Mapping ‘whataboutery’
For as long as I’ve been reading Slugger, it’s been fairly rare for it to carry a post without someone using the comment threads to reawaken some historical grievance or other. Mick (or someone?) calls it ‘whataboutery.’
There is as good an example as any three comments in, on Pete’s post earlier about P&J.
According to the logic offered by ‘Marty McG’ there, no-one who is currently a member of Sinn Féin can ever be involved in any discussions about violence towards women because of the fate that Jean McConville suffered.
The thing is that – for the purpose of this post – it’s not an entirely invalid argument. But it’s not original either. It’s not intended to move a discussion on, to persuade people who are going to be a factor in the debate. It’s the equivalent of having someone bounding into a room screaming MURDERER! MURDERERS!!
No-one would put up with it offline. They would just find somewhere that they could talk without being interrupted.
It doesn’t acknowledge any of the material facts that a schoolchild would include in explaining Northern Ireland’s current political settlement. You just know that, if someone else has the energy, they will be able to come up with an accusation of some equivalent brutality or an external ‘root cause’ behind IRA violence. If you’ve ever been here before, you can already imagine the sequence such a argument can take.
The more likely possibility is that it just becomes a conversation stopper. And what can we do about this?
Well, for one thing, if we could have a shorthand that would show where Mrs McConville – or any other victim or perpetrator from Ireland’s history – can fit in, then at least the whataboutery can be diverted off somewhere else. So here’s a suggestion: Next time you’re on this site and you feel the need to apportion blame entirely to one factor in Northern Ireland’s society, have a look at this debategraph image and contribute to it. If you think that one of its nodes is invalid, say so. Others can say why it is. Give examples – turn it into a huge galaxy of reasons why everything else is someone elses fault. I’ve only made a start and I’m sure there is someone who was totally responsible for everything that I’ve forgotten to blame, so please feel free to add them.
And Debategraph isn’t the only tool that can be used for that either. You could find a few dozen people who agree with you that one section of society is entirely responsible for everything bad that has happened in Northern Ireland (a quick trawl through the comments threads here should do it) and you could use ‘Mixed Ink’ to convene and agreed statement of why you and your allies are the exclusive bearers of The Truth in these matters. There is no reason why a document couldn’t be convened for each of those nodes. Or it could be a suitable project to trial Google Wave with?
So there you go folks. Log in to Debategraph and get your side of the story out there.
That’s a bit of craic once you start linking them up like I did with the religion one.
Mark
Doubt it’s uefulness as a tool, but it’s an excellent videogame
Christ, if you could search for an example of sly whataboutery, you wouldn’t find a better example of it that that Paul.
The idea is ‘doomed’ to failure because Nationalists will make sure it doesn’t work.
I’m neither a nationalist or a unionist – I’m agnostic on the matter. I’ve listed a bunch of claims that I’ve heard being made with varying levels of conviction by different people – including people who are – like me – fairly neutral on the matter. Without listing them, I suspect that there are a fairly even number of claims that you would be able to identify as serving a specific nationalist or unionist narrative.
There are plenty of nationalists that would partially agree with some of the claims that are more likely to serve a unionist narrative than a nationalist one and vice versa. The point is to map them all and then argue about the weight and proportionality of the argument.
If there are any missing, please let me know. If you can’t work out how to add them, then I’ll do it for you when I get a moment. If there are any large observations that you have that either contradict or support a particular claim, likewise.
I’ve no idea where this idea comes from, by the way, that Slugger has a nationalist demographic. I’ve never known Mick to refuse posting rights to anyone as long as they have a constructive case and a reasonably civil manner about them. But then you think that Wikipedia has a nationalist bias as well. WTF?
Well, I hear what you say. But who is going to pay for that? This method is rough and ready and flawed. And in fact there are some unionists in there doing some good work and some nationalists doing some good work. I would say that what people need to do is look for absences (for what is not yet being said) and colonise it…
It depends on what weight you put on each of your datum points/variables. Unionists believe their blood is purer, their sh-t more valuable and their lives more precious than the Catholics they systematically abused. That being so, they will always complain.
There is no doubt that the Fatherland has suffered greatly since we liberated Westenr Europe. But now, as the Orangies rape their way into Central Berlin, naysayers are blaming me, that I am somehow responsible for Stalin’s rapists.
