I've just read that Andrew Bolt
(and many of his commenters, by the looks of it) are unhappy with how David Marr treated him on Insiders
this morning (if you didn't see the show, you need to watch this segment
to see what he's unhappy about).
Now I need to ask a question about etiquette. Let's say that you're stuck in a discussion with a person thinks uttering the same ridiculous statements over and over again - say, "the world hasn't warmed since 2001" - is the way to convince people he's right. Let's say that this same person believes this graph doesn't show an upward-sloping linear trend:
Let's say that this person tends to mutter about how everyone else is part of some "couch collective" and that his extremist and evidence-deprived views aren't given the respect they deserve - despite the fact that he is constantly being invited to talk to all sorts of audiences about those views.
And let's say that this person's conduct demonstrates a modus operandi that undermines informed and reasoned debate
and tends to promote both uninformed condemnation and personal attacks on opponents.
My question is this - in that situation, what is the appropriate way to prevent that person from talking about the same nonsense until blood starts pouring out of your own ears?
(PS: I already mentioned it in the weekend thread, but Guy Rundle's commentary on Andrew's return to the armchair is over at Crikey's new political blog, The Stump