Young Republicans are Comedy Gold

[Darth Wong]

Did I ever mention the factory coworker who constantly chain-smoked every day, and who (surprise surprise) died of lung cancer? My other coworkers chided me for assuming that his smoking had anything to do with it, and said that I was buying into "nanny-state anti-smoking propaganda". They said it could have been genetic.

[General Zod]

When was the last time you ran into someone opposing anything you firmly believed in whose arguments weren't based, at least in part, on outright distortions from what you knew, or felt, to be true?

I make it a point to try and avoid making arguments based on "gut instinct.", which is what a significant majority of conservatives base their arguments on.

To be honest, I don't get the sense that many people have. And I myself don't tire of having arguments. If people get offended, or saddened, that I don't live "Biblically," they're going to walk away. At least I challenged them. It sticks.

I find that you can only bash your head against a wall so many times before it becomes stale. Quite frankly that's exactly what arguing conservative after conservative feels like when they wind up using the same argument they heard on Rush Limbaugh's show and think it's the best thing ever.

There's so much vitriol. I can't help but assume that most people here don't address people "on the other side of the fence" because they never got past the, "You're a bad, bad person" approach.

Or they've tried and found that it just isn't worth the trouble.

And understanding why they feel persecuted is an important step to addressing the problem. Christians don't know "what all the fuss is about." And frankly, even as somebody who is disappointed when receiving a Merry Christmas card from people I expect to be more considerate, I can't blame the general idea that the season isn't enriched when we have to hear from people who take "Merry Christmas" as a form of religious warfare.

What's to understand? They have a tribalistic religion that encourages persecution complexes and martyrdom. So any attempt by an outsider to change what they perceive as belonging to them is viewed as an attack.

[The Spartan]

Wow. Well, blinkers aren't just for horses.

I actually had the displeasure of seeing part of Glen Beck's show at the gym the other day. Unfortunately, it was the only TV I could see from my stationary bike, otherwise I'd have been watching Sportscenter.

Anyhow, he had on some damn country musician, who's name I can't recall, and Beck quoted Jefferson as saying something to the effect of "I'd rather be judged by a farmer than by a scholar." I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist of it. They both agreed that Jefferson was obviously a wise man and the musician said something to the effect of needing to get "common sense" back into politics (funny how they always say that when they're preferred party isn't in charge) and mentioned something about Obama talking about winning and that this wasn't about winning, it was about how you played.

Why do I mention all this? Because this is the kind of asshole that Young Republicans fall over themselves to agree with.

[RedImperator]

It’s funny, too, that nobody ever seems to square the Republican mistrust of social welfare with the general Christian imperative of social service.

It appears to me that broadly speaking Conservative Christians' idea of 'social service' is the construction of gigantic wasteful ugly-ass mega-churches, funding of television and radio stations and expenditure of money to buy political influence in the pursuit of 'serving' society by forcing their concept of Christian Principles down everyone's throat using the power of government, to do it.

While I'm usually reluctant to defend Christian fundamentalists, I think you have to take that on a church-by-church basis. There are, obviously, ministries that spend a great deal of money on lavish churches, media empires, lobbying, and personally enriching their founders, and these are often the most visible, but there are a lot of churches and rank-and-file Christians doing a lot of good work. I've worked in neighborhoods where the churches were virtually the only people doing good work. And yeah, a big reason why those neighborhoods are so fucked up is because of social and economic policies those same Christian conservatives have voted for time after time, but I don't know how much you can blame ordinary people for not understanding complex socioeconomic policy issues that aren't taught in school (even at the college level, unless you specialize) or discussed in popular media (except as fodder for demagogues).

[Darth Wong]

I think we also need to remind ourselves here that there is such a thing as a liberal Christian. I don't know why conservatives get to take credit for everything Christians do, when I know plenty of Christians who thought George W. Bush was the devil in disguise.

I actually had the opportunity to see first-hand the contrast between Ontario Christians and Texas Christians once. Pretty disturbing, actually. We had some guest speakers from Texas, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that the entire congregation had a stunned "what the fuck" look on its face after the service.

