And saying a group is acting maliciously is not an insult to you.
^Yep. That’s my understanding of the rules as well. If you think it should be otherwise, you’ve got to convince the mods that there’s a problem and that it must or should be addressed.
Yeah, attack the post but not the poster doesn’t apply. Groups don’t post; individuals do.
I confess I find it somewhat interesting that the civility bar has been lowered sufficiently to cover Der Trihs’s broadsides. I used to relentlessly mock Der for his mustache twirling characterizations of his political opponents. That turned out to be mostly my mistake as the events of 2016 and afterwards revealed. It’s hard for me to swallow, but I think I owe Der an apology. I extend such an apology here. Der’s position didn’t deserve the mock-hammer though I sincerely believed that it did at the time.
ETA:
Ok, now the discussion is getting more interesting.
Historically conservatives have tended to layer a lot of conceptual superstructure on top of conclusions directed against the outgroup of the day. That needs to be noted.
Does such an observation amount to a conversation stopper? I don’t think it does. Generally when you make an argument that undercuts the rights or welfare of an out-group, polite people start off with some preliminaries, sometimes known as throat-clearing. If someone skips that step, I think that reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions.
I kind of almost see your collective point. But this,
Do not attempt to skirt this rule with remarks such as “only a racist would say such a thing” or other game-playing.
Is it not implied by Der_Trihs (and others) that only a malicious bigot would say such a thing as I said in the thread, in the posts he replied to? What is the difference between that and the example in the rules?
It has been further clarified in this thread that it is my choice of views, not the label of or association with the group, which apparently makes me personally malicious towards gay people.
~Max
Even noting that, I’m not sure I agree. The topic for discussion was not actually rights or welfare of gay people - that’s the backdrop - the topic itself was whether conservatives believe being gay is a choice, and if so, what they think the benefits are.
I posted that I personally thought of it as a choice, and the benefits I thought applied. The response to my post accused conservatives, as a group, of malice and bad faith.
(And in my case personally, my belief that “being gay” (as in having gay sex) is a choice has nothing to do with my beliefs affecting gay rights.)
In thread I noted, explicitly, that I am not motivated by malice. This was called out as disingenuous of me, as if by doing the throat-clearing (clearing the air?), it is in fact me who is stopping the conversation.
~Max
It depends on if you are in the group, and how big or small it is.
Say- trump supporting Republicans- millions, insult away, say they are acting maliciously.
SDMB posters named after fishes- see , that group is too small,- you would be right to feel insulted.
Ok, I just looked over the thread.
- For whatever reason, the thread wasn’t derailed.
- In general, an easy ripost to Der’s unsubstantiated broadsides is, Cite? That will work in basically all cases because Der specializes in attributing bad motives to conservatives and generally speaking teasing out any sort of motive for behavior -good or bad- is a mug’s game.
- In the GD thread, the OP asked, “If conservatives think being gay is a choice, what do they think are the benefits of being gay?” The views of specific Doper conservatives are certainly topical, but they don’t carry much weight for this largely sociological question.
- When a poster or person IRL explicitly disclaims malice or bad motives, reasonable people may find it approximately as convincing as Nixon’s claim that he was not a crook. If I am to take a claim regarding motives with some seriousness, I need evidence of introspection, but that’s me. This applies to anybody and everybody who insists upon pure motives.
- If your ideas punch down, that seems like something worth acknowledging and discussing a bit, before seguing into your discourse on the conceptual advantages to eg states’ rights.
To be clear, I didn’t conclude from the thread that Max_S’s views sprung from ill-will towards gays: they were too lawyerly for that. Skilled litigators don’t dislike their targets; they’re just doing a job. For centuries philosophers have dreamt of being philosopher-kings, all the while that kings have concluded that their services are marginal at best.
The OP touches on 2 Great Debates which this board hasn’t grappled with sufficiently in my view.
