Stoidela, just go away, OK?

The BBQ Pit
21

I think you need to look up the definition of the word “explicit”. The only political standing mentioned in that comment is “liberal”… in short, it was said that “liberals are outnumbered”. Milo disagrees with this statement.

'K, Gaddy?

We’ve got Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Anarachists, all falling on different spaces of the liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum. Stoid is a very liberal Democrat… Ankh_Too is a more moderate Democrat. Then we have people who fly all over the spectrum on any number of issues (like me… liberal about one thing, conservative about the other…)

In short, it’s idiotic to say “Group 1 is outnumbered by Group 2!”, since there are NO clear-cut groups here. And if you think there are, try to guess my stance on the Gay Marriage issue.

22

Yeah! The conservatives are right! If Stoid’s opinions and attitudes are offending their sensitive psyches, she should just be forced to leave! That’s what this place is all about!

America, uh wait, SDMB, Love it or Leave it!

23

You, sir, are an idiot.

24

You’re a tool. I don’t have a problem with liberals (well, yeah I do…but) this thread is about Stoidela being an obnoxious idiot who doesn’t even understand her own political “opinions.”

Try a little reading next time, franky boy.

25

Milo disagrees with the statement that “liberals are outnumbered” on this board? Then Milo’s a fucking moron.

There are more vocal conservatives posting to this board than there are vocal liberals. You want I should do a head count?

Yes, we do–but to the extent that political opinions can be assessed on a binary scale, the number of conservatives and right-leaning libertarians who are active posters to this board decidedly outnumber all the liberals, left-leaning libertarians, greens, socialists, anarchists, and communists put together. As I’ve said twice now, Democrats and Republicans are a different deal; there are, in my opinion, more Democrats than Republicans on the SDMB, as in America as a whole. Do I have to draw the Venn diagram of “Not all Democrats are liberals” again?

And yeah, there are people who are all over the map. The most common of these, I would guess, are the fiscal conservative/civil libertarians. My point is that there are, in my estimation, more knee-jerk ideologues on here who would self-identify as conservative (or right-leaning, overall) than there are those who would self-identify as liberal.

There are many clear-cut groups here. That they tend to bleed into each other and overlap on various discrete issues makes those groups no less real.

friedo:

Stoidela understands her own political opinions just fine; in fact, she displays a remarkable ideological consistency. Your problem, it seems to me, is that you don’t agree with her opinions, and it annoys you that she expresses them as often as she does, in the manner that she does.

Too fucking bad.

26

No, Gaderene, my problem is not that I disagree with her. Ideological consistency is NOT a sign of intelligence or understanding. My problem is that she continually makes malicious, prejudicial and uninformed attacks against a political institution that she had made no attempt to understand. She continually and ritualistically demonized anyone who associates themselves with a certain label and elevates the others to Godlike status, without, and let me be clear here, without demonstrating an adequate understanding of the issues, and the people, involved.

I’m perfectly happy to have intelligent political discussions with people, but the type of pedantic snot that Stoidela routinely spews upon this board (just click on the four links in my OP) is neither intelligent nor political.

And I don’t recall saying that I disagree with her. I do recall calling her childish and pathetic, though.

27

Considering the label of “liberal” and “conservative” is very subjective, I hesitate to say this, but… go nuts.

Now you play the semantics game… “He’s a Democrat, but he’s not REALLY liberal…” In other words, you don’t want to count someone as a “liberal” just because YOU don’t entirely agree with some of his or her viewpoints.

Umm… if they bleed into each other and overlap, they’re not clear-cut. The term “clear-cut” means “distinct dividing point”. I’m sure you’ll find a “distinct dividing point” when comparing one poster with another, but you won’t find very many large groups of people who separate on an issue with the same ideals.

Think of it this way… imagine having a little parrot sitting on your shoulder, which knows a single sentence… “Republicans are evil!” That’s the extent of its knowledge. It doesn’t know what the sentence means, or what impact it has.

Now imagine that this little parrot squawks that one sentence ALL DAY LONG. After, oh, an hour, will you still be smiling with amusement at this parrot’s little trick?

If your answer is “yes”, you’re quite the simpleton.

28

Am I the only one that thought that Frankd6 was OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic?

29

Hey, it keeps the overhead low, and the prices down. :smiley:

There’s this thing off to one side of your keyboard called a ‘mouse’. If you don’t use it to click on threads with ‘Stoidela’ in the “Thread Starter” column, my guess is you’ll be less bothered.

