If Gore or Kerry were president today… do you think the SMDB would be all praise and compliments ? I seriously doubt it.
There is plenty of shouting down and drowning out.
When I participate in a thread in which the vast majority of posters have contrarry views, I’m obligated to respond to multiple posts - some of them reasoned, some of the noise, and some of them ad hominem attacks on me.
That isn’t true for each individual member participating on the other side. Individually, each person has equal access to a keyboard; in the aggregate, the side with more voices enjoys a certain advantage.
Uh huh.
Not one comment on this post, was there?
The OP starts from a false premise: this board is not a journalisitic news source, it’s a place for discussing objective facts and to some extent expressing subjective opinions about them. There is no inherent requirement for expressing ‘balanced’ political opinion, whatever that is. I submit there IS in fact a requirement to be fair: if someone presents a political viewpoint that cannot be supported by facts or at least a clearly articulated logical process, it won’t get much traction here, and those who mount unwarranted attacks on others usually get considerable moderator attention.
The OP also seems to think that the primary purpose of this board is to provide a forum for the expression of political opinions, presumably as some sort of viral political advertising. I think this is incorrect, but clearly many other posters here share the OP’s apparent misapprehension.
.
Incidentally, note that this board has an international membership. Viewed like this, I’d suggest that it is not so skewed as those conservative members of a single (but important) comparatively conservative country might perceive.
On the other hand, while I have certainly seen this behavior often enough, it is interesting that you bring it up here in this thread where it has not yet been proposed.
Why should it? If more participants share one set of beliefs, that is how the board will tilt. In the U.S. as a whole, roughly 50% are willing to let us teach Creationism in science class. Should this board go out and recruit people to support ignorance so as to be balanced?
At any rate, “fair and balanced” is an approach to political issues, not an approach to knowledge opposing ignorance.
The “fair and balanced” approach is being touted to school boards all across the country in order to promote ignorance by including religion in science classes.
Yeah, this board tilts left (of the American) center.
Yeah, emotional discussions will be dominated by popular participation rather than pure facts (and any attempt to predict the future goes beyond demonstrable facts and immediately falls into the realm of opinion). This Forum for opinion is an adjunct to the Fora specifically devoted to fighting ignorance: Comments of Cecil’s Columns, Comments on Staff Reports, and General Questions. What is the point of the OP? Do you want us to limit participation by one political group or the other so that the discussions appear balanced? (Newspapers often do that with letters to the editor, presenting a roughly equal proportion of letters from each side, often giving an inaccurate impression that the public is divided on an issue where one side has a clear super-majority. Does that make it “fair and balanced”? Or “balanced and dishonest”?)
In fairness, it was merely vague enough to be true. We certainly saw that behavior with the sides reversed through the 1970s, so as a neutral observation it stands, regardless of the clear bias of the author.
FWIW, there is a sizeable conservative contigent here that more or less avoids Great Debates. It’s not from a lack of ability to make valid arguments, I don’t think (though persuasive arguments are virtually impossible in GD). Rather, not many folks enjoy playing ping-pong against 10 opponents simultaneously – a situation to which Bricker alludes.
That said, it really isn’t important whether or not GD represents a full gamut of opinion. It is what is is, and people think what they think.
But newcrasher, Sam Stone, lekatt, and Bricker have posted a lot of what’s on my mind when I consider the “nature” of Great Debates.
The SDMB credo, Fighting Ignorance Since 1973, is one that I’ve been taught from birth to take seriously (which happens to be 1974).
I am never interested in being right for the sake of winning the argument, I am only interested in having an argument to clarify, discover or defend the truth. Therefore, I generally heartily welcome anyone with a dissenting view. But at the same time, I also will have that clarifying, uncovering, or defensive argument.
I happen to also discuss in an Opinion section of a car related website. The majority of Americans on this website are of Republican mindsets, but they are also young and/or wild car lovers often with a strong IT background. I’ve come to notice that on matters of drugs or homosexuality, these people aren’t nearly as conservative as some.