I reject that. Let’s blame the Pope. Let’s get back to the good old days when the Croppies lay down. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Rangers.
and colonise it…
I think we have a winner !
The weight is variable and is not dictated entirely by the person entering the particular datum. Each accumulates context and weight by the counterpoints and arguments which grow around it.
Another interesting thing about the process is that some key arguments employed in one direction can be easily reverse and used in the other. The capacity to match one datum with another on the other side of the map makes fascinating new linkages.
Mick Fealty: “The weight is variable and is not dictated entirely by the person entering the particular datum. Each accumulates context and weight by the counterpoints and arguments which grow around it.”
So, if I follow this, it is a graphical representation of the aggregate of the almost wholly subjective perception / understanding of the issue at hand… F’r'instance, “The Famine” completely neglect, oh, I dunno, the effin’ fungus, maybe?
Mental masturbation of the lowest sort — a collection of folks arguing over who has the biggest lump of belly-button lint.
Mick Fealty: “Another interesting thing about the process is that some key arguments employed in one direction can be easily reverse and used in the other. The capacity to match one datum with another on the other side of the map makes fascinating new linkages. ”
Given that most of the whataboutery involves finger-pointing about a series of recriminations and reprisals of one stripe or another, parallax views and images are almost inevitable.
DC,
Your remark is the single most nasty thing I have come across since Paul started off the map. So I really don’t think people have got too much to worry about.
I’m not sure what its purpose is. Is this simply for fun or is there a serious side to it? I dunno. I don’t wanna do history, play video games – or both over who started the troubles. It’ll only be more of the same old same old..
I’m more of a Brian Walker fan, a good read, maybe something to say about it, and thats it really.
Not for me, but its great that someone went to all this effort for folks.
Mick Fealty: “Your remark is the single most nasty thing I have come across since Paul started off the map. So I really don’t think people have got too much to worry about. ”
Unpleasantness does not equal inaccuracy.
The more folks pick at scabs, the longer the infection lasts.
Still hanging out with a bunch of wankers Dread?
Part of the object of this exercise is to park issues. It’s not like they won’t get picked over anyway. If you read the original post, that’s my reason for starting it in the first place.
Maybe the subject was little bit too taboo, but it was a good chance to work the software. And there is some genuinely interesting segments on the map.
Might be worth blogging with a few screen shots pin pointing a few particular hotspots.
I’ll eat a little humble pie Mick. Whilst not fully convinced of this application’s potential to advance anything to Slugger or debate at large, it was interesting to dip in and see the tangents certain arguments take you off on.
(sorry about the pisstakes…couldn’t resist)
Another problem is that too few of our unionist commenters want to play ‘whataboutery’ (who knew?) so on that basis alone the ‘findings’ will be flawed.
[i]Maybe the subject was little bit too taboo[/i]
The subject is far from taboo: it’s discussed, whether directly or by proxy, every single day by everyone, but most especially, our elected representatives.
Seriously, what the f*ck did you expect from this: Reasoned logic that would separate the wheat from the chaff in an incisive and clear manner thus allowing us to take a step back from the fray and blame one single person or group of people for a decades-long conflict?
Not sure what ou mean by ‘findings’ Mick. A bunch of bubbles with well documented historical grievences in them isn’t exactly a science.
Whatabout a debategraph with unionist hestitation to take part in whataboutery debategraphs as the subject.
Christ, the possibilities for this game are endless…..
Exile,
Yes. And I’d venture a guess you have not the least clue what you’re talking about. Let me explain what I mean.
I go along with RS and say that it’s been fun for those of us who have used it, but that, as it stands, it is not a lot of use for the detached reader. It needs to ‘mature’ to stand a chance of becoming remotely ‘definitive’ of the problem.
At the very least need a wider opinion set to engage with it. Although I did sense that at times people were dipping between ‘colonising’ and trying to answer their own propositions.
When you have one line to refute an argument it pares your options right down the point. It is nigh on impossible to play the man. And you can’t resort to a long form of words to duck the bullet.
This from the home page of Debategraph.org:
“Every debate map is provisional and open to iterative improvement by anyone who participates.
“Over time, the debate maps will mature into the definitive articulations of each debate.
“Every change you make—whether correcting a text, adding a new argument, or starting a new debate—contributes towards the fulfilment of this social promise.
“So be bold as a first time visitor—and safe in the knowledge that a full editing history provides a safety net.”
