Five ways to end a debate without actually having to make a logical argument.

[Bjorn Against]

When people want to shut an argument down there are a few arguments that they seem to use over and over again in an attempt to stop debate on any issue they would prefer was not brought up. Here are five tactics that people use to kill a debate without actually having to make a valid argument.

1. The Phil Gramm argument - The Phil Gramm argument involves accusing anyone who believes that a certain policy is harmful of whining. While Phil Gramm brought a lot of attention to this line of attack in this past week, it is an attack that has been in use for a long time. It has been used on sites like Free Republic as well as sites like this one, and often involves posting pictures of crying babies or a call for the "Waaaahmubulance". It allows a person to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a bunch of whiners without having to actually debate what they are saying, and it usually shows more child like behavior on the part of the person using such an attack than it does on the person who is being accused of whining.

2. The "ideological purist" argument - This is one that has been in use for a long time, but seems to be more popular today than ever before. It is an argument that tends to get thrown out at anyone who disagrees with a candidate on any given issue in an attempt to dismiss their concerns on that issue. What is especially interesting about this line of argument however is the fact that it is the people who disagree with candidates on certain issues that are accused of ideological purism, while those who express agreement with a candidate no matter what the issue is are rarely accused of ideological purity. Those who dissent are purists, while those who will change their positions to match the candidates are not given the same label. It is a very Orwellian type of argument, and it needs to be scrutinized.

3. The "fringe activist" argument - This argument involves dismissing everyone who holds a view outside of the beltway opinion as being far outside the mainstream of public thought. It should be noted that quite often mainstream public opinion is described as being fringe if it goes against what politicians in DC want. While ending the war in Iraq as rapidly as possible is a very popular position among Americans, that position is dismissed as fringe and we are told that the mainstream opinion involves staying in Iraq indefinitely even though the polls say such an opinion is highly unpopular. Similarly most people are either opposed or indifferent to expanding the government's ability tap our phones, yet opponents of the FISA bill are dismissed as being fringe while those who support it are considered to be reaching out to moderates. On the issue of health care most people support universal health care, but it is those who support it who are considered fringe while those who support the very unpopular position of giving even more power to the insurance industry are considered mainstream. The fringe activist argument is used against anyone who disagrees with the status quo, even when the truth may be that the status quo is the fringe position in terms of popularity.

4. The "beating a dead horse" argument - This is an argument that gets brought up when a person desperately wants an issue to die, but people are still talking about it. The truth is that if people are still talking about it it is still an issue whether we want to call it a dead horse or not. Yes, there are always issues that get brought up that should have probably never been issues in the first place, but quite often the dead horse argument is used when we are debating very serious pieces of legislation like FISA. Quite often when people use the dead horse argument it is because they know they can't win an argument so they want to kill it without debate.

5. The loyalty test - This argument involves questioning a person's loyalty or patriotism if they ask any questions. If a person is even mildly critical of a candidate they are accused of supporting the opposition candidate, and sometimes even accused of being unpatriotic or harming the nation. This is a very similar tactic to that used by McCarthy, and it is a tactic that was used especially heavily after the 9/11 attacks when people were expected to prove their patriotism. While its use is not as common on the left as it is on the right, during election seasons this line of questioning does pop up in Democratic circles.

While there are many other arguments that are used to kill debate without actually debating, I have found that these five are some of the most common. When we are debating someone we need to refrain from using these types of attacks, and when we hear these attacks used we need to realize that they are not valid arguments. It is time that we start listening to people's differences of opinion without calling them whiners, giving them loyalty tests, or accusing them of beating a dead horse.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Great post

[tblue37]

2. Don't forget the "That's old news" or "Let's not argue about the past--

it's time to move forward" approach.

[Bjorn Against]

3. Good addition...

I don't pretend that this is a comprehensive list of bad arguments, and you are correct that the "this is old news" argument is brought out a lot. People need to remember that "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" so there is really no such thing as old news. Too often it seems though that our news cycle is so rapid that something that happened two days ago is "old news" to a lot of people. There are some issues that we should be talking about for months or even years after they happen, and we should not move on just because some people want to move on.

[Vickers]

4. Why do you hate America?

:shrug:











(that's #5 for the slow ones out there...)

:P

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. "harmful of whining" needs correcting?

[Bjorn Against]

6. It is too late to edit, but read the entire sentence and not just those three words.

"The Phil Gramm argument involves accusing anyone who believes that a certain policy is harmful of whining."

