PDA

View Full Version : From Horgan & Johnson


AemJeff
08-07-2011, 12:08 PM
Oh really? so when did psychiatrists stop practicing psychoanalysis? They just push pills now?

Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 12:19 PM
Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

But you never addressed my point, which speaks volumes.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 12:23 PM
But you never addressed my point, which speaks volumes.

You really didn't have one to address. An engineer might pick up a screwdriver every once in a while, but that doesn't mean that what he does is the same as what a mechanic does. And psychoanalysis is not a standard tool for psychiatrists, in any case.

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 12:28 PM
And psychoanalysis is not a standard tool for psychiatrists, in any case.

What is the standard tool for psychiatrists?

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 12:32 PM
What is the standard tool for psychiatrists?

Answered two posts ago. (err, three posts...)

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 12:39 PM
Answered two posts ago. (err, three posts...)

This post?

They're pretty much are mutually exclusive. One requires an MD and the other doesn't. A psychiatrist can prescribe medication, a psychoanalyst can't. Psychoanalysts engage in talk therapy ("the couch") and group therapy, and other behavioral modalities. Psychiatrists engage in the practice of a medical specialty (just like cardiologists, rheumatologists neurologists, and every other medical specialty.) There's really very little in common between them.

You ruled out scripts as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
You ruled out talk therapy as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
We're left with "the practice of a medical specialty."
Could you explain that?

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 12:55 PM
This post?



You ruled out scripts as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
You ruled out talk therapy as the primary tool of a psychiatrist.
We're left with "the practice of a medical specialty."
Could you explain that?

Psychiatrists might receive training in psychotherapy - to varying degrees - and there are certainnly psychiatrists who engage in psychotherapy; but their primary training is medical. (What is I "ruled out scripts" supposed to mean?) Psychotherapists are limited to "therapeutic communication techniques" and aren't qualified to make medical decisions, precribe, formally diagnose, or otherwise act as an MD. Psychotherapy and related modalities are the primary tools of a psychoanalist. That's not the case for psychiatry.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 01:00 PM
Psychiatrists might receive training in psychotherapy - to varying degrees - and there are certainnly psychiatrists who engage in psychotherapy; but their primary training is medical.

Just as I said, psychotherapy and psychiatry are not mutually exclusive.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 01:06 PM
Just as I said, psychotherapy and psychiatry are not mutually exclusive.

That's what I mean. "Not mutually exclusive" and "nearly identical" don't mean the same thing. You're abusing logic and language to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 01:11 PM
That's what I mean. "Not mutually exclusive" and "nearly identical" don't mean the same thing. You're abusing logic and language to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

I never said that psychiatry and psychoanalysis were nearly identical. I happen to know all of the things that you pointed out. I even know a real live psychiatrist personally and I've even talked to him about his profession. He used really small words and easy concepts so that I would understand.

Jeff, sometimes I lose all respect for you.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 01:40 PM
I never said that psychiatry and psychoanalysis were nearly identical. I happen to know all of the things that you pointed out. I even know a real live psychiatrist personally and I've even talked to him about his profession. He used really small words and easy concepts so that I would understand.

Jeff, sometimes I lose all respect for you.

Oh really? so when did psychiatrists stop practicing psychoanalysis? They just push pills now?

By your assertion if they're not practicing psychoanalysis, then they're "just push[ing] pills." That reads like a statement of close congruence to me!

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 01:46 PM
By your assertion if they're not practicing psychoanalysis, then they're "just push[ing] pills."

I don't see how what you are citing follows, but...
that was a flippant answer to your insulting post. In fact, for some reason, you always seem to feel free to insult me. However, I was demonstrating that I do know the difference between the pharmacological and psychoanalytical sides of psychiatry. And that I do know that psychiatrists are doctors and can prescribe meds while psychologists are not allowed that.(all of those things you were unneccesarily and snarkily informing me of) I assert that the average psychiatrist uses both methods and probably more if they are warranted.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 02:11 PM
That was a flippant answer to your insulting post. In fact, for some reason, you always seem to feel free to insult me. However, I was demonstrating that I do know the difference between the pharmacological and psychoanalytical sides of psychiatry. I assert that the average psychiatrist uses both if both are warranted.

