Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:13 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Bone is a good example, as far as how he made arguments, IMO. He didn't JAQ off, he didn't argue disingenuously, he didn't play what-about games, etc. He honestly stated his position and generally honestly answered questions. I got frustrated with him sometimes because he occasionally seemed to lose interest or abandon discussions, and because he didn't seem that interested in discussions about morality and right vs wrong (AFAICT, anyway), but he never took part in any of the troll-ish argument styles above, that I recall.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 12-01-2019 at 11:13 AM.
  #52  
Old 12-01-2019, 12:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
I posted a link to this 538 article about fighting during Thanksgiving for other parts of it, but pertinent to this discussion more is this last bit:
Quote:
... One of the reasons it’s hard to change people’s minds on climate change, for example, is because the debate isn’t really about scientific facts. It’s about deeply held personal values and identities.

And things get tricky when they get personal. Research on arguments in families is often framed around finding ways to argue while maintaining the strength of the relationship. But there are times when our personal values about a political issue can be more important than our personal values about the relationship. Some of the students Johnson studied, for instance, were kids whose sexual orientation or gender identity made them feel like family members’ political opinions were a direct personal attack. The family members didn’t see it that way. But we can’t always separate the political and personal. ...
And I think both sides think that they know and understand the values of the other side (even of other members on their own side) better than they do.
  #53  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:44 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But recently, it seems that some liberal Dopers object to conservatism's substance itself, period - as alluded to in TubaDiva's thread, there is this attitude by some of late, that if you disagree with them on topics like LGBT, feminism, or other social issues, or support Trump, you are a bad person, period, regardless of how civilly or calmly you may go about it. In other words, in their eyes, there can be no such thing as civil disagreement.
When you believe that any minority should be tortured, denied medical care, and denied human rights, I agree that you are not behaving civilly and you are a bad person, period. Stop being a bigot and supporting openly bigoted policies if you don't want to be treated like you are a bigot who supports openly bigoted policies. Telling me that you think my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them is not at all civil, even if you manage to convey 'calm' when you post it.
  #54  
Old 12-01-2019, 05:29 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Telling me that you think my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them....
That seems highly hyperbolic for discussions on this board.
  #55  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:40 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Telling me that you think my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them
Okay, see - this is kind of what I was talking about. When has any conservative here said that?
  #56  
Old 12-01-2019, 10:56 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Okay, see - this is kind of what I was talking about. When has any conservative here said that?
I've missed the plot, I think. Pantastic, what are you speaking of when you write: "...my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them.."

I'm just trying to figure out the context here.
  #57  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:00 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
Oh, and again, how is this an ATMB topic?
  #58  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:18 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Oh, and again, how is this an ATMB topic?
It's ATMB because this isn't a GD/Elections debate about conservatism in general, it is specific to conservatism on the Straight Dope. I am asking our liberal posters what they consider good conservatism to be, since many said they do want a conservative presence to continue here, they just aren't happy with the current conservatism.
  #59  
Old 12-02-2019, 07:42 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Okay, see - this is kind of what I was talking about. When has any conservative here said that?
Any time they say they they support Trump, they are saying that. That's why a number of other boards have banned a declaration of support for Trump, it's a way of declaring support for bigotry and a general assault on anyone not a straight white right wing male without openly saying so. It's a way of threatening other posters while pretending not to.

It's part of how the Right weaponizes so-called civility.
  #60  
Old 12-02-2019, 08:10 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
That seems highly hyperbolic for discussions on this board.
Why? That’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing. Any support for Trump is support for cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people. .
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #61  
Old 12-02-2019, 09:19 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It's ATMB because this isn't a GD/Elections debate about conservatism in general, it is specific to conservatism on the Straight Dope. I am asking our liberal posters what they consider good conservatism to be, since many said they do want a conservative presence to continue here, they just aren't happy with the current conservatism.
My mistake then. I didn't realize the definition was so broad for ATMB. I thought it was just for discussing issues relating to Board administration or moderation, neither of which your query seemed to fall under.

I'll bow out. Sorry.
  #62  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:13 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Why? That’s exactly what the Trump administration is doing. Any support for Trump is support for cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people. .
To make sure that I understand the position being expressed by several here -

Supporting cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people, saying that "my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them" is incompatible with being a good poster.

