Political Compass (v 3.0)

Well, let's see.

Statement 1: You brought him up as a point of discussion in this thread in the first place. My logical basis for this is that it's a stone fact that anyone capable of reading the thread can affirm for themselves. You then brought him up again in the post to which I was responding.

Statement 2: I post on this board, and then Smuggler posts in many of the same threads and says ridiculous (as demonstrated by other people contrasting the facts with his assertions, which typically do not align), repetitive (says the same thing over and over, often using the same or very similar phrasing -- also independently verifiable to anyone who has nothing better to do), dishonest (the fact that he continues to repeat the same already-falsified statements after they have been falsified repeatedly, without ever acknowledging that they have been falsified but while responding to OTHER parts of posts which falsify them, indicating that he did not fail to see the posts in question) things. I don't go out of my way to find Smuggler saying these things. He volunteers them.

Statement 3: If there's something more to be said about Republicans than simply pointing out the foolish things they say and do as they flail about attempting to fool people into thinking they have any plan of any kind for any thing, I'm sure it will be posted in the selfsame thread you mention. Perhaps it's not being posted because there's nothing to post.

It's not that he's distant from the mean, it's that he says ridiculous, repetitive, dishonest things that add nothing to a discussion. Speaking for myself, honest disagreement is welcome. Dishonest trolling is not.

Occasionally he'll say something cogent and not-hysterical, and I think you'd find that on those occasions myself and everyone else are more than willing to discuss his points in the spirit in which they are offered. But when he inevitably backslides into frothing rants about white powder and homosexual conspiracies and otherwise stops behaving like a reasonable adult, many of us see no reason to treat him like one.

Honestly, I'd feel the same way if he was a left-wing loon, railing on with repetitive, false rants about how there's a vast right-wing conspiracy and the Bush administration was behind 9/11 and never posted any link that didn't come from somewhere in the Zeitgeist webring, and would not be dissuaded and would not stop just saying it over and over, despite all evidence to the contrary. It's not about left-wing/right-wing. It's about good faith/bad faith.

And please remember, you brought this up. I think we would all have been perfectly happy to not mention Smuggler at all in this thread -- notice, for example, no one pounced with a sarcastic (or any) remark when he posted his score -- but you went out of your way to make him a topic of discussion.

Smuggler may not single me out (that would, after all, require him to go off-script), but you know, I notice you're often more than happy to. And if singling people out destroys political diversity, that would make this sentence guilty of the very thing it's attempting to accuse me of doing.

Your nuanced hypocrisy never fails to impress, KK.

If by "diversity" you mean we have to maintain an equal number of people arguing in good and bad faith, then you're right. I'm not interested. If you mean differing viewpoints seeking to honestly discuss and understand one

 

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
(visual)

Shock of shocks!

I could have sworn I took that test last time, too, but I couldn't find any post of mine in v1 or v2. I do remember taking it, though, and rest assured I don't think it has moved any.

 

I see I need to clarify what the initial warnings were for. Discussing where the cluster of Senate posters has shifted to is, of course, within the scope of this thread. Discussing how this has effected some outliers now, such as making it seem like some people have moved right when everyone else has moved left (or, the group of people has changed such as to be more to the left) is within the scope of this thread. Suggesting that the difference in positions isn't the main issue is tangential, but generally going to get a pass. However, the first part I put a warning to had NOTHING to do with where people stood politically, or discussing if that was significant or not, it was entirely about how JediSmuggler said he'd stop posting yet he'd come back. That's not the scope of this thread, nor is this intended to be a trial of JediSmuggler. Discussing if his being an outlier is or is not the cause of the more heated discussions was ok, which is why Fire_Ice_Death and Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon's comments that it was about style, not about political stances were within scope and pointing out he said he wasn't coming back wasn't.


On the topic of where we're clustered, I'd also point out, though, that with outliers, we don't have any real clustering of it in v2, and it does have a definite leftward lean then as well, so it is the outliers, and I'd not be entirely sure at that point you can necessarily suggest anything systematic. It's a different sort of distribution than looking at the overall shift.

 

Personally I think a lack of civility is really the debate killer. I've moved somewhat to the left in the 8 years I've been around, but for some reason we don't have as good a representation of conservatives here. It isn't as if all the conservatives in the country have gone away, so the fact this community has shifted to the left shouldn't be some sort of reason to gloat over the triumph of liberalism. I'm sure it feels good to pat yourselves on the back for being so right, but just because people you disagree with don't feel as welcome here doesn't really mean anything.

I'm not sure why Dorkman feels the need to mini-mod and make personal attacks, having met JS in real life but not having any personal connection to him, I feel pretty unbiased in saying you wouldn't bother getting so worked up about him if you knew him.

I think everyone likes an echo chamber, because otherwise the world sounds out of tune.

 

I find that hard to credit, considering it was pretty damn uncivil around here circa 2004 -- from the right -- and yet we still had plenty of "diversity" at that time. Seems to me the only thing that's changed is the right lost their majority in both houses, and then the Presidency, got progressively more butthurt and eventually slunk away when they lost the bully pulpit and didn't want to have to risk having to take as well as they gave.

