In the past few months, the tactics the right uses on a regular basis have been laid plain for all to see. First we had the 14 points, nearly all of which I saw on The Smallest Minority during my time there. Then we had the purest definition of The Rove, as explained by Richard Clarke. That one we can see nearly every day, squirting forth from the right wing media industrial complex and all the way into my comments section.
But there has always been something missing...a tactic that I've experienced many times. It's kind of like "Projection/Flipping" but not quite. Sort of like The Rove but not nearly there. Some recent comments have lead me to an epiphany. Here's how it works for you first time users.
Step 1: Whether knowingly or unknowlingly, use ad hominem attacks, genetic fallacies, straw man arguments, hand waving, and any other sort of nonsense that pops into your head.
Step 2: While the liberal is reflecting (silly liberals), accuse HE or SHE of using any or all of those tactics.
Step 3: As the silly liberal sputters out a comment which will likely be along the lines of "But wait, that's what you are doing" laugh, point at them and reply, "BWAAHAHAHA! That's your response? 'No, YOU are!' Hahahahahaha! What a child!"
Congratulations! You have just completed The ARWB Three Step (that's arrogant right wing blog or blogger, depending upon on your situation).
Add this to the 14 points and The Rove and you have pure magic, my friends.
Pure Magic
14 comments:
An oversight I'm sure - you left out the most original, insightful, and above all, accurate list of the bunch!
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
Not at all, Hap. Your link is falls under the first two items in the list in step one:)
>Your link is falls under the first two items in the list in step one:)
That bit of avoidance truly speaks for itself. :)
And, again, projection/flipping. By keeping the focus on me, you guys avoid the facts that I present and the truth in what I say. It's not me that's doing the avoiding. It's simply not possible for any of you (especially Kevin and DJ) to have a discussion without having a debate about me personally. Odd, considering your assurances that you guys are all about logic and facts.
Over the years, however, I take comfort in the fact that every time the SROM come up, it means that you think I'm winning or am right:)
"Nuh-uhhh! Takes one to know one! I'm rubber and you're glue! Bounces off me and sticks to you!"
And then I truly believe that chanting that actually proves something.
Obviously missing the point of this post...
I'm in favor of sticking to the topic and laying off the personal analysis of Mark and his stylings. It comes off as weak and insecure.
Mark and his stylings
That is an interesting way of putting it. However, the canon of Markadelphia assembled at TSM amply covers it.
The "canon of Markadelphia?" What does that even mean? It seems to me that you guys are overly obsessed with Mark when your focus should be on the issues. That's why I say it comes off as weak and insecure. If he's wrong, explain why rather than the personal analysis and comments.
>I'm in favor of sticking to the topic and laying off the personal analysis of Mark and his stylings.
So, you don't like this post by Mark, I take it? Or did you think he was doing something other than what you say above?
>And, again, projection/flipping.
Oh? How so?
>Over the years, however, I take comfort in the fact that every time the SROM come up, it means that you think I'm winning or am right:)
Oh my - you've really convinced yourself of that? You're awfully good at figuring out these apparently common situations where "Mark is right and those dastardly commenters know it but they just won't admit it. But Mark knows better!"
For the record:
conversations with Mark usually get personal in one form or another because of commenters get frustrated with Mark's persistent tendency towards misrepresentation, obfuscation, or willful ignorance. Once might be a fluke. Twice might be a brain fart. Hundreds of times is just the way he is. He did these things so many times, and so often, that the commenters over at TSM compiled them into a list so they could reference it whenever Mark used one of them - a "styling" as Eric calls it. This took place over about 3 years, spanning perhaps 100 different comment threads, starting about 4? 5? years ago. Now, of course, to hear Mark tell it, everyone at TSM was a bunch of intellectual lightweights and Mark was the brave and intelligent truth teller who just couldn't get through to those benighted souls. A pleasing fairy tale, no doubt, but still a fairy tale.
And now, here's Mark, having found his own lists of standard responses for conservatives, trying to tell us that that TSM list is BS and his lists are troof. Of course.
Hey Eric, nice to actually have an exchange. M's "stylings" as you put it - are pretty fully catalogued in the above link (to TSM). The reason that those were compiled is because that is exactly what he does.
I am more than happy to have the discussion focused on facts, reason and logic - those just tend to be in short supply amongst most liberals and an awful lot of conservatives. I tend to get frustrated that M - let alone the YLDP - don't respond to the above, but get really going when the going gets nasty. Sometimes I have a better sense of humor about it and just remind myself that it is only Leftboro Baptist preaching and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I appreciate it, juris. There don't seem to be too many liberals that post here and I just thought it was sort of unfair to focus on Mark so personally when we could be discussing the facts and the evidence. Some of your posts have stuck to that and I hope there are more. I'd like to see the same thing from Haplo 9 here but he still seems to be obsessed with some sort of personality battle with Mark. I don't get it. Haplo 9, why can't you just say something like, "Mark's wrong and here's why." ? Follow this by evidence.
There don't seem to be too many liberals that post here
Strangely enough, there aren't - let alone ones that can think and are articulate. By all means, peruse M's archives to understand why some of us tend to snap so quickly at his malfeasance. In most cases, I don't start off nasty - I start off by asking a fairly simple question; which if I get a response at all, is a tango all around what was initially asserted.
>. I don't get it. Haplo 9, why can't you just say something like, "Mark's wrong and here's why." ?
That's how I typically start threads, believe it or not, but they usually devolve. There is an exception for me, which is posts like this one, where Mark isn't trying to make any sort of testable or rational claim - he's just speculating about how those wily conservative minds work. With those sorts of posts I'm happy to just make fun of his overdeveloped sense of self worth.
For a more serious thread and a great example of why it devolves into personal attacks and general frustration with Mark, I suggest a careful reading of http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/05/images-explain-so-much.html
Mark made a very specific assertion about the Republican party, and first I, (and then Guard Duck, as I learned today; I had given up on the thread), challenged him to support that assertion. He provided two links, neither of which supported the assertion. When we pointed out that his links didn't support his assertion, he retreated into handwaving, complaints about rectal exams, and mysterious claims that he had evidence for the claim he just didn't feel like wasting time to present it. He did everything but support his assertion. Now, Eric - can you really not figure out why that leads to frustration? Is it really that unreasonable to think that if someone makes an assertion, they should support it, or, not being able to do that, withdraw it or clarify it? I'm really curious as to why you think that is unreasonable, if your answer is yes.
Post a Comment