"Poutrage"... "waaaahmbulance"... "whine"... uh... guys...

[Zix]

... you use these terms, as far as I'm concerned, you've lost.

Nobody with a point to make would skip to lazily projecting values onto their opponent, would they? If your opponent's wrong, and you know it, say why. If you say "poutrage", "whaaaambulance", "whine" all you're doing is displaying your own inability to deal with another person's criticism of a something, whether their criticism is legitimate or not. Truthfully, the minute someone collapses to that level, even if I agree with them, I think, "oh, blech. What a cop-out."

RW trolls all over the place with nothing substantive to say collapse to this position ALL THE TIME, it's practically a defining feature of the right.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. What if a person really is a whine little phony fuck?

[Zix]

5. They are not going to change through being told as much.

And by pointing it out in reflexively insulting terms, you just end up looking as nearly as bad as they do. I'm guilty of this myself, but I try to avoid just copping out to calling people "whiny". If their complaint stems from unrealistic expectations it's much more likely to stick in their heads if you say "I think your complaint stems from unrealistic expectations."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Of course not.

If they're a whiny little phony fuck of course they're not going to change their mind.

And there's no point in bothering to try.

Which is why trying to debate them is futile.

[Zix]

30. I hope you don't mind my saying this but it's weird that you of all people seem to be

arguing for what are, as far as I'm concerned, worthless insults. One of my main problems with them is that they aren't even GOOD insults. They're just boring, predictable cop-outs.

The reason I think it's weird is that there was recently a very long and very heated thread in which you and another poster exchanged exceedingly terse posts over a subject on which you were bitterly divided regarding the treatment of a certain very old object and you didn't use any cop-outs at all. You were succinct, accurate, more than convincing, obviously knew exactly what you were talking about and probably released a great deal of information necessary to convince others who may have been confused on the topic that your position was the more reasonable. The thread of which I speak, and I know you will know which one I'm talking about, couldn't POSSIBLY be a more perfect poster child for the exposure of unrealistic expectations and over-sensitivity to useful criticism. You could have considered yourself entirely justified in shouting "poutrage" or any of the other cop-outs at any time. You did not. You stuck to your guns and thus your point became entirely and beautifully clear.

Would typing "waaahmbulance" have acheived this better?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Poutrage wouldn't be a good epithet for the person you're talking about.

Dipshit. Sure.

Fucknut. Sure.

Sockpuppet. Sure.

Woo woo. Yup.

Formal Thought Disorder. It works.

Ourbouros. Not mine but a good one.

Clusterfuck. Definitely.

Worthless piece of shit. I'd agree to that.

Poutrage? No, poutrage denotes insincerity. Like with the concern trolls: "Oh, I'm a lifelong dem, but I'm very concerned about blah de blah de blah...." They're not lifelong dems, and they're not very concerned.

"Would typing "waaahmbulance" have acheived this better?"

Waaaahmbulance would have gotten me in the exact same place as a lengthy series of rebuttals: exactly nowhere.

And it would have gotten me in there a whole lot faster.

Except in that specific case: the journey is all the fun.

[Zix]

48. Oh.

Well, I asked.

(note to self...)

[Echo In Light]

26. It speaks more so to the psychological makeup of those doing the name-calling than the target

It's not as though that driving factor is going to take the back burner to basic decency and civility, cause that's not what's fueling those who use the internet to name-call; they're here specifically for that purpose. That's the sort of mentality and discourse they exalt and promote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Which is worse.

Exalting and promoting name calling? Or exalting and promoting whiny little phony fuckery?

[Echo In Light]

33. The bigger the mouth online, the bigger the coward in real life

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. So you just called me a coward...

but you've got issues with people who use personal attacks and talk big online?

Did that make sense BEFORE you posted it?

[Zix]

40. Poster cuts a general garment of indeterminate size and you claim it's to your fit?

:thumbsdown:

I think I'm changing my mind about you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I've noticed neither of you are answering my question.

Bagawk?

[Zix]

47. welll....

I don't think the poster was calling you a coward...

I think poster was making a point about cowards...

But... I'm not the poster. So I have to leave it to them.

[spoony]

49. The simplest recourse when dealing with a "whine(y) little phony fuck"

is to put you on ignore like so many others have.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Who you calling phony?

But isn't putting people on ignore, or calling my a whiny little phony fuck, a little contrary to the point the OP is trying to get across?

[spoony]

55. Just making a suggestion for when you encounter someone like yourself

and find it too much to bear.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Oh, I wouldn't put myself on ignore.

