One more from Claymore
Claymore sent this link last night from the Head Ritard of Democrat Underground warning the “enemies” to control ourselves when we visit DU today;
If you want the Democrats to lose, GO AWAY.
I fully expect that there may be lots of finger-pointing and “I told you so” posts, and as much as I don’t like it I understand it is going to happen. That’s fine. But if anyone seems a little too gleeful that the Democrats lost and the Republicans won, we’re not going to cut you a great deal of slack. If you want to celebrate a Republican victory, take it to Free Republic.
Ya know, it’s their place and they can do what they want to do, but I think they’re pretty deaf from listening to the sound of one hand clapping. That’s why they always accuse the Right of “stealing elections” – they don’t want to hear the other side’s argument, so they think that everyone thinks like they think. When you’ve insulated yourself from hearing the other side, your defeat is always a surprise.
That’s why TAH is open to everyone, except the deranged and pervs.
I went to DU soon after it opened nearly eleven years ago. I posted “Do you guys really believe this tripe?” and I was banned within minutes. I probably wasn’t the first, nor was I the last, but that explains why they’re so tone deaf to the rest of the country.
I’ll be back in an hour or so. I’m going to the county seat so I can apply for my CCW license. Not that it’s related to the discussion or anything.
Category: Bloggers, Tuesdays with Claymore
Congrats on making the decision to get a CCW; I’ve had one here in VA for seven years or so now, and would be happy to answer any q’s, etc.
C-
Aren’t the deranged and pervs your base?
Damn!!! Caro figured us out!!! Time to change tactics,I guess.
It’s sounds like the numbnuts at DU are having a case of pre-soreloseritis?
As I noted in my email to Jonn, the echo chamber is DU (and sites like it), offer no option for those who claim a common ideology, but differ in their support for something as abstract as an entire party. In other words, they like the fact you’re liberal, but if you point out the fact that guys like Murtha or Teddy Kennedy were not the most ethical Democrats on the planet, you’ve earned yourself a tombstone. Forget the fact you agree with them on basic policy, you dared to question a Democrat, thus you are persona non grata. Does this happen on right wing sites? Probably. Is it this blatant? Not sure…but it does make one think; if liberals claim they are so tolerant, but can’t stomach scrutiny from within their own ranks, how far does that vaunted tolerance actually go?
Does this happen on right wing sites? Probably. Is it this blatant? Not sure…
==========
The only right-of-center blogs on which I’ve participated in the comments were LGF (years ago), HotAir and AoSHQ. As far as banning policy, the only one that bans for ideological disagreement is LGF. And I wouldn’t consider LGF right-of-center anymore (and probably not really ever, even though ponytail biker was on ‘our’ side shortly with regards to Islamo-fascism and Islamo-terrorism).
HotAir’s comment section, in my opinion, has gone downhill the last few years and the discussion there is pretty immature and echo-chamberish. Which is why I stopped participating in the comments there around late 2007, early 2008. But they allow plenty of ideological disagreement.
Same with AoSHQ. I would argue that most of the blog authors there are fiscally conservative, but very socially liberal. Same goes for most of the commentors there. I think the biggest arguments that happen among the commentors are regarding social issues and RINOs, not to mention “purity” vs “pragmatism” debates. But again, they allow for many heated debates/discussions regarding those issues and the only time the ban hammer comes out is when people cross a line of getting personal or racist with their attacks. Even then, there is a long leash.
I can’t speak for other popular sites like Free Republic or RedState, since I don’t read those sites. But as far as my experience goes, it is the Left which is completely intolerant of opposing views and the Right which is open to intense ideological debate. The stereotype is that the Right is not a “big tent”, but that has not been my experience at all, at least with regards to the online community. The Leftists are the ones who do not allow dissention in their ranks. Hell, just go back to the 2008 election with Joe Lieberman. The Left threw him out of the Democrat Party simply for disagreeing on the war effort in Iraq. He was a far left liberal on every other issue, except for Iraq, but that was enough for them to kick him out.
Claymore…
That got me thinking. The difference between the way the left and right are tolerant towards their own or not.
The left fails to recognize blatant wrongs…think Frank, Dodd, Reid, BillyJeff. And when their side starts to develop a conscience or identifies rights and wrongs, then they are thrown under the bus for trying to bring reason into the conversation.
On the right, I think we have consistently done the right thing toward the wrong-doers, so the tolerance for ill behavior is non-existent. We are intolerant of bad behavior and will not support reinforcing it.
