I’m not interested in the core of this debate, indeed I find the constant stream of december pittings tiresome ( they’re endlessly repeititive ) and I am not in the camp that want to see december banned ( though I’m definitely not a fan of his ).
But this intrigues me a bit…
I find this curious coming from a self-described Canadian like yourself. Are you an ex-pat?
This board, while based in the U.S., seems reasonably well internationalized. Though I’m sure it would be difficult to say just how many regulars are non-American, the number has to be non-trivial. And let’s face it - Bush is not terribly popular abroad. Maybe not 1 in 20 unpopular, but 1 in 5 or 10 probably wouldn’t be too far off the mark in parts of western Europe. Given that, the non-American population of the SDMB are naturally going to skew the numbers “leftward”, as it were. So your 60% approval rating in the U.S. is perhaps just a bit less telling. I’ll agree that even the American contingent here seems to skew more to the anti-Bush side, but I don’t think it is quite as heavy as you make out ( assuming your “1 in 20” wasn’t deliberate hyperbole, I’d say it was a bit exaggerated ).
Personally I’d say this board is very heavily slanted towards the socially liberal, somewhat slanted to the left on foreign policy topics, but is closer to being fairly evenly divided on economic issues. Which makes for a more complex picture if you ask me.
I agree with Tamerlane. In the full international context, the US Right (as represented by Sam Stone, etc) is small and insignificant. But it is prominent in the US and so, by default, projects exponential power and influence around the world.
The board is not a reflection of the US, but of the entire international ‘community’. Hence the Barking Right are seen to be in the small minority they actually are.
The fact of which also, IMHO, probably goes some way to explaining why december is still a member here. In general terms, the US political frame of reference/mindset is Right of a European mindset. Thus, to most of the Mods/Admins, what he says and probably doesn’t read as badly as it might to a European.
I concede, though, that more US posters seem to be offended by his most recent OP than is usually the case.
Hell, I’m so far to the right fiscally that December looks like Ralph Nader from here.
But I’m also way to the left on social issues.
So I like to think it’s more complicated than it appears at first glance.
As for the banning? I don’t think it’s a good idea. Hell, I’ve sure thought it as certain frustrating times. And if there’s any legitimate reason it’s because he seems actually disinterested in debating. But for his political beliefs? I say nay.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised since it is an opinion that you yourself expressed. Don’t sell yourself short by thinking you’re in a minority. Right now in Great Debates, I am engaged in an argument with someone who has stated that I, as a matter of course, disregard logic and argue dishonestly, accepting premises based on whether they will lead to a conclusion that I already hold. If he is not calling me devious, then devious would have been kinder.
Gary
Maybe. But idiocy is a rather common trait among bigots and apologists for terrorists.
Sometimes we see in others insinuations that aren’t there. Recently, someone chastised me for butting into an MPSIMS thread where I made note of an insinuation that I perceived. It is often the case that the knotty corridors of perception can twist an assertion into an insinuation.
Perhaps so Lib, but when so many people find such frequent insinuations in his posts - especially non-american dopers, against whom most of his smears are aimed - just how big a test sample is required before you must accept that this is a very real occurence?
From my personal opinion, he deliberately attempts to insult and smear through the use of politely worded insinuations. He does this quite skillfully, and thus does not fall foul of the rules of this board. As such I do not believe he should be banned. That doesn’t stop me from personally believing he’s a nasty, hateful little man who deliberately seeks to insult people who would otherwise bear him no malice.
Saying Collounsbury was banned for making a parenthetical statement is preposterous. Had you or I said it we would not have been banned and it’s a good bet the warning would not have been too heavy-handed. Coll was banned because he did it about five hundred times, and no, he did not just swear and rant at stupid drive-by posters.
As to december. I have to admit I’m feeling less generous towards his position than I used to, and I don’t think he adds much to the board, but I’d still rather have someone who’s thick and very partisan - that’s redundant, I guess - than someone who’s openly insulting and offensive. Being thick =! being a jerk, though the irritation and frustration evoked by the two states often feels the same. There are other folks on the board who I think are stupid, blind or irritating but if they aren’t actually trying to be jerks, that’s part of life. Hell, I come across as stupid and irritating to most people I meet but it really is inadvertent, believe me.