I don’t consider myself right or left, conservative or liberal. I think there’s often a best solution for a certain problem, and that solution may as well come from one ideology or another - I don’t care about anything other than solving the problem in the best way possible.
If you ever feel that you are being piled on unjustly in any thread on this board, feel free to mail me, and I will come look in. I always side with the minority in a discussion initially, because the majority’s case is often well argued enough. The danger in an argument is always that of sophistication. You may well win a discussion, but you may not be right. And being right is more important than winning the discussion.
The people on this board are self-selected. The SDMB is not a singular organization whose hiring can be suspected of being discriminatory. This place maintains–inspires–high intellectual standards. If the SDMB attracts relatively few conservatives and even fewer can stand the heat, then that says a lot about conservatives, not the SDMB.
Haven’t looked at powerlineblog.com yet, but at Captain’s Quarters this mini-Blog on the presidential address issue doesn’t support your claim:
http://www.politicalmusings.net/archives/2005/06/28/presidential-adress-mini-liveblog/
There’s your problem - you feel obligated to respond to every poster. I would limit myself only to those in the “reasoned” category, and ignore the rest.
I don’t think you have any obligation converse with nutcases and jerks.
I admire your sense of duty toward the demands of all posters, and I can see how it would have a “shouting down” effect, if only through sheer fatigue. But I think your obligation is self-imposed.
Problem is, he can not tell what is reasoned, and what is not. In the NPR threads, he was confronted with plenty of reasoned arguments. All he took from this, however, it that the left-wing dopers were using “rhetoric”
P.S. As Tom(!) has said, my statement was correct. The vagueness was intentional, as I did say a hypothetical president, rather then current president, after all. However, while I would not mind more people saying “Good point, Scott!” in GD, I do not depend on popular opinion to validate myself, unlike, say, the current president.
Indeed it does. As well to folks like Sam Stone and John Mace and furt (and Left Hand of Dorkness and some other lefties).
It seems difficult to believe that anyone would say that this is a balanced or even-handed board. It isn’t, which has to do both with behavior that could be addressd in general and with behavior that is a function of the fact that the assholes hereabouts tend to swing left more than right.
The board is clearly tilted left, although there is a disproportionate contingent of libertarian thinkers who offset that, to some extent. But the board is not tilted left to nearly the extent that it is tilted anti-Bush. On economics issues, the SDMB is moderately left-of-center. On social issues, it is firmly left-of-center. On the topic of Bush and most Republicans, it is fanatic.
And that is a loss, for the reasons that Bricker mentions. And it is the reason why some reasonable request, like:
is so difficult to fulfill.
Because any attempt to do so will immediately trigger a pile-on, consisting both of the reasoned responses and the drive-by snarks, misrepresentations, tu quoques, and ad hominems. And since the Bush-haters outnumber the non-Bush haters by about four to one, they will tag team you to death. When one gets tired, another takes it up.
The net effect is to try to drive anyone on the right away. Sam Stone mentioned this. manhattan left altogether. And then the sacred cows of the anti-Bush faction are left unchallenged.
Take this, for instance:
This statement is presented as if it were the obvious truth. Actually, nowhere in Bush’s speech did he state that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Just the opposite, in fact - Bush drew distinctions between the various factions of the Islamo-fascists who are part of the global war on terror. But the consensus on the SDMB - enforced as much as can be thru use of the tactics mentioned above - is that Bush clearly stated that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 in his latest speech.
It’s the same for a number of other hot-button issues for the left - the Swift Boat veterans’ allegations about Kerry’s account, Bush’s alleged cocaine use, that Clinton was impeached because of a blow job. These are issues that are being established, at least on the SDMB, by repetition, and by shouting down anyone who dares to dissent even slightly.
Then they tell you that they have already won the argument, and pat each other on the back.
There are reasonable people hereabouts. But there are a whole shitload of other types, and the (roughly) four-to-one imbalance of left vs. right applies just as much to the jerks as to the board at large.
