I Am Done With the Politics Forum

[Billo_Really]

I think it's worth noting that we're all here for our own benefit, not someone else's. It doesn't matter what someone else say's or does, it only matters what you say and do. And when someone goes off on one of your posts, it's more about them, than it is about you. It's there perception (or reaction), which may (or may not) have anything to do with the point you were making. So for me, I just make the point and let the chips fall where they may.

If someone wants to have a respectful, intelligent debate, I'll reciprocate. But if they wanna play the asshole game, then I'll show them I'm a lot better at it than most. I know that's not really the best way to handle the "dicks of the forum", but it's a personal fault of mine, that I have to be constantly aware of. I seem to enjoy confrontation a little too much. But I'm working on it.

Now, get your ass back to the politics forum, we're running out of victims!

 

[Divine Wind]

I used to visit a college football forum which included lively political and historical debates by relatively well educated members. However, the moderators eventually decided that they did not like the conservative viewpoints expressed and shut down all non football related debate, thereby lowering the average IQ of contributors by about 20 points.

Many political forums are I've seen are Liberal and populated with Liberals but they keep a few extreme Conservatives to bat around like cats playing with a mouse. Moderates or too many Conservatives are pushed out by either moderation or, more often, group shunning.

 

[asaratis]

I used to visit a college football forum which included lively political and historical debates by relatively well educated members. However, the moderators eventually decided that they did not like the conservative viewpoints expressed and shut down all non football related debate, thereby lowering the average IQ of contributors by about 20 points.

Many political forums are I've seen are Liberal and populated with Liberals but they keep a few extreme Conservatives to bat around like cats playing with a mouse. Moderates or too many Conservatives are pushed out by either moderation or, more often, group shunning.

Let's be fair and balanced. Likely it is that neither of us have sampled a sufficient number of forums to determine that what you say here is evidence that liberals are prevalent in running forums as you described.

While there may be more liberal leaning than conservative leaning forums, the bell shaped curves that apply to both the forums samples and the poster samples within them could be logically expected to indicate similar results for both sides with a slight skew in favor of the liberals due to their propensity to resort to cattiness and cutely worded lies to gain admiration from their adolescent followers...followed by several "amen" posts from those that did not have enough wit to come out with the "cool" post but still want to jump on the band wagon and inflate their egotism.

However, you assessment is bolstered by the tendency of liberals to insist on having the last word and claiming a false victory in noting that the conservative foe simply abandoned the thread in search of a less futile debate.

I contend that there are two major contributions to this behavior: anonymity and lack of qualifiers regarding age and IQ. Any moron poster among us can fuck up a lot of threads in one day...as evidenced by one that appears to have left the forum after some 40,000 + posts.

The anonymity factor should obvious to us all because we simply do not act in the real world as we do here. The lack of qualifiers is a result the forum administration not wanting to discriminate except in the minimum age requirement. Regarding that one I do not understand how it can be guaranteed without photo ID or submission of certified birth certificates...then away goes the anonymity. We're screwed.

There could be a Formal Debate forum with rules to be followed by the two opposing posters only, for a set number of alternating posts followed with judging by members familiar with the rules and purpose of logical debate. (A good debater can take either side...and win.) ...but such a forum would be peculiar to the basic tenets of a message board and would require considerable moderator efforts. Again, we're screwed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I can understand that.
The GZ trial is a prime example of people Cheering for their side despite all evidence.

And you cant have a rational discussion with people who think free shit is the answer to our countries problems.

You're just proving his point.

No. Because any sane person can look the evidence and see that I'm correct.
It's people who look at say the GZ trial,and claim he killed him in cold blood when all the evidence points to just the opposite.

Those people are basing their views on emotion. And thats where it all goes to shit.
Because emotional people are irrational.

 

[Pogo]

I used to visit a college football forum which included lively political and historical debates by relatively well educated members. However, the moderators eventually decided that they did not like the conservative viewpoints expressed and shut down all non football related debate, thereby lowering the average IQ of contributors by about 20 points.

Many political forums are I've seen are Liberal and populated with Liberals but they keep a few extreme Conservatives to bat around like cats playing with a mouse. Moderates or too many Conservatives are pushed out by either moderation or, more often, group shunning.

Let's be fair and balanced. Likely it is that neither of us have sampled a sufficient number of forums to determine that what you say here is evidence that liberals are prevalent in running forums as you described.

While there may be more liberal leaning than conservative leaning forums, the bell shaped curves that apply to both the forums samples and the poster samples within them could be logically expected to indicate similar results for both sides with a slight skew in favor of the liberals due to their propensity to resort to cattiness and cutely worded lies to gain admiration from their adolescent followers...followed by several "amen" posts from those that did not have enough wit to come out with the "cool" post but still want to jump on the band wagon and inflate their egotism.

However, you assessment is bolstered by the tendency of liberals to insist on having the last word and claiming a false victory in noting that the conservative foe simply abandoned the thread in search of a less futile debate.

