DU Guide to Outrage

[AllentownJake]

Just so everyone is prepared something strange is going to be happening to DU over the next year. The political party we all generally support is going from opposition to governance. So now instead of just being angry over just about every decision are government makes we might be generally happier...sometimes.

With that in mind I thought I'd post a quick outline on how things may go on here from time to time. With the understanding like with anything else in life I'm a massive hypocrite and subject to my own emotional outburst.

If you believe Barack Obama is above critism or shouldn't be criticised because it will hurt the party, his agenda, your feelings you better grow some tougher skin. Senator Obama knew very well when he ran if he won that being President Obama would mean for himself and you should to. Will Rogers said "I don't belong to an organized political party I'm a democrat" and that is a very true statement at time. From organizing locally I've learned at times this is like herding cats.

1) Democrats generally agree on most issues. However the thing I've found out since becoming active in the party is democrats have a great difficulty in ageeing on what issue is the most important. This goes from everything to what do we fight for first from healthcare to civil rights to should we emphasize canvassing or a parade on a particular weekend to do we need to recruit local candidates better or better expose our opponents so that we can encourage local candidates.

2) If someone supports a particular issue stronger than you do it might be because they have a particular life experience on why they feel strongly. For some on here these aren't esoteric arguments they are personal. Its their or their children's health insurance, ability to marry or adopt, ability to work, job which was outsourced, water is unclean, child that was killed or maimed in a needless war. These aren't issues...these are their lives. A little empathy goes a long way and can win you friends.

3) If you don't support a particular issue that strongly and you don't think it is that big deal when the administration compromises or doesn't make it a priority better keep those thoughts to your self or get your flamesuit. You may not see the big deal but see number 2 some of these issues are personal. If you feel like fighting for the administration position by all means have at it but doen't be surprised when people you are friendly with suddenly don't like you very much.

4) People aren't evil if they don't see things your way. Just because someone doesn't feel as strongly about civil rights, the enviroment, healthcare, details of economic stimulus, etc...doesn't mean the person is a bad democrat or bad person. They just don't have the same personal experience that you do that makes you upset about that particular issue Try keeping insults to a minimum. I know its hard because some people just don't get it.

5) Because people are angry over a particular issue doesn't mean they are about to leave the party, start a third party, organize a primary against President Obama in 2012 etc. I remember alot of people in the heat of the primary battle swearing total undying allegiance to one candidate or the other. On November 4, 2008 we managed to come together. A common enemy in 2012 will be amazing to do that again so relax. It will be 2009 in a few days. 2012 is alot of battles away.

[Starry Messenger]

1. Rec.

No need to kick at the moment since it's the middle of the night and this will likely be here for awhile. Nicely done, sir!

[TheWraith]

38. Kicked and recommended.

(And done so at the top so hopefully more people will be inspired to do so.)

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TygrBright]

3. How DARE you be a Voice Of Reason!?!!??

Better get yer asbestos union suit buttoned up...


K-ing & R-ing

appreciatively,
Bright

[babylonsister]

4. Do you know what? I hate outlines or anything having to do with

what might have been or will be. You, my dear, were my hero when working for Obama and the biggest mouth in other venues. As a Dem, that was wonderful and a way to express yourself, as is this.

But no. My life and thoughts are simpler. Que sera, sera. My attitude is after a few years here, if the topic has been played out, ignore it til the next topic comes along.

Pretty easy for me now.

[AllentownJake]

5. I'm not done working :-)

Barack got me off my ass and I will be forever greatful for him inspiring me to do so and I thank you for that wonderful compliment.

I come here to unwind and take the temperature of what I'll be dealing when I try to do things locally. I'm relatively new compared to most posters only I guess around 10 months now but, things are going to be alot different on here and in the real world now that we don't have George W. Bush to kick around anymore (justifiably so) in a current sense.

[SeattleGirl]

6. Word!

And thank you!

[Enrique]

7. I have to respond before finishing

you write "If you believe Barack Obama is above critism or shouldn't be criticised because it will hurt the party, his agenda, your feelings you better grow some tougher skin."

I'd like to know, is there any reason for this admonishment? Has anyone expressed the idea that Obama shouldn't be criticized? I haven't seen it.

I appreciate your interest in helping the discussion stay civil and rational. One thing that would help is for people to restrain from twisting people's words.

[AllentownJake]

9. See my post below

[AllentownJake]

8. Universal Response to the above critism thing

During this recent I'm not going to even name it topic, some posters on here acted as if the world was ending because a some of the DU community was justifiably angry over a recent decision. During that time I took a side which many on here were surprised I took based on my behavior during the primary battle and my passion during the General Election.

Now I was called a traitor at least twice and made to feel like one at least 30 times. I had one person tell me that war in Iran would be succesful if Barack called for it and we should accept anything he says as Gospel because that's why we elected him, to be the new decider (didn't use the decider phrase I had) by one poster. I also watched a very good poster go off the rails because she didn't like the critism of Barack.

