Ok so on post number 111 we finally get an example. Props to @Crafter_Man, but you gotta admit I’m setting the bar pretty low.
Posting an example is the absolute minimum standard if you want to be taken seriously. Right? But the important step is to see whether your example survives scrutiny. Maybe it’s a 50-50 thing. We won’t know until you post an example.
I admit I find the example confusing. You asserted that your kids were very liberal and patted yourself on the back for not cutting them off over that. But you gave no examples of what “Very liberal” means. Surely it’s plausible that there’s a qualitative difference between advocating for a more generous safety net and ending our 250 year democratic experiment like the J6 rioters, right?
Right?
I should say that generally speaking I find @Crafter_Man’s posts worth at least a skim. I’ve also tagged him as a conservative. He’s an addition to the message board, probably because he doesn’t perceive his contribution as offering a specific ideological perspective, but because he generally has a reality-oriented focus.
All that said, I find myself agreeing with some of the big picture in Post 111. I perceive that too many on the left gate-keep and virtue signal, when the first thing someone should here when they get off the Trump train should be, “Welcome”. This example is a little bit tangential, but Josh Marshall mentioned the unthinking abuse Democratic Senators get when they post anti-Trump messages on social media, from their own side. This apparently happened to Adam Schiff.
There was much more ideological balance c. 2000. What shifted us away from the 50-50 center I think were the failures of the Iraq War. Conservative policy became more and more difficult to defend, because it failed visibly. So the defenders slinked away.
Gun enthusiasts had the upper hand in the early days and internet libertarianism had not petered out. The board was LGB curious and friendly. I disagree with GIGO to the extent that I think the board was always left of center on balance, probably because Cecil’s column was mostly distributed in urban free sheets. But yeah, there was plenty of criticism of the Clinton administration.
Like I said, there are very few message board’s that don’t have that kind of moderation. The justification is, “While lengthy discussion of board policy can be interesting, it’s tangential to getting shit done. So we ban it.” Since most boards aren’t devoted to fighting ignorance, I think that’s ok.
This board is actually pretty open to all comers, provided you bring facts and evidence, accept the role of scrutiny, and leave your ethnic hate at the door. That conservatives have self-selected away I think is telling in a very small way.
To the point that it seems their own pit thread has been dead for quite a while. And, no, no playing the “So why don’t you call them out and take them down” card. Some have tried but it does no good, they just double down on that the Right wants is going to exterminate us. As long as they don’t repeatedly violate actual board rules they will be allowed to keep at it.
I myself had a lot of aggravation with many rightwing posters in the past but with many of them came that same point of “ah, wait, this is just part of their signature schtick” and I would just step over it and address whatever was debatable or arguable.
This is simply not true, at least for many posters. Just look at the trolls-r-us threads. Countless postings very similar to this piece of work…
in which ParallelLines casts deep suspicion on a new poster for having the temerity for being in their 20’s and posting on this message board. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the content of their actual posts. In fairness, at least a few posters called them out for this ridiculousness. You call that being open to a newcomer? That thread is littered with similar posts on new posters.
Ok, that points to suspicions, not calls for banning a poster. Also: that is once again the pit, it is different than in other forums.
As pointed before, I linked to one recent gun debate, nothing that you point out here took place there. Pointing at the pit for your examples is very similar to nut-picking.
Of course the SDMB is an echo chamber. Any poster who opposes the accepted view witll be driven off the board, not directly but their posts will be reported more often and eventually the poster will fail some silly infraction.
This used to be a civil discussion board, where opposing views could be talked about. Many intelligent posters have left or been banned, like shodan. It was an interesting place. Now all we have left is czarcasm and der trihs. czarcasm was a moderator, I am surprised der trihs has nor yet been promoted.
The moderators reinforce this because it matches their own personal views. Any poster with views that do not match the viewpoint will be continually reported until they break a rule and then it is, “aha, we got you now!”
Sad really, used to be an interesting place to learn, read, think, talk. But you dare not post anything outside the party line now.
Now that I have posted this, in the Pit even, I will be placed in the basket of deplorables, my posts will be often reported, I will eventually fuck up on some minor rule, and be deported, I mean banned.
I sometimes think that this board is trying, on purpose, to go out of business.
Another evidence-less piece of shit. If you have any posts that show that, all those years ago, I favored the left over the right when I was a moderator I would sure as shit like to see them.
I don’t know if this means jack, but it sure sounds just horrible, doesn’t it?
What have you got, besides the crap you spew, that actually shows us you aren’t just another right-wing “ME TOO!!” troll?
This board lives when a boatload of others have bit the dust.
Well, now I really want to pit YOU, since, if we, are in your own words
You would NOTE that I actually heavily qualified my concern, and in the section you DIDN’T mention right below the onebox:
But I am not at this time making any accusations, because compared to MOST of the people who fit the pattern, they read quite a lot - 6 hours in 4 days, over a thousand posts so far. Not that some of our more obsessive repeats don’t do the same. So it’s an honest suggestion that we all watch, and hope that it’s a false positive.
