-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
ConservativeGAF
- Thread starter Reagan's BR
- Start date
- Status
OJdaKiller
Member
Exactly. Though I think it's important to consider what happens here really isn't a debate. As some other poster called it a while back it's more of a "liberal circle jerk." I'm sorry this is just my opinion. I know, that's not really good for anything, that is, unless it's supports a left wing position...Like, "all Republicans are rich, white old men and it's okay to hate them for that." I doubt that position would take any heat here...And I know it wouldn't because it hasn't in the past.
As I previously mentioned, I'm not even a Republican..It's just that I can't stand how I side left wing posters interact...It is namecalling. Deny it if you wish..Damn, how many Tea Party threads do I need to read where I can predict every other comment is that they are crazy and racist..Also condescending tone...Left wing posters can't ever agree to disagree..It's that they know better than you and everyone else in the country..If they don't agree with you, you're "Murica-Fuck Yeah!" to them...Why bother is right. Having a rational conversation with other people who are irritational..Sounds like fun...It's never about the issue at hand..It always gets turned into something else. It's almost as if dems have a problem debating a neutral issue..
It's not crime, it's race and poverty..
It's not about voter ID, it's about racism.
It's not about the economy and people being out of work/getting them back to work, it's about wanting to take from the "1%" and redistributing wealth." What the fuck does that even mean? No Robin Hoods should be existing in government. Change the damn laws if you don't like how people are doing business, but to vilify anyone who operated within the system for their wealth and prosperity is nothing more than jealousy....And here's a newsflash...ALL POLITICIANS ARE RICH!!! Even the ones on the left..They care about your well-being just as much as the old, rich white guys..
So yeah, Republicans, can't back them do their backwards opinions on social issues and support of war spending/starting wars..But certainly listening to dems here doesn't do much for wanting to support them...It's like interacting with a know-it-all 14 yr old who thinks they're hot shit because they are in an honors class..At least on this forum it is....
IrishNinja
Member
Schattenjäger;43113709 said:
prolly a number of them, tends to happen with age for a number of reasons...but very few of them, i'd wager, were comedians with interesting shows taking shots on both sides, then simply turning into a mouthpiece for one party to the point that people talk about electing them.
what im saying is i wont have any personal interest/disappointment in those changes.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't think you really listen to people's arguments. Yes, there are some idiots around - there always will be - but many back their points up with solid data/logic.
Race(as in, races discriminated against) and poverty play a disproportionate part in crime, innumerate studies show the correlation between these elements and criminal activity. If you want to ignore evidence, that is fine, but many people regard curing the root of social strife not acting based on just the symptom. It seems intellectually moribund to do otherwise.
In this thread, it has been discussed why voted ID laws can be seen as racist. You can, and would be welcome to disagree on the premise but the argument has been well supported.
Redistributing the wealth is a very obvious and commonplace process. Tax cuts do it, tax rises do it. I think there is valid discussion to be had - and is had - about the appropriate level of taxation in an economy (personally I am in favour of a bigger, more interventionist state than most people so would support a higher level of taxation) but criticising redistribution of wealth is idiotic, because practically shift in taxation or spending (in any direction) does it.
Also it seems strange to say that people shouldn't be criticised for how they behave within the rules of the system. I thought conservatism was about moral absolutism and strong, decent behaviours. To justify immoral but legal behaviour (as you abstractly refer to) seems peculiar.
Everyone hates politicians, by the way.
Fuck. I am sorry, this is three pages back, but Commedieu's post made me laugh so loud I almost woke up my wife. Got damn, sir.
Sweet a place where conservatives can meet n chat!!
Despite indications to the contrary I tend to feel like I am taking a relatively conservative tack when I'm discussing things on this forum.
Churchill was a Conservative at 15, and a Liberal at 35. That's not a real quote.
Ironically, the probable original version of that quote is "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." That was uttered by Francois Guisot (Prime Minister of France under King Louis Philippe) against those who favoured enfranchising the poor. His government was short-lived, in part due to that. In 1848, it was swept away in a revolution and the government of France was replaced with a republic (which was also short-lived, but that's another story).
Churchill was a Conservative at 15, and a Liberal at 35. That's not a real quote.
