Seen on DU

[iverglas]

46. there is indeed a lot of stuff at DU

"that starts with 'so yr saying...'." And goes on to attribute an idea or words to someone that they never thought or said, and that in fact no reasonable or decent person would ever think or say. In this instance, a totally ludicrous notion was ascribed to me, that distorted what I said, and an argument then built on the misrepresentation of my thoughts and words. This quite simply precludes any further reasonable, candid discussion.

And it's obnoxious no matter who does it, and no matter where. It's particularly prevalent in the Guns forum. And I find it just as offensive no matter who does it. Here's an example from just now, in fact, with my emphases:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299#post8
(I posted a link to the OP there at the bottom of this thread, it being one that I think is far, far more malevolent than the one this thread is about.)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:14 PM
iverglas
14. yup, I make this point at every opportunity

"Free speech" itself is the other biggie, and it's deployed to great effect here in Canada as well. In fact, gun militants in the US try that avenue: wandering around campuses wearing empty holsters as a protest against not being allowed to have actual guns on campus is "free speech".

(A few years ago here, a doctor, i.e. not a person without significant personal resources, went to the Supreme Court claiming that the universal health plan violated his right to life and security of the person ... and won, in one of the worst decisions I've ever seen. A narrow victory in that case, but a foot in the door of diminishing the ability of most people in Canada to exercise their rights to life and security of the person.)

Rights become a weapon with which to bludgeon any disadvantaged group that makes the least effort to achieve equality and any attempt to improve society for the benefit of the vast majority of people, and combat any gains made toward equal opportunity.

The aim of many aspects of their battle plan is intimidation, and their efforts rely heavily on provocation. People wearing firearms to children's soccer games and people displaying giant billboards of aborted fetuses on university campuses (or publishing bigoted cartoons, e.g.) are provocateurs, no more and no less. When decent people -- and in particular the direct targets of their actions -- take exception to their despicable behaviours, it's all "my rights! my rights!"

No one in the world has the least difficulty seeing exactly what the right wing is up to when it does these things.


Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:24 PM
gejohnston
15. speech you don't like is intimidation? (DID I SAY THAT? NO)

wandering around campuses wearing empty holsters as a protest against not being allowed to have actual guns on campus is "free speech".

How is that not free speech? It really sounds like you would ban speech you don't like.
(DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BANNING ANYTHING? NO.)

It is very seldom innocent, and IT is ABUSIVE, and I don't pretend not to notice.

Your impression apparently differed from mine. Oh well.

I know from experience that people tend to react better to an explanation of what's being said than to insults....

Well, I react better to a request for clarification than to a grossly false and ugly and/or dumb representation of things I say -- edit: which IS an INSULT. I suggest that people who engage in the latter go first when it comes to altering behaviour.

I think I posted this already, but in case you missed it, I'll excerpt:

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/pearly/htmls1/gop-jargon.html

Let us consider a few examples of the phenomena I am talking about. This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting :

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness. Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

... Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?&quot . This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

The same writer continues as follows :

Yep, you must really enjoy democracy if you feel that Al's team is absolutely with clean hands while W is totally wrong.

Having worked himself into a state of righteous indignation, he starts in with the sarcasm: "yep". Then another characteristic pattern of the new jargon: reframing issues in terms of straw-man extremes. He ascribes to me a view that is framed in terms of absolutes. Notice how the straw man is amplified even further through imbalance : it's Al's team versus W (alone). ...

The post I replied to followed that EXACT pattern.

I don't intend to be treated to attacks based on misrepresentations of what I say in this group. As I said, the thread up until then consisted of an exchange of views in which no one had misrepresented anyone else's view and no one had attacked anyone for the view they held; there was a difference of opinion and both opinions were explained quite calmly and reasonably, I thought. There was no need or reason for the kind of reply I got, and I am quite comfortable with my response to it.