Reminder
Note to self: never, ever, ever comment on a lefty blog.
Not even one run by a witty writer and reasonable debater like Scott Eric Kaufman.
Short summary of the comment thread in question: the topic becomes Michelle Malkin’s honesty. I defend her, arguing by using reason and logic. Scott Eric Kaufman responds with reason and logic (albeit logic I disagree with).
Meanwhile, his commenters repeatedly distort my positions, call me a liar, distort my positions, cast aspersions on my fitness for my job, distort my positions, insult me, and then distort my positions.
The whole train wreck is here.
I know. I know. You told me so already.
P.S. On a lighter note, I’m going to a Clarence Thomas event at Chapman University tonight. That should be fun. Maybe I’ll see some of you there.
Now you know why I never even bother to look at those sites, much less comment. You might as well piss into the wind. Idiots.
CraigC (cbd74e) — 12/17/2007 @ 5:58 pmI read the link and the next time everyone at this blog goes to the neighbor’s house to play, I wish you would leave a note.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:06 pmNot so sound like I’m whining (or encouraging others to do so), but there’s flack you must expect to catch when you cross the aisle and comment in hostile territory. When I first started commenting on PW, I took it on the chin from Pablo, in the ribs from JD, the guts from Darleen, and to this day I continue to have my privates assailed by daleyrocks.
Yet I continue to comment there — to make my arguments calmly and with deliberation — and have won a certain amount of respect from most of the folks … but only after a series of brutal hazings. In other words, I don’t think it matters what side of the aisle you start from, you’re bound to take a beating when you first reach the other side. I don’t think anyone ought to dismiss my commentariat anymore than I dismissed Jeff’s the first few hundred thousand times I wandered over there …
SEK (0778b7) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:18 pm“I read the link and the next time everyone at this blog goes to the neighbor’s house to play, I wish you would leave a note.”
We came back before our bedtime.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:22 pmI didn’t get through all of it, but it didn’t seem as bad as all that to me. (Maybe in the third thousand posts, there was something.)
I will say this: Great tipoff to the blog, and while I owe Orin Kerr a beer, I enjoy SEK’s blog and I’d buy him one any time.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:22 pmYou evidently didn’t get to the part where the guy started talking about what a terrible thing it is that I’m a D.A. — because of how dishonest he claims I am, because I supposedly presume people guilty until proven innocent, etc.
JRM, imagine someone saying that about you in a public forum, when you are not anonymous. And, of course, distorting your position to make this argument.
Starting to get it?
Patterico (a7900a) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:35 pmI used to hang around commenting at some Lefty blogs but gave it up eventually. I learned that it ain’t about what it’s about, and arguing the issues is not really the point. The point is for them to insist that they’re better than you, and losing an argument, even fairly, will not make them happy to now be smarter; it will just make them madder to have lost and to have lost face.
You argue; they insist. And their positions MUST be “out there” else the Lefties would just be ordinary, wouldn’t they?
The medium is the message, so for them the sneer is the statement. Don’t try to disaggregate substance from style cuz there is no substance. It’s all about pecking order, P. Everything else they treat as a distant second.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:36 pmI know how much you like to debate intelligent liberals but it’s better to encourage people like SEK to come here than to spend time at his blog. I’ve seen you restrain your commenters when they say something illogical or out-of-bounds in a partisan discussion. At other blogs, all it takes is one unrestrained commenter like Rich and instead of a debate it ends up as a catfight.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:46 pmSEK implicitly raises an interesting point: to what extent, if at all, does the content of a comments section reflect on the blogger?
Here (#3) and at Acephalous, Scott neither condones nor condemns the rather ugly and intolerant way (IMO) that his ‘commentariat’ responded to Patterico’s sincere and rather genial (at first) attempt to engage in the comments.
That’s fair enough. Still, one of the themes for attacking KC Johnson (of Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax blog Durham in Wonderland fame) in the comments at Acephalous was that the presence of unintellectual, angry entries in the comments of D-i-W necessarily reflected Johnson’s true agenda. I suppose uncivil conduct towards the bad people to one’s Right is quite different from uncivil conduct towards the good people to one’s Left.
From what I’ve seen, Scott’s own writings in blog comments has been considered, and often humorous. If he’s leading by example, his own posse doesn’t seem to have twigged to the concept quite yet.
AMac (8e9026) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:58 pmhis commenters repeatedly distort my positions, call me a liar, distort my positions, cast aspersions on my fitness for my job, distort my positions, insult me, and then distort my positions.
I comment on a single liberal blog here. The same things have happened to me (straw men, misrepresentations, out of context, ad hominem attacks) after I defended Malkin and Bill O’Reilly. I get a lot of the typical leftist attempts to stifle dissent: Against same-sex marriage? You’re a homophobe. Oppose unlimited abortion on demand? You’re a controlling, manipulative, male chauvinist woman-hater. Support Guantanamo Bay? You’re a sadist. Oppose the impeachment of Chimpy McBushHitlerburton? You’re evil or an idiot or both.
However I’ve stuck around for over two years specifically for the host’s weekly Friday critical review of the book Left Behind. Some of the overwhelmingly liberal commentators have grudgingly come to accept that I might have a legitimate point every now and then. And if nothing else, it’s helped me to sharpen my debating skills.
aunursa (090908) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:09 pmBad link in my last post. The liberal blog at which I comment is here.
aunursa (090908) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:12 pmSimplifying greatly, there are two main styles of blog commenting: bad manners and good manners.
Bad manners are, by far, the more common — mainly because of the impersonal nature of the Internet. This style of commenter always assumes that the other guy is being dishonest; that his mistakes are intentional; that his opinions are stupid; and so forth.
At its worst, a bad manners commenter is an asshole — and, again, due to the impersonal nature of the Internet, the opportunities for assholishness are truly staggering. You can, Chuck Adkins style, mock someone’s recently deceased spouse. You can watch someone threaten to commit suicide, and mock them and taunt them into it — and then continue to mock them, as their body lies over their keyboard. (Anyone who has seen the cached version of the comments left on Acidman’s last post knows what I’m talking about.)
Then there are the people with the good manners — and they are rare. At the most extreme end, you have unbelievably patient people like AMac and DRJ, who can wander into any snake pit and still won’t be provoked into saying a nasty word.
I am a weird hybrid. I really, really, really want the Internet to be a place filled with people with good manners — and I am fiercely protective of the folks with an endless supply of good manners. But the second that people start a) calling me a liar, and b) lying about what my argument is . . . I get mad. And I turn into Bad Manners Commenter.
I want to be DRJ or AMac. I want to be that guy or gal who keeps his or her cool while people are being complete jerks. But I know myself well enough to know that I don’t really have it in me. If you get ugly with me, I’ll get ugly back. I don’t say that with pride. I say it with shame — because getting ugly always makes you look smaller. Always.
It doesn’t help that the guy who lies about your position is always the same guy who calls you a liar.
There’s an analogy to road rage with all this. Ever notice how the guy most prone to flipping you off is the very same guy who is driving like a maniac and cutting everyone else off? The same personality trait that causes him to drive like an asshole, also causes him to treat *you* like *you’re* the asshole. If you’re in the right frame of mind, it can be vaguely comical. But, to me, it’s more often infuriating.
And so it is with blog commenters.
The Rich Puchalskys of the world — the guys who call you dishonest — are the very same guys who distort your position.
Just as the asshole drivers have always pissed me off, the Rich Puchalsky commenters have always pissed me off.
And so, while I will generally go to a lefty blog starting out (as AMac described my initial comments) “genial” . . . I will inevitably run into one or more people who 1) lie about what I’m saying, even as they 2) call me a liar.
And because I’m not DRJ or AMac, I respond in kind. And downhill it goes.
Lefties love to mock me for this — because if you’re a dishonest asshole, here’s what you do. You quote me on how I’d like for things to be polite and respectful. Then, you look for one of the threads where I am in a mudfight with a lowlife prick like a Rich Puchalsky — and you grab an angry quote from me, where I call the offending person some horrible name.
Juxtapose my call for civility with my quote calling someone a “gutless pussy” and you have your ready-made humor. The Sadly, No! people pull this all the time — and I see that at SEK’s blog, there is a commenter making the same joke on the Adkins thread.
Ultimately, though, it’s my fault. Because 1) I should be like DRJ or AMac, and 2) if I can’t, then I should just stay the fuck off of lefty blogs.
I actually have more to say, but this comment is pretty frickin’ long, and I’m at a good stopping/pausing place.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:46 pmYou shouldn’t be like DRJ, her syruppy niceness is often annoying as hell.
And feel free to call me an asshole, DRJ, for saying that.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:51 pmNow: to the topic of whether bloggers are responsible for the tone at their blogs.
I’d say: you bet.
Once again, you have the Bad Manners hosts and the Good Manners hosts.
Take the princely fellows at Sadly, No! as a perfect example of the Bad Manners hosts. They pretty much don’t give a crap what their commenters say. For example, they have a regular conservative commenter — who is, for all I know, made up — named “Gary Ruppert.” The Sadly, No! people will think nothing of allowing someone to pose as Gary Ruppert, and, in Gary Ruppert’s voice, say that he would like to f*** Ann Althouse up the a**. Ha, ha! Get it?
It’s a little harder to name an across-the-board Good Manners host. If you’ve heard of the blogger, that probably means his/her commentariat is big enough that it would take a lot of effort to police the comments. But you can try to enforce politeness, and some big blogs do. Offhand, I’d pick Winds of Change or Volokh as pretty good examples of this brand of commentary.
I *try* to be a Good Manners sort of host. But — just like I do when I comment — I tend to demand more politeness for people who are themselves polite.
So, people around here lash out a lot at blah, formerly AF. But blah/AF is always cursing, calling people ignorant, etc. It’s hard to get too upset about that.
But if you say a mean word to, say, aphrael — I’ll let you have it. Because aphrael is one of the good ones. He and I don’t agree on a lot. But he is like an AMac or a DRJ from the left — always polite and always reasonable (even if we often disagree). If any of you were to call a commenter like him a liar, or yap on about how he must do his job in a crappy manner because you don’t like his opinions, I think I would backhand you.
Same goes for SEK. I have assessed him, and I can tell he is one of the good ones. He is polite, witty, reasonable, and a good writer. I also think, based on my experiences of the past couple of days, that he is very often prone to very bad political arguments. But don’t call him a liar. Don’t make allusions about how he would suck as an English teacher. I won’t tolerate that.
So. SEK, when you say: “there’s flack you must expect to catch when you cross the aisle and comment in hostile territory” — I guess so. But it’s very easy for the host to put limits on it — especially if the host thinks the commenter is a decent and honest person.
It doesn’t *have* to be that way. That’s what I’m saying.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:08 pmYou shouldn’t be like DRJ, her syruppy niceness is often annoying as hell.
DRJ is amazingly nice. Sometimes she’s so nice it’s embarrassing.
But on the Internet, where one’s intentions are so easily misunderstood, it’s better to be DRJ (arguably too nice) than Christoph (prone to self-righteous popping off due to feelings of self-righteousness).
That’s my not-so-politely expressed opinion.