Mostly because the ignore feature is for people who can't win arguments.

Plus I'm too damn sexy.

[spoony]

61. Which I don't suppose is ever a problem for you

because you seem to constantly confuse inserting poorly constructed word games and general snark with HAVING an argument to present, much less win with. Like the inane, almost monstrously dim-witted "calling a bully a bully is bullying" post downthread. The problem is that you genuinely think that's witty.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Is this about Obama's Nobel prize?

Are you still upset that people are making fun of the people who were poutraged over Obama's Nobel.

"Like the inane, almost monstrously dim-witted "calling a bully a bully is bullying" post downthread. The problem is that you genuinely think that's witty."

I don't think it's witty, I think it's correct. Calling a person a "bully" is an ad hominem, just like calling them a "poutraged whiner."

[Zix]

71. well...

An "ad hominem" is NOT a clever-sounding Latin term for "people saying nasty things about me", it is in fact the name of a kind of argument. It is NOT a fallacy, despite the fact that there are fallacious examples.

An ad hominem is when you assert that the qualities of a person making a statement undermine the statement. Given that statements can only rarely be logically evaluated with the status of those who utter them as a factor (the important case is statements that are in fact about about the person uttering the statement), MANY arguments whose structure follow the pattern: "What you say cannot be true because you are X" are *logically* false, but NOT ALL.

Calling someone a bully would only be a FALLACIOUS ad hominem IF the accused was making a statement unrelated to their alleged bullying behaviour, i.e. "I think clouds are white" AND the responder said: "you're only saying that because you're a bully!" A responder has made a FALLACIOUS ad hominem ONLY if the accused has NOT said something like: "I think you're a dork," because that WOULD be bullying, and thus the statement under discussion could indeed be caused by the fact that the accused is a bully. There is no logical disconnect. There's only a logical disconnect if the accused said something like: "I think rabbits ears are bad" and was told that they were a bully, because, you know, the idea that rabbits ears are bad should really be evaluated seperately from the idea that someone suggesting as much is a bully because really that shouldn't have have anything to do with whether or not rabbits ears are bad.

You are conflating the term "ad hominem" with the term "insult".

Go have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If you are contradicted on your position on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize by someone calling you a bully, they have made an ad hominem that is FALLACIOUS.

If you are contradicted on your position that "poster X is a fucknut" by someone calling you a bully, they have made an ad hominem that IS NOT FALLACIOUS, and in fact have pointed out that you are a bully.

It actually depends on WHAT YOU SAY.

It's of interest that very few people on the Right have the least idea of what an ad hominem is. They throw the phrase about quite happily in place of "nasty thing said about me" without even realising that all they've done is correctly classify their opponent's argument. Very often they haven't contradicted it at all. It's very common when they come out with bigotted things and are called bigots.

Now, if you don't want to hear the idea that you're a bully... maybe it's a good idea not to bully people.

Not that I'm accusing YOU of anything, I hope you understand. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Right

And if people don't want to be called whiners, they shouldn't constantly whine over petty things.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Call the Waaaahmbulance!!!111 Code Red!1!

[Zix]

6. Shrug.

It's just humourless and boring.

[Romulox]

3. Can we add "fail" to the heap? It's a conversation ender. nt

[Zix]

8. Yes. Almost all of these things are just placemarkers for "I can't be bothered,"

If you cant be bothered, why reply at all?

[Echo In Light]

27. Actually, there are many who LOVE being "bothered," which is why they reciprocate w/such zeal

[AngryAmish]

4. Nice poutrage, Hitler.

[Zix]

15. ...

:shrug: do you know any good jokes?

[AngryAmish]

17. no. that is as good as it gets.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. False dichotomy. I can point out the flaws in your argument AND that you whiny.

If you are using flawed argumentation and being whiny.

[Zix]

13. Why bother with it?

What's the point? All that happens is you piss people off and they end up ignoring the bit where you tried to point out the flaws in their arguments.

The reason behind pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments isn't to make yourself look clever its to convince them they have a flawed position. If you just irritate them, they are far less likely to put any effort into paying attention to what you think about anything.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. I'm not concerned about the whiners. They're never going to pay attention anyway.

I'm interested in getting bystanders to see that teabaggers and similar malcontents have forged an entire political movement out of their resentment and wounded sense of entitlement and don't, in fact, have a valid argument. What purpose does it serve to treat Glenn Beck and his fans like they have a legitimate grievance?