Some things just can’t be discussed reasonably with some Dopers. Just a fact of life.
Regards,
Shodan
I joined in the last year of the Clinton administration and though I didn’t spend much time in GD I recall very little praise and compliments. It seemed like there were more conservatives but I think that can be attributed to how much fun a conservative could have complaining about Bill, his policies, his wife, his daughter, his girlfriends, and his cat. Posting in support of the party and president in power isn’t nearly as much fun, as the Republicans found out when their boy won in 2000. Gloating is only fun for a while and then you have deal with no longer being the underdog, especially after the 2004 election cemented Bush and the Republicans in power. You can look for somebody or some group to vilify so you can pretend to be embattled–I believe this was one of the motivations for the Schaivo uproar–but that rings false when it is obvious to all that you are sitting in the catbird seat. As most of the conservatives on this board are honest people, not political hacks plugging the party line because it is the party line, they are not going to stir the pot just to keep things interesting and, because supporting the status quo is about the most boring thing imaginable, some of them drifted away, either from Great Debates or the whole board. Once the Democrats return to power I suspect we will see a Republican resurgence here.
To be honest with you, even on a my good days I have the devil’s own time figuring out what **Scott_Plaid’s ** point is when he’s not in CS.
For what it’s worth, in politics debates are only “won” when your policy is adopted, and/or you have converted your opponent. So in that sense, I guess I disagree with the post. But I’m sure **Scott_Plaid ** had more in mind than that. . .
Yeah! Why didn’t anybody ignore the fact that he’s gotten us into a quagmire without an exit strategy and purposefully distorted intel. We should be ashamed. Damn fact based community…
Yes.
“There’s proof that Bush engineered this war knowing that Sadaam didn’t have WMD or a connection to Al Queda.”
“I like Bush.”
“That’s a very good point, I hadn’t thought about it like that before.”
Pfffffffffft. Don’t confuse anti-bush with pro-left.
It’s rather hard to support a man whose lies have caused the death of our troops and may’ve set up a chain reaction in the ME that will have disasterous consequences.
We can start spouting Faux News talking points.
For instance:
9-11 9-11 9-11!
One way to model the data. Either that or we’re a community who gathers to get at the truth and many feel that the opposing arguments are simply false.
Because we’re Dopers, we’re not average. We read news reports, we generally lean towards scientific methodology and factual confirmation/refutation. We are, in many ways, a peer reviewed board. I’d give (almost) any Doper more credit than the average American.
Bob, clear the right wing out of your eyes. Tom agreed my example was workable, and I have the devil’s own time convincing him of anything.
Just to simplify my point, I was trying to give an example of how newcrasher’s claim “The issues here have no right or wrong, provable answer. Each side may THINK they have the answers, but in fact there is no way to PROVE either side.” was wrong is some situations.
In other words, my friend, the truth may be fair but it may not be balanced.
I tried it about a year and a half back and nothing of the sort happened. For that matter, none of the conservatives chose to contribute, though I specifically invited them and tried to limit the thread to them for the first day. Even so, it was hardly the liberal circle jerk you might imagine.
This is, at best ,a half truth Shodan.
From the speech:
Our troops are not fighting a global war on terror. We have troops in Afganistan, but we held back when we could’ve gone after Bin Laden, and he escaped. Now we’re largely propping up the Afgan government. The troops in Iraq are not fighting the global terrorist networks, they’re just serving as targets for them. You don’t kill terrorists plotting in Indonesia if you’re in Iraq.
See, this is the politics of insuation, of innuendo. By suggesting that there is a ‘global war on terror’ that our troops are fighting in, and that it’s connected with 9/11, he’s suggesting that the ‘global war on terror’ includes where are troops are fighting now, namely, Iraq.
The message is clear, but I’m sure it’s also set up to give plausible deniability. Just like for a while (and maybe they still are) the adminstration members were lying through their teeth about having plainly suggested connections between Sadaam and 9/11.