[Axis Kast]

This is a perfect encapsulation of the problem I'm talking about. Do you think liberals honestly don't understand why conservatives like the idea of Guantanamo? We "get" them, but they don't "get" us. We understand that they are afraid of these characters and sincerely believe that they can protect the free world by treating them the way they do.

Actually, not. I think most conservatives really wouldn't remark on Guantanamo, if not for liberals. In fact, my comments should have made clear that I interpret the debate, at least from the Republican side, as being political hay. Easy points, if you want to sell the idea that your opponent is "soft" when it comes to making "hard choices" about how to deal with people we capture. And yes, there is a certain "get the bad man" logic, but it's not entirely conservative; liberals have shouted long and hard about the diversion of resources from capturing Osama bin Laden, the man.

Conservatives don't perceive that Guantanamo Bay is a public relations disaster among populations that matter. They see European shock as self-serving, and Arab shock as hypocritical. They then stop, satisfied that they've gone far enough, without moving to the next step -- pure utility. Even if the other critics are biased, can we ourselves see hang-ups with the idea of indefinite prison terms for people whose crimes we can't always qualify?

Caricature is normal in politics. I've been saying for a while that people on this board generate awful absurdities. They are simply laughed at, because they're funny, and nobody stops to think about who actually believes them.

And yet, there are more creationists among conservatives than among liberals. You seem unwilling to admit that there may be any difference: your arguments repeatedly state total equivalence a priori, substantiated only by pointing out that certain individual cases exist. When speaking of correlations between large groups, that doesn't work and you know it.

You're creating your own false equivalence by suggesting that a test of belief in hard science will confirm the political sophistication of liberals over conservatives. I disagree. You have to look at specific issues. As groups, both sides are forced to make compromises that are frankly counterproductive. At an individual level, belief in hard science hasn't kept me from identifying certain policy proposals by members of this very liberal, highly educated community as being off-the-wall.

I make it a point to try and avoid making arguments based on "gut instinct.", which is what a significant majority of conservatives base their arguments on.

A majority of ... everyone ... does that.

I find that you can only bash your head against a wall so many times before it becomes stale. Quite frankly that's exactly what arguing conservative after conservative feels like when they wind up using the same argument they heard on Rush Limbaugh's show and think it's the best thing ever.

And liberals don't have their blogs? Some people will make you want to bash your head against a wall. But some people will be receptive, and others will deny your argument, but walk away conflicted, and give it harder thought next time.

What's to understand? They have a tribalistic religion that encourages persecution complexes and martyrdom. So any attempt by an outsider to change what they perceive as belonging to them is viewed as an attack.

You could be referring to a great many members of this community when it comes to religion, generally.

If you've given up, that's fine. My argument is that a lot of liberals tend to get certain answers from conservatives and then fail to demand rationales, or dig deeper. They hear "God" or "the Bible" and just shut down, because they figure, "Oh, that's irrational, and I'm not engaging with that." And then they complain that they "can't get through to these people," and that America is "full of morons" who hijack the political process and espouse idiocy. Well, if you don't like it, you need to develop serious methods of changing minds, which means learning how to convince people that their own logic is unsound. And it's not as easy as saying, "I've got science!"

[Kanastrous]

While I'm usually reluctant to defend Christian fundamentalists, I think you have to take that on a church-by-church basis. There are, obviously, ministries that spend a great deal of money on lavish churches, media empires, lobbying, and personally enriching their founders, and these are often the most visible, but there are a lot of churches and rank-and-file Christians doing a lot of good work. I've worked in neighborhoods where the churches were virtually the only people doing good work. And yeah, a big reason why those neighborhoods are so fucked up is because of social and economic policies those same Christian conservatives have voted for time after time, but I don't know how much you can blame ordinary people for not understanding complex socioeconomic policy issues that aren't taught in school (even at the college level, unless you specialize) or discussed in popular media (except as fodder for demagogues).

This isn't Afghanistan; there are numerous channels by which people can get enough information to function at least a little bit above the level demagogue-fodder.

If the 'ordinary person' lives within reasonable distance of a library with or without internet connection, and votes, then some share of blame definitely belongs to them.