I probably could have worded it a bit better, but it makes sense to me. I am saying that people are being accused of whining if they have problems with a certain policy.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. You forgot the GOP's favorite: 9/11.

...any mention of September 11th renders the other party's comments moot.

This also applies to "I was a POW" defense used by Admiral McCombover.

This differs from the loyalty test because it does not rely on the questioning of loyalty. The mere mention of 9/11 ends all discussion, similar to the way the Pope declares an Encyclical.

[Bjorn Against]

8. Yeah, you could add a lot of things to my list...

And 9/11 certainly has been used to shut people up, no doubt about that. My list is not meant to be at all comprehensive, it is just five lines of attack that I have seen used a lot. Someone could write several volumes of books documenting weak arguments that have been used time and time again, and there are certainly enough examples of the abuse of 9/11 to fill at least one of those volumes.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. I think your list is fine, I just wanted to say 9/11. n/t

[AlbertCat]

64. Don't forget...

...to accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing yourself. That works like a charm!

[izquierdista]

10. The Repub debating manual

IGNORE debate because it's "beating a dead horse"
Accuse them of WHINING
Twist their logic a la ORWELL
Question their LOYALTY
Accuse them of being on the FRINGE

When encountering any of these arguments, these tactics should be called out for what they are; bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[KharmaTrain]

11. My Favorite" "You Just Don't Get It"

Always works like a charm...just keep saying how the person doesn't get it (even if they did).

[Bjorn Against]

12. Oh yes, I hear that one a lot.

And yes, I wish I would have added that to my list because it seems that there are some people who think that the only people who "get it" are the people that agree with them on everything.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Well...

...then they just don't get it :rofl:

Cheers...

[NashVegas]

14. Wonderful Points, All

Too often, I feel many of us are on the opposite ends of people who use them here. The same tactics we once fled politically integrated boards to get away from.

[QC]

15. Excellent post. 2 and 5 are really getting a workout lately around here. n/t

[RedShoes]

76. My gosh, I was afraid to say it.

[QC]

81. The roving band of bullies that is making this place unbearable

really loves those two more than any of the others, I think.

I just pointed out that a flamebait thread had aready been locked once before, only to have one of the more creepy of the stalker bullies pop up and demand to know why I was defending a known enemy of the people and whether I supported the nominee, which has not a damn thing to do with the fact that the thread in question well and truly was reposted flamebait that had already been locked.

It's unbelievable what has happened to this place in the past six months or so.

[LWolf]

16. All five are used regularly here at DU.

Every day. I'll bet, if you read GDP, you can find an example in every single thread on the front page.

And yet, a post upthread calls them "The repub dating manual."

What does this say about DU, and about democrats?

That democrats are no smarter, no more principled, no better than republicans, they just root for the other team?

What?

[Bjorn Against]

17. We do see all five used regularly at DU, and that is why I made this post.

I think Democrats are more principled than Republicans overall, and we do have much better arguments on our side but we also have the people who just like to ridicule and don't actually add anything to the debate. I think that a couple years ago people were much better at making arguments at this site, but things have really gone downhill since the last primary season started. Many people still seem to be fighting the primary wars, and I am not just talking about supporters of other candidates besides Obama either because there are many Obama supporters who seem to be in primary mode still as well.

I guess this post is an attempt to get that to stop. Now I know that one post is not going to end the nonsense, but if I can even get one person to stop using these types of arguments it would make things slightly more pleasant around here so I think it is important to call these things out.

[LWolf]

18. I agree.

To be frank, it's embarrassing to me to see the ridicule. It diminishes anything of substance we might have to say.

I'd like to think we could debate the issues of the day, including the direction of the party, the platform, the nominee, and the GE, thoughtfully, without the nonsense.

Thanks for calling it out.

[krispos42]

41. If you think people "seem" to still be fighting the primary wars, let me assure you...

THEY ARE!


As I have learned in my short time as a mod!

:rofl:

[AlbertCat]

61. I dunno....

That democrats are no smarter, no more principled, no better than republicans, they just root for the other team?

*************

I'm not so sure this is true. All are human, and both are disappointing. But the degrees of stupidity and unprincipled episodes and their frequency are not the same. If we get a Dem Executive and a Dem Congress, that might change. Like I said, all are human.