I’d like to see this debate ‘mature’. As it stands it needs the ‘other’ voice to make it functional.
[i]And I’d venture a guess you have not the least clue what you’re talking about.[/i]
Yes, Mick. I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about. In fact, anyone who disagrees with [i]anything[/i] that you argue or suggest hasn’t a clue what he or she is taking about.
Paul Evans – great idea. Will be interesting to see graph when it’s developed further.
Has opened up interesting debate. Am lovin’ some of the comments. Especially the ‘it’s not fair’ winge that not enough unionists will contribute therefore the results won’t be ‘fair’. What a geg.
O, and the the way it shines a light on, and brings to the fore the ironic school of thought displayed by the self-righteous here who say, for example, some murder gangs are better than others. Umm, four legs good (criminal, atrocious, evil, monsters), two legs better (not too bad at all, actually, thank god they were about – yis siree – a great bunch altogether).
Exile,
When Mick says that you haven’t got a clue what your talking about, what he means is that you’ve not read the f**king post and then come along and said “are you trying to achieve?
Read the f**king post.
MenaMna,
I’ve found it’s raised some historical questions that I hadn’t considered before.
For instance, someone has said that the question of religion isn’t relevant because it masks a root-ish cause – the British state’s role.
That made me wonder: If – by the 1990s – most sides were saying that the British no longer had any selfish strategic interest in remaining in Ireland (and I know that this is a contested contention in itself), was there an earlier point in history at which the British decided that they didn’t have that interest? Was it a calculus that they made and monitored? And when was the point privately conceded? Was it before the late 1960s?
Then why have you not referenced the map?
My guess is you have either not looked. Or you HAVE looked so cursorily that you have not actually observed what’s actually been happening there.
Once you get into the outer nodes you can point out consistency and inconsistency in opposing statements. And sub divide arguments (as opposed to bald propositions).
It forces you to think about the stuff that’s coming at you, not to wallow in it. That is a very long way from the fear people have expressed earlier in the thread.
Calm down, Paul: I have read your post several times. I still think it’s a load of crap.
Paul Evans – yes, you’ve raised a few very interesting questions there, no doubt. (10 Dec. 11.55)
However, I question how anyone could concede that religion isn’t relevant. It’s far too political, the two are intrinsically linked. Surely it boils down to power struggles? And no matter how far back in time you go the struggle to exert control has and always will be utmost to the church, government & dissenters alike. No getting away from it.
So, even if history had played out differently – most likely, other, different (two legs better – or should i say, four legs good?!) shit would’ve hit the fan. Quite possibly in a much less sorry way than what we’ve experienced here but whatever it might’ve looked like – essentially the players would have been church, state and dissenters. Much like the many other conflicts in the world.
I’m maybe talking at cross purposes as there are two separate issues being considered here, i.e. the big question of, ‘who’s fault is it any way’, and then the, ‘how do we discuss, engage and attempt to move forward without all the whataboutery?’.
Certainly, with the latter – there is no doubt, time and again religion plays an integral part. And the concerning thing is – it’s in the interest of all said parties to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately.
Paul: “Part of the object of this exercise is to park issues. It’s not like they won’t get picked over anyway. If you read the original post, that’s my reason for starting it in the first place. ”
Feh — half the “issues,” probably more, aren’t really issues, Paul. They’re pisstakes on history, more in line with “traditional” Japanese opinions of Koreans, learned at their grand-parents feet, than anything sufficiently rational to be called “an issue.” For the two sides, there’s nothing to debate, since these things are the verities on which the sectarian divide is created, as sure as water is wet, children lie and the sun rises in the east. They don’t need to be parted, they need to be run through the crusher and the grinder, en route to a reclamation plant.
At most, at its best, this is an aggregation of the oral, subjective histories of both sides, done in four-color cartoon form. I can argue the facts from either side of the divide, but the scab-picking makes me… ill isn’t the right word, but it will serve for the nonce.
In one of Turgon’s threads, a long time ago, the usual remembrance of this victim or that — I can’t remember and it scarcely matters, followed by the usual whataboutery. I’ll ask you the same thing that I asked then — what the hell are people going to talk about in N.I. when they’ve run through all “honored dead” and great victories and terrible defeats and have picked the last scab?
I blame the British cabinet for backing down during the Ulster mutiny of 1912. That ensured that Protestants would never have to compromise and accept the Home Rule bill.