Ironically, the probable original version of that quote is "Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." That was uttered by Francois Guisot (Prime Minister of France under King Louis Philippe) against those who favoured enfranchising the poor. His government was short-lived, in part due to that. In 1848, it was swept away in a revolution and the government of France was replaced with a republic (which was also short-lived, but that's another story).
OJdaKiller
Member
Well, I'm glad we can agree that politicians suck. All they care about is their own well-being, that meaning, reelection. It's just the means they choose to use to go about obtaining that next term that seem to differ.
Once again, I'm not a conservative. I'm so disillusioned with politics I don't care learn what term would best fit me, because it doesn't matter. I'd be very happy with the complete removal of all parties. All politicians could just run on the issues. Man, that'd be a tough run for some because they'd have to answers instead of rhetoric.
And yeah. If it's legal, I can't fault someone for doing what they do. If what a person does within a system is unfair/unjust, then it's the duty of the system to rewrite the rules. In no world should Romney's tax rate not be anything less than astronomical. But it's about rewriting the rules and then playing by those rules. Not blaming the rules for the results of one's misfortune while asking for them to be redone in your favor.
And I still don't understand how your race effects one's ability to get an ID. If accessing an ID is too complicated of a process in today's society, it should be simplified. TBH, I'm not sure what it involves, but I'm doubting it's anymore complicated than getting a passport. Avoiding the problem, no matter how small, won't make it go away and that doesn't mean that it isn't worth addressing. It's really the small the issues that have a chance of being solved, not the enormous ones. And see..I didn't call anyone idiotic, misinformed, uneducated in this post. Opinions can hold value without discrediting those who hold your counteropinion. It should be about civility, not "winning" a meaningless argument at all costs.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That is because Obama and the democrats are - at best - centrist, if not mildly conservative.
He seems rather statist? (Left) with his expansions of government, spending and social programs? Is this false? (Sorry not American).
Valjean Lafitte
Banned
No, conservatives stay out of political threads because of posts like these. I'll gladly defend my views, but I won't stick around while people LOL at how "wrong" I am. That's not called arguing, that's called bullying the opposition.
Funny then history shows that racial segregation laws were a Democratic, not Republican idea.
And that the South--the epicenter of racism in the United States--voted Democratic until 1964 (i.e. "Solid South"), a time by which the Civil Rights movement was already well underway.
Angelus Errare
Banned
At the time democrats were conservative and republicans were liberal. So his argument still stands...conservatives have been wrong on every single Civil Rights issue since...well the inception of the US.
The Democrats used to be the conservative party. The Southern white exodus from the Democrats to the Republicans happened after the Civil Rights Act, when Johnson even stated that he thought he'd gone and lost the south for a generation.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
His healthcare plan is very conservative - in terms of what inspired it (90's Republican/Romney's healthcare plan) and in terms of its private, incremental approach. The 'system' it replaced was rubbish, from all angles. It wasn't free-market and it wasn't government run. It was a horrible mish-mash in between - serving the interests of the big medical firms and not the public. That is bad capitalism and bad governance. AHCAA isn't brilliant, but it is a practical improvement.
The idea that Obama is statist is not at odds with reality. The private sector has done reasonably well under Obama; corporate profit at record highs, investment etc. Since 2010 private employment has been recovering decently too (It is hard to peg too much of the first year in office to the president really). The same cannot be said of public sector spending and employment and spending.
Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-private-sector-and-the-public-sector-under-obama-2012-6?op=1
Now I see this as a bad thing - that public spending would have bettered economic recovery. But the key point is that his is a broadly conservative approach - private investment and lessening state spending.
Yes the national debt has continued to rise, but that has happened under many presidents - especially conservative - and it doesn't really matter anyway, so long as the USA continues to be an economic powerhouse in the global market. The deficit and national debt are political issues that are prevented from being fixed (if you think that it needs to be fixed) through the ending of the Bush/Obama tax holidays due to political deadlock.
On military Obama is not weak in the slightest. He isn't as neocon as his predecessor, but he has been highly efficient (I'd classify that as a conservative trait). Libya was a very clever and cheap war, the return of troops from (financial and mortal) wastefulness in Afghanistan, etc., is the smart and non-idealistic approach. His willingness to pull the trigger on the Osama assassination (ordering a military raid on foreign territory, don't forget) was bold and more in line with conservative ideas.