This place is absolutely awesome and its absolutely rowdy at times. If people think this recent controversy was bad...you ain't seen nothing yet. If you don't believe me start a thread in General Discussion over whether Bill Clinton was a good President.

[Enrique]

10. we need to work on listening skills

I don't trust your characterizations of what you read here, because you use phrases like "acted as if the world was ending", and "we should accept anything he says as Gospel", and "we elected him to be the new decider."

In the last case, you acknowledge that they didn't use the word decider, so my question is, why characterize what they said like that? It's a sign of not listening.

You think these people say Obama shouldn't be criticized. That's not what they're saying, they're saying something different. If you're interested, you might think about what they're saying.

[AllentownJake]

11. I'd link to that thread but I have that poster on ignore and

I don't want to call them out. The loyalty the person believed was necessary was something you'd see on Free Republic.

[Enrique]

12. why not just say Nazis?

they were loyal too.

[AllentownJake]

13. It always comes back to the Nazis doesn't it

I don't like George W. Bush and I don't like the freepers. I have a hard time believing that they would reach that level of evil. I could be very wrong about that.

[Starry Messenger]

14. kick

[Rockholm]

15. Another "go way and shut up gay" thread?

[AllentownJake]

19. Yes because I've been such a vocal supporter of the Rick Warren decision

:shrug:

I was called a traitor by 2 Obama supporters that have been on here for a while with my anger over that nonsense.

[scheming daemons]

24. Geez.....

:eyes:

Now you're going to shit on REASONABLE threads made by grown ups?

[KittyWampus]

27. For some, I think it's a challenge. Or a game.

[AllentownJake]

33. Sad thing is I was one of the loud people last week

:shrug:

At a certain point you have to do something constructive with anger or it just becomes anger for the sake of anger.

[NJmaverick]

16. This reminds me of the 10 principles of intellectual honesty

A list that should be mandatory reading for all DUers.


http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Good list. Surprising that it came from an Intelligent Design proponent.

But it's spot on perfect.

To bad the guy doesn't use his own list.

[NJmaverick]

21. Just goes to show you, that Obama was right

when he said no party (I guess you could say ideology as well) has the monopoly on good ideas.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Very true! We do have much to learn from one another.

They, of course, have WAAAAAAAY more to learn from us than we from them.

:7

[Warren Stupidity]

23. which good idea is it we should get from the Republican Party?

As far as I can tell they are pockets inside out in the good idea department.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Unintentional Irony.

your link now goes to a disabled domain:


This Domain (thedesignmatrix.com) Has Been Disabled
For information on restoring your account please call customer service as soon as possible

When/If you call our support help line, please have your site name ready.


There is absolutely nothing about intellectual honesty to be learned from the intelligent design people as they are engaged in intellectual fraud, in deliberate purpose driven lies.

All we can learn from them are tricks and tools from the art of persuasion.

[NJmaverick]

28. Fortunately I was able to save the outstanding work, in its entirety

here you go:

The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty
October 20th, 2008 by Mike Gene

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.


1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. This is about appearances mostly, about persuasion

and not about actual intellectual rigor. How could it be? The apparent author is engaged in a deliberate effort to deceive over his pet passion: intelligent design, aka creationism. He is writing here about how to appear to be honest while lying one's ass off. ID'ers are not striving for intellectual honesty, and from the article you have posted, don't even understand really what that is.

[NJmaverick]

30. Your response is a violation of number 7 and 8

This is a powerful work. It's simple enough for practical use, yet it covers every major point.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. This powerful work, as I said, is not about intellectual honesty.

And the author's background is most pertinent to what your treasured bit of pseudo-intellectual hokum is actually about. It is, as I said, about how to appear to be fair. Why appearing to be fair is important to the author becomes clear once you understand that the author is engaged in an act of intellectual deception: i.e. promotion of the Intelligent Design Fraud.

The practical use here is 'how to win arguments even when you are lying'.


Intellectual rigour

An attempted short definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions (including the speaker, the speaker's country and so on). Consistency can be at odds here with a forgiving attitude, adaptability, and the need to take precedent with a pinch of salt.

"The rigour of the game" is a quotation from Charles Lamb<1> about whist. It implies that the demands of thinking accurately and to the point over a card game can serve also as entertainment or leisure. Intellectual rigour can therefore be sometimes seen as the exercise of a skill. It can also degenerate into pedantry, which is intellectual rigour applied to no particular end, except perhaps self-importance. Scholarship can be defined as intellectual rigour applied to the quality control of information, which implies an appropriate standard of accuracy, and scepticism applied to accepting anything on trust.
In relation to intellectual honesty

Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence.<2> For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate, if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises.

