This is why I don't like name-calling on DU

[ellie_belly]

My cousin just posted a link on FB to an article on what's probably a pretty right wing site. He uses it as a reason to say both parties are the same.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rnc-star-mia-loves-wikipedia-reportedly-changed-to-dirty-worthless-whre%E2%80%99-who-is-a-house-nier/

RNC Star Mia Love’s Wikipedia Reportedly Changed to ‘Dirty, Worthless Wh*re’ Who Is a ‘House Ni**er’

There are screenshots and it seems legit based on my very cursory look.

We can't stop haters of any persuasion from editing Wikipedia entries in nasty ways, but we can try to keep our discourse above the ugliness. I feel sad at some of the things posted here about Clint Eastwood. I wish we could stick to facts, irony and the occasion mocking, without resorting to name-calling and mean-spirited judgement.

[patrice]

1. Name calling degrades even the best reasoning; it damages the result of one's case. The only

explanation I can think of for the use of name calling is that, because it damages the effect of reasoning, the point of a message, it is apparently more important than the truth one wishes to impart. Ugliness and the power to cause pain and anger are apparently more important than a reasoned truth.

If the message itself were more important, one would do nothing to damage it. When someone damages their own message with behaviors like name calling, their motivation appears very duplicitous, perhaps even dishonest, to me. I hope that you will keep that possibility of posters perhaps intending something other than reasoned truths, perhaps even something the opposite of reasoned truth, in mind.

[ellie_belly]

3. Thank you. And in this case, we give them reason to use real truth against us.

[kelly1mm]

5. Agree 100%. Although it was hard sometimes, I called President Bush, 'President Bush' or 'Bush'

not chimp, dimson or any other (admittedly clever) name. Republicans I call 'Republicans' or 'R's' not rethuglicans, republikkkans or any other name. To me it is a dangerous attempt to define 'the other' and lessen their (admittedly hard to find) humanity. Some posts here scare me with their rhetoric. Here is one in particular that says we need to curbstomp R' (also note the non-proper names in the OP):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021238938

There are other things about DU that sometimes drive me crazy as a Political Science instructor at a community college, but I love the perspectives I get and often incorporate them into class discussions.

[ellie_belly]

2. being reported now on Fox and other sites. We encourage this.

Fox and sites called Hot Air and Opposing Views.

She is living proof that the America Dream is still alive. However, it always amazes me how the left can’t stand people of color having conservative principles. Mia Love embodies hope and change, which isn’t bolstered by a bed of hot air. She worked for the American Dream, whereas Barack Obama and the Democratic Party want to destroy it under the thumb of a hyper-regulatory progressive state. It’s because Mia Love is black, conservative, and successful that the political left needs to smear and destroy her. She’s an aberration concerning their narrative that government is here to take care of you–ALL of you.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/08/29/despicable-mia-loves-wikipedia-page-hijacked-by-racist-left-wing-trolls/

[patrice]

8. Personal attacks on such figures only proves their point. & It's also un-necessary, because

negatives can be stated objectively, without the name calling and personal attacks.

[ellie_belly]

10. You should have written my OP!

You say it much better than I am.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. How are you saying 'we' (DU?) are encouraging insults like that on Wikipedia?

DU is very, very careful to stop racist comments. It's a banning offence here. There are endless arguments here about language, and the end group position is "do not use language that attacks people because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, the region they're
from" (and other group attacks).

If you claim there's something equivalent in what has been said about Eastwood here, then link to it. I've seen nothing remotely like the stuff that was done on Love's Wikipedia page. You appear to be volunteering, on our behalf, for blame about something that we are completely unconnected to.

If you've got a problem with what DU says, back it up with the quotes from DU, not what other people wrote on Wikipedia. And the whines from Beck's site, Fox, and Hot Air are all right wing - they are looking to blame left wingers without proof. Their argument is irrelevant.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. +1,000,000

[abumbyanyothername]

4. While I agree that we should refrain from name calling

While I agree that we should refrain from name calling and any other trivialization of the argument, let us not allow someone like Condoleeza Rice to brush of the offensiveness of the birther movement on the grounds that "there are extreme elements on both sides."

[ellie_belly]

9. Absolutely.

When someone on "our side" uses unnecessarily nasty arguments, though, it feeds her statement. Then there really are "extreme elements" on both right and left.

[backscatter712]

6. First, Glenn Beck's conspiracy site. Then FAUX News...

The Blaze is Glenn Beck's site.

People vandalize articles Wikipedia all the time, and 99% of the time, the vandalism is erased in a matter of milliseconds.

Glenn Beck's crew are creating a screech-fest out of nothing, and feeding it to the Limbaughtomized zombies in their base. Why repeat it?

And let me be blunt. Sticking to facts is why we lose. If all we do is spout logic like Vulcans, we end up sounding like Al Gore in the real world, and we get our asses kicked. Don't get me wrong - we need the facts, and we should use them as appropriate, but we can't limit ourselves and expect to persuade effectively.

Classic Greek persuasive strategy, courtesy of Aristotle, consists of logos, pathos and ethos. Logos is logic, and factual argument - very important, and we liberal wonks are very good at it, which is why we are, well, correct. But the right-wingers, lacking in logos, go straight for pathos, emotional appeal. Say what you will, but pathos works. They can lead half this country around by the nose by scaring them.

There's also ethos, or trustworthiness and legitimacy. And people like Rove and the Kochs are very good at attacking our ethos - we've got hundreds of scientists with all the logos in the world telling us that human-caused carbon emissions are altering the climate and causing great damage to the environment. The Kochs have half of our country believing that these scientists are part of some sinister conspiracy, and that global warming is a hoax. Thankfully, Romney doesn't have much in the way of ethos either.

But if we really want to win in the art of persuasion, we must master all three - logos, pathos and ethos.

Name-calling is a pathos argument - emotional appeal. Sometimes juvenile - it can damage our own ethos, but sometimes humorous, and used judiciously, persuasive. One of the classic pathos techniques, ridicule, is a powerful weapon, which is why a lot of us refer to Romney and Ryan as "Rmoney and Rayn."

The apparently brief name-calling attack in the Wikipedia article falls into the juvenile side of things, but like I said, such vandalism is quickly removed. Now Glenn Beck's site The Blaze is making a pathos attack, trying to tar us all with the acts of one kid (a logical fallacy - logos fail). I suspect it will make the usual rounds of right-wing propaganda sites, chain-emails and such, but I don't think it'll go mainstream.

Note that I'm dismissing the Blaze article by attacking their ethos - I don't think Glenn Beck is credible.

[ellie_belly]

7. Didn't know it's Beck's site. Good info. Thanks.

I'm all for persuasive rhetoric, but I don't think nasty name calling was every used by the best.

I know all about L, P and E. I studied rhetoric and am reading a great book right now that posits that Obama's lack of using good rhetoric diminishes his successes (Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln and Lady Gaga, by Joseph Romm, renowned climate blogger. HIGHLY recommended).

Google rhetorical terms/devices and take a look. There's no "ridicule" in there. It's more subtle than calling someone something nasty. Name-calling is often a turn-off, rather than a positive appeal to emotion. We need to ridicule. I agree. But we need to be subtle so we never give them fodder.

Just my two cents...

[backscatter712]

11. Allen West tends to be one of my targets.

Though rather than calling him a "house n*****" - which causes offense due to the racial slur and invokes counterproductive emotions, I tend to call him "Uncle Ruckus", which brings the memory of the character from The Boondocks and makes the point more effectively - like I said, ridicule works.

[ellie_belly]

12. There you go!

That's Shakespearean!