The rest was inevitable.
Paul,
I am sorry to disagree with the whole premise of this post but, having looked at the image, I am afraid it is pretty pointless. A series of statements which can be found in a history book or indeed in many people’s experiences does not help understanding. It is nothing witout explanation and context and a line on a computer screen does not do that.
The perceived weight or relevance of any given link: the weight given depends on one’s predefined views. That cannot be accounted for by the lines.
Any attempt to reduce something like the Troubles here to a series of lines and blobs is so stupid as to be pretty childish.
I note already that one republican cheerleader (kensei) has put up a comment “Don’t tell Turgon.” Now that shows the level of sense of the project. Yes you could remove it as it is clearly irrelevant to the troubles but someting just as stupid can be said. For less overtly and more subtely stupid remarks who will deem them invalid? That person will not be imaprtial as no one is.
I note one or two posters are supplying all the blobs and arrows which shows that what will happen is that a very small number of anoraks will monolipise the thing and use it for their own agenda (c.f the Turgon remark above).
I am also rather concerned with this comment: “The more likely possibility is that it just becomes a conversation stopper. And what can we do about this?”
I regard one of the major functions of slugger to attack and oppose the cheerleaders of terrorism. To point out the wicked deeds of terrorists is a vital part of debate on slugger to many unionists. The fact that whataboutery ensues is not a problem. If it is legitimate then fair enough. More usually it demonstrates the moral vacuity in the cheerleader as in (to take an extreme example) one commnetator once said that Marie Wilson’s death was fair enough because the unionists were commerating Rememberance Sunday and Enniskillen was a “garrison town” etc. People could make their own minds up about the commentator and indeed I remember than I repeatedly reminded him of his comments. Now you could call that a conversation stopper. I call it calling to account the supporters of the murderers.
We do not all want to “move forwards” in the same direction. As such some of us want to keep reminding the cheerleaders that there are those in the unionist and indeed nationalist community who regard the murderers turned politicians as forever scarred with the mark of Cain and we will continue to protest that they rule over us. Now that may not be what you regard as a useful contribution to debate but I assure you that unless and until Mick removes me from this site I will regard it as one of my major functions here. That will mean that I will repeatedly remind people about what republican politicians supported and frequently did.
[i]o point out the wicked deeds of terrorists is a vital part of debate on slugger to many unionists. [/i]
Whereas, of course, nationalists are cheerleaders for terrorism and the terrorist doesn’t happen to be named Torrens Knight: for the love of God, man, leave him alone!
exile,
All I can do is quote the first part of my first comment on this thread: comment 16 on page 1:
“I am proud to attack and catch out certain individuals of both loyalist and republican persuasion over their support for murderers. I will continue to do so until I am removed from this site.”
exile: “Whereas, of course, nationalists are cheerleaders for terrorism…”
Cheerleaders? Nah… Whatabouters?
Whatboutery is probably the one non-sectarian trait in the region.
Of course, you do get a few interesting anomalies in this comic-book version of Irish history — one fella tries to defend / deflect / blow smoke re: the massacre of Protestants in 1641 by bringing up Cromwell — can’t talk about the massacre without bring up Cromwell… sadly, Cromwell’s rampage through Ireland was from 1649 to 1650, meaning that, unless someone is suggesting that the Catholics had access to Mr. Peabody and the Way-Back machine, logic takes a back-seat to passion in these “discussions…”
pardon — didn’t *start* until 1649-50…
[i]I am proud to attack and catch out certain individuals of both loyalist and republican persuasion over their support for murderers[/i]
Yes, Turgon, for your attack on Trevor Collins was stinging, incisive and deafening.
Well yes I condemned him and what he had done: Comment 18 here, comment 20 here.
However, if that is not enough: I do not know Trevor Collins but I condemn what he has done in signing the petition on Torrens Knight unreservedly. His comments are deeply offensive in view of Knight’s murderous past. If Mr. Collins feels that in some way Knight has been hard done to he should reflect on what Knight has done and how in any other judicial system a mass murderer like Knight would be looking at spending most if not all of the rest of his life in gaol. That is exactly where he should have been for many years both before and from here on in; in my opinion.
Now maybe just maybe Knight was trying to stay out of criminality: if that had been the case he should not have gone assaulting two women. The reality is that Mr. Collins, even if he had some motives which to him seemed honourable; has done something morally reprehensible which was and is wrong.
