Could ask, “Do most posters to this board think?”
The quote in the OP is just the typical whine of someone who leaps into a debate, feet-first and poorly equipped, then gets their arse handed back to them on a plate with a nice sprig of parsley tucked between the cheeks.
Their wounded pride doesn’t allow them to ask the important question “what if I’m actually wrong”, no point in thinking that, it can’t be that - it must be some sort of conspiracy or clique or hive-mind, even though that is a far more complex possibility.
I mean 99.99% of the intelligent people in the world can’t be disagreeing with me because I’m actually wrong, it must be because they hate me because I am a newbie (none of them were ever newbies, you see), either that or they hate The TRUTH!, yes, it must be that, they hate The TRUTH and I know what I’m saying is The TRUTH because they hate it, bloody TRUTH haters.
A popular course of action after posting the whine is to rehash your flawed argument in a series of six to eight near-identical threads (either posting one in each and every forum, or posting them all at once in the least appropriate forum), then when the moderator locks them, post complaints about heavy-handed moderation, bias, nazi jackboots etc (best if also you post these complaints in the wrong forum).
It’s all downhill from there really, or that’s what it says on page 309 of the clique handbook.
How Do Most Posters on This Board Think?
Good question. Most of us think with our brains. Do your thinking with some other body part, and yes, you may well find yourself in for some ridicule.
I’ve seen a lot of other forums where the level of debate (and the writing in general) is around that of a very foul-mouthed fourth-grader. When someone used to this comes here and finds that that just doesn’t fly, even among people who may share the same basic opinions, a common reaction is the quote in the OP.
I’m not too sympathetic.
Jodi and the rest of you - You’re quick to answer the OP. What can you say to me? I see a clique at work sometimes, not because of responses to my half-assed posts, but because of having seeing more than one pile-on thread attacking someone else.
The SDMB are fun to read. On the other hand, the level of rigor in the debates is not always what’s been described in this thread. The idea of having a “cite” has a certain magic power. Sometimes a worthless cite, or a cite which doesn’t actually address the crux of the question, is popped up by an old-time doper, and some lurker or newbie questions either the quality of the cite or the choice of the cite, and – sometimes, just sometimes, especially with certain topics – these legit questions don’t seem to have the weight they would if there was another username in the box.
And the logic here isn’t always sterling. Example: “If numerous people are all taking issue with what you have said…. the most likely explanation is not that they’re all out to get you, but that you’ve said something stupid or said it inappropriately.” That doesn’t seem most likely. Another equally likely explanation is that after seeing a few of the usual suspects start the pile on, infrequent posters and newbies desert the thread, so that all subsequent posts are from seasoned dopers who enjoy that sort of thing.
But remember, SimonX, if there is a cool table, you can work you way there. If that’s what you want to do. If you want to be a serious contributor to these boards, and be taken seriously, you have to make the effort: learn the rules (stated and unspoken) and follow them.
If you want to read and post occasionally, go right ahead.
The nature of this board is to dispel ignorance. If any poster persists with blind ignorance despite numerous reasons not to do so, then things get heated.
Occasionally this happens too quickly, especially to a newbie, with insufficient grounds, and that can get ugly, especially when it calls attention to itself.
I think, considering that the idea here is to challenge ourselves intellectually, to learn new things about the way the world works, then to socialise in a manner some few steps above most other internet communities, is perfectly understandable.
SimonX, I realise that you intended to speak in general terms, and not about any specific poster.
However, it’s a bit unfair on the person you quoted in your OP.
He wasn’t being a jerk, or being piled on, or anything like that. He was explaining why he’d assumed that a particular remark was directed at him, even though it wasn’t, and why it was a reasonable assumption.
And it was a reasonable assumption. Anyone who’s been here for a while knows that the flaming, laughing and spelling Nazism goes on all the time.
I fear that many of you are vastly overstating the incidence of Dopers using logical reasoning and sound judgment of objective evidence to support their views. I agree that we greatly respect those handful of Dopers who do so regularly, but all too often I see people being unreasonably unyielding and even mean-spirited, with their fan clubs cheering them on because their basic position is one they agree with.
Said another way (Christ can this blonde ramble), there’s a shitload of arguing go on here, as you’d expect, with posters on both sides bringing up points which bear considering. Yet far too many posters seem incredibly reluctant to acknowledge good points made by the other side. Rather, they use sarcasm or extreme nitpicking to belittle their opponents and tear apart their arguments. They seem to be chronically unable to admit their own argument might have a weakness, or that the opposing side might make some sense. It fucking drives me batshit, frankly.
Not that this really answers the OP. I just think we have an overinflated view of our collective maturity, ability to process ambiguity, and possession of basic debating etiquette.
Yeah, I agree, not everyone is as good as I am. :dubious: 
As far as the spelling and grammar Nazis go, yes, there is a certain amount of that. My experience, nonetheless, is that most Dopers will cut you some slack if you are trying to be clear.
The cheap shot that I, at least, find hardest to resist is the “I am smarter than you” post where half the words are misspelled. The other factor is the person who simply cannot be bothered with spell check or capitalization, because the likes of us ought to be slobbering with gratitude for the privilege of being told What Is True by our betters. Such posters do not often do well.
There is also an element of “if it bleeds, kill it” to the way some newbies are treated. If someone starts posting something with which the more vocal posters disagree, and it becomes clear that they will not be able to deal with a pile-on, the thread takes off with people chiming in with the arguments they have been working on since high school. If you fight back hard enough, the level of sniping drops back to background levels, although on some topics (as Jodi mentioned) it never goes away altogether.
You have to be pretty well-prepared to go against the SDMB consensus on many topics - homosexuality, creationism, Christianity in general, the recent war in Iraq, and some others. As Captain Amazing posted, this is a trend rather than the groupthink complained of in the OP, but it is a real phenomenom nonetheless.
My perception is that this board is left of center - either moderately so, or, in some cases, more than moderately. There are many Dopers on the other end of the spectrum, of course, but for the most part, the lefties outnumber the righties.
What draws me back to the SDMB time and again is the undoubted fact that being an absolutely fascinating poster correlates not at all with political beliefs.
We have had threads on issues that never occurred to me, but which seem to have been of burning interest to several other Dopers. And such threads (there was a recent one on who had better tanks in WWII, the Germans or the US) generate at least as much light as heat.
It’s an interesting place, the SDMB. Sometimes you need a thick skin to survive, more than you should need, possibly, but the rewards are great.
Regards,
Shodan