Is this Message Board left-leaning or right?

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

I'm new in these parts but I've been reading a lot trying to decide if the place is worth taking a flyer on and I've come to the conclusion that I cannot come to a conclusion. :smack: I'm reasonably sure that there is a mix of voices present here but what is the average poster here like politically, a Democrat or Republican? Or is this like the media where each side claims the other has the influence and scoffs when that is presented the other way...

(For the record, my decision on paying does not depend on the answer to this so no need to send out the lobbyists... :))

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Egads, it just occured to me that this might not be posted in the right forum... I was actually referring to this particular forum and saw how the question would probably lead to a debate in and of itself. Apologies if this was off topic...

[SentientMeat]

Slightly leftist, moderately libertarian (-1.26, -3.63). (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330918)

[Captain Amazing]

Slightly leftist, moderately libertarian (-1.26, -3.63). (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330918)
Assuming that test is accurate.

[John Mace]

We've had lots of debates about that subject...

There are many non-US posters here, especially European, Canadian and Australian. Those countries are, on average, to the left of the US, so that introduces a leftward slant, relative to the US center.

If you look at things economically and socially, you will find many right and many left leaning economic types, and many left leaning social types, but very few right leaning social types. For example, many of the posters here who are labeled "conservative" support same sex marriage. To your typical American, this board would appear pretty left leaning, especially in the social sphere. Not that social conservatives are unheard of, they're just much rarer here than in the US as a whole.

You will probably find that if any group is overrepresented here , it's those who lean towards a libertarian philosophy.

[John Mace]

Slightly leftist, moderately libertarian (-1.26, -3.63). (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330918)

To an American, that will seem like more than a "slight" lean, since that test was designed by Europeans. (And we all know how they lean! :) )

[Spoke]

Well, let's see: this is a gathering place for intelligent people seeking to dispel ignorance and find the truth.

So yeah, it leans to the left. :)

[Sunspace]

I tend to think of this board as neither left nor right, but in front. :)

Of course, that's also the motto of the Green Party...

Seriously, this place tends to be biased in favour of citable facts. Which tends to knock the legs out from under people whose arguments are based on emotional, irrational, or other non-factual appeals.

[John F]

To your typical American, this board would appear pretty left leaning, especially in the social sphere.

I'm a typical American that has been here a few weeks and agree.

[John Mace]

I'm a typical American...

It's about time you got here. We've been waiting for you. Boy, do we have LOT'S of questions... :)

[Polycarp]

To an American, that will seem like more than a "slight" lean, since that test was designed by Europeans. (And we all know how they lean! :) )

Hey, John, I am not prepared to get into an argument about the Political Compass and whether or not it is biased. But do me a favor: Google up "Jerry Pournelle" and "Pournelle axes" and see if you think he's biased. (In fact, that might make an interesting discussion in and of itself.)

[John Mace]

Hey, John, I am not prepared to get into an argument about the Political Compass and whether or not it is biased. But do me a favor: Google up "Jerry Pournelle" and "Pournelle axes" and see if you think he's biased. (In fact, that might make an interesting discussion in and of itself.)
"Pournelle" sounds suspiciouly French... :)

I'm familiar with him, but I'm not really sure what your point is about "bias". I never used that term, but in this context it's impossible to avoid, and not necessarily bad. Any political measurement has to be measured in reference to something. There is no objective center, especially if we're talking about international politics. The most carefully "unbiased" chart has to put 0,0 somewhere, so even if the questions themselves are perfect, you still have to pick a center, and that is going to not only be somewhat arbitrary, but is going to vary from country to country.

[furt]

Well, let's see: this is a gathering place for intelligent people seeking to dispel ignorance and find the truth.

So yeah, it leans to the left. :)Hah! What a clever, witty and heretofore unknown thought. Would that I could be so original.



In re: the OP, ISTM there's been a definite influx of conservatives in the last month or three. Some have been quite thoughful and therefore welcome, others less so.