He has done basically nothing on gun control - in line with conservative ideas.
That said, NDAA and other infringements continue under Obama, which is quite statist. But I wouldn't say they are inherently conservative or otherwise. I'd say that the institutions of federal government drive these illiberal motions, but ultimately Obama and his predecessors are responsible.
If anything, I'd describe Obama - or rather, his actions as president - as a pragmatist. For me, conservatism is about pragmatism as opposed to progressive idealism (both approaches have their own positives).
He's arguably to the right of Malcolm Turnbull (I think I remember that you're Australian?).
The problem that I think American conservatives have on here is that GAF is international, and if you support the platform of the modern Republican party then by global standards you are on the far right fringe; you are an extremist.
By any objective metric GAF is in the main socially liberal and economically centrist, maybe even centre-right. If there was anyone that was as far to the left as Republicans are to the right then they'd probably get castrated for their views too.
Did you read my previous post on voter id laws? There are some straight forward questions/points i mention in it that would very much help you have a better idea of the reason why people say the things they say.
Look, yeah there will be dicks who name call or act condescending. But like I said in my previous post aimed at you, you shouldn't generalize everyone on GAF who is liberal as the sort of person who focusing on name calling or whatever, there are plenty of people who can discuss and debate arguments (not meaningless ones either) in a civilized way, in fact it's not really hard to just ignore someone who starts saying rude shit and focus on discussing with someone who doesn't say those things.
If you really want to be a part of a constructive discussion on political or even just ethical/philosophical matters, it's entirely within your power to have one. Maybe try not to blame all of liberal GAF if you're not willing to make the effort?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
That is pretty weird. Then again I almost never post in gaming-side anymore, and I think a lot of us who have "discovered" the OT rarely venture back out there.
What do you mean?
Yes, there are several considerations which make it difficult to be a US Conservative on GAF:
1) This is an international forum. A person who is a conservative by US standards is in the right wing of an already right wing country, and this makes their views relatively extreme on the first world international scale. If this were a US only forum we might see a 50/50 split; because it's an international one -- where even "conservative" Frenchman will be liberal by US standards, for example -- the split is probably closer to 66/33 or even 75/25 when speaking from a US frame of reference.
2) Socially conservative views are often explicitly bannable here. It is difficult, for example, to oppose homosexual rights on our forum without being banned, and that is one of the primary topics of modern social conservatism. Some of these views are inherently incompatible with the ethos of this forum.
3) Liberals are more likely to be online and more likely to be using social networking sites than are conservatives, relative to the general population, so even if the above conditions were not true, a random sampling of internet users would be disproportionately liberal to begin with.
1) This is an international forum. A person who is a conservative by US standards is in the right wing of an already right wing country, and this makes their views relatively extreme on the first world international scale. If this were a US only forum we might see a 50/50 split; because it's an international one -- where even "conservative" Frenchman will be liberal by US standards, for example -- the split is probably closer to 66/33 or even 75/25 when speaking from a US frame of reference.
2) Socially conservative views are often explicitly bannable here. It is difficult, for example, to oppose homosexual rights on our forum without being banned, and that is one of the primary topics of modern social conservatism. Some of these views are inherently incompatible with the ethos of this forum.
3) Liberals are more likely to be online and more likely to be using social networking sites than are conservatives, relative to the general population, so even if the above conditions were not true, a random sampling of internet users would be disproportionately liberal to begin with.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
The only real problem with being a conservative on GAF is that we get lonely. Even conservatives need a hug once in a while.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
...I feel like you didn't actually read what I posted. And I don't mean that as an insult, it just literally feels like you did not read what I said. You say you don't understand the logic in wanting to solve it. I just said: because any course of action that solves it will prevent more legitimate voters from voting then it will prevent fraudulent votes from being cast. The problem is so small that there's no way to solve it without causing net harm. I mean, in the example I allowed for a program aimed at 21 million people to only miss 50,000, that's an effectiveness of 99.8%, which is a ludicrous pipe dream on its own.
