Oh, there are a few token conservatives that are allowed on the porch like **Shodan, Bricker **and adaher, a few others. But they will never be allowed in the house. Get your lunch from the back door of the kitchen if you mind your manners and stay out of sight.
Last night’s election threads brought out a few others who must read here but seldom post. Real, actual discourse is impossible here and any poster with even a slight bend to the right quickly learns to shut up and keep to IMHO, MPSIMS or Café Society.
Why was last night’s election such a surprise? With the Brexit vote anyone who admitted to be in favor was quickly dismissed as a racist, just like anyone who supported Trump, so they kept quiet and didn’t even tell the pollsters. Until the results came in. If you do not want to be surprised by things like this election you should talk to people you do not agree with, but probably have a lot in common with. An insular, urban, progressive only viewpoint leads you to this morning’s headache.
“What a shock! How did this happen? What can be done about these people?”
You could try talking to them, and listening in earnest. Polite political discourse. It would be a better board and a better business model and maybe Ed wouldn’t need so many fucking ads to keep the place running.
Now, if you will excuse me I will be off to offer advice on radiators leaks, opinions on movies and the occasional probably wrong factual input in General Questions.
I was going to add that GQ is fine too—just bring a truckload of cites—but I see you made up for your omission by the end of the post.
As to political discussion, and advice about “Whither now the Democratic Party?” I’ll just repeat what I wrotein the Pit:
As bitter a pill as this is to swallow right now, it’s going to eventually be OK. Provided you all look at his base’s motivations a little deeper than that they’re all ‘racist, misogynistic, violent gun-toting troglodytes.’ It shouldn’t be hard, considering that many of them—“Reagan Democrats”—used to vote for your candidates. Hell, run someone more palatable than Hillary Clinton next time, and you won’t even have to do that.
Finally, I think you’re going to be pleasantly surprised at how little leeway the Fourth Estate and Trump’s own party will allow him.
No, but I wouldn’t think it untoward if someone shortened Republican to Repub or Rep. I don’t seem to be alone in feeling Dem is hardly the insult you are making it out to be, but Repug is almost certainly intended as an insult.
Or anyone who fails to give unquestioning support of the Democrat orthodoxy or candidate of the day. Take a gander at this thread I started. A perfect opportunity for the Democrats to sell Clinton but I was attacked right from post #3, accused of poisoning the well. This isn’t the Pit, so I will bite my tongue.
You forgot:
Ketchup on Hotdogs is wrong.
Obamacare is awesome.
George w. Bush was the worst president in history (although, not for long…)
The Man from Earth is a work of staggering genius.
And, my favorite, since I got pitted for taking a contrary view: One spouse should not be responsible for the other’s debt.
Well, I’ve been rattling around this echo chamber for sixteen years and I’m about as liberal as they get, and I can poo-poo most of the shit that everybody here supposedly must adhere to.
[ul]
[li]Joss Whedon? Don’t give a shit. I liked The Avengers. Never watched anything else he ever did.[/li]
[li]I have tattoos and I love them. I couldn’t care less if you have tattoos or not or love them or not. In fact, even if you hate my tattoos — I still couldn’t care less about your opinion on it.[/li]
[li]Pot smoking is awesome. It’s a fair cop.[/li]
[li]I never drink milk or wine and who the fuck goes to a wine bar in the first place?[/li]
[li]I liked OpalCat, but she wasn’t the greatest poster ever. I am.[/li]
[li]Anthropogenic climate change is absolutely 100% true and anyone that denies it is incorrect. Whether or not they’re evil is between them and their gimp.[/li]
[li]If ketchup on hot dogs is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.[/li]
[li]ObamaCare is not awesome. But it’s better that not-ObamaCare.[/li]
[li]George W Bush was not the worst president in history. Chrissakes. Nixon? Hello? Ring a bell?[/li]
[li]What the fuck is The Man From Earth?[/li][/ul]
Keep telling yourself that then wonder why things don’t work out the way you think they must.
The polls conformed to the group think for the SDMB so no one bothered to think about it. That group think is, of course, that only uneducated racist ignorant misogynists would vote for Trump. Yet Trump pulled 47% of those with college degrees to Clintons 46%…
There are certain beliefs on the SDMB that must not be questioned. All those who disagree with abortion do so because they hate women. All those who want voter ID are racist. Climate Change is going to destroy the earth in 10 (or 20 or 50 or 100) years.
There are more but the general idea is the same, if you disagree it is because you are evil and ignorant.
This board is relatively open, but since it leans liberal it is less hospitable to non liberals than a more conservative board. The problem with the latter types of boards is that those tend to be FAR right wing screeds, something far closer to breitbart comments than the kind of discussions you see here. (out of curiosity, does anyone know of a board that is a more conservative mirror of the kind of talk that goes on here? Something above the circle jerking swamp of fox news and breitbart commentary)
I’ve waded onto libertarian forums to argue with those people, (sometimes I’m just in the mood) and it can be daunting brushing up against multiple with layer after layer of presumptions about the world you do not share, and often cannot dismantle either because of your own inability to break through rhetorically, or because there is something deeper inside them that is attached to the core of who they are, like a personality type that is forever beyond reach.