Any support of Trump is defined by you as support for those things. No matter what the individuals actually say, you know what they mean. ("Wagner, Max, Wagner-so I know what he's really tryin' to tell me ...")

It is therefore impossible for a poster to express any support of Trump and be a good poster and if a conservative expresses any support of Trump there is no discussion possible, they are "bad people", evil by definition, and being hostile by definition. The only political discussion possible is among those who all agree that Trump must go. Others are, well "others" - the bad guys who we need know nothing more about than that they are on the side of evil.

I'm sure your Thanksgivings were fun!
  #63  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:43 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
To make sure that I understand the position being expressed by several here -

Supporting cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people, saying that "my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them" is incompatible with being a good poster.

Any support of Trump is defined by you as support for those things. No matter what the individuals actually say, you know what they mean. ("Wagner, Max, Wagner-so I know what he's really tryin' to tell me ...")

It is therefore impossible for a poster to express any support of Trump and be a good poster and if a conservative expresses any support of Trump there is no discussion possible, they are "bad people", evil by definition, and being hostile by definition. The only political discussion possible is among those who all agree that Trump must go. Others are, well "others" - the bad guys who we need know nothing more about than that they are on the side of evil.

I'm sure your Thanksgivings were fun!
If it is possible to support something Trump does while not ignoring all else he has done, said and supported, then it is possible in my eyes to be a Good Conservative. If on the other hand one uses that supposed singular deed as an excuse to dismiss everything else he has done, then I can't see you as a Good Conservative.
  #64  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:06 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
Moving the goalpost dude.

The question is not if one can be a Good Conservative (or if someone supporting Trump on an issue can be speak, or at least be heard, only if they first pledge their disapproval for Trump on other issues) but a good poster.

Is the definition of "good poster" sharing your values? Sharing your political beliefs? Being a member of the your tribe and accepting your revealed truths?

Can someone have beliefs that you think are not good beliefs, even beliefs that you see as bad, and be a good poster? This goes beyond supporting Trump. It is about whether or not we restrict our exchange of ideas to only those with the same values that we have.

The ONLY value that GD has is that it is one a few places left where those with divergent values can actually have an exchange of ideas, less and less so because both liberals and conservatives are defining having different values as a reason to behave badly to each other and as unworthy of listening to.

Fuck that shit.
  #65  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:12 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Moving the goalpost dude.

The question is not if one can be a Good Conservative (or if someone supporting Trump on an issue can be speak, or at least be heard, only if they first pledge their disapproval for Trump on other issues) but a good poster.
That is not what I said, and the title of this thread has "good conservatism", not "good posterism".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Is the definition of "good poster" sharing your values? Sharing your political beliefs? Being a member of the your tribe and accepting your revealed truths?
No, nope and nada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Can someone have beliefs that you think are not good beliefs, even beliefs that you see as bad, and be a good poster? This goes beyond supporting Trump. It is about whether or not we restrict our exchange of ideas to only those with the same values that we have.
How are these beliefs/ideas presented and supported?
  #66  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:19 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,804
Everyone should read "The Crooked Timber of Humanity," a collection of essays by Isaiah Berlin. It sets out the idea that a liberal democracy necessarily must tolerate folks who start with different, irreconcilable sets of values--but also that not all irreconcilable sets of values need to be tolerated.

So there's room for people who disagree on the value of individual excellence versus the value of a community safety net. But there's not necessarily room for disagreement on the value of denying human rights to historically oppressed groups.

Velocity, now that you've read all these responses, I'm curious: what do you think a good liberal poster looks like?
  #67  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:33 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 395
The emotionally charged topics and the posters who post them or discuss them, can in no way BE swayed. They are right, YOU are wrong, no matter your reasoning. All 'discussion' is gone. So I am thinking a good conservative on this board would just fail to discuss anything emotionally charged. Ala BPC
  #68  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:33 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It is therefore impossible for a poster to express any support of Trump and be a good poster and if a conservative expresses any support of Trump there is no discussion possible, they are "bad people", evil by definition, and being hostile by definition. The only political discussion possible is among those who all agree that Trump must go. Others are, well "others" - the bad guys who we need know nothing more about than that they are on the side of evil.
Yes, anyone who supports Trump cannot by definition be a "good conservative." If there are any good conservatives, they stopped being/supporting Republicans at the latest by Election Day 2016.
  #69  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:35 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
Czarcasm, as was made clear in the op, which I assume you read. the question is relevant to posting behavior, not as a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the op
So what I am asking is, what does the 80% want from the 20%? What do you want us to change, or amend, or modify the way we go about our posting?
Now if you read that op and you are posting what you just posted, you are being what I would call "a bad poster", i.e. exhibiting bad posting behavior that is dishonest. Not a bad person, but postling badly.

