Oh, and just so you don’t think I’ve joined the ranks of the pedants, here’s my reply.
<— hadn’t noticed, if you can believe it…
Don’t leave, Sam Stone. I don’t often agree with you, but your posts and viewpoints provoke me to think out more clearly why I don’t, and sometimes I see holes in my reasoning or unweildy generalizations at work in my motivations.
That goes for the rest of you folks.
<-- didn’t cheer or party on the dude’s grave or anything
Great thread, Scylla.
rjung stop being a jerk.
Hahahaha.
wipes tears from eyes
I don’t know the secret handshake or anything, but I think if elf6c is “conservative” enough to be in there than just about anybody qualifies.
Sam Stone don’t go. Or, at least go out in a blaze of glory. Start some conservative OP’s and let them ban you!
How about this for a strategy, conservative brothers and sisters:
Whenever we see a liberal in GD post a sloppy or dishonest cite, we use that trusty old “report to moderator” function on them. After all, now that december was banned for using dishonest cites it should be a banable offense for everyone.
I can think of lots of liberals who post selectively from cites, or just fail to provide any at all. december was the first that I know of to be banned for such an offense but he doesn’t have to be the last. Think of it as a new ruling by the supreme court. It doesn’t just affect the one poster who was banned. It changes the law of the land in a way that we can exploit.
(I’m only about 45% kidding, folks.)
May I respectfull suggest that if such usage is good enough for Byron and Gilbert (“And madness stark the hoi polloi”), it should be good enough for TVAA.
Debaser, I hope the 45% includes this line:
Just seeing as how it’s incorrect and all.
Sam Stone, I’m just confused, I guess. You still seem to be under the impression that december got beaten up simply for being conservative. I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion. Sure, his ideology contributed, I’ll grant that . . . but it was the medium more than the message. It wasn’t being a conservative that got him so much flak. It was being a habitually dishonest and assholish conservative. I rarely had objection to his views, but I have long despised his methods.
I must be losing my ability to communicate, because I keep getting asked why I am supporting December’s methods, or being told that I think he was banned “for simply being conservative”.
That’s not my point at all. My problem with this situation is that December was the victim of massive, habitual violations of the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule, and that his situation is symbolic of a general nastiness that pervades Great Debates these days. Perhaps if the mods had cracked down on boorish behaviour a long time ago (say, by banning Collounsbury after his 20th “Fuck you, you fucking idiot” comment instead of waiting for the 200th), the place would be more civil.
For all I know, December’s behaviour degraded over time simply because he got fed up and sick the abuse. I know I would have. The argument that ‘december deserved it’ is lame. That amounts to vigilante justice, and is a violation of the board’s rules. The proper thing to do if you disagreed with december’s tactics was to A) Ignore his threads, B) Report him to the mods, or C) Pit him. But abuse in GD is supposed to be verboten. In december’s case, an exception was clearly made.
I’m convinced that the combination of Collounsbury’s example, the allowance of december abuse, and the general nastiness of a half-dozen long-term posters has turned Great Debates into a very unpleasant place to be, at least in the more politically charged threads.
As for whether I leave or not, don’t worry about it. I’m not about to make some grand pronouncement or go out in a blaze of glory or any such nonsense. The bottom line is if I am not enjoying the experience I won’t engage in it. Lately, I haven’t been enjoying it. I don’t want to come home from a long day at work, log on to the internet to relax and have some stimulating discussions, and then have to deal with cheap shots and snide backhanded insults. And what really bothers me is that I find myself saying things and responding in kind, and that’s not me. I was raised to be polite and respectful. So maybe I’ll just avoid certain threads, or certain posters, or just go somewhere else. Whatever. It’s not a big deal.
Actually, I think you’ve unintentionally betrayed a lot about left-wingers – that the solution to every damned problem has to come to a legislature.
To pick one example from my home town, the proper conservative response to not liking smoky bars is to write a check and, get this, open a non-smoking bar! As opposed to getting the government to ban things.
