That’s true, but the important thing to remember is that it’s not automatically not due to nothing but selective perception on your part either. It may or may not be due to nothing more than selective perception on your part. Or confirmation bias, to use Xeno’s preferred term.
Which ties in to the OP as well. You guys are focusing on the perception that the SDMB is hostile to conservatives and whether this perception is justified. But the same also applies to the perception that Shodan is a troll and/or jerk. This too could just as easily be due to selective perception/confirmation bias.
That’s why there’s not much gained in arguing these matters. Unless you happen to enjoy it, of course.
And if it is, you certainly won’t find that out from reading the SDMB. It will be applauded, reinforced, and encouraged.
Bricker would never dismiss the claim with that. He is more likely to point out ways in which this alleged wrongdoing is not unique to Republicans, and then would be immediately attacked for saying “look at the liberal hypocrisy”.
I was walking along Third Street the other day, coming up on Elm where the Five and Dime is, when I heard an awful conniption ahead of me. I turned the corner and saw that one of those horseless carraiges had collided with a fruit stand. I stood aghast as the operator of that vehicle stepped out of the way of apples, pears and kumquats and was almost blasted flat by the electric trolly!
And would you believe that trolly jackass didn’t even slow down or clang his dadgummed bell until he was clear on the other side of Fourth?
That was a poor choice of words on my part… I was using “troll” in a kind of generic “close-to-substanceless post that does not go out of its way to be polite” sense, not a really precise official-SDMB-definition-of-trolling sense. That said, there’s trolling and there’s trolling… when considering how to phrase something you want to post, you must sometimes think to yourself “hmm, phrasing it this way is going to make it more likely to really irk all those liberals”. At that point, is your internal reaction “well, better off NOT to phrase it that way” or “I don’t care, I’m going to say what I’m going to say however I like” or “aw yeah, full speed ahead!”? Because the third (and even arguably the second ones) are certainly in the same genus as trolling, imho.
Right. But remember, going back to my groupings of people into group (1) through group (4), I acknowledged that (3)s get more shit than (1)s, and more shit than they (in fairness) (if fairness mattered) should. If the SDMB is such a hostile place that it drives Sam Stone away, well, that’s a bad thing. But it still doesn’t prove that the reaction Sam Stone gets and the reaction you get are identical, or even close to identical.
I’m not sure about that… compare Sam Stone to Der Trihs. Do you think Sam Stone is a less well respected and less well liked poster than Der Trihs? (Granted, there might be differing types of crap they get as well… maybe Sam Stone is generally liked and respected but has a small number of people who just nitpick his posts to death, while Der Trihs is frequently pitted and not someone that anyone praises, but is generally left alone, because, why bother? or something like that)
And you call those (2)s the Usual Suspects, and you choose to let their actions (or at least your perception of their actions) completely dominate and color your SDMB experience.
Sure. And if I started an SDMB thread entitled “hey, those republicans are all being well organized and obstructive and it makes America worse” I would put forth more of an argument in that thread than just “I mean, what is up with them, am I right?”. Maybe some day I will start such a thread, if I get the energy to do so. In the meantime, I’ve somewhat lost track of why that topic snuck into this thread in the first place.
It is and it is. I don’t think there’s any serious debate about that (unless we’re quibbling about what “hostile” means). Someone coming to the SDMB and promoting conservative viewpoints will be met by with a lot of disagreement, some of it impolite.
The question is, is that hostility so pervasive and overwhelming that it renders any possible communication moot, and one might as well just become a snarker? Or is that hostility, while real, something that can be tolerated, allowing actual debate and interchange of ideas to occur? (At least, that’s part of the question…)
Sure. But, at some level, so could anything. Which is why when we actually are debating substantive topics, we actually make arguments and present evidence and stuff.
Or, as I see it, he is more likely to find a superficially similar example of a single liberal person once 7 years ago doing one thing that no one has thought about in 6.5 years, and then ask why we aren’t just as outraged about that. But that’s a separate issue.
My point is… obviously any position anyone holds on anything could be held solely due to confirmation bias, selective memory, general hypocriticalness, etc. But if all you ever do when someone makes a claim that you disagree with is say “of course you think that, you’re a liberal, confirmation bias” (or vice versa about conservatives) then you’re not really thinking or debating at all.
Have you ever been diagnosed with a cognitive deficit? If not, have you considered getting evaluated for one? You really should.
I did not deny that the board is, so to speak “left-leaning”, dumbfuck. I acknowledged that it is, and offered an *explanation *for it - that the board is factuality-leaning. Your endless conflicts with the board are the consequence of your endless adherence to party and ideology over reality. And you aren’t the only person here with such difficulties, so maybe being in their company helps you avoid that painful realization.