I contend that there are two major contributions to this behavior: anonymity and lack of qualifiers regarding age and IQ. Any moron poster among us can fuck up a lot of threads in one day...as evidenced by one that appears to have left the forum after some 40,000 + posts.

The anonymity factor should obvious to us all because we simply do not act in the real world as we do here. The lack of qualifiers is a result the forum administration not wanting to discriminate except in the minimum age requirement. Regarding that one I do not understand how it can be guaranteed without photo ID or submission of certified birth certificates...then away goes the anonymity. We're screwed.

There could be a Formal Debate forum with rules to be followed by the two opposing posters only, for a set number of alternating posts followed with judging by members familiar with the rules and purpose of logical debate. (A good debater can take either side...and win.) ...but such a forum would be peculiar to the basic tenets of a message board and would require considerable moderator efforts. Again, we're screwed.

I'm lovin' this idea, whether practical or not.

 

[Pop23]

I can understand that.
The GZ trial is a prime example of people Cheering for their side despite all evidence.

And you cant have a rational discussion with people who think free shit is the answer to our countries problems.

agreed----it makes you wonder what's worse--racism or hyper partisanship.

The two may not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Pogo]

If you refuse to stand up to the people you think are idiots because they don't play fair then you give them the power to control what, and when, you speak up.

That makes you the lower.

Not necessarily. Not at all necessarily. It could mean that you simply refuse to waste your time on that which is a waste of your time.

Your conclusion applies only if you regard the activity as nothing more than a footballesque power trip. Which is, granted, the easy crutch most end up falling back on, but hardly the spirit of true debate.

 

[Pogo]

I can understand that.
The GZ trial is a prime example of people Cheering for their side despite all evidence.

And you cant have a rational discussion with people who think free shit is the answer to our countries problems.

agreed----it makes you wonder what's worse--racism or hyper partisanship.

The two may not be mutually exclusive.

He's not saying they're "exclusive"; he's comparing which is worse.

 

[BlueGin]

If you refuse to stand up to the people you think are idiots because they don't play fair then you give them the power to control what, and when, you speak up.

That makes you the lower.

Not necessarily. Not at all necessarily. It could mean that you simply refuse to waste your time on that which is a waste of your time.

Your conclusion applies only if you regard the activity as nothing more than a footballesque power trip. Which is, granted, the easy crutch most end up falling back on, but hardly the spirit of true debate.

Exactly. Refusing to do something and just not feeling the need to do something...are two totally different things.

I realize some posters do think that if you say something...it automatically means you were "made" to do it. That is just wishful thinking on their part though.

 

[Kondor3]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

It has always been thus... with partisanship and emotionalism coming to the forefront and dominating the dialogue from time to time... whenever a medium grows beyond its charter or founding membership, but, it's that, or grow stagnant - part of the price for maintaining vitality. Some folks adjust. Some don't. But each departure does diminish the collective. Many folks here would advise a person feeling this way to take a break but not to abandon all participation, but, of course, that's a matter of priorities and energies and personal choice.

 

[The Professor]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

Personally I avoid the politics forum in favor of subject fora. The large number of posters makes it difficult to follow threads. People also feel freer to express opinions that they think are anonymous. The social restraints of real life don't exist on boards.

In my mind, I visualize some posters as being thirteen year old males driving a pickup truck at 120 mph over a dirt washboard road with a beer in hand, loaded deer rifle safety off aimed at the back of their head in the gun rack, a Jessica Simpson look-alike giving them a blow job, praying to their god that they go off at the same time as the rifle. It seems to catch the flavor of their posting behavior.

If Reader's Digest ever offered an award in the category of Towards More Picturesque Speech, you would have no competition. You are able to paint a vivid picture with your words. Absolutely brilliant. Funny, too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many political forums are I've seen are Liberal and populated with Liberals but they keep a few extreme Conservatives to bat around like cats playing with a mouse. Moderates or too many Conservatives are pushed out by either moderation or, more often, group shunning.

Let's be fair and balanced. Likely it is that neither of us have sampled a sufficient number of forums to determine that what you say here is evidence that liberals are prevalent in running forums as you described.

While there may be more liberal leaning than conservative leaning forums, the bell shaped curves that apply to both the forums samples and the poster samples within them could be logically expected to indicate similar results for both sides with a slight skew in favor of the liberals due to their propensity to resort to cattiness and cutely worded lies to gain admiration from their adolescent followers...followed by several "amen" posts from those that did not have enough wit to come out with the "cool" post but still want to jump on the band wagon and inflate their egotism.

However, you assessment is bolstered by the tendency of liberals to insist on having the last word and claiming a false victory in noting that the conservative foe simply abandoned the thread in search of a less futile debate.

I contend that there are two major contributions to this behavior: anonymity and lack of qualifiers regarding age and IQ. Any moron poster among us can fuck up a lot of threads in one day...as evidenced by one that appears to have left the forum after some 40,000 + posts.

The anonymity factor should obvious to us all because we simply do not act in the real world as we do here. The lack of qualifiers is a result the forum administration not wanting to discriminate except in the minimum age requirement. Regarding that one I do not understand how it can be guaranteed without photo ID or submission of certified birth certificates...then away goes the anonymity. We're screwed.

