Communication on this forum

[dank69]

Perhaps we right-wingers aren't posting there because we didn't know you had resigned. I didn't. I left because when a mod insists that one party is evil, wanting to starve children and kill old people, and the other party is simply too nice, playing softball for graciously allowing the Republicans to use the same procedural tactic the Democrats have used for tens of decades, continuing to post would only get me banned. When a mod obviously wants only a left wing echo chamber where people wonder over and over why the Democrats are always too nice to the Republicans, I'd only be trolling to continue posting. Not much point.

Nothing personal, I just didn't see any point in spending my limited time where I obviously wasn't wanted.

LOL another guy so blinded by his own partisanship that he thinks CK was a lefty. Tell me why we should take you conservatives seriously again?

 

[BoberFett]

LOL another guy so blinded by his own partisanship that he thinks CK was a lefty. Tell me why we should take you conservatives seriously again?

Plenty of idiots around here think I'm a "rightie". Tell me again why anybody should take anybody around here seriously.

 

[werepossum]

LOL another guy so blinded by his own partisanship that he thinks CK was a lefty. Tell me why we should take you conservatives seriously again?

If you want to feel that calling most Republicans leaders evil and complaining that Democrats are just too nice to them is not a lefty position, it's a free world. Just remember to wear your helmet when you go out to play.

If you want to call one side evil, you have chosen a side. Period. Attempting to define yourself as non-partisan at that point is simply idiotic.

 

[Greenman]

because opinions can be completely and utterly wrong?
This is why you are and always will be a dumbass, and why Doc ran away crying. CK was a libertarian, not a lefty. Doc ran away rather than admit his label didn't make sense, but you are just dumb enough to go all the way with it.

And this is why you're simply an ass. I don't get the emotional need that drives you to have to prove yourself superior. If you know something I don't, then just say it. I also don't much care for the keyboard tough guy thing, you wouldn't dare say such a thing to my face, why not forgo the display of cowardice and simply present your opinion?

For the record, it was CK that ran away crying, not Doc. As for CK being a libertarian, I guess that's possible, but it didn't come across in any of his posts that I read. Maybe I just didn't spend as much time following him around as you did.

 

[ivwshane]

Be sure and let us know how that works out for you.

I'll tell you how it works out since its the M.O. of a lot of posters including doc. He will continue to ignore the question and when the time comes he will spout the same bs again and he will be called on it again and the process will repeat.

 

[Greenman]

CK was just as militantly anti-conservative as I am. Allowing them to spew their logical fallacies and misinformation is overly generous to them. There are plenty of legitimate attack vectors against Obama and the Dems but conservatives are too stupid to understand them let alone figure out which ones are legitimate. They even fuck up the legitimate vectors.

And here we have that oh so gracious and understanding liberal mentality. Starting from this point, there can be no discussion. You've announced that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, you believe yourself to be infallible, what is there to debate? Why would anyone waste there time arguing with a completely closed mind?

Honestly, had I known this a couple pages back I wouldn't have bothered responding to you at all.

 

[ivwshane]

And here we have that oh so gracious and understanding liberal mentality. Starting from this point, there can be no discussion. You've announced that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, you believe yourself to be infallible, what is there to debate? Why would anyone waste there time arguing with a completely closed mind?

Honestly, had I known this a couple pages back I wouldn't have bothered responding to you at all.

Lol! That's not what he said at all. In fact he didn't even use the word "disagrees", so once again a straw man is used. No surprise

 

[Greenman]

Fair enough. What, specifically, would you change in the structure? Iow, go to the rules for DC (the structure), and then tell us what you would change.
By structure I mean the entire set up, from implantation to moderation. I think the first mistake was the screening process, and the accompanying announcement that there were members that shouldn't bother applying. That doesn't say "welcome". It comes across as authoritarian and somewhat hostile. That set the tone for everything that followed. CK being one of the mods and the most prolific poster also made it feel like the CK forum. His own personal platform if you will. Opening it to everyone at a later date was pretty much saying "were desperate and we'll take anyone".
Another issue is one that's prevalent throughout AT. The open contempt for religion, mostly for Christian religion. You don't have to be religious to find it distasteful.


Well, you post in P&N, which is a far more hostile environment, where dissenting opinions are regularly not "well received" plus, plus, plus.

So, how can this be your stated reason be why you don't post in DC?