And, amazingly, DRJ’s alleged “syruppy niceness” can STILL be misinterpreted by some as hostility. I’ve seen that happen here more than once. Which just goes to show you: this medium carries endless possibilities for miscommunication and unwarranted suspicion.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:12 pmPatterico, re: your #12, hear hear.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:12 pmi try to be polite most of the time, but i’m not running a candidacy for sainthood.
assistant devil's advocate (3103cd) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:09 amWell, Patterico, she has, actually, been bona fide snarky to me at least once.
Fortunately.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:30 amAnyway, DRJ is cool and her posts are often excellent.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:30 amI *knew* your mood would swing back to cheery if I gave it a few hours!
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:34 amIt’s your sunny personality and firm discipline, big guy, it gets me every time.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:55 amIf a blog owner doesn’t reign in his commenters, he’s no better in my opinion.
tired (cd0e7b) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:27 amSEK: You call for civility and then allow your commenters to make the same libelous cheap shots. Any credibility you had is gone.
tired (cd0e7b) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:44 amPatterico, When you go play in a Manure Pile, what do you expect to happen?
Now, go hose yourself off in the back yard.
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:27 amYou did exactly what I thought you’d do, Patterico; run back to your blog and insult me by name, meanwhile whining that I’ve insulted your pseudonym.
Being the Bad Manners commenter on your own blog? That’s really brave.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:35 amIf you make a clear statement, you have to stick around to fend off the straw men – no, I didn’t say that, or that, or that. Then there are the red herrings – usually starting with Bush and or Iraq. The “debate” finally ends with pungent ad hominems that they seem to consider some sort of coup de grace.
That IS leftist debate. Did I mention the profanity?
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:52 amOh go play in traffic…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:54 amThat was for Rich, btw, not Amphipolis…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:55 amRich, you probably didn’t know this, but you’re an idiot. Pat “insulted you by name” because he used the name you post your comments under: no one knows whether it’s your real name, and no one cares.
To say he’s using a pseudonym here, when his last name and occupation are listed, is sophistry.
It’s interesting that you think the truth about you is insulting….
Steverino (af57bc) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:56 amYou did exactly what I thought you’d do, Patterico; run back to your blog and insult me by name, meanwhile whining that I’ve insulted your pseudonym.
Does “Patterico” really count as a pseudonym when its use easily identifies the author’s actual identity?
The “running back to your blog” bit is a bit forced–or did you really expect Patterico to abandon his blog and become a regular commenter at this other site? I think most reasonable people would assume that his stay was temporary.
There’s also the implication that Patterico was fleeing to avoid having to address what I’m sure you consider forceful and persuasive arguments. Since he pretty much responded to every single argument, even after sharing his distaste in engaging with you, I think you’re full of shit.
And when you preface every single counter-argument with a smart-ass comment, it’s silly to bitch and moan when your opponent responds in kind.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:05 amRich Puchalsky
Good lord, did someone sprinkle saltpeter on your Cheerios or is that your permanent attitude?
In one sense I’m glad SEK left up your indecent commentary … it’s clear that Leftists (not to be confused with liberals) who are suffering from Malkin Derangement Syndrome are clearly engaged in projection … how dare a woman of color not know her place in the Authentic Personal Is Political Pantheon.
Vis a vis the “outrage” at the outting of the Dem. pimping of G. Frost … I chortle in your general direction.
Darleen (187edc) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:21 amtired,
SEK has been through a lot lately. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
Rich,
The ground rules here are pretty simple. You can call me an idiot, moron, blobbity-blah, whatever. But the shit you pulled on SEK’s blog, where you question my fitness for my job, gets you banned. I’m inflexible about this and won’t issue another warning.
Patterico (01dd03) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:24 amLike what? If you are referring to his trouble with the library fine, I believe many people have similar, if not worse, tales from our academic days. As to his unwillingness to reign in his commenters, that’s a valid criticism.
tired (cd0e7b) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:27 amHis cat is also very sick, to the point that caring for the cat has interfered with his holiday plans.
Don’t get me wrong, tired. I definitely think SEK failed to rein in his commenters — particularly when they started in with the bullshit about my job. I’m just saying there may are reasons he might not have been so vigilant, other than your assertion that he simply lacks credibility, which I disagree with. He really seems like the genuine article when it comes to a desire to mix it up with the other side in a polite way.
Patterico (1c9e82) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:42 amRich,
Getting back to the substance of the matter, my position is simple. A retired Admiral says that Kerry exaggerated his bravery, and that the truth is that there was no enemy fire, and that Kerry nicked himself, requiring a Band-aid.
When a candidate runs largely on his war record, and a retired Admiral says a Presidential candidate has exaggerated that record, that’s a legitimate issue to discuss.
You can argue that he’s a Bush donor, or has some lobbying motivation, etc. That’s all fine, and it is evidence to take into account regarding bias. But it doesn’t magically transform the allegation into the category of rumor, or smear, or an illegitimate topic.
On the other thread, you repeatedly ignored this very simple point I made, and tried to pretend that I was arguing: Kerry’s actions weren’t justified; Kerry’s actions were in no way heroic; I would have been braver than Kerry; Bush is braver than Kerry; and so on and so forth. It is your main mode of argument, and it’s called demolishing a strawman. You misstate my position and then proceed to destroy the position you pretend is mine. That merely reveals the weakness in your own argument, that you can’t take on what I am actually saying.
Patterico (aa9bef) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:51 amOn the issue raised upthread on styles of commenting: It’s a pleasure to read well-written and well-argued blog posts and comments. About issues: the contribution of ad hominem attacks to insight is pretty marginal. Sometimes they’re telling or humorous or witty, but not as often as their authors imagine.
I sometimes wonder how a particular commenter’s online persona maps to their actual personality and conduct. I suspect (and hope) that many of us are less quick-to-anger, dogmatic, abrasive, or insulting when engaged face-to-face. Most family members, co-workers, and acquaintances won’t stand for the sustained incivility that’s routine at many sites.
We all have our better and worse days, online as in real life–the saint:sinner ratio is predictably low, on the Left, at the Center, on the Right. That said, there are people who seem to see their role as Internet Red Guards.
Thrilling, righteous drama for the self-appointed cadres. Not as enjoyable or instructive for most of the rest of us.
AMac (c822c9) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:08 amBush is braver than Kerry?!!!????
In what alternate universe?
David Ehrenstein (5f9866) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:21 amI must not have been clear.
The “Bush was braver than Kerry” phrase was intended to be one in a list of strawman arguments that Rich falsely attributed to me.
Make sense now?
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:30 amI was hoping to be able to write up the Clarence Thomas talk this morning but I didn’t have time. I didn’t get enough sleep last night and hit the snooze too many times this morning. I’ll get to it tonight, after I get three fillings replaced. Whee.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:32 amHost/6:
Yeah, that would aggravate me. I did miss it on the front side. (I know our host is aware of my position on this; “You’re evil because you’re a DA” is stupid; “You’re unfit for prosecution,” is a cheap shot, and in Patterico’s case, it appears to be dead wrong. And this nonsense is part of the reason I avoid blogging, though that hasn’t stopped me from being named on a defense attorney’s blog as some combination of incompetent and dishonest. And that aggravates me.)
I see in your other post that you recognize the other problem, fine host.
Finally, on a small fraction of the substance, I view the the-questions-need-to-be-asked arguments as normally disingenuous, including the Malkin implications on Kerry self-injuring. There are a lot of reasons for that; in Malkin’s case, she can ask the questions.
Further, people tend to absorb and accept things that meet with their world view, and asking-the-question qualifiers don’t stick. It’s unfair to Kerry; I don’t think standing up for Malkin on this is a good idea, and I don’t have a negative view of Malkin’s honesty generally.
–JRM
JRM (624ca9) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:42 amAll right, Patterico, here’s my simple position — it’s that you defended a Malkin quote about how the shrapnel in Kerry’s leg was self-inflicted by dutifully re-summarizing it as “Kerry nicked himself, requiring a Band-aid”, and that I really dislike people who minimize military service in that way. There’s a whole world of all of those statements that you said were straw men in your “nicked himself, requiring a Band-aid”.
Now, it turns out that Malkin was probably referring to a different incident than the one that Schachte testified about. But that’s what you chose. You say that the substance of the matter is whether the political smear was a legitimate issue. But no, you don’t necessarily get to say what the substance of the matter is. I think that your assertion that any smear that one can get a retired admiral to back up is therefore legitimate — without even getting to question the admiral’s testimony for purposes of judging legitimacy — is ridiculous on its face.
Here’s how you characterized how people would think, from Scott’s blog:
“Conceding the truth of all of this — as you have for the sake of argument — Kerry’s response (if he were honest) would have to be: yes, I exaggerated to make myself more heroic. Yes, it was “just a flesh wound.” Yes, I caused it myself. Yes, the enemy was not actually firing at us. Yes, I endangered other people on the boat by firing a weapon that could injure them with shrapnel. Yes, my superiors said I didn’t deserve the award, but I managed to get one anyway, shortening my stay.
But my exaggerations are not an issue, because TECHNICALLY, I deserve the decoration anyway!
He’d be laughed off the stage.
Meaning it was still a legitimate question for Michelle to raise, even if your language-twisting reading of the regulation is correct.”
That’s exactly how you’d react. You”d laugh him off the stage. Assuming for the sake of argument that Schachte’s testimony was correct, then Kerry, an inexperienced military officer at that time, fired, as directed, along with his CO, in what they both thought at the time was a firefight, and managed to hurt himself with the shrapnel from his own weapon. And you’d laugh.
The issue here isn’t Kerry. It’s you, and Malkin, and all the other wingers, and the strange ideas that you have about people.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:56 am#37
After 16 weeks in Vietnam, Kerry abandoned his command and spent the rest of his “tour of duty” behind an admiral’s aids desk in New Jersey.
Yep that’s brave.
No wonder the Democrats capitulated on the war funding.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:03 amI think Kerry *was* brave.
I also think that, in this instance, he did just nick himself, and that it literally was patched up with a Band-aid.
I also think Michelle was referring to more than one incident, and if Chris Matthews had not jumped down her throat, she would have had time to make this clear.
The remark about a wound to the leg was a reference to another incident. The remark about Zaldonis and Runyan was, I believe, a reference to the incident we have been discussing.
Patterico (264efb) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:12 amSpeaking of getting “laughed off the stage”. . .
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:22 amThat’s exactly how you’d react. You”d laugh him off the stage. Assuming for the sake of argument that Schachte’s testimony was correct, then Kerry, an inexperienced military officer at that time, fired, as directed, along with his CO, in what they both thought at the time was a firefight, and managed to hurt himself with the shrapnel from his own weapon. And you’d laugh.
Oh, come on. Obviously he would be laughed off the stage not for having received his injury, but for making such an absurd claim about the illegitimacy of questioning his exaggerations.
Saying that Patterico’s example is somehow mocking injured vets–whether self-inflicted or otherwise–is preposterous, and only helps prove Patterico’s points about your debate tactics.
Saying that the Swift Boat Vets’ claims raise legitimate questions isn’t the same as saying that their claims are accurate. It may be the case that their version of the facts are completely off-base; nevertheless, questions about Kerry’s military career are made relevant by virtue of Kerry basing his campaign on that career.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:26 amRich,
You keep acting like you’re putting at much at risk in this as I am. I don’t think so.
