I do want conservatives on here

UNCRushFan said:
Conservative voices and striking a balance are important, for sure. I would even wager that many of us may have been Republican or would have identified as conservative before Trump was elected. I certainly would have.

I'm confounded by the appeal of Trump to so many, although I can somewhat empathize with some of the frustration of those who embrace him. It's the folks who have - rightly or wrongly - felt crapped on for years and years by "the system" and have the sense that it will never change.

Whether I am right or wrong, and though each situation is complicated and unique, I believe they are mistaken to feel this way. Our democracy, flawed as it is, is all we've got. People shouldn't want to roll the dice and take the chance on enabling those who would burn it to the ground to do just that. They should instead do their best to roll up their sleeves and do some organizing and work within the boundaries of our system to change it. It's not easy, but it is how you start shaping things the way you want them.

When it comes to a balanced conversation though, I cannot abide the nonsense that many of the Trump supporters seem to come with, often misinformation from right-wing media that is blatantly false and easily disproved. Trump lies literally all the time about anything and everything. And amazingly, he's applauded and lionized by his base because they don't care and it's about sticking it to the system and the catch-all "dems" or "lefties." It's difficult to have a conversation if we cannot agree on the basics but I also feel that we can't give up. Take a break occasionally, but don't give up.

Not all opinions are equally valid and not all opinions are equally worthy of consideration. But it's still important to engage and let it take its course, on the off-chance we'll find some common ground. It's a 50/50 country right now (or a 46/46 country if you follow the polls), and regardless of what side you occupy, the other half ain't relocating.
Click to expand...
Ok so the board is starting out with caveats that don't necessarily convey, "I want honest debate". When you already cast aspersions and unconsciously impugn media sources from the right you are contradicting what you say you want. I think it is important to understand that there are just as many "wrong" media sources on the left as there are on the right. Typically the media more favorable to the party in power is going to produce more "wrong"/ questionable / misleading content. The left's media isn't more virtuous or principled than the right's. They are all trying to generate clicks and followers. If you are predetermined to automatically believe CNN is right and Fox is wrong, and vice versa, then you aren't interested in honest debate. Every media source should be questioned. If people do that then there is a much greater chance for civil and honest debate.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Agreed. As long as they understand this is a left-leaning (okay, left-heavy) board and behave themselves. What the IC mods allowed since the night of the debate and the subsequent invasion of Tar Pit trolls was ridiculous.

And just to be fair, I had a hand in that chaos as well because I lashed out at a lot of folks instead of engaging them in debate.

So, this is a new board, and I’m going to do my best to keep discussion with my ideological opponents civil and emotion-free for the betterment of everyone here.

I’m not saying saying I won’t try my best to embarrass these people for their terrible beliefs, but it will be fact-based and I’ll keep the personal attacks out of it.
Click to expand...
So basically they should act like an opposing fan posting on a rival's main sports board? That should foster some great debate!
 
Removing partisanship from the discussion might be helpful.

I want a board that provides a marketplace for ideas, not one that handicaps ideas (as in a golf handicap).

I don't want a board that is moderated in a way that prevents flat earth theories from being roundly ridiculed or somehow institutionally attempts to present them on an equal footing or of equal validity. To be clear the Mods shouldn't put their thumb on the scale, but you are not somehow protected from being criticized or laughed at by the majority of the board if you bring nonsense to the plate.

