sorry
No, that’s not the claim I’m making.
The claim I’m making is that the LEVEL of hostility you receive is not due SOLELY to your conservative views. In other words, imagine four posters:
(1) A liberal poster who is polite and respectful and non-trolly at all times.
(2) A liberal poster who is frequently a trolly jackass.
(3) A conservative poster who is polite and respectful and non-trolly at all times.
(4) A conservative poster is who is frequently a trolly jackass.
My claim is that of those 4 posters, (1) will receive the least hostility, (4) will receive the most hostility, but (and this is the key point) (3) will receive notably less hostility than (4). Sure, (3) will receive more hostility than (1) (which I agree is, at some level, unfair), and who knows how (2) and (3) will compare, but the point I keep trying to make is that the level of hostility each receives will be based on BOTH their political ideology AND their level of trolliness.
Do you disagree?
Actually, I’d like you to make it worth my while. If I can find some thread where you bragged about posting something disingenuously, then you must stop posting here for a specified period. If I can’t, then I’ll agree to stop posting for the same period. And we’ll have to agree on a panel of judges. Otherwise I’m not hunting down evidence that water is wet.
This is an excellent point, even if it’s a bit oversimplified. Don’t forget the number of non-trolly, but just plain stupid posters we have on both sides. And then we have the not necessarily stupid, but lazy posters.
But your key point is absolutely the crux of the matter.
which gets us back to the OP–more retarded lately, or a consistent level of retardation? You make the call!
I generally don’t read his posts, so I wouldn’t be a good judge.
But the problem from my point of view is it’s not I being sanctimonious – it’s YOU being sanctimonious. Look at that last line – the general SDMB tradition of hostility to GOP / right wing talking points is a consequence of the anti-woo, pro-science tradition on the board.
I’m supposed to accept that as a given, I guess, because if I challenge it I am shrieking, “Come and see the liberal hypocrisy!”
But I don’t accept it as a given. As I said earlier in this thread, the “anti-woo, pro-science tradition”
vanishes when confronted with hard numbers about a drop in crime in bars eighteen months after the law permitted concealed carry in bars is passed.
So from my point of view, the board isn’t hewing to a pro-science tradition; it’s accepting science when science fits its notions and conveniently ignoring it (or more accurately, demanding highly specific controls and data) when science doesn’t oblige.
And rather than addressing that, most folks here are content to say, “There goes Bricker with his liberal hypocriscy shtick again!”
There goes Bricker with his “come see the liberal hypocrisy about liberal hypocrisy!” shtick again!
You know, I once pointed out that states with the death penalty had higher murder rates, and you were quick to point out, “Correlation does not imply causation.” Can’t have it both ways.
That is one hundred percent legal! And if you can’t prove otherwise, I win.
I rise to quibble, a minor point, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
Isn’t it that correlation does, in fact, imply causation, but it simply doesn’t prove causation?
No, it doesn’t imply. That’s a form of proof.
Correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition for causation. Non-correlation proves non-causation.
So, it’s tempting to see correlation as a step toward establishing causation.
I agree with all this.
But, as I’ve noted earlier, (3) and (4) are not separate and distinct groups (same goes for (1) & (2)). So in any given instance of someone receiving hostility, both factors are possibly in play.
Furthermore, all humans are fallible and accusations of jerkdom or dishonesty need to be taken in context. If someone is being accused of being a jerk, that doesn’t mean that he once was mean to someone - it means that he does it more often than the average, or tolerated level.
In sum, if someone is being accused of being a trolly jackass, and the accusation is being backed up by means of widespread agreement (i.e. hostility), then the defense is that 1) the poster is no more of a trolly jackass than the acceptable level, and the fact that this poster has attracted such hostility as opposed to the average is a result of the poster being somewhere between (3) & (4) versus being between (1) & (2), where the majority of this board lies.
Its not that Shodan is getting more tardo, its that all the rest of you are getting so much smarter. And you’re welcome, by the way…
Well, are you talking about individual Doper responses to data, or about this left leaning board in the aggregate? You must distinguish between the two or your argument about liberal hypocrisy on the SDMB falls into incoherence.
I’ll submit that there are various topics that have a great many respondents of the liberal persuasion conveniently ignoring the science in order to adhere to their ideological convictions. These topics include nuclear power, gun control, use of military forces, and a few others. But on all of the hot topics I named, there are just as many “liberal” dopers arguing the other side of issue. Discussing these topics on any liberal venue always yields a large variety of opposing viewpoints. On a venue like the SDMB, the general weight of the board tends to come down in favor of the argument with the best data to support it.