[LWolf]

74. That's partly true.

I think it's changing, though. Shit, many democrats ARE rooting for "the other team" now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6488895&mesg_id=6494137

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. There's also the research and sources rejection arguement

my made-up example: "How do you know that? Did you read that document in the original Sanscrit? How do you know if that tranlation is reliable? You must go back to school and get your doctorate in this topic and then we can talk."

In this diversionary tactic, the opinion of Carl Sagan concerning a comet would of questionable value. You will be urged to do original comet research on your own.

In other words, no source or author or research or organization quoted will be quite good enough or reliable enough or unimpeachable enough. And even though the rejector has no more expertise than you in the subject - they will exhort you to "prove" every opinion, even when they are clearly opinions.

[Bjorn Against]

20. Yeah, I have been seeing a number of attacks on the ACLU lately...

And so far I don't know of a single DUer who has attacked the legal expertise of the ACLU that is actually a lawyer themselves. I know that there are experts and there are "experts" and that we need to recognize the difference, but the ACLU has a long and respectable history behind them. People can tell us to read the FISA bill, but the truth is that unless we are highly trained lawyers we are not going to have a good understanding of the bill, as it is written in very precise legal language with lots of cross references. Anyone with a good understanding of legislation knows that quite often the worst parts of a bill are not the explicit parts, they are the very vague parts. It is very difficult for a person with no legal expertise to be able to find all the loopholes, and notice the fine print which is contained in the cross references and that is why we need to be able to rely on others to tell us what is in the bill. Reading the bill ourselves will only give us a partial understanding unless we are lawyers who have thoroughly studied legal language and know how to look for the loopholes. There are certain matters in which I would trust a lawyer's judgment far more than I would trust my own, and I think anyone who is being honest with themselves would probably feel the same way. I haven't agreed with every stance the ACLU has taken throughout the organizations history, but I do trust them to be honest about their stances and I will trust their lawyers before I will trust the people attacking them.

While I trust the ACLU however, I also think it is important to question the "experts" the media throws at us because quite often they are PR people instead of real experts. There is a great book by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton that came out a few years back called "Trust us We're Experts" that really shows the ways that the PR industry has created fake experts to help sell their agenda, so we do need to be careful. But that does not mean we should dismiss a person as soon as they take a position counter to our own.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. Good points about fake experts who are really PR people. nt

[QC]

26. Yep, there are many attacks on the ALCU and other "far left" institutions lately.

Used to be only obvious cases like Carlos who bellyached about "the far left" here at DU, but now it's routine. It really does make one wonder, doesn't it?

[madfloridian]

40. And there are attacks on those who post about the ACLU et al

More and more of them.

[QC]

43. The new attitude seems to be: Who needs research and analysis

when you can just repeat the campaign's latest talking points. Ugh.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

23. Link?

:hide:

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

24. Good one! Right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3609877&mesg_id=3611414

:P

[HCE SuiGeneris]

25. Wow! Small world.

I had just read a VERY similar article. Excellent sourcing, BTW. :P

[Lars39]

42. Actually, that request makes DU a much better place.

[Runcible Spoon]

60. true, until you get a response like "Mother Jones? Everyone knows that site is fringe leftist"

:banghead:

[TroubleMan]

21. NO - not the waaaambulance!

What about all of the out of work waaaaaaamubulance drivers?

[slipslidingaway]

27. Thanks...

"...While there are many other arguments that are used to kill debate without actually debating, I have found that these five are some of the most common. When we are debating someone we need to refrain from using these types of attacks, and when we hear these attacks used we need to realize that they are not valid arguments. It is time that we start listening to people's differences of opinion without calling them whiners, giving them loyalty tests, or accusing them of beating a dead horse."

:applause:

[sniffa]

28. You forgot another one

[pollo poco]

29. This is my favorite post EVER on DU

I would add three things:

1. It's a victory for the right every time we use their verbal assault tactics.
They have redefined the term "reasonable discourse". We have accepted their terms.

It is tiresome to listen to concerned citizens being called "whiners", no matter who is doing it.

This is such a great post!

2. I call this the "president in wartime" argument. You know, the one where dissent is actually considered dangerous, because it "strengthens the enemy and undermines the troops"?

Here, it becomes the "candidate in generalelectiontime" argument. Perhaps it is a subgroup of the "loyalty test".

3. I wish your post could be used as a reference, so that these arguments could be rebutted by all posters, using your number system.

