Previously, the great Kos himself did remark that a Diary is like entering someone's living room. If you don't have something worthwhile to say - then do not enter/just stay away. One should be looking to contribute or be enlightened. On this we should all concur.
Unfortunately, Net/web anonymity apparently grants license to the snide & rude.
Recently, another Kossack, who is near and dear to me and full of good faith - Horace Boothroyd III (I call him Mr. III), did put for the apropos Diary about methods of Counter Intelligence Programs titled "If you want to remain blissfully naive do not read this post" In Mr. III's D he details the issues of COINTELPRO (short for counter intelligence program) methodology of parties (bad faith) seeking to shut down/silence a discussion - without exposing yourself for doing so.
Mr. III does a thorough - intellectual - analysis of why we have pie fights within important posts, the ways of the subversives and the propaganda machinations thereof. There are 368 comments and 208 tips on Mr. III's D; and great discussions, banter and profound statements. I've re-read the entirety of them twice now. Going forth as a student of the class, I now seek to expand on the discussion with the remark that it should be a Conduct Rule here at DK that;
"Ad Hominem" attacks are verboten!
Personal Attacks are a Definitive NO NO here at DK
Recently, some commentors' and I were in semi heated debate over the Trayvon Martin case and Marissa Alexander doing 20 years. Though there were only 4 primary parties in the discussion, the word "troll" was utilized a couple of times. I immediately asked them to cease/desist from the name calling.
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character
---------------- rather than by an answer to the contentions made
The true history of the phrase is "argumentum ad hominem" and the Latin translates into the issue that it "is an argument against an opponent instead of against their subject of discussion" (same as the GOP saying they are going to NIX POTUS OBAMA - no matter what the program). It is what is also debated among legal scholars as an "informal fallacy" (being contrary via irrelevance).
Personal attacks serve NO good purpose here!
Ad hominem was utilized throughout the ages as a bad faith way for men to effort to put (keep) women in their purported place. So much so there's also the phraseology of "Ad feminam". When I learned of this politically incorrect vernacular years ago, I stopped utilizing the point of contention "is it your time of the month".
Personal attacks serve no good purpose.
As our wonderful Kos himself hath stated, when you enter a Diary, you are entering someone's house. Granted it is provided by Kos and his funding(ers); but that doesn't give any fellow Kossack the right to oppress. Be it newbies, old farts, hard heads, even venerates of this realm or hard liners.
You are in full bad faith/bad form if you argue that the person was a Yankee fan, therefore he can't be subjective/objective about the Diary on the Dodgers or Angels. One's circumstance, whom they are and/or guilt by association should NOT apply here - because we profess to be Progressive -
We are suppose to be better than that!
Killing the discussion by incongruity is what Right Wing Nut Jobs Do!
Pyramid of Discussion: Good Faith up top Bad Faith on bottom
A debate on issues is either legitimate or it is not. Legal eagles will argue that nothing is black and white - including the colors black & white. Granted there is basis for the "grey" area contentions. However, be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains a comment person knows their intent, emotions, thoughts and so forth.
Some people are good at conveying their thoughts to paper/ or computer keyboards and others are not. If you don't like what someone is saying - you may say so - but you should also stay in "good form" and detail the reasons why; instead of saying because you feel like it.
As for me there are 5 levels of discussion/argument going from good to bad.
- Refuting on point (discloses all links to subject matter, refute explicitly)
- Identifying what one believes are mistakes in facts, substance or logic pathways
- Contradiction (providing proof to the contrary)
- Tone of Contention/contrarian (responding with NO factual discussion)
- Ad Hominem attacks (attacking the person, character, or subject in bad faith)
Mr. III is on the record saying it is extremely bad form for anyone to come in as the first commentor making argumentative remarks - it KILLS the conversation. On this I concur. That is why this Rule of Conduct is so important. Wikipedia points out that there is a "Halo effect". Whereas humans are guilty of cognitive bias. Such as treating attractive persons as being one's with more intelligence or honesty and/or the opposite - dumb blonde jokes. One of the greatest human weaknesses we have is that we presume other people to either be all good or all bad. Hence RWNJ saying Obama wasn't borne here and thus all his efforts as POTUS are bogus. Bull [c]hit - We are ALL human, subject to being good or bad - regardless of birthplace!
If you were borne in France that doesn't mean you are a Chef or that I can't cook.
It is a simple matter of being a better realm of Daily Kos. I'm told by many that they left this realm because it is too frustrating. That is truly a shame. What good is it having over 1 million registered Kossacks; if only 10,000 come here anymore. (By the way, whose bright idea was it to make the web counts and stats of views invisible now)?
As for me, I've been trying to arrest (that is HALT) a band of "Bankruptcy RING" fraudster attorneys who stole my life savings and my children's inheritance (and have done far - FAR - worse). They perpetrate frauds without remorse or relent and my very own bad of bad faith parties are attacking me - defending the bad guys - calling me CT (without providing proof of their case), and/or also improperly calling for my banning.
These parties are defending Mitt Romney's crimes and call LaserHaas the bad guy!
You should not be allowed to call someone a troll, CT or RWNJ, unless you can prove your case. Otherwise, all you are really doing is what Horace Boothroyd III says your are doing. The RWNJ waying of destroying good faith debate through and "COINTELLPRO" playbook for killing discussion/ conversation.
At the end of the day, allowing the NIX of discussions
is a disease that will kill this realm!
This LINK is to a pyramid that details the top of legitimate argument;
then to the bottom of "ad hominem".