Well, maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree, then, because I sure as heck can’t get behind a POV that makes it okay to insult me on a personal level but puts my political views off limits.
A few thoughts:
Does this board lea left—and not just a little? Unquestionably. For those unable to perceive it I chalk it up to a fish being in water. Is it batshit crazy left? No. Except for very, very few posters.
Is there anything wrong with this? No. People can always go elsewhere. But it does create an atmosphere where not great things can happen. A minor one is the pile-on. Sure, everyone should be able to voice their opposition to a poster, But if a poster is already fielding questions from 12 different posters, it shows that you might not be as interested in a discussion as you are in squashing a voice you disagree with.
One tendency that some have, not to thier merit, is what was alluded to earlier: the We-gainst-You syndrome. That is expressed in a vote of support for what is perceived as a crushing post or a bon mot. I have experienced this quite often, usually from a poster that has a hard time striking such a seeming blow on his own. It makes the poster look weak and as if what he is truly interested in is “winning”. Ialso find it odd when a poster reverts to using “we” in arguments. While this isn’t always a low move, it usually is. And it just, in my opinion, points to the weakness of the poster doing it. But it is successful in a further rallying of the troops.
One final point, tomndebb. While I have my issue with him on a narrow matter, I would like to counter a sentiment another poster offered earlier and say that, as a poster, tomndebb is one of the most articulate, well-informed on SDMB. Additionally, his knowledge in a few matters historical is quite impressive an beneficial. (Yes, Luci, I am taking your advice.)
That said, I think that all moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard, and should attempt to be a little more balanced. But maybe that’s just me. Very often a post putting forth a conservative POV will be assailed for the most minor of assumptions or poor wording of an argument, while many inane, poorly thought out posts by those on the left are unquestioned. The mods have their biases just like the rest of us. That should be more freely acknowledged.
I’m not saying that my political views are off limits. If, in the course of a debate on a “politically charged” subject, say welfare, I made a statement that could be considered of a politically conservative nature, I have no problem with someone calling me on the carpet about it. They can ask for references, cites and so on. They can call me, personally, uncaring. They can call me, personally, an idiot. They cannot, though, label all conservatives uncaring idiots. Just as I can’t say that because my car was hit by an uninsured, unlicensed Hispanic illegal immigrant that all Hispanic people are border jumpers or felons. Those are unfair, unrealistic and unsubstantiated stereotypes.
Not that I’m condoning the behavior you object to, but you do understand the not at all insignificant difference between grouping people by their *professed opinions * as opposed to their ethnicity, right?
They can label all conservatives who agree with you by the same label they give you.
If we’re talking about someone like Shodan, then I really hope not – I don’t want to get any horribly contageous diseases…
More intelligent.
Fine. All conservatives with the same beliefs as me on the subject can be labeled accordingly. But it is not right to label all conservatives the same for all subjects. I support gay marriage so don’t throw me in the Pat Buchanan crowd. I think Iraq is a mess we should never have gotten into in the first place, so don’t put me in the Dubya crowd.
Just as it is unfair to label all Muslims as terrorists because of the behavior of an extreme minority, it is unfair to label all conservatives the same way.
The people on this board (you all know who they are and I refuse to mention their names) who seem to revel in spewing their diarrheic diatribes upon any remotely conservative opinion should think twice about their methods of discourse. The “f the Pubbies” and “all neo-cons are neo-Nazis” are unwarranted, unappreciated and unnecessary. It says more about their lack of maturity and feelings of inadequacy than about the strengths of their viewpoints.
At a certain point, and I’ve said this a lot on this board, I think we are responsible for the behaviors of any group we voluntarily join.
Cite?
It appears to me that the intelligent, articulate conservatives who are willing to debate points and not just make knee-jerk reactions, knock over strawmen, etc., have thrived here. Bricker, John Mace, etc.
I have no idea why you’re still around. Mainly it seems like you get something out of whining and making disengenuous statements.0
Reminds me of the folks who tar all Muslims as terrorists and anti-American because they don’t loudly denounce the actions of a few radical nutjobs.
When I joined the US Army, I was responsible for my behavior as well as the behavior of my unit and how we represented our country. When I was a member of a church I was responsible for reporting the inappropriate behavior of board members (embezzlement) because of the illegality and how it reflected upon our church.
