"Troll thread" -- let's hash this out.

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is a troll thread. The point was to denigrate republicans using a vehicle that most of you have stated you don't believe in. It's also wild speculation by a group of people with limited knowledge of the topic, and a tremendous desire to "prove" republicans are wrong.
I thought the point of DC was to avoid this sort of stupidity?

The point of this thread is to provide more fodder for self-righteous pseudo intellectuals to denigrate Republicans in any way possible. And it's also becoming quite apparent that this is the point of DC as well.

Why aren't many conservatives posting here? Hmmm. I don't want to speak for all conservatives...but personally, I'm not going to risk my posting privileges by confronting those here who constantly wallow in this kind of horseshit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I didn't see Greenman's similar post or I would have responded to it directly on Monday. But since you decided to keep this tangent going by replying to it days later, I'll reply here.

The point of this thread is to provide more fodder for self-righteous pseudo intellectuals to denigrate Republicans in any way possible.

The point of this thread is to discuss the contrast between the political and social positions held by American Christians and the viewpoints of the deity they claim to follow as expressed in their own holy book. If this makes Republicans look bad, then they should consider re-evaluating their positions, or which deity they claim as representing them. If there is no actual inconsistency, feel free to make that argument.

And it's also becoming quite apparent that this is the point of DC as well.

Why aren't many conservatives posting here? Hmmm. I don't want to speak for all conservatives...but personally, I'm not going to risk my posting privileges by confronting those here who constantly wallow in this kind of horseshit.

There are quite a number of conservatives here -- the ones that are thoughtful and in possession of self-control. The flamers and flame-baiters and people incapable of reasoning aren't here, and that's by design. If a large percentage of those sorts are conservatives, then that speaks for itself, and is not a knock on the DC, but rather a knock on them.

For the record, not one person has received so much as an infraction for anything that has been posted in the DC since it was opened. The rules for the room clearly state that no infractions will be received by anyone for violations of DC-specific content guidelines.

If you have anything relevant to contribute to the thread, I welcome your input, as I've seen you make solid arguments in the past. If you want to complain about the DC itself or how it's run, I recommend you start a thread in Moderator Discussions, where the admins can respond to you directly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I didn't see Greenman's similar post or I would have responded to it directly on Monday. But since you decided to keep this tangent going by replying to it days later, I'll reply here.

I was out-of-town all week...sorry if my reponse was not as timely as you would have liked to have seen. Is this a problem? If so, please elaborate. If not, why bring it up?

Anyway, you must have missed post #29 as well. There are a few people that don't appreciate this type of thread. I think your rationalization for this kind of "discussion" is really quite telling. I'm not going to report the OP for trolling or run to the admins and cry about this kind of BS. I just felt compelled to express my opinion...simple as that. I understand that you don't perceive my comments as relevant or "contributing" to this thread...but that doesn't really surprise me. I'll just have to grin and bear it I guess.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I was out-of-town all week...sorry if my reponse was not as timely as you would have liked to have seen. Is this a problem? If so, please elaborate. If not, why bring it up?

The timing doesn't matter in general. It's only relevant here because you decided to keep an off-topic side tangent going when the thread had moved back on-topic.

Anyway, you must have missed post #29 as well. There are a few people that don't appreciate this type of thread. I think your rationalization for this kind of "discussion" is really quite telling.

I'm not sure it's particularly noteworthy that a few conservatives don't appreciate a thread that they see as critical of conservatives. I don't see that as a reason that such discussions should be prohibited. The same would apply to liberals complaining of a thread they see as critical of liberals.

What *I* think is telling is that a number of people would rather complain about the existence of the thread than explain why it is off-base. This doesn't do much to support their case that the topic is not a valid one for debate.

I'm not going to report the OP for trolling or run to the admins and cry about this kind of BS. I just felt compelled to express my opinion...simple as that. I understand that you don't perceive my comments as relevant or "contributing" to this thread...but that doesn't really surprise me. I'll just have to grin and bear it I guess.

I don't perceive your comments as relevant or as contributing to the thread for the simple reason that they aren't. Not a single sentence you posted had anything to do with the topic of this discussion -- it was just complaining about the existence of the thread, and then criticizing the entire room.

I suggested you take the issue to Moderator Discussions because that is the appropriate venue to address complaints with moderation -- not in the middle of the thread you feel is problematic. Those are the rules of the forum (see #12), and I didn't write them.

ETA: Given your implications of bias on my part in this thread, I have to wonder if you read post #14.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The timing doesn't matter in general. It's only relevant here because you decided to keep an off-topic side tangent going when the thread had moved back on-topic.

