a murderer. All it does to me is show me that you're set in your belief and unable to change your mind if contrary evidence is presented.

Attaching that label seems like the equivalent of putting a 'closed for business' sign on the argument. If you call someone a murderer, there doesn't seem to be any way I would be able to convince you otherwise.

It is to state wha I believe to be a fact, It is to use a noun in the English language in the way it was intended to be used.

Again, you believe it, but how many people are you going to convince if you keep using that word?

Discourse is the only way to convince people and it is based on being open. The use of such labels closes the conversation. It sets up sides. If you call Bush a murderer you're on side A and it seems like you're going to stay there rather than listen to opposing opinions and/or evidence.

So, your accusation that I am name calling is, in itself, a form of irrational name-calling, because it is not based on a rational appreciation of my use of that word.

I'm sorry, but it's not name calling. I didn't say anything about any individuals. I simply stated that the practice is harmful to the conversation. Thus it is irrational.

If I disagree with Sarah Palin (and boy do I disagree with her) and call her something along the lines of a 'phony' or an 'opportunist', it's name calling. Even if I have a mountain of evidence to support that those statements are true. I could simply state that she did X which leads her to do Y quite often and sometimes she does Z because of it. And if that statement proved she was an opportunist, I wouldn't have to call her an opportunist.

I'm not using any actual arguments because this thread isn't about her, it's just an example.

I'm not going to convince supporters of Sarah Palin about anything if I call her an 'opportunist' and you're not going to convince the majority of anyone that Bush did anything wrong if you immediately call him a 'murderer'.

You should be focused primarily about changing people's minds.

You may prefer that I express it differently, such as I believe George Bush is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people. But that is just a semanitc preference. One has no more intrinsic value than another in the context of level headed, polite discussion.

Actually, it does. I've demonstrated that it does. Plenty of people switch off the second you call someone a name. Or they go into defensive mode if the name is applied to someone they support or are neutral towards.

The fact is that extremist rhetoric often pushes people to support whoever that rhetoric is hurled against.

And discussion on ATS has rarely been 'level headed' when it comes to politics. I mean, this is the internet.

Hell, I was accused of being a censor for politely suggesting people take a different approach to things.

I agree that the same word could be used in a different context as an insult, as an irrational, slur or ad hominem attack. And I agree that to intentionally insult someone seriously detracts from rational discussion. This is, however, covered by the T&C.

Actually, calling Newt Gingrich a misogynist isn't covered by the T&C. Calling Nancy Pelosi a domestic abuser isn't either.

I am glad you are not saying I have to listen to you - for that would indeed be quite a ridiculous statement to make.

Well, nobody has to listen to anyone. I'm simply making a very polite suggestion that it might help to get your point across if you didn't call Bush a murderer. If you simply demonstrated the evidence of your claims they would speak far more. As the saying in writing goes: "Show, don't tell." If you show me he's a murderer it'll provide a lot more impact than stating it ever would.

Or is "And then they had sex!" more provocative to you than a steamy story?

I agree with you that polite discussion is preferable. . Politeness and courtesy are part of the T&C. Level headedness, however, is very difficult to define and cannot be prescribed, in my opinion.

I'm not prescribing it, I'm simply trying to help people, even those I disagree with, get their opinions heard.

You ask: "Why is it that whenever I politely explain to people why certain types of actions harm rational discourse I'm accused of trying to impose censorship?'

I believe the answer to that question is that you are actually wanting everyone to discourse in a manner which is not unpleasant to you. I think that is unreasonable, and although you deny it, I believe it is to do with your personal sensibilities.

...My personal sensibilities are to be a very vulgar individual. If I hate someone I use quite creative language to describe them. I'm not actually too offended by name-calling, I'm more offended by people not thinking about their positions and how to best spread them.

To me the most pleasant discourse would be one where you say "X is a/an (insert profanity here) because X did Y to Z"

In fact, most people find my personal style of discourse quite abrasive, so I've done my best to try to tone it down. I'm merely suggesting to other individuals that they try the same thing because it might get their ideas out there.

Finally, it is my experience that the huge diversity of people who participate in ATS, also participate for a vast variety of reasons. Some are here simply to insult people and disrupt threads. Others feel passionately about something and want to express that. Some people express themselves eloquently, others do not, some do not have that skill - their voice is, however, in my opinion, equally as valid as anyone elses.

Well, their right to voice their ideas is equally valid, but nobody is so unprejudiced as to actually consider a brutish, ranting comment as highly as an eloquent and concise one.

