DUFFMCWALIN
Member
OH NO SPELLING ERRORS ON A MESSAGE BOARD I CAN'T BELIEVE IT. Jesus fucking Christ dude you are embarrassing.
Why does GAF lean so much to the left in politics?
- Thread starter Schattenjäger
- Start date
- Status
OH NO SPELLING ERRORS ON A MESSAGE BOARD I CAN'T BELIEVE IT. Jesus fucking Christ dude you are embarrassing.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Eh, I don't know how much of that is liberal slant and how much of that is Romney running a hilariously inept campaign by anyone's standards.
DUFFMCWALIN
Member
Romney's an idiot who is an embarrassing choice. I can't believe he won out to run against Obama.
I can't believe what i have done.
Furthering the stereotype that anyone not liberal is uneducated... i mean clearly after a few heterographical errors and one use of a profane word i have embarrassed my kind.
I shall stop posting and heed your sage wisdom.
You must be conservative, you can't use punctuation correctly.
Furthering the stereotype that anyone not liberal is uneducated... i mean clearly after a few heterographical errors and one use of a profane word i have embarrassed my kind.
I shall stop posting and heed your sage wisdom.
You must be conservative, you can't use punctuation correctly.
blame space
Banned
what's hetero graphical mean
are they the graphics that are allowed to marry?
are they the graphics that are allowed to marry?
Manmademan
Member
Well, you're not really adding much else to the discussion, so don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
The rest of the field sans huntsman was worse, and that guy had no shot because the party is ridiculously hostile to anyone with the appearance of compromise or bipartisanship.
I have yet to see any evidence of people being banned for stating their opinions, despite people claiming so in this thread. Sure, some political threads turn out to be graveyards, but that's because people get riled up and break the terms of service (someone getting banned for writing "fuck you" isn't getting banned because he or she is a conservative).
I don't think that this forum is the friendliest place for social conservatism, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why. NeoGAF is an international community with a wide variety of posters from different backgrounds, and a lot of the hotly debated social issues in the United States (gay marriage, abortion, religion's place in the school system, etc.) have been more or less settled in many other countries. The terms of service also explicitly forbids sexual, racial, and ethnic slurs, allowing for a more inclusive environment and preventing the overtly far right/xenophobic fringes of social conservatism from participating.
I don't think that this forum is the friendliest place for social conservatism, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why. NeoGAF is an international community with a wide variety of posters from different backgrounds, and a lot of the hotly debated social issues in the United States (gay marriage, abortion, religion's place in the school system, etc.) have been more or less settled in many other countries. The terms of service also explicitly forbids sexual, racial, and ethnic slurs, allowing for a more inclusive environment and preventing the overtly far right/xenophobic fringes of social conservatism from participating.
Oh hetero definitely, but certainly with a very strong homographical community.
Manmademan
Member
as hilarious as that poster's interpretation of the English language is, I feel we've beaten that particular horse to death.
Turning this into a grammar nazi thread helps no one.
well said. a few pages back there was a distinction made between social and fiscal conservatism. The latter isn't that hard to find here, the former tends not to last long.
Turning this into a grammar nazi thread helps no one.
OK but after starting three sentences without proper capitalization, I'm going to assume you are a Republican.
Been fun, going back to bed now.
greyshark
Gold Member
Absolutely not - you can complain all you want to. But when you start calling a group of people you disagree with 'evil' and state they should be removed from society, how exactly are you showing that you are any different than the very people you disagree with?
greyshark
Gold Member
I was only responding to the specific quote I posted. Should I have bolded the parts of the previous quotes I was referring to in my original response - would that have been more clear? (serious question, not trying to be argumentative)
That is basically what I was getting at (not necessarily the systemic murder but the taking away rights part), and I pretty much agree with what you have said.
No. It's a term used to describe a person or group that cries about how they're been unduly persecuted for their beliefs or actions - when such a thing is not actually happening.
blame space
Banned
this ad just made me laugh so hard
Manmademan
Member
would you rather have (hypothetically) another term of Clinton as president from 2013-2017, or Obama's second term.
greyshark
Gold Member
Sorry if it seemed a it abrupt, it was only because your original response was directed at me in the first place and I wanted to reply to it.
Of course you can be intolerant of bigotry, but when you start treating bigots the same way bigots treat others you become a sort of bigot yourself. For example, boycotting Chick-fil-A is a perfectly acceptable practice if you disagree with their attitude, but when you vandalize their property (or whatever else bigots like to do in the name of 'justice' or whatever) then I feel you've crossed a line.