I submit that not a single person on the SDMB has felt “chagrin” at the fact of your race and political affiliation. I’d welcome a cite to the contrary.
(“Chagrin” at the fact you’re an eminently ignorable one-note idiot, naturally, doesn’t count.)
Yeah, we know. But if it helps bolster your cause, I suppose we can play along and pretend it’s shocking… shocking! that you’re a member of a statistical minority. Now where’d I put my fainting couch?
Yes, there are self-hating blacks just like there are self-hating Jews, willing to identify themselves with a larger group that actually scorns and condescends to them, in the hope of somehow winning their approval, or perhaps out of some resentment at their perceived treatment by their own community.
A difference of 8 in a category such as ‘reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants’ is well within reporting error.
I was gonna say this earlier, but then I realized that all you’d used it for at the time was as evidence that the numbers hadn’t gone rocketing up. They were OK for that usage.
But as “hard numbers about a drop”?? Sorry, but no freakin’ way.
Sorry, but in this case it’s the other way around: you’re most inappropriately using inconclusive stats as evidence of a real drop, and they’re not. Pointing that out is most certainly “hewing to a pro-science tradition.”
There goes Bricker with his liberal hypocrisy shtick again. Zzzzzz.
I would agree with you that the current Republican party is a complete mess, and there’s a lot of complete nonsense in the ‘conservative’ mainstream.
However, the way that bias works is that you can’t seem to see that the state of the ‘left’ is just as bad. The left is no more ‘reality based’ than the right - people on this board think that’s true because they are biased.
If yu want some examples, let me give you some:
[ul]
[li]The notion that you can create a ‘green economy’ so long as you just get government to ‘invest’ in it displays an incredible ignorance of economic reality. [/li][li]There is no real evidence that the stimulus worked as advertised. Liberals on this board keep linking to CBO reports as proof that it worked, despite the fact that the CBO admits at all they’ve done was to re-run the same models they used to predict the outcome of the stimulus anyway. [/li][li]While Republicans may have their heads in the sand over the basic science of global warming, liberals are equally deluded when they advocate local carbon taxes as a solution, or when they take the rather modest scientific predictions and elevate them to catastrophe based on specious evidence, to justify higher energy taxes.[/li][li]Liberals seem to be completely incoherent on energy policy in general. They don’t seem to understand that blocking the Keystone pipeline will likely result in worse economic AND environmental outcomes.[/li][li]Just as Republicans have gone too far in using the Laffer curve to justify cutting taxes at any time, liberals are now using Keynesian demand stimulus and multipliers to justify heavy government spending regardless of the conditions of the economy or the size of the debt.[/li][li]Where Republicans often refuse to accept that the market can fail, liberals refuse to accept that government can fail - unless they can blame Republicans for te failure. For example, they point to the financial collapse as a failure of the market, but governments failed right along with business, and maybe worse. Liberals tend to imbue government with the power of omniscience, assuming that only if regulators were given enough power they could see social and economic problems brewing and prevent them, when all the actors in the private market are oblivious.[/li][li]Liberals assume that everyone on ‘their’ side is sincere, while everyone on the right is dishonest or evil or stupid. They refuse to see that there are powerful people on the left who use them for their own gain. That includes big companies in bed with government, frauds like Van Jones whose ‘green jobs’ ventures were just a thinly-veiled way of transferring wealth to his own constituents, and rich billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet who make billions gaming the political system. But the Koch brothers? Pure evil.[/li][/ul]
i could go on all night. There are equal shares of stupid on the right and on the left. But when you surround yourself with like-minded partisans, you only hear about the excesses on one side, and when someone comes along on a message board like this and points out the craziness on their own side, the reaction is disbelief because they’ve never heard those arguments before, or only heard them in the context of some other liberal criticizing them. Or, the other natural reaction is to circle the wagons and start shooting at the interlopers who dare question what you think is obvious and true.
As a thought exercise, consider this: what if the only solution to global warming was to dismantle large governments and institute libertarian or conservative policies? If that were true, do you think it would still be the right questioning the science, and liberals accepting it and preparing to abandon their cherished ideals? Or would the left-right split reverse, with the right defending it and the left trying to pick holes in it and ‘denying’ it? If you accept that the debate would probably be reversed, that should tell you something about how our own biases and political views color the way we see everything including ‘reality’.
The way to discuss this stuff, Sam, is to start by asking if anyone actually believes the stuff you’re attacking. With your first example (of what, exactly?) who says that’s so? I believe myself in promoting a green economy, but hardly for the reasons you state nor for the motives you assume I have. If you can’t make a better case than you’re making, I probably wouldn’t want to argue my own case with you–as stated, you;re hopeless, and you’re only worth making fun of and that would be rude of me. But find me someone who proposes something about a green economy, who actually has the power to enforce his proposals, and we could have a jolly discussion.
