You’re welcome to your opinion, but if we supported that opinion, it opens the door to far too many protected groups.
Again, if people insult you, flag it and we’ll moderate. If they insult Conservatives, we won’t in general. Probably some exceptions.
Can you give me an example of what you are concerned about? Maybe I’m just nearsighted since this hits home. I didn’t flag because I wanted this discussion, not a modnote (or lack of one).
~Max
The point wasn’t to ‘score one’, it was to try and stop the discussion from lingering on the question of whether conservatives are acting in bad faith and steer it towards the questions of whether it is a choice or not, and if so what the benefits are.
If someone made a GD thread asking whether Nazis hated Jews, and/or why that was correct/incorrect, I would report it to be moved out of GD at the very least. That’s not the sort of thing we should debate.
~Max
I’m not concerned about much at all. Your asking us to protect Conservatives as a class, we don’t protect political affiliation as I said above. Seriously oppressed groups are about all we protect.
I’ll give you one. I see people on this Board lump Boomers into a particular faction with a particular point of view. The view is usually one of being a MAGA.
I’m a Boomer. I don’t identify with MAGAs at all in any way shape or form. But many of them do, so I’d be out of line to demand that I’m somehow protected on this Board from anyone referring to Boomers as MAGAs. I can point out that they are painting with a broad brush, and that in my particular case they are wrong. But in general, they’re not wrong. Boomers are not a protected class.
Don’t be. You were claiming that your individual experience refuted a general claim, and it just doesn’t.
Because you are still using the terms “protected groups” and “seriously oppressed groups”, I’ll ask: did you see my post saying this is not about hate speech?
~Max
You’re mincing words. I am not debating here. We don’t offer any protections from insults made against broad political groups.
Is that easier to understand?
All you can do is try and argue in the Debate thread why the other user making a broad brush insult is wrong.
And again, this is about political groups like I said before.
@Max_S, you’re trying to bootstrap your own personal beliefs as representative of an entire class of folks. They just aren’t. They represent your beliefs alone. No one else’s, and we’re not going to broadly mod those groups for that.
Good Og, Nazis and Jews is so far from Conservatives or Liberals, that it is not at all funny. Oy!
Why not?
Some groups are clearly motivated by hurtful intent even if they try to dress it up so it seems fair or right or just. I’d think in GD making that case about conservatives would be fair game for debate. You can, of course, disagree and there is the debate. To be fair, you could try and make that same case about liberals if you wanted to.
Okay, I see. That is a valid point.
I’m not asking for that kind of protection. I’m very much against that kind of protection. What I’m saying, in the context of Boomers and MAGAs, is that we can’t have people in GD claiming that with Boomers “it’s always about malice; the cruelty is the point”.
I am 90-100% within the definition of “conservative” being alluded to in that thread. I share a lot in common with the stereotypical conservative. I’m against a number of legal rights that gay people fought hard to achieve. The insulting part is not an overgeneralization associating me personally with people or views I’d rather not associate with. It’s an overgeneralization associating me personally of being motivated by malice and cruelty, because I hold the views I do. I consider that an insult unfit for GD.
For the reasons I listed in post #1, that kind of insult is not conductive to a civil debate.
~Max
Then present your case as to why being against a number of legal rights that gay people fought hard to achieve is not motivated by malice and cruelty.
Bearing in mind that malice and cruelty are, for certain definitions, ‘’‘legitimate’‘’ reasons.
Maybe not, but it is allowed.
You may refute them, you are encouraged to refute them. Especially as broad brush attacks, while allowed are usually inaccurate.
Using words like “Most” make a hell of difference.
I remember this thread, and think it’s pertinent to your position and this ATMB thread:
There’s an old quip: “Due respect, but you’re an asshole.”
Can you really call somebody an asshole with “due respect?”
Well, surely in The Pit 
You can attack their arguments as wrong or unjust. But the moment you say they are motivated by hurtful intent, that is a personal insult, in my opinion. You are accusing that group, including its members who are present, of arguing in bad faith. They are acting in bad faith, he is one of them, he is acting in bad faith. You are saying he doesn’t care about the merits of his opinion. You are saying he is not approaching with an open mind. You are attacking the poster, not the post.
The paradox of tolerance and free exchange of ideas work on an assumption of good faith. You are telling saying, “we cannot have a civil discussion”.
~Max
The funny thing about the phrase, “with all due respect,” is that it’s very vague about how much respect is actually due.
No, it’s only a paradox because too many people seeking to engage in the “free exchange of ideas” are overly-credulous and presume good faith even where it should be obvious that fascists and their enablers are not interested in honest discussion or free speech.
The paradox is resolved by seeing through the facade and calling fascists and their ilk out for their true motivations, as evidenced by a pattern of behavior time and time (and time!) again.
In short, you seem to have mistaken the paradox of tolerance for something aspirational, when it is really supposed to be a cautionary tale.
There is a thread running in the Pit titled, The Republican Party is the Party of Evil. It has been running for over three years now.
I think when there is abundant evidence that a group consistently pushes malicious policies on a regular basis it is not amiss to suggest people who belong to that group support those malicious policies.
Trying to avoid that would be like saying you are a member of the KKK but don’t suggest you (general “you”) support the terrible things they are about. You only support the parts where they have fun BBQs.
Doesn’t really work.
If you claim yourself as a member of a group then you take the good with the bad. You can and should defend yourself. It seems a thing perfectly suited for GD. It will be a tough position to defend I think.
Debatable. Literally so. 
Really, why not just debate the point with factual arguments in the cited thread?
There are absolutely viable examples of groups (or if you prefer, the great majority of individuals in that group) acting in bad faith, and it seems nonsensical to argue that civil discussion is rendered impossible if one recognizes that fact. It may not be the sort of discussion that a member of that group wants to hear, but it can be presented in a civil manner.
Someone can post about how “Boomers” are terrible people, and I can point out the idiocy of trying to cram a whole bunch of different individuals into an artificial category based on dates of birth.
Works for me.