Question for the group: Reaction to a post demonstrates its relevance/accuracy?

[trotsky]

It has been suggested in another thread that those people who are angered or offended by something that is posted must have felt it was accurate, or that it hits a little close to home. I've heard this referred to as the "Rush Limbaugh gambit," since it was a saying he often brought out to explain why he made so many liberals mad - it was only because of his alleged accuracy.

Do the posters of this group feel this principle is something that should guide posts here? The more people upset about something that was said, the more true it must be?

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, anyone upset by a post must think it describes them a little too accurately.
	0 (0%)
	No, that is a ridiculous standard and not respectful or helpful for discussion.
	6 (100%)
	Other (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Curmudgeoness]

1. I saw that allegation, and I rejected it immediately.

I also saw some of the arguments against it, and how they were dismissed as not being relevant to the discussion. Anything to say that the dissenters have no pants.

Isn't it possible that an opinion angers people because it is outrageous? To try to build a bridge with the things we can agree on, think about how it angers all of us when we read some of the right wing comments online (example would be that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan socialist who hates America). Yes, we are angry. No, it is not because there is any truth to what is being said.

[Renew Deal]

2. Jerry Springer used to have KKK people on his show

And I would get pissed off. It wasn't because I secretly agreed with them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. We all work from a base of political idelogy, personal ethics, and experience.

Those are what guides reaction to a post.

[Lordquinton]

4. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

There is an example of a question that would spark outrage in anyone, and is the classicexample of what you are talking about, get them riled up at something absurd, then claim that their outrage is due to it being true, rather than that you just said something so completely absurd and insulting.

[goldent]

5. I think giving the "Rush Limbaugh" answer might have an effect

on a poll at DU

[trotsky]

6. Like it or not, it's a page right out of his playbook.

And as I have learned recently, if you are offended by that, then I guess it must strike a little close to home.

[goldent]

7. I see what you did there...

I was just pointing out that when doing a poll, if the Rush Limbaugh position is given as part of the poll, it just might influence the poll results. I just found it humorous that it was done on a poll at DU.

Edit to add: I just voted for the Rush Limbaugh answer, because I kind of feel sorry for him.

[rug]

8. Madam, how like you this play?

Queen. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Ham. O! but she’ll keep her word.
King. Have you heard the argument? Is there no offence in ’t?
Ham. No, no, they do but jest, poison in jest; no offence i’ the world.
King. What do you call the play?
Ham. The Mouse-trap. Marry, how? Tropically. This play is the image of a murder done in Vienna: Gonzago is the duke’s name; his wife, Baptista. You shall see anon; ’tis a knavish piece of work: but what of that? your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not: let the galled jade wince, our withers are unwrung.

[Goblinmonger]

9. You do know

Protest meant something different then, right?

[rug]

10. You do know what apophasis means, right?

Here, I'll help you.

Definition:

A rhetorical term for the mention of something in disclaiming intention of mentioning it--or pretending to deny what is really affirmed. Adjective: apophatic or apophantic. Similar to paralepsis and praeteritio.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines apophasis by quoting John Smith's The Mysterie of Rhetorique Unvail'd (1657): "a kind of Irony, whereby we deny that we say or doe that which we especially say or doe."

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/apophasis.htm

Apropos of which, Happy New Year.

[mmonk]

11. That sounds like "people are what I say

they are if they react negatively".