As a leftie, I will say that if I were a conservative here, I'd be pissed off that I'm apparently expected to right to wrongs of the GOP myself and demonstrate to everyone constantly that I'm not crazycakes.
But we don't. In fact, it seems the opposite--that the Dems/I's/etc., are supposed to attach a disclaimer to every fucking GOP fucktard story specifying that our feelings don't apply to ALL Rs or to the other posters on this board. It's tiresome, and why I left TN for quite some time during/after the 2008 election. Why not just say, "yeah, that's fucked up" instead of "zomg!!!!! how dare you say all Rs are crazycakes! I'm taking my ball and going home!"
To me it's just become clear that the vast majority of posters here hold the opinion espoused by Dylanite above, and they come here to get back pats for their positions and snark directed at people who don't agree with the majority.
I like debate. I like intelligent debate better. I don't even mind snarky debate. But I'm over debating much on this board because it's never about seeing the other side, or genuinely wanting to understand for the most part. You know, actual debating? It's about proving that the theory is correct - there is no reason to vote for a Republican unless you're an old, white dude or an ignorant bigot.
So you got me. I'm actually a 60 year old white male. And bonus: I'm also an ignorant bigot.
With that said, there are still things I enjoy about the board so I stop by for those and filter out the rest. But my tip for the future - if anyone is actually interested in seeing the other side and debating - is to change the 'tude, tone, etc. if you actually want the other side to respond. Right now, it's just not worth it, and ignoring what I don't like works for me. But it isn't going to ever get more of the other side here or encourage debate. It's going to encourage more of the same, so if the current state of the board is fine with everyone, then no big deal.
And I'm not ashamed to admit, I was a social science major and a social worker. I do not understand theoretical econ speak enough to engage so I usually stay out of those discussions.
But I'm totally down for listening to how macro economic principals could help my disabled, low-income mother have enough to buy her medicines tomorrow. I would totally love to have a bipartisan discussion on helping struggling individuals on the ground.
Maybe that could be an interesting thread/discussion? I know charity would be involved but how do you make them work together and make sure gaps are filled in certain geographic areas, etc?
Eclaires you really think I ever expect, or strive for, back pats? You don't have to believe me when I say that's not the case, of course. But that's not the case.
I know that you probably don't want back pats, Dylanite.
But I think a lot of the posters here do like aspect of others agreeing them, or virtually high fiving them... you know, a pat on the back, saying "way to go, you're so right!" I don't think that fits your personality here, though, so don't worry, I won't be trying to give out any pats on the back to you. I hope no one else does either.
I will never pretend to know anywhere near as much as Mx re: foreign affairs, but I do love discussions about foreign affairs.
I too love them. In that i love to read them. And occasionally ask questions. But I rarely have anything to add because I just don't know enough.
I definitely don't want to wait until we have an expert on something to discuss it. And it just so happens that I love mx and agree with a lot of what she says, but she could just as easily have tons of expertise and I could agree with nothing. I still want to discuss it, but I don't necessarily want to have all discussions hinge on one person's opinion. I felt the same with Pamela and the nuclear stuff. She works in the industry and knows a lot but it doesn't mean I have to agree with every opinion she has on it and that I can't learn from others who have never actually worked in the field. (no shade, Pamela)
Eclaires you really think I ever expect, or strive for, back pats? You don't have to believe me when I say that's not the case, of course. But that's not the case.
I don't think you give a shit about back pats, but there a few who get tingles up and down their legs if they get a big old pat on the back from you...................
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
I too love them. In that i love to read them. And occasionally ask questions. But I rarely have anything to add because I just don't know enough.
I definitely don't want to wait until we have an expert on something to discuss it. And it just so happens that I love mx and agree with a lot of what she says, but she could just as easily have tons of expertise and I could agree with nothing. I still want to discuss it, but I don't necessarily want to have all discussions hinge on one person's opinion. I felt the same with Pamela and the nuclear stuff. She works in the industry and knows a lot but it doesn't mean I have to agree with every opinion she has on it and that I can't learn from others who have never actually worked in the field. (no shade, Pamela)
right, I don't think that having an "expert" means you have to agree with that person at all. It's just incredibly helpful in starting up a really interesting discussion to have somebody who can give us several paragraphs that are actually based on something other than wiki or gut feelings or what you heard on NPR this morning.
I doubt Pamela and I agree on the direction that power generation in this country should take, but I know I could have a much MUCH more interesting conversation about it with her than I could with the average person.
I didn't meant to say that we can' thave discussions about certain topics because we don't have experts to hand, I was just offering my two cents about why we really DON'T have those dicussions. You post interesting stories all the time about Iran and Syria and the like, but they rarely get traction. I think this is why. Not that nobody cares or nobody wants to talk about it...just that nobodyhas anything to say beyond nodding along with the article.
Hell, if we have to choose based on our state, I have to be Steve Cohen. And I have personal beef with Cohen. ANDPLUSALSO, I can't be Marsha Blackburn. That heifer is CRAY.
I only read the first page, but frankly unless you're trotting out "legitimate rape" bullshit, then you should feel free to say what you think with your reasoning, no matter what side it's on. I have only gotten legitimately pissed at two posters since we've moved to GBCN. One was aw over her flippant attitude about circumcision last week (and tons of people are on her side but were being respectful about the conversation). I typically like and value aw's opinions. The other one was pixy on that history thread. And I feel like pixy is a bro, so that was a total fluke.
So really, people should say whatever they like for rational discussion.
This post makes me realize that maybe I should read some of the monster threads even if the discussions have run their courses.
See, DP, this is part of the problem. Every time you post I'm waiting to see what acerbic comment you will make. For every one post of yours that is well thought out and articulate, there are four that are just "nyah nyah I'm rubber you're glue" posts. You're one of the people I was referencing that is holding a can of gas ready to douse any thread.
OK, I'll take that. And I'll work on it.
I'll also add that Emmy and I have discoursed about this before - I set the bar higher for what I'd like to see as the tone of our discussions, and she thinks I'm crazy since it's just the internet. So there's the backstory on that, and she & I will have to continue to agree to disagree, since she insists that being rude and mean is a-OK on the internet, regardless of forum. I disagree.
Actually, I think its ok to be "rude and mean" when someone is a massengill dripping Cuntwitch 6 days a week, then on the 7th, cries about how horrible the level of discourse is and how badly "her kind" are treated. All other times are on a case by case basis.