For what it’s worth, I’ve noted a conservative exodus during the first Trump administration, along with a number of long-time-poster-but-now-banned accounts during that time. It really hasn’t been the same since then. As much as the ‘Regards, Shodan’ sign-off annoyed me at least it wasn’t an echo chamber back then.
You should check out r/conservative over on Reddit, they actively ban anyone that expresses a liberal viewpoint, even once.
It’s quite the echo chamber and probably more comfortable for you.
I concur. It would be fair to say I did not have a high opinion of him, and I do not miss him.
That reminds me,
Three fucking days and nothing to support this spurious claim of ‘constant, needling, not-quite-moddable insults’.
Think of it this way DemonTree, if you can actually find some rule breaking, and not just you being butthurt, maybe you can get at least one of us banned and not have have to worry so much about citing your opinions
I didn’t even express a liberal viewpoint and my first, and only, post at Free Republic got me banned.
The never answered question:
We are too liberal and restricted? Compared to who??
C’mon. At its peak the SDMB was in the Top 40 of all message boards in existence in terms of traffic. That’s definitely still true. 
There’s a small cohort who aren’t much into trolling, and are just true believers in conservative ideology, which requires being ignorant (willing or otherwise) as to all of its failings. I saw adaher as one of that type.
I think there are a lot of such folk who sincerely believed in conservative ideology and realized after Trump that it’s just too hard to defend, and since they weren’t that into trolling, they just gave up and wandered off.
I’ll clarify that I don’t find really respect or miss people like that, because supporting lies is supporting lies no matter why. If your arguments keep getting wrecked and your sacred cows keep turning out to be demons, you need to reflect and grow. But I do appreciate that some conservatives aren’t in it purely for the antagonism. If we’ve got to have them, then at least let’s have that type.
Was that supposed to be an answer to my question?
I haven’t read the thread in its entirety.
The Dopers that I would identify as leaning conservative (and I’d guess they would agree) are reading from the same hymnal as the more liberal Dopers.
We’re existing in a common reality.
With this, all kinds of interesting and thoughtful discussion can and does ensue, informed by different experiences, values, beliefs, priorities, and ideologies.
But the stereotypical MAGA, or even a self-titled “non-MAGA Trump supporter” tends to live in a nearly perfect information silo where verifiable, falsifiable, and quantifiable information either isn’t disseminated, or – if it is – it is so nakedly skewed, and leaves out so much critical information as to be worse than useless. It’s misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda.
It’s endlessly frustrating and seemingly almost never productive to engage with somebody when you disagree on a fairly basic menu of critically important facts, particularly when you can bring the receipts, and they can’t, won’t, and are blithely dismissive of yours.
Since Fox News and Rush Limbaugh – more or less – we live in different worlds. Mine is still reliant on spin but they are also still largely grounded in reality.
For today’s Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, Newsmax, OAN, and RW podcast consumers who never leave their bubbles or fact-check their own preferred sources, their time on the SDMB will either tend to be painful and totally non-productive, or they’ll just be trolls.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I value the conservative Dopers with whom I’ve engaged. I wish we, and the world, had more.
Agreed, with a qualification. Libertarian ideology is easy to defend. Libertarian-adjacent ideology is easy to defend. But both would involve constant criticisms of Trump, since Trump reverses his positions on a weekly basis. Same for any consistent ideology, other than perhaps monarchy or certain other anti-democratic ones.
This wouldn’t be a problem, except that real-life conservatives are tribal. In fact, the bulk of real-life conservatives aren’t especially libertarian - that was a big show. Those 10 principles of conservatives posited by Russell Kirk? Ditto. How is it possible for someone to abandon their long-defended principles overnight? The question answers itself: these weren’t actual principles to begin with. As Stuart Stevens noted, it was all a lie.
And I thought I was participating in an actual conversation.
Now there are never-Trump conservatives, the best example being Tom Nichols. He continued to post on twitter/X without breaking a sweat. No problem. There’s a never-Trump outlet sponsored by staunch conservative Bill Kristol named The Bulwark. But its reach is limited and I’m not sure what share of their audience are self-identified conservatives.
I remember a lot of my conservative colleagues saying that Bill Clinton’s philandering made him ineligible for leading the nation.
I think that’s fair and I agree. I do think some people thought they were taking a principled conservative position, and when Trump made a mockery of it, they more or less withdrew from the conversation. Defending their tribe was a losing proposition, but they weren’t ready to leave it and join the other side, so they just sort of disconnected and tuned out. That’s my theory anyway.
I’m guessing they went to some non-crazy conservative board where they talk about how it’s so unfortunate that liberal excesses forced so many people to vote for Trump, and they can’t wait until liberals stop being so crazy so that people will stop supporting Trump, so that they can have normal conservatism again.
My Evangelical father in law used to say exactly that- that “you can’t separate the man from his morals, and so Clinton was unsuitable for the job.”
He now supports Trump and denies ever saying the thing both me and his daughter absolutely remember him saying.
From 2016.
Yet another example of how their rage at Clinton was about tribalism, not principle.
The first thing they are taught is that hypocrisy is is a tool to be used against others, and not a personal defect in themselves.
True for business conservatives too.
You’re right that seriously provocative “debate” topics tend to stand out disproportionately in the memory, but I don’t think it was only flash-in-the-pan provocateurs who brought them up. I remember a number of quite prolonged threads of that nature ginned up by the likes of december and Starving_Artist, for example.
Note that the SDMB has also booted or simply failed to retain a number of self-identified progressive posters, including Brain_Glutton, matt_mcl, Maeglin and others. But people somehow don’t perceive that as similarly a failure of board policy.
Yup. It’s not that there’s no intellectual merit anywhere in the fundamental principle of political conservatism, and it’s not that there are no defensible policies that have traditionally been associated with conservatism. It’s mostly that the modern self-identified “conservative” movement in the US is a really tough sell to people who have any interest in fighting ignorance.
It’s not progressives’ fault that most self-identified conservatives in the US nowadays have to some extent hitched their ideological or careerist wagons to the cause of ignorance. Nor are Dopers particularly welcoming to any non-conservative types who show up to advocate lefty-flavored ignorance campaigns, like left-wing antivaxer conspiracy theorists, or flat-out utopians like Communists or anarchists.
Wow, I remember Maeglin, I can’t believe it has been over a decade.