Tolerance of young people with a conservative view?

[ray245]

Stas Bush has mentioned a while ago, that young people tend to be much more idealistic, more crazy about the use of violence and war to resolve many problems and trying to voice their opinions without much reason.

Take me for an example, I was pretty conservative and war-crazy when I was younger, and in my teens. However, overtime, I learned to listen to the board members and be more open towards new ideas and the more rational choice so to speak. A few members were surprised that I remain on this board despite being flamed daily.

I was wondering, should the board be more tolerant towards younger members who have a conservative mindset? Instead of punishing them and shut them out of the board, we should try and help them instead? In some ways, it is easier to change the views of people who are young as compared to people who are older.

Is it possible with the board software, to limit people to posting in certain section of the board? Put some younger or more naive members on probation in that nanny section, if they have some stupid views in regards to life.

Let some educators or teachers reason with them over a period of time, and hope that in the long run, their views can be changed so to speak.

If religion and conservative is so found of the game of converting younger people, then we can turn the table against them, attack and convert their main source of recruitment so to speak.

[Formless]

Doesn't this board already do a good job of mocking stupid people/positions already

I mean, if you can't learn from mockery, what can you learn from?

[Ghost Rider]

Doesn't this board already do a good job of mocking stupid people/positions already

I mean, if you can't learn from mockery, what can you learn from?

Hand holding and gentle caresses .

We are here to guide young minds, not entertainment! I am going to put forth to the moderators that we need more draconican rules for hand holding, coddling and cuddling!

[Coyote]

If young conservatives... hell, if conservatives of any age come here and are reasonable and handle their positions and argue their cases properly and intelligently, then they are already more than welcome to join in the discussion.

The problem is, a lot of conservative viewpoints (as they are currently defined by modern politics) do not encourage a lot of critical thought; in fact, many "conservative" views these days (especially in America) tend to be the types of viewpoints that actively discourage asking too many questions. Intellectual conservatives are, in fact, being actively driven out of current American conservative circles such as the Republican Party. The William F. Buckleys are being squeezed out by the populaist chowderheads like Sarah Palin.

There are some conservatives here already. I think we'd welcome more if they can argue rationally an dhold their own. A good thick skin and a sense of humor will help too, but again, those are things that modern American conservatives don't tend to develop. Tell them they are wrong and they tend to get all sensitive and screech about persecution of Christians or things like that.

[ray245]

I was thinking of subliminal conversion, trying to tolerate even those that aren't reasonable so to speak.

Something like restricting them to post in a certain area of the forum, a forum section that is the direct opposite of hall of shame.

You smile at them (figuratively speaking) and treat them like kindergarten kids and encourage critical thinking for instance. Moreover, one can help those people and at the same time, ensure they are not allowed to post in other areas in this forum.

I mean simply banning them is not going to make a difference. They will still hold on to their conservative and irrational view when they leave the board, and this isn't going to help society at all.

This is a war of conversion so to speak, adopt the same kind of converting tactic those churches use, such as letting the un-doctrined people think that Christianity is fun, joy and laughter, and teaches us to be kind and etc. Basically ask the board to be more kind than those religious or social fundamentalist, in a single section of the board.

Create a flame-free and mockery free zone so to speak.

And the people who are going to help those people or children must have the same kind of attitude and patience as Kuroneko. A calm and reserved response.

For example, when those people make a logical fallacy or strawman in their argument, instead of getting angry and stuff by flaming them, try doing this, ' Dear/son, you know you are using a logical fallacy/strawman in your argument.'

Basically become a wise old grandpa or grandma to them. Of course they can continue to be rude and etc, but it will make that person look bad in front of everyone else.

Although that can end up being creepy as well, if everyone down there is all 'smiling' and 'kind' towards each other.

[Ghost Rider]

I was thinking of subliminal conversion, trying to tolerate even those that aren't reasonable so to speak.

Something like restricting them to post in a certain area of the forum, a forum section that is the direct opposite of hall of shame.

You smile at them (figuratively speaking) and treat them like kindergarten kids and encourage critical thinking for instance. Moreover, one can help those people and at the same time, ensure they are not allowed to post in other areas in this forum.

I mean simply banning them is not going to make a difference. They will still hold on to their conservative and irrational view when they leave the board, and this isn't going to help society at all.

This is a war of conversion so to speak, adopt the same kind of converting tactic those churches use, such as letting the un-doctrined people think that Christianity is fun, joy and laughter, and teaches us to be kind and etc. Basically ask the board to be more kind than those religious or social fundamentalist, in a single section of the board.

Create a flame-free and mockery free zone so to speak.

And the people who are going to help those people or children must have the same kind of attitude and patience as Kuroneko. A calm and reserved response.

For example, when those people make a logical fallacy or strawman in their argument, instead of getting angry and stuff by flaming them, try doing this, ' Dear/son, you know you are using a logical fallacy/strawman in your argument.'

Basically become a wise old grandpa or grandma to them. Of course they can continue to be rude and etc, but it will make that person look bad in front of everyone else.