I think we also need to remind ourselves here that there is such a thing as a liberal Christian. I don't know why conservatives get to take credit for everything Christians do, when I know plenty of Christians who thought George W. Bush was the devil in disguise.

I actually had the opportunity to see first-hand the contrast between Ontario Christians and Texas Christians once. Pretty disturbing, actually. We had some guest speakers from Texas, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that the entire congregation had a stunned "what the fuck" look on its face after the service.

Maybe this should be filed under being judged by the company you keep.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, not. I think most conservatives really wouldn't remark on Guantanamo, if not for liberals.

Perhaps not, but once the discussion starts, it's pretty clear that they have some very strong feelings about what liberals are saying about Guantanamo, and that they can't comprehend liberals' motivations at all. I don't think it means anything to say that they wouldn't remark on it otherwise, since they were happy with the status quo under Bush. Nobody remarks on anything when they're happy with the status quo, so you're not really proving anything. Since when do you see people angrily getting on forums to vent about how they're happy with the status quo?

You're creating your own false equivalence by suggesting that a test of belief in hard science will confirm the political sophistication of liberals over conservatives. I disagree. You have to look at specific issues. As groups, both sides are forced to make compromises that are frankly counterproductive. At an individual level, belief in hard science hasn't kept me from identifying certain policy proposals by members of this very liberal, highly educated community as being off-the-wall.

You're doing it again: using anecdotal incidents in order to justify an equivalence even when we know that there's a broad preference for conservative thought among creationists, and yes, we can generalize to say that creationists have deficient thinking. That's not a caricature or a politically motivated statement.

My argument is that a lot of liberals tend to get certain answers from conservatives and then fail to demand rationales, or dig deeper.

I have had extremely long and involved debates with conservative creationists, for example, and the problem is that when I demand rationales, they just get circular. I've got records of these debates on my creationtheory website, and that's how most discussions with creationists go. Eventually, you have no choice but to conclude that the person is not interested in logic at all.

I used to be quite conservative myself, you know. And I spent years attending Christian churches. I know the conservative mindset.

[General Zod]

A majority of ... everyone ... does that.

Which changes the fact that it's stupid to do so. . .how?

And liberals don't have their blogs? Some people will make you want to bash your head against a wall. But some people will be receptive, and others will deny your argument, but walk away conflicted, and give it harder thought next time.

I've yet to find any liberal blog that has the same level of publicity and hate spewing vitriol as say, Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter. Conservative talking heads on the whole tend to be louder and far more hate filled. I'm not going to pretend that all liberals are intelligent, but the amount of loud, obnoxious conservatives is far higher.

If you've given up, that's fine. My argument is that a lot of liberals tend to get certain answers from conservatives and then fail to demand rationales, or dig deeper. They hear "God" or "the Bible" and just shut down, because they figure, "Oh, that's irrational, and I'm not engaging with that." And then they complain that they "can't get through to these people," and that America is "full of morons" who hijack the political process and espouse idiocy. Well, if you don't like it, you need to develop serious methods of changing minds, which means learning how to convince people that their own logic is unsound. And it's not as easy as saying, "I've got science!"

If I feel like arguing with someone whether they're conservative or not I'll generally give them the benefit of the doubt until they start recycling arguments I've heard a thousand times before.

[RedImperator]

While I'm usually reluctant to defend Christian fundamentalists, I think you have to take that on a church-by-church basis. There are, obviously, ministries that spend a great deal of money on lavish churches, media empires, lobbying, and personally enriching their founders, and these are often the most visible, but there are a lot of churches and rank-and-file Christians doing a lot of good work. I've worked in neighborhoods where the churches were virtually the only people doing good work. And yeah, a big reason why those neighborhoods are so fucked up is because of social and economic policies those same Christian conservatives have voted for time after time, but I don't know how much you can blame ordinary people for not understanding complex socioeconomic policy issues that aren't taught in school (even at the college level, unless you specialize) or discussed in popular media (except as fodder for demagogues).

This isn't Afghanistan; there are numerous channels by which people can get enough information to function at least a little bit above the level demagogue-fodder.

