Less than sincere

I wouldn’t know where to research the numbers, but I do wonder how Wide Awakes Radio did in its first week.

My hypothesis would be that it didn’t do very well, and Jay is looking for red meat to draw into just the scenario you outline.

How does he get past “Some meat doesn’t think. Some does” to believe you’d be remotely intrigued?

This sorta reminds me of that time Gribbit challenged us to a fight in Cleveland, only without all the physical violence. “I’d love to debate you/punch you in the face! Here are the rules: I pick the time, the place, and the subject/fist!”

Where’s the fries?

You should insist on debating via e-mail so that he can’t hang up on you, change the subject, name call, use straw men arguments, etc.

Anyone who has listened to right-wing talk radio for more than 45 seconds knows these folks don’t “debate” — they harangue. In a text medium, like the web, it is a simple matter to dissect an argument sentence by sentence, provide links to supporting documents, and take the time to craft a valid argument. All of that is either immensely more difficult, or impossible, in an audio medium.

Rhyleh… neither email nor the web prevents one from employing the tactics you mention — but a text medium does make such tactics much more obvious when they are used.

If Jay wants to ‘debate’, he is welcome here any time. Somehow, though, I don’t think we will be seeing much of him round these parts…

”...but a text medium does make such tactics much more obvious when they are used.”

I am also certain that “debating” would involve him spewing invective, making broad unsupported generalizations, using false choices, straw men arguments, ad hominem attacks, and so on, but that’s exactly the reason to tear him apart point by point using patience, citations, logic, and reason. The goal isn’t to cause him to burst into tears and admit you’re right, the goal is to plant seeds of doubt, to get him to think about uncomfortable questions about the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of conservatism.

We shouldn’t give up on trying to persuade conservatives just because many are unpleasant to talk to. Certainly you seem to be aware that the harder they bloviate, the less they actually know, much like callow school children. Why not do the charitable thing and raise the questions he’s been avoiding?

Of course Jay is going to spew invective, make broad unsupported generalizations, employ false dilemma and straw man arguments, and launch ad hominem attacks. That’s what Jay does.

I don’t believe that it is possible to plant any “seeds of doubt” in Jay’s mind, or get him to think about any uncomfortable questions. But I believe it is possible to do that for those who read his posts.

“But I believe it is possible to do that for those who read his posts.”

Why would people who read his posts be any more open minded? Isn’t it more likely that people who read such an obscure author with such an extreme niche view are reading him precisely because his product affirms their narrow world view?

Cracking open minds is not pleasant or easy work, but I urge you to reconsider its possibilities and importance. If we liberals cannot persuade those who disagree with us, then we cannot grow in numbers or intellectual diversity. Besides which, creaming this guy in a fair fight, patiently, using facts, would be child’s play, if you can wade past the insults and disect the incoherent responses. I will volunteer to argue him if you so desire. I am trying to finish an e-mail debate with newcomer Con right now.

I’m not planning on listening to that W.A.R. nonsense, not even for entertainment value. If their writings are any indication, it’ll be like amateur hour at Rush Limbaugh.

What are you saying that boils down to an action, Rhyleh? It sounds as if you think our host should take Jay up on his offer, and, if he does not wish to do so, you will step in and do it for him. If I am reading you correctly, I disagree with the first part and find the second part condescending.

If you want to debate Jay, you see his email address above. Go for it on your own, but do not be sanguine about the odds on his agreement to email or neutral, non-edited blogs. You need no permission from anyone here, but neither do you (nor I) get the blazon of ThinkingMeat spokesperson.

Frankly, I doubt you have read enough here or at StoptheACLU to comprehend TM’s “persistence” that Jay “admires.” If you had, you would have forgone the lecture on the importance of patience, citations, logic, and reason.

The problem in a nutshell is your sentence “Besides which, creaming this guy in a fair fight, patiently, using facts, would be child’s play.” Jay is not offering a fair fight. In his view, he is not even offering an exchange between equals, unless the sentence “I think you are a complete ass” is new terminology in debating circles to identify a respected advocate for the opposition.