I don't post much anywhere, but I do post more in P&N than DC. You'll find that most of my posts are simple opinions, I don't go and find corroborating sources (as they are invariably repudiated as right wing/left wing hack pieces), and I frankly don't care to spend the time necessary to assemble a proper thesis.
I don't post there now as I don't see any topics that interest me, and I have yet to come up with one that made me wish to seek the opinions of others.

Ok, so now, it's not the structure, it's the management, i.e., who carries out the structure.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think I covered them above.

But, since CK resigned 3 months ago, the only moderator in DC is the staunch conservative EagleKeeper. Have you really any problems with his management of DC, that have caused a hostile environment to conservatives posting?
None what so ever.

And if not, why do you continue to not post there?
See above.

And if your answer pertains to the past re: CK being a mod and/or at first having to join by invitation, both of those impediments have long been removed.
Indeed they have, but I think the stigma remains.

So what is the hostile environment, as of today, and indeed, as of 3 months ago, that you can point to as to why you and other conservatives who do not post in DC continue not to post there?

It's tough to quantify an attitude, and I have no desire to go search through threads looking for examples.
Some of this I've addressed in my other comments, but at this point, it could simply be that most people are used to not posting there. It's tough to change a bad first impression.

If I was tasked with improving the DC, I'd invite members to visit. The golden rule would be to respect others point of view, and I'd have a mod or two that were soft spoken and said very little about the actual topics being discussed.

Note: It appears I've thoroughly screwed the formatting of this post, I hope you can make sense out of it. Since I've used up my quota of typing for the week, I'm not going to try to fix it.

 

[Sulaco]

I never had any personal qualms or even interactions with CK, but I read through plenty of the threads and discussions he was involved with.

I don't have anything against the guy, but his demeanor, attitude, and tone did not lend itself to being an effective moderator of a discussion group. It just didn't.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, whether you are similarly frustrated with what you perceive to be gross incompetence and idiocy of one political set of users or another, you can't expect to gain any kind of respect or dialogue with the ultra-inflammatory tone, overgeneralized stereotyping and insults, and high-horse bravado that he had. You can't expect to foster any kind of dialogue when you have in your signature quotes about an entire political party/ideology being corrupt/stupid, making blanket insulting statements about a decent (if not majority)percentage of the forum user base, and essentially speaking down to or flat-out insulting those who disagree with your views.
You might think they're dumb. You might think they're idiots. If you're a moderator, you shouldn't have tantrums about it. Some shred of composure and professionalism must be maintained.

Look at EagleKeeper as an example. His views mostly seem to be politically conservative, but despite overwhelming disagreement in many cases with his stances, he has, from what I have seen, very seldom resorted to personal attacks, generalizations of dozens of forum users, and general high-handed ranting. If someone has had personal experiences that show otherwise, by all means, post. I don't track EK's posts, but just anecdotally comparing the two, he is far more composed and impersonal.

That is the kind of person who should be actively moderating discussions. And CK didn't have that; it became too personal, and his last posts show that.

 

[OverVolt]

The far right is crazy, but it has given the left this sense of "can't be wrong on anything" and they are themselves also getting a bit lofty and disconnected from reality.

The groups, left and right, are drifting further and further apart, and thats not really a good thing. Whatever happened to common sense? Sheeesh.

 

[woolfe9998]

This, exactly. Whenever I find myself angry at something on an Internet forum I stop at have a good laugh at my own expense. It's the Internet, don't mean nothin'.

For what it's worth, Charles actually has some non-doctrinaire views and is an interesting person. He just really, really hates conservatives.

Oh the ironing. When I read this description of CK, I thought I was reading something I would write about you. You express many over-the-top hyperbolized opinions about libs, but you're also non-doctrinaire and quite reasonable on many specific issues. Your description of him is fairly close to accurate. You guys have some things in common. Not trying to be insulting here at all, just descriptive. You and CK are both interesting to debate at times.

 

[davmat787]

It might be civil and it might not. In every political test I am pretty much dead center. I know I'm considered a conservative here and I understand why. But I consider myself a libertarian. I give that background because I know that Conservatives and Liberals can get along. We can have a discussion, agree to disagree and see the merit in the opposing argument.

But here's where the problem comes about. Insert the Progressive into the mix. They are the take no prisoners, my way or the highway, I know everything and you're a stupid motherfucker for not agreeing with me group. There is no discussion to be had with them. You agree or you get belittled, berated, chastised and usually are called some names too.

