Yes, you do.
Oooh, that’s brave; accusing someone of being a troll in a thread repeatedly visited by more than one moderator.
Or is it just stupid? It’s a fine line.
“How much more black can the pot be?”, quoth the kettle. “None! None more black!”
A question for the conservatives who feel strongly that the board leans left: do you have any theories why that is the case? I assume you likely do not agree with the previously mentioned theory alluded to, that it’s because the board is “committed to discovering factual truth and exposing empirical reality”.
I believe the majority of posters are in the US. Why is the board (allegedly) more lefty than than the US?
Mockingbird, do not accuse another poster of being a troll. Consider yourself warned.
I just wanted to put in my two cents.
I think Excalibre has a very valid point. His words have made me more determined - as a pro-Bush, pro-neocon, pro-military Republican - to participate in political threads if only to voice a dissenting opinion.
The drive-by anti-Republicanisms (particularly anti-Bushisms) are in my opinion highly unacceptable. But what can we do? If we complain every time a poster does that, and a moderator takes action, there’ll be complaints of moderator fascism. If we let it go without comment, it’ll continue.
I must mention that I clearly recall a case of a thread veering into political territory (and somewhat offensive to conservatives). It was called to the attention of C K Dexter Haven and he handled it forthwith. Such actions by moderators are highly appreciated and quite appropriate.
But, of course, the issue rises again: how fascist, as it were, do we want to become?
I refuse to accept that there is any orchestrated campaign - consciously or subconsciously - by moderators and administrators to help proliferate liberalism, stifle conservatism, or otherwise taking sides. If a moderator does so, it would be an exception.
I have not been here long enough to see the Board swing towards the conservative side: if it’s true, that is good news. If not, so be it.
WRS
(total aside, please skip)
waves frantically Hi Xploder!!! good to see you! still have the same email? t’aint the season yet, but in the fall, you’ll want to remember me.
ElvisL1ves: Here’s a clue, chief: The actions of the President of the United States are always, always, always going to dominate political discussion, and not only in the United States, no matter who he is or what those actions are.
Jackmannii: The pendulum will probably swing back some towards expression of more conservative views here once Bush is gone, and his Administration is no longer alienating so many centrist and slightly right of center posters.
Deze guys nailed it, IMHO. I mean, folks, think back to five years ago or so, when these boards were filled with passionate conservative denunciations of Clinton on every conceivable occasion—although I agree that conservatives have never actually dominated the SDMB population. (Leafing through some of those earlier threads was an interesting experience. I had forgotten how upset many conservatives used to be—and not without some reason, IMO—about Clinton’s “incompetent attack on Iraq engineered for his own political purposes”. Hmm, you don’t hear so many complaints about that these days.)
The anti-Clinton animosity got so fierce by the early years of this decade that we had some threads plaintively wondering:
Why can’t conservatives stop slamming Clinton? (2002)
Clinton…what’s your beef? (2001)
Why do Republicans hate while Democrats dislike? (2000)
Now that the pendulum of political power has ponderously…oh, hell with it. Now that the Republicans are in control and it’s the liberals who are feeling the rage of the dispossessed, it’s the conservatives who are feeling all picked-on by the frequent animosity directed at the current President.
If conservative posters feel like leaving as a result, though, that’s their choice. (If they’re lucky, that is. The Doper habit is hard to kick, and I betcha at least some of them will find themselves in an idle moment lurking around General Questions and being unable to resist responding to a thread that they just happen to have the Straight Dope about. ;))
I do hope, though, that the admins will (as I suggested more generally in an earlier thread) use some affirmative-action guidelines in replacing manny with a new mod who also leans conservative. We’ve heard some grumbling around here lately about the modding being biased to the left, and I would like conservative posters to feel properly represented.
And apropos of nothing, I too would like to express my appreciation of the fact that we’ve got the real Sam Stone back. There was a while there before and after the Iraq invasion where I hardly recognized the guy. He just seemed to have checked his libertarian principles at the keyboard in order to advocate a level of trusting reliance on the government that even statist ol’ me couldn’t have summoned up for a Nader administration, fer Pete’s sake. He looks back to normal now, though. 
Does the board skew to the Left?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Do both smell to high heaven?
Here’s a wee clue: Each of these things is just like the others - the answers are all yes.
I think an arguable explanation has been mentioned above: Where did we first see the Dope, and who buys those kinds of rags, anyway? I first started reading Cecil’s column back in '92, when I moved to D.C. and started getting the Washington City Paper for my daily Metro commute. I loved the CP, but I can imagine the average Wash. Times reader would find it little more than a good birdcage liner. It certainly catered to an “alternative” crowd. When I moved back up further away from the Mason-Dixon line, I lost touch with the Dope, but always remembered Cecil and his acerbic wit most fondly, as well as the incredibly interesting and varied topics he and the staffers had incredibly interesting and varied things to say about. How joyful I was to discover it again on the internet!
