I challenge you to find “many” posts (by liberal posters) that qualify for this. Not that I don’t believe they’re out there somewhere on the Dope, but you say this as if the people challenging you here qualify. So I challenge you to find posters from this thread or the other PIT thread who have antagonized you and made “Bachmann-level stupid” claims.
Actually, I take this back- I don’t believe that there are many examples of “Bachmann-level” stupidity from liberals that go unchallenged on the Dope- so, adaher, I challenge you to find at least a few examples of rampant liberal stupidity that was not challenged.
There is Der Tris but he’s more of a group of one.
Most of the people who make really dumb statements don’t antagonize me. Two different groups. Which is why I don’t call them out. I keep it civil with anyone who keeps it civil with me. But I do notice that badly wrong statements by liberals just don’t get the same response. While I intend to keep it civil when I run across such statements, I will post them in the pit so that you guys recognize that I’m not all that unusual. Or at least what makes me unusual isn’t being wrong a lot, it’s being wrong a lot while conservative. Being wrong a lot while liberal gets a friendly correction, or just goes uncommented upon.
By contrast, everything I said from the day I walked on this board, long before I had a track record, was picked apart and analyzed with a fine tooth comb. Not a problem ,comes with the territory, but liberal posters simply do not get that kind of scrutiny here.
I like Der Trihs. Never had a problem with that one.
So make the second step, jackass. Or else stop asking for credit for knowing you’re always wrong. Nobody gives a shit that you know you have a problem if your knowledge results in no change. At best it means you don’t know why you’re wrong, and at worst it means your “apologies” are dishonest and lazy.
Perhaps you could challenge the stupidity by posting stuff that’s correct instead of trying to balance it out with a different type of stupid.
Two possibilities- you’re a victim (boo-hoo!), or you actually deserve much of it. Considering that there are conservative posters who don’t get the scorn that you do, I think the second possibility may be more likely.
Consider this- if one guy keeps giving you shit, maybe he’s an asshole. Everyone keeps giving you shit? Maybe you’re the asshole.
Why do I need to change? What difference does it make to you? Is your enjoyment of this board actually affected by me making statements on it that are wrong?
Do you get chills in the middle of the night knowing that someone is wrong on the internet?
No, I think you got it backwards- challenging and mocking idiocy is fun. Great fun.
There are some who don’t get the same scorn, but I can see very well they are better posters than me. More knowledgeable, and more importantly, more careful. They’ve been here awhile and have learned, presumably from experience, that conservatives don’t get away with anything here.
However, many threads I participate in do see some conservatives join in, and they get the same treatment. Conservatives rarely respond to the nastiness in kind, and normally that’s my policy, at least on any other board. Problem is, I think conservatives are being driven off this board, except for the stalwart guardians of the cause who have been here years and learned how to get by. Maybe that will be me someday. or maybe I’ll just be cantankerous.
What if it’s only happening to me on one board? Is it because the other boards are wrong about me, or that the culture of this particular board tends towards nastiness?
Well, there is one other board where I got shit: Mother Jones, several years ago. This board might actually have fewer conservatives. I think that’s the problem. On a diverse board, people learn pretty quick not to give each other crap because then the whole board just becomes about slinging shit. Whereas on a more ideologically homogenous board, the majority can give hell to the minority and it doesn’t bring the whole board down.
Believe it or not, I actually enjoy getting cut down with humor. What bugs me, mainly out of concern for their mental health, is people who actually get angry at an argument. That’s just an alien concept to me. Getting angry when someone attacks you personally I understand. Is it that some people are so invested in their ideology that any disagreement with it is taken personally?
I think the standards are higher on the SDMB. They (we) take fighting ignorance seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised if liberal posters, in general, are a bit more harsh on conservative ignorance than liberal ignorance, but I’ve very rarely seen any ignorance go unchallenged and unmocked. More lefty pseudoscience (like, for example, the argument that humans evolved to only eat plants) is just as rigorously debunked as more right-leaning crap. But I think this board does a pretty good job dealing with crappy posts.
I would take this onboard- most of the posts you make that are challenged or mocked deserve to be challenged and mocked. You can complain that “oh, the other boards don’t challenge my crap” and “oh, liberal posters’ crap isn’t challenged as much or mocked as harshly”, but I would take it and make yourself better. If you post good stuff, you won’t be mocked, and you’ll be able to meet the inevitable challenges.