I think people would be served well by simply showing instead of telling on this one.

Show me that X is a Y instead of telling me that s/he is.



I think that's the lesson I want to really put out there: Show, don't tell.

Demonstrating something is so much more powerful than telling me that it is so.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Disdain for criminal organizations is justified.

And that disdain can be expressed a lot more powerfully by actually demonstrating that they are criminal rather than telling me that they are.

I grew up in Missouri, so show me!


reply to post by badgerprints


Then find the list...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And now the posts take a turn to attack me...

Originally posted by wcitizen
Excuse me, but why is it that you believe you are in a position tell me how to express myself?

I'm not telling you, I'm suggesting. I phrase things in question form so that I can actually get a response to understand what other people think. I'm not dictating from on high.

If you say: "Bush is directly responsible for the death of over 3000 people for pure personal gain" how are you adding anything by saying "The murderer Bush is directly responsible for the death of over 3000 people for pure personal gain"?

What's the difference?

What you are talking about is semantics quite simply, and you want me to change the way I use the English language to suit your personal tastes.

...again, no I don't. I'm suggesting a different way of doing things. Suggesting. As in, you can ignore me. I might not take your posts as seriously as I would have if you show me instead of telling me, but I'm working off of the basic principle of all writing that it's better to show than tell. Telling people something turns them off in many ways. You're giving them your conclusion.

There are times when it will be appropriate to use a statement describing how many people I believe Bush has murdered, and other times when it is quite appropriate to simply use the term murderer.

Did I say you can never use the term? I'm saying that the blanket use of name-calling is pointless.

From the previous example, if you made a thread with a nice amount of evidence for your claims and then, in your conclusion, put "Bush is directly responsible for the death of over 3000 people for pure personal gain, that makes him a murderer!" it's a different ballgame.

Did I object to the blanket use of the terms? Nope. Nowhere. There's a time and a place.

Or would you prefer that the word is erased from the English language completely? Because clearly, you seem to believe it should never be used.

This is another thing I'd like to see disappear from public discourse in general. There's never such thing as a moderate statement. I politely suggested that we tone down our rhetoric, so that means I want to erase certain words from the English language?

I'm sorry, but nowhere did I say anything that would lead to that conclusion. There's not a slope slippery enough to take the statements I made and lead them there.

If this rule of yours were to be adopted, a significant portion of English literary works would have to be censored too.

I'm not for censorship, I'm for reason. There's reasonable use of language, and there's ridiculous use of language. A string of modifiers before an institution that you dislike, such as"The totalitarian, fascist, murdering, thieving Federal Government is doing blah blah blah..."

And "I think that the current policies, as I've outlined, constitute a breach of law that makes the guilty of theft"

Your emphasis on the need for politeness lacks the specificity you are demanding from others.. As I am sure you are aware, one can politely say things which are very unkind indeed.

Again, I'm not for extreme politeness. I'm for a little bit more politeness. Just a bit.

And of course you can be unkind with polite language. The truth hurts.

For me, unkindness is where I draw the line. If someone on here is being deliberately unkind I just won't enter into discussion with them, whether they are being polite and level headed or not.

Well, sometimes the truth hurts. Now, if there's a thread that is simply devoted to personal attacks in even the politest form, that's just a silly thread that should be avoided anyway.

In your case I experience your argument as being politely scathing of those who do not express themselves as you wish.

...I'm just saying that they'd have a better chance at getting heard if they toned it down a bit. It's not even about politeness as much as reason. It's unreasonable to say "Bush is a murderer". It's reasonable to say "Because of the following evidence, I consider Bush a murderer."

The devil's in the details. There's no blanket rule to be applied and I'm not for censorship. I just wish it would get a lot more reasonable in here.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your name calling is someone else's fact.

No, facts are objective. It can't be 'someone's fact', it's the universe's fact.

No. What is considered fact is not always objective. Depending on the information one has, one can believe something is fact. All facts are based on evidence. Scientific fact is one such example. What is scientific fact today is tomorrow's mistake. The thalidomide disaster is one such example. The world being round and not flat is another.

Name calling is the application of a label to an individual.

Well, if that's your definition of name calling, and you disagree with name-calling, we should eradicate all proper nouns, and all nouns such as man, woman, husband, wife from the language... or else admit that your definition of name-calling would render any kind of discussion impossible without resorting to grunts.