It is pretty clearly set in precedent that being extremely partisan is not a banning offense but being a profane asshole is, and that’s consistent with most good discussion boards, too. If the mods want to change the rules and their application they can go right ahead but at this point the rules and the way they have been enforced are quite clear, at least to me, and the treatment afforded C and D are entirely consistent with the way the joint’s been run. Given that it remains the best discussion board I’ve ever seen, I am loathe to suggest the rules aren’t working. The system here appears to be to give regular posters a lot of leeway, which I think is a good system.
I note that the mods never seem to weigh in on these december thread and explain the situation. Maybe they just don’t think it’s a big deal.
This is a position held by a lot of people. It’s worth putting into a thread if only to have it batted down. It’s a discussion happening right now in American public discourse and good fodder for debate.
I would have called for his ban a month or so ago, when he seemed to be not so much a T**** as a spammer-esque poster. Now that he actually posts his opinions on the topic, rather than waiting for arguments to refute, he is 100% better than before.
Of course that doesnt refute the above charge, but there are plenty (okay, only one,) poster who I would ban before him.
On the one hand, he always sets the table with the salad fork in the right place. He sends thank-you cards for gifts in a timely fashion, and he doesn’t wear white shoes after Labor Day.
On the other hand, his last thread basically said that I and my ilk were helping to kill American troops overseas, and that while our murderous words were legal, we owed an apology to the families of the people we’d helped to kill.
I really, really, really don’t see how couching such vile accusations in polite language improves them. Kahlil Gibran talked about the Silver-Plated Turd, a stinking hypocrisy coated in social nicety, and I think that accurately describes december’s latest posting.
It’s a putrid thing he does, using kind and respectful language to disguise his slanderous accusations against people. On my personal Jerkometer, it whizzes past “Jerk” and goes straight into “Monumental Asshole.”
That said, I’m not going to call for his banning. I’ll call for his getting a fucking grip; I’ll call for his improving his own honesty; I’ll call for his learning that respectful words do not respectful content make. But I won’t call for his banning: that would set a terrible precedent, and while his absence wouldn’t hurt the board, the precedent would.
Well, I had some thinly veiled accusations of anti-Semitism tossed in my direction for daring to suggest that perhaps some Palestinians are being mistreated by the Israeli government, in this thread:
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not calling for anyone’s banning, nor do I get quite this pissed off at many others who hold various degrees of pro-Israeli government opinions, or any number of other politically conservative opinions. In fact, some of my best friends are Republicans. But to make insinuations that I am a) anti-Semitic, or b) a terrorist apologist for daring to hold a different opinion? Well, that’s both ludicrous and insulting. (And funny, in a sad way. A Jewish anti-Semite? Especially from someone who goes on and on about his Jewish heritage, but is not a believer?)
If you want to point out any logical flaws in my position, go right ahead, but if you start casting aspersions on my motivations, I’m going to get pissed off. (Then again, maybe that was the aim all along.)
And I agree with you that the call to ban is over the top. The OP is a prime example of what I said about insinuation creeping out the ass-end of perception. I looked at the alleged violation that the OP cited and found there not one insinuation. Sam has a point — the board is a very skewed sampling of the general population. There is a high percentage of hand stabbing atheists and a high percentage of authoritarian liberals. If the former posted at the Pizza Parlor of the latter posted at Stormfront, there would be — surprise! — an avalanche of accusations about various insinuations. In fact, there will likely be at least one atheist who, after reading this post, believes that I insinuated that he or she is a hand stabber, and at least one liberal who believes that I insinuated that he or she is an authoritarian.
According to the rules of this joint, I don’t see any reason (heh, almost typed ‘treason’ there) for december to be banned. It’s rare that even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives take any of his drivel seriously. Well, actually, one possible reason: it appears more and more that he posts mostly to see the reactions of other posters rather than to seriously raise a point, and that’s trolling, IMO.
Assuming his post are not pure trolls, however, it would be nice:
if december would ease up on his ‘new GD thread a day’ habit. His apparent compulsion to start a new GD thread nearly every day, no matter what, clearly causes him to overreach on his topics. His ridiculous, completely illogical ‘Democrats are helping terrorists’ thread is prime evidence of that.
if december’s partisan diatribes disquised as debate questions were moved to the Pit every time they appear. More of that treatment might eventually get him to post more relevant subject matter or reduce his posting frequency, things that would be as beneficial to him as to the rest of us.