Here is what I am saying:

1. Debate these guys. Since there can be no real debate on the radio, insist on e-mail as the format. Don’t accept the terms Jay proposes as the only means of debate. If his terms are so obviously unfair, point out how and use that to counter offer and goad him into e-mail. Perhaps concede a term, like letting him choose the topic. It has worked for me in getting Kender to e-mail debate me.

2. If Jay doesn’t accept, you win by default. If he does and uses his time to spew invective, tear it apart patiently and use facts to show he is wrong. As for the name calling, ignore it and counter with substance. Be persistant. It really isn’t hard to do. When he realizes that you are serious and can’t just call names or use his usual techniques, he will start crumble, and it will all be worth it.

2. Nobody, including our host or Jay “has” to do anything I suggest. It’s just that failure to debate on our part is an unnecessary show of weakness, since any one of us could easily win an argument in e-mail.

3. I am not being condescending in my offer, nor do I seek to be Thinkingmeat spokesperson. I will talk to Jay when I am done with Kender, and debate him in the same way. If Meatbrain wants to simply let them be idiots, that’s his choice. I would rather attempt appealing to reason and fail knowing that I at least tried, rather than simply shoot fish in a barrel. It’s more interesting.

4. Dixie, you have no basis to estimate how much I have read here or otherwise. I have chosen to believe it is worthwhile trying to convince people who at first glance appear to be resolutely close-minded. If I waste my time I don’t really see how that’s your concern.

What you are implying is that you have read more about “these people” and I shouldn’t question your judgment that they are beyond reason. Maybe they are, but what would any of us lose by trying, besides time?

I mostly agree with Rhyleh’s tactical advice, with the major point of disagreement being the choice of medium. I prefer the web to email, because the web is by nature a public medium. If an argument has any value, it is worth making that argument in public.

That is a good distinction, and really I think a matter of personal preference. They key is that these silly ideas don’t go unchallenged.

Personally, I think when people argue over the web, they do so with the concious awareness that they’re speaking in public. Judging by the character of Jay and his cohorts, I’m not sure that would make them more or less civil. Certainly they seem pretty unashamed to make fools of themselves.

Meantime, I am still waiting for Kender to respond to my latest. I think he may have given up.

meathead, if you don’t have teh balls to go head to head with Jya just say you’re a fucking pussy, asshole!!!

I know if you wont’ take Jay up on the offer (who is a quiet pussycat compared to me) then you certainly won’t take me up on teh offer, but the offer stands.

BTW, yes, we did so badly on our first day that we ran through 90 gigs of bandwidth in less than 12 hours and damn near crashed the server.

As it stands we have more listeners than err america…..and I see you still have as many readers as they do listeners.

So while Kender has so kindly demonstrated the type of mentality you would have to wade through, I remain guardedly optimistic that you will nonetheless hold your nose and try an actual debate. I realize that comment 14 illustrates how unappealing that is.

BTW, Kender, your radio show is not even terms, for the reasons I explained in our e-mail exchange, and I am fairly certain that you are calling names here merely to ensure that Meathead doesn’t debate Jay. Meantime, when you and I are done our conversation, I will talk to Jay regardless of what Meathead does.

I am going head to head with Jay… on the web. Kender, of course, lacks the balls to do that with anyone, unless he gets to edit the comments of his opposition. And when that doesn’t work, he is always happy to make death threats. Both tactics are a clear indication that Kender is simply not capable of adult, rational debate.

Good luck with your debate with Jay, Meathead. Although it is likely a waste of time, you never know. Meanwhile, Kender has decided to “temporarily” suspend his end of the debate while he works on his station.

I might make use of this as an opportunity to set things up with Jay. Would you like first crack, or should I?

HE WHO YELLS THE LOUDEST WINS THE DEBATE!!! EVERY IDIOT KNOWS THIS!!!