Thus, when someone posts something to the effect that all of us whiners should STFU or leave the party, downstream posters could save a lot of time by simply typing:

"Hey, OP- 1& 5. Get your shit together! We're here to debate." What a time saver this would be!



BTW, my favorite "research and sources rejection" (thanks Phoebe!) moment was when a regular poster here asked if I could supply links to support my "unsupported theory" of gender discrimination! Oh sure- but where shall I begin among the millions of such links. Right- like I'm supposed to fill the obvious lifelong knowledge gap caused by your own negligence of a subject you find uncomfortable.

He followed the post with several "I'm waiting..." messages, and later claimed that no one had ever come forward to answer his challenge-thus proving his point once and for all, of course!

Why not ask for links proving that WWII actually took place? I mean- I never saw it happen! How many thousands of links would it take to convince someone to open a book before they consider themselves qualified to comment? I mean, at what point are people supposed to know something about a subject before offering a rebuttal? Or worse- a flat out attack from a position of shameful ignorance. This is a big question from people I encounter when I'm out of the country. It seems to be a unique interpretation of the meaning of free speech. The right to abuse others while loudly proclaiming one's sad ignorance on a subject.

Thanks again-this post, and the replies to it, renew my faith in this forum.

[Bjorn Against]

68. Thank you so much.

I don't know that this is worthy of the best post ever on DU, but I am glad that you liked it. And you are right when you talk about issues like gender discrimination a lot of people don't want to acknowledge it exists. That is a big part of the reason it is so hard to make progress in this country, because rather than confront problems people want to pretend those problems aren't real.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. Be careful, you might get locked. n/t

:sarcasm:

[Bjorn Against]

31. Well fortunately this has not turned into a flame war yet, and I don't think it will

It is really interesting how most of the people who use the attacks I mentioned have not shown up to try to defend them.

[Blue_In_AK]

34. So far, so good,

and since I didn't say it before, I think this is a great post. :thumbsup:

[annabanana]

32. I believe that these tactics were actually taught to Murdoch's minions..

See "Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

It's all in there.

[Aviation Pro]

33. The use of the shruggy smiley....

...is also a stupid way to end an argument.

:shrug:

[Bjorn Against]

35. Don't forget the rolling eyes...

:eyes:

[Blue_In_AK]

36. I've seen this one a lot, too.

:crazy:

[Norrin Radd]

56. This is a good answer to the rolling eyes:

[Phillycat]

37. Also, "Thanks for your concern."

With or without the rolling eye smiley.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

46. And, how about.... Your concern

is noted.

It is really used waaaaay too much around here.

[Runcible Spoon]

63. yep the concern ones bug the shit out of me as much as the purity bullshit.

they just come across: "I have deigned to post on your putrid little thread, and while I question your motives and think you might very well be a Freeper plant, I am so very much above actually writing an actual, well-thought response to your ridiculously thin-veiled attempts at trolling".

[QueenOfCalifornia]

80. It is

condescending and means nothing except to tell the poster that they are stupid for having a different opinion.

[Wednesdays]

38. #1, 2, and 3 are all variations of the "ad hominum" argument

i.e., trying to disprove the opponent's argument by putting down the opponent. Gramm also committed an "ad ignoratium" fallacy ("liberals can't prove the economy is tanking, so therefore it's not tanking").

#3 is also an "ad populum" argument ("you should follow the crowd").

I'm not sure about 4 and 5, although #5 seems to be an "ad hominum" as well. Maybe a debate expert could clarify these?

[AlbertCat]

65. Here ya go....

....this looks helpful.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/student_logical_fallacies_with_references.htm

[bbgrunt]

39. k and r. Thanks. We needed that!

[cbc5g]

44. Don't forget the "I side with the Constitution and you don't" argument

Made by people who probably cannot even name the first 10 Amendments and only really care about a few of them.

[HughBeaumont]

45. The WAAAAHmbulance. Gotta love it.

See: Topics about bullying.

Not really an argument ender, but I REALLY hate :popcorn: What's with the "Oh shit, now you done set it off" crap? Just discuss. Ghosts in the machine shouldn't be controversial or offensive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. "Latte drinking elitists", is one of my faves.

As if anyone who challenges the wisdom of moving to the right to capture the "middle" has never worked for a living.