The left however will always say something like “So and So did it, too” or “what a stupid law”, but will not recognize the faultiness or accept that they are wrong. The left will deny the behavior and pretend it is tolerant.
I think Mike’s got the right of it here. I’ve been debating politics online for well over a decade, and offline since high school. It has almost always been my experience that far left democratic debaters will either personally malign their opponents, or try to silence the debate as soon as they realize they are losing ground in a serious discussion. I may be a snob where this is concerned, but the most irritating part of that for me has always been the lack of eloquence in their attempt to disengage. It really is like dealing with a grade-schooler.
Not that I don’t agree with your general point, Claymore, but the “liberals against corruption” part is kinda funny to me. It’s been my perception that corruption is more tolerated by liberals than conservatives and libertarians not because of any circle-the-wagons/echo-chamber mentality, but because corruption is necessarily a part of the liberal agenda. Power does corrupt, and liberals (or statists) are all about concentration of power in the government. Corruption is inherent to the system they desire, so it is accepted. I’d even go so far as to say there are many liberals who view the corruption as a positive, since it is fundamentally the exercise of the excessive power they want to create. Look at SEIU and other unions (rent-a-mobs and voter manipulation, if not outright fraud), the NAACP (cheering a “whitey” being denied equal protection), the Obama campaign’s removal of legal donation restrictions, the cheering of media outlets’ one-sidedness, slavish attacks on Fox and support for a President doing the same, and on, and on. By and large, corruption seems to be their solution to the problem (in their minds) of too little power being held by the government. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, see corruption as a symptom of the problem, that being too much power in the hands of government. We inherently detest corruption because it has no good effects for our cause, nothing to counteract the moral distaste for such activities, as it has for the liberal agenda.
Are there some liberals who believe in a utopian fantasy of a massively-powerful government that somehow self-regulates to prevent internal corruption? Sure, but I submit that those cases requisitely result from naivete, ignorance, or some combination thereof. I think the majority of liberal players in the political landscape are both aware of the inevitability of corruption in their vision and either accept or actively desire it.
I’m going to have to stick up for MY forum, a Conservative Forum, http://www.conservativecave.com in this issue. We have several members from the DU that come over to visit. Until they make a fool of themselves and violate the Terms of Service, we typically let them post. That said, our membership usually takes care of the idiots right quickly. They are a tough crowd and don’t put up with too much bullshit. More often than not, they just go away on their own. We don’t all walk in lockstep, unlike the DU. I’m a Conservative Libertarian (Jeffersonian?), while others are moderate Conservatives or even, gasp, Liberals or Progressives. We DO get our share of trolls and they are usually allowed to hang around until the membership tires of them. I have been reprimanded from time to time for “taking out the trash” a little too early, but seriously, trash is trash.
Yeah, I just left you a bitchslap for getting rid of a troll too fast, Thor…LOL
All good points…and again, let me reiterate that I’m certain the tombstoning isn’t limited to just left-wing sites, but my experience to date has been that liberals are tolerated far more on right-wing sites than the reverse. Back in my Coulter site admin days, we actively encouraged liberals to join so we’d have something to actually debate. Invariably Ann would publish a controversial article which would have the liberals scrambling for membership so they could call her a bitch or question if she’s really a woman or not (more of that tolerance on display). In the end, we had very few true liberals who would participate in meaningful debate and it got boring having to drag out the ban-hammer all the time for leftards who only wanted to disrupt. In the end, echo chambers lose their appeal, unless you’re a zealot or have no friends, then it’s just a place to display to everyone how big a lunatic you are.
I will remind you all that I got thrown off the Gathering of Eagles site and banned from visiting simply for mentioning that I was an IVAW member and active duty in the forums. There’s not always a whole host of tolerance in right-wing forums.
That said, Caro’s right, I thought we WERE the deranged pervs.
I will remind you all that I got thrown off the Gathering of Eagles site and banned from visiting simply for mentioning that I was an IVAW member and active duty in the forums.
I don’t blame them, considering what IVAW is: a bunch of sh!tb@gs. I wouldn’t want someone involved in that despicable organization participating on my site either. The fact that you are liked personally by some authors of this blog does not change the fact that IVAW is a despicable organization made up of sh!tb@gs with which no sane groups want to associate. You want to be treated with respect, then end your association with organizations not worthy of respect.
There’s not always a whole host of tolerance in right-wing forums.
Really? You gave one example, and that (your banning) was pretty justified. Yet your experience on ONE site allows you to broad-brush right-wing forums in general? Brilliant.