Which gets to the other portion: yes, the issue is within a very wide (but not absolute) range HOW the beliefs/ideas presented and supported. There are some beliefs/ideas that are so harmful to others, often ones explicitly hateful, as to be constrained. I'd argue for keeping that number small and putting more things into that group with some hesitation, not just because some number are offended by beliefs other than theirs.

LHOD, is there room to disagree about what counts as "denying human rights to historically oppressed groups" and what is not? Or is your (and likely mine too) the only version of that is allowed? Is there room for someone to argue that there is some things done for good reasons also impose what they see as other rights being denied and debating how much one value is worth offsetting another? Or is the majority opinion of the board the only take on those issues allowed? Lest some feel offended?
  #70  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:36 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,584
What a load of hooey. That's projection and hyperbole.

Does Donald Trump push policies that hurt immigrants, socially disadvantaged classes, minorities, and women? Yes. Does he cater to the racists and bigots? Absolutely. But that's a far cry from saying he advocates violence and murder.

It's exaggeration and projection. It's like when conservatives decried that Obama wanted to destroy the country, or claim Bernie supporters are all commies. Or saying "me too" is blanket advocating that all women rape accusers are automatically telling the truth, or that sexual assault accusers all just want to hurt men. It's taking the actions of a few and assigning those motives to the group. That's exactly the sort of crap being complained about for conservatives, and it isn't any better coming from liberals.

There are plenty of people who support Trump for reasons other than "boo brown people". Sure, they'd a lot of cognative dissonance required to defend some many of Trump's policies and actions, but that doesn't make everyone a racist, and certainly not an advocate for violence and murder.
  #71  
Old 12-02-2019, 12:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
To make sure that I understand the position being expressed by several here -

Supporting cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people, saying that "my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them" is incompatible with being a good poster.

Any support of Trump is defined by you as support for those things. No matter what the individuals actually say, you know what they mean. ("Wagner, Max, Wagner-so I know what he's really tryin' to tell me ...")

It is therefore impossible for a poster to express any support of Trump and be a good poster and if a conservative expresses any support of Trump there is no discussion possible, they are "bad people", evil by definition, and being hostile by definition. The only political discussion possible is among those who all agree that Trump must go. Others are, well "others" - the bad guys who we need know nothing more about than that they are on the side of evil.

I'm sure your Thanksgivings were fun!
Yes, you seem to have captured the essence of some Dopers' opinions.
  #72  
Old 12-02-2019, 01:33 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
HD,

Do you grok the ways in which your posting style often fails to meet any reasonable definition of being “a good poster” independent of the values and beliefs they represent?
  #73  
Old 12-02-2019, 01:47 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,139
Conservatives who are questioning how they should conduct themselves on this board should simply look at the more liberal posters that they respect, and seek to match that standard.

In general, if someone is open-minded, thoughtful, and informative, it's pretty hard to ask for more.

Pointing out which posters do not meet those standards is a legitimate thing to do, in terms of describing the atmosphere on the board -- but just because others behave poorly doesn't mean anyone should feel at liberty to match those low standards. As children are always taught, you are solely responsible for yourself and how you behave.
  #74  
Old 12-02-2019, 02:07 PM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Does Donald Trump push policies that hurt immigrants, socially disadvantaged classes, minorities, and women? Yes. Does he cater to the racists and bigots? Absolutely. But that's a far cry from saying he advocates violence and murder.
You want us to forget things, apparently.

Sorry, no:
Quote:
On August 9, 2016, in the thick of the United States presidential election campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump warned supporters at a North Carolina rally that his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s election and her following Supreme Court appointments would result in strict gun control. He cautioned, “nothing you can do, folks.” After a slight pause, he continued: “Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Do you know a different Second Amendment which would be remotely relevant to the task of removing judges you disagree with?