[Bjorn Against]

48. That one drives me crazy too...

Especially when it is used by supporters of a guy who is married to a multi-millionaire beer heiress. It is really interesting how most the people who attack others for being "elitist" support politicians who want to give big tax cuts to the rich, while cutting services for the poor.

[Norrin Radd]

58. It's because, in their tiny, shriveled hearts, they mistakenly believe they will

be one of them, some day. "bush's base."

[2Design]

49. some just say - I don't believe in conspiracy theory items - and shut down any

conversation they disagree with - especially if it is logical

[Bjorn Against]

50. Yes, and the people who say that usually don't even know what a "conspiracy theory" is.

If you look up the word "conspiracy" in the dictionary it is defined as an "illegal plot between two or more people." In other words if you don't believe in conspiracies you don't believe that there are any crimes that are ever committed by more than one person. A conspiracy does not have to involve aliens or black helicopters, all it has to involve are two people being involved in a crime. Citizens are arrested on conspiracy charges all the time and no one bats an eye, but as soon as someone suggests that the people in power could be involved in a crime they are dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" and people won't even discuss the evidence.

You are correct, the "conspiracy theorist" attack is an argument for people who have no argument and just want to pretend that the people in power could do no wrong.

[Bluzmann57]

51. When they start to yell

I know I have them. Most of the people on the wrong end of the argument (right wingers) end up yelling over the logical person because that's all they can do. Most of the time when this happens, I laugh at them and walk away.

[Straight Shooter]

52. Well done.

I feel an irrestibile reaction of contempt when I see the accusation of "purist" being thrown about willy-nilly. Where did this term come from, and why has it suddenly erupted on DU like a plague? I've never seen this type of condescending talking point on DU develop this level of momentum so quickly.

As for the loyalty test, screw that. Reminds me of the flap which ensued when Keith Ellison wanted to be sworn into office while holding the Koran instead of the Bible. No response is ever satisfactory enough when the Inquisition is in outrage mode.

[Kermitt Gribble]

53. This should be stickied!

:applause:

[Norrin Radd]

54. kr. Spot on.

[tomreedtoon]

55. You forgot #6; blow the opponent's head off.

And that may have already been done, according to people on DU who are more paranoid than I. RFK Junior, Paul Wellstone, just about anyone who's died under odd circumstances over the last eight years who didn't like Bush.

Killing your opponent ends an argument REAL fast.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MN Against Bush.

[Runcible Spoon]

59. wow, KnR. thanks for this.

I hope some people reading this recognize themselves and take a long look in the mirror before they shout down anyone daring to question what they have deemed prevailing wisdom/opinion.

[Esra Star]

62. Well done. Well written. nt

[bertman]

66. Subset of #4: flogging the stumbling nag that is about to drop to its knees and expire.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT POST!! THANK YOU!! YES, I'M YELLING!!

Because I'm happy that MN Against Bush was able to accurately describe these despicable tactics.


I've only been coming to DU for a month or so. It's an informative and inspiring site at times so I drop by daily to check in. I figured that the site would be a very diverse but open-minded group, especially after I read the mission statement thingie about supporting the Democratic Party and candidates. But it didn't take long to see that the debate of contentious topics quickly became a "shout the other guy down" kind of thing that was almost always facilitated by someone using one of the BIG 5 listed above.

So, it is with gratitude that I give kudos to MN Against Bush and the others who have joined in, especially pollo poco in #29.

Our republic cannot survive without dissent from and the consent of the governed.

[LiberalAndProud]

67. Thanks. Debate is one of the reasons I enjoy the DU.

Tactics like the ones you describe don't inform the discussion, but tend the elevate the argument.

[Hannah Bell]

69. personal insults, amateur psychologizing, "take a class," "conspiracy theorist,"

"what are your credentials," ad infinitum.

why can't folks just argue their case on the merits?

but most don't, in my experience.

[Alcibiades]

70. We need to be able to use any and all of these

Against the Republicans, but not each other. The people who have already made up their minds about politics have done so via some rational process: these people don't matter. The people who matter are the ones who use "their gut." They are not going to influenced by rationality, anyway. That's so 18th century! They will believe almost any damn thing, so long as it sounds like something they already believe.

Fortunately, it would seem that the Obama campaign is already ware of this, and is working to persuade LIVs and rational people alike.

[Bjorn Against]

71. No we don't need to use any of these against the Republicans.

We have much better and more effective attacks to use against the Republicans, facts are much more effective in a debate than any of the tactics I listed and we have plenty of facts to destroy the Republicans with.

