As a guy who’s not conservative and who doesn’t participate in political threads (although I do lurk in them) I agree with this 100%.
I’m sure elucidator thought he was being clever here, but this was a content free post. Now multiply it by 15 or 20, and you’ll start to see not just the experience of the right wing poster, but what the threads look like.
I can’t blame the conservative for not wanting to separate the wheat from the chaff, when theres so little wheat.
So let’s put Cheney on trial for war crimes. That’d get your juices flowing again, and it wouldn’t cost as much as conquering Iran.
Apparently having discussions with like minded people is exciting. But diversity is boring. I would thing facing opposing opinions would be far more interesting, but I guess that the conservatives are sufficiently Foxified that they find that mainstream and interesting. So sad.
I think you’re kind of making Sam Stone’s point…
I was making fun of it. The opposite should be true. Debating opposing viewpoints should be more interesting. It should require more research and facts. It does.
Oh, I see.
Agreed.
Every time I read another of your paraphrases of the Republican Talking Point of the Day, so easily exposed with just a trivial amount of research into the actual facts, I feel the same way. Cleaning up after you in GD does get monotonous for many of us.
Says the last True Believer in Iraq’s WMD’s and the outstanding successes of Bush’s economic policies.
Oh, so that’s what you’re doing. I thought you were being a self-important loudmouth.
I see. Its all about “content”, is it? Your post was chock full of contenty goodness, because it is sombre and serious-like, and that’s what “content” is? Do you have cites and statistics, do you offer graphs showing evidence of the decline of respectable argument?
No, you offer your heartfelt opinion, entirely free of substantiation. Which is understandable, given the nature of the topic, there are no facts to offer in a discussion about subjective judgements. I wouldn’t expect you to, it being pretty much impossible. Certainly wouldn’t scold you for it, not being pompous, self-righteous, and hypocritical.
You, apparently, are not bound by such limitations, your bald opinions are content, mine are snark. And all with a completely straight face, I truly believe you are sincere, you believe every word, you believe that your unalloyed subjective opinion constitutes content.
Bite me, Sam. You’re no better than any of the rest of us girls on the street, your crisply starched communion dress notwithstanding. And like most sincerely pretentious people, you aren’t even aware that you’re doing it!
Don’t like my style, don’t read! I’ll get over it, it’ll be hard at first, but somehow I’ll find the strength to go on. Hell, Shodan hasn’t heard a word I’ve said in years!
I don’t know what is more amazing, that you post such portentuous, self-righteous drivel, or that you sincerely believe it!
Precious.
You know, you are powerful dumb. And one of the people who degrades the debate of every thread your in. I know you have a very high opinion of yourself, and that makes you both a little comical and a lot sad. Not only are you one of the most mindless partisans on these boards, you’re one of the most tiring because you are truly not intelligent. So often you can’t even follow the logic of point being made. There are other liberal posters who argue the same positions that you do, who I have respect for, and enjoy engaging. You’re like the dumb single child that got doted upon too much and believed the press his parents gave him—even though his IQ is in double digits.
Just thought you should know that, snookims.
Now I’ll go back to not wasting my time with you and the likes of you.
On preview, I second Lord Ashtar’s observation. I also love the use of the inclusive “us”, so he can attempt to enjoy the benefits of the more intelligent posters on his side and the protection of a mob. What a pathetic piece of shit.
Oops, yes, I forgot. Make that “one of the last TWO remaining True Believers”.
Sorry about the omission.
Oh, hell, Elvish, there are a lot more than that, its just a lot of trouble to gnaw through the leather straps to get to the keyboard…
Oh, dear, that’s “content free snark”, isn’t it? I am such a little chippy!
Nobody could have predicted that a thread about partisanship would turn into an egomaniacal partisan snipe-fest.
Your first day here, huh?
How do like the place so far?
Coming late to the party, but I wanted to point out how much I enjoyed this post. Thank you, nameless.
Ted Koppel used to do a open ended discussion late at night. He had one where he brought together about 7 groups of people with their own interests. It include The Black Panthers, Gray Panthers, Environmentalists, Conservatives and liberals ETAL . They all presented their viewpoints and actually showed interest in the other groups. But each and every group stated that what was unfair was the lack of coverage that their group got. None of them felt the news gave them fair or equal coverage. I see no reason to think anything has changed. Human perceptions are flawed and people let their own view color theirs. I personally don’t see the conservative viewpoint as being cheated at all. But I am not surprised they feel that way. They are people after all. (some of them anyway). But Liberals do get cheated in the news.