If the 'ordinary person' lives within reasonable distance of a library with or without internet connection, and votes, then some share of blame definitely belongs to them.

Oh come on. How many liberals even really understand what's going on in the ghetto, and how it got that way? You can't let the institutions charged with educating and informing the public off the hook for their failures by waving vaguely at the public library. You're John Q. Voter. You've been told your whole life by trusted authorities that the world works a certain way, reinforced by other trusted authorities accusing anyone who says otherwise of being, at best, naive, and at worst charlatans who are out to take your tax money and give it to people who don't deserve it, and you likely have at best a superficial education in economics and sociology. Were would you even start? How would you even know to start? Yeah, sure, they deserve a measure of blame for voting for things like Reaganomics, where anybody willing to use his brain can see, after almost thirty years, that the whole thing was a big scam, but what about things like, say, tough drug laws? Or dismantling social safety nets because they apparently haven't worked and you've been told over and over again that they actually increase poverty by making the poor dependent on hopelessly corrupt and incompetent government agencies? I'm a reasonably intelligent person with a social sciences degree from a fancy-pants college, and I swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker until I was 25 years old--and the only reason I stopped was because I lucked into SDN before smug dickwaving and banshee howls became the standard of discourse, and also because I went to grad school.

At any rate, whatever these people are or aren't doing to educate themselves, they're coming to do thankless work for free in neighborhoods where plenty of liberals drive through as fast as they can, making eye contact with nobody, if they don't just drive miles out of their way to avoid them entirely. I'm not contesting the fact their are plenty of nasty, evil conservative Christians who are happy to praise Jesus on Sunday and say "fuck you" to the poor the rest of the week. But you can't tar them all with the same brush. The world's more complicated than that.

[Darth Wong]

Kanastrous is from Hollywood. It goes without saying that he's got a slightly warped perspective

I've known plenty of liberal-type Christians. But they're not scary. When I was a conservative attending a liberal church, I was treated vastly better than I was a decade later, as a liberal attending a conservative church. And that doesn't seem to be a unique experience: remembering the churches trying to excommunicate or otherwise punish people for voting Kerry? When did you hear of liberal churches trying to kick out congregationists for voting Bush?

I know people keep saying "it's just as bad on both sides", but that seems like Golden Mean horseshit to me. The conservative mindset is simply more tribal. Even if you just look at liberal vs conservative Christians and ignore all non-Christians.

[Kanastrous]

Slightly?

Sure, I acknowledge that there are different spectra of crazy, some of which can even be net-beneficial. On the other hand, there's still a down side which is that they basically provide a form of cover for the nuttier, shriller and more actively dangerous types.

[Darth Wong]

In an ideal world, nobody would believe in such preposterous bullshit as Noah's Ark. To believe in such a thing is to abdicate your responsibility to think rationally in such a grotesque fashion that it simply cannot bode well for your decision-making in other spheres of life.

Having said that, there is quite a lot to be said for the old phrase "he has his heart in the right place", and a lot of these people do. However, as I said earlier, I'll be damned if I let conservative Christians take credit for what more liberal Christians do. Instead of bragging about how other Christians feed the poor or donate to charity, I want him to tell me what he does to help the poor.

I also want him to explain to me why he fights so hard against social programs even though it is well-established that private charities do not fully supplant government programs in the distribution of aid (first-class example: universal health care in Canada vs the patchwork of public, private, and charity-funded health care in the US, which leaves tens of millions of people hung out to dry).

[Axis Kast]

Perhaps not, but once the discussion starts, it's pretty clear that they have some very strong feelings about what liberals are saying about Guantanamo, and that they can't comprehend liberals' motivations at all.

Liberals should then strive to make their motivations more clear, although much of what one hears about the "traitors" and "bleeding hearts" that want to set our prisoners up in five-star hotels is purely for people who, in quiet moments, know better. The genius of conservative radio is that they can spout these things that even their listeners, on reflection, would admit just aren't precisely true. Heuristics.

