From a current thread, a great example of helpful behavior (and, by extension, an indirect example of the kind of behavior complained about):
Here’s the issue: while you, personally, have been pretty vocal about all these things, and have gone after the anti-GM-food people with just as much energy as you have the anti-warming folks, I can’t say the same is true for the tone of the board as a whole.
In this thread, for example, you don’t weigh in (not a criticism; it’s not feasible to expect you to find every instance of anti-science garbage posted). But others do, and despite being generally refuted, they are not reviled or piled upon. And indeed, they continue to post in other places, their credibility intact.
And I regard you as an especially valuable resource for missions like this. When I dispute their claims, undoubtedly at least some reaction is, “Well, Bricker is conservative; of COURSE he’s standing up for Monsanto.” When you post, that rationale is denied to them.
I explained why it would be beneficial, if you refuse to see it, then oh well.
Ha! This entire thread is about rule enforcement, the lack thereof or the bias inherent in the board.
Can we move the whole thread?
This is another thing that happens quite a bit around here, particularly with a minority opinion. Posters confuse “reasons” with “reasons they agree with”. If they don’t agree with it, “that’s not a reason!”
Then let me rephrase it: I did not agree that his reason was a valid one.
Agreed. My son is a conservative/libertarian atheist. However, there appears IMHO that the preponderance of atheists on this board are of a more liberal leaning, hence the association. It would be interesting to see how the members on this board split on the theist/agnostic/atheist + liberal/conservative/libertarian spread. It would especially nice if mods were included.
I’d partially agree about the “do not be a jerk” ruling but, again IMHO, the more liberal posters, especially the “usual suspects” are given a wink and a nod.
I just wonder if the conservative “jerks” stand out because their views are so different from what is considered “normal” or “acceptable” by the liberal members and mods? A few grey hairs in the middle of a head of black hair really stands out.
No its not. Its supposed to be about why the board leans leftward.
The topics you listed are all tangents within the thread, but are not what the thread is supposed to be about, and are really just about working the refs honestly. Working the refs does belong in ATMB, not in GD afaik.
What about the Yamal series and the most important tree in the world? Are you aware of the Yamal series and why there may be an issue with that series? Did you know that there are issues with station sitting and that a U.S. GAO audit showed 42% of climate stations did not meet one or more of the station sitting standards? Do you know what that means? How about the sloppy data handling and questionable statistical methods?
These are issues that should be questioned. That is how science works. Unless you are on the 'Dope where unquestioning acceptance to the party line is the only acceptable stance.
And that is the problem This board has turned into a liberal echo chamber where real dissenting views are shouted down. There are some trivial arguments about the details of issues, but if you question the underlyng idea the pile on begins.
“How dare you question the climate scientists? For it is a given that all the data collection, proxy creation techniques, mathmatical methods, data manipulation and models are perfect. The climate scientists are as pure as driven snow and if you question anything you are a heartless conservative who wants to kill the poor.” Or something like that.
But this board won’t change. A few conservatives will hang around and serve as a target for the hate.
Slee
A very important teachable moment is here.
**You are not even aware that it was questioned and the most recent tests, by skeptical scientists no less, found that the scientists that the GAO reported about did an excellent job of noticing the problems and adjusting them. ** (This bit of the scientists adjusting for the known problems is usually an item that the poisoned sources do not mention to the ones looking at them)
What it is clear is that outfits like Watts up with that, discredited scientists and bloglessors are still taking you and many others for a ride and you are not aware of it. The only reason why at this late date you are repeating an item that was already investigated and checked by skeptics shows that the FUD producers (that are fake skeptics) are still fooling many Republicans.
It is unfortunate that the tenacity of some posters leads others to retreat to whiny bullshit like this. On behalf of the “liberal” members of the board, I apologize for persecuting you.
I’m a bit less generous, and only extend an apology to the reasonable conservatives on the Board, and hope both of them are well and happy.
I apologize for nothing, because I see nothing to apologize for.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
Liberals are in majority because they are best characterized as a form of mindless herd animal that seek to have their views reflected by a choir of the likeminded, and if a place has first gotten a few extra of them others of the same race will start to migrate to the same location.
THIS! Thank you for saying this and on behalf of the “conservative” members I would like to apologize for the members who insist on playing gotcha and get snarky. It is out of line and not productive. Unfortunately, you and the other “liberal” members like you are not the ones who should apologize just as myself and the more civil “conservatives” shouldn’t really have to apologize for the dorks. If we were all sitting in a bar discussing any of the subjects on this board we (most likely) won’t sink to the level of animosity and ill-will that we frequently see here although I can think of one or two members who would be throwing drinks and fists. The anonymity available only gives some people the impression they have free-reign to ignore the basic tenets of polite discourse.
I have a friend who is very far to the left of me: vegetarian to avoid animal cruelty, participated in an Occupy protest, anti-gun, pro-abortion for any reason, atheist, etc. We can still get together and shoot the shit and even debate these topics and others without it coming to blows. The only thing I can’t forgive him for is that he’s a Cub’s fan.:smack:
Well, this helps.
eta: Dammit, can we not at least TRY to learn from each other? The “apology” posts above are just as bad.
That was his exact point, so thanks?
The fact that you don’t agree that the people affected do feel the change would help is foreign to you.
What makes you the arbiter of such a subjective thing?
You do realize that he was being sarcastic in his apology (which is why he followed it up with “…leads others to retreat to whiny bullshit…”), right?
We are really getting somewhere! :rolleyes:
Mother pus-bucket! That’s the second time in the past couple days I missed it. Usually I’m good at reading it. In the name of God’s greasy gonads we really need a freaking sarcasm font.
I was hoping that just this once there was a little sincerity on this board. I saw what looked like a gentle flower of hope, slipping through the cracks in the unyielding sidewalk of cynicism and scorn, only to watch it crushed under the hob-nailed boot of partiality and partisanship.
Clearly false, because if that was true we would all have fled to Democratic Underground or some other such explicitly/exclusively liberal message board.
Certainly, if I had a choice between the SDMB and a board that was in all ways equivalent except that it was evenly split, politically, I would switch in a heartbeat. (A more interesting question would be a choice between the SDMB and a board that was in all ways equivalent except with the ration of liberal-to-conservatives switched.)