As far as policing our own, well, it's a noble notion. I've already read SlickSnake's post above and my opinion will be centered around what you've said about policing but in context of SlickSnake's post. This is dangerous territory and words must be chosen carefully. This forum has reaped what it's sown. I worked for an enormous corporation for 30 years. The culture of a corporation, any company actually, comes down from the top and permeates the entire organization. If you want it to change, you have to start at the top.

Policing is happening. An individual who is very high up the ladder recently asked for some help from everyone. In his sig, which had been in place for a long time, was some language fairly viciously berating a large group of like-minded people here. He was called out on it and he changed it. So, maybe patience is the order of the day.

Just to be clear, I am well aware that I am as guilty of trespasses here as many others.

In regards to the bolded, I have seen many people say this, including myself. So all it takes is for each of to dig down, re-read our post before submitting, and truly think about how the target of it will read it. Does it include conservatard or libtard? Fix it before submitting. Does it have ad-homs? Fix it before submitting.

Doing so will not only make you look smarter, but is more likely to be taken seriously by its intended target rather than immediately put them in a defensive position. If a blatant assholish (troll does not fully cover what needs to be fixed round these parts) post does get posted, then the posters teammates should come down like a ton of bricks.

Unfortunately, I am starting to see what you mean regarding progz. I am surprised they even bother posting here since we are all beneath them and unworthy of Thee Word of Progz. I am sure there are some on the right as well. Because of dualism, yin-yang, whatever.

I don't want to name names, but Steeplerot immediately comes to mind.

Good thread OP.

 

[woolfe9998]

In regards to the bolded, I have seen many people say this, including myself. So all it takes is for each of to dig down, re-read our post before submitting, and truly think about how the target of it will read it. Does it include conservatard or libtard? Fix it before submitting. Does it have ad-homs? Fix it before submitting.

Doing so will not only make you look smarter, but is more likely to be taken seriously by its intended target rather than immediately put them in a defensive position. If a blatant assholish (troll does not fully cover what needs to be fixed round these parts) post does get posted, then the posters teammates should come down like a ton of bricks.

Unfortunately, I am starting to see what you mean regarding progz. I am surprised they even bother posting here since we are all beneath them and unworthy of Thee Word of Progz.

I don't want to name names, but Steeplerot immediately comes to mind.

Good thread OP.

Steeplerot doesn't post that often anymore and hasn't even posted at all for months.

Otherwise, good post.

And kudos to boomerang for showing some self-awareness. We do indeed all have our trespasses.

 

[davmat787]

Oh the ironing. When I read this description of CK, I thought I was reading something I would write about you. You express many over-the-top hyperbolized opinions about libs, but you're also non-doctrinaire and quite reasonable on many specific issues. Your description of him is fairly close to accurate. You guys have some things in common. Not trying to be insulting here at all, just descriptive. You and CK are both interesting to debate at times.

Except I see zero self deprecation from CK. Is he really leaving? Seems like if there were a list of those to go he would be at the bottom of it, and a long one at that. I don't pay attention to DC or certain posters, so maybe I missed something.

Was there a specific post or impetus to CK leaving?

Anyway, anytime you have a political forum where all views are allowed you will no doubt have a mess as well. It can be rewarding to wade through the muck when you glean some level of understanding you had not before, or perhaps change your mind to a better and truer position.

A farm can't enjoy bacon from his pigs without first getting shit on his boots.

 

[woolfe9998]

Except I see zero self deprecation from CK. Is he really leaving? Seems like if there were a list of those to go he would be at the bottom of it, and a long one at that. I don't pay attention to DC or certain posters, so maybe I missed something.

Yes, there are differences between them. WP displays more sense of humor and CK flashes anger where WP tends not to. CK's anger flashes increased recently. Accumulated frustrations. I was only equating the two on the dimensions of WP's post regarding CK. The two characteristics he sees in CK I see in him.

Was there a specific post or impetus to CK leaving?

It's all right here in this thread more or less. The righties were dumping on him because he's been dumping on them. He thinks they're blaming him for their own failings in being unable to carry on rational discussion. That's just my detached description of it. Leaving my own opinions out at the moment.

Anyway, anytime you have a political forum where all views are allowed you will no doubt have a mess as well. It can be rewarding to wade through the muck when you glean some level of understanding you had not before, or perhaps change your mind to a better and truer position.

A farm can't enjoy bacon from his pigs without first getting shit on his boots.

