You realize, of course, that such a thread would immediately spawn it’s own dedicated Pit thread, right? It would look just like the “Polls Only/Discussion of Polls Only” threads in MPSIMS.
Clarifying question:
In this hypothetical thread, let’s say I were to post about my distaste for Maxine Waters as one reason I’m a Republican then what would the mods do when someone tells me I’m wrong about her and/or that MTG should be taken out in the street and shot like a rabid dog?
Also, I seriously question if most of the Democrats on this board are either willing to or able to have a civil/non-judgmental discussion regarding the Republican party. I present as my evidence every other thread on this board that even tangentally relates to the Republican Party. I believe some have even said they consider it a moral duty to argue against Republicans.
I would expect that the rules would be stated quite clearly, hopefully by a Mod, and that the steel-toed jackboots would be used early and often to set the pace.
Yes but would it be notes, warnings or threadbans OR “Hey, be cool. No official action taken.” which is code for “You got away with breaking the thread rules.”? Because if the latter, I could see a lot of people taking advantage of that in a thread like this.
As I read it, the mods DON’T want to have the thread, because as @Czarcasm just said, that steel toed jackboots would be needed, and if so, there will be a dozen new threads HERE about how they weren’t REALLY that critical, or if they tried to balance things, it would be like @Saint_Cad said, with “no official action taken” which weakens the whole disobeying moderate instructions issue, which, wait, leads to every OTHER mod decision spawning more threads here in the ATMB which leads to …
I’m with the too much work for not enough reward.
I agree with you.
If the Mods don’t think it is possible, it probably isn’t. It was worth a shot.
- Request that anyone interested send you a DM
- Solicit and aggregate questions from curious Democrats
- Post those questions back via DM
- Create a thread that posts your results
I was thinking that the first open postings would encourage others to post their own reasons and/or interact with what is already posted.
Even if you had the dream thread with ultimate moderation, two or three people can’t feasibly reply to thousands of requests.
You could put up Mitt Romney in a debate with 5000 well-behaved Mark Warners and Romney would still get pounded into nothing because of the sheer mass difference.
Ultimately, if you want real answers, you’ll need to descend to something near a 1:1. DM is probably the best format to achieve something like that.
If edifying non-Republicans would be the point of such a thread, it should be pointed out/reiterated that doing an Internet search for “why I am a Republican” turns up oodles of essays and testimonies.
If beating the Dope carpets to see what might come running out is the goal, that’s a whole other matter.
*and there are existing safe space threads in the pit for GOPers who wish to testify.
There are safe space threads in the pit? Isn’t that kind of a contradiction in terms?
I think they’re safe in the way that windowless white vans are safe and have candy for you.
The only way I think this has a hope in hell of working is:
@ParallelLines starts the thread.
Mods close it in 24 hours automatically.
Mods review the posts.
If it is not 100% civil, and I mean even one post that is Pub bashing for the sake of bashing Pubs, the thread is cornfielded.
Otherwise mods at their discretion reopen the thread.
I genuinely see no downside to just opening it, with the rules to be applied by the book — and if a poster or two or twenty-two feel like committing suicide by mod, then something something stupid games, something something stupid prizes.
Who would be the judge of that? I often times see accusations of “Pub bashing for the sake of bashing Pubs” that is actually just an accurate fact or description.
I thought that the idea was that there would be no one who is not a Republican allowed to be in the thread at all. I find this problematic. But, what I would find even more problematic would be allowing non-Republicans to participate, but requiring them to not disagree or criticize or really even respond to anything said, for fear of being accused of “just bashing Pubs.” And given the way that other threads have been given as examples in this thread have been misrepresented in the way they played out, I guarantee this will be the case.
Nah, it’s a good idea in theory. Give Republicans a space to explain where they are coming from, try to make their case and get people to understand. We are always being told by Republicans that we need to understand the Republican positions better, so it could be a good way to do that.
But I don’t think that it’s possible to create a safe enough space for that to happen. No matter what safeguards are put up, all it will take is one person questioning an unsupported assertion to get the whole thing tossed out under grounds of “Pub bashing”.
Exactly.
Well, we do have the two opposing gun threads. But even so, you do not always have to totally agree. And, you do get a choices there anyway.
The Board is not an “echo chamber” except maybe on the so-called “woke” issues. You can argue for or against gun control, for one example.
And let us assume the Op gets his way, and that thread is heavily moderated and kept free of hecklers. The hecklers would just PIT the admitted Republicans. As many know, I am a defender of the Bill of Rights- including the 2nd. But I support moderate gun control. That didn’t stop some poster going to the Pit and calling me a murderer, as I didn’t support his idea of a more or less total gun ban.
So, it is a no win situation.
Then one radical GOP hater will post just to get the thread shut down.
Very convenient
As I linked above, the mod has explicitly said regarding the “good news” thread that it is permissible to challenge whether a linked story actually constitutes good news. It is not restricted to pro-gun views.