I was definitely conservative when I started posting here, about 12 years ago. My stances were already softening by then though. Around the time that Trump got elected was when I’d had enough. That was the first time I didn’t vote for a Republican candidate for president and I doubt I’ll ever vote for one again. I don’t recognize the party anymore. I know I’ve changed but it has too.
I grew up as a conservative. Was a conservative through college and several years after (well, I thought I was a Libertarian for a while too). My shift really began during GW’s presidency.
I’m glad I’ve seen the light.
Regarding Respect
For me, everybody starts at neutral. Once I know people, I treat them with respect if I feel they deserve it (or if they’re paying me or something). If a new poster comes in and posts that 9 11 was actually an inside job, I will use cites, facts and logic to try to convince them otherwise. If they demonstrate an immunity to facts, cites, and logic (think of a certain poster who was convinced a dream was a Near Death Experience), I will lose all respect for them and treat them accordingly.
A message board doesn’t need to be straight plain and narrow. This place is becoming that. I suspect substantially because we are all getting old, and people tend to get staid as they get old.
It’s a continuum.
Also, there are two ways to deal with people who express heinous views. One is to mod or ban or otherwise silence them by force. The other is to let them keep expressing, but ruthlessly shred their views.
One of the things I like or liked about the SDMB was that it tended to have the intellectual integrity to prefer the latter approach.
Yes, we can treat them with respect. But you’ve failed to give any concrete reason why we should. You’ve said something vague about how we “do it for our sakes,” but you’ve not said how being respectful to them is helpful to us. You seem to want these people to stick around and continue posting here, but you’ve not said why this is a good thing.
I argue it is into a good thing. We want them to either stop posting bigoted shit or to leave. The last thing we want for this board is a place where people feel comfortable spewing the worst kinds of bigotry, as doing so inherently attacks the people it is directed toward. This makes those people feel unwelcome, as well as many other people. We’ve lost a lot of posters because of how accommodating we’ve been to bigoted shit.
As I said, there’s a choice. You can respect bigots, or you can respect women, people of color, LGBT people, etc. You can have a forum that is a comfortable place for bigots, or a forum that is a comfortable place for everyone else.
It is merely my privilege that allows me to think of bigotry as merely “distasteful,” as it doesn’t really harm me as a white male. Bigotry is morally wrong, not just distasteful. Sure, like all morally wrong things, you can do it accidentally. And you can do it in larger or smaller amounts. But it’s not just rude or disrespectful. It’s worse.
The old naive idea that we need to include the bad people out of a sense of tolerance has been disproven over and over by reality. It’s why, for example, cons started kicking out those who would mistreat women or make them uncomfortable. They found that, by getting rid of those assholes, they made the place more welcoming to more people.
My goal is that no bigots wind up posting here. Sure, people who accidentally trip on something bigoted are fine, as is some debate near the line. But actual full on bigotry should be unwelcome in any place that claims to support civility.
I know I could treat these bigots with respect. But that just enables them. It increases the amount of bigotry on this board. I don’t want that. So I choose not to respect them.
I could, but I fail to see why I should.
I don’t believe anyone is arguing against this.
But, you don’t seem to notice that there’s a lot of territory between things you don’t agree with and bigotry.
There’s plenty of people who support gay rights but have problems with same sex marriage. Nope! They’re homophobes.
And plenty of people sympathetic to Trans issues but feel that incursions into safe spaces for women is problematic and needs discussion. Nope! They’re transphobes.
Or people who believe in civil rights and yet are Republican. Nope! They’re racists.
And it’s not just that. If you belong to a religion that is suspect then you are suspect, too.
And don’t be fooled. It’s not just the right. If you espouse far left ideologies such as anti-capitalism, pacifism, open borders, or abolishing the police you can expect to be called everything from naive to unAmerican to criminal.
If you don’t like any of these stances you can call them out without name calling or aspersions. We can say that bigotry is unacceptable and still be polite about it.
It’s a sad fact that there have been posters on this board who have persisted for longer than they should have because moderation wasn’t keen to get rid of them. And that has indeed led to some (many?) members leaving. But, that is not justification for the gen pop to become vigilantes and root out evil.
It’s not your job to ban by harassment those you don’t want here.
I don’t see how. It’s a difference in goals. One person is debating in good faith. The other is trying to make people angry while being disingenuous. One adds value to the board by bringing in ideas. The other detracts by constantly getting into fights and preventing any actual discussion.
The problem with that approach is that it rarely works, and has a whole lot of downsides. Very rarely will you convince anyone that they’re wrong, let alone the original bigot. It isn’t something they think logically about. We then just get frustrated and attack them, which doesn’t work, either.
