We don’t have a member named Liberal poster, silly.
Two responses:
(a) In the thread I’ve been using as an example, the job-killing-healthcare-bill-title thread, that was not in fact the context, but that was still your response
(b) It is certainly the case that “The Republicans are at it again! I just saw on the news that…” is an overbroad and unfair OP. But it seems to me that the “correct” response is not to effectively force the OPer to defend himself against implicit charges of hypocrisy, but rather to force himself to confront and defend his overbroadness. That is, your response should be “Yes, Joe Republican did this, and it was a jackass thing to do. But your OP begins ‘The republicans are at it again’. Do you believe that Republicans in general are more likely to use accusations of child pornography as a political tactic? Why are you tarring an entire group?” or something along those lines.
Or to think about it another way… what possible actual meaningful dialog could your response lead to?
Der-Trihs-alike: Hey, I just saw on the news that Joe Republican (R-some state) accused his opponent of child pornography. What a jackass!
Bricker: Let’s be clear here… is it never OK to accuse political opponents of child pornography? Or is only a bad thing to do when a Republican does it?
Der-Trihs-alike: Actually, it IS only a bad thing when Republicans do it, because they’re evil and any tactic used against them is fine
Bricker: I rest my case
Other liberal poster: Hey! Wait a second!
or perahps
Liberal poster: Hey, I just saw on the news that Joe Republican (R-some state) accused his opponent of child pornography. What a jackass!
Bricker: Let’s be clear here… is it never OK to accuse political opponents of child pornography? Or is only a bad thing to do when a Republican does it?
Liberal poster: Fortunately I have a link to a thread I started two and half years ago to a freakishly identical situation in which a truly identical negative campaign ad was used by a democrat and I in fact complained about it identically.
Bricker: Wow, you’re right! I have gained new respect for your impartiality!
or
Liberal poster: Hey, I just saw on the news that Joe Republican (R-some state) accused his opponent of child pornography. What a jackass!
Bricker: Let’s be clear here… is it never OK to accuse political opponents of child pornography? Or is only a bad thing to do when a Republican does it?
Liberal poster: Dude! You totally just blew my mind! I guess maybe I am seeing things from a partisan viewpoint… and I never would have realized that if it hadn’t been for you!
I mean, I’m obviously being a bit sarcastic here, but really, it’s just very hard for me to see what actual discussion is going to result from a post of that sort. This is particularly a shame because there are some interesting discussions which could relate to posts similar in content to that if the tone and context were different. For instance, I’d think a discussion of what is and is not reasonable in the titles of bills is a vaguely interesting one, and maybe there are lots of examples of bills submitted by democrats with Orwellian or deceptive names that I’ve never heard about or thought about, and it would be interesting to kick that issue around… but a discussion like that is never going to ensue from a please-prove-you’re-not-a-hypocrite-or-your-post-is-invalid implied attack of the type we’re discussing.
Say it ain’t so!
Yes, it was indeed the context.
Yes, that would probably be more productive. Good point.
Perhaps, and only if it (i.e. the “overbroadness”) was explicitly stated. More generally it’s not explicitly stated. And it doesn’t have to be, because it’s the inevitable cumulative impact of hundreds of such threads about Republican/Conservative misdeeds and a lack of similar bemoaning of Democrat/Liberal ones.
Except that you’re basically saying that the overwhelming liberal bias of the SDMB (which I certainly don’t deny… but it’s not like it’s something that we crafty liberals fiendishly planned. In fact, I’d bet most of us wish it weren’t the case at all) is carte blanche for conservatives to treat every statement or post as if it were the most slanted combative substance-free thing ever. “Well, sure, you carefully laid out your thesis statement in a fair and logical and well-supported fashion, but plenty of liberals in the history of the SDMB didn’t, so…”
You know, I’ve read that OP about 10 times very very carefully while posting and discussing this thread, and I still don’t see any issue. In fact, as I pointed out,
This part
is a clear step further away from “everyone who disagrees with me is evil” towards “we have an honest disagreement but are all well-meaning” than is the norm on the SDMB.
And this is a comment clearly and specifically only on the issue at hand, albeit in vaguely hyperbolic language.
And this is an assertion clearly about specifically about the issue at hand.
Can you point out exactly your problem with that OP?
Fair point, but in my defense, all I did was ASK which point was intended for debate. I didn’t immediately leap into the idea that the thread was unbalanced. I asked whether the intent was to point out a GOP failing or a general problem.
Frankly I’m a bit skeptical here. I mean, you know as well as anyone the extent to which an insinuation can be phrased as a question…
Bricker: I think X about Obama
MaxTheVool: So do you get all your opinions from Fox News?
Bricker: Hey, I find that offensive
MaxTheVool: All I did was ask a question.
Asking “so, does this criticism apply to everyone or just Republicans?” may technically be question, but it sure comes off as an attack, at least to me. (And again, in what possible universe is someone going to respond “why yes, it DOES only apply to republicans”?)
What about us Canadian who think ALL Americans are wrong-headed boobs? And not on the gun thing - we have guns too - but just in general?
In this universe. I can easily imagine people responding with, “Yes, let’s face it, the Republicans are by far the worst offenders here…”
My post wasn’t meant as an attack.
And, indeed, I follow up by saying I won’t be giving counter examples, because:
More often than not, on the SDMB it is meant to apply only to Republicans.
Malfeasance (real or imagined) is often presented as if it were characteristic of conservatives or the GOP. Malfeasance (no matter if it is real or not) is generally met with a storm of dismissal, denial, attacking the messenger, and loud cries of “everyone stop discussing this - there is NO DEBATE here.”
Regards,
Shodan
Well, generously assuming that to be true, were you personally ever warned or banned or persecuted for promoting an opposing viewpoint?
I get accused of trolling a lot. Not sure what that has to do with how Democratic/liberal malfeasance gets minimized on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
I can believe that. For a lot of people (and right v left doesn’t matter in this), “trolling” = “saying things that I disagree with”. So people presenting unpopular views are going to be accused of trolling.
The syllogism generally runs;
[ul][li]Trolling is posting with intent to inflame[/li][li]Your opinions are unpopular and you know it[/li][li]You persist in posting them[/li][li]Ergo, you are trolling.[/ul][/li]
Didn’t mean to Submit. ETA: It used to bother me, but Bricker is much more likely to admit a good point on the other side, and he even voted for Obama, and he gets Pitted as much as I do, or more.
So I don’t think fair-mindedness has to do with it, always - some people just can’t stand to have anyone disagree with them.
Regards,
Shodan
Even if this is true, it doesn’t change what I said. The dynamics of this board are what they are, and posts and threads don’t exist in a vacuum.
By moderators? Those are the people who can hand out warnings or bannings or “persecution”, as implied by original question.
What do the mods have to do with it? A lot of Dopers make capital over what they think are bad doings by Republicans, and dismiss equivalent behavior by liberals. So it goes.
Regards,
Shodan
Because they’re the people who can punish you for your views (well, to the extent being prevented from posting here is a punishment) rather than simply disagreeing with them.
If you don’t want to answer the question, that’s fine.