[Zix]

62. We've shifted subject...

Glenn Beck and his supporters don't post here, as far as I'm aware? I was talking to DUers about DUers.

Regarding teabaggers, there's no point in addressing them at all, you're quite right.

[dbonds]

10. I mistakenly unrec'ed this post.

I thought at first glance it was using those terms you are talking about. I agree with you and usually will unrec any post that has them in them. Those terms are the equivalent of elementary school name calling and does not belong on a discussion board.

[Chemisse]

11. Good point

If everybody stuck to discussion and arguments, the climate here would be much friendlier and the discussions more interesting.

[Fumesucker]

12. It's rapidly become a defining feature of the moderate centrists too..

:)

Edited to add: And it's clear you struck a nerve, the unrecs are piling up.

[Echo In Light]

32. Funny how moderate is closer to the Right

And name-calling and mockery is likewise a defining trait of their's.

There usually isn't a point to be made by such types, but rather, an attempt to rally a % against those w/unconventional views in hopes of getting those on the fence to 'join in' against the "CRAZY" ones ... who often sound far more intelligent and rational than do their detractors.

[Fumesucker]

34. I was a moderate here a couple of years ago..

Felt like I was pretty close to the center of political mass on DU.

Now I feel like I'm about to fall off the edge of the world on the left side.

Honestly, I don't think I've changed that much at all.

[spoony]

64. I feel that, too.

On some issues, particularly.

[Burma Jones]

14. I am with you

if only because you use your and you're correctly......

I do believe in calling out phony outrage when it's spotted.....

[LostInAnomie]

16. Sometimes you have to call it what it is.

[gratuitous]

18. I agree

For example, Ross Douthat concern trolling masquerading as a column today in the New York Times, going into excruciating detail about why President Obama should have declined the Nobel Peace Prize. And just reading it, you know for a fact that if President Obama had indeed turned down the Nobel Peace Prize, Douthat would have written his column sobbing about what an insult President Obama had perpetrated on the world, and how he had given a slap in the face to people of good will everywhere.

The only reasonable response to Douthat's column is, indeed, to name it poutrage. Anything more gives it a credence it doesn't deserve, and anything less would be praising with faint damnation.

[lunatica]

19. Who cares?

Beck whines. He throws little tantrums daily but you think we should abstain from pointing it out in two words or less? Really, why do you care?

[Fumesucker]

22. I've heard those terms slung around DU about other DUers often enough..

Now that we have a Dem POTUS, those terms have become very common toward other Dems here..

[Zix]

24. It doesn't achieve anything. It's a waste of effort.

Its not me that cares, it's the other way round, it's the spouters of "poutrage" that care, they just don't know enough enough to say anything meaningful, or certainly work hard to make themselves look as if they don't. They just sound like tiny Rush clones with different opinions!

If I thought someone was being ridiculously over-sensitive to something and cared enough to explain why I'd explain why but I wouldn't waste my time and look like a tit by saying "waaahmbulance" all that would mean is that I'd look as stupid as they did. If you've given up on them, why say anything at all?

There are a lot of otherwise intelligent posters on this board making themselves look stupid for no good reason. It's really irritating. I'm pretty impressed with the quality of posting of a lot of people here and this OP is me pointing out to the board in general that I think their posting is interesting and important enough that they could lose the crap, if that's okay with them, and that would be fine by me.

If you're that uninterested in the subject, why did you reply?

[lunatica]

29. My point is that if you don't want others to act childish then lead by example

Taking the time to elaborate is a waste of time when you're talking to the hit-and-run crowd. The less attention they get the better off the rest of us are.

[Echo In Light]

35. "why say anything at all?" Sadism, bullying, attempts to establish "acceptable" views

[Spike89]

21. As with most things, it is overuse and misuse that is the problem

Sometimes it is appropriate to hold a mirror to an idjit

[SIMPLYB1980]

23. Poutrage is like porn. I know it when I see it.

This post gets an unrec for Poutrage.

[leeroysphitz]

25. Some people really are insufferable whiners and saying so is often times the most

Satisfying way to dismiss their "arguments".

[anigbrowl]

31. Nobody with a point to make endlessly repeat threads on the same subject either

But it happens, for some topics. I don't have any specific debates in mind, but it's a fact that some people make arguments of the 'beating a dead horse' variety, and also a fact that some people protest something they dislike without articulating why it's a bad thing, but just by going on an extended rant about how they feel. Rant threads are usually the least informative ones.