At the same time, having those people keep on posting because there are no real consequences results in the board reading as toxic. By welcoming the bigots, the people they target don’t want to hang around. The bigots also achieve a platform for their ideas, and they do sometimes actually convince people, as they tend to be better at the aesthetic of argument.
I still am pissed that there were people who had never been exposed to TERFs who started saying that they had a point. The TERF points were debunked early on, but the TERFs didn’t act like they’d been debunked, and played the “you’re just meanies” card.
No, when dealing with the type of people who use the arguments from the Alt Right Playbook that I described upthread, the only winning solution is not to play. And you can’t do that by letting them post unanswered, either. You just have to shut it down.
I 100% believe the board is a better place than it used to be. I hated how bigoted people could be and then the people calling them out would get in trouble. It sucked.
If we want to be a board with the rule “don’t be a jerk,” then we have to acknowledge that bigotry is being a jerk and treat it accordingly.
(And, again, I’m limiting myself to the obvious stuff, not the place where there’s actual debate, and not people who are actually willing to listen. We’re talking the hateful bigots, who are only here to stir ups hit, not real people trying their best.)
You are right. Of course, twenty years ago was before the Republican head of the senate announced that his one goal in office was to prevent the Democratic president from accomplishing anything. It was before the Republican party elected Donald Trump.
waves
This is a case in point. You have stated clearly bigoted positions and frame them as being neutral. And tehy’ve been addressed in multiple threads where this has been established. So, if debunking nicely worked, then you wouldn’t still believe this shit.
Of course someone who claims to support gay rights but doesn’t support gay marriage is being bigoted. They’re saying marriage is only for straight people, thus discriminating against them.
Of course those who want a safe space away from trans women are being bigoted towards trans people. They feel unsafe around harmless people, and they want to exclude them from it. That’s bigotry.
These two fit the definition of bigotry, yet you want to present them as reasonable. Why? Why would something so obviously bigoted, that fits the definition of bigory, be something you think is reasonable?
Because bigots are good at what they do. They’re good at using the tactics described in the Alt-right playbook. They’re good at the aesthetics of argument. They’re good at playing the victim.
They’re good at convincing people without using logic, because they know their positions aren’t logical.
As for the claim about Republicans, it’s just false. Republicans who support civil rights are treated fine. Heck, LHOD specifically mentioned conservative ideas that aren’t evil. So this one is just a strawman.
It definitely seems to me like allowing these assholes has caused harm, as you think it’s okay to defend at least two kinds of bigotry. Not things I think are bigoted. But just objectively bigoted statements.
If you think that shit’s okay, then we’re done here. You can’t tell me that cis women being scared of trans people and excluding them is okay. You can’t tell me that it’s okay to pretend to support gay rights but then want to deprive them of a right straight people have.
You want to act like that shit is okay? then you’re just enabling bigots and don’t give a shit about trans people or gay people. So, frankly, fuck off.
That’s my point. You don’t have to be a racist to believe racist thing. You don’t have to be a homophobe to believe homophobic things. Etc etc.
THE POINT IS…ITS OK TO CALL BIGOTTED VIEWS OUT WITHOUT NAME CALLING
Clearly you can’t separate the poster from the post.
You can’t be done with me I’m done with you!
MOST OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE PIT IS NOT NAME CALLING
And the bit that is, is usually in jest. If I Pit you for being a bigot, for the most part my post will be making the case that you are a bigot. Not calling you insulting names.
This is so common, in fact, that many Pit threads end in something like, “Oh, and because this is the Pit, fuck you, I guess”.
So how many racist beliefs must a person have before they are actually racist? Ditto for the -phobics?
Ask your mom
Wow, we can really tell which side is interested in dialog here and which is just posturing
I thought that was how the game was played?
But you’re right. Kron asked a legit question, and my answer is it’s not for me to say whether someone is a racist or not. I don’t know what’s in their heart.
How is “I pit Babale for being a racist” not name calling?
Are you fucking kidding me? THAT is the “namecalling” you’ve been bitching and whining about this whole time? I thought you meant when someone gets called a smarmy little shitstain or something. But this whole time you’ve been talking about the term “RACIST”?!
If a waitress asks you and your party to stop being loud, do you demand she apologize for insulting you?
It’s not name-calling, it’s a fucking description of the way you are behaving. You dumb sack of shit (THAT was name-calling, in case the difference is a little tough for you).
I prefer smarmy little shitstain
I’m glad that’s the one bit of my post you paid attention to 
You do understand the difference between actions and being right?
Being loud doesn’t carry societal baggage with it like racist