So yeah, I was suspicious, but pointed out all the ways in which they DIDN’T meet the pattern. And even then, AGAIN, later in said thread I was overly suspicious and that bringing them up for that was wrong.
I think what I see here is a difference in intent . I did NOT mean to post this as an accusation in the first post, which is why I tried to be clear on why I wasn’t making an accusation, and why I hoped it was a false positive. But, like a lot of things, my intent doesn’t mean it isn’t a de facto accusation as well. So I’ll mea culpa on this. My intentions may have been benign, but, results can and do often outweigh them.
So thanks. @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves - you’ve pretty much proven that you’re an absolute shit who is misrepresenting everything, which is, wait, a far more direct example of being a prizewinning asshole.
You lost me there, Shodan was the most ignorant guy when I encountered him trying to dismiss the martyred bishop of El Salvador as Red Romero. Before talking if a place is a echo chamber you need to check if the other side came already marinated with disinformation and misleading information.
Later Shodan just emplaced climate change denialism and resorted to drive-bys for many other issues. Intelligent? My ass.
Out of context quotes are bad form, but again props for at least bringing an example.
Big picture: I think I agree to the extent that this board isn’t especially friendly to newbies. I wouldn’t call it hostile either. Some of the suspicion is justified since (among other concerns) there’s another message board on the internet dedicated to harassing this message board. So some extra vigilence is appropriate.
But I wrote “All comers” not “All newcomers”. I agree and support your clarification. That’s always been an issue here, even before the harrassment boards were established.
Best practice: cite an example and discuss why it doesn’t 100% support your POV. Because typically it won’t at 100%, but partial evidence is evidence. We’re here to fight ignorance after all and that means grappling with complications.
Relax. Nowhere did I say you were an asshole. I cited your post as an example of how this place is sometimes not welcoming to new posters. I hope you can admit that a poster, after reading such a post in which you mentioned they deserved “watching” would probably not take that as a welcoming gesture. Do you agree?
No GIGO, that was a top quality response, like we used to have. The key thing in rhetoric-as-a-dominance-game is to locate favorable territory and repeatedly defend it. Wolves’ response was short, to the point, and ended in a question.
The counter is to say something like, “All I’m saying is that selective quotations misrepresent, and that’s something done by the dishonest. Do you agree? And when will you stop beating your wife?”
We have 2 correct points in my view: the goal is to hammer them hard enough to make the other guy look bad.
Alternatively, the advanced fighting-ignorance rhetorical trick that I like to use is concede the other dude’s point when they are narrowly correct, because it doesn’t invariably support their overall POV when scrutiny is applied. IOW, “Yeah you’re correct on that point, so what?” Or in this case, “Yeah my bad. I was trying to say X though.”
On the substance, best practice is to go beyond Parallel’s qualifications when we’re discussing new posters. But frankly this is a question of tone, a mild one.
Well, if we’re talking about policing our own behavior (which, note, I’m not commenting on at the moment), it’s best to avoid misrepresenting someone you directly quoted and called to a Pit thread.
So, really, obviously, bad form. In fact, I was staying out of this thread because I wasn’t interested in debating the point, especially because it was absolutely filled with misrepresenting assholes.
Only to be called out by someone who did an… incomplete quote (and this is me being nice) who then suggested to read the rest of that thread without bothering to mention the later retraction.
So, yeah. Misrepresenting me is a HUGE sore spot, and I’m very not happy. Metaphorical pistols at dawn not happy. So pardon me if I can’t be bothered to respond to the Wolf-thing, other than to say that they like I should not be throwing too many stones in glass houses.
Look it’s fine to have an opinion, but if you can’t substantiate it you should be laughed at if you think it has any objective legitimacy. Drooling knuckle-dragging morons have opinions: it’s not hard. Unfortunately, it appears to be today’s greatest conservative aspiration. Having an opinion.
Conservatives here used to operate at a higher level, but it became more difficult when they were expected to defend Trump’s ever-shifting positioning. Never Trump conservatives don’t have that problem, which explains why they are the only conservatives on this message board who grasp the necessity of bringing examples, as opposed to feelings.
I’m reading Tom Nichols recently revised book The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters.
The point he hammers home - and this is not a bad thing - is that we’ve changed to a society in which people believe that all opinions are equal, whether or not they are bolstered by facts.
To reject the advice of experts is to asset autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything. It is a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion is as good as any other. [italics in original]
Does this matter? I’m only a short way through the book and I already believe it’s equivalent to what Toqueville’s Democracy in America was in the 19th century; the single most important book for describing 21st century America and the mass psychosis that’s overtaken it.
