Dodge List

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3071
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Here’s an older version:

    1. Subject change (Nixon, Abortion)

    2. False comparison (Like computers and cars, only it’s politics and sex –or something goofy, that just does not present as goofy at first blush.)

    3. Claim of too many opponents

    (This one debunked for online venues as participants have all the time they need to research and consider their next point of discussion –they can collude too)

    4. Silence (Ignore the impending point to be taken. Essentially, it can be used another day. Acceptance of that loss means loss of that point for a greater discussion in the future. Very potent for online venues)

    5. (first seen from Deane) Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a non-rational conclusion.

    (love that one It’s freaking beautiful–Where is Deane anyway?)

    6. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being greater than scope of discussion; therefore, it’s all a waste of time. (Herb and Deane on that one too.)

    Both complex and subtle variations on the, “you wouldn’t understand” theme.

    7. Transformation of rational point at hand to emotional one.

    8. The bible, which is a specific manifestation of subject change. Warranted because it’s often used in tandem with the transformation bit. The next two on this list seen in this mess often too.

    9. Redefinition of common words. This happens either via manipulation of time lines (historical), or via authorities, whose scope is limited to a sub-set of generally accepted authorities. (non peer reviewed, or non common, word use)

    10. Personal attack. This varies too. Sometimes it’s an attack on an authority. That form is kind of an indirect attack, as in, “you listen to that nutbag?”. I’m lumping all of these together in one group. Don’t know why, just am.

    11. Obsfucation. (however you spell it) This might be redundant, given the word redefinition one above. I see this as half-answers, like if you have the same point of view, the answer is solid, but if you don’t, it leads to questions and framing that puts non-aligned beliefs on the defensive.

    12. Excess verbosity. (KSKD, CJ, Littlesongs, others) Hammer them really hard, hoping the problem will go away. It’s both therapy and a dodge in one fell swoop!

    This did go up to 17, and that’s in the more current posts. We shall see what happens with those.

    A while back, I did rephrase it for more general consumption:

    1.  Claim of association with controversial figure.
    eg:  You don’t get it, because you watch Hannity on FOX News

    The idea here is that the target of the advocacy must be failing to come  to acceptance, because they have some artifact of this association that  makes their intent self-serving, and not just and true.

    2.  Claim of less than mature outlook, or diminutive
    eg:  You just want your pony, or live in a rainbow filled fantasy land

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized as childish, or  do not have a reasonable grasp on the norms and expectations typical for  the scenario at hand.

    3.  Threat of implied violence!
    eg:  If you don’t see it my way, I’ll kick your ass, or hope you get your ass kicked.

    The target of the advocacy is presented with the idea that the advocate  is a real bad ass in real life, and a meeting would result in a hostile  and violent interaction with consequences.  This one is really  low.

    4.  Claim of self-serving or nefarious intent to manipulate
    eg:  You are manipulating the facts to make me look bad, etc…

    The target of the advocacy is tagged with their arguments being  self-serving in some way that is harmful to a discussion, movement or  consensus at hand, often coupled with number 5

    5.  Full on personal insult!
    eg:  You idiot, asshole, dullard, moron, clown, girl, boy, etc…

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort are tagged with their character or person being devalued in some basic ugly way.

    6.  Invoke bull-shit, cliche’ meme
    eg:  Here comes yet another train wreck from the class clown!

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized in a way that  is commonly accepted to be futile, foolish, worth reproach, without  actually backing the claim in a way that is of note, or merit.

    7.  Claim of exclusive membership required for participation of note
    eg:  If you had any real money / brains, you would understand me better.

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort are characterized as not being  “in the club”, whatever that club may be.  Club of “smart” people,  people who get it, etc…

    8.  Claim of poorly characterized intent being true
    eg:  You just want everybody to hate me, or let the world burn…

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort intent and or motivation is distorted to appear counter-productive, hostile, futile, etc… using a familiar and often personally damaging analogy.

    9.  Claim of willful ignorance or denial
    eg:  I wish willful ignorance were painful.  Denial is a river that runs deep.