I think I'm generally pretty careful about not insulting you harry, though I'm not entirely innocent of it (and that goes both ways, kiddo.) I think you're trying hard here to escape the underlying premise of what you asserted above, which seemed to me to be more about trying to needle Ocean than about any serious point in regard to the profession.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 02:36 PM
I think you're trying hard here to escape the underlying premise of what you asserted above, which seemed to me to be more about trying to needle Ocean than about any serious point in regard to the profession.

You are wrong about this. I am absolutely serious about the first assertion I made regarding psychoanalysis and her assertion that if someone is a current patient that means they are satisfied.

And I really don't like it when you tell me what it is that I'm trying to do. It's presumptuous and leads to the kind of animosity that has been evident in this exchange.

graz
08-07-2011, 02:59 PM
You are wrong about this. I am absolutely serious about the first assertion I made regarding psychoanalysis and her assertion that if someone is a current patient that means they are satisfied.

And I really don't like it when you tell me what it is that I'm trying to do. It's presumptuous and leads to the kind of animosity that has been evident in this exchange.

Here's what you said to Ocean's general comment about patient satisfaction:
This is defintely not true. While people may think that the time spent on the couch is a waste of time and that it's not helping, there is a strange psychology that tells them that their dissatisfaction may be (and probably is) resistance to therapy and that they should stick with it. It's a win-win for the practitioner.
Where is your evidence or proof for this strange comment about strange psychology?

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 03:21 PM
Here's what you said to Ocean's general comment about patient satisfaction:

Where is your evidence or proof for this strange comment about strange psychology?

Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.

look
08-07-2011, 04:08 PM
Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.Like any other line of work there are good practioners and bad. Lawyers, remodeling contractors, etc.

Yes, the situation you raise may be fairly common, but I think the wise therapist will establish ground rules at the beginning of treatment to specify that it's possible there will not be a good fit between therapist and patient (and that either may terminate the treatment), how long therapy is expected to last, etc.

I would wager that a bigger problem than mentally/emotionally coerced continuation of therapy is the abandonment of therapy by patients who are reluctant to 'do the work.'

graz
08-07-2011, 04:18 PM
Here's how it goes. Someone has a problem. He goes to a mental health practitioner. The patient is in an asymmetrical relationship with that practitioner. The practitioner is being paid to help the person with his problem. Further, if the person with the problem is in a vulnerable state when he is seeking that help, which he generally is, that person is not the normal type of consumer and this is one way in which he is not...
Why apply free market principles to this issue? Does everything in life reduce to this for you?

One of the aspects of analysis or counseling is resistance to change, so that if the person who is seeking help is not feeling he is really getting the help (product) he needs or wants, one of the reasons could be that that person is resisting change and blaming it on the practitioner. But another possibility is that the person really isn't being helped. That person is in a double bind and there isn't an objective way to know the correct reason. I mean if the roof leaks, you can sue the roofer for a shitty job. How are you going to prove that the practitioner was no help. It's completely subjective.

Here you're focusing on the subjectivity of psychoanalysis. So, duh?

I'm sure there must be a clinical term for this dilemma other than strange psychology, but I don't know what it is.
The dilemma is restricted to limited applications. Your larger point is lost beyond that realm. Depression or schizophrenia are not easily reduced to market calculations. The complexity requires deeper examination. Even if the doctor/patient dynamic is asymmetrical are there any realistic alternatives? Are you in the do nothing camp ... just as you are regarding most government action?

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 04:34 PM
Discussion - Psychiatry vs. Psychoanalysis

Ocean: psychiatry and psychoanalysis are different fields/disciplines.

Harry: There could be (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=220582&postcount=71) some overlap between the two?

Jeff: No, there’s virtually no overlap (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=220585&postcount=74) in disciplines. Psychiatrists can write prescriptions; psychotherapists cannot. There’s very little in common between them.

Harry: So, the only difference is the ability to write prescriptions? [substantive question]

Jeff: You have poor logic, low self-esteem and you speak nonsense. [ad hominem]

Harry: Address the point. [repeat substantive question]

Jeff: There’s nothing to address. [dismissal based on prior ad hominem]
Jeff's metaphor translated: Psychiatrists and psychotherapists may both engage in couch talk, but their jobs may not be similar (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=220590&postcount=79).

