You know, people can just scroll up and see I DID in fact give plausible answers, but that I’m not actual Bricker so can’t speak definitively for him…right? I ask because based on this you don’t seem to realize it’s all up there.
See, this is the kind of thing that just gets let go by the general masses on the board. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to fight, or because they actually agree, but this is just a glib way to say you don’t like the guy’s policy and that you don’t like his motivations.
Do you REALLY believe that Paul Ryan had an intent to harm the poor? That’s just crazy talk. I can get behind the idea that he’s not overly concerned with the poor, but attributing deliberate malice is just absurd.
Yet this sort of statement by the Democrat crowd on this board goes unmentioned, unchallenged and unpunished in just about every thread involving politics. The funny part is that the same crowd goes to great lengths to explain that the board isn’t actually hostile to Republicans, but rather that they’re stupider or less literate or something like that.
It’s a lot simpler- the debate goes off the rails when one side’s position is described as deliberately malicious or fantastical, because that side ends up having to defend the position against those comments instead of reasonable ones.
I don’t usually post in political threads, for that very reason- I don’t want to have to explain why something’s not a rewarmed version of Pol Pot’s policies, when it’s no such thing; only something that the Democrats/liberals around here disagree with.
A thread title of "Obama should target Republican districts with the consequences of the sequester” is saying “attack the Republicans”, hence the word “target”. As I said in my post “I was looking for titles that were either explicitly negative towards the party in question or pointed towards a negative opinion”. You don’t think “target” is being negative towards Republicans? And, seriously, you are trying to say that “Give Me an Example of Conservative Political Fiction,” isn’t negative? What if I started a thread called ““Give Me an Example of Liberal Political Lies”?
Heck, I’ve done my best to make some people feel unwelcome. I doubt any of them were Republicans - they were mostly just doofs.
From my perspective, the key thing about global warming and same sex marriage is not so much that they’re hugely important issues on the scale of issues, but that they’re issues where I think an impartial observer would say that the weight of evidence and argument is very clearly on one side. (Of course I would say that, I’m a liberal, right? Except that there are plenty of other hot topics, including gun control, abortion, and economic policy in general where I think that my side is right, but I don’t feel that same “my lord, how could anyone possibly disagree? Every single piece of evidence is on my side…” feeling.)
So my view of things is that even if many of the big issues of the day are ones on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, there are a few biggies in which the left side is clearly the correct one, as Bricker himself agreed, at least wrt global warming.) And I think that that dynamic, both directly and indirectly, has made the board a much less pleasant and welcoming place for conservatives, which then let to a vicious cycle in which being a minority made things even worse, and we ended up where we are.
The really really big issue of this sort, of course, was the Iraq war, and the Bush presidency in general, an issue about which I now think there’s a very strong consensus that the left position was correct. So there was a reasonable, intelligent, well-meaning, conservative-leaning SDMB poster in 2002, we’ll call him Bob. Bob started out supporting the Iraq war. Because why wouldn’t he? There did seem to be good evidence and arguments for it, there was a lot of consensus in the media and the national conversation, the President he supported – whose actions he had supported in the wake of 9/11 and in Afghanistan, the standard bearer for the political party he had been a member of for several decades – was strongly in favor of it, so he came on the SDMB and argued in favor of the Iraq War. And then time passed, and the Iraq War more and more became a debacle, and what did Bob do?
Well, if Bob had been an absolute paragon of nothing but rationality and pure logical intellect, his position would have modified gradually and he would have ended up on the other side of the issue. But Bob, despite being a generally intelligent and well meaning guy, was just a person. People are stubborn. People have emotions. So posting on the SDMB each day became much less pleasant for Bob, because who wants to be outnumbered and be supporting a position that at some level he realized he was less and less invested in, but which he’d been arguing in favor of on a daily basis for months; and that’s a shitty position to be in, so there’s a good chance that Bob just left the SDMB. And if he didn’t, there’s a good chance that, even if he eventually changed his position on the Iraq war, he did so stubbornly and not with huge amounts of grace. So for a while in there, the arguing descended several notches and just became name calling and insulting. And that chased away more conservative posters, and that level of hostility fled over into other topics in which left-right arguing had previously been more polite and balanced, and after all that, most Bobs had left, a few had become nearly caricatures in their stubbornness, and only a very few remained as anything like their former selves. At which point the SDMB was heavily liberal AND was used to this new level of rancor and divisiveness, so that when other proto-Bobs showed up and joined as new members they got the backlash of the Iraq war even though it was already years in the past.
