Is there a left/right bias in dealing with hyperbolic posters?

[Zoe]

Another thing which might improve left/right communication is avoiding loaded words. Complaining is a sufficient substitute for whining and isn’t as provocative. Use of the Usual Suspects is getting old and is generally meaningless to most of us anyway. After all, it’s just another way of saying that you (the generic you) really do have “a list” and it is reasonable to suspect that you might be biased against the people on your list. So? We don’t know who is on your list and who is not.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Shodan blows more smoke.

You had to go back seven years to find somewhere where I made a mistake? Pardon me if I fail to panic.

Not exactly. You were blowing smoke in the previous page of this thread. And I anticipated that you would do so again in this discussion. So we’re solidly in the 2010 era.

@Shodan

This is, of course, quite straightforwardly false. See my first post to the thread, #21,

Irrelevant. I was referring to your claims on page 2. Which you have not addressed. You are blowing smoke.

… You are also stating an untruth in that your first post to the thread mentioned the Senate specifically… -So, it appears your statement about how the discussion was limited strictly to Presidential matters is also a fabrication.

Your accusation is demonstrably false, as I said explicitly “usually”, which is not undone by one example. So I don’t have to check your claim. Nice try though. You are blowing smoke.

To be clear, let me quote Shodan again:

@Shodan

And, flowbark, the flip side of that is all the Democratic candidates for President are recommending that the Bush tax cuts be rescinded, all that money be spent, and that additional spending increases be implemented for everything except defense.
…
Which is in part why I am a Republican. Yes, I am in favor of a balanced budget. But the chances that the Democrats will provide it are darn near zero. The Republicans provided it, more than once. The Democrats have never provided it anytime in the modern era.

Again, the claim is made in the context of a Presidential race: you need only read the first sentence. (Full post: here ) By not addressing this post, Shodan concedes the point.

@Shodan in 2003

The budget was balanced in 1969, when Republicans controlled the House…

Again I posit that a claim of such precision would only be made by somebody in the habit of making shit up. Does Shodan believe that fabricating evidence on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance is contemptible? It is still not clear.

[Measure_for_Measure]

[hijack, since this is a substantive issue]

@Shodan 2010

Clinton’s first three budgets – released in 1993, 1994, and 1995 (for FYs 1994, 1995, and 1996 respectively), left deficits of $241.4 billion, $201.2 billion, and $194 billion by his own estimation (which CBO scored at $228.5 billion, $206.2 billion, and $276 billion respectively). In the meantime he vetoed the Republicans’ budget in 1995 – a budget that would have cut taxes and been the first to have balanced since 1969.

Emphasis added. The link is to a memo written by The Republican Policy Committee in 1997, Chairman Larry Craig. It’s clearly a partisan document. But I was unaware of the claim that the Republican Congress submitted a balanced budget in 1995 (that cut taxes no less). Who scored that? Does anybody know what the story with that is? [/hijack, since this is a substantive issue]

[Shodan]

@Measure_for_Measure

Irrelevant. I was referring to your claims on page 2. Which you have not addressed. You are blowing smoke.

No, I was addressing this claim -

@Measure for Measure

Shodan only mentioned Congress when I showed with the budget numbers how deficits under Reagan were worse than deficits under both Clinton (who came after) and Carter (who preceded).

Which, as demonstrated, is false. You mentioned Congress, I mentioned Congress.

By not addressing this post, Shodan concedes the point.

Actually, I have addressed the point.

Again I posit that a claim of such precision would only be made by somebody in the habit of making shit up. Does Shodan believe that fabricating evidence on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance is contemptible? It is still not clear.

I made a mistake and admitted it. You have made several mistakes and not admitted any of them.

:shrugs:

@tomndebb

There are a few posters on the Right who will Report only posters on the Left, but posters on the Left tend to Report violations, even of other posters who are supporting the same arguments.

Confirmation bias here, likely.

Some few of the posters could do a better job of not allowing their own biases to affect their views of Moderation, but overall, probably not much can be done about it.

Something that could help might be if there was less ascribing motives to posters - for instance

Intention’s desperate need to rant on about the Green Peril

He is so personally involved in that particular crusade that nothing will persuade him

and accusations of “cherry picking factoids”, “inventing issues”, having a “little crusade”, “playing games”, “ranting”, “silly claims”, and "pouting’ all tend, IMO, to degrade debate.

So does a fairly consistent pattern of Dopers who

just have to respond to the last insult they believe themselves to have suffered

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

@Shodan

Something that could help might be if there was less ascribing motives to posters - for instance

and accusations of “cherry picking factoids”, “inventing issues”, having a “little crusade”, “playing games”, “ranting”, “silly claims”, and "pouting’ all tend, IMO, to degrade debate.

Right. In your world, a Mod defending against trumped up charges of bias are the same as actually Moderating a separate discussion.

I suspect that there would be more of a point if certain pouting posters had not made a multi-year campaign of playing games for the sole purpose of making silly claims for which they have never actually provided evidence.

[Zoe]

As for “pouting,” I could probably walk on the lips on either side here, but since “pouting” is another of those loaded words, can’t we drop it for a while for the sake of clarity on the subject at the ATMB? I thought that this was a subject that we really wanted to communicate on rather than cloud. Just a thought.

No one is suggesting that you have to “play nice” here forever.

(And I hope that this is not seen as junior modding.)

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Shodan

You mentioned Congress, I mentioned Congress.

Hm. You mentioned Congress on page 1 of the the 2003 thread. In 2010, you bring that up to dodge the matter of your page 2 claim, which was wholly in the Presidential context. Then you throw in some nonsense accusations for good measure. Par for the course for you.

I made a mistake and admitted it.

You have admitted error. But my accusation is more serious than that. Admittedly, in light of your posts on page 1 of the 2003 thread, allegations of fabrication #1 are looking less than airtight: it could be a case of poor expression, something which I no doubt am susceptible to from time to time. I still can’t figure out how you could say that the Republicans controlled the House in 1969, but… eh.