Yes it does make sense Superdude. The board has always permitted broadsides against groups for reasons given upthread. Unless they are protected groups - which liberals and conservatives are not.
It’s a debate about what conservatives as a group believe. One example of what one conservative believes is of limited use. For perspective, I’ll quote from the OP:
These are questions about what conservatives as a group believe. Now I grant that there could be a thread entitled, “In what sense is being gay a choice? In what sense is it not a choice?” Indeed when I joined this message board I seem to recall that we had such debates (though the board was considered by and large gay-friendly at the time). We certainly had discussions about homosexuality. I didn’t find Max_S’s posts to be objectionable, just mildly uninteresting. Miller’s remarks were more insightful IMnecessarilyHO (this isn’t my wheelhouse).
Anyway, it sounds like Max_S has a beef with Der: I don’t know how serious it is. This board has an escape valve for such situations: it’s called the Pit. I’m not trying to be overly snarky here: that really was the Pit’s original purpose.
Not entirely incidentally, conservative posters from time to time advocate a higher civility bar for this message board. Back in the early part of this century, 2 boards spun off from this board: one had higher civility, the other had lower civility. Conservatives voted with their feet and largely favored the lower civility satellite board, though I’m happy to say the higher civility one is still in service. This disparity between conservative words and actions has been noticed by myself.
I believe you miss my point here. Best practice when discussing why society shouldn’t cut more slack towards an oppressed group is to pause to take note and measure of the oppression. It’s good manners and displays self awareness.
(Are conservatives an oppressed group? No more than liberals I believe.)