Hope that helps.
Shodan, it was this line that did it:
I may have over-reacted a bit, and you’re less guilty of it than some, but I get tired of the whole “You’re not a real Christian because you approve of gay rights; you’re not a real American because you disagree with George Bush” schtick. I’ve seen posters (not you, I think) who take great pride in their Christianity viciously attack those who disagree with them. Actions like that led me to leave another, explicitly Christian board. I also get tired of the notion that, because I am relatively pro-gay, I support all kinds of immorality. That’s why I made a point of saying I don’t.
My apologies.
CJ
Siege/CJ -
No worries. And if it ever appears I am implying that you are less Christian than I, be aware in advance
[ul][li]That isn’t what I mean,[/li][li]If it is what I mean, I am wrong, and [/li][li]I apologize in advance for something so un-Christian.[/ul][/li]
Friends?
Regards,
Shodan
Scylla,
You have your ideologies & history wrong. Ace0Spades was a liberal but he got into trouble primarily for being thought of as insufficiently committed to gay rights. His banning was the result of his defense of a fundamentalist Christian. He counts in the opposite direction. (Similarly, DITWD was a political liberal, but what got him into trouble on the boards was primarily his trying to defend (some degree of) biblical literalism).
Sparticus was banned for the ultimate SDMB offence - talking back to the moderators. He was told “don’t do X” and responding by not only repeating the offence but saying “let’s see you stop me” or something to that effect. This is an automatic banning, regardless of political affiliation.
Gobear likes to call himself a conservative, but he is playing word games. He redefined “conservative” as “reactionary” and “moderate” as “conservative” and he is a conservative. Not otherwise.
And (this is not directed at Scylla specifically) Anthracite & Uncle Beer et al are not conservatives for purposes of these discussions. Not because they are not in fact conservatives, but because that is not a major part of their identity on these boards. If they were regular participants in political battles in GD that might be different, but as it happens they are not (save for gun control issues, in the case of the ones I mentioned). So they don’t count.
As a poster who has dealt out a cheap shot or two and maybe a few backhanded insults in your direction, Sam, I offer my wholly unreserved and unconditional apology. You’re absolutely right – such behavior is totally immature (like, ohmygod totally) and not the slightest bit productive. In fact, if it causes (or contributes) you to leave, then it will be decidedly counterproductive. If you see me engaging in ad hominem attacks again, take me to task for it, Pit me, or lobby to get me banned, because I’ll deserve it.
Okay, I said it was unconditional, but I have maybe one eensy-weensy caveat. When David Kay comes out with his “smoking gun” report later this month, and all it consists of is “We need more time, really, but what we have at this point is that Saddam was bad and wanted Naughty Weapons,” I reserve the right to stick out my tongue and do a gloaty “I told you so” dance.
But other than that, civility and courtesy from me. 
Quix
So, gobear isn’t a real consevative because he doesn’t like enough sugar on his porridge. And Antharacite and Uncle Beer don’t count because they aren’t One Trick Ponies.
Go ahead IzzyR - tell me what my designation is.
Sam, gotcha. Disagree somewhat, but gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood you.
Cite? I recall Ace as being an asshole of the finest quality, to a wide range of posters.
Once we start arguing about definitions for each other, the thread is probably doomed. Nonetheless -
I mentioned above that perhaps the traditional conservative vs. liberal axis is not the best one to determine how a poster will be received on the SDMB. My perception is that certain issues, often but not always associated with Left vs. Right, are what hits the hot button for the Usual Suspects.
For instance, I have no idea whether gobear is or is not a “true” conservative. For all I know, in comparsion with many on the SDMB, he might be considered such. He is, however, an atheist and gay, and therefore less likely to get flamed/Pitted/trigger a burst of snarkiness based on a defense of either religious belief, or general disagreement with some aspect or other of what many gay activists want - what I would refer to as the “gay agenda”. Both these are hot button issues for a lot of Dopers.
