Admin Announcement *** Announcement Concerning American Politics ***

[FreeinChrist]

What I'm getting is that character, as an issue for discussion, is now out of bounds. I remember when character was a big deal in political choices, especially among religious voters.

Name calling is a problem.
Criticizing a public figure is okay, but not statements like "________is just a lying idiot." Instead, state that the person was telling falsehoods and explain why.

That leads to a more intelligent conversation from what I see. As soon as we start complaining about a person with inflammatory language, those who disagree with get their backs up and fight.
But if you point to what you see as a lie, say that is not true and explain, then there can be some calmer discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

Name calling is a problem.
Criticizing a public figure is okay, but not statements like "________is just a lying idiot." Instead, state that the person was telling falsehoods and explain why.

That leads to a more intelligent conversation from what I see. As soon as we start complaining about a person with inflammatory language, those who disagree with get their backs up and fight.
But if you point to what you see as a lie, say that is not true and explain, then there can be some calmer discussion.

Seems sensible.

There's also the issue of a political figure assaulting the character of his own supporters, such as the famous example "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."

Think about what that person is saying about his own loyal supporters. Its the most vile and inflammatory assessment of their character, of many people right here at CF.

I'd prefer not to lose recourse to that quote, because it says something very important about either the man who said it - or the people he said it about. I'm really hoping its the former.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Calling a person a liar is flaming. Stating that what they said was wrong, false, untrue , or a lie is okay, but provide support that it was wrong.

You seem to be saying something other than Hammster on one point. Hammster has said it is not ok to call something a lie. I would assume that Hammster's take on this is that saying that would suggest that one had sure knowledge that the person in question was aware that they were telling an untruth while the person might actually have believed what they said was true. Certainly pointing out that something was untrue or false or wrong does not require mind reading so using those terms would IMO be more appropriate.

You have to be careful on that one. If someone believes it to be true, then they aren’t lying. It’s better to just address the issue and give a counter-argument.

I suggest the two of you need to be clear on this as we can't have contradictory messages from the moderators and , though I may be mistaken, it seems that this is a case in which you do not both have the same criterion.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes, it would be flaming.

Wait, what? I’m very confused, if someone is a liar we can’t call them a liar? That’s just fact not name-calling.

 

[Hammster]

Wait, what? I’m very confused, if someone is a liar we can’t call them a liar? That’s just fact not name-calling.

Everyone lies. So everyone, by default, is a liar.

 

[Skewpoint]

When posters vigorously defend a Public Figure that demonstrably would break forum rules on a daily basis, don't be surprised when rules get consistently broken. It's not our fault that a significant number of posters/population latched on to such a divisive figure. You made the bed, lay in it.

 

[Hammster]

Let’s be clear. You can point out where you think some lies are being told. For example, I think Joe Poll lied when he said xyz, and here is why.

You cannot call Joe Poll a liar.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes. Like I said earlier, the problem with saying someone lies, or is a liar, is that they may not see what they’ve done as lying.

Dos the same apply to all sins? Meaning we can refer to a specific instance of sin but not label someone based on their sins?

 

[Sparagmos]

Everyone lies. So everyone, by default, is a liar.

Yes that is technically true.

 

[Hammster]

Dos the same apply to all sins? Meaning we can refer to a specific instance of sin but not label someone based on their sins?

In general, yes.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Wait, what? I’m very confused, if someone is a liar we can’t call them a liar? That’s just fact not name-calling.

If one does not know what another person believes then one does not know whether the person is lying or just mistaken , wrong, gullible etc.. To unmistakably say that someone is a liar one would have sure knowledge that the other person purposely said something they knew was untrue ( which from what I can tell would either mean the person confessed to lying or that the accuser could read minds). Without that sure knowledge, by calling another a liar one might be saying something untrue oneself. If we are allowed to call anyone a liar because they made false statements then the person calling another a liar, when that other believed what they said was true, could be legitimately called a liar in return. It seems to me that pointing out the untruths ought to be good enough to carry on debate rather than stooping to name calling which enflames emotions and does not lead to more reasonable discussion but only to more emotional invective. If one is seeking emotional release one should look elsewhere than a debate forum.

 

[Hammster]

Here’s the problem. As soon as we say abc is okay, but def isn’t, then folks will try to get as close to def as possible. It just happens.

So let’s just be civil, and there won’t be issues.

 

[Halbhh]

Can I just ask for a little clarification of what constitutes flaming when it comes to public figures please? Would calling someone a liar if they lie frequently still be considered flaming?

I think it's really interesting to see, in addition to the site answer above -- 'yes' -- why that's also the Christian way (to refrain from such labeling of living individuals).

Christians are instructed by Christ not to judge in a condemning way, and the label 'liar' applied to a specific individual in a separating-them-out way especially before they are passed on carries a sense of meaning that that individual would always lie, and could never change, not even in the future. (God could make such a judgement, with His omniscience, but we can't we ought to know.)

While it might be true, often is probably, that many would indeed never change, we don't actually know who will and who will not. Because some will change, amazingly.

It is true that the ones that would be more likely to change tend to be those that are humbler.

Those who have that classical virtue of being unassuming/humble, a classic virtue recognized in most every nation throughout all of history.

And:

"“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

 

[Skewpoint]

Here’s the problem. As soon as we say abc is okay, but def isn’t, then folks will try to get as close to def as possible. It just happens.

So let’s just be civil, and there won’t be issues.

Posters are defending a figure that is demonstrably uncivil. Not a few rare instances of incivility, but almost a daily occurence through tweets. If Richard Spencer himself was posting here, how civil do you really think the discussion could be? And when other posters start defending the awful things he would say, why would they deserve civility?

 

[durangodawood]

Everyone lies. So everyone, by default, is a liar.

Designations like this attach to a habit that makes one stand out from the norm.

Its like saying someone has a "lead foot". You dont get that because you sped a few times here and there like everyone else has.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Posters are defending a figure that is demonstrably uncivil. Not a few rare instances of incivility, but almost a daily occurence through tweets. If Richard Spencer himself was posting here, how civil do you really think the discussion could be? And when other posters start defending the awful things he would say, why would they deserve civility?

May I suggest that posters are also likely to attack someone irrationally and call someone a liar because they disagree with that other person's opinion on what has occurred or what might be happening or what might be the cause of something? Can you explain to me why it is so imperative for people to call someone a name rather than to point out factual information to rebut the claim of that person? I suggest that name calling is only necessary for people that cannot make a sound argument and so have no recourse but an appeal to emotion.

 

[Hammster]

Posters are defending a figure that is demonstrably uncivil. Not a few rare instances of incivility, but almost a daily occurence through tweets. If Richard Spencer himself was posting here, how civil do you really think the discussion could be? And when other posters start defending the awful things he would say, why would they deserve civility?

I’m not going to make you act in any certain way. We are just explaining what’s going to happen.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Designations like this attach to a habit that makes one stand out from the norm.

Its like saying someone has a "lead foot". You dont get that because you sped a few times here and there like everyone else has.

I suggest that in politics the norm is to tell untruths.

 

[dzheremi]

Everyone may be a liar to some degree or another, but not everyone is president or running for president.

Have fun with the new rules, guys.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Everyone may be a liar to some degree or another, but not everyone is president or running for president.

Have fun with the new rules, guys.

They are not actually new , the mods are just telling you they are going to begin to enforce them more .