Some of the subjects covered in the Dope don’t seem to me like the sorts of things you’d put in the same volume as The Family Circus or other religio-conservative glurge and punditry that apparently appeals to some demographics. Etymology of “fuck”? Semen trees? Pros and cons of circumcision? Merkins??? Maybe only, on average, the licentious liberals would find such fare appealing. The readership pool is self-selected, and hence the participant pool, perhaps.
It’s a neat hypothesis anyway, if probably too simplistic.
(Warning: I’m operating on not nearly enough sleep here, so this may not be all that coherent).
Three of the more, at least on first appearance, obnoxious sentiments that have been expressed by liberals, as discussed in this thread, are:
(1) “You said something positive about Bush? You must be an idiot/racist/jerk/fascist/warmonger/babykiller/homophobe.”
(2) “But I have to be this much of a jerk, and keep bringing Bush up, because Bush is SO EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL”
(3) “Why is the board so left-leaning? Because it’s devoted to fighting ignorance, and the liberals are RIGHT and the conservatives are WRONG”
First of all, and please bear this in mind while I discuss (2) and (3), I think (1) is absolutely positively inexcusable. And it’s not only inexcusable, it’s flat out wrong. No matter how much I hate Bush (and I do), I know with absolute certainty that there are Bush supporters who are intelligent, knowledgeable, kind, generous, patriotic, salt-of-the-earth Americans. I know several such people IRL, and strongly get that vibe from several conservative dopers. I hope that I have never said anything that smacks of (1), and if I have, I apologize for it. And if conservative posters are being made to feel unwelcome due to encountering (1), well, that’s a sad state of affairs, and reflects badly on the board as a whole, and the (1)-spewers in particular.
That said, I don’t think that (2) and (3) are, at least in some contexts, unreasonable at all. I will explain:
I remember a discussion about politeness and tone a while ago in which Bricker somewhat self-righteously pointed out that he always refers to Clinton and Kerry as “Mr. Clinton” and “Mr. Kerry” while liberals refer to Bush as “Shrub”, etc. However, I don’t think that’s really a fair comparison. Why am I anti-Bush? What do I object to about him? Well, it’s a long and not particularly surpising list, but it’s highlighted by things like “stole an election”, “started a war under false pretenses”, “is homophobic” and “lies and manipulates in a totally unscrupulous fashion”. Now, I may be wrong in some or all of these beliefs. But if I’m right, then Bush is not just a respected member of the opposition party with whom I disagree, he’s a true disaster of a president. So Bricker might say “I respect both Bush and Kerry, but think Bush is the preferable candidate; thus I will be respectful towards both of them”, but I can NOT say “I respect both Bush and Kerry…” because I do NOT respect Bush. Now, in some contexts, I discuss him respectfully and politely because that’s polite to the people I’m arguing with, and is more likely to make my argument an effective one, but at some level, I can not speak respectfully about Bush without being dishonest.
(I hope it’s clear I’m talking about (2) here).
Furthermore, on the topic of highjacking threads into Bush-bashing, it’s important to bear in mind that for many people (at least sometimes including myself) the Bush Administration is doing huge and immediate damage to the US every second of every day, and, as many of us are (believe it or not) patriotic Americans, this really really bothers us. So of course threads get highjacked into Bush-bashing, because, from our perspective, what could be more important?
I’m not trying to say that any and all anti-Bush-highjacking is OK, nor am I trying to say that it’s OK to be an ass about it. What I am trying to say is that what motivates a lot of it is not just that the Bush bashers are idiots or jerks or trolls or reflexive-anti-Republicans. Rather, it’s that they truly despise Bush, and they truly believe that a great national disaster is going on right now, one which many people not only don’t recognize, but which many of their fellow Americans SUPPORT. Of COURSE they’re going to want to talk about it, and of course that talking is going to be passionate and even venomous, and of course it’s going to come up for them during discussions of many other only-tangentially-related topics.
I doubt that the tone on the SDMB would have been nearly as anti-GHWBush if it had existed during the papa Bush presidency, because whatever disagreements liberals might have had with GHWBush, they paled in comparison to those with GWBush. And I hope that those of you who like Bush (and remember from my comments on (1) that I don’t disdain you) can at least look at our complaints against Bush and recognize that, even though you may disagree with those complaints, they are honestly held, and very very very grave.
As for (3), well, bluntly, I do think that we are right and you are wrong. Of course I think that. How could I not think that? That’s what having a belief is. I believe that 100 years from now, when the partisan passions have died down, the general consensus among historians will be that the Bush presidency was a disaster for the US, and for the world as a whole. In fact, I think that it will be a much stronger consensus than most consensi that are reached, because it seems so obviously true to me. Thus, it also strikes me, as an admittedly non-objective viewer, that it’s not surprising that a large number of intelligent, ignorance-fighting doper types would also come to this conclusion.