My regular readers know, not just my name, but who I work for, and what branch office I work in. Like SEK, I can be found. A determined crazy person can learn all this info as well.
That creates a risk, as SEK saw with the Casper lunatic, that someone will target you. So your characterization of me as “gutless” is far off the mark. And your relentless focus on my suitability for my job creates some risk that some person will get carried away and target me the way SEK was targeted. I don’t appreciate that, especially since your comments are not true.
You try to pretend that you risk more because you use your real name. That is wrong. If you tell us what company you work for and where they are located, then you have as much skin in the game as I do.
And no, this is not an outing, or a threatened outing, or a reference to an outing. It’s simply pointing out the facts. There are, presumably, many Rich Puchalskys in the world. If we don’t know which you are, you have less at stake than if we do — and you have less at stake than, say, SEK or I do.
I do think it’s gutless for people to take repeated personal potshots at people from behind a pseudonym that has no real name attached to it. At least you use your real name, which probably moderates your rhetoric to some degree.
Patterico (c1e60b) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:31 amDavid, you know what is amazing….that conservatives hope he gets whatever the law requires/demands for his actions…just like we do when some liberal puts a noose on her doorknob, or paints Nazi symbols on her wall…
And, Rich….Kerry could end all of this discussion by releasing his military records…
But, he won’t do what he himself said he would do many, many months ago….which only means that it is entirely possible that he would have to concede the truths of all of this in a manner that makes one side of this argument look really bad….and simple logic would dictate that the side that would look bad would be YOURS/HIS….
reff (bff229) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:33 amWell if they’re not accurate what’s legitimate about them?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:33 amBecause asking the question is the only alternative to simply accepting Kerry’s word on the matter. If we take Kerry at his word vis a vis his military career, why not in other areas?
The question is legitimate because it is important to see whether the evidence bears out Kerry’s claims.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:38 amDavid, Kerry could prove them “inaccurate” but he chooses not to do so…
Why? Logically, it could be because they are “accurate.”
Until he does, the legitimacy of the questions cannot be called into play, because they are legitimate questions.
reff (bff229) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:38 amAnother interesting thing on that thread was the use of the word “dishonest” by Rich and SEK. In their context it didn’t necessarily mean getting the facts wrong, it meant using an argument with which they did not agree. For example, Malkin’s use of a negative anecdote about an illegal immigrant after a positive anectdote by an LA Times reporter was a reason why she was a dishonest blogger. SEK explained why he felt the use of anecdotes was the wrong approach. Patterico explained why he used anecdotes covering the same situations. I don’t think Patterico or Malkin see thing the same way as SEK or Rich, but I don’t think that makes them DISHONEST. That escalation of language is typical of what I have found at many lefty blogs when there are differences of opinion.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:39 amI may be wrong, but I think that fits the definition of a tautology rather exactly.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:39 amAnother point that escaped Rich, et al. In order to show that Malkin and Patterico were dishonest, they’d need to prove that they used negative anecdotes to support the case for deportation of some illegal immigrants while arguing that the use of anecdotes is the wrong approach. Otherwise, it’s just a difference of opinion about the role of anecdotes.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:43 amAunursa, at 10: improving my debating skills (and winning the grudging respect of my political opponents) are why I comment primarily at conservative blogs. 🙂
Patterico, at 12: it would be nice if the internet were entirely filled with people of good manners. But at the same time, I know that I don’t always adhere to that standard, so that means I have to be a bit forgiving of others when they fail to hold up the standard, as well … but it’s much easier to be forgiving of people I know with a track record than people who show up from out of nowhere already having bad manners.
Patterico, at 14: thank you.
CliveStaples, at 30: I don’t think Patterico counts as a psuedonym, in part because any of us can come up with his real identity, and in part because it’s a persona he’s invested enough in to care about its reputation. The big danger in psuedo- or anonymity, IMO, is that not caring about reputation removes one of the potential constraints on bad behavior, and that isn’t the case here.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:49 amClive – I disagree. It’s still a difference of opinion. Dishonesty to me implies a misuse of facts. SEK merely implied he would have used a different argument and if you didn’t agree with his approach wou were dishonest. That is intellectual dishonesty on its face.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:52 amMaybe Tomemos will check in. That would be fun.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:55 amI expected better of you than this, David. If you don’t know a priori whether a claim is accurate, you can still investigate it. In other words, the claim is not so absurd as to be unworthy of investigation, even if investigation later proves it to be false.
Steverino (e00589) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:57 amI guess I consider it ‘dishonest’ because you’d necessarily be misrepresenting your true position by making two opposing arguments simultaneously.
Also, if you actually believe that the use of anecdotes is inappropriate, it’s pretty intellectually dishonest to use them to support deporting illegal immigrants, isn’t it?
In any case, it’s really academic at this point because Patterico and Malkin never advanced any arguments that conflicted with either the facts known to them or their own relevant positions.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:58 amPatterico, as far as I know, there is only one Rich Puchalsky in the world. It’s a pretty uncommon name. I use it on all of my comments to take responsibility, to say that whether I’m in a bad mood or angry or whatever, I’ve written what I’ve written. If you’re the kind of tiresome person who wants to do that, you can find out through Google whatever you’d like about my job and where I work. I’m really not impressed by this two-step in which you use a pseudonym but demand that people treat it as your real name because you’ve leaked it somewhere.
But, all right. Since you insist that your pseudonym is equivalent to your real name, I wouldn’t want some nutcase to do something. So I’ll stop.
But really, if you don’t want to be called gutless for using a pseudonym? Then don’t call other people gutless for doing it. And if you don’t want people to question how you treat eyewitness evidence? Then don’t boast about being a prosecutor and how that makes you familiar with those problems.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:02 amBecause he didn’t want to get down in the mud with the Swfties and the lovely Michelle.
A big mistake, IMO. I would havw kicked th bastards to the curb.
Relentlessly. Hired a private investigator to go into their lives and spread the reuslts everywhere.
The only answer to these creeps is to destroy them. Utterly.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:07 amOne thing is clear to me: Rich doesn’t understand the difference between a pseudonym and a nickname.
Steverino (e00589) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:07 amI found several, Rich, including “R Puchalsky” and “Richard Puchalsky”… Are you in NY, MD, NV, MA, CA, CT
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:08 amYou really do fail to see the point, don’t you.
I could likely call Patterico at WORK if I wanted to.
Fear not, Pat. I don’t.
Just like I’m far to busy doing anything else at all to follow through on my desire to call all those numbers I found, and ask “Are you that douche from online?”
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:11 amYou cannot be serious!
Patterico never said that using a pseudonym is gutless. You made that accusation, directed at Patterico; he simply pointed out that using your standard–if anonymity is an indication of gutlessness–you are more gutless than he, because his identity, job, city of residence, etc., is readily available while yours is not.
All of which was to show the foolishness of you advancing such a claim.
Where do you get this stuff?
His objection to the questioning of eyewitness testimony was based on his evaluation of the substance of the questions, not because his opinions are above reproach.
Do you always presume bad faith in your opponents? Cause it’s pretty rude.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:11 amExactly. That exact response is what you DO in politics when someone makes a challenge you know you can disprove.
So why didn’t he?
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:11 amOnce you cross a fairly obvious line then using a pseudonym is gutless.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:18 amThe only answer to these creeps is to destroy them. Utterly.
Spoken like a true liberal. Why simply disprove an allegation in a reasoned discussion when you can personally destroy someone? BTW, Kerry did get down and the mud and slandered every Vietnam Veteran for his personal gain.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:22 amBecause disproving an allegation is never enough. Kick the creeps out the door, they come crawling back in through the window. Expose their lies — they’ll make-up new lies.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:42 amRich Puchalsky, at 59: I think you’re overstating the case when you claim that patterico boasted about being a prosecutor. The very comment you link to says “I’m fully familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitnesses, thanks. Maybe more so than you realize”; since the comment doesn’t explain in any way where Patterico’s familiarity with the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitnesses comes from, I don’t see how your characterization is fair.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:49 amThe only answer to these creeps is to destroy them. Utterly.
This has more than a hint of fascism about it. Surely, in a liberal society in which we believe that people have a right to their opinions and beliefs, it is not necessary to destroy those who oppose you politically. Just as surely, it is not fair to use the threat of destruction to intimidate your political opponents into silence.
That road leads to the destruction of pretty much everything we hold dear.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:52 amSelf-defense is not facism.
Except of course in your world where liberals are supposed to be “losers” 24/7.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:55 amI guess that CliveStaples can’t follow links. I’ll make it easier: who wrote “I think you’re a gutless coward for hiding behind your little pseudonym”? The answer is at:
https://patterico.com/2006/08/03/on-tboggs-self-outing/
And yes, I know, he was angry, those dratted liberals shouldn’t quote anything he writes when he’s angry and take it seriously or anything.
The other link I’ll let CS figure out for his/herself.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:55 amBecause disproving an allegation is never enough.
The SwiftBoat allegations were not disapproved. Kerry’s Magic Hat has never been produced and Kerry’s Xmas in Cambodia that was “seared, seared into his mind,” turned out to be a lie.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:57 amaphrael at 69, if someone writes “I’m fully familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitnesses, thanks. Maybe more so than you realize” and intends it to be just a cryptic comment, well, they’re just being a jerk I suppose. But come on. The first line in the Profile section of this blog is “Patterico is a prosecutor in Los Angeles County.” He doesn’t have his name in his profile, but he sure wants everyone to acknowledge his professional status when it’s useful to him.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:02 amHere you go “Perfect Sense.”
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:08 amDavid Ehrenstein, at 71: pardon me, but you are mischaracterizing my world when you describe it is a place where liberals are supposed to be losers 24/7. While it is true that I have on occasion voted for Republicans, they’ve tended to be liberal Republicans (say, Bruce McPherson, or Tom Campbell, as examples); I live in one of the most liberal regions of the country and am significantly more liberal than most of the people in my social circle.
Now, it certainly wouldn’t be fair of me to expect you to know this. Nor would it be fair of me to expect you to be familiar with the positions i’ve taken on this and other blogs. But the fact that i’m referred to in this very thread as an example of a particular type of liberalism might reasonably be expected to prevent you from assuming that i’m a conservative who believes liberals should always lose. 🙂
Moving out of personality and into substance … using the threat of destruction to intimidate your political opponents into silence, or throwing your energy into destroying the individuals with whom you disagree rather than the defeating the ideas which you dispute may not be fascism. I’d argue that it’s a tool used by fascists, but you would be right if you proceeded to claim that it isn’t fair to conflate the tool with the policies the tool is used to promote.
And yet, such behavior certainly isn’t liberalism. And I would submit that it is the use of such tools which made non-genocidal forms of fascism (such as that adopted by Franco and Salazar) abhorrent. Intimidating your opponents into silence, and destroying those with whom you disagree, evinces no meaningful support for tolerance, and does not comport with a belief in freedom of speech or freedom of belief. It has more than a whiff about it of the idea that he who can muster the most force is right, regardless of what he says.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:12 amRich – I’ve got no problems with Patterico noting the bravado of those bloggers specializing in invective-laced racist, bigoted personal attacks against publicly indentifiable individuals, hiding behind internet their anonymity. What exactly is your problem with him pointing out the imbalance in the commenting relationship, or do you have one?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:12 am“liberal Republicans” – an oxymoron if there ever was one.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:21 amI’m an anarcho-syndicalist.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:22 amIsn’t Kerry still waiting for UN approval to counter attack the Swifties?