More:
Quote:
During the campaign, he told supporters at a rally that if they saw someone about to throw a tomato, they should “knock the crap out of them,” adding that he would “pay for [the] legal fees.” In fact, Trump did say that he was thinking of paying the legal fees of a supporter who sucker-punched a man at a rally in North Carolina (Trump didn’t, of course, because Trump is a cheap liar).
Hint: The "he" quoted above was Trump. Just to make sure there's no confusion. Or covfefe, either.

Hate crimes rose since Trump's election.

So, do you want to walk your statement back, or will you claim Trump is FAKE NEWS?
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
If you don't stop to analyze the snot spray, you are missing that which is best in life. - Miller
I'm not sure why this is, but I actually find this idea grosser than cannibalism. - Excalibre, after reading one of my surefire million-seller business plans.
  #75  
Old 12-02-2019, 02:17 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post

There are plenty of people who support Trump for reasons other than "boo brown people". Sure, they'd a lot of cognative dissonance required to defend some many of Trump's policies and actions, but that doesn't make everyone a racist, and certainly not an advocate for violence and murder.
There are no good reasons to support Trump, none that come close at all to outweighing the evils of Trump. At best these people believe that Trump's evils can be tolerated so that they can achieve their own selfish goals. So, even if they're not racist, they're perfectly happy to allow the propagation and promotion of racism. That's at best.
  #76  
Old 12-02-2019, 02:20 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
There are no good reasons to support Trump, none that come close at all to outweighing the evils of Trump. At best these people believe that Trump's evils can be tolerated so that they can achieve their own selfish goals. So, even if they're not racist, they're perfectly happy to allow the propagation and promotion of racism. That's at best.
That's pretty much it. Trump was the way to a victory for the Republican party. Never mind that the Republican party isn't the Republican party anymore--all that matters is an R in the win column.
  #77  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
HD,

Do you grok the ways in which your posting style often fails to meet any reasonable definition of being “a good poster” independent of the values and beliefs they represent?
As has already been explored in this thread, for many of my views / positions, there is no way to post it that some segment of Doperdom would find acceptable. "I think President Trump is doing a decent job" is posting badly in their eyes because it represents wrongthink, not because of my phrasing or reasoning.

I'm certain that some of my posts could be phrased better, or less snarky, or less focused on minor factual errors. I recognize that sometimes I give into the temptation to nitpick posts or hammer on a particular point for too long. Usually, I feel like that's been in response to those same "bad"-style posts from liberal posters (who of course get a pass for their "bad" posts from most of the audience here), but as Ravenman pointed out, we all ought to strive to be better, regardless of the bad behavior we see in others.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-02-2019 at 03:36 PM.
  #78  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:43 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
As has already been explored in this thread, for many of my views / positions, there is no way to post it that some segment of Doperdom would find acceptable. "I think President Trump is doing a decent job" is posting badly in their eyes because it represents wrongthink, not because of my phrasing or reasoning.
Could it be because some don't find it acceptable because:
1. There are precious few facts to back up such a statement,
2. Your opinion of what is "decent" may not line up with others, or
3. Some combination of the two?
  #79  
Old 12-02-2019, 03:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Could it be because some don't find it acceptable because:
1. There are precious few facts to back up such a statement,
2. Your opinion of what is "decent" may not line up with others, or
3. Some combination of the two?
I suspect it's mostly that my opinion of what is "decent" doesn't align with the opinions of many Dopers (so, #2, sort of, with perhaps a more narrow definition of "others"). FWIW, my opinion is shared by ~43% of the country, so it's not like I'm some crazy outlier. That it's treated as blasphemous / evil here offers far more insight into just how far left the SDMB is than into that commonly-held view itself.
  #80  
Old 12-02-2019, 04:03 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,584
Derleth, thank you for spot checking my memory. Those incidents do justify accusations of calls to violence and arguably murder. The characterization of Trump's positions, however, still seems exaggerated.

Look, I think Trump is a criminal, a threat to national security, an abysmal human, a narcissistic, selfish, aggrandizing cheat and a racist and bigot. His catering to and defending white supremecists is appalling and disqualifies him as a decent human being.

