I don’t think the moderation is extremely biased against right wingers. It’s slightly biased. The majority of posters, on the other hand…
@puzzlegal made a useful point, that some of the rancour is probably due to misunderstanding; two groups using different paradigms to understand what is happening.
If it matters, most of the other message boards I use are losing their conservative membership, too.
On one, a rule against agism, ableism, and transphobia was implemented and followed shortly after by a rule against promoting harmful conspiracy theories. Conservative participation dried up almost overnight.
We could have useful discussions there about Gitmo, pulling troops out of Afghanistan, Russian and Chinese hacking, or fiscal policy–what used to be core conservative talking points–but nobody seems interested.
Has anyone who has posted, or even been discussed, in this thread ever expressed the slightest anti-vaccine opinion on this board? Or is this just yet another example of both:
If I say, “I treat people as individuals and I don’t care what your background or skin color is,” or If I say, “I believe people should be hired and promoted based on merit, and not whether they tick some gender or racial box on the form”, that’s likely to get me called either an outright sexist/racist, or to be told that my ideas are ‘problematic’ and I should ‘work on that’. In either case, I would vehemently disagree, and there will be no apology forthcoming.
The idea that we should agree with being chastised and offer an apology so long as the chastisement is mild is simply ridiculous. It would require me to repudiate things I believe in deeply.
I didn’t say that you should. You’re not required to change your mind, no matter how many people call you racist. You’re welcome to keep holding on to your opinion. Other people can keep calling you racist or sexist in the appropriate forum, though.*
*I’m not calling you racist here, nor am I saying I agree with people who’d call you a racist in the situation as you describe.
And that- is the problem.
Why is it a problem?
Because posters are insulting another poster by calling that poster a racist, when he is not.
It is your opinion that they are not. I may even agree with you. But if another poster disagrees, they should be allowed to say so - in the Pit.
Who decides what’s a harmful conspiracy theory? Would discussing the lab leak hypothesis have been banned this time last year, for example?
None of this is true. It is, however, a common after-the-fact reframing of things said that were distinctly less benign, much in the same way being held accountable for one’s posts is often reframed as being persecuted merely for being conservative.
Things I have been called a racist for advocating on the board:
*It’s a good policy to forfeit high school football games to punish players for assaulting referees.
*Children are better off when raised by two parents.
*Cartoonists have a free speech right to draw images of Mohammed without being murdered.
*The behavior of an Arab Muslim from Syria is not a good example of “white pathology.”
*School boards in Virginia should follow the law governing magnet school admissions procedures.
*Selective schools in general should not use race as a factor in admissions.
*Advanced students should be able to take calculus in high school.
*Certain decisions about the math curriculum made by the school board in Vancouver (a city with effectively 0 black residents) are not correct.
*Medicare for All would increase wait times for care.
Now, you are welcome to disagree with my opinions on any of these matters, but if you can’t see the absurdity here, you are being willfully obtuse.
It simply is not tenable to, all the same time:
*Divide every possible issue, no matter how much contortion it takes to find a racial element, into the “racist” and “non-racist” position (an approach which is itself part of the ideology that shall not be named)
*Refuse to engage with/penalize “racism” as defined above
*Claim that we have or want a forum where issues are “debated”
You cannot have a debate forum when every single possible subject of debate has a pre-determined correct position and every other position is disallowed. You can’t. It’s not possible. Period.
As usual you miss context, I was replying to @DemonTree insistance that the conservative media and “leadership” that is one her side or yours is anything but reasonable.
Are those the things you’ve been called “racist” for, though? Or was it the specific way in which you framed those positions that people objected to? Because I remember many of those threads, and the positions you set out here are definitely not what drove the opposing views.
It’s a good thing that we don’t have that, then.
Cite that you were called racist for each and every instance you identify? Otherwise, I have trouble believing that.
I said it happened on the board. You can click on post history. The “I’m going to accuse you of lying about what was posted, and then when you do a bunch of busywork I’ve arbitrarily demanded to link to posts I could just as well find myself, I’m still going to accuse you of lying anyway” game doesn’t interest me. Find another tactic.
Nah, most of the education world examples you mentioned were shown to be exaggerations and your sources mostly lied a lot by omitting context or being Orwellian.
The most likely thing you encounter in the SDMB, are explanations that you are confusing with prosecution. Those are posters bringing plenty of evidence about how shady conservative media and politicians are regarding your dictates and the posters explain also about why it is that in the real world many of your dictates are not given too much attention.
The also exaggerated attention by the right wing media for subjects that in the end are anti-intellectual (yet another reason why most right wingers that do not check their sources get into trouble with SDMB posters that are actually involved in the issues discussed or know about history) is mostly coming from the right wing info sphere that nowadays is falling for appalling conspiracy theories.
Yes you did. You did say that. But your claims are not borne out by the threads you refer to.
Me: “Just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it makes any sense to call me a racist.”
You: “But I disagree with you! Here are all the reasons I disagree with you, some of which are even comprehensible English sentences!”
Why do you think your point is a counter to mine?
Is everything that is an “exaggeration” (in reality, or according to whatever you understand that word to mean) necessarily racist?
Is everything that is “Orwellian” (in reality, or according to whatever you understand that word to mean) necessarily racist?
Is everything that is “omitting context” (in reality, or according to whatever you understand that phrase to mean) necessarily racist?
Is everything that is “conservative” (in reality, or according to whatever you understand that word to mean) necessarily racist?
If not, then how does your post do anything but support my contention that you are incapable of separating “things you disagree with” from “racist things?”
Do you think any of those views are racist?