I think most people are here because they like to play games and they particularly like to win them. Most people on AT play PC games. Political debate is just another game of skill where people can prove their superiority over others.

Still, there's value in it beyond mere gamesmanship. Once in awhile I feel I may have influenced someone's opinion for the better. On other occasions I've changed my view on something based on someone else presenting a logical argument I hadn't considered. Not very often, but occasionally.

 

[dank69]

And this is why you're simply an ass. I don't get the emotional need that drives you to have to prove yourself superior.

I don't need to prove myself superior, the person that asks how a person can have his ass handed to him over an opinion has already proven how low he is on the totem pole without my help.

If you know something I don't, then just say it.

I have to draw you out to the point that you type out what I already know you are thinking before I call you out on it so you can't pretend I'm making assumptions about you that aren't true.

I also don't much care for the keyboard tough guy thing, you wouldn't dare say such a thing to my face, why not forgo the display of cowardice and simply present your opinion?

Keyboard tough guy? Have I threatened you? No. If you don't want me to talk to you like an idiot, make smarter posts. The only keyboard tough guy here is the one asking someone else to say something to his face.

For the record, it was CK that ran away crying, not Doc. As for CK being a libertarian, I guess that's possible, but it didn't come across in any of his posts that I read. Maybe I just didn't spend as much time following him around as you did.

Following him around? More like comprehending his posts. Doc attempted to run away but finally did the right thing. Maybe you can show some of the same integrity and admit you criticized CK for being someone you assumed he was when he really wasn't. Admit you criticized the DC for completely fabricated reasons that existed only in your head.

And here we have that oh so gracious and understanding liberal mentality. Starting from this point, there can be no discussion. You've announced that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, you believe yourself to be infallible, what is there to debate? Why would anyone waste there time arguing with a completely closed mind?

Honestly, had I known this a couple pages back I wouldn't have bothered responding to you at all.

As has already been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. I disagree with people all the time, and if they can lay out their case logically I can , and often do, change my mind. Truly hilarious that you responded to my callout of conservatives using logical fallacies with a straw man argument. Go learn about logical fallacies and improve your discussion abilities or continue to remain ignorant and be made fun of. Your choice.

 

[dank69]

If you want to feel that calling most Republicans leaders evil and complaining that Democrats are just too nice to them is not a lefty position, it's a free world. Just remember to wear your helmet when you go out to play.

If you want to call one side evil, you have chosen a side. Period. Attempting to define yourself as non-partisan at that point is simply idiotic.

No. Partisan means blindly defending "your team" with no questions asked. CK didn't have a team. He didn't choose a side. He criticized Dems on many occasions. He critcized conservatives much more often because they fuck up much more often. It's as simple as that. Also, I doubt he said "Dems are too nice to Pubs." He probably said Dems cave in to Pubs too often. If my assumption is correct, you just posted another straw man. Grats.

Now lets move on to the insults. Wear my helmet and simply idiotic. The first is completely overused and boring tripe and the second an old stand by. Both uttered by a guy who has been "debating" in the P&N forum for how long now(?) and still doesn't know the meaning of the word "partisan."

That, my friend, is how you do it.

 

[dank69]

Plenty of idiots around here think I'm a "rightie". Tell me again why anybody should take anybody around here seriously.

Lots of people are taken seriously around here, and werepossum wants to be one of those people. He tries to be objective, at least on days when he hasn't devolved into a conservative rage machine. He fails a lot, but at least he tries.

People think you are a "righty" because you are a conservative with libertarian leanings who happens to be fed up enough with the GOP that you have abandoned them. I'm sure if the GOP gave up on the social conservatism and actually practiced the fiscal conservatism you love, you would hop right back on board with them.

 

[Juddog]

Lots of people are taken seriously around here, and werepossum wants to be one of those people. He tries to be objective, at least on days when he hasn't devolved into a conservative rage machine. He fails a lot, but at least he tries.

People think you are a "righty" because you are a conservative with libertarian leanings who happens to be fed up enough with the GOP that you have abandoned them. I'm sure if the GOP gave up on the social conservatism and actually practiced the fiscal conservatism you love, you would hop right back on board with them.

So would a lot of people... the government honestly needs some trimming back, there is no question of that, but this bullcrap religion-based legislation and introduction into textbooks, and continuous obstruction of any meaningful progress, needs to stop. It's no wonder that sensible people are converting over to being libertarian.