A year ago, more or less, one poster was getting on my nerves because of his ability to hijack threads by his ability to post short, cryptic asides that would get under everybody’s skin and quickly turn almost any political thread into a debate over his pet issues. (He’s since reformed considerably, thank goodness.) For months, it seemed that no GD thread was safe from being turned into an angry debate over this poster’s particular ‘ism’. If you don’t like what Stoidela has to say, or how she says it, be glad she starts so many threads.

Stoid certainly makes no secret of her loathing for the GOP, but to say that that’s all her posts consist of, is total dogshit. She typically adds far more content to a debate than most people around here.

OTOH, this intellectually vacuous, playground-level insult is exactly the sort of thing that the poster claims to find offensive: a gratuitous slam with no reasoning behind it.

30

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**

**
With regard to Gadarene’s claim that there “are more vocal conservatives posting to this board than there are vocal liberals,” SPOOFE wrote,

"Considering the label of “liberal” and “conservative” is very subjective…"

and

"Now you play the semantics game… “He’s a Democrat, but he’s not REALLY liberal…” In other words, you don’t want to count someone as a “liberal” just because YOU don’t entirely agree with some of his or her viewpoints."

SPOOFE, these seem like pretty tame generalizations to me. I myself try to distinguish b/w libertarian and conservative for the reasons I’ve already said which is why I had chosen to say that “liberals are outnumbered by posters of various stripes.” Somewhere on this thread, I think you called that statement “idiotic.” So let me get this straight: do you think that this board is dominated by liberals? Or are you just in the mood to yank chains?

As to your accusing Gadarene of not “counting” someone as a “liberal” b/c she doesn’t agree with his/her viewpoints: The reason I disagree is that lots of Democrats don’t want to be called liberal and are eager for such distinctions. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but people (not terribly unlike yourself) have given the “L” word a nasty ring; (although now, admittedly, the absurdly inappropriate term “socialist” is the pejorative-du-jour).

Here is what I would say speaking very generally:

A Democrat who voted for Gore and is very happy with his/her vote will probably not self-identify as a liberal. But a Democrat who voted for Nader, considered voting for Nader or who is unhappy with the DLC probably does self-identify as a liberal.

And now just to amuse you for the New Year…

Non-Liberal Democrats are 74% more likely than their liberal counterparts to read The Wall Street Journal, but 47% less likely to read it than moderate Republicans. Both are 82% less likely to own a Palm Pilot than are self-identified liberals. Libertarians check the NASDAQ 31% more often than any other political affiliation and 23% more often than Bill Gates.

When asked, “Who is your favorite Beatle,” precisely 56% of Liberals will say John, 78% of non-Liberal Democrats will say Paul, while 29% of conservatives will insist that they’ve never even heard of Ringo. 21% of Libertarians answer the question by writing in “Happiness is a Warm Gun.” Approximately 3% of people living in Palm Beach Florida choose Paul and George.

31

**
Well … not so much ‘fucking’ lately.

I think the point is, any identifiable group is outnumbered on this board. Why single out liberals? As your sentence reads above, it’s true. However, “liberals are outnumbered by conservatives” isn’t unless you do some convenient libertarian-lumping.

Just off the top of my head, I would say that’s wrong. Unless, as mentioned, you want to include libertarians with people who more closely identify with the Republican Party. Which you shouldn’t.

BTW, before you do that headcount, what am I? (Well, besides a fucking moron.) What am I politically?

I have never voted a straight party ticket. I voted for Clinton twice. I voted for a Green Party candidate in my county in this past election, as well as some Democrats.

I tend to more closely identify with the Republican Party than others, particularly on matters of fiscal policy. And I thought Bush was right and Gore was wrong in Florida, almost across the board.

As has been pointed out, categorizing anyone less one-note than Stoidela is difficult.

32

…hasn’t this particular witch been hunted before?

I said it in the other thread, and I’ll say it again: I find many of Stoidela’s attacks on conservative thought to be ill-advised, simplistic and indefensible under rigorous examination. But I find they tend to bring to light the very worst traits of her most vocal opponents; not because of clever insights or incisive commentary on her part, but because of the quick, unreasoning vitriol presented in response to her posts. If there is another active poster whose words are so routinely and roundly misinterpreted, misquoted and misunderstood, then I wish someone would point that poster out to me; I’m under the impression that Stoid’s cornered that particular market.