And I agree that Trump supporters are, at best, justifying all his horrendous acts for political expediency. And I have a hard time understanding them for it. But that doesn't mean they are all closet racists who advocate violence and murder.
  #81  
Old 12-02-2019, 04:19 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
But that doesn't mean they are all closet racists
The phrase “closet racist” implies that racism is some kind of rare, extreme condition that has to be carefully diagnosed. It’s not. We live in a fundamentally racist society made up of people full to the brim of, at the very least, implicit racism as a part of their societal instilling.

To even try to be something else requires active monitoring your own attitudes, thoughts, statements, and decisions, and being rigorously self-examining and diligent effort to counteract racist tendencies. Anyone who lives life with the self assurance that E isn’t a racist is almost certainly a racist.

Quote:
who advocate violence and murder.
Perhaps not “advocating” but certainly an accessory to.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #82  
Old 12-02-2019, 04:31 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Okay, see - this is kind of what I was talking about. When has any conservative here said that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
I've missed the plot, I think. Pantastic, what are you speaking of when you write: "...my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them.."

I'm just trying to figure out the context here.
That's what "disagree with them on topics like LGBT, feminism, or other social issues, or support Trump," means in practice. Of course conservatives don't outright say that they want to torture and kill people, they will generally couch it in all kinds of weasel words and euphemism, and claim that you're not being 'civil' if you point out what they're really advocating, voting for, or otherwise supporting.

For example, on LGBT issues:

"Gay conversion therapy" sounds benign, but the actual practice simply involves torturing gay people until they act straight to get it to stop. "Trans Panic" laws and doctrines allow someone to use "I found out this person was trans, and was so enraged that I assaulted or killed them" as a defense to murder or assault charges. Conservatives consistently oppose attempts to ban/remove such practices, and in many cases actively support and encourage them (Mike Pence is noted for his like of conversion therapy). "Religious Freedom" laws are specifically about protecting medical providers from being sued if they refuse to provide lifesaving medical care to someone they are bigoted against as long as they claim a religious justification. Such laws would prevent Tyra Hunter's family from being able to sue after:

Quote:
According to the memo, Poole told investigators that Hunter, wearing pants and a blouse, was conscious when rescuers arrived and "was starting to complain of pain, and the ambulance person that was treating {Hunter} said to her that Everything is going to be all right, honey.'

"At that point, she started to urinate {on} herself," the memo continued. "The ambulance person started to cut the pants leg on the jeans. {Poole said} he started cutting up the leg and suddenly stopped, and jumped back when he found out that she was a man and said, This bitch ain't no girl . . . it's a nigger, he's got a dick.' "

Poole said the black technician "then got up and went over to his partner, and they were over there laughing and telling jokes about that," the memo said. She said Hunter went two to five minutes without treatment as the rescuers laughed.
  #83  
Old 12-02-2019, 04:53 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,041
I'll use an example of what I think good conservatism and good posting would look like.

On the topic of the poor conditions in camps where asylum seekers were housed, and the policy of family separation, there are a few different arguments that could be made in support.

1) I'd like to house them in better conditions, but there are practical reasons why we can't (cost, lack of facilities, etc.).
2) We need to discourage asylum seekers because our economy can't support it, so making things as miserable as possible for the individuals and families is a good thing.
3) We need to discourage asylum seekers because they threaten the purity of white culture in the U.S.
4) I don't believe the reports that conditions are bad. It's all fine in the camps.

#1 is "good" conservatism in that it discusses the costs and benefits of both sides. Liberals can argue that the cruelty, intentional or not, doesn't justify the means, but that's a discussion that has value here. I will disagree vehemently with anyone who uses cost to justify the camps, but I will also disagree vehemently with anyone who says such opinions should be banned here.

#2 is bad conservatism in that it ignores the humans involved. Considering innocent people as mere collateral damage and advocating cruelty makes you a bad person, IMO. I don't think these views should be banned from the board, but people espousing them should be subject to harsh criticism without whining that they are poor persecuted conservatives.

#3 is despicable behavior. These posters should be banned, this is not a discussion worth having here.

#4 is poor posting behavior. It is impossible to have discussions with posters who ignore evidence and simply dismiss anything that might contradict their entrenched views. This kind of behavior should be warned, and if posters are unable to post in good faith, they should be banned.
  #84  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:49 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 15,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The emotionally charged topics and the posters who post them or discuss them, can in no way BE swayed. They are right, YOU are wrong, no matter your reasoning. All 'discussion' is gone. So I am thinking a good conservative on this board would just fail to discuss anything emotionally charged. Ala BPC
And "good liberals" as well.