@Callatoroy, I assume your starting from the same place, correct? If so we have a foundation where we can come to consensus, but if you reject this notion then I know we're wasting our time in considering what you want in this area.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
Ok so the board is starting out with caveats that don't necessarily convey, "I want honest debate". When you already cast aspersions and unconsciously impugn media sources from the right you are contradicting what you say you want. I think it is important to understand that there are just as many "wrong" media sources on the left as there are on the right. Typically the media more favorable to the party in power is going to produce more "wrong"/ questionable / misleading content. The left's media isn't more virtuous or principled than the right's. They are all trying to generate clicks and followers. If you are predetermined to automatically believe CNN is right and Fox is wrong, and vice versa, then you aren't interested in honest debate. Every media source should be questioned. If people do that then there is a much greater chance for civil and honest debate.
Click to expand...
I think you meant "subconsciously" and not "unconsciously," but I understand. As you point out, the main thing is that every media source regardless of political leaning should be scrutinized for accuracy and bias. In my earlier post, I was mostly speaking from my past experience on the ZZL, where it hasn't been the case that non-Trump supporting folks rush here to post stuff from PalmerReport or DailyKos or HuffPost or the like, whereas we used to have several others who would bombard the ZZL with links to Breitbart and DailyCaller and WashingtonTimes and GatewayPundit or Daily Wire or NationalReview - so much so, that I can even remember them, between posters such as douglas and clevel and randman and falconjet or upheels, etc.

If someone drops a link from Breitbart, I'm just not going to view it with the same credulity as if someone were to drop a link from the WSJ. I'm guessing you may be a conservative or Trump supporting conservative, so let me also say that if someone drops a link from PalmerReport or DailyKos, I'm probably equally likely to not view it as credible. There are media bias sites where one can go to check as well. Not sure it's as bosides as you claim though - recall that Fox News/Fox Business/Newscorp agreed to settle an almost 3/4 billion dollar lawsuit for claiming without any evidence about the rigging the outcome of a presidential election. I don't recall MSNBC getting their clock cleaned for a deception of that magnitude, so if you want to make it a contest of virtue, it would seem that the conservative media has a bit of ground to make up and making the statement "one isn't more virtuous than the other" may have some truth to it but in practice, doesn't hold up too well. It's hard to believe I used to be a semi-regular Fox News viewer in the early 2000s. If MSNBC ever does get busted for that kind of thing though, you can count on my condemnation of them being just as harsh.

But all that aside, Callatoroy, maybe we can agree to reserve criticism or judgment about the credibility of the media or a particular source until someone actually drops a link as supporting evidence for a topic or argument they're making, and if it's in dispute, we can go from there. Fair?

So if there's an issue you'd like to talk about, here or in a separate thread, then let's do so as civilly and honestly and with as much good faith as possible.
 
Ddseddse said:
Removing partisanship from the discussion might be helpful.

I want a board that provides a marketplace for ideas, not one that handicaps ideas (as in a golf handicap).

I don't want a board that is moderated in a way that prevents flat earth theories from being roundly ridiculed or somehow institutionally attempts to present them on an equal footing or of equal validity. To be clear the Mods shouldn't put their thumb on the scale, but you are not somehow protected from being criticized or laughed at by the majority of the board if you bring nonsense to the plate.

@Callatoroy, I assume your starting from the same place, correct? If so we have a foundation where we can come to consensus, but if you reject this notion then I know we're wating our time in considering what you want in this area.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if I don't agree with your board framework that my opinion is invalid? I'm not clear on what you are asking.
 
Callatoroy said:
Are you saying that if I don't agree with your board framework that my opinion is invalid? I'm not clear on what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Do you want a board that proactively and institutionally handicaps shitty ideas (like flat earth theory) and somehow creates a protected class for them that shields them from well deserved criticism?

Let's leave partisanship out of the discussion to see if we can make headway here.
 
Callatoroy said:
Ok so the board is starting out with caveats that don't necessarily convey, "I want honest debate". When you already cast aspersions and unconsciously impugn media sources from the right you are contradicting what you say you want. I think it is important to understand that there are just as many "wrong" media sources on the left as there are on the right. Typically the media more favorable to the party in power is going to produce more "wrong"/ questionable / misleading content. The left's media isn't more virtuous or principled than the right's. They are all trying to generate clicks and followers. If you are predetermined to automatically believe CNN is right and Fox is wrong, and vice versa, then you aren't interested in honest debate. Every media source should be questioned. If people do that then there is a much greater chance for civil and honest debate.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to junk up this thread with the fallacy of believing right wing and left wing media are the same, but if you want to start a thread with the above premise, I’d be happy to let you know why you’re wrong about that.
 