Which, incidentally, they wouldn't have to -- it's still the right accusing the left of being in league with terrorists; compared to 2000-2006 the left's "gloating" has been positively tame.

Yes, I imagine that if I were a heterosexual male who shared his religion and more similar political leanings, we would find less to argue about.

 

I think both points are correct. During the height of ring-wingery here it was pretty fashionable to accuse left-leaning members of supporting terrorists or of being abhorrent people. Like so: a somewhat long-ish time ago when the Atheism thread was in its infancy we were hounded by conservative Christian types who wanted to shut us down. Or at the most make life difficult here. It wasn't because we were bashing Christians or anything at first, but just that we existed on a right-wingboard. So, the lack of civility has always been there. It's just that when an ideology is a majority they will be rude and brash. The difference is that I somehow doubt that the left-leaning types will slink away when the GOP is back in the majority (if it ever is).

You also have to take into account the moderating styles. Jabba and Lowie aren't the discussion crushing mods that some have been in the past. So, discussion has been allowed to flourish and that tends allow more left-wing discussion to take place which brings in more liberal posters vs. conservative ones. I think the hands-off approach tends to work better, but also allows an influx of different views.

 

It does have problems. On some issues, I have views a LOT more nuanced.

Yes/No is not the only answer to an issue. On gay marriage, I would not oppose it, but there are some conditions:
* I want it passed by a legislature or the people, and if the people don't want it, they should prevail (as was the case in Maine).
* I want protection for religious freedom, not just for churches, but for individuals as well. Equal justice not a form of "Social justice" that really becomes a license to stick it to groups that are not politically favored.

There's no option for that.

 

It's not the slinking off I expect. It was the stuff said about Bush that will make a comeback, but aimed at GOP Congressional leaders (Looking at one breakdown, I think the GOP will get the House back easily).

If some of the stuff aimed at Bush was fine and dandy then, why all the complaints when the right dishes stuff not-quite-there at Obama? "Snipers wanted" is OK when it is aimed at Bush, but saying "I oppose Obama's health care, stimulus, and cap-and-trade" is not when Obama is president? Or shall we look at Fahrenheit 9/11, and the way Michael Moore was seated next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic convention in 2004? Moore was accepted by the mainstream of the Democratic party.

I will also submit that there is a qualitative difference in the issues: With Bush it was a global war on terror that came AFTER America was attacked. With Obama, the disagreement was over domestic policy. IT's comparing apples and oranges.

There's an appearance of a double standard here. And I'm sick of it. You want equality? Then fine, Obama deserves and will get just as much respect at the left gave George W. Bush and no more.

I'm going to call you out on this one. When I crossed the line, one mod slapped me down and did so HARD, despite facing accusations of favoritism during his entire tenure, from the moment his selection as a moderator was announced. Yet he was arguably the best moderator I saw, and I get the feeling that his peers at the time felt the same way, given the position to which he rose. He never race-baited as one mod has on multiple occasions (as well as ascribing bigotry to opponents of gay marriage - never mind my posts for a number of years). If that other mod does it again, I will call him out on it again, and get in his face again. The mods I have mentioned know who they are.

But let's be blunt... it's hard to have a discussion with people whose only response to my efforts to explain why I oppose gay marriage (hint: a dislike for homosexuals was NOT one of the reasons) is to call me a bigot. It's hard to respect someone who implies that I'm a racist because I am more in agreement with the tea party than Obama. And, when those same people demand I restrain myself when they seemed to cheer along Michael Moore, why shouldn't I view them as grade-A hypocrites?

 

Let's break this down because you're arguing several points at once. Nobody here ever said 'snipers wanted' was acceptable political discourse here. Amusing, perhaps, but never acceptable.

And if you parsed your disapproval of Obama in the manner you've just described you might get results. But to be frank, the right-leaning members here have never parsed objections to the president in such a manner. Usually it involves: froth (which you've exhibited here), generalities, and outright distortions.

And what does this have to do with the Senate? Nothing, that's what. Wow?so Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter, I'm not really sure who to feel more sorry for, but that doesn't mean squat in the context of the Senate Floor and its current political shifts.

No, both discussions were taking place here between his asinine domestic policies and his ****-waving to the international community.

Again, you can't really accuse anyone of being childish when you continue your childish rants in this manner.

Good jerb. And who would this be? If it's your brother I'm going to have to laugh. No reason. It's just amusing. I never saw favoritism in him. Which was genuinely good. But overall the attempts to squash opposing views was kind of blatant that a lot of people saw it. I'm not going to re-hash all the same arguments over again so that's all I'll say on the subject. Wish to talk further about it, feel free to PM me.

Again, good jerb. As anyone should if they have a problem with a moderator. But this has nothing to do with Senate Floor demographics. Outside of the fact that you have a personal ax to grind.

