> My point is that by radically overstating a case, using inflammatory and
> insulting language, you alienate the best people, and attract the worst
> sort. For example, just look at some of the ad hominist goofballs
> that infest this list and others like it.
Huh? Doug didn’t overstate anything, or accuse the Heritage people of being baby-eating crocodiles. He showed that their statistical model was a crock, and that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
And this list is actually pretty collegial, all things considered, far better than others I’ve seen. You seem to have this fear that radical rhetoric has this awesome power, by itself, to create mayhem. I see no evidence for this.
> I also disagree with your battleground us-and-them frame.
Politics *is* a battleground. It’s called class struggle. It’s often ugly and vicious and we workers don’t always win. But we have to be realistic and understand how the field of power works - mobilization and organization *do* count.
-- DRR