Wrong. Various people looked at the LA Times poll and the IBT poll. They came up multiple times. They were, reasonably, dismissed as unrepresentative outliers that use a very different methodology. And the reason people don’t go to Drudge is the same reason people don’t go to FOX.
^This guy gets it.
I mean, okay, one part of the “echo chamber” is true: none of us thought this could happen here. We, collectively, overestimated the goodwill and intelligence of our fellow man. That’s real. We fucked up there, and I think it’s a mistake we won’t soon make again.
I guess everyone is dropping "I told you so"s everywhere so I will do this one again!
Bubble thinking!
Eta: full disclosure, I believed the polling and thought a Clinton win was going to happen. But I was never under the illusion that Trump support was an illusion.
Please, by all means, tell me - whose expert opinion should we have weighted heavier? Who got it right, and why should we have listened to them?
The polls were also largely accurate in the past few elections, to the point where it would have been unreasonable to jettison them completely. After the fact, sure, they were wrong. But there wasn’t good reason to believe that beforehand. Or was there? Please, by all means, let’s hear it. But don’t act like we were all pretending Trump was bound to lose because we thought people were smarter. We thought Trump was bound to lose because that is what every indication offered us at the time.
You’d make your case better if it weren’t for how obvious and pathetic these strawman arguments were.
Maybe it’s an echo chamber, but a Trump presidency isn’t evidence in favor of it.
No one was under any illusions that Trump lacked support. The polls said that Clinton was up a few points and normally that’s enough for a win. It wasn’t.
However, being wrong about a candidate’s actual support by a few percent isn’t evidence that you’re living in la-la land, especially considering that it was based on scientific polling and not anecdote. It would have been more delusional for a resident of some rust-belt county with 80% Trump support to conclude that Trump must win because everyone he knows voted that way.
In short, all that happened is that Clinton supporters were wrong within the margin of error. Even the most favorable Clinton predictions gave Trump a shot.
Look at the sudden gravitas secession has on this MB (there’s a whole thread on it in this forum), but when it was TX wanting to secede they were laughed at as ignoramuses or even branded as traitors.
That’s funny. I’ve left a couple myself in years past when my political friends started sounding more like racist assholes in a strip club. I can name them if you’d like, and you can check to see how they’re referring to Clinton today.
I come here for the intelligent center-left dissection of various events. So yes, it can be skewed and bubble-like, but the fact that dissenting voices still remain is a point in favor. I do not think of it as an echo chamber.
The gravitas is almost entirely on the “no way” side and there’s still little at that. One poster even specifically mentions he laughed at Texas secession and he laughs at this.
I wanted to discuss the issues in a legal case. I opened this thread. I did it hurriedly. I didn’t explain much. I can’t completely remember my thinking now: Maybe I intended to write more and wasn’t able to, then just submitted it as it was? I thought it was much more topical than it was?
Asked to open a new thread, I did. I was more clear in this second thread what I wanted to discuss. By itself it seemed pretty innocuous, but I referred to the U.S. President as “she”. The moderator for this thread (a different one from the first) didn’t want to let it stand on its own, but went back and looked at the first thread where I had given hypothetical examples with both Obama and a future President Clinton. That moderator evidently concluded that my earlier post unacceptably referred to Clinton, and therefore so did the second one, and so it also was closed.
To my whining about this, I was just told to start a third thread in GD.
If today or in the future I wrote a similar thread substituting Trump for Clinton, would it be treated the same way?
I really like Bricker’s posts. I find his arguments well-reasoned, logical, patient, and careful to distinguish between assumptions and facts, as well as between what is accepted according to the law versus what might be felt to be morally correct. I’ve learned a lot from his posts. Often I don’t agree with him, especially where opinions are concerned (e.g., I’m pretty rabidly pro-choice, where I believe he is firmly pro-life), but when I don’t agree with him, I usually understand why. I find his posting some of the most valuable on the SDMB.
I’ve also found that he gets piled on for these very features. He has to justify himself many times more than a left-leaning poster does. He gets attacked for being nit-picky when it’s pretty clear to me that he’s actually just trying to get at the truth, whatever that may be. And people like me don’t defend him, because I don’t want to get piled on too. But eh, since this is the subject of the thread, whatever, and it’s about time I said publicly about Bricker what I’ve thought for years.
There’s also another conservative Doper in my family who won’t even post in many of the forums because he doesn’t want to get into it. (He mostly posts in GQ, CS, and GR.)
That being said, I’ve seen people change their minds on this board, and in general try to think logically; this place isn’t nearly as bad echo-chamber-wise as some other places I hang out, so… semi-echo-y?