I believe it was suggested you were a bigot not because you opposed gay marriage, but the manner in which you opposed it and the fact that when the legislature voted for it you cheered on an effort to repeal it. That and you

 

Just so you know, this is the attitude we're talking about. Besides being completely off-base with your imagination of double-standards, your posts continue to bear an overwhelming undercurrent of "You started it!" as if to pawn all blame for your current nastiness on the other side's past actions.

But I know you're enough of a scholar to realize that the "who started it" game is a fruitless one. Treating Obama nasty is OK because people treated Dubya nasty, which was okay because people treated Clinton nasty, which was okay because people treated Bush Sr. and Reagan nasty, blah blah blah all the way back to Adams's and Jefferson's mutually vile campaign propaganda.

Not to mention how much "Some liberals said terrible things about Bush, so I'm going to get back at them by attacking Obama, because even though he doesn't personally have anything to do with the thing I'm claiming to be fighting against he's part of the same group" sounds an awful lot like "Some Mormons worked to get Prop 8 passed, so I'm going to get back at them by attacking JS's friend, because even though he doesn't personally have anything to do with the thing I'm claiming to be fighting against he's part of the same group".

 

I just want to add to what JKH wrote. Those who opposed Bush and "disrespected" him did so because of his policies and his actions. If you want to oppose Obama and "disrespect" him for his policies and his actions, the go for it; I applaud your enthusiasm. Your statement above, though, suggests that you disrespect him for no other reason than being a Democrat who beat out a Republican in the last election, in much the same way as members of Congress have vowed to vote No across the board on anything Obama wants. So if you choose to represent yourself in the likeness of John Boehner, that's you're prerogative, but you can't in good conscience expect anyone to take your case seriously when you argue it.

 

Yeah, what Keiran and Cheveyo said. "They started it!" doesn't even work very well as an argument on elementary school playgrounds, much less a forum like this one.

I have no problem with people opposing Obama on policy. I even do that myself on occasion. I voted for Obama and campaigned for him, but do I agree with everything he has done in office? Not at all.

However, Obama Derangement Syndrome does not lend itself to good discussion, whether it's race-based or not. (Which granted a lot of it is not, it's based on the fact that he's a Democrat and the Republicans are squirming due to being completely out of power for the first time since 1980.) Bush Derangement Syndrome did not either. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

I'll point out that prior to the election, the Jeremiah Wright matter and his handling of it was quite problematic. His actions and policies as a Senator and presidential candidate lead me to oppose him.
Of course, back in 2005, the cry was "Dissent is patriotic" - but in 2010, the same people who shrieked "dissent is patriotic" now want to stifle it.

There was also a difference in the type of issues - Bush's policies involved responding to an attack on America that required a re-evaluation of national security. Obama is mostly pushing domestic policy. The two issues are apples and oranges.

 

It's not the dissent, but what you're dissenting against. You really think that weakening civil rights is equivalent to Jeremiah Wright's little episode. Really? Do you also think his not wearing a tie is big deal as well? Maybe if he wore the wrong colored socks? Yeah. See, you're showing off just what I was talking about.

 

And I'll remind you that the "Dissent is patriotic" cry did not occur in a vacuum. It sprang up as a direct response to accusations from any and all who declared that arguing against the president's policies was not only anti-American and unpatriotic, but DANGEROUS to the freedom and prosperity of this nation.

Dissent is patriotic when you are dissenting for patriotic reasons. Dissent because your side lost the election is just counter-productive.

As for Jeremiah Wright, by now you must realize how inane that argument was, considering only Hannity and Limbaugh bring him up now. The guy has already fallen into the ether of political talking points. And it is clear that he has had no influence on the Obama administration's policies.

Then attack him on the issues.

I had a long and enjoyable argument with my ultra-conservative Arizona Mormon grandfather last night (I'd called to wish him a happy birthday, and he jumped right into it. lol) Everything bad he had to say about Obama had to do with myths and lies that have been perpetrated by right wing talkers, and none of it had anything to do with the actual policies Obama has put in place or supported. This is what I'm talking about. You don't like the guy? Fine. You hate that Democrats control the Executive and Legislative branches? Fine. Defend your issues, fight for the policies that you want. But the deceitful smears and schoolyard "I'm not in charge so I'm not gonna play" act has gotten the Far-right nowhere.

 

Bad Moderator, bad bad bad.

 

my bad, JS

 

I've moved a bit.
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

Not surprised on either count.


One sec, want to get in on the bolding and underlining.

Some people don't change. They're dead inside waiting to be dead outside.

 

You know, when I responded to you JS I thought this was in the Future of the Republican Party thread, my mistake. I'm cutting off discussion on race baiting here, because this is a great thread, but I'll create a thread for you to rant about it, contingent on you actually making some points. I'll delete any further posts on the race topic in this thread.

 

Maybe if there's a big Congressional shift in November, we'll get a few more conservatives here.

 

Ergo: Jefferson started it.

 

Didn't George III start it?