He started a GD thread saying something like “here is a quote from the President” saying that Iraq had WMD, and asking if it was a lie, IIRC. It was President Clinton, not Bush.And some of the Usual Suspects fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Collounsbury was banned and then let back, IIRC. But he hated Bush with the requisite fury, so he (as you say) was allowed to get away with jerkish behavior a great deal more than he should have. Interestingly enough, I am not aware than any conservative has ever been allowed back after being banned - only Bush-haters like lissener and some others. Wasn’t it Demosthyles who got four or five Final Warnings?
True.
Not always. Euthanasiast was suspended (and driven away - he hasn’t posted here for a couple of years) because he started a Pit thread that was embarrassing to Planned Parenthood. Lynn Bodoni wasn’t about to let that stand, so she warned him for trolling and then made up a rule on the spot to justify suspending him when he protested.
So it does happen on that side. And I do think it is part of the reason this board leans Democrat. As mentioned a while back, manhattan, who used to be one of the mods, left the boards explicitly because this place is so hostile to conservatives.
Hm. Deliberately lying to the GDer’s about the source of a quote is a pretty jerky thing to do. I consider it downright unethical in a debate forum, and I’m usually a pretty strong proponent of “let people post whatever they like, the truth will out”.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he did get banned. Twice ;). It’s likely he got a bit more rope than normal, but I don’t think it had anything to do with him being a liberal ( an appellation he’d probably despise ), but more that he was a consistently good contributor on certain subjects and fair or not that’s going to buy you good will. Most often he was vicious to jerks and fools ( unfortunately not always ) but he could never quite contain his impatience to the appropriate forum.
I didn’t claim that he weighed in as a Moderator. Just the fact that he is a Moderator and added to the pile on was my point. And just look at the tone. Post 10 or not.
Your schtick has grown tiresome. But thanks for making my point. We agree on probably 90% concerning Climate Change. But you M-U-S-T C-R-U-S-H A-N-Y O-P-P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E M-U-S-T B-E-L-I-E-V-E!!! Can I get an AMEN?!!!
The problem is that based on nothing whatsoever but the misinformation you consume you ignore the last ten percent, in favor of nonsense put out there by RW media.
And I doubt it could be fairly characterized as 10% in any case.
Screaming incoherently doesn’t obscure the fact that based on nothing but personal preference you ignore what the vast majority of working climate scientists think is happening.
If you generally accept evolution, but still think that dinosaurs and man co-existed, you’re still wrong.
Pointing that out isn’t fervor, it’s a desire to help you.
Nope. You still cannot comprehend that we agree on the vast majority of climate change issues. My problem is that for you it is a friggin religion. You’re like an old presbyterian evangelist seeing evil in drink, dance and what not. You turn every thread you can into a friggin global warming thread. And everyone must agree with you 100%. If not, they’re the enemy, uniformed. “listen to right-wing talking points” (:rolleyes:), blah, blah, fucking blah. Your schtick is old. Rude. Tiresome. and this is from someone who, as I said AGREES with you on 90% of the substance. Yeesh.
The point here is that someone is not paying attention. I already pointed at creationists that are mostly Republicans and to disparage anti nukes and anti GMO people that are mostly liberal. It is not accurate at all to say (not you) that Climate science is the main item here.
Finally- a recent concrete example of how bad behavior by liberals gets a pass from almost everyone, including the moderators.
In this thread about why/what some Christians think science has an agenda against them, we get the snark and condescension in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th posts, without actually answering the question, and essentially poisoning the well to some degree for further debate. There’s been no moderation telling Der Trihs or Procrustus to lay off and let the actual discussion unfold at all.
So I ask you… if you were someone who was on the fence about the role of science vs. religion, or someone who was fairly religious, but not sold on this message board, would you stick around and read threads where religion is treated like that right out of the gate?
Same exact thing happens in political threads- that’s what several of us have been pointing out throughout this thread.
You believe that being anti-religion is a liberal belief? Not. Not not not. Many liberals are religious, many religious individuals have strong secularist beliefs. Fundamentalism may be a conservative core value right now (was not always so), but the converse is not true.
What you have documented is the obvious: there are jerks here and their jerkiness is expressed in many subject matters. Most of us ignore the jerks and do not feed the trolls. Sometimes if the jerkiness is expressing an idea that we feel the need to comment on we will engage, but often we do not. Mods here enforce the do not be a jerk and no trolling rules better than many other places but there is still some leeway given. To all.
The claim that “conservative” or fundamentalist poster jerkiness/trolling is moderated more strictly than “liberal” or hard atheist poster jerkiness is a baseless conclusion mostly emergent of confirmation bias. (Slypork’s list of “obviously” offensive to conservative threads was a great illustration of how that bias plays out.) IF there are more jerky liberal posters here because there are more liberal posters, but there are not more liberal posters because there are more liberal jerks. On a per poster basis my experience has been that conservatives here are much more likely to behave in a jerky fashion than liberals are. That is as obvious to me as the opposite is obvious to you, the epitome of YMMV. If anything, IMHO, there are more liberal posters here because there is some moderation against jerkiness here. Again, those with intellectual bents (not equal to college educated or high IQ) are more often liberal minded, and people with such a bent tend to appreciate a board that limits (or at least mainly contains it to one forum) jerky behaviors to a level that does not interfere with actual debate and discussion of divergent POVs. Few other MBs IME do that as well as this one does, hence more with an intellectual bent are attracted here, hence more liberals, atheists, and secularists are. The traits currently co-vary.
More intellectuals used to be conservatives and the overwhelming liberal bias among that particular sub-group (one highly over-represented here, especially in GD) not as big in days past but the current conservative movement has been unfriendly to them and hard for them to defend. Do any of you even dispute that?