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

[NJmaverick]

36. There is a good reason for number 7

you are focusing on a person, not the very good issues that were raised. Hell, considering what you posted, presumably as a contrast, pretty much agrees with what I wrote.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. No I pointed out the motivation of the author while noting that

the primary focus is on the appearance of fairness, not on actual intellectual honesty or rigor. Once again, as ID is a deliberate fraud, how could the author actually care about intellectual honesty? There is a glaring contradiction there which you simply avoid by repeating 'number 7' as if that settles something. The motivation of the messenger is not out of bounds.

All of the points made are phrased in terms of how one should appear, and rarely about the content of the argument being made. "Show", "Be willing to publicly", are repeated over and over again. When lying, the appearance of fairness and honesty is indeed very important if one hopes to be persuasive. For example, when lying about the scientific merits of ID, it is very important to put all of your bullshit within a superfically fair framework, otherwise people will catch on to the fact that you are just wrapping creationist bullshit up in a pseudo-scientific veneer. Within that list only 3 6 and perhaps 8 are actually about intellectual honesty. Seven just points out that ad hominem attacks are poor form. It fails to note that there are exceptions. By the way, simply because an argument includes a fallacy does not invalidate the argument unless the argument itself relies on the fallacy. If the fallacy is irrelevant it is just that.

Here is the key point of the excerpt I quoted: Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence.<2>

That part - keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence - is the part that is lacking almost entirely (although hinted at in 4) from your cited discourse on persuasion. Once again we have to look at the author - there is no valid evidence for ID and yet he is passionate in his conviction that ID is valid, or more correctly the author is publicly passionate in his conviction that ID is valid.

There are much better discourses on persuasion of course. This field goes back to Aristotle at least within our own Western Civilization branch of human society. Google: art of persuasion.

Bullshit is bullshit no matter how fairly or persuasively it is presented.

[dbmk]

44. Doesn't point 1 cover that?

"One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most"

[Umbram]

39. Not true at all.

The vast majority of those points simply line up with basic critical reasoning principles to avoid committing fallacies. A good number of them are simply applying the Principle of Charity.

[grantcart]

34. this account has been suspended lol

somebody wasn't honest about the check being in the mail lol

[NJmaverick]

35. Actually there are tons of reasons for an account being suspended

They site could have been hacked, abandoned, had technical issues etc.

I have posted (a few posts up) the complete list of rules.

[Vanje]

45. Dupe- sorry. Its been said, and repeated. Sorry

"This account has been suspended!"

[treestar]

17. Number 3 seems to indicate a desire to suppress dissent over dissent

It'll be hard enough arguing with freepers and other right wingers - some DUers must be isolated from them. How about DU helping with opposing these nutjobs rather than doing an even better job of trashing our own side?

Nobody should expect their personal issues to come first - we all have those! And we can disagree about HOW to solve those issues. Bitching against one's own side is usually not effective in bringing about a solution. This is a political board, no? So people's personal problems don't really add up as the sum total of what the President and Congress should be doing - those institutions do not exist solely to help one group of people. They have to deal with all the shit out there and balance and prioritize.

[AllentownJake]

18. True...

However, if you have been in a committed relationship for 12 years and just watched Brittney Spears or some other Celeb elope in Vegas after meeting someone 24 hours ago and the state refuses to sanction your relationship...it might be a big deal to you.

If you have no health insurance and have just declared bankruptcy over an illness that its probably a big deal to you.

If you just lost your job to India and are worrying how you are going to feed your family its probably a big deal to you.

A little empathy goes a long way is all I'm saying and I've been very guilty of not having empathy sometimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. I read it as don't be surprised at the reaction and consider why

what you thought was simply an intellectual neutral discourse on an issue suddenly got very personal. You need to consider your opponents point of view, and understand that if they feel personally threatened by a position you are taking they are likely to react emotionally.

Not posting is an option frequently left uncontemplated.

[AllentownJake]

32. Exactly

The old stupid joke I was a democrat till I got mugged...well I was a republican till I couldn't get healthcare, lost my job, realized I couldn't marry the person I want...etc.

Most of us have personal reasons we feel the way we do.

[Vanje]

46. Word

up!

[jgraz]

40. How the hell did we get this far down in the thread without a "Nice post, Hitler"??

DUers, you are slipping.

[Starry Messenger]

41. You missed the deleted subthread.

It was awesome!

[jgraz]

42. Damn, maybe I'm slipping.

[Starry Messenger]

43. The best part was watching it all unfold at 1 am PST.

It had everything and it was the middle of the night. A twofer.

[Vanje]

47. Went to bed too early, I guess. nt

[AllentownJake]

48. I did compare the poster to my ex

I guess that is pretty similar :rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

49. Things went rapidly downhill after that!

All I could think was--"This is a DU X-mas miracle!"

[rucky]

50. I disagree with #4

and for that, you're evil.

:evilgrin:

[keepthemhonest]

51. post title made me laugh out loud with everything going on here

at DU.VEry well articulated.I hope it helps people.

One thing I do alot here is not post,just read.I start to write things and then I am afraid I may offend so I delete instead of posting.I know thats not for everyone though.