Truly extreme leftists get much the same treatment; Olentzero, a devout communist, came up against fierce opposition.
Left or right of what? quite probably the average of this board is left of the centre of American politics, but in terms of the full spectrum of world politics, I’d say it leans noticeably toward the right.
82%, IIRC.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually if you read the OP carefully I think its pretty obvious he’s talking left or right by US standards:
‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ are generally US political terms, though I’m sure other countries use them. When used together without other qualifiers (i.e Something Democrat Party, Something Something Republic Party) it points to the US. JMHO here guessing the OPs intent. Otherwise the questions is completely meaningless and unanswerable…not without defining some kind of ‘middle’ first.
-XT
I disagree; I think he’s probably started the thread without considering the international aspects; in any case, it isn’t irrelevant to mention both contexts, because the left lean (in the American context) is actually in part caused by the contribution of the international members, even though they may not actually consider themselves to be left-leaning in their own contexts.
This is just my opinion, but I thought I’d throw this out. I’d say this board leans left, no doubt, but the degree of the list seems to have been reduced in the last few months. At the beginning of this year, I was getting pretty tired of the overwhelming liberal tendency of the discussions (and I say this as a self-described liberal).
I get the feeling that things have righted (ha-ha) a bit, and there’s a few more moderate and a couple more good conservative viewpoints being aired. I think that’s a good thing. I get a bit tired of going into most threads and arguing, “Yes, I hate Bush, too, but your argument is just plain nutty.”
That’s a good point, xtisme. I am a little out of the loop with regard to how politicos and parties are percieved outside of the USA - would saying conservative and liberal be a way to word this and still come across as not being jingoistic?
Possibly not; ‘liberal’ probably means ‘left’ where you are, but here (the UK), it has always described pretty much the middle of the road, with the ‘left’ being occupied by socialism of some kind. This isn’t quite true today, as ‘New labour’ is actually not very left-wing at all.
You’re better off with left and right, but even then you’re not gonig to be completely clear. That’s the problem when you try to describe a multi-dimesional thing in fewer dimensions than it has. Politics is more than a one dimensional “thing”. More than two, too!
This board leans somewhat anarcho-syndicalist. In particular this means the right wing posters would be more comfortable at a Libertarian Party meeting than a Republican Party meeting. The most under represented group are the conservative right. Such as those that supported Reagan with his anti-gay, anti-drug, pro-religious involvement in government stance.
If the “right wing posters” are as you say they are, I would question whether in fact they are “right wing” to begin with. Like I said, you make significant errors when you map a multi-dimesional concept onto a one dimesional scale. Better to deal with individual issues, or at least acknowledge more than one dimension.
FWIW when I began lurking during the Clinton era, this board looked conservative; many complains against the president, even in times of war you know. 
I do think it looks liberal now because the current administration has created too many opportune targets.
I agree. Why I mentioned anarcho-syndicalists. The term implies a 2 dimensional mapping. I can actually get along well with libertarians so long as economics isn’t discussed. And even if economics are discussed, I actually tend to respect libertarians because at least their politics tends to be internally consistent. As opposed to Republicans, who’ll argue the government should leave the economy alone, yet want to interfere in the sex lives of citizens.
What are we to conclude from this observation, that the extreme Right is thin-skinned, or that they just lack the intellectual skills to defend their positions?
That’s pretty 1 dimensional too, because not all Republicans want to interfere in the sex lives of their citizens.
“Liberal”, in Europe, normally refers to the right wing (it’s understood as economically liberal, like in pro free-market, pro-globalization, etc…)
I think this board has very even distribution between the economic laissez faire end and the socialist end of the spectrum. On welfare issues like national health care and education the board leans fairly strongly to the left. On social issues like abortion and homosexuality this board is so far left that the center of the American scale is the far right of the boards scale.
This board is overwhelmingly anti-Bush so that might be shifting the perception of the board to the left.
There are certain of us devotees who think of the day that Jerry Pournelle met Larry Niven as “Black Thursday”…
Crikey, I’m not sure if I dare say this, but my impression (which I do not present as factual, balanced, or infallible) of the folks on the extreme right is that they often simply fail to recognise the potential validity of any other viewpoints than their own; I suppose you could call it dogmatism and it is not at all unrelated to the religious fundamentalism with which it often stands hand in hand.
Dogmatism and a tendency to black-and-white dichotomous categorisation are not qualities that tend to work well in sustained debate; after a few failed attempts to shout down the opposition (because they’re so obviously wrong that it’s not even worth hearing them), what is left to do but to move on?
Of course I’m probably only saying this because I’m a dumb lefty…
I’d say that the middle of this board’s bell curve is center-left, but that the extremists around here are mostly on the far right. I only know of one extreme leftist, but there is a pretty healthy bunch of extreme rightists around.