I just saw this thread today...I'm sorry if the timing of my comment bothers you.

I'm not sure it's particularly noteworthy that a few conservatives don't appreciate a thread that they see as critical of conservatives. I don't see that as a reason that such discussions should be prohibited. The same would apply to liberals complaining of a thread they see as critical of liberals.

It's a troll thread. Is this really what you want here?

What *I* think is telling is that a number of people would rather complain about the existence of the thread than explain why it is off-base. This doesn't do much to support their case that the topic is not a valid one for debate.

I explained why it off-base by quoting Greenman and referring to HumblePie's post. It's a troll thread intended to incite. I really struggle communicating with you...am I really being that unclear?

I don't perceive your comments as relevant or as contributing to the thread for the simple reason that they aren't. Not a single sentence you posted had anything to do with the topic of this discussion -- it was just complaining about the existence of the thread, and then criticizing the entire room.

So...let me see if I've got this straight...complaining about a troll thread within a troll thread isn't relevant to the thread and has nothing to do with the topic of discussion (i.e. thread). Interesting.

I suggested you take the issue to Moderator Discussions because that is the appropriate venue to address complaints with moderation -- not in the middle of the thread you feel is problematic. Those are the rules of the forum (see #12), and I didn't write them.

Please reread my response to your suggestion...it hasn't changed.

ETA: Given your implications of bias on my part in this thread, I have to wonder if you read post #13.

Actually I did read that post (I read the entire thread before posting) and thought you did a good job in responding. But that has nothing to do with my point. Nothing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's a troll thread. Is this really what you want here?

I've now addressed this complaint twice. Most of your other points are also rehashes of things you said earlier.

You're entitled to your opinion of what the thread is. I disagree.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't actually have a problem discussing this or any other issue related to the moderation of the DC. I just don't want threads derailed with meta-discussions.

So, I split out this subdiscussion; let's continue and hash this out. You keep calling this a "troll thread". What does that mean? Do you think it's "trolling" any time anyone posts anything you don't like, or is critical of a group of which you consider yourself a member or to which you have some allegiance?

I re-read the OP in the thread in question. I saw no name-calling, no flame-baiting, nothing unreasonable. Just a legitimate issue that you and a few others would rather complain about than address.

 

[Greenman]

Doc Savage Fan quoted my comment. I think it's perfectly clear, on point, and completely accurate, I stand by it. Since the moderation team, and what appears to be the majority of the active members in this forum disagree, I consider the issue settled.
The only comment I will add is that this is one of the factors that made me decide not to participate here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let me see if I have this straight.

Someone posts a thread pointing out that a large percentage of Christians are Republicans, especially the more vocal ones, and calling into question whether Republican policies are consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

You respond not by actually saying anything on topic to the thread, nor telling us specifically why the question is invalid, nor explaining how Republican policies *are* consistent with Jesus's teachings. You respond only to complain that it's a "troll thread". (And sorry, but calling a thread a "troll thread" and calling into question its suitability for the forum while not responding to the actual topic is in no way, shape or form "on point".)

Now you are saying that because other people disagree with you about your complaint, you don't want to participate here.

I find your position not just unreasonable but childish.

What exactly is it you want? That we should have a rule that no threads are allowed that are critical of the Republican Party? And then the liberals will want a similar rule that we can't criticize the Democratic Party? And then what -- we can talk about the weather and yesterday's sports scores?

This is a discussion forum. There are going to be topics that challenge things you hold near and dear. If someone says something you think is off base, the correct way to respond is to post meaningful arguments that demonstrate the other person's errors. Not to whine about the fact that the topic was raised at all.

If you're so thin-skinned that you can't handle your political party being criticized, I suggest you check out RedState.com. They guarantee you'll never have to deal with anything critical of the GOP over there.

 

[highland145]

..

 

[jackstar7]

So... if I understand this correctly... several people don't want to participate in the Jesus thread and just want to complain about it existing?

Because I noticed a couple people taking the opposing view of the OP and I'm sure they'd appreciate supporting comments and evidence more than just whining.

Maybe I'm wrong about all that, but that's how it looks.

 

[ivwshane]

There should be no such thing as a troll thread in DC, why? Because any claim by any side should be backed up by facts.

For example: In the Jesus thread the OP made the connection that the republicans were a religiously motivated group based on Christianity. His whole premis rests on this point. If you disagree with his premis then it should be easy to disprove or you could ask for the OP to provide the facts to back up his claim.

Either way, his point would have been validated or not and the discussion would have either continued or changed to reflect the new information that had been provided.

