Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Ranters' Soapbox RR as a microcosm

I have privately told several friends here of my growing disinclination to continue participating in a board that I have enjoyed since Bill Clinton was being deposed in the Paula Jones fishing expedition.

At that time, a moderate, much less a liberal, could expect to be attacked for supporting his president, even if his president was right. Over the years, the general tone of this board has shifted to the center (despite the suggestions of some current denizens that it has moved to the left). Why is that?

One need only read a few of the leader's columns to understand the shift is not being led by a shift in his political compass. Unlike most commentators, Doug has stayed pretty much where he was when he started this public service.

When I think back through the years, the biggest changes I see are the many proponents of the politics of the right who cannot address the issues without vitriol. Many of them have been invited to cease and desist posting here unless they agree to abide by the simple and reasonable guidelines we all sign up for.

I admit to having not voted for a Republican for president since Gerald Ford ran in 1976. I admit to having not been a registered Republican since 1990, when the pandering to the zealots began taking that party away from its historical roots to a party wholly committed to expanding the Nixon doctrine to every trailer court and evangelical church in America. When one's reading of the 2nd Amendment became the most important issue in assessing one's party loyalty, I left that party.

Throughout, however, I stayed here and quickly abandoned all other boards I found because here one could find reasoned discussion and a sanity maintained by a group of self-less moderators who carried out Doug's vision with dedication. Engage in reasoned discourse or find another board.

For whatever reason, the tone here has changed of late (and read "late" in the context of having been around for a dozen or so years).

In an attempt to keep the board "balanced", those who advance the theories and rhetoric of the right or serve as apologists for the right as a way of playing nuisance, have come to dominate the discourse. Not with the weight of their ideas but with the rhetorical and intellectual violence with which they post their thoughts. And repeatedly they get away with it.

Despite having sworn off RR, I am compelled to write this morning because of what has gone on in the thread about the assassination attempt against a sitting member of Congress. I can only pray that in the end the attempt will have proven unsuccessful. But still we have the collateral damage of the death of a sitting federal judge and several others.

Phil Hoskins represents what I have most enjoyed about my time here. Yes, it is true that I agree on some level with what Phil posts. But that is not what makes his presence here enjoyable.

Rather, it has been his role in moderation of the site that has earned my respect. There have been others (NW Ponderer comes to mind) but Phil has stuck it out through some very trying times and many very blunt attacks on him. It was a very sad moment when I read he was setting us aside, but I certainly understood why.

Now this morning I read the attacks on his post in the Arizona shooting thread. The hatred in those attacks is palpable. The variance those attacks represent from the tone of what I have so much enjoyed about RR over the years is nauseating.

Yet in the current RR tenor, those attacks are allowed. Posts such as these (and it is not a single poster who engages in the practice) are informed by the knowledge that unless one openly and slanderously attacks the person, they are allowable under the rules as those rules are being implemented.

I find myself thinking more about how best to zing these charlatans without running afoul of the moderators than about how to discuss with them rationally. Because they have shown no desire to engage in rational discussion. Some have even acknowledged that the point is not truth or reason, it is victory in the rhetorical debate.

So far have we sunk.

logan, that is why I have decided to refrain from participating in any discussion on this board in which those whose oft stated intent is simply to "piss liberals off" are also participating.

That is why I have not participated in the thread addressing the murders in AZ.

Every once in a while, I will do a post on Capitalism which is diminishing as we speak. I have not voted GOP since 1988 but it was based on a terrible treaty agreement called NAFTA. I went with Perot and found myself hated everywhere I posted. I do not consider myself a victim and tend to blame the GOP for greed and corruption.

I stayed clear of the Democrats and now I will run screaming from the GOP. I fear our freedoms are going to be removed for our own good. It happens all over the world when one side claims a moral superiority over others.

The fear of the religious right and the tea party will kill our American values because they have nothing to offer for improvement. When nothing else is available, people turn to terrorism.

Sandy

Logan
My perception is entirely different from your
I do not see a move on this board to the center right.
And what ever move there is seems independent of Doug.

For the most part, people of the rightly persuasion have seemed fairly consistent in there numbers, and their posting style. This is, if nothing else, an interesting case study on how it is that obviously intelligent people can contort their thinking to support which ever beliefs they are inclined to feel.

What I personally have found more amazing is how erstwhile liberals have apparently convinced themselves that they represent mainstream politics in this country and have a right to more or less dictate the course of political events in this country.

The opinions that you voice (IMO) map to the general political trends I see in the country.... a dissatisfied liberal takes his ball and goes away sulking muttering about the unfairness, A dissatisfied conservative plots and schemes and wears funny costumes, goes to rallies, repeats slogans, and generally does everything possible to get back in power and destroy his political enemies.

One side will likely win that struggle.

loganrbt:
You post bring to mind today's Dilbert comic. And this link will only work for today's date Jan 9th in case someone wants to view it in the future.

Jan 9th 2011 Dilbert Comic

I entered the arena of the political message board back around 2000, becoming especially active during that election. One of the first boards I was member of was Abuzz which was sponsored by the New York Times. I was also participating in a political chat room at that time. Honestly the temperature of hate has not increased as much as the language has gotten more descriptive. On the message board I was with some regularity called names which included whore, the b work and occasionally something a bit stronger. I was threatened with bodily harm etc... all this because I disagreed with what I perceived as the mindless support of then candidate Bush. In the chat room this also took place but a quicker pace and yes there was even the threat of being cyber stalked, why I never give my real name. I don't write these things for pity because trust me I gave as good as I got not being one to back down from a verbal assault. Then I began to become consumed with anger and quite frankly did not like the person I was becoming because I was becoming one of them. In the 10 + years that I have been engaged in cyber politics the debate really has not changed one iota. Same arguments, same talking points, same ole same ole.
I stumbled upon CHB a few years after I decided to leave the other board and gave up on trying to participate in a civil discussion in the chat rooms. One of the reason I've come back to CHB is because there is a civil discussion. My mind is challenged more than I've found elsewhere. True the hamster wheel of political discussion does pop up now and them but for the most part here you are able to engage in a thought provoking discussion.
Just my two cents anyway. Nothing is perfect, sometimes you need to appreciate the difference even if every so slight.

This has nothing to do with "sulking" over a perceived "unfairness." This is about simply refusing to feed a troll or trolls. It's about refusing to engage in a discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest.

Ardy,
thanks for your post; it illustrates my point well.

"Zinging" those who you have determined to be "charlatans" simply puts you among their numbers. Unless the "zinging" is good natured and not intended as insult or perceived as insult then it becomes a "cheap shot".
As you are aware, flaming, cheap shots, personal disputes and feuds are against guidelines and not conducive to civil discourse.

I, myself, often wonder why, oh why, these conservative people don't simply listen to reason and throw aside their ridiculous right wing or libetarian or whatever beliefs they may hold in light of my superior arguments. But their failure to do so is no excuse for me to begin "zinging" them rather than continue trying to convince them they are wrong. Maybe the next well reasoned, well structured and logical argument will be the one that turns the Ma_Republican into a Ma_Democrat.

or not... :/

Thank you Dilbert--I mean Greger.