Volume 1501, Number 11
Why pick on them?
We received a provocative, anonymous question: “Why don’t you criticize the idiotic comments by pro Mayor “chronic commenters??”
We looked back at the posts of eight commenters, tallied as either “pro” or “anti” Mayor. Individually they may not be absolutist in their views.
One (pro Mayor) commenter made a lot of well-reasoned comments about every little thing. (He’s may be angling for an appointment or planning to run for office in the next election.) His output has diminished recently. His remarks were compared to those of the FROG commander who is anti- mayor.
A comment in a conservative blog is an example of “rational but mistaken.”
“Lee Ramos is a huge disappointment also. While running for Council he said he wanted to do what the people want and keep the park natural but last night he voted in favor of developing sports fields. Lee, you betrayed me and thousands of people who voted for you.”
As we’ve mentioned, Lee voted to get more information about whether playing fields are even viable to share the 20% of the Park now occupied by the model train hobbyists. The question wasn’t “build or not” but “are they even possible” so he couldn’t have voted for building sports fields. That is, the commenter’s remarks are his (or her) conclusions rather than facts or even allegations. However, they are rational.
Like the sample, the majority of the pro-Mayor folks’ remarks (in three months of opinion posts) were rational or fact-supported. Whether we agreed with them or not, their comments would have required research and analysis to debate.
Bubbles is a prolific anti- and a regular on liberal blogs as well as a chronic DP snarker. He delights in innuendo, labeling and name-calling and rarely addresses issues factually.
The three other antis reviewed are also “experts on just about everything.” They tend to change the subject of any discussion to something they want to slam. (They generally favor one of two subjects: gravel on a path in Fairview Park or the 60th Anniversary celebration, regardless of the subject under discussion.)
In general, the anti’s call people names and make vague (and sometimes libelous) accusations instead of raising logical arguments. They cite each other and themselves instead of facts. One of their current rallying cries is “follow the money” which they’ve misinterpreted to mean, “If anyone made a profit blame the mayor.”
(We live in houses, wear clothes, shop in malls and buy food at grocery stores because someone risked their money and time – and made a profit. The chronic commenters may lack the mental faculty to understand how free enterprise works but they should have taken a basic economics course by now.)
Pointing out their logical fallacies and foolishness is similar to pointing out childish behavior on an elementary school playground; straightforward and easily done.
So, after due reflection, the reason we tend to go after the anti-Mayor screechers rather than after the pro-Mayor babblers is – it’s just so much easier.