[Evil Captor]

We've had lots of debates about that subject...

There are many non-US posters here, especially European, Canadian and Australian. Those countries are, on average, to the left of the US, so that introduces a leftward slant, relative to the US center.

If you look at things economically and socially, you will find many right and many left leaning economic types, and many left leaning social types, but very few right leaning social types. For example, many of the posters here who are labeled "conservative" support same sex marriage. To your typical American, this board would appear pretty left leaning, especially in the social sphere. Not that social conservatives are unheard of, they're just much rarer here than in the US as a whole.

You will probably find that if any group is overrepresented here , it's those who lean towards a libertarian philosophy.

And there's a reason for that. Social conservatives got NOTHING in the area of rationality to lean on. They get pummelled senseless on the rare occasions when they pipe up on the issues.that define them (as they should). I wouldnt' be surprised to learn that there are social conservatives posting on MPSIMS or Cafe Society or General Questions, but who don't post in Great Debates or the Pit or IMHO on social conservatism issues.

[John Mace]

And there's a reason for that. Social conservatives got NOTHING in the area of rationality to lean on. They get pummelled senseless on the rare occasions when they pipe up on the issues.that define them (as they should).
I'm not so sure about that first part. But I do agree that there are certain posters who get pummelled senseless on a regular basis around here.

[Shodan]

The only extreme that is not over-represented here is the extreme Right. They get shouted down and piled on until they leave.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

Left leaning compared to what? By who's yardstick? Seems you mean by the US's. In that case I'd say its definitely left leaning, with a majority of posters probably being 'independant' but leaning towards the Democrat party (though I'm not sure anyone has ever asked that particular question...i.e. are you are Democrat, Republican or Other).

As others have said the board leans 'left' (using US standards) on social issues...heavily in fact as only a few folks are socially conservative on this board (there are a lot of Libertarian/libertarian's on this board...including your's truely). Economically I'd say the board may actually lean a bit 'right' or be more fiscally conservative, though maybe a more accurate reading is that its all over the board but more posters are right of center economically than left. Those who are left though are WAY left. ;)

-XT

[Spoke]

Hah! What a clever, witty and heretofore unknown thought. Would that I could be so original.

My observation was trite and true.

[Rune]

My observation was trite and true.One out of two isn't so bad.

Wasn't there a SDMB poll before the last US presidental election which found Kerry got something like 136% of the votes?

[XT]

Well, I don't know about 136%, but there were several polls showing a heavy leaning towards Kerry. There was also a thread a while ago (not SM's thread another one) that showed a distribution of dopers on a political scale...and it showed a definite left leaning bent (left leaning by US standards...probably radically right wing by certain Euro standards ;) ).

-XT

[RickJay]

The only extreme that is not over-represented here is the extreme Right. They get shouted down and piled on until they leave.

Truly extreme leftists get much the same treatment; Olentzero, a devout communist, came up against fierce opposition.

[Mangetout]

Left or right of what? quite probably the average of this board is left of the centre of American politics, but in terms of the full spectrum of world politics, I'd say it leans noticeably toward the right.

[Shodan]

One out of two isn't so bad.

Wasn't there a SDMB poll before the last US presidental election which found Kerry got something like 136% of the votes?
82%, IIRC.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

Left or right of what? quite probably the average of this board is left of the centre of American politics, but in terms of the full spectrum of world politics, I'd say it leans noticeably toward the right.

Actually if you read the OP carefully I think its pretty obvious he's talking left or right by US standards:

I'm new in these parts but I've been reading a lot trying to decide if the place is worth taking a flyer on and I've come to the conclusion that I cannot come to a conclusion. I'm reasonably sure that there is a mix of voices present here but what is the average poster here like politically, a Democrat or Republican? Or is this like the media where each side claims the other has the influence and scoffs when that is presented the other way...

