To see what offensive stuff they could get away with before people catch on. And, yes, it has happened. I’ve seen a couple people bragging about it elsewhere.
By SDMB definitions, at least the ones they are supposed to hold, no, it wouldn’t be trolling even if it came from a conservative and was aimed at a liberal. By the definitions of the OP, it would be.
But my condolences to you at being lumped together with me. You and Bricker can commiserate - you are compared to me; he is being compared to Der trihs. :eek:
I think you just supported Der Trihs point. If I didn’t know you were conservative, I would have assumed this remark was mockery.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think it is mockery at all. His point, and it’s valid, is that the distortions and strawmen that liberal loonies make of conservative beliefs bear very little resemblance to what they/we actually believe. I would have thought that was obvious, especially in a case like Der Trihs. Anyone who believes anything DT says about conservatives - well, fits right in on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
You so needed to close that post with “Regards.”
I for one was stunned by seeing you linked with Shobot. Maybe if you cut your relevant content by 95%, added in the cleverness of saying things like “usual suspects,” and just became a total douchebag, then maybe.
How would it even be possible for a liberal to troll this board? If one were to post, “How did this guy get elected?”, with respect to John Boehner, the responses would be a lusty chorus of “Amen”.
This is what I was getting at; I’m sure he absolutely believes that everyone who has conservative beliefs is either blatantly evil or insane, but in the real world, that’s a statement that has one foot across the trolling line. But nobody except for the local conservatives step in and call him out about it.
But if someone came in and said that liberals are soft-headed do-gooders who basically want to throw other people’s money down the toilet on social programs instead of useful things like defense and infrastructure, he’d be accused of being a troll, even if that was what they believed. That “I disagree, therefore he must be a troll” factor and its inverse are pretty strong everywhere, as shown by the two examples.
And John Mace, I wasn’t saying you believed the same things as Shodan… not at all. I’m pretty sure now I got my posters all scrambled up (having a baby at home who fusses all hours of the night can do that to you!). Regardless, you do stand out as someone who can post statements and views that are very contrary to the accepted wisdom around here without coming across as doing it to get a rise out of people, or for that matter, not sounding like you’re some sort of digital hermit who came out of the cave to blurt out something borderline crazy (DT… looking at you)
This is an important issue. Because what you seem to be saying is that John Mace’s viewpoint is as conservative as that of conservatives who get attacked as troll, but that he expresses it in a non-trollish way and thus does not get so characterized. However, this is completely incorrect.
John Mace might be a conservative by the standards of this board, but that’s about it. By the standards of the US political spectrum he is a middle of the road, probably leaning slightly left. And this is why he doesn’t get attacked more than he does.
This is not to say that tone and intelligence don’t make any difference in how a person is perceived. But they are over-rated. Ideology counts for a lot, and it can’t be overcome.
[On a related note, I would describe Bricker himself as moderately conservative in terms of the US political spectrum, IOW on the left side of the Republican Party. (I believe he voted for Obama, at least once and possibly twice.) The reason he is perceived otherwise is partially because of the extent to which the SDMB spectrum differs from the US one, and partially because most of his engagements on this board feature him attacking/defending from the right, often vociferously.]
I don’t think anyone posting here knows what a troll is. Having a different opinion about anything, even an extreme one, is not trolling. It is trolling when a person posts in a way that provokes an extreme reaction, not caring if what they post is accurate or not, just provocative.
I disagree; I think although there is a significant ideological component to it, it’s a lot more in how it’s said than what you’re saying.
What I was trying to say is that there are some posters who post views and comments that are considered controversial or inflammatory here on the SDMB not in the real world, but do it in a productive way, and aren’t characterized as trolls. (John Mace comes to mind).
Then there are others who either through lack of message board social skills or sheer ignorance, post stuff that’s hyperbolic and most likely inflammatory in the real world, and because of the way the wind blows around here, are either lit up for being conservative trolls, or are just kind of given a pass because they’re just a little more extreme than the general feeling around here (Der Trihs again…)
I mean, there’s no non-bizarro world in which saying that conservative belief is “either blatantly evil or border on outright insane, when they aren’t over that line” isn’t considered hyperbolic and/or inflammatory. And in a neutral forum, that would be considered trolling, but around here, there’s a sort of tolerance of that kind of thing, because it’s just an extension of the general thoughts of the members, and we all accept hat as crazy as it sounds, he actually believes that and isn’t trying to get a rise out of us.
But if someone came in and said the conservative equivalent in all earnestness, he’d be decried as a troll and possibly banned if he kept it up.
See my post, #16 above.
Or it could be that many would say something like, “Who cares, it’s not my district”, as happened in citizen5’s thread.
But hey, Carnac the Magnificent, why not give it a try and see how things turn out?
We libertarian-ish types don’t fit the standard left/right scale and “middle of the road” just misses the whole point that politics is not a one dimensional thing. Just because you’re neither left nor right, doesn’t mean you split the difference. I’m probably pretty far right on some things (taxes, trade, welfare) and pretty far left on other things (foreign policy, abortion, war, drugs).
There are very few libertarians who actually hold elected office in this country.
Where the rubber meets the road is how you actually vote and who you support. That’s the best way to boil it all down and measure it.
By that standard, if you split the difference then you’re “middle of the road”.
Which is what counts, for these purposes. Because if you lustily join in enough “Republicans are crazy” choruses, you get cut a lot more slack if you diverge from the orthodoxy on some other point, as compared to someone with the same tone who more frequently dissents.
So what? And besides, I purposely wrote “libertarian-ish” because I think most of us on this MB who lean that way don’t tend to be actual, capital L Libertarians.
No, because we’re offered a limited choice of candidates.
That’s just plain stupid. Someone who is a radical lefty on some things and radical righty on others averages out to “middle of the road”. Again, you need to think outside the line. I would say “box”, but that’s a 3-Dimensional object.
It was a mistake for you to cut up that post and comment line-by-line. Each individual sentence was made in context of the larger point of the post, and your comments all miss the boat.
I appreciate that your political identity is important to you but it means nothing to me, and I’m only discussing how to measure your overall position with specific regard to how it would be received by members of this board.
Sure they would. Enjoy your time in Fantasy Land.
Because it would be trolling.
Now, now, we’ve established that if one sincerely believes whatever they’re posting, it’s not trolling. So please; have at it. Wouldn’t you like to see your prediction confirmed? You’d be able to sneer with impunity.
Only if by “actual” you mean what conservative used to mean – cautious, skeptical of change. But the radical-reactionary beliefs that are called “conservative” in American discourse nowadays are never anything but extreme any more.
Then, every single Republican mentioned in this thread – in most cases simply quoted/cited directly – is No True Conservative?
For example?
Certain segments of society (such as yours?) often find truth to be inconvenient or even hostile to their preferred beliefs.
But that’s why we’re here, isn’t it?