I want to start a thread, but I think I will need moderator support

Perhaps to counteract the view that Republicans might not participate in the proposed thread?

You’re probably right, but that might be what @Czarcasm wants.

I don’t think threads where only people who hold certain views can post is consistent with what SDMB is supposed to be. If that’s what people want, they can go and read blog posts by Republicans.

I posted an example of such a thread- Positive Gun News of the Day - Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS) - Straight Dope Message Board

There is certainly not a consensus that that thread should exist, so it’s not a good precedent.

And note in the subsequent conversation @engineer_comp_geek justifies the thread by saying that it is not restricted to people on one side of the issue. He clarifies the moderation policy - you are allowed to dispute whether a posted story is actually good (i.e. pro-gun) news.

But that is not P&E. It is a news thread. News thread are already a special sub-category of MPSIMS.

As I have already said, perhaps the thread would work better in MPSIMS.

Well, it is too political for MPSIMS. It sure as heck isn’t a news thread.
It just won’t work. How about you move on instead.

If people think that would work, i volunteer to accept the PMs and keep the poster names private. That would create substantial delays, of course, because I’m often not on the forum.

Arguably, though, that’s not what “those who identify as Republican” would be. I’m not sure if there are any views held in common by all Republicans. It’d be closer to a thread like “If you voted for ____, tell me why. (Please, only post if you voted for ____.)”

But those are the ones I’d like to hear from. I’ve briefly looked at places like some sub-reddits that are primarily conservative/Republican posters, and they’re almost universally low-grade crap, where they just repeat the usual NewMax talking points, completely oblivious to the factual errors and logical fallacies in such talking point. I don’t need to understand why those people still vote Republican, it’s clear that they’re “the common clay of the New West”.

What I’d like to see is why someone who can acknowledge reality, and argue logically, still votes Republican. I used to vote Conservative here in Canada, but gave up on it several elections ago when the Conservative Party of Canada just kept going further and further into GOP-light right-wing nonsense. The current GOP is far, far worse than even the current CPC, so I have to wonder why someone with a brain still votes for them. Even if you don’t actually like the Democrats, how can you vote for a party that is actively embracing the destruction of democracy in the US, and promoting utter crazies like MTG?

We could have a parallel discussion thread, with links back to the Republican-only thread, so the posters in one can just ignore the other if they’re feeling attacked.

The issue is not lack of diversity, it is barring people from posting. Restricting the scope of a thread is fine. Restricting who can participate is not, imo. As in the examples I gave in the linked thread above.

“Declawing cats is an appropriate practice - only people who agree with this can post.”

Not okay.

“If someone wanted to declaw a cat, what is the most humane way to do it (NOT a debate on the merits of declawing cats)”

That’s fine.

Not okay, imo. It’s just trying to circumvent the principle that only people who hold certain opinions are allowed to participate. No different from “only people who own a gun should post.”

I think a thread eliciting opinions from people in a certain category is fine, barring other people from commenting on those opinions when they are posted is not.

That sounds like a Republican blog with a comment section, not SDMB.

I think that would be interesting, too, but it’s dependent on the participants actually posing questions in an effort to understand rather than to get in pot shots, prove the person wrong, change person’s mind, etc.

I would compare it to asking a religious person about their religion when you don’t share their beliefs. The religious person can be perfectly logical in their belief system (like with all religions) even though the religion may not make sense to you. Even though you don’t believe in their religion, you can still ask questions to understand why they believe the way they do without trying to make them feel foolish, make them abandon their religion, make them admit their religion is fake, etc. If the questions aimed at Republicans could be done in that context, it could be a productive thread.

So, rather than find a way to have the conversation, even if it means slightly changing how you think SDMB “should” be run, you’d rather not have the conversation at all, because that’s the default result, it seems. I’d rather have some actual information to discuss, even if it’s discussed in a separate thread.

As it is, like others have mentioned, this just becomes one big shouty-chamber. I can’t see how this has been useful so far.

Sounds like it would be easier to set something up off-board and report the results, with attribution if the respondent allows.

Right off the bat I’d say one problem is calling someone ‘a Republican’, instead of asking why people ‘are registered members of the Republican Party’ or ‘generally vote for Republicans’. ‘A Republican’ doesn’t define any person very well.

If Lumpy’s response is any indication, I doubt this.

If those beliefs are actively harmful to you and your kind, what is the point?