And now I went back and caught the edit on yours.so yeah, I think we understand each other. Broad rights restrictions are never the answer. But on a discussion forum, GAF specifically, bans happen for reasons beyond politics or vile beliefs. Their goal is to keep discussion flowing. We have moderation-free alternatives all over the Internet if we want them. We're on GAF for a reason.
You're right in what you say here - honestly I don't really care about the initial premise of the thread as it relates to GAF moderation. But when I was reading this last night it seemed to progress to 'how to deal with social conservatives' and I saw some posts that I disagreed with and thought it would be appropriate to respond. For the record I'm about as far away from social conservatism as you can get.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
If by "buzzword" you mean "things that happen very often, particularly amongst those of a conservative outlook" then yes.
Manmademan
Member
I'd probably go for Obama's second term, just to see what he does when unconcerned (or at least "less concerned") with legacy and re-election.
That being said, having a president in the white house nailing fat interns again makes for fantastic political discussion
Given that it's basically a free for all to shit on atheists just about everywhere BUT here, I don't think GAF being a non-hostile environment for us is really something to crow about.
Evangelicals are way, way worse about this though. there was an interview on NPR with some douchebag christian legislator that changed the missouri(?) constitution for religious reasons, and his reasoning for doing so what something asinine like "if we don't, teachers might force christian students to have gay sex for homework assignments."
Fuck these people.
Manmademan
Member
Given the realities of the political environment of the 90s vs. 2008, what exactly do you think Clinton would have been able to do in Obama's first term that Obama didn't do?
Keep in mind that clinton's approach to healthcare reform failed.
Oh man, you and me both. chubby ladies don't get nearly enough love.
thats fine, but with that acknowledgement, its not a surprise for religious or republican people to keep their opinions to themselves
RustyNails
Member
Can't answer for GAF, but what do I lean left in politics? The answer is simple: I haven't heard, watched or read a single persuasive conservative argument.
Manmademan
Member
Having an environment where atheists aren't run out of town on a rail doesn't mean that the religious need to keep their opinions to themselves. The christian persecution complex is often so pervasive that unless there's an environment where evangelical cheerleading is actively taking place, it's taken for hostility. You need to get over it.
No one is persecuting christians or muslims on this board- in fact I'd argue there's far LESS hostility to muslims here than on your average forum.
Republicans don't need to "keep their opinions to themselves" either- unless their socially conservative positions (i.e. gay rights) are totally indefensible, in which case they deserve to be called out and shamed for them as much as humanly possible.
edit: at this point I'd like to point out I'm three beers deep on a case of Raison d'être and feeling belligerent. How many beers is too many beers to mow the lawn
greyshark
Gold Member
Even though Clinton was a part of an extremely divisive government when he was in office, he found a way to work with the other side. This is something Obama has spectacularly failed to do. Maybe Clinton couldn't have done any better, but I think he could have.
Sirpopopop
Member
I don't think Clinton could have done any better. It's not as if Clinton is facing a Republican Senate that has invoked the filibuster a record breaking 360 times as of May 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/not-too-late-to-curb-the-filibuster.html
It's not as if Obama hasn't tried working with the other side.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/10/15/obama-tried-too-hard-to-work-with-republicans/
The Republicans in Clinton's era were willing to work with him. The question I have for you, is what could Obama have done to make things better.
Manmademan
Member
I'd disagree that the political environment in the 90s was anywhere NEAR as divisive.
We're in a political reality where Republicans are being run out of town by ultra conservative elements of their own party for not being conservative enough. There have been more filibusters in Obama's first term than in the previous 20 years combined- if not more.
There is no way to work with the republican party, when even the moderate elements are scared to death of being primaried for compromise.
It was part of the republican strategy to oppose EVERYTHING that Obama has done. Obama tried to compromise numerous times but republicans wouldn't have anything to do with it. I don't know how Clinton could have done any better.
RustyNails
Member
This is such a hogwash. Clinton and Gingrich were sworn enemies. "Working with the other side" always befalls on Congress, and back then, the Congress did not have a tantrum throwing, immature, racist, islamophobic hatemongering dumbasses known as Teaparty types. We didn't have morons who tried to launch inquisitions into sitting members of Congress suspected of spying for Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Caliphate or some shit. Really, Obama can't do shit. Neither could Abraham Lincoln, when you have a block of idiots hell bent on voting down proposals from the other side without even reading them.
Edit: Beaten, beaten and beaten.
On one hand, this is the republican party, backed up into a corner, and they're growling and snarling, with fangs out. There's nothing too dirty for them at this point in time. Fear and hate is the order of the day.
On the other hand... it is them at their most utterly effective. Modern republican talking points are indefensible. Which is why they don't spend time defending them - they simply lie and attack and lie and create a false sense of reality, manipulating those all too willing to be manipulated by their fear and jingoism, creating a dead-lock in a country that so desperately needs effective governance.