I don't think it means anything to say that they wouldn't remark on it otherwise, since they were happy with the status quo under Bush. Nobody remarks on anything when they're happy with the status quo, so you're not really proving anything. Since when do you see people angrily getting on forums to vent about how they're happy with the status quo?

They wouldn't have remarked because they aren't necessarily convinced that Guantanamo is more than a litmus test of resolve to let it be known that we haven't lost our instinct for "getting the job done." Guantanmo isn't a solution to any conservatives -- it's just an argument we shouldn't be having.

Confusion stems from the conservative trust of the federal government to manage security. Liberals insist that prison politics in the War on Terror are a short hop and step away from informing practice when it comes to domestic crime. Conservatives aren't so sure. But most debate never really digs down that deep.

You're doing it again: using anecdotal incidents in order to justify an equivalence even when we know that there's a broad preference for conservative thought among creationists, and yes, we can generalize to say that creationists have deficient thinking. That's not a caricature or a politically motivated statement.

What you're trying to do is to make belief in, or rejection of, Creationism the essential binary determinant of whether or not somebody is smart. Therefore, liberals > conservatives when it comes to the quality and utility of solutions for this nation's problems. I'm not snapping that up.

I have had extremely long and involved debates with conservative creationists, for example, and the problem is that when I demand rationales, they just get circular. I've got records of these debates on my creationtheory website, and that's how most discussions with creationists go. Eventually, you have no choice but to conclude that the person is not interested in logic at all.

If you insist that no conservative is willing to listen, or that it's impossible to ask them to test their foundational assumptions, and so we shouldn't try, then all you'll ever get to do is rail.

Which changes the fact that it's stupid to do so. . .how?

You tried to suggest that it was a uniquely conservative activity.

I've yet to find any liberal blog that has the same level of publicity and hate spewing vitriol as say, Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter. Conservative talking heads on the whole tend to be louder and far more hate filled. I'm not going to pretend that all liberals are intelligent, but the amount of loud, obnoxious conservatives is far higher.

Because rejection sells, and you're sitting on one side of the fence. Liberals are more tollerant, but you only need to check the history of this very forum to see what kind of barbs your own side is capable of throwing.

[Darth Wong]

What you're trying to do is to make belief in, or rejection of, Creationism the essential binary determinant of whether or not somebody is smart.

Will you stop it with this fucking strawman? I'm NOT saying that 100% of creationists are stupid and 100% of "evolutionists" are smart. I'm just saying that creationism is a clear example of horrendous reasoning, and it is strongly correlated with anti-intellectualism (how can it not be, when one of its central planks is the rejection of scientific method and every major scientific association in the world?).

It is possible to be smart and yet prone to irrational thought. "Smart" just means you're a quick learner. It doesn't mean you think highly of logic.

PS. Exhibit A: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=132143 . How many people at such a high level on the left make comments of such remarkably douchebaggery? This isn't some jerkoff on an Internet forum; it's a goddamned State Senator.

[General Zod]

Perhaps not, but once the discussion starts, it's pretty clear that they have some very strong feelings about what liberals are saying about Guantanamo, and that they can't comprehend liberals' motivations at all.

Liberals should then strive to make their motivations more clear, although much of what one hears about the "traitors" and "bleeding hearts" that want to set our prisoners up in five-star hotels is purely for people who, in quiet moments, know better. The genius of conservative radio is that they can spout these things that even their listeners, on reflection, would admit just aren't precisely true. Heuristics.

Many hard-nose conservatives seem incapable of understanding anyone's motives that don't agree with their own unless it's spelled out in crayon.

What you're trying to do is to make belief in, or rejection of, Creationism the essential binary determinant of whether or not somebody is smart. Therefore, liberals > conservatives when it comes to the quality and utility of solutions for this nation's problems. I'm not snapping that up.

Accepting creationism doesn't exactly speak in favor of someone's critical thinking skills.

Because rejection sells, and you're sitting on one side of the fence. Liberals are more tollerant, but you only need to check the history of this very forum to see what kind of barbs your own side is capable of throwing.

So your response is basically "but liberals do it too?!!11!" Even though that's just hilarious golden mean nonsense.