As for the Matthews-Malkin debate, Malkin simply stated: ““Well yeah. Why don’t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.”
SEK responded, followed by others, who made the same mistake in comprehension as Matthews. They miss the fact that Malkin wasn’t implying that the wound was deliberately self inflicted.
PC14 (f74534) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:25 am“anarcho-syndicalist” – a communist trying to escape the odor of one hundred million subjects murdered.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:27 amWoooo– low blow what a chop!
I’m So impressed, SPQR.
I’m sure you have a perfectly good explanation for the peasants we murdered in Central America, and our support of Augusto Pinochet’s wholesale genocide.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:31 amPivot, shift, deflect.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:35 amSPQR, at 81: that may be unfair.
Granted that I know next to nothing of modern-day anarcho-syndicalism (my self-described anarchist friends are generally apolitical). But historically there was a large area of disagreement between the anarchists and the communists, and one of the big disagreements was over the role of the state. The early 20th century communists held that it was essential for a strong state to control the means of production at first; the early 20th century anarchists held that this tactic was precisely wrong.
It may be that any society in which the anarchists actually took control would have ended up degenerating into state socialism; there aren’t any test cases of this, so it’s hard to say with any certainty. And it may be that modern day anarcho-syndicalists don’t have a close enough ideological association with their century-old forbears that it is fair to treat them the same way. But it seems unfair to me to hold people who disagreed with the fundamental premise of state socialism responsible for the evils that came about as a result of state socialism, unless it can be demonstrated that (a) their disagreement was disingenuous or (b) their disagreement notwithstanding, implementation of their program would have led to state socialism. I don’t think either (a) or (b) can be demonstrated.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:35 amdaleyrocks at 77, it’s the same problem I have with all of his writing. He wants to call Tbogg a gutless coward for commenting under an easily penetrated pseudonym? Fine. Then he has no right to complain when I do the same. He gets to set a standard if he wants to, but then he has to live with it.
But he never wants to. If you can call the biased, shot-down, self-contradicted testimony about Kerry in Vietnam enough to make it a legitimate issue, then surely it’s a legitimate issue to suggest that Bush purposefully planned and caused the 9/11 attacks. (Note: I do not actually believe this.) The 9/11 truthers have all sorts of eyewitnesses, testimony, evidence of various sorts. And Bush surely brought up 9/11 in his campaign. Therefore 9/11 truth is a legitimate issue, by Patterino’s definition. It should be brought up again and again and considered in the major media and the evidence weighed until everyone vaguely knows that Bush maybe probably killed those people for political gain.
If you want to say that the only measure of a smear is its effectiveness, fine. But don’t spout tripe like “an admiral said it, that makes it a legitimate issue to consider before you even get to weigh the admiral’s testimony” unless you’re willing to generalize that. Because there are major military officers in the pipeline waiting to testify about Bush’s war crimes, and all of a sudden, I don’t think that’s going to be a “legitimate issue” to you people.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:42 amRich – You have still not grasped the basic point that Patterico is about as much of a pseudonym as Instapundit. You are completely full of shit on that point.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:47 amDavid E., I’m so happy that you have found a place for yourself in the political spectrum. It’s not fun being a wage slave. Too bad you’re so close to retirement, you old fart.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:50 amI’ve had a place in the political spectrum since 1961 — my freshman year at Communist Martyrs High in New York.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:55 amdaleyrocks: BS. Instapundit’s blog has an “About” section that starts “Who is Glenn Reynolds?” Maybe Patterico is such a star to his sycophants that you think that everyone knows who he is, but really, people don’t.
Patterico’s complaint about Tbogg starts by saying how easy it was to find out who Tbogg really was. Yet Patterico called him a gutless coward etc. for having a pseudonym. Care to try again?
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:56 amEvidently the left in people like the manure covered David E. doesn’t care about facts. Just investigate and smear to refute the Kerry critics. Well David he got less than an honorable discharge and is hiding that fact and that he got Carter to change it.
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:56 amDavid,
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:02 amI know it shakes liberal souls, but John Kerry’s Xmas in Cambodia was a lie – an often repeated lie. Kerry’s stories about transporting CIA agents and “Magic Hats” into Cambodia were self-serving lies told by a man who abandoned his command and fought the war from New Jersey.
RP 85. Your Swifty vs 9/11 analogy doesn’t work. The 9/11 inside-job, horse crap was debunked by Popular Mechanics, who many would consider a fair, fact finder.
On the other hand, the Swift Boat Vets had some allegations challenged but never debunked. Many critics of the Swift Vets try to advance the dishonest position that the Swifties have been debunked…which, hypocritically, turns out to be the biggest lie of all in this issue.
PC14 (f74534) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:04 amThe Swifties and the “9/11 was an Inside Job” lefties have a lot in common.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:08 amRich @ 89 – No, I won’t try again with you. I’ll let others do it. You are apparently NEVER wrong.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:11 am#93
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:19 amNot true. Swifties are men who served honorably and well.
“9/11 was an Inside Job Lefties” mostly still live at home and are proficiency at computer games their parents bought them.
See what I mean The lies never stop.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:23 amNew Swiftvets book:
http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com./
PC14 (f74534) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:27 amName one that didn’t David, you POS.
You want to get on us about DARING to slander Saint Kerry’s record?
Don’t talk shit about the other vets.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:34 am“The 9/11 inside-job, horse crap was debunked by Popular Mechanics, who many would consider a fair, fact finder.”
Ooh, Popular Mechanics, the unchallengeable authority! Come on, the Swift Vets crap has been debunked by all sorts of major media, yet you don’t believe those debunkings. Why should a 9/11 truther believe Popular Mechanics?
Of course I believe Popular Mechanics in this case, because I’ve actually looked into it. But that’s not what Patterico wrote. His argument came down to, because a retired admiral said it, that made it a legitimate issue. Not an accurate issue. But a legitimate one, whether or not the admiral’s testimony is challenged. But once again, you people are incapable of looking at anything except through the lens of IOKIYAR.
And you really love that historical revisionism, too. Popular Mechanics can at least challenge such assertions as “Stell does not burn” by showing that steel burns. But events that happened decades ago? The primary source for many of those events is the documentation for the same medals that the officers who gave out now say are fraudulent. But yes I know, they were lying then, and that means they’re telling the truth now, right? Because they’re saying what you want to hear.
You can continue to believe whatever you want, obviously. Just don’t fool yourself that it’s true.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:39 amDo I not make my intentions clear or something?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:47 amCome on, the Swift Vets crap has been debunked by all sorts of major media, yet you don’t believe those debunkings
Bullshit
PC14 (f74534) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:47 amYou can’t argue with faith Rich.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:48 amRich,
You gotta face it some day – John Kerry, repeatedly lied about spending Xmas in Cambodia. Kerry even stated on the floor of Senate that his Cambodia memory was “seared -seared – in me.” Nevertheless, three of Kerry’s crewmen have denied ever being in Cambodia. Most telling however is Kerry’s “Xmas in Cambodia” story is missing from Kerry’s “Tour of Duty” biography.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:57 amHere.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:12 pmRich,
I have no desire to defend my actions re: TBogg. I think Tom Boggioni is a lowlife, to be sure, but that does not justify my actions regarding him, which were the biggest mistake I ever made as a blogger or blog commenter.
That said, I don’t think Boggioni regularly published his name on his site, as I regularly do. (Most commonly, I send e-mails to the LAT using my real name and my blog name, and I reprint them, with my name, on the site.)
There are bloggers out there — James Joyner, Michael Hiltzik when he was blogging, and some others — who refer to me only by my real name. (It’s Patrick Frey, btw. That’s my name, don’t wear it out.)
I don’t make it obvious on my front page because I don’t want casual surfers to be able to easily identify me — for example, prospective jurors who might decide to Google my name. If I were a law professor, I’d probably put my name on my front page.
That said, anyone determined to find me, can. When I broke the story of Hiltzik’s sock puppetry, an AP reporter called me at my office. The New York Times published my real name. And I wasn’t the slightest bit surprised.
I’m not sure Boggioni was that transparent about his name. He was more transparent than I realized at the time; I later learned, for example, that he had quoted an article about his dad that used his dad’s last name. But I don’t think he regularly published his full name on his site.
All offered, not by way of defending my actions re him, but as explaining why I thought I was dealing with an anonymous person.
Patterico (1906d2) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:28 pmOver 100 comments into this thread now and it looks like the Loonies are determined to prove the pt made above in #7. My thanks to them for the support.
It ain’t about what it’s about, guys, it’s about the Loonies and their need to prove something to themselves about themselves, that they’re better than others. They crave the junk-food self-esteem they were fed when young. But because they don’t really believe it they must repeat it incessantly in the hope that quantity will eventually triumph over quality.
You can argue w/them till the cows come home, but the stronger your pts, the less effect they will have. Remember: it ain’t about what it’s about; you guys are just the excuse du jour for their self-insistence.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:33 pmWhat ras said. Even the best liberal sites, like Balkinization and Prawfsblawg attract their share of moonbats. Better to just stay away.
nk (6061ba) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:42 pmPat, you did nothing wrong there. Were you sweet and loving? No. But you did nothing wrong, and TBagg outed himself. Goldstein has been harder on him than you have, and he’s earned every last drop of that.
As for Rick Puchalsky, he’s an utter waste of time, as you’ve either noticed or will soon discern.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:50 pmRick, Rich…whatevs.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:50 pmMalkin’s honesty
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:51 pmI’m an anarcho-syndicalist
Ah! An authoritarian of the House of Terminal Envy!
Darleen (7aa593) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:57 pmJerk That Knee, Darleen! (Anyone who dislikes “Conservatives” MUST be “envious” of them.)
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:02 pmDE
Nope. I put on the hipwaders long ago and wandered the swamps of blackflag
Nice fancy bits of rhetoric that boils down to “I breathe oxygen…YOU owe me what ever I want!”
Never have I encountered the temperament of a spoiled 2 y/o throwing a fit in the midst of a toystore masquarading as a “philosophy” then in reading the dreck based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Oooo “property is theft” “homes not jails”… what puerile bumpersticker platitudes.
Kinda like the charlatans using Anthropogenic Global Warming as a figleaf for “redistribution of wealth”.
Darleen (7aa593) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:10 pmI have to say, this thread went exactly how I expected it to go.
Except for one thing,
anarcho-syndicalist” – a communist trying to escape the odor of one hundred million subjects murdered.
SPQR, you’re my hero. That’s just beautiful. Consider it stolen.
Veeshir (dfa2bf) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:12 pmDavid,
Can you spot the flaw in the following logic:
All ducks are birds
All birds are animals
Therefore all animals are birds
If you can see the flaw in the above, then why not in your own comment #112?
