Indeed, Bin Laden wasn't a conservative extremist from the start either, he didn't become a radical murderer until later in his life. Just like Cheney and Bush.
Indeed, Bin Laden wasn't a conservative extremist from the start either, he didn't become a radical murderer until later in his life. Just like Cheney and Bush.
Hi all.. first post here. Go easy on me, this message board looks intense.
I've read this thread and what I see are a lot of generalizations that are untrue on both sides. I don't think anyone fits the stereotype with their political affiliation 100%. I consider myself conservative, and I'm not a Bush fan at all, I'm pro-choice, and I believe all humans should have the same rights regardless of how they believe or who they sleep with. My conservativism is more on the economic side of things: I believe in a very weak federal government and state rights, the right to bear arms (I'm Texan, and damn proud), and a free market economic model that while not perfect has served us very well so far. I'm sure many who consider themselves liberal do not like the idea of generational welfare families who never work, and I also bet many Obama supporters are actually NRA members.
Now that you all know a little bit about me, I'll chime in on the OP's question. I'm also young (25) and a technical person who checks out the occasional message board. Conservativism isn't dying, I just believe it is being replaced by Libertarian beliefs. The older conservatives preached freedom while demanding to deny a woman the right to choose, or deny two consenting adults the right to enter a social contract. My generation not so much. People like me believe in the core that is conservativism and preach for things like a smaller government and personal responsibility (if you do drugs to the point you can not work, why should I pay your rent, go live on the street crackhead!). I find the old conservative thought not appealing to me at all, and that is spearheaded by Rush and people like him. We don't care too much about social conservativism anymore, and believe freedom means the freedom to do what you want.
To me, both the Democratic and Republican party want to take away some freedoms we enjoy. Republicans want to continue to use the government to legislate morality, and Democrats want to use the government to legislate how we spend money and do business.
I could go on but I'm sure I lost most of you at "I'm a conservative" and of course my name has Texan in it.
I've read this thread and what I see are a lot of generalizations that are untrue on both sides. I don't think anyone fits the stereotype with their political affiliation 100%. I consider myself conservative, and I'm not a Bush fan at all, I'm pro-choice, and I believe all humans should have the same rights regardless of how they believe or who they sleep with. My conservativism is more on the economic side of things: I believe in a very weak federal government and state rights, the right to bear arms (I'm Texan, and damn proud), and a free market economic model that while not perfect has served us very well so far. I'm sure many who consider themselves liberal do not like the idea of generational welfare families who never work, and I also bet many Obama supporters are actually NRA members.
Now that you all know a little bit about me, I'll chime in on the OP's question. I'm also young (25) and a technical person who checks out the occasional message board. Conservativism isn't dying, I just believe it is being replaced by Libertarian beliefs. The older conservatives preached freedom while demanding to deny a woman the right to choose, or deny two consenting adults the right to enter a social contract. My generation not so much. People like me believe in the core that is conservativism and preach for things like a smaller government and personal responsibility (if you do drugs to the point you can not work, why should I pay your rent, go live on the street crackhead!). I find the old conservative thought not appealing to me at all, and that is spearheaded by Rush and people like him. We don't care too much about social conservativism anymore, and believe freedom means the freedom to do what you want.
To me, both the Democratic and Republican party want to take away some freedoms we enjoy. Republicans want to continue to use the government to legislate morality, and Democrats want to use the government to legislate how we spend money and do business.
I could go on but I'm sure I lost most of you at "I'm a conservative" and of course my name has Texan in it.
because the techies think they know everything, how to fix it, and so on.
of course they are also too smart for the lesser people.
of course they are also too smart for the lesser people.
Welcome. Read some more of the threads. If a person gets anything from this board, it's that some people fit a certain stereotype, while others blow all known ones apart.
Other than people lambasting you for having an opinion contrary to one of their pet theories, you'll get bashed the most for being a partisan hack of any persuasion - repeatedly - if it's revealed that that's what you are (doesn't sound like it so far).
Ok, I read the first page and skipped to the end before posting, ignoring most of the drival in the middle 13 pages.
As a very infrequent poster (see my join date and # posts) and a Conservative, the reason why you don't see more conservatives is simply emotion. Liberals get a lot more emotional then conservatives when they get into political debates. When people get emotional in arguements, then they start to take things personally. When people take things personally, then they start using more ad hominid name calling and insults against the person they are debating against, rather then actually debating the subject (you only need to read any thread here to see the name calling). Now, if I'm debating someone and they resort to ad hominid attacks, that tells me three things:
1 - They can't debate only on the subject/facts and have to resort to other methods to beat their opponent. Sometimes this will including trying to silence them outright.