Although that can end up being creepy as well, if everyone down there is all 'smiling' and 'kind' towards each other.

So you want us to coddle and treat them like children to convert them? Trying to grasp what the hell you are wanting us to not only enact but enforce. Nothing about this board is an obligation. It is in the end a place of entertainment. If you learn something, all the better. We are not their teachers, parents, or some mentor except by their choice.

So why the hell do we

A. have this insane and inane obligation? There is a vast fucking difference between educating a person, and treating them like a small child or coddle them in some bizarre method of conversion.

B. have anywhere become some Miss Manners section? There is a fuckload difference between not outright flaming and listen and wait until they fuck up versus this inane tripe.

Honestly do you even fucking read what you put down or do you simply expel what is on your mind?

[Formless]

Almost sounds like a re-education center.

You cannot fix everyone's stupidity, Ray. There are far too many stupid people out there for it to be a practical idea when the alternative is cheap mockery and ban-zookas. If someone is stupid and stubborn enough to refuse to learn when debated the first time, there is no point in continuing to waste your time on them. If they don't like it here, but haven't done anything ban-worthy, they can always leave on their own power and come back when they have matured a little.

[Edi]

Formless is right. Parting Shots is littered with the kind of morons who simply refuse to be educated. Admiral K, KHL and numerous others came here spouting rabid idiocy and refused to address any points made against them, at which point they were flamed to a crisp and subsequently banned for making baseless accusations of abuse of power against certain moderators.

Like Ghost Rider said, there is no obligation to handholding and mollycoddling fools who refuse to abide by the rules of the forum and in the case of the kind of ideological conservative positions that some young people may have been indoctrinated, the rules of evidence and reality tend to offer a very harsh, very immovable brick wall to dash against. The forum rules require them to substantiate their positions and provide evidence besides just their say-so and failure to do so, well, too bad, so sad, isn't it?

The conservatives we do have, such as Glocksman, RedImperator, Col. Crackpot, Beowulf and others aren't infected with the ideological mindlessness characteristic of the neocons and the Bush administration and they are obviously a part of the board, well respected at that too.

[ray245]

Formless is right. Parting Shots is littered with the kind of morons who simply refuse to be educated. Admiral K, KHL and numerous others came here spouting rabid idiocy and refused to address any points made against them, at which point they were flamed to a crisp and subsequently banned for making baseless accusations of abuse of power against certain moderators.

Like Ghost Rider said, there is no obligation to handholding and mollycoddling fools who refuse to abide by the rules of the forum and in the case of the kind of ideological conservative positions that some young people may have been indoctrinated, the rules of evidence and reality tend to offer a very harsh, very immovable brick wall to dash against. The forum rules require them to substantiate their positions and provide evidence besides just their say-so and failure to do so, well, too bad, so sad, isn't it?

The conservatives we do have, such as Glocksman, RedImperator, Col. Crackpot, Beowulf and others aren't infected with the ideological mindlessness characteristic of the neocons and the Bush administration and they are obviously a part of the board, well respected at that too.

Sigh, I just wish there is a better way to help them change their views.

[Formless]

Sigh, I just wish there is a better way to help them change their views.

Over the internet? If they do not want to learn, chances are that any attempt you make to change them over the net will fail because all they have to do to resist being educated is stop using the net, and sign off the board. Since internet participation is completely voluntary, there is no way to force the people using it from being stupid if that is their choice. You cannot change others, you can only change yourself. Accept that truism next time you see someone get banned, and you will probably feel a lot better about yourself. It simply is not your fault or failing that they are stupid. Consider that before proposing another "solution" in the vein of this one.

[Ghost Rider]

Formless is right. Parting Shots is littered with the kind of morons who simply refuse to be educated. Admiral K, KHL and numerous others came here spouting rabid idiocy and refused to address any points made against them, at which point they were flamed to a crisp and subsequently banned for making baseless accusations of abuse of power against certain moderators.

Like Ghost Rider said, there is no obligation to handholding and mollycoddling fools who refuse to abide by the rules of the forum and in the case of the kind of ideological conservative positions that some young people may have been indoctrinated, the rules of evidence and reality tend to offer a very harsh, very immovable brick wall to dash against. The forum rules require them to substantiate their positions and provide evidence besides just their say-so and failure to do so, well, too bad, so sad, isn't it?

The conservatives we do have, such as Glocksman, RedImperator, Col. Crackpot, Beowulf and others aren't infected with the ideological mindlessness characteristic of the neocons and the Bush administration and they are obviously a part of the board, well respected at that too.

Sigh, I just wish there is a better way to help them change their views.

There is. It's called getting a rigorous education that forces you to think.

You've been here this long and you actually do not see the sheer insanity of having an internet weboard force an education? This level of insipid thinking is what make Wikipedia the inane filled pool that it is.