    The target(s) of the advocacy effort intent and or motivation is distorted to appear counter-productive, hostile, futile, etc…

    10.  Repeated queries to incite non-productive conversation
    eg:  Oh, here we go!  Our resident Nazi is back in full form.  Because abortion.  And freedom.  Jesus.

    The advocate engages in contributions known to be inflammatory,  incite passers by to conflict, disrupt, render discussion futile / moot

    11.  Undesirable label attached
    eg:  So, I understand you are a statist, loyal to the corporate machine…

    The advocate labels the target(s) of the advocacy in a personally unpleasant way, without bringing the claim to merit*
    *This one isn’t a loser, if the label is just and true, but  the advocate has a very high burden on that, and could easily see  community moderation.  Not recommended here for sure, but this one can work where speech rules are lax enough to allow group judgement.  Be careful with this one and watch for it, if you are the target.  Needs to be dealt with quick.

    12.  Claim of indifference due to privilege
    eg:  You don’t have to deal with this because you live in fantasy land, or in the bubble, DC, etc…

    Target of advocacy is characterized as a person “out of touch”, “in  the bubble”, or of a station in life that marginalizes their commentary

    13.  Claim of inability to contribute further
    eg:  This discussion is so horrible, I think I’ll just leave the community.

    Target of advocacy, or advocate threatens to leave community, with the intent of harm to reputation of another, or group

    14.  Claim of paid activity
    eg:  So I understand that ugly group paid you?

    More when it can be found, or I check my other computer for the document.

    #4484
    skeptical
    Participant

    40. Brothers

    (btw, kskd’s list needs to be a sticky)

    #4487
    dodger
    Participant

    clap, clap, clap……
    I am so happy that there are folks doing so well that they have the time to type something that I don’t have the time to read.
    This is a new masterpiece example of verbosity kskd. Well done. I wish I could read the whole thing but gotta go.
    Cheers!

    #4488
    duxrule
    Participant

    Yet, you had time to come in and drop that stinking pile. Thanks for sharing! :-p

    #4489
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Do well Dodger. The people saw fit to put you in office. Get after it for them. Seriously. Hugs ‘n Kisses, KSKD. 🙂

    #4516
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Dear Dodger, also known as Bill Post, the State Rep for the uninformed and uneducated communities of St Paul, Keizer, and Newberg:

    Your extreme agenda has no chance in a good state like Oregon. You may be better off to push your views on a state like Mississippi or Alabama. That’s how stupid it needs to be for your views to be implemented. Plus, you’d fit in better with the culture as well. Just stay out of the black neighborhoods and all will be good.

    It ain’t gonna fly here in Oregon, which is why you are in the minority here in our great state.

    #5029
    Amus
    Participant

    Bumped for hand reference.

    #5049
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    New submissions welcome, and will be put up for discussion.

    #5177
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I’m thinking “I don’t bother to learn about that stuff” as seen recently by F&B, needs to be added:

    #17! Not worth my time, expressed as subject matter being core to discussion not given material attention by one or more advocates, resulting in a one way discussion, done willfully. (F&B, others)

    And in the new form, second list: (which needs an update, see below)

    15. Claim of reasoned disregard.
    eg: I don’t bother learning about those things…

    Target of advocacy makes it known they understand little about subject matter competing with their own advocacy, in effect dismissing an entire argument without material support for doing so.

    #5182
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Hey, with Dan bringing up new archives, a version going to 16 was found! Maybe that was most current!

    ——————-That Dodge List KSKD Posts From Time To Time———

    1. Subject change (Nixon, Abortion)

    2. False comparison (Like computers and cars, only it’s politics and sex –or something goofy, that just does not present as goofy at first blush.)

    3. Claim of too many opponents

    (This one debunked for online venues as participants have all the time they need to research and consider their next point of discussion –they can collude too)

    4. Silence (Ignore the impending point to be taken. Essentially, it can be used another day. Acceptance of that loss means loss of that point for a greater discussion in the future. Very potent for online venues)

    5. (first seen from Deane) Claim to either be a member of, or opponents of discussion being members of club, with said membership somehow required to complete what is otherwise a non-rational conclusion. (excellent, BTW, I like this one)

    6. Claim of overall subject and or implications of subject complexity being greater than scope of discussion; therefore, it’s all a waste of time. (Herb and Deane on that one too.)