In addition exile, on Knight himself, here are my thoughts from a recent blog on that very subject.
Turgon
I don’t doubt the strength and genuine nature of your feelings (though I’ve expressed previous doubts, as you know, to their relevance).
But what are you actually achieving, or even realistically likely to achieve? Is anyone persuaded to a view different to that before the read you?
The problem with actively seeking to shut down discussion, and even defending whataboutery is that the conversations don’t cease, and your enemies don’t go away; they just move one door down the street – but with an added verse of “Turgon’s a bitter nutter”.
Thus your writing risks becoming an echo chamber, increasing its own irrelevance. I find it hard to believe that’s the aim?
In the final analysis, I don’t really think any of your ‘opponents’ or ‘enemies’, on slugger or elsewhere, care an awful lot about your moral judgements, or mine or anyone elses for that matter. You will never stop them talking, and you’ll never win any debate by simply declaring that in your view they should be silent; because they don’t really care about your view. They hold it to be, in reality, worthless.
So, the question becomes, Why?
The Spectator
“the question becomes why.”
Perhaps you’re right, but surely, given that if Slugger has proved anything it has proved that you’re not going to change anyone’s mind, especially regarding the North, because nobody’s open to persuasion (more cerebrally cogent debaters and conversationalists please feel free to produce a single convert to your opinion as proof I’m wrong and the Alliance unionist that joined the other unionists doesn’t count) then the same question could be asked of those who bemoan and look down their wee noses at whataboutery. Why waste your time? Cathartic whataboutery is Slugger’s premier attraction, and it saves wives (because they don’t have to endure it).
Leave Turgon alone. He’s got conviction (as opposed to convictions).
Latcheeco
In which case, why waste bandwith on Slugger?
I happen to think there is actually a very strong argument that there is no realistic ‘solution’ in the North, that we will inevitably slip back into awfulness given time, and that the only realistic advice one can give anyone of talent or hope is “Get out fast!”
Presumably Mick disagrees. Otherwise, it seems an expensive way to facilitate the tribal venting of a few dozen keyboard warriors.
I would agree on this, Latcheeco. My time spent on Slugger has tended, I find, to harden my various, occasionally contradictory, attitudes, not challenge them. I tend to find that people commenting here are even more venal, spiteful and illogical than I in my instinctual cynicism, expected them to be. Indeed, I am probably one of those very people. It may be funny, but it’s a black sort of comedy.
I wonder if it hardens the attitudes of people who start out more radical and dangerous than I?
My only personal consolation is that as a general rule I don’t vote for any of the usual suspects. I may be a hopeless cynic. But maybe not an enabler.
“…please feel free to produce a single convert to your opinion as proof I’m wrong…”
I think I’d be horrified if I converted anyone to my idiosyncratic opinion(s) about NI. It would be a bit like adopting someone by accident. I’m completely baffled by the place. It defies a linear narrative. But I am grateful to the bloggers and posters on this forum a like for sharing their understanding of the place. Paradoxically, I wouldn’t be baffled if I didn’t ponder their understanding but if I wasn’t baffled by it I wouldn’t have a better understanding of it. I think if you’re looking for converts or to be converted then you’re in the wrong place.
Most of this political outworking is deterministic but is designed to look like it is emergent. Read the Downing Street Declarations and you’ll see what that means. That mapped it all out. The opinions most folks have are just the opinions that are given to them in order to support a process that the state has designed. They think they arrived at them by their own volition but that is way wrong. If the state wanted them to have a different set of political opinions to support a different political process then they would have then and likewise think they arrived at them by their own volition.
The Spectator,
Those even more cynical and unkinder than us might suggest that the motive is primarily personal profile and relevance as opposed to conversations toward reconciliation. The same cynics might use as proof the enthusiasm for getting one side to attack the other over their historic grievances on the above pcgame just to prove its efficacy.
Dave,
It could be argued then that the same architects would have an interest in a medium like Slugger with its general ethos of tutting exasperatingly and rolling eyes at the crazed non-believers and their lower class ways
or conversely
they despise Slugger as an unfortunate outlet for (albeit at times incoherent)voices in the wilderness.
But Jesus didn’t use the shepherd metaphor for nothing: sheeple are sheeple.