Here is how I opened up an e-mail debate with Kender (some of this may not apply to Jay):

The reasons I prefer e-mail:

1. Both sides are able to document their sources.
2. Neither side has a clear advantage over how the forum works, e.g., no one has to worry about cutting each other off.
3. Both sides can explore ideas fully, as opposed to speaking in
soundbites.
4. Both sides can be explored dispassionately, with truth being
valued over heated emotional yelling.
5. The debate records itself and opponents are less able to distort
each other’s positions.
6. Certain argumentative techniques, while not barred, can be
revealed for what they are, e.g., in radio merely insulting an opponent is considered a valid rejoinder while in an actual debate it is not.

You claim an interest in dispassionately arguing the truth using
facts, logic and reason. However, I have no reason to believe that you are willing or able to abide by these constraints on your radio
program. E-mail evens the playing field and allows for mature, rational thought to prevail.

Besides which, you can always just read the dialogue on your show if
you really want to fairly give voice to my views.

In case you are wondering, I have no fear of defending my views on
your show (or in person, for that matter). However, I believe doing so would be a waste of your time and mine. Let us document our
differences and let a written record reflect who has a position supported by truth and logic.

As an intellectually honest person, I am open to the possibility that you may be right, and may actually convince me of your views. I
hope that you would approach a debate with similiar regard for the truth.

In the meantime, I eagerly await your choice of topic.

-Rhyleh

Rhyleh: I see no compelling reason why we should need to take turns. I’ve asked Jay a number of questions in the comments sections of several recent posts at StoptheACLU.com, and intend to continue to do so.

While I am very interested in your email debate with Kender, it would probably be best if you posted them at your own blog. You are welcome to leave a comment here linking to those posts.

I often wonder how a sentient adult can be so, um, parochial-minded as to believe that the rest of us won’t identify the “offer” of a radio “debate” as nothing more than an opportunity for the host to compensate (so to speak) for his intellectual shortcomings with bully tactics and censorship and thus “win.” In other words, who are you kiddin’?

Then I see another semilegible, angry salvo from an ape-man like Kender or Gribbit and realize anew that if anything, guys like these and Jay are lucky to perform as well as they do in online arguments—even when this consists of nothing but insults, threats of violence, ramshackle attempts at logic, and shameless dishonesty and question-dodging.

If nothing else, this crew provides something of a rare combination: rabid political discourse and utter ineducability. Usually, people with such compromised intellects aren’t especially interested in politics.

Well, not in the sense you or I might be, no. But they care about something at least, and it’s a start.

Rhyleh wrote:

“But they care about something at least, and it’s a start.”

I don’t know whether to tip my hat to you for your idealism or refer you to a shrink for your delusional thinking.

Jay wrote:

“Your persistance is what impresses me.”

Actually, Jay, your persistance [sic] is much more impressive. When a guy with about a fourth-grade literacy level (only one of the six sentences in your e-mail to Meatbrain was coherent) manages to churn out forty blog entries a day, an almost spectral force must be at work. Of course, if you bothered with fact-checking you’d have to scale back to around five entries a day.

Thanks Beaming Visionary.

To clarify – I share your skepticism, it’s just that I’m willing to gamble some free time. I guess that makes me a masochistic idealist. I like to think that our willingness to appeal to reason no matter what distinguishes us from conservatives.

If you’d like to see how masochistic, you all can check out my hilariously one-sided “debate” with Kender at rhyleh.blogspot.com. Although the post is about 8 days long, the entertainment value escalates quickly.

I am confident that Kender barely skimmed your responses. Given that his own contributions are all but invariant—incoherent rants sculpted in advance—he has little to gain by actually paying attention.

It amazes me that someone that cognitively challenged can loudly and repeatedly label others idiots. I guess at a certain point, one loses all insight pertaining to his own weaknesses. Jay, Gribbit, Kender et al. earnestly believe that people serving up well-crafted, fact-based, readable arguments are the dolts, whereas substituting volume and vitriol for rationality is the mark of enlightenment.

Nonetheless, I think it is important to demonstrate why our position is superior.