It's a goddamn tragedy. We're witnessing the fall of the American democracy right in front of our goddamn eyes, and we can't do shit to stop it.
On the other hand... it is them at their most utterly effective. Modern republican talking points are indefensible. Which is why they don't spend time defending them - they simply lie and attack and lie and create a false sense of reality, manipulating those all too willing to be manipulated by their fear and jingoism, creating a dead-lock in a country that so desperately needs effective governance.
It's a goddamn tragedy. We're witnessing the fall of the American democracy right in front of our goddamn eyes, and we can't do shit to stop it.
Manmademan
Member
I don't think we're seeing the fall of democracy, but rather the fall of the modern republican party.
As you say, their backs are to the wall. They've been courting the most loathsome elements of society for votes for so long that their positions don't stand up to scrutiny. Their policies have resulted in the democrats gaining a massive advantage in every segment of the population that isn't undereducated white male christians.
Obama's election has these elements panicked, and they're reduced to attempting to restrict voting now (see: Ohio and PA) in a desperate attempt to win votes. It's not going to work, and the increasing hispanic population is going to render their current strategy totally unworkable within a decade.
What we're seeing is a reaction to the inevitable splintering of the republican party (into moderate conservatives, and foaming at the mouth teaparty douchebags), not democracy itself. If the nation can endure this bullshit, it'll be better off in the long run.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
might be optimistic of us, but i agree
I don't disagree with the assessment that the Republicans are likely to splinter.
But I think America has been so damaged in the process, that it'll never again have the necessary impetus to take the actions needed to recover the elements that once made it great, and push it forward to further greatness.
I mean... the media apparatus that has been so effective at paralyzing honest, effective discourse will continue to be maintained - it is affiliated, but financially, completely independent of the republican party - driven by ideology formed from greedy corporate psychopaths.
And the people that have bought the crap that this media has been selling for so long won't suddenly snap awake and cast off the mind shackles of lies and insanity.
In your case, your ban was related to the general prohibition on behavior - specifically dismissive posts which indicate that you do not care what other people think - towards other posters which is detailed in Stump's FAQ on Banned Sites, Inappropriate Posts, and Memes. Parroting other posters who disagree with you and then telling them to grow up is not something that is selectively enforced against conservative posters.
And while I cannot comment on this thread specifically, as I have not read it past my post sometime in the first two pages, we do ban for personal insults towards conservative users. In the recent past we have banned posters who were calling conservatives morons and people who have called conservatives retarded.
I would be the first to admit that I have a bias against conservatism, at least as it exists in the United States, and this influences how I read or understand posts. So at least in my case, I might read a topic and initially think little of a post that might be on the line. However a PM pointing out the posts would cause me to look at the posts in a new light. When we get a specific complaint about a thread, we always review it with a careful eye.
Manmademan
Member
it can't possibly be worse than the split of the democratic party and the country after the civil rights act of 1964, or even the civil war post lincoln's election.
Things are toxic, yes- but not THAT toxic.
Manmademan
Member
I think this is too pessimistic. It's easy to look at post-war (really, post-Vietnam) politics and media norms and think things have gone badly wrong since then, but what we have now isn't all that different from what we've had at various points in the more distant past. Our media is clearly transitioning towards a blatantly partisan model on both sides, which is typical of most of US history. Small numbers of powerful people have almost all of the real political power, and that's just like it used to be.
And there are reasons to be optimistic. The Republicans are clearly in full-on damage control mode. They're sacrificing any future hope of winning hispanics in order to appeal to a few more white people, and they're alienating women, especially young women, in ways that are going to have long-term consequences. You don't try to suppress the vote in a blatantly obvious way if you care about your prospects after the very next election that you lose. The Republicans are going to ride the Boomers (Silents, more accurately) into the grave, but they're going to follow after. It's not just that they're going to splinter, but that there will be a much smaller number of people who agree with Republican positions. The Democrats have problems, but they're at least fairly sane.
What I find to be interesting, and it's certainly not something that happens only on GAF, is the phenomena of people who self-identify as progressives or liberals and yet they are corporatists and statists, right up and down the line. There's nothing progressive in either of those views, particularly corporatism.
Maybe. I'm a tad given to hyperbole. But the splintering of the republican party doesn't seem like any sort of cure to the problems that pervade the country. The democratic party is pretty much DINO. I can't imagine rational, effective, liberal values regaining a strong foothold in American politics within the next couple decades.
Manmademan
Member
I'd disagree. it's clear that the obstacle to any real progress is republican obstructionism. Remove the incentive to do this, and more reasonable legislation gets through.