Simply calling a thread a troll thread means you are either incapable or unwilling to debate the facts or statement of facts. Stunts like that may fly in P&N where facts aren't required and opinions are a plenty but I don't think they are welcome here.

If you call a thread here a troll thread you are setting yourself up to kick the OP's ass with facts and counter points that make his post seem rediculous to begin with. Calling a thread a troll thread and then expanding on why it's a troll thread with opinion and conjecture ain't going to cut it.

As far as I'm concerned calling someone's thread a troll thread here in DC is the equivalent of slapping the OP with a dueling glove. You don't throw down unless you are ready to go down😛

 

[DaveSimmons]

I agree. I'm here to discuss things, not just to have everyone agree with me and tell me what I want to hear.

Offer evidence that welfare over generations does more harm than good. Or that the climate change is nothing to worry about. Or that social liberals donate less to charity than social conservatives. Both "sides" and those of us in the middle should be willing to gore oxen and yoke Gore if we can back it up with more than feelings.

 

[JEDIYoda]

In this forum you complain about what you consider to be a troll thread, then you need to go about systematically using links and other means such as a logical argument supported by facts to prove said thread is truly a troll thread. The burden of proof is upon the accuser...

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, the thread does seem an little anti-conservative, IMHO.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Threads are often going to lean towards one side or the other. That could be either because the evidence does favor one side, or because the other side didn't make the effort to defend their position with facts instead of emotion.

For example, I'd be happy to join in (fact-based) threads discussing how different welfare programs should be cut back and why. Without using the campaign-trail stereotypes to attack them I have a feeling we could still poke holes in the need for many programs to exist as they do now. That thread would probably end up with an "anti-liberal" direction. As long as that's because of facts, it's not trolling.

 

[Abraxas]

Well, the thread does seem an little anti-conservative, IMHO.

Is that an inherently bad thing? I would expect in any forum that values objective evaluation that some threads are going to reflect negatively on one group or another. In this particular case you have a very large, very vocal segment of the Republican party that claims to be ideologically devoted to a religion. Is it then inappropriate to question if they live up to their stated faith and that their ideals match those of their stated ideology?

You could make the same counterclaim against the Democrats except the Democrats aren't particularly loud about following anyone in particular. You could, however, pretty easily create a thread about whether they help the poor or are as charitable or represent the interests of workers which they claim to.

I don't see why we should automatically conclude any thread in the format "Do (Group X) live up to (stated ideal Y)?" is a troll thread because it is likely to be controversial or touch on something personal to someone in the audience. They are valid questions.

 

[randomrogue]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson

If someone can show that a party is mixing politics and religion then I think it's fair game and shows that they are violating the premise of what this country was build upon.

Everyone here should be able to discuss politics and "their party" without crying about it. If you don't like someone's point then provide a counter point and prove them wrong.

I believe, firmly, that the reason few conservatives participate in any debates like this, whether here or in in real life, is because many of their positions are flawed. They repeat talking points from Rush Limbaugh and when push comes to shove are unable to present a solid position.

Provide a good position, a solid position, a position based on reason and data. Not everyone will agree with it but it can have merit. If your position is based however on the exclusion of data, misdirection, lies, fear, emotion, etc then you will probably get mollywhomped here.

For the record, this was the first election I didn't vote for a Republican. I consider myself a fiscal conservative but socially liberal. The Republican party doesn't meet any of my needs anymore. It doesn't do anything that benefits me or my country.

The discussion whether the Republicans are living up to the teachings of Jesus is a false start. They are a political party and not a religious one. If they are somehow bringing religion into their politics then they are wrong.

 

[Agent11]

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Re19.11-20.15

According to Revelation 19:11 - 20:15 we would have a lot more to worry about than which party were less of hypocrites.

Here is an excerpt.

The Rider on a White Horse

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave,5 both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.


Good times.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Very well said, many of you. Abraxas, I think you cut to the heart of the matter.

Ironically, I think the fact that so many conservatives are so thin-skinned about that thread makes them look far worse than the thread itself did.

It was implied in that discussion that I was biased, for no other reason than my refusal to shut it down. Also ironic.

IMO, this is all a rather vivid illustration that much of the protestation about "liberal bias" and the desire for many conservatives to have their own information sources that they can shape in their own image -- even going so far to creating their own wikipedia that they can slant in their direction -- is really just an inability to look at themselves with anything approaching objectivity.

And I also think that's a primary reason so many of the far right-wingers won't even step foot in here.

