Why does this board lean Democrat?

[Procrustus]

@Bricker

Thanks for illustrating the point nicely.

OP, do you have any further questions about why this board leans left? The answer is that responses like the one above are legion, and largely tend to be ignored by the board’s liberal majority – if indeed not not echoed and cheered on.

In fact, each of the those propositions is debatable. People may, in good faith, reach opposite conclusions on any of those topics.

I disagree with the need for universal background checks for gun purchases, but I recognize that others may hold a different view. Neither conclusion is bullshit, to say nothing of selfish or intolerant. That’s the conservative view I bring to the board.

And procrustus feels perfectly safe answering as he did, even in a thread like this one…because he knows that responding as he did is perfectly acceptable to the board’s liberal culture and the majority of active, posting members.

So you wonder why the boards leans left? This is your answer.

You’re welcome.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

Alternate theory: the liberal lean commenced because of The Straight Dope’s origins in alternative print media. The out-group hostility was present, but muted, from the start, and grew as the lean became more pronounced.

I don’t think that’s an alternative theory, as it just restates what I wrote. Hostility to conservatives becomes a contributing factor only after liberals are a majority, so it doesn’t explain the initial distribution.

I have no doubt that if the initial distribution were 60/40 in the other direction, attitudes like **puddleglum’s **hostility toward liberals would prevail and have the same effect instead of **Procrustus **representing the majority here (or at least the majority among those who don’t understand the good faith motivations of one’s ideological opponents–I’m not actually sure such people constitute a majority of the board).

[Bricker]

@Amateur_Barbarian

In all seriousness, no pitting intended, there seems to be a direct correlation between free, open and intelligent discussion and political leaning. I have never found a board where the discussion was sincere, intelligent and accommodating that had obvious right-leaning participants. The boards on which a rightward leaning is evident seem more concerned with protecting certain ideas against all challenges than discussing them. Which fits my overall perception: conservatives have been in a highly defensive/protective mode for the last two decades.

Or in short form:

@silenus

Reality leans Left.

Let’s explore that concept a bit, shall we?

As hinted above, most propositions that are hotly debated here have opposing sides that can each be reasonably held by people of good faith. Unfortunately, because most of the debates are objectively unable to be called conclusively for one side, it’s very difficult to falsify the proposition alluded to by the quotes above: that those who lean left are open to persuasion and that sincere, intelligent and accommodating discussion will carry the day.

But occasionally, a topic comes along that’s a slam dunk for one side or the other. For example, I regard global warming as a slam-dunk for the left. We might reasonably debate the cost-benefit breaks of particular remediation efforts, but the overall theses: that global temperature is rising; that climate change will ensue as a result; that some significant portion of this is tied to human activity – these are all solidly established.

But when a topic arises that’s a slam-dunk for the right, do we see the liberal masses here acknowledging error and withdrawing?

In this thread, the OP excoriates the NRA for opposing the addition of identifying taggants to gunpowder:

And so it’s impossible to track the gunpowder in the Boston Marathon bombs.

Thanks, NRA, for freedom.

As the thread develops, it becomes reasonably clear that the OP’s thesis is flawed in some important respects. The bomb used black powder evidently extracted from fireworks, not modern gunpowder; black powder is simply not a factor in statistically significant crime; and the NRA’s moral failing seems to have morphed from the claimed opposing the use of taggants to the actual one of failing to continue to fund additional research. In short, in my view, the OP’s thesis was thoroughly debunked.

Where do we see the claimed leftist openness to conclusion reached as a result of intelligent discussion? What’s the response when Reality happens to Lean Right?

[YogSothoth]

Democrats are smarter and the board leans towards fighting ignorance. There you go, the answer

[Bricker]

@Dinsdale

Leaving aside your phrasing of these issues, I’d generally say there are significant elements of selfishness, intolerance, and bullshit in many of the positions most conservatives - including you - espouse on these matters. Just my opinion, of course.

Let’s be clear. There’s no question that any position can be defended (or attacked) by reasoning based on selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit.

That is as distinct from the underlying issue itself being per se a matter of selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit.

In other words, do you contend that if someone opposes an immigration amnesty proposal, their opposition must be grounded in selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit?

[Pixel_Dent]

@Thudlow_Boink

Republicans all have full-time jobs or families, that keep them too busy for spending all their time posting on an internet message board.