And -- semi-related -- are the Frequent Flyers actually all the emotional about it? I get the feeling sometimes that its a cross between a standard schtick <sic?> for them and more a desire just to piss people off. Liberal, fellow conservative, whoever. Don't get me wrong; I feel the same about some of the folks on our side. And more than any emotion disingenuousness can be the ultimate debate stopper.
  #85  
Old 12-02-2019, 06:53 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Velocity, now that you've read all these responses, I'm curious: what do you think a good liberal poster looks like?
I'd say pretty much the same as the good responses there were in this thread - I think a good liberal poster is simply someone who argues in good faith, doesn't stereotype his/her opponents, is able to see what things look like from the other side, etc. I've myself been persuaded over to the liberal side on many views (went from anti-marijuana legalization to in favor of it, from arguing for toughness on crime to prison/justice reform, from low taxes to high taxation of the rich, etc.)
  #86  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:19 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
FWIW, my opinion is shared by ~43% of the country, so it's not like I'm some crazy outlier. That it's treated as blasphemous / evil here offers far more insight into just how far left the SDMB is than into that commonly-held view itself.
I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but the popularity of something doesn’t really relate to its acceptability. I just saw a poll the other day that at the time, 61% of Americans disapproved of the Freedom Riders of the civil rights era, whereas now I think an even greater percentage of Americans would view them as unquestioned heroes for the risks they took and the righteousness of their cause. I would hate to think that people who supported civil rights in the 1960s ought to have felt an obligation to mince their words around the racists who opposed them, solely on the basis that the racism happened to be quite popular.

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-02-2019 at 10:20 PM.
  #87  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:26 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
FWIW, my opinion is shared by ~43% of the country, so it's not like I'm some crazy outlier.
It's worth exactly zilch.
  #88  
Old 12-02-2019, 10:27 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
I'll use an example of what I think good conservatism and good posting would look like.

On the topic of the poor conditions in camps where asylum seekers were housed, and the policy of family separation, there are a few different arguments that could be made in support.

1) I'd like to house them in better conditions, but there are practical reasons why we can't (cost, lack of facilities, etc.).
2) We need to discourage asylum seekers because our economy can't support it, so making things as miserable as possible for the individuals and families is a good thing.
3) We need to discourage asylum seekers because they threaten the purity of white culture in the U.S.
4) I don't believe the reports that conditions are bad. It's all fine in the camps.

#1 is "good" conservatism in that it discusses the costs and benefits of both sides. Liberals can argue that the cruelty, intentional or not, doesn't justify the means, but that's a discussion that has value here. I will disagree vehemently with anyone who uses cost to justify the camps, but I will also disagree vehemently with anyone who says such opinions should be banned here.

#2 is bad conservatism in that it ignores the humans involved. Considering innocent people as mere collateral damage and advocating cruelty makes you a bad person, IMO. I don't think these views should be banned from the board, but people espousing them should be subject to harsh criticism without whining that they are poor persecuted conservatives.

#3 is despicable behavior. These posters should be banned, this is not a discussion worth having here.

#4 is poor posting behavior. It is impossible to have discussions with posters who ignore evidence and simply dismiss anything that might contradict their entrenched views. This kind of behavior should be warned, and if posters are unable to post in good faith, they should be banned.
Like.

What is the worst is when somebody claims 1 or 2 as a thinly veiled excuse to mean 3.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #89  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:20 PM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,584
Acsenray, when I said closet racist, I meant more of an explicit racist who is trying to hide that. I agree there is plenty of intrinsic and unself-examined racism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
That's what "disagree with them on topics like LGBT, feminism, or other social issues, or support Trump," means in practice.[snip]
For example, on LGBT issues:

"Gay conversion therapy" sounds benign, but the actual practice simply involves torturing gay people until they act straight to get it to stop. "Trans Panic" laws and doctrines allow someone to use "I found out this person was trans, and was so enraged that I assaulted or killed them" as a defense to murder or assault charges. Conservatives consistently oppose attempts to ban/remove such practices, and in many cases actively support and encourage them (Mike Pence is noted for his like of conversion therapy). "Religious Freedom" laws are specifically about protecting medical providers from being sued if they refuse to provide lifesaving medical care to someone they are bigoted against as long as they claim a religious justification.
Thank you for the examples to illuminate what you mean. Because otherwise it sounds like empty rhetoric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
4) I don't believe the reports that conditions are bad. It's all fine in the camps.
[snip]