Yes, this only exacerbates the issue, and I have commented on this several times in the PoliGAF threads. Even if everyone treats each other with respect, the natural consequence of a conversation with 6 liberals and 1 conservative is that the conservative will get 6 replies to everything he posts. Even if those posts are considerate and articulate (which is not always the case), that can be overwhelmingly difficult to deal with. It's not fun debating 6 people at once, all coming at you from different angles and all expecting a response.
The reason why it's 6-to-1 in the first place, though, has to do with the issues I cited above.
Learn2read
Member
How can you expect people not to LOL at you when you post things like this?
I think the reasonable, kind response would be to refute his position rationally and articulately.
Consider this from an outsider's perspective, or someone with little knowledge of American politics in the 1960s. If they see someone articulate a position and provide a link to support that position (e.g. southern Democrats opposed civil rights in the 1960s), and the only response from the dissenters is some form of "LOL," what is this outsider supposed to think?
I'd tell you what I'd think if I were the outsider: I'd side with the person who articulated their position, I'd side with the person who provided evidence to support that position, and I'd side with the person who seems to be providing an argument, and not non sequitors.
Not to poop in your Cheerios, but the ONLY section of Evilore's "How to behave on GAF" post in the FAQ that remotely addresses speaking about socially conservative views is the following:
I have bolded "sexually oriented" for a reason. As long as we have threads allowed to stand such as What turns you on the most or Sex stuff that are not as cool in real life than in porn, any bans for social conservatism are a joke. If the moderators are going to be hypocritical, at least admit that you guys aren't adhering to your own guidelines.
Also, if GAF truly has an ethos as you say, perhaps it should 1) be explicitly spelled out and 2) accurately enforced.
Learn2read
Member
Maybe because the logical conclusion of saying that the Democrats were the southern conservative racist party until 1964, and then just leaving it at that without even acknowledging the implication that Republicans have been the racist party for the past ~40 years is there for everyone to see and anyone with double digit brain cells should LOL at him for thinking he had a point.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
And that's why we'd have been better served had this post wormed its way into the previous one. Discussion helps.
Evil Benius
Member
This is the main reason I usually stay out of debates here. I have no problem backing up my arguments, it just becomes overwhelming because I feel I owe it to people to respond to all of their points. When you have four, five, or six people coming at you for every post you make it becomes a lot to take on. Do not read this as me saying "I hate to be challenged!", it has more to do with time commitment.
Also being lumped in with mainstream conservatives just makes me feel gross. I was hoping we might finally see some backlash after 2008, but there is no such luck there. I almost hope Obama destroys Romney so we have a small chance at the Republican party either fracturing or taking another look at what the hell they are doing. I think there is a better chance of the moon hatching a magical space bird that grants us all three wishes though.
Edit: Also it does not help that my real passion for debate is military/foreign policy issues and it is hard for me to get involved in such things anymore due to my job. It really is just not worth the hassle unless we are just talking about budget things which is just boring.
malingenie
Member
This. And its true of any circle I find myself in.
By the beginning of the 20th century both parties were pretty much the same. Under FDR, the Democratic Party became more liberal (which is why he is so reviled by conservatives). But yeah, once the Civil Rights Act is passed, southern Democrats jump ship, GOP adopts the Southern Strategy and becomes a right wing party.
I don't think you understand how GAF is moderated. Our rules are not intended to be explicit, hard guidelines which strictly control our powers of moderation. This is important and significantly preferred, for a variety of reasons:
1) You cannot feasibly spell out each and every thing that could possibly be bannable. The TOS would be hundreds of pages long, and no one would read it.
2) If people are provided highly specific, absolute rules which define the moderation process, this makes it very easy to "troll," which I define as a deliberate attempt to skirt the rules of a forum without actually breaking those rules. For example, if we make it clear that the only thing you can't do is say "curse words," and it is understood that these rules are the full extent of our moderation and not are subject to interpretation, then it becomes extremely easy to avoid being banned while still being an enormous jerk. Just don't say those words, and then you can be as obnoxious to your fellow posters as you want. Providing moderators with leeway to interpret the rules helps prevent GAF from having quite as many "trolls" as do other gaming forums, as it's harder to skirt rules which are not defined in simple, inflexible ways.
3) Many of the rules which govern higher order discussion cannot be adequately expressed in words regardless. For example, we strongly encourage people to substantiate their claims with evidence (as is referenced in the TOS). How do we define what is adequate substantiation? Where do we draw the line on what evidence is valid and what is not? Drawing a line in the sand for these matters is simply not possible. It must be interpreted on a case by case basis.