[Axis Kast]

Will you stop it with this fucking strawman? I'm NOT saying that 100% of creationists are stupid and 100% of "evolutionists" are smart. I'm just saying that creationism is a clear example of horrendous reasoning, and it is strongly correlated with anti-intellectualism (how can it not be, when one of its central planks is the rejection of scientific method and every major scientific association in the world?).

None of which I have disputed. I do not, however, see the relevance of your making such a contention, unless it is to draw comparison between the right and left of the American political spectrum.

PS. Exhibit A: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=132143 . How many people at such a high level on the left make comments of such remarkably douchebaggery? This isn't some jerkoff on an Internet forum; it's a goddamned State Senator.

The state senator's remarks speak honestly to a kind of psychosis of which Red Imperator provided a decent overview. In this particular case, the individual answers to a Cult of the Slippery Slope. He is convinced that the government has an overriding responsibility to protect people from themselves, and believes fervently that if it can happen, it will happen. According to this logic, any attempt to accommodate unwanted futures actually ushers them onward, since people are being given a discount or subsidy that eliminates or much reduces the consequences. Most of us clearly happen to think it's a trash argument that doesn't admit that the failure rate for twiddling thumbs is just too great not to act. We might prefer abstinence-only education, and it is possible that some young people are more willing to have sex because they are told that it is a frequent occurrence in spite of discouragement, but the effect of one-sided education is even worse.

Many hard-nose conservatives seem incapable of understanding anyone's motives that don't agree with their own unless it's spelled out in crayon.

Then one must learn to draw in crayon. The only alternative is shouting uselessly at the full moon.

Accepting creationism doesn't exactly speak in favor of someone's critical thinking skills

No, it doesn't.

So your response is basically "but liberals do it too?!!11!" Even though that's just hilarious golden mean nonsense.

My response is, if you're aiming to try and draw a comparison, but get called on it because there is actually strong equivalence between the parties, you can't defend yourself by complaining about golden means.

This forum contains people who have openly shared their hopes that anybody who voted for Bush or McCain suffer horrific cosmic consequences, for one thing.

[General Zod]

Then one must learn to draw in crayon. The only alternative is shouting uselessly at the full moon.

Or mocking them mercilessly for my amusement. If they need me to draw it out for them in crayon I'm at the point where I don't really care to argue with them anymore.

My response is, if you're aiming to try and draw a comparison, but get called on it because there is actually strong equivalence between the parties, you can't defend yourself by complaining about golden means.

This forum contains people who have openly shared their hopes that anybody who voted for Bush or McCain suffer horrific cosmic consequences, for one thing.

So what? Finding a few examples contrary to the rule does not invalidate the rule. The point is that the conservatives have more members spewing hate and vitriol than anyone else. Not that liberals are necessarily lacking people who don't do the same.

[Kanastrous]

Not to mention that when liberals place credence in things like New Age Crystal Cosmic Karmic Neo Pagan etcetera they so far appear to do it in a kind of individual disorganized grassroots fashion, while conservative traditional religionists are sufficiently organized to pull off stuff like influencing state referendums and rally voting blocs for presidential elections.

[Darth Wong]

I'm a little tired of Kast's tendency to respond to examples of horrendous conservative public statements made at the national level with "people on this forum said ..." Talk about apples and oranges. Do you seriously think that if one of us was a goddamned state senator, he would say the same things?

[Axis Kast]

I'm a little tired of Kast's tendency to respond to examples of horrendous conservative public statements made at the national level with "people on this forum said ..." Talk about apples and oranges. Do you seriously think that if one of us was a goddamned state senator, he would say the same things?

Your "horrendous conservative public statements" include, to wit, the rhetoric of radio shock-jocks who continue to be employed precisely because they garner bad publicity along with good; a mayor who sent a clearly racist e-mail; one State Senator that's got a case of extreme dogma, rather than actual bigotry; and a general sentiment that Republicans are just mean folk.

And yes, I am forced to conclude that members of this forum, if suddenly granted a political pulpit, would say exactly what they think, intemperate or otherwise.

[rhoenix]

And yes, I am forced to conclude that members of this forum, if suddenly granted a political pulpit, would say exactly what they think, intemperate or otherwise.

