Of course, but I’m talking about the current idiot ball carriers, more than once in the past I pointed that the ones who carry it do change. Teddy Roosevelt wanted to defenestrate the robber barons of the past, while the Democrats then still had a lot of ugly ideas, some of them racist.
After the southern strategy, the roles of the parties switched (a bit of an exaggeration, but many ideas of the parties were). The point is that it is likely that in the future, the party who is mostly carrying the idiot ball will eventually pass it along.
Having been the subject of these kind of accusations, while doing my best to engage in good faith discussion, my default position is now to assume they are all nonsense and projection. In some cases they presumably are justified, but the accusations far outweigh actual instances of such behaviour. US posters especially have a very binary view: either you are with us and endorse a certain narrow range of views on ‘culture war’ issues, or you are against us and get thrown in a bucket with Q-Anon believers and the people who think there are microchips in the vaccines.
Debates too frequently degenerate into a bunch of me-toos, or uninformed speculation about the beliefs of the missing segments of society. Both are boring and promote ignorance rather than fighting it. It’s a sad point to reach.
More seriously, there are already conservative (or former conservatives due to what is happening here and elsewhere) posters that in this thread show that they are not in agreement to what the right wing media and “leaders” are doing to conservatives nowadays.
To me this attitude is part of the problem; why would it be “artificial”? When I first joined the Dope there were a lot of thoughtful, conservative posters. I disagreed with them on many topics but I often learned from them. Was the Dope artificial back then?
The idea that supporting conservative members would be artificial is indicative of a bubble. I used to belong to another active board (was even a moderator for a time). The loud, uncompromising members tended to be conservative/libertarian. At first the board had a wide range of ideas but by the time I left almost all the liberals had been hounded away. It became doctrine that liberals were all stupid emos who liked to blame others for their problems. The remaining members were just as sure of these opinions as Dopers.
Of course, but as me and others pointed before, other sites that look for facts and accuracy are accused nowadays of being liberal.
It is not for pointing out imaginary flaws from right wing opinions. It is healthy to have opposing opinions, but it is unhealthy to think that they become facts. Again, this is by looking at the current state of affairs, tomorrow it can be that more issues are better to be looked at under a conservative point of view that takes evidence into account.
Of course, wishing it were so doesn’t make it so. But how do you suppose we are ever to establish whether someone else’s opposing viewpoint rises to the level of fact? Or that your opinion is lacking in support?
The only standard to apply in an argument or a defense of an opinion is how well it stands up. Who is making it or your perception of their political leanings is irrelevant. An arsehole can be right and you do yourself no favour by not rejecting what they say out of hand.
We can disagree on what the best methods of preventing COVID spread are, and what trade-offs are acceptable, but we don’t need to have an argument about whether COVID is actually a real threat.
We can disagree on what kkind of social safety net is appropriate, but we don’t need to have an argument about whether the govt should have any responsibility towards its people.
Stuff like that, in my opinion, is far more interesting when we can have a discussion among those who agree that there is a problem to be solved, and debate the best ways of solving it, rather than have turds dropped in that derail it and then it becomes a fight over whether the problem even exists or should be addressed.
I’m not fully on board with the OP’s notion that we don’t need some conservative viewpoints on this board. However, I agree with the sentiment that there are certainly quite a number of conservatives that detract from any conversation they participate in.
This is just right. For years, since at least 2008, conservatives have been whinging about how meeean this board is, and how if they leave we won’t have anything left to debate. And I’m like, have you ever even met any leftists? We will argue until the cows come home about whether “until the cows come home” is an animal-rights-abusing metaphor or references patriarchal social structures or is culturally biased against urban communities. We will never run out of things to argue about.
The left is a hive mind only in the sense that a mosh pit is a hive mind. You can call the bouncer on the stinky guy who’s grabbing ass in the mosh pit and still throw elbows.
As pointed already, checking if the opponent also made the journey (as I said, that was done many, many times in the past). Sadly, or joyously depending on one’s point of view, many extreme conservative opponents demonstrated repeatedly that they are not looking at the best evidence out there.
Yes; if we’d interacted before and had established we had wildly different and irreconcilable views I’d understand them going off at me like that. But it’s not understandable coming someone I’ve never spoken with before (that I can recall) and who I doubt has read many of my posts, because I haven’t made that many and most of them are a hodge-podge of stuff (so I doubt has any idea who I am).
I find your hostility towards Trans people equally baffling. Apparently accepting them makes our society “less resilient” whatever the fuck that means? THAT opinion is baffling to me - that someone would call you out for it is not.
It is a reference to just about the only good thing from a forgettable Tarzan movie: Tarzan’s Three Challenges (1963) that pointed that:
Budhist Master: On meeting an enemy after a 1000 miles journey, of what would you make sure?
Tarzan: On meeting an enemy?
1000 miles journey?
I…
I’d make sure that journey was his.
Meaning that you have to check first (in our case) if they already looked at proper research or evidence rather than regurgitated right wing talking points.
This is the exact same opinion that my previous board had. Do you think that there are no liberal sites without major accuracy problems? Are all conservative sites in error?
As I see it, the problem is that as a bubble becomes more one-sided the posts do, too. For example, the Dope has a tendency to believe and interpret all Trump rumors in the most anti-Trump way possible. Sometimes it is warranted, sometimes not, but the posts tend to reinforce each other. Members hunt out stories that reinforce their opinions and world-view with little opposition. We rarely make posts that challenge our own views. Over time we forget that there are other ideas.
To make a concrete example, this board is absolutely lessened because of missing members like Bricker and XT.
I’m pretty sure the few remaining conservative posters have all said they not in agreement with much that the right wing leaders and media are doing these days. It doesn’t save them from the endless accusations. Most of the people called conservative on this board would not even self-identify as such, it’s ridiculous.
It’s also healthy to have concurring opinions, but it is unhealthy when those opinions come to be regarded as facts. And that is far more likely when everyone around you agrees with those opinions. The left-wingers on this board don’t typically spout anything as counter-factual as Q-Anon, but there are plenty of myths on the order of believing in trickle-down economics.
Nope. It is true that fascists do that. It is not true that only fascists do it.
We don’t need that from anybody. But defining it as coming from all conservatives, and only from conservatives, is a problem.
Admittedly, a lot of the problem has been coming from people (not necessarily on this board) who claim to be conservative, while abandoning (or never having had) conservative principles.
The OP appears to be doing exactly that.
Hear, hear!
Part of the problem, I think, is that all too often both people who say they’re conservatives and people who disagree with them are considering only a certain narrow range of issues. There used to be quite a wide range of things considered ‘conservative’. Those issues haven’t disappeared.
And part of the problem is that issues that aren’t really a problem because of any location on the political spectrum – anti-vaxxing, for instance – have recently become defined by some on both sides as having to do with a political position. ‘Agreeing with Trump (or with Hannity, or whoever) whatever he says’ isn’t actually a conservative position, no matter how many people claim that it is.
