And just to be clear, so far as I’m aware it would be a significant change/exception to board culture, right? I don’t think there has been any bar to any subset of people posting in a thread (there are specific bans for breaking rules, obviously).
There are threads where someone is eliciting views from some subset of people, where it could be threadshitting or being a jerk for people who are not in that subset to jump straight in; but nobody is barred from later participation in the consequent discussion.
At the same time, a thread in which people can say what it is that they believe without it being challenged on it in anyway may go well for that thread, but it would not go well for the rest of the board.
I’d say it’s more “the country” than just “the SDMB.” I can’t think of any forums, left or right, where the proposed idea wouldn’t turn into a shit-flinging contest.
A point. But it’s not how I read “seek areas of agreement, and understand values, to try to forge positions that get both sides things that are important to them”; though as you’re the one who wrote it, you’d know what you meant better than I do.
I forgot that you were the one volunteering to try to get the info through PM’s, and confused you with those not wanting the thread to happen at all. Apologies for that.
I am agnostic on the thread. It seems likely to turn into a moderation nightmare. It might be interesting if it gets anywhere before that happens. P&E isn’t one of my forums, so it’s unlikely to become my nightmare.
But in general I’m willing to try to facilitate discussion. If folks think it might work with an anonymizing filter, I’m willing to provide the filter. But if the goal is "convince people they are wrong"it seems hopeless.
But couldn’t that be said about any topic that is in any way controversial? If Great Debates and Politics and Elections are only going to allow one point of view to post without one faction being allowed to shout down the opposition why even carry on with those forums?
I guess I’m thinking more ‘if there are areas of agreement, work on those. Maybe they’ll eventually come around to listening in other areas; but even if not, maybe we can get something done in the areas of agreement.’
I’m also thinking – years ago, when I first came on a red-area though at least theoretically nonpartisan planning board: I figured out quite fast that if I said ‘We need to protect endangered species’ I would get nowhere whatsoever, and nobody was even listening to whatever I said next. But if I said ‘We need to protect our water quality’ – everybody was in favor of that. But what I was actually proposing was the exact same thing.
It’s 30 years later and now it’s possible to say ‘protect species’ and have people listen.
Whether this is anything equivalent – I don’t know. But we got into this damn mess somehow. If it can be gotten into, seems to me that it can be gotten out of.
ETA: This is certainly not to say that we didn’t need people 30 years ago yelling about endangered species; sometimes quite impolitely. I think we need people both pushing and pulling this car if we’re going to get it out of the ditch.
So how is the presence of a thread where one posts why one supports a particular political party any different with regards to actually enforcing the basic rules of civility that board demands posters abide by? And are actually quite often quickly enforced when the post or thread in question is in congruence with the primary sentiment of the board or those that enforce the rules? Again, this is a lazy capitulation to a threat of Heckler’s Veto.
What about a thread where only people who self-identify as Republican voters/supporters are allowed to post for (say) 2 weeks, then it’s opened up?
It’s consistent with the spirit of threads we’ve had in the past where people elicit opinions from some subgroup, and where it would be jerkish to dominate the thread early if you’re not in that group; but where nobody is ultimately barred from the consequent discussion.
After the 2 weeks, it could be opened up, and if it turns into such a clusterfuck that it ends up in the Pit or closed, so be it - but perhaps some useful understanding has been gained by then.
Many topics are actually shut down or moved to your realm because they are in fact allowed to be ungovernable. And the root problem isn’t the fact that the SDMB is an echo chamber. Which it is. The problem is the lack of desire to confront a critical mass of folks on a relatively small and niche message board and hold them to the same standards.
I can guarantee that if the 2 or 3 Republicans left on this board went into a thread about the wonders of the Democratic Party and behaved as we assume the 20-30 Democrats would behave in the OP’s hypothetical thread the same moderators would have the hammer ready to smite.
I was also trying to think of a way to approach the topic that would be more positive, but this still limits the thread to Republicans only, which still feels a bit exclusionist (which is consistent with the OP’s intent, but still barring participation to much of the board).
The best I could come up with was:
“Hypothetical - if you were forced to select a new Republican (RINO or otherwise) President, which Republicans of the last 50 years (1970 and later), living or dead, would you support and why?”
This at least sidesteps the current extreme right turn of the last decade, and would let more former moderates or pre-Tea Party / Trump Republicans contribute.
It’s not a perfect answer, but might be less flame prone.
But recall, I was answering this question: “If those beliefs are actively harmful to you and your kind, what is the point?” My comment was a more generalized statement on why we might want honest input from people who believe things that “are actively harmful to you and your kind”. It’s certainly not the only reason to have such a thread, but it’s a reason that may be acceptable to those who genuinely fear the modern Republican agenda.
I disagree. A thread in which only Republicans can post their views and nobody is allowed to question those views is a echo chamber. (And that would be true if there was a thread in which only Democrats could post and nobody could question their views.)
So the fact that so many people are saying such a thread wouldn’t work here is evidence that this board is not an echo chamber.
They would not have their views questioned in that particular thread. That leaves approximately 283 gazillion other threads where they are constantly questioned.
Seriously. How hard could this possibly be? Hell, just give @Czarcasm back his mod powers to moderate that one thread. I don’t think anyone would complain about that. Or have @Miller do it. It’s not like he’s overwhelmed with moderating the Pit. Just how many republicans do you think are still posting here that would be willing to participate? Are you really envisioning a several thousand post thread? If people can’t follow the rules laid out, that’s on them, not the nature of the thread.