UNCRushFan said:
I think you meant "subconsciously" and not "unconsciously," but I understand. As you point out, the main thing is that every media source regardless of political leaning should be scrutinized for accuracy and bias. In my earlier post, I was mostly speaking from my past experience on the ZZL, where it hasn't been the case that non-Trump supporting folks rush here to post stuff from PalmerReport or DailyKos or HuffPost or the like, whereas we used to have several others who would bombard the ZZL with links to Breitbart and DailyCaller and WashingtonTimes and GatewayPundit or Daily Wire or NationalReview - so much so, that I can even remember them, between posters such as douglas and clevel and randman and falconjet or upheels, etc.

If someone drops a link from Breitbart, I'm just not going to view it with the same credulity as if someone were to drop a link from the WSJ. I'm guessing you may be a conservative or Trump supporting conservative, so let me also say that if someone drops a link from PalmerReport or DailyKos, I'm probably equally likely to not view it as credible. There are media bias sites where one can go to check as well. Not sure it's as bosides as you claim though - recall that Fox News/Fox Business/Newscorp agreed to settle an almost 3/4 billion dollar lawsuit for claiming without any evidence about the rigging the outcome of a presidential election. I don't recall MSNBC getting their clock cleaned for a deception of that magnitude, so if you want to make it a contest of virtue, it would seem that the conservative media has a bit of ground to make up and making the statement "one isn't more virtuous than the other" may have some truth to it but in practice, doesn't hold up too well. It's hard to believe I used to be a semi-regular Fox News viewer in the early 2000s. If MSNBC ever does get busted for that kind of thing though, you can count on my condemnation of them being just as harsh.

But all that aside, Callatoroy, maybe we can agree to reserve criticism or judgment about the credibility of the media or a particular source until someone actually drops a link as supporting evidence for a topic or argument they're making, and if it's in dispute, we can go from there. Fair?

So if there's an issue you'd like to talk about, here or in a separate thread, then let's do so as civilly and honestly and with as much good faith as possible.
Click to expand...
1. You are correct in that I meant "subconsciously" I was distracted by the young lady drinking from the bottle. Afraid she might have spilled some on her shirt.
2. I'm not familiar with the PalmerReport / DailyKos / DailyCaller / GatewayPundit / Daily Wire so I can't speak to those. What I'm referring to is mostly more mainstream. I do know Fox had to pay for misreporting on the election. They were grossly wrong when reporting on the UNC academic scandal as well. Fox isn't being mentioned by me as an example of journalistic integrity. However, paying up in a lawsuit doesn't mean one is more or less accurate or honest in their reporting as a whole. The NYT has had several major stories that it had to either issue retractions way after the fact, or admit downright false reporting. Left / Right news sources are all businesses based on similar models. The reporting, depending on which side is in power, will be slanted to appeal to their customer base. Use biden's mental decline as an example. There have been numerous stories either refuting it or making light of it from the left leaning sites. The right leaning sources have been proclaiming it for a couple of years. As it turns out, those right leaning sources are closer to being accurate than stories dismissing his decline. It would be the same if the situation was reversed. You will also remember subverting the laptop story days before the election. It is a both sides issue. Everyone should read / listen to news with a hint of skepticism knowing that there is always an agenda in play.
3. Hopefully everyone wants accurate news irregardless of how it affects his/her party. Unfortunately our media sources in this country have lost trust and no longer are worthy of blind faith. If everyone questions the reporting there will be far less arguing and more informed voters.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
I don’t want to junk up this thread with the fallacy of believing right wing and left wing media are the same, but if you want to start a thread with the above premise, I’d be happy to let you know why you’re wrong about that.
Click to expand...
I used to think one was more virtuous than the other. Then I started looking as objectively as I could and came to the conclusion that that wasn't the case. Happy to discuss it with you in another thread but it won't be now as I'm going to actually do some work to pay the price of the meal I'm going to eat tonight.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Agreed. As long as they understand this is a left-leaning (okay, left-heavy) board and behave themselves. What the IC mods allowed since the night of the debate and the subsequent invasion of Tar Pit trolls was ridiculous.

