And how do you separate the poster’s ideology from their posting style/habits?
You are making an assumption regarding the reason for the difference in treatment.
There are certainly viewpoints that I regard as being worthy only of scorn and derision. That Mitt Romney is a splendid fellow, and would make a first-rate President, for instance. Or that voter suppression efforts are nothing more than sincere expressions of civic virtue. There are many others. Tough shit, can’t handle it, don’t read them, I’ll get over it.
SDMB liberals who claim that they are treating all points of view fairly, and then treat conservative viewpoints unfairly, are being hypocritical. Whether they are being more hypocritical than other message boards doesn’t matter.
And since you agree that conservative viewpoints are treated less fairly, and that this “makes it very hard to have reasoned dialog about anything”, if you (or any other poster) is interested in reasoned dialogue, then[list=A][li]one would expect there to be much more complaints from conservatives about being treated unfairly, and []those complaints are more likely to be justified, and []liberals who claim to be applying an impartial standard are more likely to be lying, and [*]those who simply shrug their shoulders and say ‘you can’t expect any different, so suck it up’ should realize they are asking conservatives to abide by a higher standard than liberals.[/list]That last point being especially significant. The OP is not merely wrong - he is an idiot.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
The easiest way to stop people from treating you “unfairly” for posting stupid stuff is to not post stupid stuff. That is, of course, a gross oversimplification and I wouldn’t necessarily call Bricker’s original OP “stupid stuff”, but if you make a career out of trying to find hypocrisy in the other side, you’re not really adding to the reasoned debate process, and it’s not going to be too surprising that you get treated poorly.
Conservatives need a thicker skin to enjoy themselves on this MB, and that’s just the way it is. As the saying goes: People are what they are, and you can either try and change the world or you can change yourself. One needn’t compromise one’s principles to stop whining.
This is what I have been saying since like page 1. Except John Mace’s version sounds better.
I’m still here, so to some extent, the positives outweigh the negatives. I suppose that means I’m enjoying myself.
But what part of your advice above limits me from pointing out inequity and asking for change from others?
If you’re not posting stupid crap, then there’s no inequity to point out in how you are treated for posting stupid crap vs. how others are treated for posting stupid crap.
Nothing, as long as you don’t mind banging your head against a wall. 
I think we have already established that not posting stupid stuff will not stop people from treating you unfairly, and that conservatives get a good deal more unfairness than liberals do.
So that advice is not particularly useful.
That’s certainly true. Liberals need to develop a thicker skin when their various flaws are pointed out. Including, and perhaps especially, the flaw of hypocrisy.
That’s just the way it is. 
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I don’t know about that. Maybe you should try not posting stupid stuff sometime and find out for yourself.
Regards,
The reality-based community
See what I mean?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m willing to bet that during the act of love, Shodan screams, “Regards, Shodan!” at the point of climax.
Too bad there’s never anyone else there to hear it.
Hey, Shodan is shift leader now. He can afford an occasional dalliance with one of his trailer park’s finer providers.
I wonder if the experience is as reliably brief, content free and frustrating as his offerings here.
Can you provide a concrete example of this happening? Meaning unfair treatment of someone’s positive post about their position?
When I say “positive” post, I mean a post that makes a point about that person’s position that isn’t an attack on some other group.
An example of a post that isn’t an attack:
I think taxes should be lowered because that stimulates the economy.
Thank you for your input. Your complaint regarding Comrade Elvish has been forwarded to the Unauthorized Snark Committee for disciplinary action, should that be found needful. If your complaint is found to be valid, Comrade Elvish may be penalized up to and incuding a ration reduction of one (1) cookie. This is our most stringent reprimand. The cookie will not be forwarded to you.
We of the hive-mind appreciate your input and critical analysis. Any further examples of unfair behavior on the part of our minions may be addressed to the SDMB, our Outreach program. Be advised that our grief counselor is Ms. Helen Waite. If you have any further discontent, go to Helen Waite.
Yours in proletariat solidarity,
'luc
Chairman of Disciplinary Committee, Hive Mind, SDMB Outreach Program
I would think it’s pretty obvious, and no one else in this thread appears to have any trouble with this concept. ISTM that this is a reversion to your previous issue with the meaning of “conservative” and, by extension, “liberal”. I don’t want to argue that issue, as above. If you mean something else, please clarify.
Not sure what you mean by this. They are clearly two different things.
That’s true. What about it?
See my post to Shodan. This thread is full of ambiguous terms, but in the interest of scientific accuracy, shouldn’t we try to put some meat on the bones by demonstrating concrete examples of the issue?
I purposely put the “positive post” thing in my reply to Shodan in an attempt to see examples where just having that point of view is attacked instead of reacting to a post that is itself attacking something.
How do you know that the patterns of responses you see are due to the poster’s point of view as opposed to the poster’s personality/style?
See John Mace’s post for a good explanation.
No, I think that would be a bad idea. It would just lead to a pointless exchange relating to the details of the specific example.
ISTM that people other than you are not having trouble with these concepts.
It’s hard for me to take this question seriously.
How do you know that Emmett Till was lynched for being black? How do you know the response was due to the color of his skin as opposed to his actions?
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you here.
[Side note to the feebleminded: this is not to compare attacks on Bricker or anything similar to the lynching of Emmett Till in any aspect other than the ability to discern other people’s motivations.]