'Democrat' and 'Republican' are generally US political terms, though I'm sure other countries use them. When used together without other qualifiers (i.e Something Democrat Party, Something Something Republic Party) it points to the US. JMHO here guessing the OPs intent. Otherwise the questions is completely meaningless and unanswerable....not without defining some kind of 'middle' first.

-XT

[Mangetout]

I disagree; I think he's probably started the thread without considering the international aspects; in any case, it isn't irrelevant to mention both contexts, because the left lean (in the American context) is actually in part caused by the contribution of the international members, even though they may not actually consider themselves to be left-leaning in their own contexts.

[Ravenman]

This is just my opinion, but I thought I'd throw this out. I'd say this board leans left, no doubt, but the degree of the list seems to have been reduced in the last few months. At the beginning of this year, I was getting pretty tired of the overwhelming liberal tendency of the discussions (and I say this as a self-described liberal).

I get the feeling that things have righted (ha-ha) a bit, and there's a few more moderate and a couple more good conservative viewpoints being aired. I think that's a good thing. I get a bit tired of going into most threads and arguing, "Yes, I hate Bush, too, but your argument is just plain nutty."

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

That's a good point, xtisme. I am a little out of the loop with regard to how politicos and parties are percieved outside of the USA - would saying conservative and liberal be a way to word this and still come across as not being jingoistic?

[Mangetout]

That's a good point, xtisme. I am a little out of the loop with regard to how politicos and parties are percieved outside of the USA - would saying conservative and liberal be a way to word this and still come across as not being jingoistic?Possibly not; 'liberal' probably means 'left' where you are, but here (the UK), it has always described pretty much the middle of the road, with the 'left' being occupied by socialism of some kind. This isn't quite true today, as 'New labour' is actually not very left-wing at all.

[John Mace]

would saying conservative and liberal be a way to word this and still come across as not being jingoistic?
You're better off with left and right, but even then you're not gonig to be completely clear. That's the problem when you try to describe a multi-dimesional thing in fewer dimensions than it has. Politics is more than a one dimensional "thing". More than two, too!

[rfgdxm]

This board leans somewhat anarcho-syndicalist. In particular this means the right wing posters would be more comfortable at a Libertarian Party meeting than a Republican Party meeting. The most under represented group are the conservative right. Such as those that supported Reagan with his anti-gay, anti-drug, pro-religious involvement in government stance.

[John Mace]

This board leans somewhat anarcho-syndicalist. In particular this means the right wing posters would be more comfortable at a Libertarian Party meeting than a Republican Party meeting. The most under represented group are the conservative right. Such as those that supported Reagan with his anti-gay, anti-drug, pro-religious involvement in government stance.
If the "right wing posters" are as you say they are, I would question whether in fact they are "right wing" to begin with. Like I said, you make significant errors when you map a multi-dimesional concept onto a one dimesional scale. Better to deal with individual issues, or at least acknowledge more than one dimension.

[GIGObuster]

FWIW when I began lurking during the Clinton era, this board looked conservative; many complains against the president, even in times of war you know. :)

I do think it looks liberal now because the current administration has created too many opportune targets.

[rfgdxm]

If the "right wing posters" are as you say they are, I would question whether in fact they are "right wing" to begin with. Like I said, you make significant errors when you map a multi-dimesional concept onto a one dimesional scale. Better to deal with individual issues, or at least acknowledge more than one dimension.
I agree. Why I mentioned anarcho-syndicalists. The term implies a 2 dimensional mapping. I can actually get along well with libertarians so long as economics isn't discussed. And even if economics are discussed, I actually tend to respect libertarians because at least their politics tends to be internally consistent. As opposed to Republicans, who'll argue the government should leave the economy alone, yet want to interfere in the sex lives of citizens.

[Fear Itself]

The only extreme that is not over-represented here is the extreme Right. They get shouted down and piled on until they leave. What are we to conclude from this observation, that the extreme Right is thin-skinned, or that they just lack the intellectual skills to defend their positions?