* Analysis: Here, Jeff subtly changes his adamant "virtually no difference" to a "possibly no difference" and matches Harry's original question. Harry's original wording approximates "jobs are not mutually exclusive"; Jeff's original wording approximates "doesn't mean they do the same." However, Jeff created a metaphor for job roles (engineer/mechanic) when Harry's original question was about job description.

Me: Then what’s the standard tool for psychiatrists?

Jeff: I answered this very clearly already.

Me: Can you explain again?

Jeff: Psychiatrists are MDs, which allows for legal drug dispensing powers; psychotherapists cannot deal drugs.

* Analysis: Jeff's answer now matches Harry’s assumption that primary difference in job description is M.D.'s legal power to write prescriptions. Note, Harry was berated for having poor logic.

Harry: That's exactly what I said. [Seems so]

Jeff: No, you said they’re nearly identical. You are abusing the English language. [Jeff commits fraud while accusing Harry of fraud]

-------

No, Harry. You're not insane. But, I do question your sanity for putting up with this abuse for so long. That seems like masochism.

Here's the problem. Jeff has Nazi logic.

I pointed this out before during the racism debate. He's substantially toned down his rage toward me since then. And it's in my cynical nature to believe that it's because he knows that I can see through him, even if he knows his own in-group members cannot see. But, I could be wrong. Let me digress.

Let's talk a moment about how actual genocides happen. Why do people always take away the wrong moral lessons? Why do we repeat history? Because humans are hardwired into making in-groups and out-groups. This propensity is particularly strong in liberals, but it's not an exclusively liberal failing. It's just human nature. And when thinking about real WWII Nazis, the reaction is always, "OMG, they're evil. Good people could not have done that." But that's fundamental attribution error. What?

Think about it. Do you think that millions of Germans just OK'ed the systematic extermination of Jews because Germans wanted to do evil? No. They wanted to do good. Getting rid of Republicans, I mean Jews, is for the moral good. The Tea Partiers are terrorists with no regard for anyone. They are inhuman. -- And with that? An out-group person is slandered, beaten, abused, ridiculed, but the in-group members turn a blind eye. This happens all the time on this board, particularly with Gang of 12 members. Those not in the Gang of 12 seem far less prone to this behavior.

Why do liberals always fail to grasp the fundamental pre-requisites for Nazism. It's not a coincidence that the long form name for Nazis is the National Socialist Party. These people did not wake up each morning to say, "What evil can I do today?" No, they said, "How many Tea Partiers (Jews) can I kill to make the world a better place?" Evil in such magnitude can only come from an overriding moral purpose; this propensity to do good, no matter the cost.

Right? No? You doubt me?

Then another explanation is that Germans are genetically evil. What? But that's racist! Yes, it is. So, it's okay to engage in racism as long as we're limiting it to Nazis? No, of course not, for fuck's sake.

Then what?

Evil happens whenever an in-group decides that the out-group is evil. Evil is a self fulfilling prophecy. Evil happens when you declare another person is evil. Evil happens when you believe that you're so adamantly right that you need to shut the other person up. It's when you feel that we'd all be better off if we just wiped the "others" out, tuned "them" out, didn't have to listen to them, shut them the fuck up, put them on an ignore list. You ever wonder why so many libertarians are into philosophy? Because if you have basic respect for people as individuals and not groups, it would never get to genocide.

The liberals on this board, in their zeal to protect the abstract, imagined victims of their mind then engage in bullying against the non-abstract and very real "enemies" on this board. Genocide can only happen when the in-group believes in a moral purpose. This purpose has the effect of de-humanizing the out-group. It cannot be done another way.

Am I accusing Jeff of having genocidal ambitions? No. Gang of 12? No. They are not inherently evil. Then again, neither were the actual Nazis of WWII. Nazis were evil precisely because they believed that their purpose was for doing good. Life would be better without those greedy Republicans. Substitute Republicans for Jews. This is Human Failings 101. To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 04:37 PM
Why apply free market principles to this issue? Does everything in life reduce to this for you?