Honestly, don’t you pro-Bush-types think precisely the opposite, that history will judge Bush to have been a good president, and that an intelligent and dispassionate observer would be more likely to agree with you than with us? Isn’t that the whole point of having and caring about an opinion?
Excalibre (regarding my posting about “Dubya”)
*Yeah, and a lot of us agree with you. No secret that I do. I hate the man passionately. But what separates you from the assholes is that you don’t engage in the mean-spirited attempts to shut down discussion that they do.
*
I appreciate your assessment of my posting and of my SDMB behavior in general. 
*
And don’t hijack. I didn’t start this thread as a place to discuss the merits of politicians. You’re edging perilously close to rjung’s eternal defense: but I haaave to be a jerk because Bush is just so baaaaad! *
Well, my only defense (excuse?) (reason?) for derailing the topic was my overexplaining
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
too much for my personal dislike of Dubya to show it was really not a matter of politics. And then I still went on to Dick Cheney, Charlie Daniels, etc.
That was a bit much. :smack:
Sorry.
Awright, I wasn’t going to be a kiss-up name namer, but DtC has forced my hand. I mean, come on. Half the people shitting on him for being “too liberal” or “too one-sided” or whatever-the-fuck don’t deserve the time he gives to some of his posts. Love him or hate him, he knows what the fuck he’s talking about a very, very high percentage of the time, and agree or disagree with his views, he does not argue an ignorant position.
I am NOT pointing this out for the purposes of partisan solidarity. I don’t want partisan solidarity. I’m pointing it out as a counter-argument to what passes for a grievance around here, because bitching about his behavior is demonstrably complete, total bullshit when you consider how his contribution stacks up to that of many of his detractors. It’s just such utter steaming crap. Worse than a straw man. It’s a fucking lie.
I don’t think that really shows what you want it to show. The vertical distribution on that chart is really quite even. On fiscal matters, I don’t think there’s much bias on this board at all, and that chart confirms that. Lots of fiscal conservatives around. The chart does show that there’s a strong bias to social liberalism, and that of the smallish cadre of social conservatives, almost none are fiscal liberals. I don’t think either the social bias or the distribution of social conservatives is surprising, given the general nature of the board. The religious right who make up a large chunk of social conservatives don’t…errr…thrive in the epistemological environment here.
Is the board biased against Creationists and Focus on the Family types? Absolutely. Is it biased against conservative economics, or firearm rights? Not hardly.
As a case study: wonderwench, I ain’t arguing with you.
See how easy that was, folks? Why not treat leftist idiots in the same way? When someone is posting something vapid and vitriolic, let them know you’re not arguing with them, and then don’t respond to any more of their posts. The worst insult you can pay them is to use the pagedown key.
I absolutely think that’s the best response. I mean, if the moderators decide to start issuing bannings for posters who are annoying, I’ll get behind them 100%: I think that’d be the superbest response. But I understand that’s not gonna happen, so the next best thing is to deny attention to the attention-whores.
Daniel
Ooooh. This is fun, I want in.
Is the Pope Polish? Wait . . . son of a bitch!
Excellent point, Daniel/Left Hand of Dorkness. Nice Dopername, by the way.
WRS
Poppycock…
It was with good arguments and data that even though a liberal, my opinion on guns has changed a lot because of the data presented by conservative pro-gun members in this board, even though I did not participate in the discussions. The fact is that there is an audience out there.
If you are not making your points based with good info, I don’t care if you are a leftie. I did give the 3rd degree to that loonie leftie chompski (not Chomski the professor) when he spewed BS.
Regarding Bush, the recently realeased Downing Street memo just showed once again that the lefties were right on the war all along; what I am saying here is that unfortunately BS is the only thing left to defend the current administration, and in the SDMB that will not go too far, IMO the right has no good points there; and I have seen many reasonable right wingers accept some of the points regarding the current administration, so always reply semi-ignoring the harpie (of the left and the right), remember that there are others reading the procedings. But, if you post BS to support your position or with no support at all, well then I see that even the “harpies of the left” do have a reason to be.
SlyFrog: Ooooh. This is fun, I want in.
Me too!
Each of these things is just like the others? Well, by that reasoning,
board = bear = both
skew = shit = smell
Left = woods = high heaven
According to wonderwench, then, the Left is heaven. A pretty compliment!
(However, I don’t think I want to be around her when she says she’s smelling something.)
But if we use affirmative action, the conservatives will all denounce us for letting in less-qualified people because of mandatory quotas! 
(I don’t recall any of the conservatives I know offhand ever applying. That does help, you know. Also, the process can be quite, quite painstaking and many a promising potential mod has been shot down for number of warnings or a few bad posts. Plus, you have to actually want to mod in the first place.)