My mistake then. I didn’t realize the definition was so broad for ATMB. I thought it was just for discussing issues relating to Board administration or moderation, neither of which your query seemed to fall under.
I’ll bow out. Sorry.
To make sure that I understand the position being expressed by several here -
Supporting cruelty, violence, and murder of innocent suffering people, saying that “my friends should be tortured and left to die and that it should be legal to outright kill them” is incompatible with being a good poster.
Any support of Trump is defined by you as support for those things. No matter what the individuals actually say, you know what they mean. (“Wagner, Max, Wagner-so I know what he’s really tryin’ to tell me …”)
It is therefore impossible for a poster to express any support of Trump and be a good poster and if a conservative expresses any support of Trump there is no discussion possible, they are “bad people”, evil by definition, and being hostile by definition. The only political discussion possible is among those who all agree that Trump must go. Others are, well “others” - the bad guys who we need know nothing more about than that they are on the side of evil.
I’m sure your Thanksgivings were fun!
If it is possible to support something Trump does while not ignoring all else he has done, said and supported, then it is possible in my eyes to be a Good Conservative. If on the other hand one uses that supposed singular deed as an excuse to dismiss everything else he has done, then I can’t see you as a Good Conservative.
Moving the goalpost dude.
The question is not if one can be a Good Conservative (or if someone supporting Trump on an issue can be speak, or at least be heard, only if they first pledge their disapproval for Trump on other issues) but a good poster.
Is the definition of “good poster” sharing your values? Sharing your political beliefs? Being a member of the your tribe and accepting your revealed truths?
Can someone have beliefs that you think are not good beliefs, even beliefs that you see as bad, and be a good poster? This goes beyond supporting Trump. It is about whether or not we restrict our exchange of ideas to only those with the same values that we have.
The ONLY value that GD has is that it is one a few places left where those with divergent values can actually have an exchange of ideas, less and less so because both liberals and conservatives are defining having different values as a reason to behave badly to each other and as unworthy of listening to.
Fuck that shit.
That is not what I said, and the title of this thread has “good conservatism”, not “good posterism”.
No, nope and nada.
How are these beliefs/ideas presented and supported?
Everyone should read “The Crooked Timber of Humanity,” a collection of essays by Isaiah Berlin. It sets out the idea that a liberal democracy necessarily must tolerate folks who start with different, irreconcilable sets of values–but also that not all irreconcilable sets of values need to be tolerated.
So there’s room for people who disagree on the value of individual excellence versus the value of a community safety net. But there’s not necessarily room for disagreement on the value of denying human rights to historically oppressed groups.
Velocity, now that you’ve read all these responses, I’m curious: what do you think a good liberal poster looks like?
The emotionally charged topics and the posters who post them or discuss them, can in no way BE swayed. They are right, YOU are wrong, no matter your reasoning. All ‘discussion’ is gone. So I am thinking a good conservative on this board would just fail to discuss anything emotionally charged. Ala BPC
Yes, anyone who supports Trump cannot by definition be a “good conservative.” If there are any good conservatives, they stopped being/supporting Republicans at the latest by Election Day 2016.
Czarcasm, as was made clear in the op, which I assume you read. the question is relevant to posting behavior, not as a person.
Now if you read that op and you are posting what you just posted, you are being what I would call “a bad poster”, i.e. exhibiting bad posting behavior that is dishonest. Not a bad person, but postling badly.
Which gets to the other portion: yes, the issue is within a very wide (but not absolute) range HOW the beliefs/ideas presented and supported. There are some beliefs/ideas that are so harmful to others, often ones explicitly hateful, as to be constrained. I’d argue for keeping that number small and putting more things into that group with some hesitation, not just because some number are offended by beliefs other than theirs.
LHOD, is there room to disagree about what counts as “denying human rights to historically oppressed groups” and what is not? Or is your (and likely mine too) the only version of that is allowed? Is there room for someone to argue that there is some things done for good reasons also impose what they see as other rights being denied and debating how much one value is worth offsetting another? Or is the majority opinion of the board the only take on those issues allowed? Lest some feel offended?
What a load of hooey. That’s projection and hyperbole.