But I digress, and per my own pts starting with #7 we already know the anser, don’t we? Here, I’ll do you a favor:
Your kindergarten teacher was right: you’re more specialer than the other kids. Whatever. You can go home now.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:14 pmNo, Dave. That mind reading-soul seeing thing is your purview. You wouldn’t want people encroaching on your turf, would you?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:15 pmThey killed the anarchists too, kids.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:22 pmPablo…
He’s just pissed off we can breed…
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:50 pmNo. Because my comment has nothing to do with your attempted analogy.
You don’t know what my turf is.
Hardly. I’m not so narcissistic as to seek to cdreate a replica of myself.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:02 pmCliveStaples @ #58
Also, if you actually believe that the use of anecdotes is inappropriate, it’s pretty intellectually dishonest to use them to support deporting illegal immigrants, isn’t it?
If one side is using anecdotes to support illegal immigration, then the other side can use their own anecdotes specifically to demonstrate that their opponents’ use of anecdotes is inappropriate because anecdotal evidence itself only tells one side of the story.
Aphrael,
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:26 pmI live nearby. But not close enough to be able to vote for Tom Campbell. Instead I’m stuck with the most deranged representative in all of Congress.
Aunursa, Rep. Traficant is back in the house?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:30 pmOn behalf of humans everywhere, I say, “Phew!”
Steverino (e00589) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:42 pmI’m not so narcissistic as to seek to cdreate a replica of myself.
His words say No, but his mind says YES,YES, YES I AM!!!!!1!!111!!!eleventy!!!111
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:57 pmI knew he’d give us fodder.
and if you think the child of two people is a “replica”, you really should reread your biology primer…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:59 pmScott – I think egotistical is a better word to describe it with David than narcissistic. I mean have you seen the guy’s picture for cripes sake?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:06 pmEgotistical?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:11 pm… which were the biggest mistake I ever made as a blogger or blog commenter.
Nowhere near as big a mistake as letting David continually dog in the manger any legitimate discussion, in my eyes. Has he ever added anything of substance? Real question, not snarking. I don’t get to read this site as often as in yesteryear, but every time I do he’s making fallacious, tendentious arguments or just vomiting bile.
Sorry to hear about SEK’s cat. Sick pets can really take the wind out of you.
Uncle Pinky (3c2c13) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:13 pmEgotistical?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:13 pmI just love the chickenhawk claims that lefties like to toss around. As if THEY would actually fight for something they believed in. Let’s see…since they had no argument against bombing the Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia, let’s do a quick roundup of how many of them volunteered for that?
…
I get called a chickenhawk regularly, since I freely admit I don’t serve. The truth is, I am hardly the kind of physical specimen the military is searching for (5’4″, 110, 38, colorblind, epileptic). That does not mean I cannot support them in every way I can, and certainly does not mean I’m a coward for thanking them for doing something I cannot do. And I do have a personal stake in this thing, because my younger brother, who happens to be my best friend in this world, is in Baghdad right now (the trailer he lives in was hit by rocket fragments; thankfully he was out to lunch).
But it doesn’t surprise me, but it really pisses me off. As an unmarried man, I can tell you that the closest person in my life is over there right now, and I support his decision to go (yes, he volunteered, no he’s not an idiot–he was a double major in German/Journalism, and yes, he volunteered because of 9/11).
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:13 pmI am very sorry to hear about SEK’s cat. I love cats.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:14 pmI hope your boyfriend is OK, otcconan. (Even though 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:16 pmI’m not going to answer every calumny lodged against me in this thread. That would take all day. I simply want to address a few of the more flagrant ones. Amac writes:
Here (#3) and at Acephalous, Scott neither condones nor condemns the rather ugly and intolerant way (IMO) that his ‘commentariat’ responded to Patterico’s sincere and rather genial (at first) attempt to engage in the comments.
I think—nay, I know—Patterico and I will both admit to being assholes. We’re aggressively confrontational and don’t brook what we perceive to be bullshit. We just disagree as to what that bullshit is.
Rich is also an asshole. While he may have aimed for Patterico’s online jugular, I don’t for a second believe he would take this offline. If I did, I would’ve deleted the comments as soon as I saw them.
KC’s commenters, on the other hand, routinely took matters offline, sending emails to faculty and administrators on a regular basis. I know for a fact this is true, because they did it to me. So say what you will about liberal commenters—I can second you and raise you abjection—but the folks at DIW sent more than a few emails to people they thought held sway over my career.
Tired at 4:44 a.m.—Who wouldn’t be?—writes:
You call for civility and then allow your commenters to make the same libelous cheap shots. Any credibility you had is gone.
Yes, my credibility is shot to hell because I allow people to write non-threatening criticisms of other people. If Rich had written that he was taking this to Patterico’s superior, I’d have stomped on it. There’s no need to inflate his criticisms into anything more than they were: Rich thinks that if Patterico believes what he stated, he’d make for a poor prosecutor. I’m sure Patterico’s run into plenty of other people in his career who thought he was unfit to do his job—because, you know, we all have. You put your name out there, stamp its authority on your opinions, and you expect a certain amount of flack. Believe you me, every time I make a typo, someone indicts the entire English professoriate for it.
Tired follows with what I take to be his impression of compassion. It’s not very convincing. Sure, maybe to him, ministering to an animal you’ve lived with and loved for eleven years ain’t no deal, because she only howls in pain when she tries to walk, and that’d only break some pussy’s heart … so call me a pussy then.
Getting booted from a program you’ve devoted seven years of my life to and caring for a beast who knows not why she pains aren’t stressors. I’m a weakling, incapable of living in the real world, &c. So please, bask in the glow of your superiority. You’ve obviously earned it.
daleyrocks,
Gah.
Another interesting thing on that thread was the use of the word “dishonest” by Rich and SEK. In their context it didn’t necessarily mean getting the facts wrong, it meant using an argument with which they did not agree. For example, Malkin’s use of a negative anecdote about an illegal immigrant after a positive anectdote by an LA Times reporter was a reason why she was a dishonest blogger. SEK explained why he felt the use of anecdotes was the wrong approach. Patterico explained why he used anecdotes covering the same situations. I don’t think Patterico or Malkin see thing the same way as SEK or Rich, but I don’t think that makes them DISHONEST.
Gah.
So.
Yes.
Gah.
Patterico admitted that he could back his anecdotes up with numbers. Malkin used the anecdotes instead of numbers. Given my encounters with her, I wager she’d use anecdotes even when they didn’t match the numbers.
Gah.
That escalation of language is typical of what I have found at many lefty blogs when there are differences of opinion.
Have you read the things they’ve written about me on conservative blogs? Have you read the things you’ve written about me on conservative blogs? Because if you had, you’d realize these generalizations cut both ways.
SEK (0778b7) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:25 pm#121 aphrael
No, it’s the Dishonorable Congressman Pottymouth.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:45 pmSEK – GAH
Thank you, Gah.
I have not encountered you around that many conservative blogs. I have visited your blog a few times. I did enjoy you taking on the lefty commentariat in Jesus General’s “own goal” earlier this year. You write well, as you should given your studies. I don’t pretend to, presumably the reason for the Gah. My principal complaint with your comments where I’ve encountered them is your stubborn insistence that the subject matter being discussed says something different than it actually does. For example, on PW, that Beauchamp’s genre was memoir rather than reporting of fact. In addition, as I mentioned above, that the use of anecdotes in connection with a discussion of illegal immigration represents dishonesty, which is a very strained use of the word under the circumstances.
I do agree the examples cut both ways.
Gah.
Bah.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 3:53 pmSEK – I did have to laugh when you repeated my words:
“That escalation of language is typical of what I have found at many lefty blogs when there are differences of opinion;” and I looked back at the beginning of your comment –
“I’m not going to answer every calumny”
calumny – a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions
It’s nice of you to escalate the language at the very beginning of your comment. I may have overlooked it, but I did not think I included any incendiary language in reference to you earlier today and tried to explain clearly why I took the positions I was taking. Hardly false, malicious or misrepresentative based on the thread under discussion.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:08 pmHAH! This is a very entertaining read, Patterico. I just hope I never get caught breaking a law and come up against you in court. I’ll just take the plea-bargain, I guess.
Kevin (4890ef) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:20 pmRich:
Wait, that’s your evidence? Because Patterico called someone else a gutless coward in different circumstances, he is calling pseudonym users everywhere gutless? I think you’re drawing an inappropriate logical inference.
SEK:
Well, there’s a difference between saying “I’d wager that Malkin is dishonest” and saying “I can prove that Malkin is dishonest.”
It’s just a cheap shot. It isn’t tantamount to threats of physical harm, it isn’t as serious as threatening to get involved with someone else’s life. It’s just a bullshit cheapshot that polite commentators on both sides should avoid.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:36 pmaunursa
“I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him,” Lott boasted. “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
It seems the entire republican leadership is willing to agree.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:40 pmGirdon Smith, Arlen Specter, Orrin Hatch
Dishonorable indeed.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:40 pm
Ana:
That’s not good logic. What’s inappropriate about only telling one side of the story? Either your version of the facts is correct, or it is not. Criminal prosecutors, for instance, only tell one side of the story. We shouldn’t disavow the use of evidence simply because the prosecution uses it only to prove the defendant’s guilt instead of arguing both sides.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:45 pmAnd this is gonna be good
How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative
Raymond on his sojourn in the slammer: “After 10 full years inside the GOP, 90 days among honest criminals wasn’t really any great ordeal.”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:47 pm#138 blah,
Huh????? How does that refer to a comment of mine? Or did you confuse me with another commenter?
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:48 pmCliveStaples,
In a criminal case the prosecutor is allowed to tell one side of the case; the defense is allowed to tell the other side of the case. In that way, the jury receives both sides of the case.
By contrast, when the media only tells one side of the case, then the readers/viewers tend not to receive both sides of the case.
Moreover, attorneys are inherently partisan; we know and expect that. By contrast, the media — in their news departments — claim to present an unbiased account. When they show only one side of the story, this claim disintegrates.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:53 pmshould be :then the readers/viewers tend not to receive the other side of the issue.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:55 pmaunursa,
I agree with you but the online community is more like a court than journalism. A blog doesn’t have an obligation to present both sides unless it represents itself as a media blog or a blog without a viewpoint.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:58 pmCliveStaples,
To use your courtroom analogy, say the LA Times presents ten feature stories showing sympathetic portrayals of illegal aliens. In that manner the LAT acts as defense attorney for illegal immigration.
Michelle Malkin and Patterico respond with ten stories about illegal immigrants committing strings of violent crimes. In this manner, Malkin and Patterico act as prosecutors to balance the one-sided portrayal by the MSM.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:02 pmThanks for the response at #132, SEK. I recall an incident where your email was rendered unusable by being subscribed to multiple listservs, immediately after you commented at Durham in Wonderland. There is no place for that sort of harassing behavior (or similarly, for whinging via email to your profs) among decent people. But you wrote about it with wit and humor, anyway.
AMac (c822c9) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:03 pmDRJ,
Absolutely. My point is not about blogs per se, but about the MSM. If the MSM is only going to present one side of the story, then it shouldn’t portray itself as unbiased or a purveyor of “all the news that’s fit to print” or other such nonsense.