[ray245]

Formless is right. Parting Shots is littered with the kind of morons who simply refuse to be educated. Admiral K, KHL and numerous others came here spouting rabid idiocy and refused to address any points made against them, at which point they were flamed to a crisp and subsequently banned for making baseless accusations of abuse of power against certain moderators.

Like Ghost Rider said, there is no obligation to handholding and mollycoddling fools who refuse to abide by the rules of the forum and in the case of the kind of ideological conservative positions that some young people may have been indoctrinated, the rules of evidence and reality tend to offer a very harsh, very immovable brick wall to dash against. The forum rules require them to substantiate their positions and provide evidence besides just their say-so and failure to do so, well, too bad, so sad, isn't it?

The conservatives we do have, such as Glocksman, RedImperator, Col. Crackpot, Beowulf and others aren't infected with the ideological mindlessness characteristic of the neocons and the Bush administration and they are obviously a part of the board, well respected at that too.

Sigh, I just wish there is a better way to help them change their views.

There is. It's called getting a rigorous education that forces you to think.

You've been here this long and you actually do not see the sheer insanity of having an internet weboard force an education? This level of insipid thinking is what make Wikipedia the inane filled pool that it is.

I guess I am far to idealistic to begin with. And being too idealistic is a very bad thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess I am far to idealistic to begin with. And being too idealistic is a very bad thing.

Their's nothing wrong with idealism, so long as you don't ignore simple reality.

[Darth Wong]

If anyone can find an example of a conservative who was attacked for making a well-reasoned argument in favour of a position which happened to be unpopular, please report the attackers to the moderator staff.

If, on the other hand, some people are grumbling that you can't just waltz in and make brain-damaged arguments like "Barack Obama stands for socialism, and that is really opposed to democracy and freedom" without getting flamed, then there's nothing that can or should be done.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mike's right. I do think the real problem has never been with aggressive, well-reasoned liberals and social democrats on the board, but the problem that has gotten excessive is the dogpiling. Members which rarely contribute strong arguments of their own will jump into all kinds of threads to heap board politically-correct opinions like "Americans are stupid", "humanity is a shitty species", "right-wingers are dumb", "conservatives believe stereotype x" and nothing more, and after someone else has done the heavy lifting. So then a conservative poster, quality of arguments aside, has to contend with the liberal-secular bandwagon and their opponent who has the balls to do the heavy lifting, and the liberal debater can count on support from the peanut gallery, in sheer volume at the very least. Even in case where our opponent is clearly retarded, people who hop in for the umpteenth reiteration of the popular opinion offer nothing and discourage discussion. I'm reminded of the come-latelys after Ender et al who dogpiled Mengsk, his ban-worthy bullshit notwithstanding, I would've liked to get some more juicy debate out of him. A better example still is how everyone dogpiled Kodiak for his anti-gay marriage views. Yeah none of us like it, but there does not need to be 5 people debating him, especially if the first 2 are covering the bases you repeat anyway.

[Solauren]

Perhaps we need to institute a 'no dog-piling policy' for discussions then? I mean period, not just for this topic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Perhaps we need to institute a 'no dog-piling policy' for discussions then? I mean period, not just for this topic.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. If someone says something truely stupid, shouldn't everyone get to have a shot at it, at least as long as they're not spamming +1 posts? If someone posts something, then they should be prepaired to take the heat. I might find dog-piling distasteful at times, but I don't think it should be banned. And if someone wants to avoid a dog-pile, they can always take it to the Coliseum, right?

However, if someone's being dog piled they probably won't be able to respond to every post directed at them, so they should be given a little more slack for not responding to someone's argument/demand for evidence/whatever.

[Edi]

The more relevant thing is that if somebody says something outright stupid, then they're fair game, but if someone else already dissected their bullshit and blasted it apart, it doens't need the same thing repeated by half a dozen other yahoos, because at that point the follow-up repetitions are effectively nothing but +1 posts. If the point has been already made, don't confuse the discussion by repeating it before the other side has responded.

This allows debates where one person is engaged by many without it turning into a massive dogpile.

[Havok]

The more relevant thing is that if somebody says something outright stupid, then they're fair game, but if someone else already dissected their bullshit and blasted it apart, it doens't need the same thing repeated by half a dozen other yahoos, because at that point the follow-up repetitions are effectively nothing but +1 posts. If the point has been already made, don't confuse the discussion by repeating it before the other side has responded.

This allows debates where one person is engaged by many without it turning into a massive dogpile.

Doesn't the board already have rules against this though Edi? Why do we need to keep on discussing this? This place is fucking stupid.

[Edi]

Yes, it does. I did not mean that it needs to be explicitly added to the rules, but more as a comment on how people can act to reduce the fucking dogpiles. Because sometimes it seems that the greater part of the forum populace needs to have it spelled out to them because they can't seem to come up with the idea themselves. I agree that the discussion and frankly whining here about every single fucking facet of things is getting really annoying.

The things is that now with the addition of more supermods (Tevar, me and others), there will be more active moderation and you're likely to see the results soon enough. If that means busting heads sometimes, it will be done.