I am not, however, a member of any conservative “group” or “party”. My opinions are my own and, while they may intersect and coincide with expressed views of the RNC on a few occasions, they do not reflect a party line. Therefore I cannot claim myself to be responsible for the behavior or views of any member of a conservative group just as Diogenes or elucidator could not be responsible for the behavior of MoveOn.org or Michael Moore.
I am an individual. React to me and my views and opinions. If you said that my opinion sounds like something that Dick Cheney said, I can handle that because it is a comparison at an individual level. If you said that my opinion is typical of hate-mongering, narrow-minded conservatives, I will ignore you because you are not addressing me; you are addressing a group to which I do not belong.
Now this statement to me seems to have some truth in it. And it is regrettable.
However, I still assert that the SDMB is much better than average. This board was not established to affirm a particular political point of view*, which is completely unlike the sites Scylla and others are claiming to be the evil mirror-image opposites of the SMDB.
(*Excepting the possible accuracy of Stephan Colbert’s assertion that “reality has a well-known liberal bias”… :p)
Your opinion could be typical of hate-mongering, narrow-minded conservatives. Then what? If you share the opinions of people I hate for their opinions, why should you not share the hate?
So I should hate all Muslims? Or blacks because of the racist diatribes of Louis Farrakhan? Or Hispanics because of Chavez or Castro?
I am not the same as all other conservatives. Let’s suppose that I laid out my views on every “politically sensitive” subject. You know, the kinds we of things we ask Supreme Court nominees. You look at my response and say, “Wow, you sound just like those people from the XYZ Society.” I check out the XYZ Society and find out, yup, I believe in exactly the same things as them. Then you can be fair and accurate in comparing me to that particular branch of conservatism.
It would not be fair and accurate, however, to say that I sound like a Dittohead or Buchanan or some ultra-conservative group if I do not believe in the same things as them.
Would it be fair to label you as a tree-hugging, baby killer because you have more liberal opinions about mandatory health insurance? Hell, no. You might be anti-abortion or not give a damn about the Spotted Owl, but I have now included you with broader group. What if I said that because you supported gay rights that you are just as crazy as the eco-terrorists who sabotage logging equipment and put spikes into trees?
Challenge the individual. Debate the person and you might make them change their mind. Label them and all you do is turn them away.
Up here in Kanukistan, we get to dress like a pirate in court (17th century waistcoat and tabs). Do you dress like a pirate too down there in our southern colonies?
I’m thinking that <mod hat on> would be a lot more effective if worded as <mod pirate hat on, arrrrr!>.
But people generally AREN’T free, on this site, to personally insult you, regardless of your political views. Nobody gets insulted except in the pit, and generally pittings of this nature fall into two types. Those where the pittee get a deserved lashing, or those where the attempted pitter get revealed as an idiot.
I honestly don’t see the value of restricting people from saying things like “Conservatives are greedy!” or even “All conservatives are greedy!” People who say things like that typically aren’t greeted with nods of agreement, except by the type of people who would nod in agreement to things like that. And it’s totally fine for people to show what kind of people they are.
Even comments of this nature directed towards ethnicities or gays or men or women are fine. “Blacks are lazy” should be allowable. “Niggers are lazy” shouldn’t be. “Conservatives are greedy” should be allowable. “Conservatives are goat-fuckers” shouldn’t be. “Gays are immoral” should be allowable. “Gays should be killed” shouldn’t be.
I don’t think it’s a particularly difficult concept, and I don’t see any need to attempt to officially stamp out such behavior, which is pretty uncommon to begin with, and easily dealt with by the regular posters. The moderators don’t need to keep people from saying dumb things.
It’s fair to say you sound like them IF YOU SOUND LIKE THEM. If you don’t, then it’s not.
Ahem.
You really nailed him, rjung!
The rest of that tableau is applicable as well. There are those where the pittee gets an undeserved pitting, and those where the attempted pitter is merely shouted down.
If you’ll read the prior posts, you’ll see that the board I was referring to was not this one. 'Kay?
Not that there wasn’t a fair amount of self-important preaching here too, about morality and the President needing to be a role model and he just had to be impeached for the good of the country.