[Martin Hyde]

I agree. Why I mentioned anarcho-syndicalists. The term implies a 2 dimensional mapping. I can actually get along well with libertarians so long as economics isn't discussed. And even if economics are discussed, I actually tend to respect libertarians because at least their politics tends to be internally consistent. As opposed to Republicans, who'll argue the government should leave the economy alone, yet want to interfere in the sex lives of citizens.

That's pretty 1 dimensional too, because not all Republicans want to interfere in the sex lives of their citizens.

[clairobscur]

That's a good point, xtisme. I am a little out of the loop with regard to how politicos and parties are percieved outside of the USA - would saying conservative and liberal be a way to word this and still come across as not being jingoistic?


"Liberal", in Europe, normally refers to the right wing (it's understood as economically liberal, like in pro free-market, pro-globalization, etc...)

[treis]

I think this board has very even distribution between the economic laissez faire end and the socialist end of the spectrum. On welfare issues like national health care and education the board leans fairly strongly to the left. On social issues like abortion and homosexuality this board is so far left that the center of the American scale is the far right of the boards scale.

This board is overwhelmingly anti-Bush so that might be shifting the perception of the board to the left.

[elucidator]

"Pournelle" sounds suspiciouly French... :)...
There are certain of us devotees who think of the day that Jerry Pournelle met Larry Niven as "Black Thursday"....

[Mangetout]

What are we to conclude from this observation, that the extreme Right is thin-skinned, or that they just lack the intellectual skills to defend their positions?Crikey, I'm not sure if I dare say this, but my impression (which I do not present as factual, balanced, or infallible) of the folks on the extreme right is that they often simply fail to recognise the potential validity of any other viewpoints than their own; I suppose you could call it dogmatism and it is not at all unrelated to the religious fundamentalism with which it often stands hand in hand.

Dogmatism and a tendency to black-and-white dichotomous categorisation are not qualities that tend to work well in sustained debate; after a few failed attempts to shout down the opposition (because they're so obviously wrong that it's not even worth hearing them), what is left to do but to move on?

Of course I'm probably only saying this because I'm a dumb lefty...

[lissener]

I'd say that the middle of this board's bell curve is center-left, but that the extremists around here are mostly on the far right. I only know of one extreme leftist, but there is a pretty healthy bunch of extreme rightists around.

[Fear Itself]

This board is overwhelmingly anti-Bush so that might be shifting the perception of the board to the left.Since when is being anti-Bush a position peculiar to the left? With 63% of the country expressing disapproval of how the President's is doing his job (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html?section=cnn_latest), it seems to me that being anti-Bush is an overwhelmingly mainstream and centrist position.

[Evil Captor]

I'm not so sure about that first part. But I do agree that there are certain posters who get pummelled senseless on a regular basis around here.

Oh, yeah, there's sound logical reasons behind opposition to birth control and support for celibacy, and for opposing gay marriage. The feast of pure reason, indeed.

[Evil Captor]

I think this board has very even distribution between the economic laissez faire end and the socialist end of the spectrum. On welfare issues like national health care and education the board leans fairly strongly to the left. On social issues like abortion and homosexuality this board is so far left that the center of the American scale is the far right of the boards scale.

This board is overwhelmingly anti-Bush so that might be shifting the perception of the board to the left.

What were Bush's approval ratings at this week? 35% or 37%? The Dope might have an even lower rating than that, but it's hard to call "anti-Bush" being out of the mainstream lately, though this board was generally anti-Bush even when Bush was at his highest approval ratings. I guess what I'm saying is, anti-Bush is a mainstream position right now, and wouldn't really be shifting the board to the left.

[Shodan]

What are we to conclude from this observation, that the extreme Right is thin-skinned, or that they just lack the intellectual skills to defend their positions?
No, that they get piled on and shouted down until they leave, as I mentioned.