    Both complex and subtle variations on the, “you wouldn’t understand” theme.

    7. Transformation of rational point at hand to emotional one.

    8. The bible, which is a specific manifestation of subject change. Warranted because it’s often used in tandem with the transformation bit. The next two on this list seen in this mess often too.

    9. Redefinition of common words. This happens either via manipulation of time lines (historical), or via authorities, whose scope is limited to a sub-set of generally accepted authorities. (non peer reviewed, or non common, word use)

    10. Personal attack. This varies too. Sometimes it’s an attack on an authority. That form is kind of an indirect attack, as in, “you listen to that nutbag?”. I’m lumping all of these together in one group. Don’t know why, just am.

    11. Obsfucation. (however you spell it) This might be redundant, given the word redefinition one above. I see this as half-answers, like if you have the same point of view, the answer is solid, but if you don’t, it leads to questions and framing that puts non-aligned beliefs on the defensive.

    12. Excess verbosity. (KSKD, CJ, Littlesongs, others) Hammer them really hard, hoping the problem will go away. It’s both therapy and a dodge in one fell swoop!

    13. Evoke unreal boundary. Most often seen with indignation. This is a variation on “too complex” and “you wouldn’t understand”, in that it limits the scope of discussion where it would not otherwise be limited if things continued to be rational. Once this has happened, discussion is no longer rational.

    14. Implied claim that personal knowledge is a requirement to establish a point at hand, without actually stating it, and without that actually being the case.* (Deane)

    15. Incomplete Comparison. Basically, one core dynamic is left out with the rest of the comparison being framed as equivalent. This is a specific variation on #2, false comparison, notable for it almost being a valid one. (Dodger, F&B, Herb)

    16. Vilification. A link between some undesirable state, event, or thing is made in an attempt to render advocacy less potent, or imply that whatever it is, or whoever it is really isn’t worth consideration because they are so horrible… (various parties)

    I remember 16 now, and it was added when I got really, really frustrated with abortion discussion. So I posted up the little 9 year old girl scenario in an attempt to understand personification and if it trumps vilification.

    Of course it does, but we all found that painful, but enlightening. Sorry again. That was ugly, but really valuable.

    So, given that new addition above, we are now at 17 old list style. The new list has been put in a few places to serve the same purpose it did here, sans the names and familiar phrasing appropriate here.

    🙂

    As always, new submissions welcome. I recently contributed this, and the personification dynamic to a discussion related to online noise, trolling, etc… Was well received, and notably, there is a lot of money being spent on “psyops” where the very group dynamics we’ve all learned about doing this here are actually worth a lot! Turns out, the various exercises done by me and others here with all of us participating have some very serious merit.

    Interesting, isn’t it?

    So there is one other thing to add here:

    We are most often doing advocacy, or sharing knowledge of some sort. Knowledge is in the form of news, personal realizations, stories, how to, facts, and the like. Advocacy is framed frequently as debate, but the rules of debate are more formal and the need to score are missing from most venues, leaving advocacy.

    In the early Internet times, like when USENET ruled the day, we saw things like comp.sys.advocacy, where people would talk about “best computer” or rec.video.games.classic.advocacy where “best console” wars were meant to be had.

    Back then, I thought it curious to put .advocacy groups out there, and I began to understand when we moved away from that text format and into various means and methods for discussion we see today.

    Here, most of us have centered on:

    1. Don’t be criminal with speech. Dan could get in the hot seat, and we are a little backwater, which is good, but not as anonymous as you think we are.

    2. Support what you say.

    Failure on this, and to recognize points fairly taken or given, is why the dodge list exists in the first place

    3. It’s as offensive as you think it is. Rather than thrash about it, tell people why and how, meaning the answer to free speech you don’t like is more free speech.

    Here we don’t have free speech, in that Internet speech happens at the pleasure of people running places to speak, but we also have it very free here in that very little is really off the table.