Unlike the MSM, Patterico and Malkin never claim to be unbiased in the first place. And that’s the heart of the matter.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:05 pmbtw
SEK, I’m sorry to hear about the cat, man. I have a tabby of my own, and I was worried to the point of insanity when she had a UTI. I’m not sure my sanity would survive something that’s actually serious. I feel for you man.
I realy hope the cat gets better.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:06 pmaunursa:
I agree, but that does not render the use of anecdotes “inappropriate” for either side to use per se.
My point about the courtroom scenario was that you don’t need to hear the defense’s arguments in order to evaluate the prosecution’s.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:08 pmSEK sez:
Oh, no. No, I’m not buying into *that* particular moral equivalence, my friend.
Rich Puchalsky is in a different league. He is his own category of asshole — a category that doesn’t include me, and *certainly* doesn’t include you.
Very little productive conversation takes place between two sides online. The main reason is because people generally aren’t really interested in debating ideas. They’re trying to score points and win arguments.
The easiest, laziest, and most dishonest way to do that is to distort the other guy’s position. Because it’s so easy, that’s what most people do. And Rich . . . well, that’s about all he does.
CliveStaples has been perhaps the most incisive commenter on this thread, and one of his most insightful comments was #45, in which he correctly diagnosed Rich’s debating style, which os to misstate my argument and then mock the misstated version.
It’s clearly not an accident when he does this, because it’s about all he ever does.
If SEK and I are assholes, you’re gonna have to find a different word for Rich.
The floor is open for suggestions.
Patterico (3cf0e9) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:09 pmWell just go with cunt.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:13 pmCliveStaples,
I agree, but that does not render the use of anecdotes “inappropriate” for either side to use per se.
By contrast, the MSM only provide anecdotes that support one side. By refusing to offer anecdotes that support the other side, the MSM is using them inappropriately.
By contrast, Patterico and Malkin know that the MSM anecdotes portray the other side. Therefore it’s entirely appropriate for P & M to use the anecdotes for their response.
My point about the courtroom scenario was that you don’t need to hear the defense’s arguments in order to evaluate the prosecution’s.
You DO need to hear the defense’s arguments in order to evaluate the case. If for any reason the defense is unable to present its case, there is a mistrial REGARDLESS of how persuasive the prosecution may have been.
At any rate, the MSM doesn’t intend for us to hear the other side. As far as the MSM is concerned, there’s no point in us even realizing that there is another side.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:15 pmSEK: Stop whining. I didn’t know I was required to monitor this thread 24/7. Next time when I comment, I will be sure to take off work, okay? Believe it or not, my entire life is not centered around you or your problems. Any good will created by Patterico towards you, you have now effectively pissed away.
tired (56b378) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:20 pmTypical Patterico. I agree to do something he asks, and he responds by opening the floor to suggestions from his claque for name-calling.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:20 pmChristoph,
You’re misunderstanding the spirit of my call for suggestions. I’m not just saying: hey, let’s call Rich Puchalsky mean names! Instead, I’m looking for a creative name that would describe an asshole whose principal debate tactic is mischaracterizing the other guy’s position and attacking strawmen. Something like “strawhole” — but we can do better than that.
Patterico (a21de7) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:22 pmRich – What did you agree to do?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:27 pmPerhaps “Artful Dodger” by neatly dodging the opponent’s actual questions?
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:28 pmGlenn Greenwald.
nk (6061ba) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:28 pmThe explanation for the Rich Puchalskys of the world is that they don’t simply disagree with conservatives. They actively think we’re EVIL!!! In SEK’s latest thread, Puchalsky has a little drinking song he has put together that has a line about how we conservatives have screwed up the country, so why be nice to right wing twits? Something along those lines.
He doesn’t feel any need to be civil, ever, to anyone whose politics are different from his. That is what makes him different from SEK and me. I will be civil to people who disagree with me — if they disagree in a civil manner. SEK will be civil to anyone, period.
Rich will be civil to you ONLY if you agree with him politically. Otherwise, you are scum to be fucked with.
I do not admit equivalence to such a creature, SEK, because I am not equivalent to him. You don’t see this because you agree with him politically, so he is nice to you.
Btw, the right has our own such attack dogs, so don’t get the idea I’m pretending otherwise. I find them distasteful regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on, because civil people should be treated civilly.
Patterico (b18a49) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:30 pmMy point about the courtroom scenario was that you don’t need to hear the defense’s arguments in order to evaluate the prosecution’s.
Prosecution: This young man ran up to this old woman on the street, knocked her into the gutter, brutally rolled her in the sludge and violently rubbed mud into her face and hair. This is true and we have witnesses who will affirm it by answering yes or no questions without elaboration as they are hostile witnesses.
You: Guy’s a douche.
Defense: She was on fire at the time.
Example shamelessly stolen from Theodore Sturgeon.
Uncle Pinky (3c2c13) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:34 pmaunusra:
I don’t think that it is inappropriate to use anecdotes to support an argument. The MSM may be biased in only offering an argument for one side of the issue, but I don’t think its use of anecdotes is therefore “inappropriate”.
We don’t need to hear anecdotes from the other side in order to evaluate whether the MSM’s anecdotes are truly representative of the illegal immigrant community. As SEK granted to Patterico, the case for deportation is borne out by the numbers, which contradict the MSM’s version of reality regardless of whether Patterico and Malkin present their own anecdotes.
I think we’ve plumbed the depths of this question, especially considering that we both agree that the MSM’s version is wrong and Patterico’s is right.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:35 pmI’m not sure we can improve on nk’s.
Patterico (652c2e) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:40 pmI prefer Rich Puchalsky Ellison or maybe Rick Ellison Puchalsky.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:43 pmPlease don’t make me laugh too hard, Patterico. You are not civil. You have never been civil. Civil people don’t call people lowlife pricks, not even if they lost their little tempers because someone said something mean about them. What you are is sanctimonious. Oh those uncivil people who keep making you say such bad things! It’s not your fault at all.
Now I note that I am “such a creature” and an “attack dog”. Next is vermin I suppose. Look, you’re acting like exactly the wannabe bully that most people think that right-wingers are. First you whined about how my comments could get some crazy stalker after you. OK, I said, if your pseudonym is just like your name, I’ll refrain from writing what I think about that. And in relief, you’re emboldened to restart the insults. Classic.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:44 pmWhether or not the woman was on fire is a question that can be answered without the aid of the Defense mounting arguments against the prosecution.
The courtroom analogy is a limited one; my only point was that when presented with an argument, we can evaluate it on its merits and compare it to the evidence (in your case, that the woman was on fire) without necessarily constructing an opposing argument to contrast the two.
Which is not to say that the defense should not mount arguments against the prosecution; the defense might think of an argument or highlight evidence that the jury had not considered.
To bring this back to the topic at hand, consider Patterico’s response to SEK’s indictment of Malkin’s honesty: he challenged SEK to provide evidence. Did he mount a defense of Malkin, citing post after post where she exhibited complete honesty? No, and he didn’t have to, because the evidence already contradicts SEK’s claims. There’s no reason to construct a rebuttal to an argument that is plainly false.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:45 pm“By contrast, Patterico and Malkin know that the MSM anecdotes portray the other side. Therefore it’s entirely appropriate for P & M to use the anecdotes for their response.”
On Malkin’s seriousness, see comment #110 and the link.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:48 pmShe uses anecdote as data. And Patterico simply ignores data that do not conform to his argument. On Iraq for example, he’s consistently been an advocate for a position based on ideology not information.
There’s nothing wrong with having a bias. Biases are universal. Every argument is political, but there are levels. Malkin’s are pretty low.
I believe Patterico has expressed more than a few reservations on the Iraq War, blah. Could you use his search engine to look for them? And, BTW, I appreciate the civil tone you have been taking and I will also address you civilly from here on.
nk (6061ba) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:54 pmRich:
Patterico is civil. He may not be a saint, but he is civil. Even a civil man can call someone a lowlife prick when provoked.
And if insulting someone is dispositive of civility, aren’t you also uncivil for insulting Patterico even if he provoked you?
Hmm. Let’s take a look at the record, shall we?
Patterico is whining that I’ve insulted his pseudonym so badly – You continue to insult Patterico regarding his pseudonym.
Patterico is indeed unfit for his job, in my opinion — a political hack like any other Bush dead-ender. – Again, you continue to insult Patterico without offering any substantive support for your wild accusations.
Oh, and here’s my favorite:
I also note that you were the one who brought up your prosecutorial status, with your sneer about “I’m fully familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of eyewitnesses, thanks. Maybe more so than you realize.” You want to pose an as expert? – You’re actually accusing a Deputy District Attorney of “posing” as a legal expert?
The funny thing is that you present yourself as an authority on evaluating legal expertise. Of course, you might be a legal expert as well, but unlike Patterico, you haven’t disclosed your profession.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:59 pmnk, blah has been repeatedly attempting a thread hijacking.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:11 pmPatterico, nk’s probably can’t be improved upon, but Christoph’s did have a certain blunt charm.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:13 pmMr. Glennrich Puchalskywald,
IF that IS your real name . . .
Truly you must be a conservative having some fun with me. Surely no real person exists who misstates others’ positions as consistently as you do.
You say:
There’s the strawman claim: Patterico claimed to be civil to everyone.
Let’s roll tape to see what I actually said:
“I will be civil to people who disagree with me if they disagree in a civil manner.”
I have been quite consistent in this thread as admitting that I am not at all civil to people who aren’t civil to me.
See, this is all you ever do. One could comb through all your comments in this argument and do what I just did: identify what you claim I am saying, and compare it to what I actually said.
They will ALWAYS be different.
You just don’t even know HOW to argue honestly.
Really, it’s bizarre.
Patterico (c81966) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:18 pmIf you can show me an example where I wasn’t civil to someone who was being civil to me, then you might really have something.
I might even apologize to that person.
Patterico (928a8f) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:23 pmThat leads me to my theory about how people who care to do so can most productively debate ideas rather than scoring points.
It takes two willing participants. Listen up, SEK: we might should try this.
First, each side makes their argument once.
Then, each person is required to restate the other person’s argument in their own words, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER PERSON.
Then you can debate what truly separates you.
This has all sorts of benefits.
It FORCES you to acknowledge and grapple with the other side’s very best points.
It forces you not to misstate their arguments.
Rich Puchalskywald could never do this.
Well-intentioned people hoping to debate ideas, could.
Patterico (b0d85c) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:28 pmAll of which says nothing about the absolute disemboweling of Malkin’s arguments and methods of argumentation by someone who was -after all- a guest poster at Volokh.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:38 pmAnyone who says “Patterico is unfit for his job,” has no idea of what his job consists of or how he executes it. This blog is NOT Patterico’s job. It’s a hobby. The opnions he expresses here in no way interface with his job which is subject to rules and regulatiosn going far beyond any passing opinion Patterico might express in other contexts.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:49 pmblah,
I don’t waste time responding to arguments where someone links to a gazillionty-page analysis and says HA! REFUTE THAT!
You know what that deserves? A link to the response.
I’ll debate someone who is a) willing to engage honestly, and b) is willing to state the argument in their own words, to show they own the argument, they understand it, and they stand behnd it.
This is why people who say: refute the entire Orcinus site! or refute the IsThatLegal guy!