#4 is poor posting behavior. It is impossible to have discussions with posters who ignore evidence and simply dismiss anything that might contradict their entrenched views. This kind of behavior should be warned, and if posters are unable to post in good faith, they should be banned.
Good post over all. I worry, though, with this last one with differentiating bad faith posters from legitimate disbelief. For example, if a conservative days their source for something is Breitbart and Fox news pundits, a liberal would be justified in saying they don't believe it.
  #90  
Old 12-02-2019, 11:59 PM
Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Thank you for the examples to illuminate what you mean. Because otherwise it sounds like empty rhetoric.
To give you some more examples of torture and assault, the 'We disagree on Black Lives Matter' actually means that they're in favor of things like a police officer strangling a man to death during an arrest, another tasering a woman who is complying with orders, or a police officer wrestling a kid with no limbs to the ground. People who disagree that black lives matter like to wrap their support of such abuses in euphemisms and 'law and order' rhetoric, but the stark reality of what they support is quite apparent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/n...chokehold.html
https://www.theroot.com/video-a-cop-...red-1839928031
https://www.theroot.com/investigatio...-vi-1839863219
  #91  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:25 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,930
More examples of the bad posting behaviors that poison GD, whichever side they come from.
  #92  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:38 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,871
Excellent post, TroutMan. The mods might consider making this a sticky (or part of an existing sticky), if they agree hy consensus that it’s good board policy. Perhaps they could replace the example with something similar, but invented and politically neutral.
  #93  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:44 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,373
I think someone like William F. Buckley, Jr, represents "good conservatism". He was an intellectual and supported the principles of conservative politics without pandering to racists, misogynists, and religious fanatics. Trump represents the latter, which is what the Right has become. He is an anti-intellectual who thrives politically on lies and rabble rousing, not facts and sound ideas.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #94  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but the popularity of something doesn’t really relate to its acceptability. I just saw a poll the other day that at the time, 61% of Americans disapproved of the Freedom Riders of the civil rights era, whereas now I think an even greater percentage of Americans would view them as unquestioned heroes for the risks they took and the righteousness of their cause. I would hate to think that people who supported civil rights in the 1960s ought to have felt an obligation to mince their words around the racists who opposed them, solely on the basis that the racism happened to be quite popular.
Such an important point. At the time, the majority of white Americans disapproved of MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights movement. That some big chunk of America approves of deliberately separating kids from their families to harm and deter migrants gives zero indication about whether it's right or wrong (or whether it's "good conservatism"... it's not).
  #95  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:11 AM
Derleth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I think someone like William F. Buckley, Jr, represents "good conservatism". He was an intellectual and supported the principles of conservative politics without pandering to racists, misogynists, and religious fanatics. Trump represents the latter, which is what the Right has become. He is an anti-intellectual who thrives politically on lies and rabble rousing, not facts and sound ideas.
The best thing about Buckley is that he could change his mind, as he did on the topic of civil rights. He had a lot about it worth changing, going from being an out-and-out White Supremacist in 1957 to being someone looking forwards to a Black President in 1969. Part of this was his moral outrage at what his fellow Southern White Supremacists were willing to do to maintain Jim Crow, but another part was a bit darker: He saw that racism was being used by demagogues to whip up Populist fervor, and he, like a number of philosophical Conservatives, was anti-Populist because he saw "too much" Democracy as being a road to tyranny. This ties in with another aspect of traditional Conservative thought, the idea that some are naturally born to rise and others to fall, a natural aristocracy which will self-sort unless a government prevents the best from rising to their level. This ideology can be used to justify any kind of bigotry and institutional oppression.*

The other side of Buckley was his homophobia and AIDS idiocy, something he apparently never redeemed himself of. He called AIDS the "special curse" of the gay community and advocated that everyone with AIDS should get tattoos. This is the bad side of injecting morality into politics: The religious groups have been able to convince otherwise intelligent people that morality extends to purity laws, and that some things which have no moral component are immoral. This disfigures the whole notion of morality, which in its pure form is founded on the Golden Rule, and turns morality into something nonsensical and obscene. Thinking homosexuality is immoral is just as nonsensical as thinking a lemon is a piece of steel.

