Man that would have been funny if we did not know that you were really **Dick Cheney ** and meant every word of what you posted. Now it is just sad.
Oakminster: Somebody pointed out up thread that that there are more liberals that conservatives that post in political threads. I would say there are more liberals than conservatives and moderates combined than post in political threads. So the numbers of very shrill liberal posters will outnumber the conservatives. Additionally the really shrill conservatives get shouted down, get angry and implode. The really shrill liberals are more likely to get support, due to the larger number of liberal posters and so do not melt down as often. There are of course many exceptions.
BTW: despite giving Shodan a hard time in this thread, it is more for his trying to portray himself as a martyr then for his general posting. I might not agree with a lot of what he posts, but he does not generally make the broad brush attacks like **RTA ** made in post 25.
That does happen, and other liberals often criticize them for it. Search for posts of mine that contain “Elvislives” for examples, or just wait to see his response to this post :).
I’m not doing much of that lately, for a couple of reasons:
I don’t want to get into the old married couple bickerfest, where I say exactly what’s expected and Elvis says exactly what’s expected and we just repeat the same nonsense over and over; and
My New Year’s Resolution is to be nicer on the Internet.
I have gone on the record as being vaguely uncomfortable with the way that Mod Warnings are given – just kind of sliding it into a thread. I think bolding or different colors or italics or funky font should be used when a moderator is speaking Ex Cathedra ( from the chair of …of….moderation?). Really, that would solve some of this.
**
Tomndebb** has been pitted at least twice recently for having religious views essentially indistinguishable from Jerry Falwell and moderating as if he were in his pay according to some of our more militant atheistic fellow Dopers …so which is it?
He’s Rick Santorum or He’s Trotsky?
That is simple, for a very stern warning Size 7, Bold, Century Gothic and Dark Red (Blood Red)
**For a regular warning: Size 6, Bold, Verdana and Red should be fine. **
For a mild warning: **Size 5, Bold, Impact and Dark Orange. **
For a please do not do this again, non official warning: *Size 4, Italic, Garamond and Medium Turquoise. *
For a thread move: Size 3, Underlined, Comic Sans* and Sienna.
Jim {I am guessing I just earned a Size 4, Italic, Garamond and Medium Turquoise.}
Don’t be too humbled; I didn’t say that I agreed with you most of the time. I do agree with you some of the time, and it annoys me when I read one of your posts and find fault with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. That has actually, believe it or not, made me question my own stances and really try to reason them out. I may or may not arrive anywhere different, but at least now I have real foundations for that position other than “some democrat said it” or “my mom said it” or “I just like it more”.
Absolutely, and that’s the true value of this board, it’s emphasis on facts and reasoning in determining conclusions, and scorn for rationalization derived from ideology. Those are NOT by definition traits of modern liberalism.
And if you can’t defend your position, it’s your *own * fault; you’re most likely simply wrong. One’s amount of difficulty in facing that possibility is not a function of one’s views of the proper role of government in society.
But where the rubber hits the road, of course, is when other people take it upon themselves to decide whether you have successfully defended your position or not. This is certainly their perogative, but when a forum lists as far to the left as this one does IMO, I’ve learned to take with a huge grain of salt others’ judgment of the degree of “success” of my defense and whether I am “right” or “wrong.” It takes some time, and a lot of reading, to decide whose opinon in that regard is worth listening to and whose can be disregarded.
In either case, the true key to keeping your sanity, IMO, is knowing when to give up the argument. Many people around here, like many people IRL, are too invested in their own ideology or POV to change their minds or concede you’re right. But since an opinion, once posted is there forever and for all to read, and can’t really be “shouted down,” at some point you have to have the wisdom to think, I’ve stated my position and defended it adequately, so now I can just walk away – even if 900 people are still shouting at you and “informing” you that you have “lost” the argument, that you are “wrong,” and that it’s your “fault” that you’ve failed to convince people who are completely invested in not being convinced. This is easy to say, but hard to do.
That, unfortunately, is indistinguishable from simple inability to face the possibility of being wrong. If 3 people tell you you’re drunk, you should seriously consider the possibility that you’re drunk. Likewise, if 900 people are telling you you’re wrong, you should seriously consider the possibility that you’re wrong - that you in fact have *not * “defended your position adequately”, that maybe it’s a rationalization rather than a conclusion. Walking away instead does nothing to fight anyone’s ignorance, including one’s own. For me, my own ignorance is the ignorance I’m most interested in fighting.
If you believe that is true than I recommend going over to Free Republic and finding out how incorrect you are.
The number of people shouting “you’re wrong!” does not automatically imply anything about the correctness or incorrectness of your position. A lot depends upon who it is that’s doing the shouting. Sometimes the crowd is right. Sometimes they may as well be shouting “four legs good, two legs bad”.
I agree, and I think Jodi’s right: it’s worth considering from whom the criticism comes. Sheer numbers of people are not a reliable indicator of an argument’s strength; sheer numbers of people whom you respect may well be.