 

[JEDIYoda]

They are still in denial that they must change their message or else there will never be another Republican President....as far as they are concerned its not the message or the way the message that is presented it is everybody else who is the problem...lol

 

[Retro Rob]

Is that an inherently bad thing? I would expect in any forum that values objective evaluation that some threads are going to reflect negatively on one group or another. In this particular case you have a very large, very vocal segment of the Republican party that claims to be ideologically devoted to a religion. Is it then inappropriate to question if they live up to their stated faith and that their ideals match those of their stated ideology?

No, it isn't a bad thing and I don't think the OP was necessarily trolling.

But to be honest, the thread was geared to critisize the conservative base. I posted in the thread so I was not remotely personally offended by it - I was just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Sonikku]

Well this debacle sure didn't turn out quite the way I intended. :hmm:

It seems as though I've trolled hardest and thrown the legitimacy of an entire sub forum into question without even trying to do so. Maybe discussing Jesus in any serious capacity is just too taboo a subject and people are too sensitive to indulge having their faith called into question. (is it truly faith if it is never tested or held to scrutiny? I digress...) Or maybe it's because I personally have had a history of being a troll on ATOT.

I am a Liberal. And I do believe there is a measure of hypocicy in the Republican party in matters of being proponents of Jesus while simultaneously being proponents of Capitalism, a system I do not believe Jesus ever would have advocated for. For that matter, I believe there is even more wrong with the party that I have unintentionally brought out in the outright unwillingness to confront this issue and simply dismiss it callously out of hand. But the latter goes beyond the scope of what I hoped to achieve with my thread. And though I may relish in those I disagree with exposing another flaw in their party, I don't want to undermine discussion club or the legitimacy of the discussion contained there in, so allow me to clear the air.

I came to anandtech years ago to learn how to build computers. Everyone was so friendly and helpful that I gradually branched out to the other forums. But when I reached the P and N forums, I could scarcely believe how crazy the topics and people were. Instead of trying to reason with those I perceived to be insane, I opted to preach insanity to the insane instead, becoming a self parody of just how much of a mockery the board and the people contained there in had allowed themselves to become. I've had great success in trolling P and N time and time again. And perhaps that earned reputation as a troll is why my topic is being called into question now. But I can assure everyone here, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible, my opinions in Discussion board reflect my genuine thoughts and are not an attempt at a troll.

I am passionate about my opinions. But I don't believe they are always infallible. That is the very reason why I posted such a thread, to have my opinion held to scrutiny. I wanted conservatives that held Jesus dear to explain their thoughts on how they believe their political views today can be reconciled with their champion's actions and beliefs, disputing my question of whether the man had been warped and re appropriated into something suitable and convenient for the parties current behavior. (The same question could be raised on Reagan, this all boils down to an underlying issue of perception and glossing over some inconvenient facts) But most of all I got were comments simply dismissing my points instead of actually attempting to tackle them. The audacity of having ones views or religion called into question were apparently too much. All I wanted was an earnest discussion on Jesus and if the Republicans that hold him dear really follow his ideals. But it would appear I've inadvertently drawn out something far more insidious.

In any event, if any of you have beef, your beef is with me. Not with Discussion Club. If you want to criticize my opinions, then let's go there and have that discussion. Spare me the crying and whimpering of your views being challenged and explain why I'm wrong. We already have a political forum I perceive to be pathetic. Discussion club should be spared a similar fate. You're going to have your views called into question. That is what having an honest, possibly even gut wrenching discussion in a board like this is all about.

 

[Greenman]

Very well said, many of you. Abraxas, I think you cut to the heart of the matter.

Ironically, I think the fact that so many conservatives are so thin-skinned about that thread makes them look far worse than the thread itself did.

It was implied in that discussion that I was biased, for no other reason than my refusal to shut it down. Also ironic.

IMO, this is all a rather vivid illustration that much of the protestation about "liberal bias" and the desire for many conservatives to have their own information sources that they can shape in their own image -- even going so far to creating their own wikipedia that they can slant in their direction -- is really just an inability to look at themselves with anything approaching objectivity.

And I also think that's a primary reason so many of the far right-wingers won't even step foot in here.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, you've missed the boat entirely, wrong on every point. That's to be expected since everything you said was speculation, based on the presumption that republicans are inherently not the equal of liberals. I think that's also why so few real conservatives (I'm not one) post here.
I think this concludes my contribution (tiny as it was) to this section. I never did find it very interesting.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, you've missed the boat entirely, wrong on every point.

Familiar pattern here.

It's a "troll thread" -- but you won't provide an argument to explain why you feel that way.

I've "missed the boat" -- but you won't explain why.

I'm "wrong on every point" -- and yet you respond to not a single one of them.

Not sure what it is you expected this place to be, but it's not really well-suited to people who aren't able or willing to explain their viewpoints.