[lib2DaBone]

36. Don't forget ,... "so you want a pony".....

.. when you even insinuate that elected leaders should do their job... you will be flamed.

8 years of Bush & Homeland Security hype has moved this country so far to the right.. that even Mother Theresa and the Boy Scouts are suspect...

[spoony]

51. Seriously, that pony line is so stupid

that anyone using it should have to wear a dunce hat avatar for a month.

[rocktivity]

38. I think you're wrong because I think you're overreacting

That is, you're outraged about something that only deserves to be pouted about--which is exactly what "poutrage" is.

P.S. Cue the DU "Cry Me A River" String Quartet!

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:
rocktivity

[Zix]

43. That subject line

is worth paying attention to. Your explanation is, too. I don't agree with you, because I think there's phenomenon on this board of disruptive, non-communicative posting hinged around and supported by the kind of stuff I expressed displeasure about in the OP that's a total waste of bandwidth making it difficult to read something that's often otherwise very useful and informative. I think it's worth expressing the displeasure because I think some people might change what they do. Posting rubbish isn't actually very rewarding and DU often IS very rewarding.

I think it's possible that the "delicious irony" magnet has somewhat attracted you...

[lib2DaBone]

57. You are correct.. I've resorted to "poutrage".......less painful...

[Bonobo]

39. "Lost" what exactly?

Is this a game to you?

[Zix]

50. No, not a game. An argument. The same term is applied to both.

[JNelson6563]

44. Such terms can be effective in other ways though.

Certainly not for productive discussion, no. But there are times when DU's all in a dither about this or that, and the usual suspects are fulfilling drama queen roles, toss out a "poutrage" or two on the way out the door. Get on with real life while the practitioners of hysterics get a new target to swarm. :toast:

Julie

[Echo In Light]

45. Interesting quote:

"The vehemence with which a person denies the existence of the serial bully is directly proportional to the congruence of the person's behavior with that of the serial bully." ~ Tim Field

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Isn't calling people a "bully" a form of "bullying?"

And the sort of dismissiveness the OP is refering to?

[Zix]

66. Not really.

It could conceivably be genuinely used as such but you have to leave the accusation out of the "insult" class so that actual bullies can actually be called out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. So what about calling out actual whiners?

[Zix]

72. Objecting to people objecting to things?

Uh... It doesn't make any sense. Either you disagree with what someone is saying because of what of it IS or because you are reacting to the emotional overtones and if you're sufficiently sensitive to oppose someone's position simply on the grounds that its an objection to something... ummm... you're not so much calling out whiners as whining yourself.

Sorry.

[stuball111]

46. Another defining characteristic of the right...

Taking ones opinion on a topic and twisting words around to make a counter claim, or browbeating a person with an opinion. I was recently accused of being a "fundie" for taking a spiritual approach to a subject, and I am no where near that mentality! Also, in trying to explain certain beliefs of native Americans toward nature, was hit with what savages they were to each other and the land. The GOP regularly does this. When the recent outrage over comparing Obama to a Nazi was decried on TV, all the righties would say was, "Well, what about how the left treated Bush?" This is a signature tactic by the right to evade having to answer a direct question on right wing behavior,just listen to Michelle Bachman.... she is a master at this!

[spoony]

53. K/R, not that it'll help with all the stinging consciences

unreccing like crazy.

[Zix]

65. Unrec's a bunch of crap as well.

It's just a useless communication block.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. Yeh, but sometimes people do poutrage and whine in silly and stupid ways.

[omega minimo]

58. DU Admin earlier this year banned the use of "Poutrage" -- didn't they?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Sort of.

I think they got a lot of complaints from whiners.

[SIMPLYB1980]

70. LOL!

:toast:

[petronius]

68. The beauty of internet arguments is that everyone gets to declare 'victory'

however they see fit. Personally, when I see someone try to put words off limits, or declare 'automatic-you-lose' rules, then I conclude that they've 'lost'...

Also, sometimes what's wrong with a post is that it's sniveling whiny poutrage. In which case, there's nothing wrong with saying so.

[Zix]

74. "poutrage" is shorthand for

"you object to something, therefore you're wrong".

Obviously, this is completely stupid.

It's not off-limits and I indicated only that it's "automatic-you-lose" when *I'm* reading it, although I suspect I'm not alone.

If someone is "whining", hey, you can say so, but all you're really doing is venting frustration. If you want them to *stop* whining, you have to tell them why.

[Iggo]

69. Oops...