I can tell you that I started to read the argument offered by the IsThatLegal guy, who I personally think is a knob. His opening salvo included invitations for people to Photoshop the cover of Malkin’s book. He mocked her for appearing in a bikini in a photo — then it turned out it wasn’t her picture. He’s just too personal, and his arguments reeked of P.C. and the attitude: of course I’m right, so why do I need to convince you?
I didn’t trust him. And since I wasn’t doing all the research myself, that was too big an obstacle.
And I say that as someone highly skeptical that anyone could mount a convincing case for internment.
Patterico (46308d) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:52 pmComment by David Ehrenstein — 12/18/2007 @ 3:16 pm
Nice of you to elevate the conversation by insulting my brother, a serviceman who, without even knowing you, I know is a better man than you will ever be.
And nice of you to show your homophobia by assuming that unmarried = gay.
Very tolerant, those liberals.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 6:58 pmWhy bother with the Rich Puchalskys of the world? He clearly craves the validation he gets from his vitriol. There’s no good faith in what he does. He argues with you because he’s better than you. If he can’t win the argument, well, dammit, he’s still better than you Bush dead-enders! Someone like him can’t concede a point, because he doesn’t have debating opponents. He has enemies. So if he can’t win a point in the argument, he’ll lie, scream and yell, call people names, and write shitty reworked lyrics to Clash songs.
Talk about boring. I’m so bored with Rich Puchalskys. He’s a dime a dozen online, which is why I don’t waste my time with leftist blogs.
radar (0e2ce4) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:01 pmotcconan, go to Ehrenstein’s page, I think you’ll realize your mistake.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:09 pmotcconan did not make a mistake, or at least not much of one. He spotted an obsession, but just got the polarity reversed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:12 pmtouche, Pat. As my dad used to say, “we can disagree, without being disagreeable.”
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:15 pmSPQR #170,
Patterico’s threads are always getting hijacked. He can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that as long as they lead to a conversation instead of stopping a conversation he doesn’t mind.
nk (6061ba) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:15 pmCliveStaples, in addition to not following links, can’t read timestamps. Or even read, really.
Patterico, you can pretend that civility allows you to curse out people who’ve insulted you. But it doesn’t. People who are civil have decided not to react in that way, even if provoked. I’m uncivil, myself, but I don’t pretend that other people made me do it; it’s my decision. You could just take responsibility for yourself, you know.
Now, since you’ve said that you’re concerned about people tracking you down, I’m not going to go back to criticizing you in the way that you objected to. I don’t appreciate you encouraging your commenters to go off on me, given that nutcases from other blogs have already retaliated against Scott in similar circumstances. It’s your decision as to what kind of person you want to be, now. You already know what kind of person I think you are.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:17 pmPatterico,
Re #174, that sounds a lot like active listening. I hear it can be very effective, although I personally tend toward active ignoring (at least as regards the family).
kenB (88b394) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:17 pm“Boy, is my face red.”
It’s safe to assume I can pretty much take Dave with a grain of salt from now on.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:19 pmComment by Rich Puchalsky — 12/18/2007 @ 7:17 pm
Always with the re-stating of what Pat says and then attacking that, instead of actually arguing with what he has to say. He admits to his incivility. I admit to mine, as well. One can do as above, disagree without being disagreeable.
Instead, you have become so inurred to the idea of losing an argument that you will use every means at your disposal, no matter how low, to score points, no matter how invalid. I read the entire thread and was quite unimpressed with your debating skills. If you were on a UIL debate team, you’d never make the district finals. It’s quite sad, really, to see you continue to try and score points in an argument that you’ve lost at face value.
A liberal is nothing but a conservative who hasn’t grown up yet.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:24 pmThis is the best thread I’ve seen here in ages, by the way.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:26 pmPuchalskywald:
“Patterico, you can pretend that civility allows you to curse out people whove insulted you. But it doesnt.”
Strawman argument: Patterico claims to be civil to people who insult him.
Patterico’s actual argument: he is *not* civil to people who insult him.
I can do this all day, GlennRich. You leave a comment, I show how it’s a distortion.
You are comical.
Patterico (77915e) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:43 pmRich:
And you accuse me of being unable to read:
“I will be civil to people who disagree with me if they disagree in a civil manner.”
I have been quite consistent in this thread as admitting that I am not at all civil to people who aren’t civil to me.
– Patterico
Can’t really make it any more starkly clear than that.
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:48 pmI was pointing out, as usual, that you don’t get to define what words mean. There’s a standard of civility; it’s not whatever you say it is.
But never mind. Since you don’t want to accede to my request, fine — you’re exactly the kind of person that I thought you were.
Rich Puchalsky (f72528) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:52 pmI’m not sure what you’re arguing against. Did Patterico somewhere argue that there isn’t an objective standard of civility, and that civility is defined however Patterico says it is?
CliveStaples (b21847) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:00 pm#162 CliveStaples,
We don’t need to hear anecdotes from the other side in order to evaluate whether the MSM’s anecdotes are truly representative of the illegal immigrant community.
The MSM, by virtue of its one-sided anecdotes, fails to inform its readers/vieweres that there is another side. The anecdotes would be appropriate if the MSM were to provide them to demonstrate both sides.
aunursa (090908) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:05 pmNow almost 200 comments in and … same ol’ same ol’. Troll tries to insist on his superiority and is rebuffed but at least he was noticed, which is his real goal. Now he matters and will come back again for his next fix.
Patterico,
Huzzaba we call these guys (narcissis)tic talks? Cuz tic talk does seem to be their consistent theme.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:06 pm#167 blah
She uses anecdote as data. And Patterico simply ignores data that do not conform to his argument… Every argument is political, but there are levels. Malkin’s are pretty low.
Your opinions are duly noted.
aunursa (090908) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:12 pmTo the extent that you are claiming that one cannot be “a civil person” unless one is civil at all times, I suspect that the total number of “civil persons” according to your definition is zero.
It really isn’t possible for those who are not saints to be uniformly civil. Even those who aim for it inevitably fall short.
aphrael (db0b5a) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:14 pmGreenwaldsky:
“I was pointing out, as usual, that you dont get to define what words mean. Theres a standard of civility; its not whatever you say it is.”
Strawman argument: Patterico says civility is what he says it is.
Reality: I have said no such thing.
Reality: I have said I am not civil to the uncivil, only to the civil. Greenwaldsky retorts: but you’re not being civil to the uncivil if you’re uncivil to the uncivil.
Patterico retorts: you make me laugh. I think my seven-year-old could see through your tactics.
Patterico (580b45) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:14 pmUnkle Pinky, at 161: that’s fantastic. thank you! 🙂
aphrael (db0b5a) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:16 pmAbusive husbands do much the same thing as Rich does: antagonize till they get an angry reaction so they can claim moral equivalence. Sorry Richie boy, no kindergarten treats today for that old trick.
ras (fc54bb) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:18 pmCliveStaples,
You want to pose an as expert? – You’re actually accusing a Deputy District Attorney of “posing” as a legal expert?
That reminds me of the scene from My Cousin Vinny when the prosecutor questions the characeter played by Marisa Tormey regarding her supposed expertise on automobiles.
aunursa (090908) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:20 pmFirst, each side makes their argument once.
Then, each person is required to restate the other person’s argument in their own words, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER PERSON.
Then you can debate what truly separates you.
I think the final exam for a debating class would be for the student to present a position to which he personally is adamantly opposed. Or perhaps the final in a debating contest.
aunursa (090908) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:23 pmRich must live alone if he’s exhibiting his standard of civility.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:25 pmLet me fix 202
Rich must live alone and may have trouble holding jobs if he’s exhibiting his standard of civility.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:27 pm“His opening salvo included invitations for people to Photoshop the cover of Malkin’s book. ”
You’re referring to this at the end of the post which concerned the photos on the cover:
“Update: Folks are photoshopping the cover of “In Defense of Internment” over here [link to what now a dead site] , if you’re into that sort of thing.”
Your comment above is a slippery but cheap and in this case pretty thin way of avoiding a serious response to a nasty but very sharp unpacking of Malkin’s arguments and methods. Muller makes a fool out of her. But she was a fool to begin with.
Now in a sense -but only in a sense- I’ll do the same thing you did. Because I’m not going to repeat Muller’s arguments page by page in order to continue this discussion. And you’ve made that the only way left that this is going to continue. But I’ll end here, if the spam filter lets it through: Again and again you avoid what you don’t want to face.
https://patterico.com/index.php?s=%22david+quo%22&submit=Search
https://patterico.com/index.php?s=%22Imperial+Life+in+the+Emerald+City%22&submit=Search
https://patterico.com/index.php?s=%22The+price+of+loyalty%22&submit=Search
Lets see what comes out of the book I mentioned in comment #141. Meanwhile, if you want to learn more about what’s happening on the ground in Iraq, and the failures of the “surge” here’s something to read.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:36 pmhttp://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr196.html
Nohting you posted indicated that he was your brother. “Homophobia”? You don’t know me very well, do you.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:38 pmIt’s a lot more fun at the children’s table, dear.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:44 pmWhat was that again about “grown-ups”?
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:46 pmDavid I thought you weren’t a homophobe.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:48 pmRoy Cohn?
#177 Patterico,
I don’t waste time responding to arguments where someone links to a gazillionty-page analysis and says HA! REFUTE THAT!
I get that sometimes. Someone posts an entire essay of A-Z and I have neither the time nor the desire to respond to every point.
In such instances, I typically challenge my opponent to present what he considers to be the single strongest argument or point for me to address. Once that is resolved, if there is more time I will be happy to address his penultimate point, and so forth. I have found that to be an effective way to respond without being buried by an avalanche of arguments.
aunursa (090908) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:52 pmApparently you can’t read…Post 129:
As for this?
I admit, to my embarrasment, my mistake there. I won’t speculate as to why you skimmed over my blood-friendship with my brother (who I pointed out was my brother) and assumed we were lovers. I’m secure enough in my masculinity to admit I’m unmarried and love my brother…so what the hell is wrong with that?
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:52 pmotcconann, he was expressing concern for someone even though he disagreed with his decisions.
“so what the hell is wrong with that?”
you seem to have a problem
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:58 pmhis decision… to go to war
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 8:58 pmOne of my best friends in Gay Activists Alliance ended up as Roy Cohn’s chauffeur.
Yes, he’s dead too.
Sorry I missed that line indicating it was your brother, otcconan.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:08 pmblah – I read the first five or six parts of that so-called nasty and sharp debunking of Malkin you linked before turning away. I viewed it as shallow, petty, ideological squabbling rather than a serious critique at that point. Have you actually read it yourself or is it another link you just threw up there that you thought sounded good again?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:09 pmOh, I read 4 or 5 of the ones toward the end, a while ago, when they were still fresh.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:12 pmAnd I don’t expect anything will ever convince you daley, of anything you don’t already hold dear.
Perhaps you can see how a straight male, used to the kinds of rhetoric of internet debate, might see this as the typical blogospherical response from an opposing viewpoint, that is, to attack one’s sexuality rather than the substance…and that is what I saw. Now, I see that Dave just misread my post and was expressing genuine concern for my brother, which is laudable.
His concern is laudable. His disagreement with the decision is immaterial. The decision was his, and his alone, and carried out over the concerns, though not the objections, of everyone in my family.