As such, NeoGAF relies more heavily on the intelligence and reason of their moderators than would a forum which had facile, absolute rules which define what is bannable and what isn't. My job would be much easier if all I had to do was ctrl+f for "fuck" and "shit" and "nigger" and ban any post which used those, then call it a day. Instead, there are very few absolute rules on GAF which are bannable in every context -- just as is true in the real world, intelligent conversation is not easily governed by simple, easy Terms of Service.
Generally, all of these less concrete rules fall under the broad rule of GAF, "don't be a dick," which can be viewed here. In Evilore's TOS, this is referred to as "civil discussion" which needs to be "substantiated" with evidence. What defines civil discussion and valid evidence is open to interpretation by the moderation staff. Homophobia is not always bannable, as I said in the post you quoted, but it frequently is, as is the conclusion of most moderators on this forum using their intelligence and reason.
This was the hope after last election. It won't happen.
There are some nutjobs in the party who are teaching the same hateful and wrong things to their offspring.
It always bothered me that if you want a fiscally conservative candidate you have to take on some of the more controversial aspects as well.
Evil Benius
Member
Yeah I remember having discussions about it in 2008 quite well and having some hope. I honestly have just become so disillusioned with modern politics and feeling like there is no viable option that comes even close to representing me that I try not to think about it much anymore. Ignoring the obvious social injustices that a lot of Republicans want to push these days, this is one of the real tragedies of modern American politics, there is a growing number of people who have the right to vote, but no one worth voting for.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, it's a problem, and won't get better anytime soon. I think it's a truly horrible thing that we are forced to take the good with the bad (or just not vote) - and we're not going to see any kind of restructuring in the near future.
teruterubozu
Member
LOL. Like Sony fans in a WiiU thread? AS much as I like PoliGAF - the "console wars" mentality is pervasive on GAF.
Furthermore, I truly believe the balance of power SHOULD shift back and forth every term or two anyway...there needs to be balance. I'm generally left leaning but too much of tipping to one side can be a bad thing.
I don't understand the preventing legitimate voters from voting argument. If people really wanted to vote, they can still vote. There is nothing stopping them. In fact, I would prefer people who actively seek to vote rather than someone who casually just walks up to the booth without knowing any of the issues and casting blind votes for whatever. Informed votes are better votes.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
We read. We don't have to talk to a set of people trying to rip you apart to think and challenge our views.
Sye d'Burns
Member
Masochism isn't typically considered to be a conservative trait.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I've read a lot of points of view and a lot of them make sense. I think about the points presented and I form my own from that. I just don't need the grief and stress from arguing with 10 other people with half of them calling you names and just laughing at you, although sometimes I can't resist certain topics.
I dunno, maybe you could refuse to debate and just express opinions? I really think conservative opinions (Not arguments because the left-wing folks in there don't agree on a lot either lol) are missing in that thread. That's a shame since there's so many conservatives on GAF
Conservatives want to make it harder for citizens to vote, and yet when the same restrictions are applied to obtaining guns, they cry bloody murder that their rights are being infringed.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
There you go
I can also turn your argument around and say Liberals want to make voting for everyone, but when it comes to guns, they don't want the same freedom applied to obtaining guns even though it's a right explicitly given in the Constitution.
Evil Benius
Member
This is another thing that keeps me out of discussions, the assumption that we are all lock-step on every issue. There is not a Conservative Factory pumping us out on an assembly line. I never assume left-leaning people all have the same view on something and it hurts the discussion when someone jumps to the conclusion about what a person's beliefs are based on their political leaning (something both sides are guilty of).
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah. I'm not against all citizens voting, but I support voter ID. However by some others' rationale in the Poligaf thread...I am racist and much more because I feel you should be an American citizen that has valid identification.
teruterubozu
Member
The left simply doesn't have an equivalent of a Hannity, Rush or Beck - so the "assembly line" idea gets tagged on the right. Stewart, Colbert, Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow - they're too all over the place to have a cohesive message to solidify an "assembly line" - plus many left-leaners are not unanimous regarding CNN and MSNBC. The right has more "cohesiveness".
- Status