The Spectator,
I think others have answered you already. I do not seek to convert people to my view. I seek to contend for my views; there is an important difference, if I ever did convert someone so much the better.
All I can say is anecdotally that surprisingly large numbers of real people read slugger. When I get into conversation with people it is surprising just how many of them read regularly or irregularly.
When I say who I am (admittedly usually to unionists) few criticise what I have said; certainly not in my confronting and attacking republican and loyalist cheerleaders. I think many, many unionists are deeply unhappy about the revisionism about the troubles which is being visited upon them and many, even those who vote UUP and DUP, are still deeply unhappy with the people who bombed and murdered their kith and kin being in government. They may not agree with all my ideas for the future but in all honesty I have never had anything other than support (and at times thanks) for standing up for my views.
Now maybe I am creating my own platform but it seems to have some currency with people with whom I discuss it. If in some tiny way that gives people a voice it has value. In addition if I can show that a hard line unionist can also oppose loyalist paramilitaries then that also has value.
I do not seek to advance to some sort of liberal nirvana and indeed I agree that violence is likely to recur (the historical precedent both here and in other conflicts is very strong). I seek to non violently confront the supporters of violence and hopefully frequently show them up as the cheerleaders they are.
Here I stand I can do no other.
Turgon
Thank you for your response.
1. I mean this gently, but with sincerity. You aren’t Luther. There is no comparison in the importance of what he did and what you are doing.
2. I seek to contend for my views.
When I say who I am (admittedly usually to unionists) few criticise what I have said…
…but it seems to have some currency with people with whom I discuss it…
Turgon, there’s that echo chamber again. Leaving aside the possibility that people are not entirely frank with you when you open up on this kind of thing (I have no means to gauge that) – at best you are preaching to the converted. Which may be comforting, but the world goes on around you.
3. If in some tiny way that gives people a voice it has value
Does it? If no-one outside the laager is listening to the voice?
I know Jim Allister reasonably well on a personal level. I wonder about the cult building around him. I wonder about the nihilism of it.
The Spectator,
Of course I am not Martin Luther. However, I have a right to state my opinions.
You say I am talking to an echo chamber: well 66,000 people seem to be in that chamber at last count and a lot of UUP and DUP supporters have pretty similar views on terrorists: that chamber seems pretty full to me.
Turgon
1. Of course I am not Martin Luther
That goes without saying. But not only are you not Luther. You’re not in any particular way like Luther. In particular, with respect, your ‘stand’ bears no comparison with the courage of his. That was my point, and I suspect you know it.
2. However, I have a right to state my opinions.
Of course you do (though to do so on this site is a privilege, not a right). The problem for you is that so do all the people you despise, and so do all their ‘fellow travellers’. And all we end up with is this white noise. Echo chamber.
3. Well 66,000 people seem to be in that chamber at last count and a lot of UUP and DUP supporters have pretty similar views on terrorists: that chamber seems pretty full to me.
There were 126,000 people in the specific chamber you consider unworthy of discussion, who you openly want to silence. There were 372,000 who knowingly voted for parties who will, work with ‘those people’. Indeed, if you’d convinced every single UUP and DUP voter to your view (and clearly you didn’t), you’d still not even make half the voices who spoke at that election.
66,000 is still an echo chamber, Turgon; and frankly, not even a terribly impressive or large one in regional, never mind national, terms. Again, I ask, why?
Is the height of your hopes to reach 50%+1 unionist votes? Tactically sound, perhaps, but morally bankrupt.
I made a point in the ‘debateograph’ that responsiblity and culpability overlap, but thatone can be culpable without being directly responsible. A view you seem to share.
Sometimes.
Turgon
You are conflating the number of people who appear to agree with you for the moral righteousnous of your position
Godwins law invocation here
It appears then that the three (not necessarily exclusive) views on why punters use Slugger are
a. It’s quare craic but not to be taken seriously unless you’re a conceited twat.
b. It’s a space where bored and otherwise ineffective civil service lower management, in the midst of mid-life crises, can earnestly negotiate the future of the universe from their office computers without fear of interruption from their boss or a leathering from spides
c. It’s a place where you get to finally hand out long overdue salutary lessons to the other team about what morally degenerate and hypocritical pseudo-nazis they are, while reaffirming your own personal (and that of the vast majority of your team mates)superiority and absolute inculpability.
The Spectator: “Is the height of your hopes to reach 50%+1 unionist votes? Tactically sound, perhaps, but morally bankrupt.”