Let’s leave it at that. I’d actually link his blog, but I’d rather not infest it with people who would spend their time trying to break his morale.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:13 pmRoy Cohn’s chauffeur.
Not the one who drove Cohn and his boyfriend and Nicholas von Hoffman to dinner!?
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:14 pmDavid, I do apologize for flying off the handle, and I also accept your apology. We got off on the wrong foot and I do hope we can agree to disagree in the future.
🙂
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:15 pmThe same.
I’m sure we can.
David Ehrenstein (4ce68d) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:18 pmAnd David, I must apologize, because I missed your apology before posting #216. Had I seen your post at #213 I wouldn’t have said anything. I was too busy typing and missed it.
I hope we can return to civil terms, disagreements be damned.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:21 pmIt’ll be a lot easier for me now that I know who I’m dealing with. 🙂 Here…so you know who you are dealing with, I linked my blog to my name.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:23 pmRoy Cohn Jack Smith
The only time I saw Ron Vawter. Amazing.
An old roommate works with the Woosters.
And I’ve had a few drinks with Gary Indiana.
old school
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:26 pmDavid E. and otcconan,
I think I’m tearing up here.
blah,
You’re asking me to make an investment of time and thought here. It’s only fair that I ask you to do the same.
I’ll take aunursa’s suggestion and ask you to restate Muller’s best single argument, in your own words. Tell me why you think it’s convincing. Try to pick something verifiable, where I don’t have to trust Muller.
I’ll put as much effort into it as you do.
Patterico (faeccf) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:40 pmProfonico – Man, now you’re asking blah to read something he hasn’t read before. That’s harsh!
Wait, I forgot, blah said he read the part I didn’t read, but it was a long long time ago, like when it was fresh. Riiiiiight!!!
Do you remember the one about it only being a cold sore?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:51 pmI’m tearing up too. All the love. Yeesh. It’s sickening.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 9:52 pmI’m out
Damn it, can’t two adults reconcile a genuine misunderstanding without people puking on themselves?
I guess that is too much to ask.
You can be comforted in the knowledge that David and I are diametrically opposed on politics. But in this instance, I didn’t know him, nor he, me. Thus, I assumed the worst in him (I have no idea what he assumed about me). I am willing to give him a healthy benefit of the doubt until then.
As I said, I am the kind of person who is willing to disagree without being disagreeable (that’s the words of my late father, btw). And I’m also willing to admit when I make mistakes, as in this case. If more of us on this *and other* blogs would be willing to do so, things would be cooler.
otcconan (cbb3f7) — 12/18/2007 @ 10:12 pmblah and Patterico – I stopped by Malkin’s site to see what she had to say about Prof. Muller’s “review” of her book as well as the comments of Prof. Robinson. Read the post I linked and her responses in the post she links at the bottom. She seems to handle both critics quite ably.
Prof. Muller has demonstrated a long historty of Malkin derangement syndrome which Michelle documents on her site, the ping pong ball jokes, the whole nine yards. Search on his name. He is a real piece of work.
How’s your project coming blah?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:30 pmForgot the link: http://michellemalkin.com/2005/05/07/a-book-banning-dodged-thank-you/
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/19/2007 @ 5:30 pmDaleyRocks,
This is an excerpt that came from
http://www.mekong.net/random/malkin.htm#nlink97
section V
The bolded portion is the bottom line reasons he feels the book is a bad inaccurate one.
“Thus, Malkin acknowledges that neither Hoover, Biddle, nor DeWitt had access to the cables. In DeWitt’s case, however, she implies that the information in the summaries was sufficient, and thus DeWitt favored internment. Simultaneously, however, in the case of Hoover and Biddle, she implies that the information in the summaries was not sufficient, and consequently they opposed internment.
http://www.mekong.net/random/malkin.htm#nlink97
He cites sources and puts together a pretty good case. The problem is more about a very weak research effort on her part than some nefarious plot.
I’m sure he has the post bookmarked but even Patterico expressed reservations a couple of years ago about the short length of time to research the book.
“Not surprisingly, Malkin’s book was not particularly well-received. A group of roughly 40 historians and scholars issued a joint statement describing the book as “a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness.” (35) The book flew in the face of more than a half-century of scholarship, and was contradicted even by the work of the official historian of the United States Army. “In fact,” read the statement from the Historians’ Committee for Fairness, “the author’s presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans.”
It should be stressed that it was not simply touchy-feely egghead historians who felt that the internment was a mistake. A Congressional commission had concluded that the incarceration “was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions that followed from it – exclusion, detention, the ending of detention and the ending of exclusion – were not founded upon military considerations. The broad historical causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” (36) The relocation and internment were, in the Commission’s words, “fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights.” But hey, screw the commission: it was, according to Malkin, “stacked with left-leaning lawyers, politicians, and civil rights activists.” (37)
Journalist David Neiwert, law professor Eric Muller and historian Greg Robinson have all written detailed critiques of Malkin’s claims regarding the internment. Robinson’s response to Malkin on the subject of the MAGIC cables gets right to the heart of the issue: “Let me divide it into three parts: first, that the MAGIC cables do not present the image of a Japanese American spy network; Second, that the people who pushed the case for evacuation would not have had access to the MAGIC excerpts in any case; thirdly, that those who did have access to MAGIC did not base their decision on it.”
voiceofreason (6fb228) — 12/19/2007 @ 8:11 pmVOR – I take it you did not read Malkin’s defense of her work to Muller and Robinson’s attacks, because it addresses the questions raised above, including the bolded portion. The specious questions about length of time she took to research the book is addressed as well.
Of course the book was not received well. why would you expect otherwise? The establishment always reacts badly when its sacred cows are questioned. She recived the same treatment people are receiving today that question anthropogenic global warming, and both have facts on their sides it appears.
I would like to see the backup for this assertion:
she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans.”
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:23 pmDaleyrocks,
voiceofreason (6fb228) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:37 pmPlease don’t expect me to read page after page of her version. There were 40 historians who disagreed with the methodology. Muller was only one of those.
When you find scholars or academics who defend her book I’ll consider it a serious effort on your part. Of course she will defend her work – not very much objectivity in that is there?
But I also sense that you and I won’t ever agree on this. I offered a different source than Muller – you offered me more Malkin.
DaleyRocks,
voiceofreason (6fb228) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:41 pmIf the main thesis is incorrect why are you so intent on defending a flawed piece of work.
voiceofreason, Daleyrocks did not state that she had conceded that her main thesis is incorrect. He was quoting your statement to that effect and challenging it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:48 pmSPQR,
voiceofreason (6fb228) — 12/19/2007 @ 9:59 pmThanks for the correction.
VOR – What Sharp says in your link is, as I point out, close enough to what Muller and Robinson said, that she’s already addressed it. Muller and Robinson take the party line, apart from their ad hominem shots at her.
It’s a pretty bullshit position to say I don’t care what she says in her defense, she’s got people who disagree with her so I won’t read what she says. Did they respond to her rebuttals?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/19/2007 @ 10:16 pmDaleyrocks,
Muller and Robinson took her point by point (from the link you provided) at the isthatlegal site. And they responded to her rebuttals, heck even went to the library where she claimed she got her material.
And most notably, they don’t call her names, question her character or anything like that. They simply disagree with her and use proveable points and facts. She on the other hand resorted to using sweeping adjectives about them.
That is the problem with our media obsessed society. Pundits become stars and fans become rather myopic. No one is right 100% of the time and in this case Malkin was wrong in her research and conclusions.
Malkin writes in generalities much of the time. When one does this it is easy to keep shifting positions to say one is right.
As for a “bs position” I’ve read her explanations in the past and am familiar with them. And the fact is that no one else except fans are defending her book – curious that not even a couple of conserative historians would jump to her defense.. unless the research and conclusions were not very thorough, accurate or well thought out.
voiceofreason (6fb228) — 12/19/2007 @ 10:40 pmVOR – I understand that you may regard reading Malkin as a fate worse than death. I didn’t read her book am not supporting it one way or another. I got drawn into the debate by reading the link supplied by blah where he claimed Muller and Robinson handily debunked Malkin’s book. It looked very weak to me, so I checked out what Malkin had to say about it. Predictibly, she had ready defenses for most of their point, which of course you refuse to read. Muller and Robinson also refused to acknowledge their errors in analysis of her bookse to read that as well.
Eugene Volokh had a few words about the group of historians protecting their turf when Malkin published her book, echoing the point I made earlier:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_00.shtml#1094055824
Malkin makes a few good points about the ongoing debate here:
For those who are interested, I have uploaded a follow-up response to professors Eric Muller and Greg Robinson, two principal critics of my new book. You can read the whole thing here. Part I of my response to Muller and Robinson, posted a few weeks ago, is here.
I appreciate the extensive effort that these two men have made to try and refute the arguments in In Defense of Internment. The blogosphere has given us the space to engage in a substantive debate, rather than a three-minute shoutfest, and I hope readers will take the time to check out our exchanges�which show that people can disagree vehemently without resorting to spittle-spattered harangues.
That said, let me spell out the fundamental failure in Muller and Robinson’s case against my book. After some two dozen posts and nearly 18,000 words they still have not explained why, if internment, evacuation, and relocation were driven primarily by racism and wartime hysteria, our intelligence agencies were so concerned about Japanese espionage on the West Coast (see Appendix C of my book and additional documents here). Muller and Robinson have provided no analysis whatsoever of the intelligence agencies’ memos included in my book�memos from MID, ONI, and FBI that were clearly derived, sometimes verbatim, from MAGIC decrypts and that reveal the rigorous attention that military intelligence and FBI officials were paying to Japan’s spy operations and activities in the U.S. and elsewhere. To ignore these reports while advancing the view that the Roosevelt Administration’s decisions were rooted primarily or solely in wartime hysteria and racism is shoddy scholarship at best and academic malpractice at worst.
It is worth highlighting here at the start that in one of his most recent posts, Muller makes a monumental concession without referencing the memos. He quibbles not with the case I lay out about the existence of an ethnic Japanese espionage network on the West Coast, but whether it was “vast” (as I describe it) or not. Muller breezily downplays MAGIC and completely ignores the pre- and post-Pearl Harbor intelligence memos warning about Japan’s espionage network. Instead, he hides behind an Army historian’s book review of the late David Lowman’s book, MAGIC–which also ignores the intelligence memos.
Readers can look at both the MAGIC messages and intelligence memos in my book and judge for themselves whether my description of the espionage network as “vast” is fair. But notice Muller’s shift here. We are no longer arguing about whether a military rationale existed�and remember, the vast majority of critics of the WWII evacuation/relocation/internment policies argue that no military necessity existed whatsoever�but how large it was.
Whose thesis is shrinking?
————————
A summary of rhe Muller/Robinson errors at one point in the debate is in this post:
http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/25/arguing-in-bad-faith/
I usually give Malkin the benefit of the doubt on facts because I have found she is more careful with them than most liberals I encounter on the internet. When she makes a factual mistake, she promptly corrects it. Liberals, however, have a tendency to call her a liar merely because they disagree with her position or analysis, misusing the word, rather than because she got the facts wrong.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/19/2007 @ 11:46 pm