There are more independents in this country than republicans, and about as many as democrats. a splinter in the republican party COULD lead to a viable third party offshoot of the current republican party that has no need to cater to right wing nonsense, and perhaps interesting legislation can actually get passed without politicians needing promote nonsense anti-abortion or flag burning bills to get elected.
Well. I'm only a casual observer of American politics... but I'd like to see that before I'm too old to give a shit.
It may sound extreme, but I think there is a bit of truth in the assertion that we may be losing grasp on our democracy.
We live in a representative democracy, and I think there are a few facets there that are slipping for a few reasons. A representative democracy, to me, is more than just electing a guy who believes what you believe and would do exactly as you do or as you want. There's far more to it than that. I think, honestly, our founding fathers didn't have an enormous amount of faith in every voters' opinion, and, quite frankly, neither do I. You're never going to get a perfectly educated population. It's simply not possible. So that's where representatives come in. They're supposed to be smarter than us, and they're supposed to make the decisions for us as a whole, and for society and its well-being as a whole. Along those lines they're supposed to come back and open another line of communication to us. It isn't supposed to be just the tea party or whatever fringe group dictating "you do this or else we won't vote for you." I mean sure representing your constituents' views is a part of the equation, but I think it's more than that. A representative is supposed to come back and say why maybe those things won't work if they truly won't. They're supposed to be a sort of educator to their constituents, too. They should come back to their states or whatever it is they represent and say "this is what we accomplished, and this is why it helps you, and this is why it helps all of us as a whole." They're supposed to say "elect me, because I made this society we have better by being a representative, because of these things."
I don't think we have that anymore. It's turned into a game. To pull up the most obvious and probably overused example in Obamacare, we have representatives railing against it not because it's something they actually think hurts society or hurts their constituents. I'll admit maybe some do, but as a whole the Republican party cannot believe this, because it's something they supported and even created. When you have one of the only two major parties we have wholesale running against something purely because the other "team" put it into affect, and they don't want to give credit, then I think we've lost something crucial. Instead of steady progress brought about by representatives that truly represent their constituents best interest we've got a literal, real life game of thrones. They care more about their seat than who they represent. They care more about their own future longevity as a party/organization than our society.
Along with that game, the republicans are playing another game. That's the game of voter suppression. They realize in order for their "team" to win they need to hush the voices of those dissenting from their view. We have record states putting in voter ID laws, and in some cases even brazenly admitting why. We have Ohio screwing around with early voting, and even now saying we " shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine." Read that again. We shouldn't change our voting process to accommodate a large block of our voters? This is blatantly game playing. This isn't representative democracy. This guy is supposed to represent those people, and he's saying in plain language that he shouldn't contort to what they want.
The media in this country is increasingly afraid to actually do its job, for fear of being called partisan. Things can, at best, be reported as a he said she said sort of event no matter where the truth actually lies. The only part of the media actually calling either side out on their wrongs are the already extremely partisan pundits who would call out the other side no matter whether its true or not anyway. We've got one of the largest news organizations in this country that is literally a propaganda machine for one of the sides, and another large news organization trying to copy that format because it makes money.
We've also got a society getting increasingly more unequal by the minute, and along side that we have the opening up of the political process to that very money. You'd be crazy to think Mitt Romney cares what even a hundred thousand of you think compared to one Sheldon Adelson. Why? Because he can just take that money and misinform 100,000 other people, or just convince those same ones they're wrong using a huge propaganda machine. Look at Romney's blatantly false welfare ad for proof.
On top of all that, we've got another party, the Democrats, that seems to simply exist to try and stop the regression. They're not representatives anymore. They're the proverbial finger in the dike trying to stop the overwhelming tied. They're putting up and having to defend Republican policies from years ago, likely not because they think that's what's best for their constituents ultimately, but because that's the best we can do right now. And that's not even mentioning the continuance of some of the bad Bush-esque policies and far more corporate friendliness than most on the actual left would actually want.
I know that it has happened a few times in the country's past, but I really struggle to see how a viable third party offshoot would come about in our first past the post system. I think it's more likely that the Republican party will have to simply drop some of its current policy positions in response to demographic trends. I don't think it would make electoral sense for them to oppose gay marriage a couple of decades from now, and I can see them dropping their hard line stance on things like immigration reform (eventually moving closer to Marco Rubio's views instead of, say, "control the border" above all else). The lower taxes/smaller government/less regulations philosophy will have a lot more staying power in the United States, I think.
Look at the trash that's on the Conservative/Republican side:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487633
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487638
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487633
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487638
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Both sides have trash
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Yes, but one side has trash that is many magnitudes worse.
- Status