Other hot button issues are George Bush, and the war in Iraq. It is possible, IOW, to be a conservative on the SDMB, but if you express any support for Bush or the war with Iraq, expect somebody to jump down your throat.
december didn’t hit all the hot buttons - he was an atheist, and I don’t remember his position on gay issues, but he certainly started a shitstorm with his posts on the war in Iraq.
We will see where the board goes from here, I suppose. I certainly hope you don’t leave, Sam Stone. And I hope you stay because the tone of debate in GD improves.
If you leave, I will have to find someone else whose every post I can follow with “I agree with what he says”.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess you could put it that way. Conservative and liberal are designations that roughly define where a person stands on the political spectrum. If you’re not off to one side you do not get either label.
By the commonly used definition of the term conservative, George Bush is a conservative. If in your scale you’ve defined him as “reactionary” to allow yourself to be “conservative” while standing far to his left, then you are simply shifting the meaning of the words for your own purposes. A nice game, for some people. (Although a note to Shodan: Gobear has in fact been fiercely attacked for his conservative positions on war/terrorism-related matters).
Not sure if you’re trying to put some sort of spin here. If you have a legitimate point to make here, don’t let me hold you back…
I have no idea. Nor any interest. Perhaps your posts consist too often of the type of contentless tripe above. Whatever.
What manner of “cite” would you want? The Ace saga was sprawled across many many threads.
As noted above WRT Anthracite et al, perception counts more than reality in these matters. You note that december was an atheist who supported gay rights (pretty left-wing on freedom of speech as well) but he did not fiercely battle on behalf of any of these issues. His battles were all on behalf of the right-wing positions that he held, and he seemed to many people like a fringe element right-winger which he was not. (He was an intensely partisan moderate conservative - an unusual combination, but hey, there’s a niche for everyone). To the point that one pile-on nitwit ridiculed the notion that december was an atheist, claiming that december had been very open about his religious beliefs.
Similarly, collounsbury fought vicious battles, primarily against right-wingers & right-wing positions, leading to the incorrect perception that he was a left-winger - he was actually something of a moderate, with perhaps a bit of a lean to the left. And his opposition & support similarly rode the perception, and was to a large degree correlated to left/right ideology.
Hey, what about me?!?!
Oh…
I am not aware that the “commonly used definition of the term conservative” refers to those on the scale starting at George Bust going to the right from there. If you start the scale there and, for instance, regard those to the far right of him as “reactionary” and anyone to the left as “not conservative” then it seems to me you’re playing the same game.
In short, what gives you the right to choose the label for others?
Oh, come on. At least you could tell me that I “don’t count”.
True, if I did that. Fortunately I’ve done nothing of the sort. Please try to focus on things that I’ve actually said.
The same principle that gives me a “right” to decide if it is a rainy day today or a sunny one. I observe things and categorize them. That’s how people’s minds operate. If you have a problem with this, you’re in for a hard time.
Most likely that is also true. But I prefer to stick to things that I’m more sure of, hence my chosen comments.
give me a break, Izzy - you made a declarative statement about ‘why’ Ace was banned. IT should be simple for you to demonstrate the veracity of your claim, by linking to posts, threads where his banning was discussed, (perhaps by a mod/ad min).
In the case of relatively new posters, it’s rare to see a specific reason listed, (although it’s often easy enough to tell, if they’ve mentioned ‘this is the 15th time you’ve banned me…’ sort of shit or if they linked to porn etc.). In the case of longer term posters, there often is either some public warnings, or, as in the case of december, Satan an administrative note, or as in the case of col, DITWD, a thread about ‘why was so and so banned’, or, as in the case of Joe_Cool, inor, and likely others, some near last post that made it clear.
so, where’s your evidence that it was as you say it was? or perhaps are you assuming motives on the basis of your own biases?