And just to be fair, I had a hand in that chaos as well because I lashed out at a lot of folks instead of engaging them in debate.

So, this is a new board, and I’m going to do my best to keep discussion with my ideological opponents civil and emotion-free for the betterment of everyone here.

I’m not saying saying I won’t try my best to embarrass these people for their terrible beliefs, but it will be fact-based and I’ll keep the personal attacks out of it.
Click to expand...

 
Callatoroy said:
1. You are correct in that I meant "subconsciously" I was distracted by the young lady drinking from the bottle. Afraid she might have spilled some on her shirt.
2. I'm not familiar with the PalmerReport / DailyKos / DailyCaller / GatewayPundit / Daily Wire so I can't speak to those. What I'm referring to is mostly more mainstream. I do know Fox had to pay for misreporting on the election. They were grossly wrong when reporting on the UNC academic scandal as well. Fox isn't being mentioned by me as an example of journalistic integrity. However, paying up in a lawsuit doesn't mean one is more or less accurate or honest in their reporting as a whole. The NYT has had several major stories that it had to either issue retractions way after the fact, or admit downright false reporting. Left / Right news sources are all businesses based on similar models. The reporting, depending on which side is in power, will be slanted to appeal to their customer base. Use biden's mental decline as an example. There have been numerous stories either refuting it or making light of it from the left leaning sites. The right leaning sources have been proclaiming it for a couple of years. As it turns out, those right leaning sources are closer to being accurate than stories dismissing his decline. It would be the same if the situation was reversed. You will also remember subverting the laptop story days before the election. It is a both sides issue. Everyone should read / listen to news with a hint of skepticism knowing that there is always an agenda in play.
3. Hopefully everyone wants accurate news irregardless of how it affects his/her party. Unfortunately our media sources in this country have lost trust and no longer are worthy of blind faith. If everyone questions the reporting there will be far less arguing and more informed voters.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree about the HB laptop story being subverted; that definitely happened and is disheartening. And you're right about right-wing sources pointing out Biden's mental decline earlier too; I think the issue most of us take with them on that front though isn't that they're covering Biden's mental decline, it's that they ignore any analysis of Trump's conspicuously and chronically similar behaviors (not as bad as Biden, but he definitely has them).

Overall though, suffice it to say that I tend to agree more with @WaynetheDrain when it comes to the subject of "right v left" media and I just don't see the "equal but opposite" situation that you do. But that is okay and it shouldn't prevent us from having a discussion.

I do wholeheartedly agree with you that in the age of for-profit media, and with the Fairness Doctrine gutted, that strict scrutiny is invaluable as a skill to consumption of information from this or that source (hopefully multiple sources; that's the main method to keeping the bubble at bay, IMO).

In any case, I look forward to having discussions and reading your contributions. 🍻
 
Last edited:
heelfan108 said:
The old board too often allowed libs to use name calling to attack conservatives. Would like that to go away.
Click to expand...
Like abbreviating liberals as "libs" but spelling out "conservatives?" I kid; I kid. :)

Seriously tho, so we're on the same page, what would constitute name-calling in your view, outside of pejoratives or profanity, or is that exactly what you mean? Or like, "idiot Trumper" or "MAGAt" or "libtard" or "Dim" or something like that? Or something different entirely?

I'm not saying it should be allowed, but it may mean different things to different people here.
 
heelfan108 said:
The old board too often allowed libs to use name calling to attack conservatives. Would like that to go away.
Click to expand...
Is there a material difference between what you wrote and "The old board allowed name calling. Would like that to go away." and if there is can you walk me though it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top