For the record, I don’t think this is all that valid, but I do sometimes wonder if there are certain demographics of people who are underrepresented here because their lifestyles preclude spending much time online.

There may be something to this. In recent elections one of the largest demographic splits was between married and unmarried people (both men and women). A majority of married people voted for Republican candidates and a majority of unmarried people voted for Democrats. My wild ass guess is that unmarried people have more time to participate on a board like this. Has anyone ever done a married/unmarried poll?

[Procrustus]

@Bricker

In other words, do you contend that if someone opposes an immigration amnesty proposal, their opposition must be grounded in selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit?

Well, there’s always ignorance.

[Bricker]

@Procrustus

Well, there’s always ignorance.

Is it possible to have a sincere, good-faith position, derived from reasonable knowledge of public facts, that opposes immigration amnesty?

[YogSothoth]

@Bricker

Is it possible to have a sincere, good-faith position, derived from reasonable knowledge of public facts, that opposes immigration amnesty?

Sure, but the Republican’s haven’t found out what it is yet.

[bup]

@Bricker

OP, do you have any further questions about why this board leans left? The answer is that responses like the one above are legion, and largely tend to be ignored by the board’s liberal majority – if indeed not not echoed and cheered on.

While the phenomenon you speak of is real, I don’t see it as the definitive, nor even the primary, answer. In fact, that could only happen after the majority of the board were already liberal.

There are a lot of plausible explanations, including the one I think is correct - left and right mindsets are fundamentally different, and one’s mindset is congenital. Left mindsets tend to accept partial answers, allow for uncertainty, and place less emphasis on authority, whereas right mindsets tend to see things as right or wrong, and place more emphasis on authority. A message board with the explicit goal of fostering extended discussion is going to attract more people from the left.

Here’s another plausible explanation. Right-wingers work harder at their jobs. Left-wingers surf the internet.

[Procrustus]

@Bricker

Is it possible to have a sincere, good-faith position, derived from reasonable knowledge of public facts, that opposes immigration amnesty?

Not really. Just because there are two sides to every issue does not mean that both sides deserve respect. This really isn’t my issue, but I’ve been paying attention somewhat to the “debate.” All the opposition I’ve heard can be classified as ignorant, racist, political, or incoherent. I will grant you there is a legitimate debate about what the details of reform should look like.

Your other examples (abortion, tax hikes for wealthy, and background checks for gun purchases) actually do leave room for honest disagreement. I was probably too flippant earlier, but sincere, good-faith and reasonable arguments from the right on these issues is depressingly rare, IMO.

[Dinsdale]

@Bricker

In other words, do you contend that if someone opposes an immigration amnesty proposal, their opposition must be grounded in selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit?

Why use words other than the ones I wrote? You are clearly too intelligent, and far too experienced in precise phrasing, to ignore the slew of qualifiers I included. A tactic that I personally consider bullshit - but you may differ.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@bup

left and right mindsets are fundamentally different, and one’s mindset is congenital. Left mindsets tend to accept partial answers, allow for uncertainty, and place less emphasis on authority

I’m not sure that’s correct. At least, it may be only somewhat true. Besides, who says so?

[Freddy_the_Pig]

This board originated as an adjunct to a column published in alternative newspapers which were targeted toward young, far-left readers in large cities. You could hardly have picked a more liberal demographic. Is anybody honestly surprised that mostly liberals learned of and patronized the message board?

Nowadays people find both the column and the message board by Google search, and the original audience is irrelevant. The liberalism persists because the liberals already here create a more congenial environment for their fellows.

But go ahead, keep congratulating yourselves on your open-mindedness and erudition. It’s cute.

[rhubarbarin]

According to all polls taken here (and as is also evident from the quality of the content and posting), the regular posters on the SDMB have a higher IQ, and are much more educated, than the average population. According to research done on the American population, intelligent, educated people are far more likely to be liberal, Democrats or Independents, and agnostic/atheist/irreligious.

Obviously we have plenty of intelligent, highly-educated posters who are not liberals or Democrats.

[RTFirefly]

@Thudlow_Boink

If we had any actual Republicans here, they might suggest something like this:

Republicans all have full-time jobs or families, that keep them too busy for spending all their time posting on an internet message board.

For the record, I don’t think this is all that valid, but I do sometimes wonder if there are certain demographics of people who are underrepresented here because their lifestyles preclude spending much time online.