It's not a question of thin-skinnedness or intellectual rigor. Extremist positions of any stripe tend to be difficult to defend intellectually, but the "refutation" of extreme Right positions on the SDMB is not entirely intellectual. It is also a matter of repeated Pitting, sniping, nitpicking and deliberate misrepresentation, demanding cites that the sky is blue, the automatic assumption of bad faith, and the usual process of half a dozen posters firing off questions at once and then attacking the poster if he fails to write a thesis addressing every point.

You can't really bring off the same process on extreme left positions, because there are not enough right-wing posters who are willing to use those tactics. The conservatives (myself excepted) tend to be fair-minded folks like Bricker or Mr. Moto. There are exceptions, of course, but that is the general tendency, IMO.
Crikey, I'm not sure if I dare say this, but my impression (which I do not present as factual, balanced, or infallible) of the folks on the extreme right is that they often simply fail to recognise the potential validity of any other viewpoints than their own...Well, sure - but I would hardly confine this only to positions on the extreme Right.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Oh, yeah, there's sound logical reasons behind opposition to birth control and support for celibacy, and for opposing gay marriage. The feast of pure reason, indeed.
Or "Diebold rigged the election", even. ;)

Regards,
Shodan

[Mangetout]

Well, sure - but I would hardly confine this only to positions on the extreme Right. Of course; extremism carries certainty and dogmatism with it almost by default, however, I would still say that (in my experience), the far right has more of a tendency for dichotomous argument, perhaps because of its association with religious fundamentalism - which also has a tendency toward that property.

[Sam Stone]

Oh, yeah, there's sound logical reasons behind opposition to birth control and support for celibacy, and for opposing gay marriage. The feast of pure reason, indeed.

I support both of those, but to believe that there are no possible logical reasons to oppose either is silly, and proof of the close-mindedness that xtime is talking about.

You can make all kinds of social policy arguments against both. A common argument against gay marriage is that marriage is a powerful and valuable public institution, and that watering down its definition weakens it and makes marriage less stable, with the result of more children out of wedlock, more crime, more poverty, yada yada. You can debate this and maybe even shoot it down, but it's a reasonable argument.

The same goes for birth control. If it promotes more sex, then you get more HIV, a weakening of values, sex takes on less importance so it tends to bind partners together less, which leads to more divorce, etc. Again, this argument may be refutable, but many people believe it.

[Shodan]

Of course; extremism carries certainty and dogmatism with it almost by default, however, I would still say that (in my experience), the far right has more of a tendency for dichotomous argument, perhaps because of its association with religious fundamentalism - which also has a tendency toward that property.
If you are arguing that the far Right is more prone to fallacies of false dilemma than other extremists, I wouldn't argue against you because I don't know. I would merely say that extremists in general tend to group others into "those that agree with me 100%'" and "heretics". I am thinking here of the fissiparation of Marxism into Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc., for example.

Put more simply, extremists think everyone else is an extremist.

Regards,
Shodan

[Evil Captor]

Or "Diebold rigged the election", even. ;)

Regards,
Shodan

When I start saying that I feel Diebold rigged the election because the Great Sky Fairy told me it did, then you can go after me on that point.

[Mangetout]

If you are arguing that the far Right is more prone to fallacies of false dilemma than other extremists, I wouldn't argue against you because I don't know. I would merely say that extremists in general tend to group others into "those that agree with me 100%'" and "heretics". I am thinking here of the fissiparation of Marxism into Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc., for example.

Put more simply, extremists think everyone else is an extremist.

Regards,
ShodanYou make some good points; perhaps it's just that I'm more immediately familiar with the right than the left.

[Weirddave]

When I start saying that I feel Diebold rigged the election because the Great Sky Fairy told me it did, then you can go after me on that point.
Well, since no facts have been introduced to support the claim that Diebold rigged the election, just harebrained speculation and logic defying intuitive leaps, what exactly is the difference between making a claim based upon religious faith and one based upon partisan hysteria? Frankly, I can't see a jot of difference between the two.