Here you're focusing on the subjectivity of psychoanalysis. So, duh?


The dilemma is restricted to limited applications. Your larger point is lost beyond that realm. Depression or schizophrenia are not easily reduced to market calculations. The complexity requires deeper examination. Even if the doctor/patient dynamic is asymmetrical are there any realistic alternatives? Are you in the do nothing camp ... just as you are regarding most government action?

I have nothing but disdain for your reply. You asked me what I meant and I told you.

I said nothing about most of the things you are mentioning. Your stupdiity is incredibly predictable

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Like any other line of work there are good practioners and bad. Lawyers, remodeling contractors, etc.

Yes, the situation you raise may be fairly common, but I think the wise therapist will establish ground rules at the beginning of treatment to specify that it's possible there will not be a good fit between therapist and patient (and that either may terminate the treatment), how long therapy is expected to last, etc.

I would wager that a bigger problem than mentally/emotionally coerced continuation of therapy is the abandonment of therapy by patients who are reluctant to 'do the work.'

All of what you say could be true. But what I was narrowly responding to was Ocean's assertion that if a person is still being treated, that person is probably satisfied. I just think the psychoanalytic process can't really be described that way, considering the participants and for the reasons I described. This doesn't reflect any opinion I may have about the benefits of mental health practices, only the dilemma it embodies.

Just consider the power of the placebo effect.

badhatharry
08-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Discussion - Psychiatry vs. Psychoanalysis



OMG!!That was a hell of a lot of work! what a litigator

graz
08-07-2011, 04:46 PM
Am I accusing Jeff of having genocidal ambitions? No. Gang of 12? No. They are not inherently evil. Then again, neither were the actual Nazis of WWII.

Hey Koch King, does that mean we're gonna get to the part where we can annihilate the most prolific poster (you in the last two months -- sound and fury signifying nothing)?

Is your promise of being too busy to participate regularly coming soon?
Because then we can call off the forum holy-cost!

graz
08-07-2011, 04:49 PM
I have nothing but disdain for your reply. You asked me what I meant and I told you.

That doesn't make it logical or valuable.
I said nothing about most of the things you are mentioning. Your stupdiity is incredibly predictable
They're your words not mine.

Wonderment
08-07-2011, 05:01 PM
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 05:06 PM
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

It's not his fault, people can't ever seem to control their crushes. I've tried to tell him I like him as a friend; but... <sigh> I guess these things just need to play themselves out.

Ocean
08-07-2011, 05:14 PM
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

In addition to his lack of honesty in representing how this piece of the discussion started: an antagonistic comment from badhat which is unrelated to the main topic of discussion. I tried to clarify that the topic is about the practice of psychiatry (in this thread we are discussing only the medication aspect) and not psychoanalysis. But that wasn't enough. It went off on a tangent from there.

This is defintely not true. While people may think that the time spent on the couch is a waste of time and that it's not helping, there is a strange psychology that tells them that their dissatisfaction may be (and probably is) resistance to therapy and that they should stick with it. It's a win-win for the practitioner.


And what's his obsession with the Gang of 12?

Doesn't he notice that some of the members are spam, others have disappeared from the forum, some are lefties while others are on the right? There's no significance to the group in this forum, what's the big deal?

Come on guys, this is a science thread, not a political battlefield.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 05:17 PM
...
And what's his obsession with the Gang of 12?

Doesn't he notice that some of the members are spam, others have disappeared from the forum, some are lefties while others are on the right? There's no significance to the group in this forum, what's the big deal?

...

Not too mention that it's an obvious joke related to something stupid Mickey once said.

Secret cabal devoted to enforcing party discipline on Bloggingheads.tv commentary. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/group.php?groupid=1)

Cripes.

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 05:25 PM
Congratulations SK! That comparison of Jeff and liberals to Nazis has to be among the top ten most ludicrous posts I've ever read on BH, and believe me, I've read thousands. Also, lots of extra credit points for inane verbosity.

Do you really want to engage in selective reading? I prefaced the Nazi portion with "let me digress." I finished with absolving your Gang of any genocidal tendencies. The in-group and out-group is clear. I did not try and hide any of it in obtuse language.

