True, but you can’t attack guns or gun owners in general, or call out for gun bans. Besides, is not that thread inactive?
I don’t see any problem with a thread that elicits the views of some specific subset of people. We would have no problem with “why do you own a cat” so there should be no problem* with “why do you own a gun” or “why are you a Republican”. And I think it would be threadshitting or jerkish to jump in immediately in a thread with that scope if you are not in the target demographic. But there has never been any precedent for a prohibition on everyone participating in the consequent discussion.
*no problem in terms of being consistent with Board culture I mean. I’m not suggesting it wouldn’t be a clusterfuck that no mod should have to deal with.
Or one radical GOP troll will continue to make more and more ridiculous assertions until one is questioned and gets the thread shut down.
With extremely narrowly defined limits as to what questioning the positivity of a story is.
But, of course, anyone at all is welcome to participate in the SGNOFD thread.
This, exactly.
Here’s the problem with the thread – and the entire Left/Right schism – as I see it.
We no longer agree on a common set of accepted facts, or even how to determine what a fact is. Many on the Right (and some on the Left as well) now equate opinion with fact and expertise. Evidence is often no longer valued or important. Extended views re party affiliation are frequently based thereon.
So what some are asking is to allow folks who identify as Republicans say whatever they wish without challenge. That’s the opposite of what this board is about. I find it distasteful to even contemplate such a thread.
It’s not fair to either side. No one on this board should be permitted or protected to spread disinformation or misinformation without allowing others to challenge those views with facts and evidence.
Sure, but based upon the fact that there are a hundred Radicals here to one Reactionary, I think mine has a much better chance of occurring.
Eh, I think that if the unwise decision to make this thread happened, then the way it derailed and shut down would be debated till the end of time.
The contention of those on the left would be that the right kept making more and more absurd assertions in order to troll them into responding, and the excuse on the right would be that anyone who responds to unsupported assertions is a radical GOP hater posting just to get the thread shut down.
So, that’s another reason why this should never happen. It won’t do any good, it will cause issues while it is open, and will continue to leave damage in its wake long after it gets shut down.
Well, I think it would occur two posts in… so not enuf time for the absurd assertions.
One post is more than enough time for absurd assertions.
Lol there aren’t hundred of radicals posting on this message board. I doubt there’s even more than 10.
Sometimes I’ve made six absurd assertions before breakfast.
Blatantly bastardizing a great scene from “The Big Chill:”
Yeah, I guess I’d want to argue it both ways here.
In the “good news” gun thread, I think that the attempt by the mods to allow dissenting views is an acknowledgement that prohibiting dissenting views is not consistent with the Board’s theme of fighting ignorance.
But people have certainly expressed dissatisfaction that the limits of what’s permitted are too narrow, and I agree with them - I think that the thread should not exist in that form.
So if that thread is a precedent, it’s a precedent that shows that -
(a) suppressing dissenting views is not consistent with the Board culture of fighting ignorance;
(b) any attempt to finesse that by allowing dissenting views only within tight parameters is fraught with difficulty.
The mods would decide. The problem with your second sentence is that I’m sure that some on this Board (not saying you) would call “The Republican Party is a terrorist organization.” or “The Republican Party wants to kill all transgendered people.” etc. a fact.
If we were to look at the multitude of threads that have Pub bashing in it, I think it would be like pornography viz. I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.
The problem is not that we Republicans will be challenged but as @Aspenglow points out many cannot distinguish between opinion and fact. If I were to say, “I think the progressives are going to drive this country into effective bankruptcy by 2100.” then the so called “challenge” will be either
“You’re wrong.” And even ignoring that that is not accurate - how can me saying what I believe is wrong? we still have the lack of any insight into why progressive macroeconomics will not lead to de facto bankruptcy. In other words, your opinion is not a challenge to my opinion; instead challenge my presumed fact with other facts.
OR “You’re an idiot.” Need I expand on how this is not a challenge?
I think it would be more like, “No, Biden didn’t steal the election” type of stuff. I often times hear people say that they support republicans because of how badevil the Democrats are, and the response would be refuting the assertions that are used to justify that conclusion.
But pointing out that the Republican platform is extremely anti-trans, I think would be valid. I don’t think it would be fair to say that they want to kill them, but I think it’s fair to observe that they don’t want them to exist.
Ah, I understand your criteria now.
That’s a valid point and I’ve been thinking about it.
I feel the distinction is that the positive gun news thread is essentially a thread for reporting news items. Now I’ll grant that being able to choose which news items about a topic get posted can be used to advocate a position. But in theory, it’s not offering opinions.
A thread asking people why they are Republicans would be an opinion thread by its nature. And while you can’t debate facts, you should be able to debate opinions.
No, I would think that the challenge would be, “Why is that?” And it may well be followed up with cites of fiscal policies under different administrations, which would call that conclusion into question.
One of the problems is that often times people retreat to calling things opinions, when they are actually conclusions. Opinions are based only on personal feelings about a subject. Conclusions take into account facts. So, if someone says, “My opinion is that guns are more important to me than anything else”, then that’s an opinion. If someone says, “My opinion is that Democrats are going to ban guns and go house to house confiscating them”, then that’s actually a conclusion, and it would be worthwhile digging into the facts that led them to it.
That wouldn’t be appropriate outside the pit, and I don’t think that that was where this thread was supposed to be located. Regardless of special treatment of a thread, that should be moderated.
From the Nikki Haley thread
They’re probably hoping that as President she’ll put in an executive order to put the traitor flags up everywhere. Taking them down in SC was just a ploy. But now she’s seen the light. The Right Light.
Note the hyperbole and almost propagandist style in addition to the fact that this added nothing in response to the original post as to if removing the Confederate flags in SC would hurt Haley’s chances in the Republican primary. Would you call this Pub bashing?
What I note is that you left out context.
LSL was not talking about Republicans, he was talking about racists.
Now, the particular racists he was talking about are Republicans, but he did not infer that all Republicans are racist with that remark.
As a Republican, do you feel that he was talking about you in that post?
Is that really what you call “Pub bashing”? If so, are you intending to infer that all Republicans are racists?
Or is it, “Talk bad about any Republican, and you are talking bad about all Republicans?”
Huh, this exchange has made me feel differently about the thread. Maybe it would be useful for Republicans to get all their grievances out, so that we can look into them, see which ones are legitime, and which ones are based on a… let’s call it a misunderstanding.
Because so far, that’s what I’m seeing. Grudges and grievances about things that “you knew when you saw it”, but that, actually, when you look into it, it really wasn’t the case.
You brought up the example of pornography, so we’ll connect this to current events. There are Republicans who consider a drag show to be phonography, because they know it when they see it. Do you consider a drag show to be phonography? If not, do you think that some of those Republicans may be seeing things that really aren’t there?