[Shodan]

When I start saying that I feel Diebold rigged the election because the Great Sky Fairy told me it did, then you can go after me on that point.
The president of Diebold is the Great Sky Fairy? You should have told us!

:D

Regards,
Shodan

[Clothahump]

It tilts left, worse than the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

[rjung]

...and everyone knows friend Clothahump is clearly a middle-of-the-spectrum moderate! ;)

[John Mace]

Oh, yeah, there's sound logical reasons behind opposition to birth control and support for celibacy, and for opposing gay marriage. The feast of pure reason, indeed.

Who has ever come on this board advocating a ban on birth control? But it IS against the teaching of the Catholic Church (even if it's largely ignored in the US), so one might as well say that Jews who keep Kosher can't defend their behavior. In fact, no religious practices stand up to logical scrutiny. But banning birth control is a very, very fring idea. That simply is not representative of typical social conservative ideas.

By celibacy, I assume you mean abstinance for minors. No, there are no good arguments to defend the idea that minors should not engage in sex. :rolleyes:

Gay marriage? Again, it's a religious thing. Most Americans oppose it, as do the vast majority of US Congressmen/women. One needn't be a social conservative to oppose SSM, unless you want to call Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy social conservatives.

[Sunspace]

It tilts left, worse than the Leaning Tower of Pisa.I thought the Leaning Tower of Pisa tilted south... :)

[BobLibDem]

I think it tilts away from wherever you happen to view yourself. Certainly there is now a bumper crop of Bush-bashers, but that's to be expected when he is the biggest game in town. I wasn't here when Clinton was president, but presumably the anti-Clintonites were active then. The political story is always the incumbent, doubly so when said incumbent starts a war.

I agree with John Mace the the libertarian philosophy is grossly overrepresented here, I'd say by at least a power of ten. Other than that, I see a cadre of righties and lefties and a few moderates.

[Taber]

By celibacy, I assume you mean abstinance for minors. No, there are no good arguments to defend the idea that minors should not engage in sex. :rolleyes:


I'm pretty sure he's talking about abstinance-only sex ed.

[Quartz]

IMHO this board is Leftist even by British, if not European, standards. However, the Leftists are far more cohesive than those of the Right, so that makes the board seem even more skewed to the Left. It further seems to me that those on the Left are less respectful of the right (as opposed to Right) of others to hold positions with which the Left disagree. Just look at the denigration of Fox in the U.S., or the Daily Mail in the U.K. Where IMHO the board is neutral is on the Statist / Libertarian axis, with a few well-spoken outriders (hi, Liberal).

[treis]

Who has ever come on this board advocating a ban on birth control? But it IS against the teaching of the Catholic Church (even if it's largely ignored in the US), so one might as well say that Jews who keep Kosher can't defend their behavior.

Jews aren't trying to use government to force me to keep Kosher nor does them keeping Kosher affect me. As far as I am concerned they need not defend their behavior to me.

[Bryan Ekers]

The board is left-ish by happenstance. The premise is to dispel ignorance, which means challenging established beliefs and examining them to see if they still serve a useful purpose. Conservatives (by definition, I'd guess) seek to maintain established values, thus they face the larger number of challenges.

Of course, hard-core lefties can get locked into their dogmatic views as well. We has a guy named chumpski around who was (or at least claimed to be) a hard-core communist. His views didn't go unchallenged (the challenges were detailed and lengthy, in fact). I think the classic "left-wing loony gets shot down" thread is this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=111345), in which a person (now gone) started with the assumption that eating meat was evil and asking with claimed innocence why meat-eaters were willing to be so evil. Hilarity ensued.

Bullshit is bullshit and will be challenged here. The conservatives (at the moment) just have more of it.

[Musicat]

"I am not left-wing or right-wing. I am more middle-of-the-bird."

-- Pat Paulsen