    So there is growing interest in these dynamics it seems. New submissions or observations could actually be meaningful in the right context. Fun stuff, to me at least.

    You may find you can get some good use out of this professionally. Of course, you can’t really call ’em out and cite the list. (I wouldn’t) But, you can see where they are going and perhaps deal in a more potent way, or clear a communications barrier.

    Any interest in solutions? I’ve got a list of things you can do when somebody else tries to make their problems yours, or make you part of the discussion as a dodge…

    Finally, your name may appear here. Mine does. Know it’s about the history, who did it, why, but not so much personal. My own name is here, and it’s because we all will pull this stuff. Happens. The good is when others can point it out, we can then see it, and maybe advance the state of things, grow a little, or come up with a brand new dodge.

    I love seeing a brand new dodge as much as I love seeing somebody, or myself coming to a realization of some kind.

    #5185
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    The way I would like this thread to work is the list will be formatted and posted as an update, from time to time. Right now, that’s in progress, because…

    #17 is a new item. It’s up for discussion.

    Does anybody want to clarify it, or improve it? Post your argument here. Is it valid, or is it just a variation of an existing one not worth breaking out? Whatever.

    After a time, the whole list will be posted, and that’s the close of it. New item added.

    Cycle complete, on to the next one.

    Now, you can challenge one too. Want something off the list, or see a case where it’s valid? Bring it up, and I’ll cite one:

    Transformation of rational point to emotional one.

    This is valid in advocacy, and when it’s done to improve on the advocacy, not hidden, or to shut down valid advocacy / discussion, then it’s all good.

    To review advocacy as opposed to debate:

    Advocacy consists of the rational:

    Rational arguments are self-consistent, free of fallacies, and supported by material facts visible or verifiable to all.

    In debate, a fallacy is scored in a negative way. In advocacy, it may actually work on an advocacy target not sufficiently aware to realize it. Remember that.

    Character arguments. These speak to the quality of person, motives, trustworthiness, and so forth. All people associated with the advocacy are potentials, including both the advocate and the advocacy targets.

    In debate, these are scored in a negative way and are considered fallacies. In advocacy, they are valid. Act like the ass, get called out as an ass. Additionally, when a clown calls you an ass, it’s as laughable as it is anything else. Big differences here.

    Emotional arguments
    work a lot like rational ones. They are different to quantify, but have the same general rules that rational arguments do. The most common poor advocacy form is to elevate an emotion to distract, such as transforming disregard into hate. Seen here a lot.

    Emotional arguments aren’t generally core to debate, though they do contribute. Depending on them is scored in a negative way. In advocacy, they are potent. The most common use I see is character coupled with emotion to form advocacy that is potent despite it being weak rationally.

    #5187
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    This thread contains many references to counter “both sides” or “but the liberals…” type arguments:

    http://archive.pdxradio.com/2009-14/topic/pro-lifers-fail-to-get-measures-on-ballots-in-ohio-and-oregon/page/15

    I need to find the really big list I had involving the GOP and girls and money crimes… Might be in that thread.

    Any interest in a list of lists? Like the dodge list, a reference to some vetted information may well set the “both sides” and “but the liberals” arguments aside more frequently.

    Liberals aren’t perfect, nor do they always have the right, or best policy vision, but they absolutely cannot be equated in “both sides” fashion as there are basic and profound differences in both party governance and performance / behavior.

    #5192
    jr_tech
    Participant

    In another thread I posed the question “does the logical error of “the excluded middle” constitute a dodge?”:
    http://feedback.pdxradio.com/forums/topic/devout-catholic-majority-whip-steve-scalise-and-his-kkk-connections/#post-5186

    Missing said to post it up for discussion, perhaps it is already covered in another dodge.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma.

    #5193
    Amus
    Participant

    It depends on the reason for posting it.

    If it’s meant to deflect criticism, or defend the actions of “subject A” by comparing it with the more horrific actions of “subject B”, then yes, I think it could be a dodge.

    #5194
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Is it sufficiently covered by invoke unreal boundary?

    I’m thinking no…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.