The best work of Buckley was how he tried to drive the anti-semites and the racists out of the Conservative movement of his era. Didn't take, but at least he helped marginalize the John Birch Society.

*(The other extreme of this is the dogma that there is no natural variation between individuals, that differences in outcome must necessarily be due to oppression, and that, therefore, social programs can achieve absolute equality of attainment. Take this to its extreme form and you end up thinking innate intelligence is bunk, that everyone can be brought up to the same intellectual level, and you end up with doomed programs such as Project 100,000.)
  #96  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:56 AM
Dorjän is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Euclid, OH
Posts: 2,266
"Good Conservatism" is a nice theory but the reality is that in the United States, given its history and the current state of affairs, conservatism is based on a core set of indefensible ideas and values. There's no escaping that. It's just become much more apparently these past few years.
  #97  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:00 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but the popularity of something doesn’t really relate to its acceptability. ...
Sure. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the right one just because it's common. I was merely rebutting the claim that my 'opinion of what is "decent" may not line up with others'. It DOES line up with lots of "others", they just happen to mostly not post here.
  #98  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:02 AM
Irishman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Denton, TX, USA
Posts: 12,584
Pantastic, I do appreciate you adding examples to show your point. I agree the incidents you mention are terrible. I do not, however, agree that opponents of "Black Lives Matter" necessarily support those behaviors from the police. I think there are other motivations at play, including misunderstanding. And there are levels of "I don't support this action by BLM but don't accept that action of the cops."

However, this isn't the thread to get into that topic. What's relevant to this thread is that you have provided an example of assuming your opponents position and projecting intent.

It's a similar process to conservatives and "the War on Christmas". "Liberals are anti-christianity and want to get rid of Jesus."
  #99  
Old 12-03-2019, 12:36 PM
krondys's Avatar
krondys is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gillette, Wyoming
Posts: 1,152
I live in Wyoming. About as red as red gets.

When I first truly began to become politically aware, 20 years ago, I was quite obviously very much to the left of nearly everybody that I knew. My employers (small, family business) were VERY conservative, massive Rush Limbaugh fans, Reagan-worshippers, Clinton-haters, and all that. I was very much NOT.

They believed that minimal government interference and low taxes would drive economic strength, resulting in that "rising tide that lifts all boats", and that the increase in productivity from the extra money available to "jobs creators" will ultimately benefit all of society, even those at the bottom.

I believe that graduated taxation (higher taxes) to be spent for the public good (more government, redistribution *gasp!* of some wealth for the benefit of the least among us) is a more effective engine for generating that metaphorical rising tide. I believe that the other approach does little more than concentrate wealth into a smaller and smaller subset of the people, while generally doing harm to those with the least amount of wealth.

This is one example of what I would consider "good conservatism". We both had the same GOAL (growing the economy to benefit society). We disagreed about the best way to get there.

Today, it seems that we on the liberal side are stilling doing our level best to improve the lot in life for ALL of us, but especially those that are the most disadvantaged. The conservative goal seems to be just to STOP the liberals from doing ANYTHING. Not to implement their own goals; not to win in the "marketplace of ideas" by presenting a reasoned and well-though-out policy directive to improve America in the way they think best; but just to stymie "the libs" in any way they can.

So even without getting into the disgusting rise in White Nationalism that also seems to be cropping up (with very, very little pushback) in "conservatism" today, I think this is what makes for "bad conservatism".

This is compounded by the fact that not only do we no longer have the same (or any) end goals to debate the best way to move forward on, but more and more we no longer even have the same starting point. It used to be said that both sides were entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. That has changed... somehow. "Bad conservatives" are no longer necessarily tethered to reality. Adam Savage's quip of "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" has become nearly a lynchpin in their platform, even on this message board. And not acknowledging reality as a basis to start a debate means that no debate can be had.
  #100  
Old 12-03-2019, 01:00 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorjän View Post
"Good Conservatism" is a nice theory but the reality is that in the United States, given its history and the current state of affairs, conservatism is based on a core set of indefensible ideas and values. There's no escaping that. It's just become much more apparently these past few years.
This is pretty much it. To be a good conservative, you'd have to be a kind of conservative that doesn't really exist in modern America.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017