I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis. I was clear about that. But your group thinks like Nazis, and that's just a basic human failing.

look
08-07-2011, 05:28 PM
All of what you say could be true. But what I was narrowly responding to was Ocean's assertion that if a person is still being treated, that person is probably satisfied. I just think the psychoanalytic process can't really be described that way, considering the participants and for the reasons I described. This doesn't reflect any opinion I may have about the benefits of mental health practices, only the dilemma it embodies.

Just consider the power of the placebo effect.Gotcha. The key word is probably, and it would be hard to measure, and hard rely on the accuracy of any measurement (bias, etc.)

As far as actual psychoanalysis (as opposed to other treatment modalities, such as cognitive therapy), I suppose it may have a higher incidence of abuse related to extended contact over time, trust in the therapist, reluctance to disappoint, etc.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 05:29 PM
Do you really want to engage in selective reading? I prefaced the Nazi portion with "let me digress." I finished with absolving your Gang of any genocidal tendencies. The in-group and out-group is clear. I did not try and hide any of it in obtuse language.

I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis. I was clear about that. But your group thinks like Nazis, and that's just a basic human failing.

Hey, we've been absolved of having genocidal tendencies! Yeah!

But we have the basic human failing of thinking like Nazis. Boo!

I think SK needs more irony in his diet.

Wonderment
08-07-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm sorry, it was an extreme example to get a point across. I don't think any of you are real life Nazis.

Contrition acknowledged; apology accepted.


But your group thinks like Nazis...


Insult gratuitously repeated; lesson not learned.

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 05:41 PM
Hey, we've been absolved of having genocidal tendencies! Yeah!

But we have the basic human failing of thinking like Nazis. Boo!

I think SK needs more irony in his diet.

I didn't expect you to take it well. Self-reflection is hard to do. Your rationality is but an illusion. Your irrational emotions are the puppetmasters behind all of your rationality. This is the reason why you can't limit yourself to one donut, no matter how hard you try!

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 05:51 PM
Insult gratuitously repeated; lesson not learned.

What was the truncated portion, Wonderment? "It's a basic human failing." Why would you leave that out?

I'm pointing it out as a basic human failing that we all have. We're all capable of being Nazis, because the essence is in-group and out-group identities. You all think of yourselves as wanting to live moral lives and defending the weak. Right? But have you ever thought what it would be like to be in Harry's shoes? Just from the sheer numbers of all of you against her. Forget who's right or who's wrong for just a moment or who threw the first stone. There are just so many of you versus her. Doesn't that give you pause?

The cruelty that you all engage in goes unnoticed amongst you. But I notice it. Almost everyday. And it honestly makes me ashamed to be a liberal. Because then I have to wonder if my real life liberal friends are like this, too. And I really hate having to doubt the integrity of my real life friends.

look
08-07-2011, 05:58 PM
-------

No, Harry. You're not insane. But, I do question your sanity for putting up with this abuse for so long. That seems like masochism.
Jeff has a history of making statements he tries to back up with confused double-talk. E.G., in the what's wrong with being sexy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6875) thread.

As far as your Nazi comparison, I understand your point: Liberals here tend to think they're doing God's Work by attacking conservatives with insults and name-calling. Also, they seem to think that Godwin's Rule is a scientific principle, or something.

Sulla (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=220495&postcount=159) said something yesterday to Jeff:

My objections to your statements are a window into my "inadequacy". Just like the politics of critics of the President are windows into their "psychosis". Totalitarians used to do this about fifty years ago, deviancy from political orthodoxy was a sign of mental illness.

When I was younger, I saw this happen in real life. Some men would hit on a woman, and if she rejected him, he would say to his friends that she was a lesbian. After all, what other possible reason could there be for their dialogue not to go his way?
Read the whole exchange between them, if you haven't already. Jeff tries to laugh off things he said earlier, but couldn't or wouldn't defend.

AemJeff
08-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Jeff has a history of making statements he tries to back up with confused double-talk. E.G., in the what's wrong with being sexy (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6875) thread.

As far as your Nazi comparison, I understand your point: Liberals here tend to think they're doing God's Work by attacking conservatives with insults and name-calling. Also, they seem to think that Godwin's Rule is a scientific principle, or something.