Oh dear.

On what do you base your collective accusation of tactless honesty at all users of this forum?

If this was said in the heat of the moment in your post, that's fine - but wow, man. I'll even give you room to backpedal for this one, since you're saying that if any one of us gained public office we'd speak the same publicly as we would under a neat alias one created on an Internet forum and discussed politics under, and that's...amusing.

[Edi]

And yes, I am forced to conclude that members of this forum, if suddenly granted a political pulpit, would say exactly what they think, intemperate or otherwise.

Some might, but they would most probably not make it to a second term. Some of us might develop a more restrained tongue while still holding much the same views. I know I would, though the press would probably have a field day with something I said carelessly that could be taken out of context to make it look worse than it was in context.

There's a good reason why I'm a techie for a living instead of in the PR field.

You make a few too many assumptions about how people behave when there are certain rules to be followed (written or not). To take myself as an example, the Edi who posts on SDnet and the Edi who posts on Cassiopeia or the Shrapnel Games forums would seem rather different people. Especially when comparing SDnet and Shrapnel. The difference? The standards of acceptable conduct, further emphasized by status as a moderator over there so less leeway to make bloopers.

If you're a public figure on the level of a state senator or similar, there should be even less leeway with that sort of thing.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm a little tired of Kast's tendency to respond to examples of horrendous conservative public statements made at the national level with "people on this forum said ..." Talk about apples and oranges. Do you seriously think that if one of us was a goddamned state senator, he would say the same things?

Your "horrendous conservative public statements" include, to wit, the rhetoric of radio shock-jocks who continue to be employed precisely because they garner bad publicity along with good; a mayor who sent a clearly racist e-mail; one State Senator that's got a case of extreme dogma, rather than actual bigotry; and a general sentiment that Republicans are just mean folk.

Will it really be necessary to plough back over the last eight, ten, twenty-five or even thirty-five years to find more than sufficient examples of the mindsets of these people? Republican office-holders who kept ties to the neoconfederate Council of Conservative Citizens (Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Kirk Fordice)? South Carolina legislators who assert the right to fly the Stars & Bars over the state capitol building in Charleston? Lee Atwater's and Karl Rove's not-so-subtle appeals to racism in Southern primary campaigns and even one general election? The Nixonian "Southern Strategy"? Jesse Helms?

And yes, I am forced to conclude that members of this forum, if suddenly granted a political pulpit, would say exactly what they think, intemperate or otherwise.

Tu-Quoque Fallacy. Also irrelevant to the issue before the bar.

[Darth Wong]

I'm a little tired of Kast's tendency to respond to examples of horrendous conservative public statements made at the national level with "people on this forum said ..." Talk about apples and oranges. Do you seriously think that if one of us was a goddamned state senator, he would say the same things?

Your "horrendous conservative public statements" include, to wit, the rhetoric of radio shock-jocks who continue to be employed precisely because they garner bad publicity along with good; a mayor who sent a clearly racist e-mail; one State Senator that's got a case of extreme dogma, rather than actual bigotry; and a general sentiment that Republicans are just mean folk.

First, you're lying. Radio hosts like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. are employed because they are popular. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly sell a shitload of books because they are popular. These aren't people on the fringe. If your hypothesis were correct, one should be able to sell just as many books and draw just as many viewers by being just as outrageous in support of socialism. So where are the radical socialist talk-radio jocks and runaway best-seller authors and TV show hosts?

Second, you're pretending that I could only produce one example of a Republican senator who said something ridiculous; do you really want to challenge people to come up with more examples? Republicans have made an absolutely incredible litany of statements which make one question their sanity. Not errors, but deliberate statements of intent and value. Avowed creationists are considered rising stars in the party. Men stand up in public and declare that they can diagnose brain conditions via videotape. The fucking president himself declares that he takes guidance from a higher power.

And what's your retort? Some completely unheard-of people on this forum say things.

And yes, I am forced to conclude that members of this forum, if suddenly granted a political pulpit, would say exactly what they think, intemperate or otherwise.

Conclude? Based on what? Please, by all means, show me your reasoning.