Uh-huh… and Republican aspirations for a 50% +1 vote for re-unification someday — is that equally “morally bankrupt?”
Dread Cthulhu,
I could be wrong but I think he was refering to the TUV achieving 50+1 within unionism as a tactic to exclude any elected nationalist representatives that they don’t approve of from powersharing because of course they already have a 50+1 majority in the gerrymandered morally bankrupt north eastern counties.
Turgon,
I’m quite pleased with this so far. I really don’t take some of the Jeremiah comments about it doing any actual harm very seriously, so beyond that, you can look at it as a curiosity if nothing else.
A few points. Firstly, this is partly a bit of fun. I had no idea how it would pan out and I started it partly to see. I think it’s way too early to form any final verdict on whether it is a fantastic idea or a dangerous destructive waste of everyone’s time, though
I’m certain that it won’t ever be perfect either – I’m just keen to see if anyone else is interested in trying out a process here.
Politically, I like the idea of involving people in reaching conclusions – not by asking them what they think should be done in their opinion – but instead by asking them to provide a better description of the problem. Politicians usually say that they like this suggestion but they’re crap (and, I believe, deeply unwilling) when it comes to actually doing it.
Also, doing it is very interesting if you’ve recently read people like Clay Shirky, Cass Sunstein and James Surowiecki- there’s a lot of original and interesting thinking going around asking ‘now we can get easy feedback from more people, what does it change?’
I wanted to see where it would go partly because Slugger is very unusual in this respect. It sometimes has surprisingly civil and oddly productive conversation involving lots of people around a fairly narrow shared but strongly contested history. There isn’t another site that I can think of that could pull together an awkward task like this.
It’s also showing a lot of people a tool that they may conclude ‘it’s useless for this kind of discussion but it might be useful for a different kind of issue’ – perhaps something that falls outside the Unionist / Nationalist bunfight.
This is only getting started. It’s only been up here a few days, after all. I think that the debategraph needs a bit of tidying up and loads of other things adding to it. Some of the comments do need to be tested and checked. I’d like to keep pecking at it in the coming months whenever an argument that I’d forgotten / didn’t know about comes up. It may be an idea that students find more valuable than protagonists in the argument – who knows?
Your question of ‘weighting’ is a good one. I think that you need to get all of the arguments out on the table and maybe look at other ways of weighting them and I’ve got a few ideas on how that could be done.
People who have done other projects like this in the past have often been concerned about the way that participants ‘game’ it (which is what I think you are partly accusing some Nationalists of doing here) and that is something that can be addressed as the idea matures a bit.
I’m sure that the question of ‘nationalist bias’ will disappear as more data goes in because whatever you say, there is no shortage of commenters on this site who regularly raise new issues that can go onto that grid.
Also, there are lots of other software tools (Mixed Ink, Google Wave, Wikis, various mapping / photosharing / videosharing sites) that this info can be moved into to. It’s a start.
Because we’re all new to the tool and the software itself is a work in progress, I can see a few points where people have put things in the wrong place or classified them incorrectly.
I’m also not sure that you *can* find anything like this in a history book and as far as I know, no-one has ever tried to develop an agreed text providing an account of an argument in NI’s context.
People who disagree on things can often agree on a description of what they’re arguing about. I think that it is possible for a bunch of people with dramatically different perspectives to jointly describe an issue to a third party – if you like, a ‘Martian’s Guide’.
If, for instance, we were to convene lots of Slugger’s readers to do an anatomy of the arguments using the Wikipedia software (presenting a map of arguments rather than the more concrete data that Wikipedia is intended for) I defy you to claim that no-one would learn anything from the process.
Mick often characterises this site as being the repetitive account of a the same confusing story to a drunken man. Maybe this is just a manifestation of that?
Finally, JR’s comment (one of the very first in this thread) almost made the whole thing worthwhile on it’s own
Dread Cthulhu
I think any argument that relies primarily on headcount rather than merit is morally fairly empty, regardless of providence.
The only point I would make is that trying to get 50%+1 of the whole territory (whether pro-union or pro-united ireland), at least in theory, considers every voter to be equal.
Aiming only for 50%+1 of your own tribe, and thus by definition a small minority of the territory, is more or less an admission of contempt for democratic equality. So yes, I think its worse, but it’s a matter of degree only.