Perhaps, but Rush Limbaugh’s massive audience demonstrates that there are tens of millions of conservatives with plenty of free time during the day.

[bump]

@Freddy_the_Pig

Nowadays people find both the column and the message board by Google search, and the original audience is irrelevant. The liberalism persists because the liberals already here create a more congenial environment for their fellows.

Well said in 2 sentences. I think this is the real answer here- it’s not anything to do with the stupidity or openmindedness of conservatives/republicans, but rather it’s just not a comfortable place for them, for reasons mentioned above, and reinforced by multiple posters’ comments.

With a few exceptions, the “conservatives” around here are either really thick-skinned and spoiling for a fight, or they’re really pretty moderate when it comes down to it, and I think that doesn’t really give a particularly good level of discussion- I keep thinking that if I’m considered conservative on here, it’s pretty skewed, because I’m WAY to the left of many of my acquaintances in real life.

[Bricker]

@Dinsdale

Why use words other than the ones I wrote? You are clearly too intelligent, and far too experienced in precise phrasing, to ignore the slew of qualifiers I included. A tactic that I personally consider bullshit - but you may differ.

I’ve quoted the entire exchange below.

@Dinsdale

This talk about “welcoming” reminds me of an issue I confronted in a couple of UU congregations where the issue was welcoming LGBT folk. I didn’t give a fuck about welcoming folk based on their sexual orientation. Instead, I was interested in welcoming folk whose beliefs were consistent with what I understood to be UU principles. Didn’t care who or what they were or weren’t fucking.

I find it funny - and sad - when liberals castigate themselves for not spreading their reach so wide as to include even those who actively work against their strongest core beliefs. Don’t hear a lot of conservative groups moaning over a need to attract more liberal folk.

Hell, conservatives are welcome here as everyone else is. But when they spout selfish, intolerant bullshit, they will be called on it. And conservatives don’t seem to like that too well.

@Bricker

The problem is, in my view, that your definition of “selfish, intolerant bullshit,” seems to match a great many ideas.

Is the opposition to immigration amnesty, tax hikes for the wealthy, universal background checks for gun purchases, and abortion ALL “selfish, intolerant bullshit?”

@Dinsdale

Leaving aside your phrasing of these issues, I’d generally say there are significant elements of selfishness, intolerance, and bullshit in many of the positions most conservatives - including you - espouse on these matters. Just my opinion, of course.

@Bricker

Let’s be clear. There’s no question that any position can be defended (or attacked) by reasoning based on selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit.

That is as distinct from the underlying issue itself being per se a matter of selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit.

In other words, do you contend that if someone opposes an immigration amnesty proposal, their opposition must be grounded in selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit?

@Dinsdale

Why use words other than the ones I wrote? You are clearly too intelligent, and far too experienced in precise phrasing, to ignore the slew of qualifiers I included. A tactic that I personally consider bullshit - but you may differ.

The only significant difference I can see is that I said “grounded in” while you said “in may of the positions…” and added “significant elements.”

But I was asking if “grounded in” was an accurate restatement of what you said. And with all due respect, I don’t see a “slew” of qualifiers here:

@Dinsdale

Leaving aside your phrasing of these issues, I’d generally say there are significant elements of selfishness, intolerance, and bullshit in many of the positions most conservatives - including you - espouse on these matters. Just my opinion, of course.

If you’re contending that significant elements of selfishness, intolerance, and bullshit in many of the positions most conservatives espouse isn’t fairly summarized as “grounded in selfishness, intolerance, or bullshit,” I think that’s a pretty thin complaint.

[Dinsdale]

Fine, Bricker. You are correct, I am wrong, and my entire life has been a hollow mockery up to this moment.

Have a nice life - I have no desire to discuss this or anything else with you.

[RTFirefly]

@Freddy_the_Pig

This board originated as an adjunct to a column published in alternative newspapers which were targeted toward young, far-left readers in large cities. You could hardly have picked a more liberal demographic. Is anybody honestly surprised that mostly liberals learned of and patronized the message board?

Again, my problem with this is that the board really was a lot more balanced between left and right in 1999-2000. It wasn’t like we started off firmly liberal.

What got us from there to here was the Bush Administration. What kept us here was that the GOP kept moving further right after Bush left office.