Well, that ended up much longer than I intended, but that’s my basic theory.
Right. I am of course not a conservative and haven’t engaged in any heated discussions here, but on other boards I’ve learned to stay away from discussions about the legality of abortions. There’s really no point in trying to join a conversation where your views have already been labeled as based on hatred for women and stupidity.
I have seen conservatives here and elsewhere give as good as they get, but it does seem that the board leans liberal/progressive and so unsurprisingly fewer conservative types will post here. Why is that so controversial?
“Fiction” in that context meant “novels”, not “made up stuff”. I mean, it’s clearly possible for a poster with a conservative bent, who enjoys reading political thrillers, to start that thread looking for reading recommendations while being 100% in favor of the conservative side of every issue.
I think you’re basically right. BUT, I think that when conservatives see that phenomenon in action, they view it as evidence of, well, something. Evidence of hypocrisy or a conspiracy or groupthink or liberals-can’t-ever-criticize-liberals. When in fact, I think it’s a 100% expected outcome of human dynamics. People post on the SDMB when they WANT to post on the SDMB, and it’s fundamentally more fun to argue with someone you actually disagree with than to regretfully tut-tut at your own side. I can’t speak for anyone else, but there are plenty of times when I read something a liberal posts, I have just the reaction you just had, and I don’t post anything about it because, frankly, I can’t be assed to. If someone was paying me to be an impartial person-who-always-interjects-in-SDMB-threads-impartially that would be one thing, but it’s neither my job nor my responsibility to follow Der Trihs and other not-quite-Der-Trihses around and constantly repeat “I agree with your overall political philosophy, but this particular claim you have made is overboard/insulting/extreme/unwarranted/assholish/whatever”. Multiply that by lots and lots of liberal posters, and we are where we are today.
Bump, what I said was demonstrably the case. Incontrovertibly. You can just gainsay it, or you can empirically show it to be wrong. If you like, we can start a specific thread.
It will exemplify the issue of a deficit of conservative thinking and logical argument. Let’s do it!
Slypork,
Yup. It does indeed illustrate how thin skinned you are.
No, negative towards the party or group is calling the other group “fucking stupid,” and discussing “liberal whining.” Having a partisan POV is not negative. A partisan POV can be very politely expressed with divergent perspectives respectfully acknowledged and disagreed with. As has been said: we can disagree without being disagreeable. Mocking Rush and Paul is not negative of the group “conservatives” or the group “Republicans”; it mocks particular public figures. If you feel unwelcome because this board has a partisan who thinks that Obama should target GOP districts that may be vulnerable as a result of the sequester … if you think a request for some works of fiction that are pro-conservative perspective dystopian novels is something that is “hate-filled” … well the problem is not with this board, and the problem is not that you are conservative.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
From my perspective, the key thing about global warming and same sex marriage is not so much that they’re hugely important issues on the scale of issues, but that they’re issues where I think an impartial observer would say that the weight of evidence and argument is very clearly on one side. (Of course I would say that, I’m a liberal, right? Except that there are plenty of other hot topics, including gun control, abortion, and economic policy in general where I think that my side is right, but I don’t feel that same “my lord, how could anyone possibly disagree? Every single piece of evidence is on my side…” feeling.)
[/QUOTE]
From my perspective, I’m considered a ‘conservative’ poster…on this board. Yet, I’m vehemently for same sex marriage. I also think that the evidence for global warming occurring and that it’s largely man-made has been pretty much overwhelming, my one point of contention being some of the (to me) more ridiculous predictions of gloom and doom…and on this I’d say there is pretty wide variance even among ‘liberal’ posters. As for immigration, I think that we should basically throw open the borders, and generally everyone who wants to be an American citizen (and pay taxes) should be allowed in. It’s what made this country great.