Not to try to pick on you, but this is exactly 100% the kind of comment that I’m objecting to in the first place. Yes, Bush was strongly disliked. Yes, things got very very partisan and rancorous. But what you’re saying here is just plain false. Bricker, for instance, is one of the most prominent conservatives on the board, and supported Bush back in the day. Now, Bricker has gotten plenty of crap in plenty of threads, some justified and some not. But has he, more than a handful of rare times, been called any of
-racist
-gun-loving
-bible-thumping
or
-dittohead
?
I’m not saying it has never ever ever happened. What I’m saying is that any sufficiently prominent board member, which includes various conservatives who have been mentioned in this thread, plus people like Der Trihs and Diogenese, fairly quickly develops an image… what everyone knows that poster is like. “Everyone knows” that Bricker is conservative and likes to use lawyery arguments. Everyone knows that Der Trihs hates religion and the American military. Etc. And there are plenty of prominent conservatives about whom the board consensus does NOT include any of your above-listed traits.
Now, something various people have brought up in this thread is the question of why I’m picking this particular issue to rant about. Am I blaming the victim? Am I focusing too much on one minor side issue that is not all that important? Well, it’s just a pit thread. I was feeling irritated by something and I started a thread. I think the point I’m trying to make is a valid and interesting one, but at no point did I claim it was the most serious issue facing the SDMB, or that somehow all the issues with SDMB partisanness can be blamed on conservatives exaggerating it, or anything of that sort.
I knew from the start that there was the risk of reasoned disagreement. I was willing to take that risk.
I guess I don’t see how that really relates to what I was talking about at all, one way or the other. But I also don’t think the SDMB is really average. I think that there are various objective measures:
-level of education
-basic understanding of civics and politics
-number of books read each year
which, if one could precisely measure them for the SDMB and for the American populace as a whole (as that’s probably the comparison most frequently made), the SDMB would come out ahead in. Not WAY ahead. We’re not the alphas in A Brave New World or something. But I’ve seen enough message boards with level of discourse SO FAR below that here (IMDB and youtube boards come to mind) without any obvious reason to think that those boards would attract dumber-than-average people not to think that this place is at least somewhat unusual in its demographics-of-mind. Although anytime that’s used as an argument for something (“Bush is unpopular here, we are all geniuses, ergo Bush is bad”) it’s obviously truly idiotic.
I basically agree. And if someone started a pit thread entitled “we need more conservative posters”, I would agree with it. The fact that I didn’t start that pit thread doesn’t mean I don’t think that’s a problem, or that I think it’s a smaller problem than the one I chose to pit in this thread.
Are we having a debate or a poll? If you want a poll, perhaps you would need more conservatives to keep it close. I don’t really know. But in a debate forum where we exchange ideas, why are numbers significant?
Heres why numbers are important----or how at the very least they influence the outcome:
I don’t post to political threads, however I have posted/lurked to religious threads where the liberal/conservative divide exists as well.
In both the political and religious threads I have often seen a poster be essentially bum rushed. He/she starts a thread and immediately becomes the center of attention. It can be disorienting. I have been in threads where I was ***simultaneously *** engaged with a half dozen to a dozen posters, and that doesn’t count the ones I’ve learned to ignore.
I’ve actually had people in threads accuse me of ducking them because I didn’t respond to them quickly, oblivious to the plain reality that I was the most prolific poster to the thread—by far. I’ve been been the most prolific poster in many threads because there was something valid to say----and the lack of diversity made me [often] the sole counterpoint to the board ideological hegemony.
That often comes across as heckling; mob like action where a poster is ridiculed or pestered mercilessly. I’ve actually ventured into threads (and would find cites if you’d like) simply to call out the whole group—essentially calling them jackals.
I don’t know how Shodan et al feels about the numbers, but I simply tend to focus on those who I know have a history of highly intelligent, rational posts, like cosmosdan, Revenant Threshold, Polycarp, Friar Ted, and Diogenes and ignore the jackals.
But a new poster has no background from which to come up with a strategy. I have seen firsthand their responses as they are attacked------sometimes by the [few] bright and articulate posters, and many from the peanut gallery.
If you want higher quality discourse, the numbers matter.