 

[dank69]

By structure I mean the entire set up, from implantation to moderation. I think the first mistake was the screening process, and the accompanying announcement that there were members that shouldn't bother applying. That doesn't say "welcome". It comes across as authoritarian and somewhat hostile. That set the tone for everything that followed. CK being one of the mods and the most prolific poster also made it feel like the CK forum. His own personal platform if you will. Opening it to everyone at a later date was pretty much saying "were desperate and we'll take anyone".
Another issue is one that's prevalent throughout AT. The open contempt for religion, mostly for Christian religion. You don't have to be religious to find it distasteful.


I don't post much anywhere, but I do post more in P&N than DC. You'll find that most of my posts are simple opinions, I don't go and find corroborating sources (as they are invariably repudiated as right wing/left wing hack pieces), and I frankly don't care to spend the time necessary to assemble a proper thesis.
I don't post there now as I don't see any topics that interest me, and I have yet to come up with one that made me wish to seek the opinions of others.


The two aren't mutually exclusive. I think I covered them above.


None what so ever.

And if not, why do you continue to not post there?
See above.


Indeed they have, but I think the stigma remains.


It's tough to quantify an attitude, and I have no desire to go search through threads looking for examples.
Some of this I've addressed in my other comments, but at this point, it could simply be that most people are used to not posting there. It's tough to change a bad first impression.

If I was tasked with improving the DC, I'd invite members to visit. The golden rule would be to respect others point of view, and I'd have a mod or two that were soft spoken and said very little about the actual topics being discussed.

Note: It appears I've thoroughly screwed the formatting of this post, I hope you can make sense out of it. Since I've used up my quota of typing for the week, I'm not going to try to fix it.

Plain and simple, the bolded is why the DC is not for you. It has nothing to do with CK or the "structure," you just want to be able to spew your opinions without being asked to back them up. Tough shit.

When you post on a forum you open yourself up to examination. If your sources are being dismissed as "right-wing hack pieces" the proper thing to do is try to understand why. Research your sources and prove that they hold water and if you cannot, recognize that you have been duped and make a correction, both to your post and to your world view. This is how reasonable people operate. The unreasonable continue to believe because they just know it to be true even though they can't find a single credible piece of evidence to support it.

 

[dank69]

So would a lot of people... the government honestly needs some trimming back, there is no question of that, but this bullcrap religion-based legislation and introduction into textbooks, and continuous obstruction of any meaningful progress, needs to stop. It's no wonder that sensible people are converting over to being libertarian.

That is the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans, and why they will always be at each other's throats. Everyone believes that the government "needs some trimming back," but we disagree on a fundamental level what needs to be trimmed and when to trim it. Republicans refuse to recognize that there are negatives that come with trimming government, unless it happens to be one of their sacred cows. Democrats acknowledge that there are negatives to trimming any government service, whether it is one of their sacred cows or not. They recognize that trimming the military carries certain risks, but believe that the benefits outweigh the risks. The Republicans refuse to even acknowledge that there would be negative repercussions to trimming welfare. They don't bother to make the case that the benefits will outweigh the risks, partly because they can't but mainly because they don't have to. They religiously believe that eliminating welfare will solve everything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

They religiously believe that eliminating welfare will solve everything.

Really? They want to eliminate welfare? They believe this will solve everything? Do you have any evidence to support this statement or are you just making up shit as you go along?

 

[dank69]

Really? They want to eliminate welfare? They believe this will solve everything? Do you have any evidence to support this statement or are you just making up shit as you go along?

Are you going to pretend that conservatives don't routinely post that "welfare just creates dependency"? Are you going to pretend that welfare is charactarized as nothing more than an entitlement? How about all the other "entitlements"? Welfare is just one example. How about Obamaphone? Wanna rail against that one?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It isn't that most conservatives are necessarily stupid. It's that their reasoning and reading comprehension skills are (apparently) defective. Any objective evaluation/comparison of posts by righties and lefties on this forum would support that conclusion.

I can perform such an evaluation. Take the people who supported Bush and attacking, not because it would solve anything, but they either didn't care or deluded themselves into believing it would.

Then we have the Obamites.

Like this one These little creatures also feed on presidential droppings. Like the Bushites, they defend their hosts by loudly screaming against the other for consuming offal.

It's an almost comedic ecosystem.

 

[bshole]

As an unbiased middle of the road moderate, I must say that the level of discourse from the left is much more erudite and informed than that of the right.