Why’s that? Do you also think that the belief that abortion is bad should be subject to the same treatment? What about the belief that the federal government should not engage in any social programs or have social security?
Why don’t you respect the diversity in people’s considered opinions about issues?
Anti-Bush- and got roasted, that’s easy:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=207386
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=207146
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=207359
As for:
“intimated that something was bad about homosexuality”
You will find bigotry does get much of a positive reception here. Do you think it should?
“said the deficit wasn’t too big of a problem”
Well the mission of this Board is fighting ignorance, and seeing most unbiased economics sources consider the current massive deficits rather troubling again you are not going to find much of a fertile ground for that.
From Forbes:
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was that latter.
Dude, those are all Reeder threads, which I think we can all agree are special cases; people aren’t piling on him because he’s being anti-bush and the posters are pro-bush. Can you cite to a bunch of threads where a variety of posters came to Bush’s defense on an issue instead of just calling the OP a moron? But it’s alot easier to find threads where someone expressing a pro-Bush or social conservative sentiment gets ganked.
That is a pretty complex issue, but I will be glad to share some of my thoughts on it. Using the specific example of Christians thinking that homosexuality is a sin, I would say that in and of itself I do not have an issue with someone having that opinion. It is, after all, their right.
However, where I think that we start to get in to trouble is when we look at the fact that this particular view when embraced by folks that are in charge has caused a lot of misery. This ranges from parents kicking their kids out of the house because they are gay all the way up to people getting killed because they are gay. So, to me, this question becomes a question of morality. If someone is expressing a belief that is harmful to others and part of a pattern of needless hate and abuse, I am going to fight that position tooth and nail.
This is not to say that I will be rude to the person. While I am not perfect, I have as a value civil discourse. But the view itself is one that I consider immoral and bankrupt.
This is getting a bit long, but you also asked about abortion and social spending. My personal politics on those two issues are a little less clear, so I would tend not to speak on them so much as I do try to not talk out of my ass when it is avoidable. I will say that historically a lot of harm has come to women because they were not allowed access to safe abortions, and I would be saddened to return to those days. As to social spending by the government (and I know that this is going to not sit well with a libertarian) I guess that I tend to favor it because I believe that as a society we have an obligation to care for those that are less fortunate and the federal government (or state) in theory is an excellent institution for doing so.
Dude, the view that homosexuality is somehow wrong hasn’t caused any misery. It’s the added bit that because someone is homosexual then it’s OK to kick them out of your house or kill them that has caused the misery. I think it’s important to separate the two.
E.g., someone says: “I think it’s wrong to be gay.” Fine with me. I disagree, but I don’t care if someone believes that. “And so it’s OK to beat up people that walk out of gay bars.” That’s not right, I refuse to respect that as a viewpoint, but it still doesn’t change my view of the first part.
Then it should be easy to show us a few examples, shouldn’t it?
I don’t understand what you are looking for. Are you looking for Liberals defending Bush? Are you looking for an anti-Bush thread in which Liberals disagree with the OP and show this by extolling the virtues of Bush? I am really confused by your stance, and don’t feel as if you are attempting to answer my questions. To restate them:
[ul]
[li]Are you saying that somehow the Liberal posters pile on Conservative points of view, whereas Conservative posters show more admirable restraint?[/li][li]Do conservative posters not call the Liberal folk on bad behavior and engage them in debate when they feel that ignorance can be fought? [/li][li]Are we to believe that Conservative posters are somehow a persecuted minority? [/li][li]Do you feel that Liberal posters and not "policing " their own? If so, do you believe that Conservative posters as a group do a better job on this front? [/li][/ul]
Tax Guy, The Administrator, not a mere Moderator, has told us all why our friend from New Jersey got the ax. Why do you insist on continuing to beat the drum for the idea that he was stuffed into the trash shoot because of his political convictions and the reactionary slant of his postings? Are you seeking to assume the mantle of “the SDMB’s pigheaded reactionary oblivious to fact and logic and so convinced of his own righteousness as to be beyond persuasion or confession of error?” ( Yes, I know that’s a long title, but…what can I do.) Why must you rail and rant against the stars in their courses? Why can’t you just let this thing expire of a contented and prosperous old age, with dignity and some degree of self-respect?
And that’s a bad thing? The OP was clearly shown to be meritless. I’d rather deal with someone who accepts a thorough rebuttal of a lame-ass assertion than one who continues blathering on as though the rebuttal had never happened. Though no fan of the current administration, I was nevertheless mightily pleased to see Bricker’s methodical destruction of the ridiculous OP.