Does Donald Trump push policies that hurt immigrants, socially disadvantaged classes, minorities, and women? Yes. Does he cater to the racists and bigots? Absolutely. But that’s a far cry from saying he advocates violence and murder.
It’s exaggeration and projection. It’s like when conservatives decried that Obama wanted to destroy the country, or claim Bernie supporters are all commies. Or saying “me too” is blanket advocating that all women rape accusers are automatically telling the truth, or that sexual assault accusers all just want to hurt men. It’s taking the actions of a few and assigning those motives to the group. That’s exactly the sort of crap being complained about for conservatives, and it isn’t any better coming from liberals.
There are plenty of people who support Trump for reasons other than “boo brown people”. Sure, they’d a lot of cognative dissonance required to defend [del]some [/del] many of Trump’s policies and actions, but that doesn’t make everyone a racist, and certainly not an advocate for violence and murder.
Yes, you seem to have captured the essence of some Dopers’ opinions.
HD,
Do you grok the ways in which your posting style often fails to meet any reasonable definition of being “a good poster” independent of the values and beliefs they represent?
Conservatives who are questioning how they should conduct themselves on this board should simply look at the more liberal posters that they respect, and seek to match that standard.
In general, if someone is open-minded, thoughtful, and informative, it’s pretty hard to ask for more.
Pointing out which posters do not meet those standards is a legitimate thing to do, in terms of describing the atmosphere on the board – but just because others behave poorly doesn’t mean anyone should feel at liberty to match those low standards. As children are always taught, you are solely responsible for yourself and how you behave.
You want us to forget things, apparently.
Do you know a different Second Amendment which would be remotely relevant to the task of removing judges you disagree with?
More:
Hint: The “he” quoted above was Trump. Just to make sure there’s no confusion. Or covfefe, either.
Hate crimes rose since Trump’s election.
So, do you want to walk your statement back, or will you claim Trump is FAKE NEWS?
There are no good reasons to support Trump, none that come close at all to outweighing the evils of Trump. At best these people believe that Trump’s evils can be tolerated so that they can achieve their own selfish goals. So, even if they’re not racist, they’re perfectly happy to allow the propagation and promotion of racism. That’s at best.
That’s pretty much it. Trump was the way to a victory for the Republican party. Never mind that the Republican party isn’t the Republican party anymore–all that matters is an R in the win column.
As has already been explored in this thread, for many of my views / positions, there is no way to post it that some segment of Doperdom would find acceptable. “I think President Trump is doing a decent job” is posting badly in their eyes because it represents wrongthink, not because of my phrasing or reasoning.
I’m certain that some of my posts could be phrased better, or less snarky, or less focused on minor factual errors. I recognize that sometimes I give into the temptation to nitpick posts or hammer on a particular point for too long. Usually, I feel like that’s been in response to those same “bad”-style posts from liberal posters (who of course get a pass for their “bad” posts from most of the audience here), but as Ravenman pointed out, we all ought to strive to be better, regardless of the bad behavior we see in others.
Could it be because some don’t find it acceptable because:
- There are precious few facts to back up such a statement,
- Your opinion of what is “decent” may not line up with others, or
- Some combination of the two?
I suspect it’s mostly that my opinion of what is “decent” doesn’t align with the opinions of many Dopers (so, #2, sort of, with perhaps a more narrow definition of “others”). FWIW, my opinion is shared by ~43% of the country, so it’s not like I’m some crazy outlier. That it’s treated as blasphemous / evil here offers far more insight into just how far left the SDMB is than into that commonly-held view itself.
Derleth, thank you for spot checking my memory. Those incidents do justify accusations of calls to violence and arguably murder. The characterization of Trump’s positions, however, still seems exaggerated.
Look, I think Trump is a criminal, a threat to national security, an abysmal human, a narcissistic, selfish, aggrandizing cheat and a racist and bigot. His catering to and defending white supremecists is appalling and disqualifies him as a decent human being.
And I agree that Trump supporters are, at best, justifying all his horrendous acts for political expediency. And I have a hard time understanding them for it. But that doesn’t mean they are all closet racists who advocate violence and murder.