“Adaher hates nasty liberalses…” ,Do you say this in a high pitched, reedy voice while rolling your head with it’s long stringy hair back and forth?
I have to point out that me and many others do debunk items that attract a good number of liberals like opposition to Nuclear power, opposition to genetically engineered foods, opposition to vaccines or to be in favor of Natural foods woo woo.
So like iiandyiiii reports here **adaher **even wrong about the real focus of this message board, as I like to say in situations like this, it is mostly thanks to powerful interests and historical happenstance that many Republicans and conservatives depend and use misleading information from very powerful interests in issues like Health care, Evolution, Climate change, Tobacco use, etc.
This. I agree, BUT, the standards were higher when I did my first stint back in 2003. I left because there were people with serious knowledge and I was just some dude basically standing at a water cooler.
Nowadays the board does not meet a higher standard, or at least not much of one. General Questions is still awesome, but the political debate is about as intelligent as on any other political debate forum.
Fighting ignorance means enlightening people. Notice the tone of Cecil’s columns. That’s not what’s present here. Instead, it’s more like Paul Krugman’s columns. Enlightenment is subordinate to attacking those who disagree with him.
All right, I agree that when the topic is science, there’s little tolerance for ignorance in general. I looked at a vaccination thread and was gratified to find that there’s no patience for the anti-vaccination BS. But on politics, again, the higher standard of debate has disappeared. Because politics isn’t science. Even the fact checking sites get slagged because as much as they try, politics is 90% gray areas. Unlike science, everyone can be right even though they have twenty different arguments in support of their position.
I have tried, but like I said, everything gets picked apart, and then it just often gets misinterpreted. On a thread I just posted not 24 hours ago about Chris Christie appealing to black voters, a poster said, “Take your ignorance to the Pit” because I said I believed that black voters voted Democrat because they were loyal to that “brand”. Then a more liberal poster comes along and says that he agrees that it’s about “brand” and now everything’s okay. But it’s sad that a very reasonable statement required a liberal poster to vouch for me.
There are also many cases where I say something and it gets “debunked” with a cite that bears little relation to what I actually argued. On a normal discussion board, such a misunderstanding would be corrected by me clarifying what I was arguing and the other poster grappling with that once he understood. What happens here is that the misunderstood statement gets seized on as evidence that I’m a moron.
Even better are the cases where I haven’t been debunked at all, but the poster does a victory dance because they think their cite is a slam dunk rebuttal. Such as this one, where my cite was countered by another cite, therefore I’m wrong. So if two cites disagree, mine is just automatically the wrong one? Makes no sense.
You’re being disingenuous again. We’re not talking about me personally. You believe you should get some kind of credit for recognizing your own shortcomings, and I’m saying that really doesn’t deserve much credit unless it’s accompanied by changes based on that recognition.
You were saying something about adaher being a victim, iiandyiii?
It’s all sooooo saaaaaad…
I don’t see it as anger, I see it as gleeful mocking. When they’re calling you an idiot and a jackass, they’re probably smiling and laughing.
Here’s a tip- don’t worry or try to read into the emotions of other posters. Read over your posts, make a serious effort to ensure that the “facty” statements are accurate, and quit whining and worrying about feelings.
If your politics is ideology, it can be considered an abstraction, like atheists view theology. If your politics derives from your morality, and is a reflection of a practical consideration of how that morality might best be realized, it is not the same.
I am possibly best described as a humanist with egalitarian democratic convictions, hence, I am a radical lefty. If I were convinced that my morality would best be served by the sort of consumerist capitalism that the conservatives offer, I would agree with their programs, their ideology would be irrelevant, I wouldn’t care why they think as they do, so long as their actions align with my goals.
For example, I think that a centralized, not for profit health insurance scheme is closest to a practical means for equality in health care. If, for whatever reason, the Dems were to oppose it and the Pubbies were to embrace it, I would favor the Pubbies on this issue.
I would liquidate my vast holdings and plow everything into umbrella manufacturing stock, as umbrellas will become hugely popular on that day when pigs fly.
Yeah, it makes no sense, but that shows a different problem: that then you are not to be able to bring more cites in your favor, I can tell you from experience that even if it is a political issue sources are not created equal, but if there is plenty of support for a position (even a political one) it is not really hard to find many **other **good and respected cites to support your say so’s.
I do that when requested. It doesn’t make a difference.
If I have one cite, and another poster has another cite of equal quality, that doesn’t debunk me, it’s just a rebuttal requiring more debate and discussion.