IIRC, you announced in a Pit thread that you were going to raise your presence here on the SDMB and present a voice of sane and rational liberalism, at the same time recognizing reasoned voices from the other side. And I seem to happen across you doing a fair amount of exactly that.
And I have heard several Dopers repeat that we need to recognize and reinforce the moderate voices - not merely politically moderate, but wring’s “Liberal but Not a Raving Loonie” group as well.
We have enough and more than enough assholes hereabouts. Reacting only to those voices does nothing to raise the tone of the board. Reacting to the others does.
I think the general rancor caused (I bet) by the recent elections is not yet gone. And that is a loss to the boards. Flaming and insults are all well and good, and a well-crafted put down is a joy to the eye. But that ought not to be the only or the first reaction to disagreement, especially not principled disagreement.
It will be interesting to see if Scott Plaid takes up on the offer above.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - As it’s the Fourth, Happy Independence Day to the American Dopers, and as it’s the Pit, fuck.
Well, it should be noted what Lib had and had not said. Liberal favorably compared Scott’s rate of growth to his own (in a typically honest example of self-appraisal), noting that he (Lib) had taken somewhat longer to tailor his presentation to the board.
Of course, in this thread, Scott goes on to demonstrate that he really still has a lot to learn, setting out three reasons why Lib may have made his comment: 1) that he (Scott) had scored against Lib, (extremely unlikely), 2) that he had scored against Bricker and Shodan (also unlikely), and finally 3) that he had learned to tone down the bombast. In other words, Scott did notice the point of Lib’s comment, but he then attempts to insert two absurd self-aggrandizing claims as the reason for Lib’s observation before he reluctantly accepts (somewhat) the actual observation as it was made. Lib was appreciative of the amount of growth that the particular change in posting style regarding religion demonstrated. Lib made no observation that Scott had improved either the quality of his logic or his grasp of facts. He also made no reference to Scott’s views on history, economics, politics, or science.
I think that it was good that Lib provided the encouragement that he did and it will also be nice if the combination of critics, critiques, and support that may be found in this thread also encourage Scott to become a worthwhile poster.
I think also it will be nice if Ohio is reclaimed by the Temperate Zone in the Summer, instead of drifting into the Tropics.
I said that he had improved in the area of bombasticism — particularly with respect to religion — because it seemed to be true. Different people in different situations respond in different ways to that sort of compliment. Sometimes, people see it as a form of validation, particularly when they’ve been trying to prove a point. When that happens, they will sometimes revert to their prior behavior, reasoning that there is no longer pressure to prove anything, so that they may now relax their efforts.
I suppose he’s improved in that most of his initial threads seemed to be nothing but “Religion sux!!!” While I wouldn’t call his views nuanced nowadays, I suppose his bombast has relaxed somewhat. I still don’t like to see folks insulting religion or the religious - it’s something that particularly sticks in my craw.
I think you are an atheist. This is due to the fact that I do not always judge people based on how they say things, but on their actual words, and as I seem to recall, you have stated that you are an atheist. Then again, it might have been another poster who’s name begins with the letter “a”.
This is truly excellent advice. However, the way I am does not permit this. Now, instead, I have thought about ** Shodan**'s offer. You seem to think that you, and Bricker make excellent points, rather then how I see things, which is that you make well written posts attacking, or defending strawmen. When people point that out, you and he both switch to different tacks. It feels as if you, and others respond to me, and other liberals on this board do nothing more then post “bushliedbushliedbusfdhjfdlied”, on and on. Even if I am not able to make posts like those I made in the Mutant topic, it will be worth not being able to hear one of you two chuckleheads make claims. Now, as I recall, the proposed idea was: (post #152)
Well, then, Today is Independence day. Untill seven days from now, howsabout not making any statements in Great Debates. Questions only. I will start now. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, Shodan, is to start your side of the bargain, once you have posted your acceptance in this thread.
Oh, and I see a lot of people are talking about that old thread. Well, don’t “worry”. When I get around to it, I will see what that thread did and did not prove. This isn’t GD, so it will be soon.
Have fun, you guys. If you really want me to ref, let me know, and I’ll do the best I can.
Scott: I hope you take this in the same vein as Shodan, by not just using it as an excuse to rephrase a silly rejoinder as a question (eg, You really believe crap like that???). Get someone on the other side of the issue, especially someone you have some respect for, to clarify, explain, and otherwise offer evidence to support his or her claims.
Oh, one other thing. May I suggest that both of you guys change your signature for a week to reflect that you’re only asking questions? That will help avoid the problems of people being confused if they ask you a question, but get no response.
Alternatively, just link to a post in this thread that explains it if you need to respond to questions directed at you.
With Shodan and Scott both not posting much for a week, the real winner is the board and everyone who likes rational, honest discourse. I only wish I had more time to post while this detente holds up.