[Alcibiades]

72. If you can get people to listen to mere facts

What do you envision, some sort of public sphere wherein the educative process of democracy can foster rational, virtuous citizens who arrive at moral, practical and enlightened consensus? That would be nice, but that's not the way things work.

If facts and rationality were sufficient, we would have had a revolution back when the Supreme Court unconstitutionally selected Bush. The fact is we've known for the last 40 years that elections are decided by the people who know the least about politics. For this crowd, emotions are far more powerful than facts, which is why so many of them voted for Bush in 2004. Make them feel emotional about these facts, chief among them being $4.00/gallon gasoline. We are faced with folks who have powerful friends in the media who will tell any lie, no matter how outrageous, to get McCain elected. The problem for them is that many of these tactics will now bite them square in the ass. Our opponents are liars, fascists, war criminals, profiteers and zealots who will stop at nothing. I don't think we should arbitrarily rule out any tactic when it comes to this campaign, particularly when it comes to responding to their nastiness. I do think these rules you propose are good ones, and are fitting, once we return to an era of normal politics, but we're not there yet.

[Bjorn Against]

73. But the tactics I described are not effective...

You just made a much better argument against Republicans in that last post than you would have if you would of used any tactics I described in the OP. Telling people they are whiners and moving on just gets them pissed off and it does not change any minds. Forcefully using the facts to argue your point is much more damaging.

[Alcibiades]

75. That's because you're a reasonable person

We should use reasonable arguments with reasonable people. Different modes of persuasion are effective with different sorts of people. There's a certain percentage of folks who are committed Democrats, and a smaller percentage who are committed Republicans. These are committed partisans who will not be swayed by logic. We need to hang onto the weak Democrats and sway a majority of the independents and perhaps even some weak Republicans if we are to win.

We know empirically that the people who we need to sway are the ones who know the least about politics. Philip Converse's 1964 essay "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics" and his 1960 book with Campbell, Miller and Stokes, The American Voter, began an area of inquiry in political science that has been the richest in revealing the nature of electoral politics in our age. From a less empirical but more theoretically rigorous perspective, Jürgen Habermas' The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere also shows that the conditions and ideas that support a rational public debate no longer prevail in modernity, partly due precisely to the enfranchisement of the sorts of folks who are more persuaded by the mass media than rational debate itself.

Whoever wins the "muddled middle," the folks who don't even know enough about politics to pick a political party, are the party that dominates. In recent years, this has been the Republicans, and they have done so largely by using fear, by appealing to people's worst instincts. The success that party has enjoyed using vehicles such as Harry and Louise, William Horton, the Swiftboaters, and 9-11 have been based on the sort of low-road politics that we all deplore. Realizing that logic can never persuade the majority of the electorate to vote for the rule of particularistic interests, they have sidestepped the rational debate in favor of the politics of fear.

I'm hopeful about our electoral prospects this fall. There is a kind of public sphere in the US, but the participation in it is limited to a relative few. It may well be that this is the time when the politics of fear finally falls short for the republicans. If this is the case, it will be partly because we have gotten better at calling them out on it. The tactics you denounce should rightly be recognized as manifesting a profound hostility not only to a given set of ideas, but to ideas and rationality in general. As we proceed, though, we need to be keenly aware that there is a line of demarcation between a rational public debate and what is effective in modern politics in the US. We should further the debate and encourage more people to take part in it, but we should also be aware that there are people we need to win over who will not be won over by such means. To win, we must be alert to what Machiavelli calls "the effective truth," and not let our desire to appeal to what is best in people prevent us from countering the dirty tricks that will surely be employed in the upcoming months and years.

The good news is that the Obama campaign has demonstrated an ability to do exactly this, and has done so in a way that improves, rather than coarsens, the public debate.

[Time for change]

77. I really hate it when people do those things.

Especially the whining argument, and especially when used by rich people like Phil Graham.
:grr:

Two more are the "conspiracy theorist" argument, which is very closely related to the "fringe activist argument".

And worst of all is the "get over it" argument, which is closely related to the "whining argument".

Oh, and the "Jim Baker: we've done recount after recount after recount" argument, when applied to votes that have never yet been counted once.

[benEzra]

78. Excellent post. K&R. (n/t)

[sufrommich]

79. Excellent and spot on. nt