2 - because of 1, it's obvious that they are not interested in hearing their opponents point of view.
3 - because of 1 and 2, the debate has become a waste of my time and therefore not worth continuing.
Now, if you think that my permise about liberals being more emotional when it comes to politics and that they will try and silence those they disagree with, I suggest you post as a RESPECTFUL (ie non-flame) conservative over at DailyKos and see the response you get.
As a very infrequent poster (see my join date and # posts) and a Conservative, the reason why you don't see more conservatives is simply emotion. Liberals get a lot more emotional then conservatives when they get into political debates. When people get emotional in arguements, then they start to take things personally. When people take things personally, then they start using more ad hominid name calling and insults against the person they are debating against, rather then actually debating the subject (you only need to read any thread here to see the name calling). Now, if I'm debating someone and they resort to ad hominid attacks, that tells me three things:
1 - They can't debate only on the subject/facts and have to resort to other methods to beat their opponent. Sometimes this will including trying to silence them outright.
2 - because of 1, it's obvious that they are not interested in hearing their opponents point of view.
3 - because of 1 and 2, the debate has become a waste of my time and therefore not worth continuing.
Now, if you think that my permise about liberals being more emotional when it comes to politics and that they will try and silence those they disagree with, I suggest you post as a RESPECTFUL (ie non-flame) conservative over at DailyKos and see the response you get.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
FUCK YOU!!! sorry, couldn't control my emotions. Read the next 2 posts for people with better control than me.
Oh, and try dropping by Redstate or any conservative blog/forum and RESPECTFULLY posting how you don't think we should have invaded iraq, that women should have the right to abortion, that gays should have the right to marry, that blacks shouldn't be lynched, and see the response you get
And ask yourself this, who's more emotional, the frankenstein combo of Gore & Kerry or George Bush?
Oh, and a hominid is a member of the family of great apes, and I haven't read about any hominid attacks lately.
I'm guessing the infrequency of your posts may have more to do with your own inability to put together a coherent thought combined with your fear that others will quickly point that out, as Vic and Eskimo do below.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I imagine it would be the same response as a respectful liberal posting over Freep would get.
Seriously, this is a ridiculous overgeneralization. To the point of being an ad hominem attack itself. If you had read the middle pages, you would find that your liberal counterpart already made a similar post to yours and got shot down for it. Except he said all conservatives are stupid while you said all liberals are emotional. They're both ad hominems, and IMO it is pretty disingenuous to go around insulting people and then complaining that they get emotional afterwards.
Look, all of politics cannot be easily divided into liberals and conservatives. You can't say all liberals believe this and all conservatives believe that. Because it's simply not true. So when you go around with that kind of POV as though it were fact, pigeonholing people into what you think they believe and arguing that rather than against their actual arguments and POV, then yes, they will become frustrated and emotional, they will not be interested in hearing your POV (because you never did the same for them), and it will be a waste of time for all involved.
And then go and post as a RESPECTFUL (ie non-flame) liberal over at Freep and see the response you get.
You are making huge generalizations based upon no evidence. (in fact, the only evidence I've ever seen is that in some brain imaging scans it appears that conservatives might be more in touch with their emotions than liberals. It's a very weak correlation though).
Liberals are no more likely then conservatives to resort to name calling and worthless debating styles. Morons are morons regardless of their political affiliation and there are plenty to go around. You are making a huge mistake in attributing that sort of behavior to people you disagree with and not noticing the huge problem with those you do.
EDIT: Arrgh, beaten to it... and with almost the exact same post. Get out of my brain!
Question: Why are technical message boards overwhelmingly liberal?
Answer: Because you want to have gay, interracial marriage with a midget while burning the American flag. Oh, the decency!
Answer: Because you want to have gay, interracial marriage with a midget while burning the American flag. Oh, the decency!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Haven't heard back from Shira yet. I must have caused his head to explode.
Those questions probably deserve their own thread. They are subjects that could easily derail this thread more than it already has been on occassion.
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Originally posted by: astralvoid
It seems very odd to me that most technical forums tend to be overwhelmingly liberal biased. I typically assume that most technical people are deep thinking, logical persons. Unfortunately, I've noticed that political threads seem to contradict this assumption.
So many threads dissolve into "You're wrong!...No, you're wrong!" type arguments that never truly discuss whatever the topic happens to be. As a technical person myself, I try to gather as much information as possible before making a conclusion. Conversely, many others seem to base their conclusions on feelings of how they want things to be instead of basing them on the facts.