I once expressed gratitude to Stoidela for almost singlehandedly providing balance to the “insanely partisan rhetoric” we see so often from our right-leaning brothers and sisters on this board. The reason I gave for thanking her was that [paraphrase]“at least our kneejerk partisan can construct a coherent argument and form complete, grammatical sentences.”[/paraphrase] I appreciate the fact that the acknowledged ultra liberal extremist on this board can pull her weight in a debate with competence and flair.

Like waterj2, I generally prefer having my political views represented by posters who show more restraint and consideration for other viewpoints in their passion. For that, I can always count on the other two players in the “antilibertarain triple-threat” (thanks, water!) and on posters like RTFirefly, Gaudere, or Polycarp (and new posters like Mandelstam). But it certainly has been amusing to see Stoid go head-to-head with equally partisan (though typically less rhetorically able) members of the “other team.”

As Gadarene and RTFirefly pointed out, one only has to avoid clicking on threads which show “Stoidela” as the thread starter in order to avoid most of her posts. And if your particular political sensibilities are so disturbed by her language, rip her ideas apart if you can; the fact that so many of you prefer to attack her attitude and personality instead does not portray either your powers of debate or ideological strengths in a particularly flattering light.

33

You’re right. And I have been doing a lot more of that.

However, when I click on “Great Debates” or “General Questions”, and see new thread after new thread (with some obvious subject lines) authored by her, I just roll my eyes. And think “What is going on with her?!?!?”

But am I not entitled to comment on her prolific nature? And, I always thought it was a prudent practice to NOT start new threads constantly. But hey - it must be OK. So let’s all start a new thread every time we see a funny cartoon, or we like a comment a fellow Doper said, or whatever. I think I’ll start 5 new threads TODAY! Yeah! That’s the ticket! :smiley:

34

I don’t start new threads much. And when I do, I plan before hand. At least two weeks in advance. With special scheduling and reservations…

Hooray for socks.

35
  1. I don’t recall starting a single GD thread about the presidential race. If you have seen any such threads, please let me know. If someone has stolen my password, I should know.
  2. Can you provide a single cite of me referring to the “socialist” Democrats with venom?

If you disagree with something I said, the proper course of action is to discuss your opposing point of view in the original thread, not come to the pit and whine about it. The only post by you that I saw in the 13th amendment thread was:

No actual argument as to why I’m wrong, or citation of a specific behavior that is rude, but simply a declaration that both are true. And you call me irrational?

And I may have missed it, but I didn’t see a single post of yours in the Kwanzaa thread.

36

Ahh, Spoofe, Freido. Thank you so much for adding to the general tenor and level of intelligent discourse hereabouts. This place would be much nicer if we all agreed with you two. Why, we could all sit around and affirm each others opinions. Wouldn’t that be stimulating!

I’ll try to type slow so you two can understand it.

I’m not here to defend Stoidela. Her opinions are hers, not mine.

However, I think she should have the right to express them on the board as long as she plays by the rules. You two, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that she be banned because you don’t like the content of her posts.

I bet you don’t like the ACLU either. Stupid freedom of speech.

If she’s breaking the rules, contact the mods and let them boot her. Otherwise, she has the same right to espouse her stupid opinions and you two moral paragons do.

And, please, call me an idiot again. It does my heart good to be held in contempt by the likes of you.

37

I never said she should be banned. I said she should stop being a moron.

I’m a member of the ACLU. And the NRA, too. And the EFF, FSF, NORML, and a lot of other political organizations. This thread is not about anyone’s political beliefs, a statement I’ve made three times now. It’s about a particular individual’s repetitive stupidity.

My pleasure! :smiley:

38

No problem here with foolish, inflammatory rhetoric by apostles of either extreme. It’s destructive of dialogue and doesn’t advance anyone’s cause, but on rare occasions it’s entertaining in very small doses.

One suggestion for the passionate anti-Bush camp: you badly need a new nickname for the Prez. “Shrub”, “Shrubette” and the like are fine if you want to portray the man as a laughable lightweight, but will hardly do if you want to suggest he’s Evil Incarnate. Perhaps “Giant Hogweed” or “Kudzu” would be more apt. Or if you’re determined that he’s a puppet being manipulated by shadowy forces, consider “Tool Of The Satanists” (TOOTS for short).

39

Bush is NOT evil. Intellectually lazy? Yes. Not presidential material? You bet. Scary, when you think he has access to nuclear weapons? Oh yeah.
Evil? No.

40

So Stoidela has the right to say anything she wants, but no one has the right to ask her to shut up? Interesting concept of free speech you have.