Sulla (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=220495&postcount=159) said something yesterday to Jeff:

Read the whole exchange between them, if you haven't already. Jeff tries to laugh off things he said earlier, but couldn't or wouldn't defend.

If I have a problem (and I do!) it has to do with unwillingness to let things go and stop defending what I've said until long after it's become clear that there's neither good faith nor good will to be had from some of my interlocutors. Simply pointing to a conversation and applying an adjective isn't an argument. In fact, have you ever offered a detailed argument, as opposed to catty insinuations and muddled retorts that ignore whichever parts of your interlocutors' arguments you either don't understand or don't find convenient?

graz
08-07-2011, 06:58 PM
But have you ever thought what it would be like to be in Harry's shoes? Just from the sheer numbers of all of you against her.

Yes I have. That is to say, incessant posting of all and anything to derail, deride and undermine any liberal premise used in furtherance of an argument.

It cuts both ways Koch King. Everyone is aware, if not proud of the terms of engagement. You could remedy it by changing your style as well. But of course you are above reproach, as well as deluded:

And it honestly makes me ashamed to be a liberal. Because then I have to wonder if my real life liberal friends are like this, too. And I really hate having to doubt the integrity of my real life friends.
Honestly?

sugarkang
08-07-2011, 11:25 PM
Yes I have. That is to say, incessant posting of all and anything to derail, deride and undermine any liberal premise used in furtherance of an argument.
You're pointing out something we're all guilty of and trying to wield it as a weapon as if you weren't guilty of using the same tactics. Do you think your shit don't stink? People have different conceptions of what is morally right and wrong. You guys are the empathy party, but I see little of it outside of your own group. The GOP is the self-reliance party, so I don't hold them to the empathy standard. That's also my answer to...


Honestly?

At Match.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2300430/pagenum/2)

"Conservatives are far more open to reaching out to someone with a different point of view than a liberal is." That is, when it comes to looking for love, conservatives are more open-minded than liberals."

There are very cynical ways to interpret this -- and I don't think anything definitive can be said with just this vague piece of information -- but to be totally accurate, it does confirm my existing bias about liberals, i.e., their egotistical bias tends to be stronger than those of conservatives.

bjkeefe
08-08-2011, 09:30 AM
Harry, read about stuff before you state opinions in public. Really. And take a course in logic. I know you're resentful of Ocean, but saying silly incoherent things doesn't acdcomplish anything useful.

After all the poison spewed by badhat in the Horgan/Johnson thread, not to mention practically every other one she participates in, it is nothing short of amazing that the above is what was seen by the PTB as the starting point of the problem.

Aryeh
08-08-2011, 04:07 PM
As stated previously, the first post to be moved to "the dungeon" is not necessarily the first post that crosses the line. We have to make the slice somewhere, and it's usually not 100% clear-cut.

stephanie
08-08-2011, 04:21 PM
After all the poison spewed by badhat in the Horgan/Johnson thread, not to mention practically every other one she participates in, it is nothing short of amazing that the above is what was seen by the PTB as the starting point of the problem.

Not to mention how badhat targets Ocean when Ocean tries to avoid the interactions. It's really shameful that this is not seen as a problem.

badhatharry
08-08-2011, 07:20 PM
Not to mention how badhat targets Ocean when Ocean tries to avoid the interactions. It's really shameful that this is not seen as a problem.

Cute, now challenging Ocean's assertions is targeting her. Besides she gave up her self imposed silence so she was not avoiding anything.

BTW, do we have special rules about not targeting girls here? Or just for politically correct ones like you and Ocean.

Just wondering...

badhatharry
08-08-2011, 08:53 PM
you cut it at the perfect spot.

bjkeefe
08-09-2011, 12:23 AM
As stated previously, the first post to be moved to "the dungeon" is not necessarily the first post that crosses the line. We have to make the slice somewhere, and it's usually not 100% clear-cut.

You can protest all you want, Aryeh, but I'm not still not buying it. If there is some reason to have a dungeon for posts you all don't want to appear under the videos, then there is sufficient reason to make the proper calls both about which posts are problematic and which posts led to the problem.