-
For many years 2 central aspects of conservatism - malice and mendacity - were ignored among polite company until certain political actors no longer made that tenable. But casual readers of Der_Trihs might conclude that all of conservatism is made up of those vices. I don’t believe that. I think that if you want to understand a sociological group, you need to start with some objective measurement, in this case the sort of political taxonomies regularly provided by Pew and the like.
-
Now that we’ve established that much of discussion between liberals and conservatives prior to 2016 was founded on an unwarranted belief that conservatives were arguing in good faith, where does that leave us? There is certainly a useful role for those wanting to apply the brakes on reform now and then.
This is ATMB, so I’m merely gesturing at potentially useful conversations, perhaps in 2025, touch wood.
@Max_S I’d argue that your personal beliefs are really not germane to discussions about (US) conservatives. You may identify as one, but your beliefs are very essoteric, and not at all representative of the general conservative population.
If you don’t hostility towards LGBT people, then you aren’t part of the group of conservatives being discussed.
Well, thank you for that. I admit 2016 and after have made me feel depressingly vindicated.
Then what happens if a second poster shows up, and says the same? The remark in question was that “With conservatives it’s always about malice” — does the italicized “always” become problematic if three people, three, can you imagine, three people walking in and saying it and walking out?
Since personal accusations are against the rules such assertions about oneself are meaningless (and manipulative) since they can’t be contested. Even ignoring how knowing what someone is thinking isn’t really possible.
It’s also a standard right-wing rhetorical tactic calculated to stop any discussion of the group in question. Since if 100% agreement on every point among its members is a requirement to talk about a group, then that group can’t be discussed at all. They certainly won’t accept that rule for the groups they want to argue against.
Then why the heck would you claim, with italics, that “With conservatives it’s always about malice” — if you’re going to later say that “knowing what someone is thinking isn’t really possible”? Why make the first claim if you’re going to so obligingly walk it back with the second?
Partly because individuals don’t really matter on the level of a political movement, partly because I think that it’s if anything more insulting to call them stupid or insane (which claiming they aren’t malignant is doing).
And partly by habit since back when I hedged my language with qualifiers people accused me of using “weasel words” and such; then when I stopped they accused me of “painting with a broad brush” instead. At which point I decided there was no point in trying to be “polite” since people would just tailor their insults to fit and weren’t actually concerned about the language used in the first place.
I’m not asking you to be “polite”. I’m saying that, if you used to say things that were accurate, and you switched to saying things that are inaccurate, then ‘politeness’ isn’t really the issue.
This demonstrates what I said. The point isn’t how people say anything, the point is to find some way of characterizing it as Bad and Wrong.
If you’re correct — if what you say will get so characterized whether you’re being accurate or inaccurate — then why not be accurate?
If I take issue with what you’re saying, I’m saying you’re wrong. If I limit myself to taking issue with how you say it, then I’m implicitly saying you’re actually right. Why the heck would you make a false statement that allows me to do the former when you could limit me to doing the latter?
Because I don’t consider them inaccurate, I consider it a meaningless difference. And because I’d rather be considered overly fervent than be considered making excuses for fascists.
Well, then we’re back to your claim that “ With conservatives it’s always about malice” — which I thought you’d walked back as inaccurate. If you in fact believe that’s accurate, then I guess we’re having a very different discussion.
Right, and – IMHO – important.
Much as there’s powerful truth in the concept that even positive stereotypes are still stereotypes – I see @Max_S argued-for position as precluding even positive, complimentary, or defensive positions held by, or characteristics representative of, larger (political) groups.
We, then, could no longer claim the mantle of patriotism of support of the military as the providence of Republicans.
They can no longer be discussed as the party of liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, morality, limited government, or lower taxes.
Hm.
Not all serial killers!!
Those who self-identify as a conservative thinker or a liberal thinker will find themselves gravitating to safe spaces and echo chambers. Or they will feel insulted a lot - because of their tribalism. Far better to identify as an individual who happens to have some Reagan-conservative beliefs or some Eisenhower-conservative beliefs. Or MAGA-conservative if that’s what you’re into.