Dictionary definition of 'murderer': Quote: a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being). Unquote

Yes, and you may establish that an individual was responsible for the unlawful, premeditated killing of an individual without actually calling them a 'murderer'



Well, yes, I understand that that is your personal preference - but that is all that it is.
So, are you intending to write to Oxford English Dictionary and request that they remove the word murder from the English language because it is redundant?

Calling the individual a murderer does nothing but inflame emotional response. Emotional response then leads to tangents and further name calling. We would be better served without emotional responses.

[/quote]

Whoa - that is all so entirely subjective. That is what YOU experience, not necessarily everyone. You're extrapolating your own experience and generalising it into a given for everyone.

There is very definitely a place, and a very vauable one, for emotion in language and expression and emotional response. And actually, I think that is really what you are objecting to. You seem to be objecting to emotional expression and emotional response. To want to impose that on everyone is unacceptable.

Since I do believemm based on the avukavke evidence available, that George Bush deliberately premeditated the killing of hundreds of thousands of people for political/economic gain and a gain of power, it is not name calling on my part to describe him as a murderer.

Emphasis mine.

That's the problem, you believe that. You're not going to convince me that it is true if you call him a murderer. All it does to me is show me that you're set in your belief and unable to change your mind if contrary evidence is presented.
[.quote]


But that is simply your own interpretation of what I am saying, and a subjective impression/judgement about my flexibility or otherwise on this issue based on that interpretation. Again and again, you take your own subjective understanding and interpretation to be objective and factual, and then seek to impose it on everyone.

Attaching that label seems like the equivalent of putting a 'closed for business' sign on the argument. If you call someone a murderer, there doesn't seem to be any way I would be able to convince you otherwise.

Again, that is you making an assumption based on your interpretation. Nothing more.
And why would you want to convince me of anything? Isn't that just more of wanting to impose your views on another. If you have a different view, explain your argument and leave me free to evaluate your evidence. If it is compelling, it will have an effect on me, if not it won't.

It is to state wha I believe to be a fact,

See above reply regarding 'facts'.

It is to use a noun in the English language in the way it was intended to be used.

Again, you believe it, but how many people are you going to convince if you keep using that word?


I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am simply stating my belief or opinion. If someone wants to know more about why I beieve it to be true, I will willingly explain if they ask. I am not interested in convincing others about anything. I prefer to state my reasons for thinking something if they are interested in knowing that, and then simply leave that person free to evaluate what I say.. It is of no importance whether they agree or disagree.

You and I obviously have very different agendas.

Discourse is the only way to convince people and it is based on being open. The use of such labels closes the conversation. It sets up sides. If you call Bush a murderer you're on side A and it seems like you're going to stay there rather than listen to opposing opinions and/or evidence.

I'm not going to even reply to this because it is more of the same - your subjective experience being taken as fact for everyone, and an implied lack of openess based on an assumption. You just aren't taking responsibility for the fact that you are interpreting a lot of things subjectively. You're blaming others for your own subjective experience.

So, your accusation that I am name calling is, in itself, a form of irrational name-calling, because it is not based on a rational appreciation of my use of that word.

I'm sorry, but it's not name calling. I didn't say anything about any individuals. I simply stated that the practice is harmful to the conversation. Thus it is irrational.



Basically, what you are saying is that the use of any noun which can be used as a label for an individual is name calling and harmful to the conversation. In which case no discussion is possible. Such a statement is frankly ridiculous.

If I disagree with Sarah Palin (and boy do I disagree with her) and call her something along the lines of a 'phony' or an 'opportunist', it's name calling. Even if I have a mountain of evidence to support that those statements are true. I could simply state that she did X which leads her to do Y quite often and sometimes she does Z because of it. And if that statement proved she was an opportunist, I wouldn't have to call her an opportunist.

Once again, this is semantica/linguistic preference. It is all contextual. In certain contexts one might be used in preference to another. Context is everything. And we all make our own decisions on which one best expresses both the thoughts and the feelings we want to express.

I'm not using any actual arguments because this thread isn't about her, it's just an example.

I'm not going to convince supporters of Sarah Palin about anything if I call her an 'opportunist' and you're not going to convince the majority of anyone that Bush did anything wrong if you immediately call him a 'murderer'.

You should be focused primarily about changing people's minds.

Well, allow me to choose whether I want to attempt to change someone's mind or not. Boy, you really do have an authoritarian and rigid approach to things.. One more subjective belief being made into a rule for all.


Ok, it's just too tedious to go through all your other poitns. Let's just agree to differ widely on this.

edit on 17-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)