There could be a Formal Debate forum with rules to be followed by the two opposing posters only, for a set number of alternating posts followed with judging by members familiar with the rules and purpose of logical debate. (A good debater can take either side...and win.) ...but such a forum would be peculiar to the basic tenets of a message board and would require considerable moderator efforts. Again, we're screwed.

I'm lovin' this idea, whether practical or not.

We have that here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you refuse to stand up to the people you think are idiots because they don't play fair then you give them the power to control what, and when, you speak up.

That makes you the lower.

Not necessarily. Not at all necessarily. It could mean that you simply refuse to waste your time on that which is a waste of your time.

Your conclusion applies only if you regard the activity as nothing more than a footballesque power trip. Which is, granted, the easy crutch most end up falling back on, but hardly the spirit of true debate.

The media has openly skewed stories, and not reported the facts. They have refused to interview victims of crime who disagree with their agenda, and even edited the interviews of people to make it look like they said things they did not. One can easily argue that it is a waste of time pointing this out because, quite frankly, the chance that the media will change is roughly equivelent to someone being struck by a meteorite and lighting at the same time they buy a winning lottery ticket.

I will still point it out, even if no one actually replies to my posts.

 

[derk]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

What you say is true but it's sometimes fun.

When you find a place that can somehow have civil discourse, let us know.

I came from a site that was heavily monitored and strict rules were in force. Still no one ever convinced the other of anything and nothing was ever solved. I figure, just have fun.

Whoever has the highest level access controls the forum. Your at the mercy of an individuals value system and the principles they use to guide their forum.

 

[Chuckt]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

There are a few people making stuff up in the religon section.

 

[asaratis]

Let's be fair and balanced. Likely it is that neither of us have sampled a sufficient number of forums to determine that what you say here is evidence that liberals are prevalent in running forums as you described.

While there may be more liberal leaning than conservative leaning forums, the bell shaped curves that apply to both the forums samples and the poster samples within them could be logically expected to indicate similar results for both sides with a slight skew in favor of the liberals due to their propensity to resort to cattiness and cutely worded lies to gain admiration from their adolescent followers...followed by several "amen" posts from those that did not have enough wit to come out with the "cool" post but still want to jump on the band wagon and inflate their egotism.

However, you assessment is bolstered by the tendency of liberals to insist on having the last word and claiming a false victory in noting that the conservative foe simply abandoned the thread in search of a less futile debate.

I contend that there are two major contributions to this behavior: anonymity and lack of qualifiers regarding age and IQ. Any moron poster among us can fuck up a lot of threads in one day...as evidenced by one that appears to have left the forum after some 40,000 + posts.

The anonymity factor should obvious to us all because we simply do not act in the real world as we do here. The lack of qualifiers is a result the forum administration not wanting to discriminate except in the minimum age requirement. Regarding that one I do not understand how it can be guaranteed without photo ID or submission of certified birth certificates...then away goes the anonymity. We're screwed.

There could be a Formal Debate forum with rules to be followed by the two opposing posters only, for a set number of alternating posts followed with judging by members familiar with the rules and purpose of logical debate. (A good debater can take either side...and win.) ...but such a forum would be peculiar to the basic tenets of a message board and would require considerable moderator efforts. Again, we're screwed.

I'm lovin' this idea, whether practical or not.

We have that here.

Exactly where?

 

[Mac1958]

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

At some point I came to the realization that a majority of people here have literally no interest in engaging in honest, mature, civil, thought-provoking discourse. They are here to do nothing other than flame, attack and insult -- I assume this is to soothe their damaged egos and self-esteem. Okay. Once I (finally) figured that one out, I began enjoying it more.

Fortunately, there are a few people here with whom I can have an interesting, civil discussion. So I gravitate toward them. The rest is just noise.

.

 

[longknife]

I can understand that.
The GZ trial is a prime example of people Cheering for their side despite all evidence.

And you cant have a rational discussion with people who think free shit is the answer to our countries problems.

You can either put the idiots on Ignore or simply skip their posts.

There are still many posters who think out their posts and try to create interesting discussions. Nobody expects to change anyone's mind but it's nice to share experiences and thoughts.

 

[Pogo]

A new week and nothing's changed. The question isn't about what "liberals" do or what "conservatives" do. It's about this:

Has anyone else noticed the increasing idiocy of those posts? I can barely remember the days when there was intelligent, principled liberal-conservative debate. Now it is little more than cheer leading for whichever team one identifies with, regardless of facts, logic or civil discourse. I fear this is representative of the country as a whole, with each side seeking to manipulate the brainless masses. History does not suggest a good outcome...

So there's the actual question. You tell me who's "dodging" it.

 

[regent]

Perhaps, unnoticed by many, but there may be a learning process going on at the same time? Do some do their homework before posting? True, some get frustrated, probably because they are wrong, and begin the name-calling bit, but that too can be a learning experience?