**
As pointed out, Reeder gets it in the neck from just about everyone. Let us hope that he sees the december banning as an extremely pertinent lesson to be learned and is more circumspect in future.
There was a thread some time ago in which december commented that he was essentially a GD addict. There were a number of constructive and helpful suggestions offered, from simply spending more time in other fora to requesting a temporary voluntary banning (to go “cold turkey”) for a few weeks. I regret that he chose not to follow any of the suggestions, and instead persisted in starting an excessive number of increasingly provocative GD threads, necessitating the current situation. And I wonder where he’ll go…
That is a silly distinction, dude.
Hey, maybe you don’t care if somebody’s a bigot. I do care, and so do the large majority of people around here. Bigotry is evil, with or without any attendant actions.
I was going to suggest Metatus but it appears to be down again.
Hrumph. Fix in your mind the set of all threads on the SDMB. Now select from those threads all threads that are pile-ons. I’m saying that a much greater percentage of these threads are liberals piling on conservatives than are conservatives piling on liberals.
I take this to mean that this board has a decided liberal slant and that whenver posters with a conservative viewpoint show up they get browbeat until they either (1) decide to go away or at least stop espousing their conservative veiws so strongly, (2) do something stupid and get banned, or (3) in at least one case ask to be banned (and some of the cases in (2) are kind of “suicide by cop” bannings where someone wanted to go out in a blaze of glory).
On the other hand, I can’t think of a single instance of a liberal poster being constantly browbeat and hen-pecked by a large number of conservatives. Yes, Reeder is getting some shit from both sides, but mostly for being stupid; he’s not getting beat up because of the content of his posts or because of his viewpoint.
I guess the big picture take-home point is that we should respect people’s veiwpoints even if we don’t agree with them, and that ignorance is promoted rather than fought by the piling on I talk about above.
OK, party at my place tonight, gotta go clean up and buy shit. I may check in later.
I could accept what you say, but then you come up with your own spreading of misinformation as follows
You have no evidence of lying. Lying implies deliberately and knowingly spreading false information. You may suspect the Bush administration lies, but you have no proof and to report to us that they lied and continue to lie is every bit as despicable as the offences for which december is charged.
But do not fear. It is regrettable to me that your unsupported accusation against the Bush administration has been frequently expressed on this board with very little indignation in return.
I wonder if the SD “spinoffs” like Fathom and UnaBoard will have him.
Binarydrone and minty green: Well, I obviously disagree with you, but what’s more is that I think that if you subscribe to the classic liberal love of diversity (which I’m not saying you do, I’m just saying if you do), then I think you are being hypocritical.
OK, really gotta go.
TaxGuy, pay attention to some of the vitriol elucidator gets sometime. Look at Chumpsky’s schtick. Look at the abuse directed toward Reeder.
The difference? Often you’ll find that no leftist poster will defend one of their own when there’s a pile-on for dishonesty. On the other hand, there’s a core group of conservative posters who will defend even december’s worst outrages.
Maybe conservatives are more loyal or something.
Daniel
Ummmm… Okay. So how about laws that discriminate against gay people? How about just dirty glares and ostracization?
I suppose you MIGHT have a point if you consider anti-gay views that have no, and I mean absolutely no, effect on how the person who holds them treats others. But seriously, how often does THAT happen?
Well, I do self-identify as conservative, and I’m not sorry he’s gone.
I don’t think it’s asking too much to expect people around here to be both reasonably polite and intellectually honest. COLLOUNSBURY simply could not be polite – what someone rightly characterized as almost Tourrette’s-like behavior. But at least he was honest. DECEMBER was unfailingly polite, but he was not honest in the things he posted or the reasons he posted them.
And frankly, if I have to choose between honest and polite, I’ll take honest, though by God we should be able to have both.
This is, quite simply, crap. People who cannot meet the minimum standards for civility are banned – and rightly so. And people who cannot meet the minimum standards of honesty are banned – and rightly so. But there are loads – loads – of posters on both sides of the spectrum who manage to express and defend occasionally unpopular viewpoints and not get banned. GOBEAR, MINTY, STOID, IZZYR, ANDROS, MHENDO, BIGGIRL, JARBABYJ and COLDFIRE, to name only a very few. And they don’t get “henpecked” much, either, because those who attempt it tend to find their beak broken off in their ass.
So if we could just set fire to the huge strawman of ideology – which DEX expressly told us was NOT the reason for the banning – does anyone really want to protest the banning of a person who unfortunately was simply consistently intellectually dishonest?
I’m guessing not.