Unfortunately for conservatives, the policies and positions of the political entities which have nominally represented them have become over the last two decades based much less on conservative tradition and much more on reactionary politics. Exacerbating this is that many right leaning posters adhere pretty strictly to the talking points and party lines they see and hear propagated by the authority figures from those once conservative, now reactionary political entities. Because you dudes are authoritarians. And on a venue like the SDMB, the general weight of the board tends to come down in favor of the argument with the best data.
So reactionary talking points are generally dismissed, whether they’re from the right or the left. There’s just more lockstep conservative defense of reactionary bullshit, so consequently there’s more concerted liberal attitude reflected back. If you don’t like that, stop circling the wagons to protect right wing assumptions and start examining them at least as hard as you examine those from the left.
I do not troll. Please keep that in mind; I don’t wish it to pass unchallenged, because of the propensity for folks hereabouts (not necessarily you) to accuse anyone to the right of trolling.
But it seems trivially true that I get more shit because I give back at least as hard as I get. I think I have mentioned that before.
But again, I think you are missing what has already been established. Sam Stone is pretty much the epitome of the reasonable, non-snarky conservative you mentioned. And he was driven away by the ankle-biters and trolls, much to the detriment of the SDMB.
So if the implication is “don’t snark back, don’t be sarcastic, don’t insult back, and things will be better”, well, no, they won’t. In his case, a (3) gets a lot more shit than a (2).
We got a lot of (2)s here, and they don’t usually treat (3)s any differently than (4)s.
In his case, it drove him away (more’s the pity). In mine, I mock back (along with substantive posts). So of course I get more shit. “Morons hate it when you call them morons”.
Regards,
Shodan
QFT - entire post.
Wow, that was a lot of responses about what seemed like a fairly uninteresting claim. Anyhow, going back to the original back-and-forth…
I’m again missing precisely what you’re saying here (and, given what has gone on later in the thread, so are various other people).
However, one thing I don’t feel compelled to do is explain, justify or defend everything that any liberal on the SDMB has ever said. Has any liberal ever, in all the zillions of SDMB posts, claimed that the SDMB is in fact not left-leaning? I’m sure it has happened. Has any liberal ever, in all the zillions of SDMB posts, said something that can be interpreted as meaning that the SDMB is in fact not left-leaning, while in fact meaning something in some way different? That has probably happened much more often. In either case, it’s a fringe position. The vast majority of liberal posters in this thread and others will happily acknowledge that the SDMB is left-leaning. And if you say “oh, people have said x” and someone responds with “no one has EVER said x”, well, that’s a dumb way for them to respond, when “x is almost never said and is at best a fringe position” is closer to what they mean. (I mean, all joking aside, I don’t think that all SDMB conservatives think all SDMB liberals are traitors, but if you said “no SDMB conservative has EVER called all SDMB liberals traitors”, then I’d only have to find one example of that ever happening ever to prove you wrong. Which is why you’re too smart to make blanket statements like that.)
Well, there’s some subtletly here. There are two different levels this could be working on. If we both agree that the right is more organized, and we also both agree that this has made them fairly good at communicating their message, getting things done that they want done, and stopping the left from doing the same; then obviously you (supporting their agenda) think that’s a good thing and I (opposing their agenda) think that’s a bad thing. That’s obvious.
But what I’m not saying is “the right is organized, and that makes them effective, and I think it’s bad for America”. I’m saying, “the right is organized, and their level of organization, in and of itself, has side effects that are harmful”. For instance, up until now the process of making laws in congress has been one of give and take, negotiation and compromise, where laws end up getting hammered out, and things end up getting done, because the parties are NOT totally monolithic, so that more liberal conservatives might agree to do X because of Y, and more conservative liberals might do the same, etc. However, once a party becomes sufficiently organized, sufficently ideologically lockstep, sufficiently frightened of straying off the ranch, that might no longer be possible, leading to a breakdown of the de facto procedures of government.
Now, again, I can’t prove that this has happened, given how nebulous a claim it is, but my belief that this has occurred is certainly not just automatically due to nothing but selective perception on my part.
As I’ve said on many occasions, there isn’t some cosmic rule of political balance where everything that either party does is automatically precisely balanced out by something that the other party is doing. I claim that Republicans right now are doing things that are unique to them and which are actively bad for America. I might certainly be wrong, but it’s facile of you to dismiss my claim just by saying “well, of course you would say that, you’re a liberal”.
Curiously, so do non-morons. Funny old world, eh?