The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

Well, generally speaking- the LoT is comprised of a motley crew, but it seems most tend toward liberal policy as opposed to conservative. You can make the same sorts of comments, just no personal attacks. Or, we could all just forget about discussing politics in general. It's not the same to call someone's viewpoint delusional, especially if a decent rebuttal is provided, as opposed to calling someone "the most condescending and arrogant poster here". I really don't get why you don't get that, but when a person has to resort to personal attacks any discussion is over and Rove Syndrome has set in. Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.

Don't make me yawn....those places are so boring......

[scaeagles]

We all know most liberal leaning sites are non combative and accepting of conservative view-points.

And WB, I don't know how many times I have to say I was wrong to say that. This isn't about that vs. being called delusional. It's about generalizations made about liberals vs. conservatives.

[wendybeth]

Well, i can't help but wonder at all this discussion about the subject and your apparent reluctance to let it go. We do not allow personal attacks, but the grievances you have are in regard to the relatively normal verbiage that occurs during a discussion. I can't make it any clearer, and I am very certain that should I scour the threads you've posted on over the past three years I could find a fair amount of examples showing you engaging in the same sort of behavior that you are now calling into question. I am not willing to do so, in that I think enough time has been wasted on this subject; you appear to be looking for answers and are not happy with the ones provided- that is not my problem.

[Alex]

I still think you're wrong and I'm on the Leo's side on this one.

This board is just like every other one in the world. It pats itself on the back for being open minded while doing its best (unofficially through the social pressures) to make sure serious dissent is marginalized.

I have no doubt that if the parties in the arrogant and delusional incidents recently had been reversed, so would the general responses.


That's not unique, it is the way things work in pretty much any group of people. But I don't see any real value in denying it.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex

Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.

Alex, this post illustrates your point of view well, but it dilutes the actual statement made by Leo. If he had said "I think your being kind of arrogant in your posts", etc, then no problem. (Not meaning to harp on that one, Scaeagles, but I'm trying to spell out the differences). And yes, we do have a slant, but what message board doesn't? I think we're all pretty cool here and try our best to get along with each other, but we have not been shy about spelling out our reasons for existence and the rules that we've laid out to try and make it as pleasant an experience for the membership as possible. I can't recall the last time someone said anything remotely negative to Scaeagles outside of the political threads- if we're so horrid, why put up with us? We all care about Scaeagles and the appearance of favoritism is a concern, but none of you (save the Mods and Admins) know everything that is reported and what actions were taken. Again, if someone were to call Leo the same thing he was warned over, I really would be upset and I would go after them as well.

[Alex]

And I'm saying that I don't doubt you believe that; I just don't believe you're right.

And I don't believe I diluted anything Leo said. He called Helen arrogant (she is, but I like that). Tracilicious called Leo delusional. I think you're diluting what was said to Leo, and I think the source of that is that you tend to agree with what was said to Leo.

But the point is this: If I say, "all hair dressers in Spokane are whores" is that any less insulting because I didn't say "wendybeth is a whore?" No, it isn't. And saying "all Republicans who believe X, which Leo just said he believes, are delusional" is not any less personal because of rhetorical deflection. You just like the sentiment better.

But again, I'm not trying to argue that this is unusual, just the idea that Leo should pretend it isn't true and that his comments are unfounded.

[wendybeth]

I have no problem with that at all, Alex. I do see your point, but that way is anarchy, and up here in Spokane you have to have a permit for that.

(For those who didn't read about our July 4th anarchists protest- the city made them get a permit, which kind of detracted from their intended purpose).


We like Zenarchy around here- it's less harsh on the blood pressure.

[Morrigoon]

I was gonna put this in the Sooo... thread, but in case it spawns a political discussion, I'll put it here. This is a really touching account from a guy who was a guard at Guantanamo Bay:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/j...8846&GT1=32001

[Alex]

Just posting to point out (in case you don't see) that I edited my post while you were replying so you're reply may no longer be accurate.

Plus I'm not advocating anything that leads to anarchy. I'm not saying you should change the way things are run (though I wouldn't complain). I just suggest being honest, saying "sorry Leo, we (collectively on average) don't like your views here so say them all you want but expect to be ridiculed for them, this isn't a fair venue so shut the **** up with the whining about it" and move on.