If the majority and the mods support doing that, sure. Personally I think it’s so pointless that the negligible insight that could be gained is not worth making an exception to SDMB culture. I think if you want to know what Republicans think, you need to go to where they hang out.
Understanding why they (think) they believe these things might be useful in figuring out how to argue them into not believing them.
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for this, but if it’s really impossible to find an argument that will sway at least a few people to change, then, well, might as well stop wasting time and get on with the next civil war.
I think it’s unproductive on a social level to attack people for their beliefs on a board like the SDMB. It may be cathartic to take out your frustration on that person, but it’s unlikely to cause any meaningful change. The person is just some rando on a message board. They aren’t the global representative of that belief who will send out a newsletter to all followers to get them to change their minds. It’s probably more useful to understand the basis of their beliefs so you can understand the group as a whole. If you can truly understand why the group thinks like they do, you can incorporate that to effect meaningful change that the group as a whole will be more likely to support. With a huge part of the population having these beliefs, it’s necessary to come up with social systems which they will support. It doesn’t mean that you have to support their beliefs, but rather that it’s going to be more productive to come up with policies which address the other side’s desires rather than come up with something that they will totally oppose.
Agreeing with both of those.
That seems unlikely to work out well. I suggest that a more constructive goal is to seek areas of agreement, and understand values, to try to forge positions that get both sides things that are important to them.
Maybe they would let you do it in the Pit.
If you read the OP, it seems rather obvious why I don’t want it in the Pit.
I don’t think it should be an issue for mods to enforce the rules regardless of topic. This is a classic case of capitulating to a Heckler’s Veto. Though in this case the capitulation occurred due to the spectre of such.
On a more serious note, the fact that the mods and posters think it’s impossible does imply that the assertion that this place has devolved into an echo chamber has considerable merit.
I can certainly understand that point, but I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
RW talk radio has succeeded where LW talk radio has either failed or failed to materialize for much the same reason that a message board like the SDMB tilts left: self-selection and market segmentation – the natural draw of the respective audiences to the place that makes them most comfortable.
Without getting pejorative – not my intention – it’s just more the speed of the pointy-headed ivory tower sorts to intellectually beat nearly any topic to death, eloquently and thoughtfully.
I do, however, think the numbers don’t bode well for a spirited, reasonable, thoughtful discussion of why today’s SDMB Republicans still call themselves Republicans.
I think the PSI (Pounds per Square Inch) is too high, putting far too much load on a relatively very few Dopers.
I don’t see it ending well. Is that enough reason not to have the thread? Dunno. But add in the load on the moderators and it does look less attractive.
Sup
Would you equally say that this is an “echo chamber” of opposition to murdering kittens? Or just that it’s reasonable for a community to shun people who embrace such a thing?
There is no absolute principle here, it’s just a question of where you draw the line on the fundamental decency and respect for facts and evidence that qualifies you to be welcomed (not just allowed) to participate in this community’s discourse. Don’t be shocked by the fact that a board dedicated to fighting ignorance is not the most welcoming place for advocates of the party that celebrates ignorance. Adopting that platform was their choice.
I disagree. I think any topic can be discussed civilly and within the boundaries of the rules. There are like 40 stickies full of rules and several mods to enforce them. So, not having the will to enforce the rules against the horde of outraged posters means the horde of outraged posters is and has been the real power on the board.
Well, shoot, this post might have proved the mods point. 
I’d agree with them that trying to shoot down a thousand posters, one-by-one, to get down to a few reasonable ones isn’t worth the time or energy.
It would be better to do something like a thread that’s limited to a whitelist of posters, in advance, if there’s a way to arrange that.
What point, exactly? That defending the indefensible is unlikely to result in civilized discourse? I’m pretty sure that’s not in dispute.
What was mooted was allowing people to attempt to defend the indefensible in a safe space without pushback.
No. That there is a contingent of enabled/empowered posters that has reached a critical mass on a niche board that are allowed to exercise what is in essence a Hecklers Veto to shut down discussion with impunity with regards to what the actual rules of the board are.
Actually, I think it is a worthy discussion and should be respected for what it is intended to be. If your OP contains all the points you just posted in this OP, I’m thinking you will get cooperation from a large majority of people.
Also, I think the mods tend to watch that category pretty carefully because it has the potential for getting very volatile. I know that, when I was bad, I got caught right away. LOL
How is it possible to understand values and to seek areas of agreement without finding out what values are being used and in what areas there might be agreement?
Somebody call all the news outlets. I agree with octopus.
No, hold those phone calls: I don’t agree with that. I think however that it should be possible to discuss this topic civilly and within the boundaries of the rules.
If the only way board Republicans can or are willing to discuss why they’re Republicans is to violate the rules, that would create a problem, yes. But I’m willing to extend to Republicans on this board the presumption that they have reasons for voting and/or identifying as Republican that don’t violate the rules of this board.
Yeah, I’m not seeing it either. There is only one poster in this thread that I would describe as being angry, and they are angry about what happened to their threads. Though in reviewing the threads that they were speaking about, I find both their complaint and their anger completely unjustified.
But, since the entire point of this thread would be that only very specific individuals would be allowed to post, it would make more sense for the OP to contact those individuals, or have them contact him, and then set it up with the mods that makes it clear that that thread is only to be used by those people.
It would actually be very easy to moderate, the rules are clear, if you are not invited to the thread, then you are not allowed to post to it.
I don’t know if it sets a good precedent though, having the OP able to set who is allowed to post in their thread.
Maybe an alternative thread is…
“As a Republican, what do you stand for that Democrats would agree with?”
And then put a moratorium on attacking the Republican Party, or criticizing people for being Republican (or questioning why they are one).
It wouldn’t achieve the same thing being proposed in this thread, but maybe it will give some insight into what a Republican believes in without the unavoidable vitriol that comes along with bringing up divisive issues.
Er. I think any thread that starts, “tell me what you believe so i can convince you you’re wrong” isn’t going to go well. And that’s how i read “figuring out how to argue them into not believing them”.