So, here we have supposed core ‘conservative’ opinions, yet my own (a supposedly ‘conservative’ poster by most 'dopers measure) are more inline with the boards corporate culture and stance. To a varying degree, I’d guess that most of the supposed ‘conservatives’ on THIS board are generally in agreement on that on at least 2 of those 3 supposedly ‘conservative’ positions…and in many cases, I’d be on all 3, with perhaps nuanced positions on one or more.
I agree that the Iraq War was a water shed, and it’s been a defining moment for the left and the basic board corporate culture. They were right, and those of us on the other side were wrong. I was wrong to initially support the war, and fairly quickly I came to regret even my half-hearted endorsement. I think that you are right, that subsequent right leaning 'dopers who tried to come onto the board felt the weight of that collective wrath. The same can be said for the Bush presidency…it’s painted and tainted right leaning 'dopers with a broad brush, in some cases rightly, in others…not so rightly. And it’s been a part of this boards culture ever since, and has directly affected the current mix of population, and reinforced that population and culture.
I tend to think that if you’re accusing someone of using “magic numbers” and having a “desire to hurt the poor”, then the burden of proof is on you, since those are pretty wild and obnoxious claims.
If it were technically feasible I’d support taggants in all explosives.
I’m guessing the NRA is against them in principle? Because tyranny?
Lets discuss this in the relevant thread though.
Hentor, I’d make it easier on you. Just supply a cite for the “desire to hurt the poor claim”.
The conservative side in American politics is the reason there isn’t SSM across the country and that DOMA still exists. That some of them aren’t as backwards as the others is something I agree with.
The science isn’t at all in question. It’s just that conservative news sources, and people who get paid to put carbon in the air feed misinformation to people and create confusion.
There are many solutions. And Lindsey Graham was working on bipartisan legislation when he decided that he needed to act like a bitch and drop all progress so he could go all out to hurt the Obama administration.
Conservatives aren’t inherently stupid. They currently advocate stupid policy positions.
This ignores the fact that libertarianism is largely a fantasy.
The answer is rather simple, and it being overlooked.
Between the mod actions and the posters on this board, the majority of conservative/republicans who were on this board simply left.
They left because folks like Der Trirhs can run around insulting conservatives/republicans non stop and nothing is done. The mods don’t do jack. The members don’t do jack. When someone with the ‘correct’ opinions is an ass, well, it is just ignored.
However, if you dare to post something that is incorrect, according to the Straight Dope Liberal Hive Mind, the pile on will begin. With Straw Men leading the charge and Ad Hominem (his trusty side kick) right behind.
Take for example this quote from Dinsdale.
snipped
So, anyone who disagrees with Dinsdale on these particular issues, regardless of how good of an argument they have for their position, is selfish, intolerant and full of bullshit. Fighting Ignorance, indeed!
Where are the liberals denouncing this kind of statement? No where to be seen, of course. That is, by the way, a rather mild example of this kind of behavior. Yet it is common and no one blinks an eye so long as the offender is on the ‘correct’ side.
I’ve come close to leaving a couple times, mainly because it gets old when the majority of posters insist anyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant, selfish, racist, bastard regardless of why there is a disagreement.
For all the claims of superior intellect around here, the debates are usually pretty weak. If there is a genuine disagreement, it quickly dissolves into ad hominem. The mind set seems to be that “Republicans/conservatives can’t actually disagree from a rational point of view so, therefore, they must be evil!”
Not every single poster on the board is this way, of course. But there are enough that it gets really old.
The mods could clean it up, of course. But I won’t hold my breath.
Slee
Is desiring to enact policies that would hurt the very poor, a desire to hurt the poor?
No.
No, especially since HE doesn’t think they would hurt the poor. He thinks they would help. If liberals enact policies they think would help The Poor, but they in fact hurt, does that mean they actually have a desire to hurt the poor?
What if those policies do nothing to reach your stated goal, that is to say, balancing the budget?