Here, badhat did nothing in the posts preceding the one you chose as the starting point except (1) to pollute the discussion from the get-go with her usual willfully ignorant assertions about things she clearly knows bupkis about, and (2) to continue her standard shrieking about specific other commenters. I suspect the latter is due, once again, to her feeling threatened because another woman is clearly so much smarter than her, not to mention light years ahead of her in being able to keep her cool. I think anyone who has been appointed moderator of this forum ought to have been able to have picked up on this pattern.

Yes, yes, I know. In this soviet, there is no history. Every day is a new day. Alice in her wonderland always gets a clean slate.

I also suspect that what led to your choice about where to start the excision was driven largely by the usual Bhtv AAFW policy. Well, strike that. It's not "suspect." It's "I am strongly convinced."

This policy has been the principle thing that has driven me away from this site. No doubt to the delight of the person who signs your paychecks, not to mention the Limbaugh-listening and Fox-regurgitating crowd who seem to have become emboldened now that I and others can't be bothered to illuminate their howlers any longer, thanks to you and everyone else authorized to send posts to the dungeon.

I imagine you all are happy with what has been bought. Certainly, the wingnuts are. Just as certainly, many of this site's long-time core supporters are not. And now Bhtv, once interested in supporting intelligent discussion, has become just another cog in the RWNM, where liberals dare not speak except in polite murmurs while tugging our forelocks.

stephanie
08-09-2011, 12:18 PM
As stated previously, the first post to be moved to "the dungeon" is not necessarily the first post that crosses the line. We have to make the slice somewhere, and it's usually not 100% clear-cut.

I missed this post before. However, I'd point to badhat's own last post as evidence that she, at least, is taking the first post as evidence that only Jeff is being rebuked and that her contributions are being affirmed. It serves as encouragement of the true bad behavior in the thread.

badhatharry
08-09-2011, 12:35 PM
I missed this post before. However, I'd point to badhat's own last post as evidence that she, at least, is taking the first post as evidence that only Jeff is being rebuked and that her contributions are being affirmed. It serves as encouragement of the true bad behavior in the thread.

Right, we wouldn't want badhat to take anything to mean that she is not totally at fault for anything unseemly that happens on this site.

When you start critiqung people on your side for snark, your critiques will be substantive. Otherwise it's just your very personal and biased opinion.

graz
08-09-2011, 01:26 PM
Right, we wouldn't want badhat to take anything to mean that she is not totally at fault for anything unseemly that happens on this site.

Shakespeare: Protesting too much, etc ... They've already got your back covered through the affirmative action for wingnut program ... relax. Your begging and working the refs has paid handsomely.

rcocean
08-09-2011, 10:41 PM
This policy has been the principle thing that has driven me away from this site. No doubt to the delight of the person who signs your paychecks, not to mention the Limbaugh-listening and Fox-regurgitating crowd who seem to have become emboldened now that I and others can't be bothered to illuminate their howlers any longer, thanks to you and everyone else authorized to send posts to the dungeon.

I imagine you all are happy with what has been bought. Certainly, the wingnuts are...

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5R_pS0h5Qk&feature=related)

Sulla the Dictator
09-04-2011, 01:46 PM
This policy has been the principle thing that has driven me away from this site. No doubt to the delight of the person who signs your paychecks, not to mention the Limbaugh-listening and Fox-regurgitating crowd who seem to have become emboldened now that I and others can't be bothered to illuminate their howlers any longer, thanks to you and everyone else authorized to send posts to the dungeon.


My, my. It would seem that I am too new to know that the Bonaparte of Internet argument had once walked these boards. :rolleyes:

Sulla the Dictator
09-04-2011, 01:50 PM
I am admittedly a noob. But I haven't seen what badhat has done that merits these kinds of reactions to her. Admittedly, my discussion board background is much more......animated, heated.....but even with the civility which pervades here, she doesn't seem to cross the line in treatment of people. R

ledocs
09-04-2011, 02:36 PM
If you are ever really interested in questions like this, the Search functions for the forums, while far from robust, nevertheless allow one to get a very good sense of a poster's oeuvre, and of relationships with other posters, rather quickly.