While I am not against anyone standing on their core beliefs, I find it disappointing that so many seem to toss all of their logical reasoning skills out the window when something political is mentioned. Mathematically, I would expect to find and somewhat even mix of opinions, so given the imbalance, I can only assume that many of you choose not to make use of your generally better skills in reasoning.
Regardless, if anyone answers I hope this will stir you to try to think about what you are supporting and base those beliefs on fact instead of theory and speculation, just as you would do if you were discussion an new super-cool CPU from one of the chip makers. No matter which side of the fence you lean towards, if you base your conclusions on the given facts, it's probable you'll see viewpoints that may differ from your initial stand.
LMAO
"If you don't agree with me then you must not use reasoning skills."
What an oxy-moron!
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
No. The reason you get tagged as conservative is because you have been a loyal rubber stamp for RNC talking points, and for the Bush administration's until the RNC decided BushCo had become an election liability. Their error is treating Republican as synonymous with conservative when today's Republican leadership has only faint traces of true conservatism. If you don't want to be viewed as a Republican apologist, start showing more independence in the positions you advocate and the malfeasance you excuse. Actions speak louder than words.
Just my own experience, but...
I have never seen so much outrageous far-right nationalist opinion as I have seen on these boards. I assumed the topic title was sarcastic until i started reading. If some of the things said in P&N were said at a party or a bar around here there would be a stunned silence, probably followed by a fight.
I have never seen so much outrageous far-right nationalist opinion as I have seen on these boards. I assumed the topic title was sarcastic until i started reading. If some of the things said in P&N were said at a party or a bar around here there would be a stunned silence, probably followed by a fight.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Uh huh. Maybe it's my RNC talking point on maintaining the pro-choice status quo? Or possibly my pro-legalization RNC talking point? Or could it be my pro gay marriage RNC talking point?
And considering that the accusation above comes from someone who sounds like Markos Moulitsas' permanent hand puppet, I don't think you have any room to sneer down your long pointy nose, kiddo.
Britain is highly socialist - i suppose that's the opposite of fascism... or something...
As far as liberalism goes, the only right you have (that I can think of) which we don't is the right to carry weapons on the streets, and since we don't want that I don't see that it's relevant.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Get over yourself. I'm not sneering at you, nor am I making an accusation. I'm pointing out why you get tagged as a conservative. I have no doubt you have positions that differ from the official RNC platform. You are quite low-key about them, however, while vocal to the point of belligerence about supporting positions and excusing malfeasance matching RNC positions. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions are those of a die-hard Republican. That is, in turn, why so many people tag you as a conservative, because they cling to the antiquated notion the RNC is conservative.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Of course it's relevant.
However, you also don't have a Bill of Rights, and you lack adequate privacy and search-and-seizure protections.
As far as socialism/fascism, the political spectrum is not a straight line, but more like a circle, where the right and left begin to come together the closer they get to authoritarianism.
edit: BTW, I do agree with you on your first post to a limited extent. It helps to understand that whining about being under-represented is just the American conservative way. This board could have 100 conservative posters and just 1 liberal poster and the conservative posters would spend most of their time fretting about how liberal the board is.
Well maybe it is... it makes us less liberal but not less *free* i think... get what i mean? We are free to have the laws we want - or that's the idea anyway.
Besides we have the right to bet on sports and gamble online where you don't. That balances it out a bit.
Sorry, but what the fuck are you talking about? The English Bill of Rights dates back over a century before the US bill! The US constitution is almost entirely based on it! The Magna Carta dates back nearly 800 years and was the first document to lay out the rights of citizens *ever*! Why would you even say something like that without looking it up?
You could do a PHD on this so I'm not going to get into it.
Probably true. BTW I do not claim there are not right-wingers in Britain, they just seem to come out of the woodwork here more often.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
My bad. Let me rephrase, the English do not have an adequate or modern Bill of Rights. The one you do have protects you from the monarchy, not the government itself.
Heh. I love the Europeans' proper perspective on politics. Here in the US, the conservatives cast gun control as being MORE liberal, not less. Sigh...
Heh. I love the Europeans' proper perspective on politics. Here in the US, the conservatives cast gun control as being MORE liberal, not less. Sigh...
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,203
- 12,894
- 136
The English Bill of Rights is built up on common law and judicial precedence. As far as the defined version, it is only for parliament vs. the crown, not people vs. government.
From Wikipedia on "British Bill of Rights"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter