• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF's Political Leanings

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
This feels just silly and binary. It's easy to make something x or y if you are reductionistic enough.

The term left and right doesn't work with most of these things. Viewing things through American politics just shows how messed up and polarized American politics is. It shows how people are reduced to groups in this pseudo-cultural war some seem to be raging.

More so, it doesn't really prove anything. Almost anyone can post a thread, but many don't. What counting the threads show is at best the leaning of the person who made them, but even that doesn't necessarily have to be true, it might rather show your perception of them or the subject, rather than their actual position.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,155
540
530
Reading, Berkshire
Righty = I'll hum along to my own beat. What I earn is what I earn

Lefty = I want to see a laundry list of what everyone has in the neighbourhood, and will complain if other people make more money or have a better car
Is that why conservative voters are crying about protections for the mining industry and refusing to retrain into new industries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
Is that why conservative voters are crying about protections for the mining industry and refusing to retrain into new industries?
That's probably not a lot of typical conservative voters (isn't that the blue collar workers? The ones Democrats managed to fail with in 2016?), as that would be rather typical left-wing political actions. Protection of industries have generally been what the left-wing does, that and not forcing retraining into industries they aren't identified with or want to. And even then, there's examples where a conservative or a progressive party reaching over. That's probably because humans are a bit complicated to be put in a binary ideological box.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,982
2,310
440
Is that why conservative voters are crying about protections for the mining industry and refusing to retrain into new industries?
As I said nothing wrong with reasonable safety nets.

If these miners are too lazy to retrain, then so be it. They get their severance pay and look for another job.

The key difference is that they are looking for help related to a job. And not looking for money for sake of complaining and doing nothing or trying to get rich people to give them handouts because Jo Bob office guy has a BMW.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pramod
Oct 26, 2018
2,982
2,310
440
That's probably not a lot of typical conservative voters (isn't that the blue collar workers? The ones Democrats managed to fail with in 2016?), as that would be rather typical left-wing political actions. Protection of industries have generally been what the left-wing does, that and not forcing retraining into industries they aren't identified with or want to. And even then, there's examples where a conservative or a progressive party reaching over. That's probably because humans are a bit complicated to be put in a binary ideological box.
That's the key difference between lefties and righties.

For the middle class or lower, lefties want handout kinds of assistance. More payouts, taxing rich people more, more diversity quotas. Basically, trying to get more for nothing. They will do their best to complain "everyone is out to get them", so give me a job or more assistance for the heck of it.

Righties looking for help is more about helping protect jobs, so they don't get outsourced to a cheap cost country. They want to work, but are stuck in a job (likely manufacturing based) which companies are tempted by low cost foreign countries. They will do the best they can to prove their quality and production is good enough to keep the job local. They don't give a shit about other people being richer or having a better car.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,529
1,300
815
No, it is not fair to claim that, and the Left-leaning individuals on GAF have been telling you this for months. You refuse to see it, and the persistence of your refusal becomes more obvious as time goes on.

In order for your fragile view of reality to survive, GAF simply must have a bias. You cannot comprehend a world where your own paradigm isn't given primacy.

It surely must be GAF that is imbalanced.

Meanwhile, you are author of some of the most radical and uncharitable threads on the Political board:



Maybe you should come up with a non-solution for this non-problem. I'm eager to hear the non-details of how this would be balanced according to your own guidelines.
Are you trying to claim GAF's political user base isn't propagating a lean-right/anti-left American political paradigm the vast majority of the time? I feel that you are pushing dishonest views in order salvage /politics as some sort of "centrist" place; a familiar phrase that I also laughably saw Reee claim for itself by its most extreme members. And so it's no surprise you'd try to do the same. Additionally, the fact that you claim /pol is immune to an overall user political bias after the giant exodus of most left-leaning users is blatantly absurd.

Since you went on yet another one of your ad hominem post-history stalker fests, I suppose I feel compelled to baby walk you through the four threads you linked and their relationship to the words "radical" and "uncharitable." Thread 1 was sourced directly from Clint Watts. Here's his bio:

Clinton Watts (known as Clint Watts) is a senior fellow at the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security at George Washington University and a Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow.[3] He previously was an infantry officer in the United States Army,[4][5] and was the executive officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at United States Military Academy at West Point(CTC).[6][7] He became a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he served on the Joint Terrorism Task Force(JTTF).[1][8] He has consulted for the FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) and FBI National Security Branch (NSB).[9]

Watts has given expert testimony to the U.S. Congress multiple times, including: to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on April 5, 2016, about the ISIS November 2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombings,[10] to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs about ISIS after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting,[11] to the Senate Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections in a widely reported March 30, 2017 public hearing,[12][13] and before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity on April 27, 2017 about Russian black propaganda.[14][15]
His tweet was a list of publicly known information. I pasted his tweet thread and said I "wouldn't be surprised in the least" if Trump colluded, but was withholding any factual judgment until the report. This is radical? Please; this is patty cake soft gloves. It's true I'm not being charitable towards Trump here. I didn't know that being uncharitable towards Trump is basically the same as habitually calling fellow members stupid cunts. Oh wait, what Matt does is just good natured camaraderie or stern warnings for warranted offenses. Gotcha.

Thread two is directly sourced from the historical interpretation of Jesus which has been an ongoing field of study since the 18th century. The fact that you'd lump this in as "radical and uncharitable" is truly bizarre. Is a belief of a resurrected God-man forcing you to believe in him for salvation less radical? I didn't say Christians today are desperate, I said those who survived his ministry immediately following his death were desperate, as their emotional state is key for the historical interpretation. Maybe you are confused and didn't actually bother to read the thread? Who knows. In fact within that thread I had many good debates with various members, all pretty cordial. But then, it wasn't political so I didn't really expect any of that associated baggage. Again: you including this thread should be evidence enough for all that you're literally talking out of your asshole.

Thread three is directly sourced from the Mueller Report and his letter to Barr, and how those pieces fit together. How this is "radical" is beyond me, as it's exactly the same argument lawfare makes. In fact they go further and claim the Mueller report shows the Trump's campaign attempting to collude multiple times but because it was so half-assed it wasn't enough for criminal conspiracy. Though I suppose you'll label a nonpartisan group of lawyers "radicals" and "fake news" too if they don't conform to your very narrow narrative around Trump. Because anything less than total exoneration with a pinch of attempted Democratic coup means you're a radical extremist who hates the orange man. And uncharitable towards who, again? Trump himself? Is this real life?

Thread four: you claim my angry response to a near total abortion ban, including rape and incest, is "radical". I'm radical for being really upset that a girl raped by her father is no longer able to get an abortion. Ok bud. Is it radical to say that abortion laws are a direct result of Christian moral law? My Christian Grandmother, who is a lifelong pro-life activist who passes out pamphlets of gruesome aborted fetuses, would laugh in your face on that one. Now, uncharitable? That one I'll grant you.

"It's not that we don't like leftist. It's just that we don't like leftists that don't give Trump, Jesus' divinity, and outlawing incest/rape abortions a charitable point of view, because then that means you're a radical." Look guys. I'm center left, and you can barely stand me. I get that you'd like to call this place centrist and free of a generalized political bias, but everyone knows that simply isn't true. You lost centrists or center-lefters from the politics side, like Redneckerz and Ailynn and I barely show up in pol anymore as it is as it's always an overwhelming torrent of outrage/angry/snide/memes against the left. If you don't think it's a problem, fine. I don't find that surprising. Thank you for your completely predictable input on this topic.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
Are you trying to claim GAF's political user base isn't based almost exclusively around a lean-right/anti-left American political paradigm? I feel that you are pushing dishonest views in order salvage /politics as some sort of "centrist" place; a familiar phrase that I also laughably saw Reee claim for itself by its most extreme members. And so it's no surprise you'd try to do the same. Additionally, the fact that you claim /pol is immune to an overall user political bias after the giant exodus of most left-leaning users is blatantly absurd.

Since you went on yet another one of your ad hominem post-history stalker fests, I suppose I feel compelled to baby walk you through the four threads you linked and their relationship to the words "radical" and "uncharitable." Thread 1 was sourced directly from Clint Watts. Here's his bio:



His tweet was a list of publicly known information. I pasted his tweet thread and said I "wouldn't be surprised in the least" if Trump colluded, but was withholding any factual judgment until the report. This is radical? Please; this is patty cake soft gloves. It's true I'm not being charitable towards Trump here. I didn't know that being uncharitable towards Trump is basically the same as habitually calling fellow members stupid cunts. Oh wait, what Matt does is just good natured camaraderie or stern warnings for warranted offenses. Gotcha.

Thread two is directly sourced from the historical interpretation of Jesus which has been an ongoing field of study since the 18th century. The fact that you'd lump this in as "radical and uncharitable" is truly bizarre. Is a belief of a resurrected God-man forcing you to believe in him for salvation less radical? I didn't say Christians today are desperate, I said those who survived his ministry immediately following his death were desperate, as their emotional state is key the historical interpretation. Maybe you are confused and didn't actually bother to read the thread? Who knows. In fact within that thread I had many good debates with various members, all pretty cordial. But then, it wasn't a political so I didn't really expect any of that associated baggage. Again: you including this thread should be evidence enough for all that you're literally talking out of your asshole.

Thread three is directly sourced from the Mueller Report and his letter to Barr, and how those pieces fit together. How this is "radical" is beyond me, as it's exactly the same argument lawfare makes. In fact they go further and claim Trump's campaign attempted to collude multiple times but because it was so half-assed it wasn't enough for criminal conspiracy. Though I suppose you'll label a nonpartisan group of lawyers "radicals" and "fake news" too if they don't conform to your very narrow narrative around Trump. Because anything less than total exoneration means you're a radical extremist who hates the orange man. And uncharitable towards who, again? Trump himself? Is this real life?

Thread four: you claim my angry response to a near total abortion ban, including rape and incest, is "radical". I'm radical for being really upset that a girl raped by her father is no longer able to get an abortion. Ok bud. Is it radical to say the foundations of abortion law are directly founded upon the history of Christian moral law? My Christian Grandmother, who is a pro-life activist who passes out pamphlets of gruesome aborted fetuses, would laugh in your face on that one. Now, uncharitable? That one I'll grant you.

"It's not that we don't like leftist. It's just that we don't like leftists that don't give Trump, Jesus' divinity, and outlawing incest/rape abortions a charitable point of view, because then that means you're a radical." Look guys. I'm center left, and you can barely stand me. I get that you'd like to call this place centrist and free of a generalized political bias, but everyone knows that simply isn't true. You lost centrists or center-lefters from the politics side, like Redneckerz and Ailynn and I barely show up in pol anymore as it is as it's always an overwhelming torrent of outrage/angry/snide/memes against the left. If you don't think it's a problem, fine. I don't find that surprising. Thank you for your completely predictable input on this topic.
Still goin' eh?

Ailynn is still here and Red was banned for stalking and harassing other users, not his politics. Get your facts straight.
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage and pramod

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,529
1,300
815
Still goin' eh?

Ailynn is still here and Red was banned for stalking and harassing other users, not his politics. Get your facts straight.
Red left pol due to the situation around Ailynn regardless of whatever transpired with the ban, and Ailynn left pol due to the shit stew around trans issues that pol continually fostered. Get your facts straight. Stupid cunt.
 
Last edited:

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,527
355
925
I've said this before and I'll say it again - unless you are fully behind free markets, unfettered capitalism or libertarianism, you are either centrist or leaning left.

People who vote for Trump have a net motivation for government intervention. They are not small c conservatives or libertarians.

You are all on the left.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
Are you trying to claim GAF's political user base isn't propagating a lean-right/anti-left American political paradigm the vast majority of the time? I feel that you are pushing dishonest views in order salvage /politics as some sort of "centrist" place; a familiar phrase that I also laughably saw Reee claim for itself by its most extreme members. And so it's no surprise you'd try to do the same. Additionally, the fact that you claim /pol is immune to an overall user political bias after the giant exodus of most left-leaning users is blatantly absurd.

Since you went on yet another one of your ad hominem post-history stalker fests, I suppose I feel compelled to baby walk you through the four threads you linked and their relationship to the words "radical" and "uncharitable." Thread 1 was sourced directly from Clint Watts. Here's his bio:



His tweet was a list of publicly known information. I pasted his tweet thread and said I "wouldn't be surprised in the least" if Trump colluded, but was withholding any factual judgment until the report. This is radical? Please; this is patty cake soft gloves. It's true I'm not being charitable towards Trump here. I didn't know that being uncharitable towards Trump is basically the same as habitually calling fellow members stupid cunts. Oh wait, what Matt does is just good natured camaraderie or stern warnings for warranted offenses. Gotcha.

Thread two is directly sourced from the historical interpretation of Jesus which has been an ongoing field of study since the 18th century. The fact that you'd lump this in as "radical and uncharitable" is truly bizarre. Is a belief of a resurrected God-man forcing you to believe in him for salvation less radical? I didn't say Christians today are desperate, I said those who survived his ministry immediately following his death were desperate, as their emotional state is key for the historical interpretation. Maybe you are confused and didn't actually bother to read the thread? Who knows. In fact within that thread I had many good debates with various members, all pretty cordial. But then, it wasn't political so I didn't really expect any of that associated baggage. Again: you including this thread should be evidence enough for all that you're literally talking out of your asshole.

Thread three is directly sourced from the Mueller Report and his letter to Barr, and how those pieces fit together. How this is "radical" is beyond me, as it's exactly the same argument lawfare makes. In fact they go further and claim the Mueller report shows the Trump's campaign attempting to collude multiple times but because it was so half-assed it wasn't enough for criminal conspiracy. Though I suppose you'll label a nonpartisan group of lawyers "radicals" and "fake news" too if they don't conform to your very narrow narrative around Trump. Because anything less than total exoneration with a pinch of attempted Democratic coup means you're a radical extremist who hates the orange man. And uncharitable towards who, again? Trump himself? Is this real life?

Thread four: you claim my angry response to a near total abortion ban, including rape and incest, is "radical". I'm radical for being really upset that a girl raped by her father is no longer able to get an abortion. Ok bud. Is it radical to say that abortion laws are a direct result of Christian moral law? My Christian Grandmother, who is a lifelong pro-life activist who passes out pamphlets of gruesome aborted fetuses, would laugh in your face on that one. Now, uncharitable? That one I'll grant you.

"It's not that we don't like leftist. It's just that we don't like leftists that don't give Trump, Jesus' divinity, and outlawing incest/rape abortions a charitable point of view, because then that means you're a radical." Look guys. I'm center left, and you can barely stand me. I get that you'd like to call this place centrist and free of a generalized political bias, but everyone knows that simply isn't true. You lost centrists or center-lefters from the politics side, like Redneckerz and Ailynn and I barely show up in pol anymore as it is as it's always an overwhelming torrent of outrage/angry/snide/memes against the left. If you don't think it's a problem, fine. I don't find that surprising. Thank you for your completely predictable input on this topic.
Starting your response with "are you trying to claim..." when I am responding to your wild claims in the thread you made is gonna be a pass from me, dawg. I'm here to have conversation. You're here to stir shit.

By the way, it took me all of 10 seconds to simply pick out of your most recent threads as my examples. If you consider that "stalkerish", that says more about your own inflated sense of self than anything else.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: matt404au

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,634
2,215
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I've said this before and I'll say it again - unless you are fully behind free markets, unfettered capitalism or libertarianism, you are either centrist or leaning left.

People who vote for Trump have a net motivation for government intervention. They are not small c conservatives or libertarians.

You are all on the left.
What? If you are not an extreme neoliberal you are left? Now that is a hot take. Trump is already pretty far to the neoliberal side (small government, low taxes, weak social security systems, freedom of markets over in evological restrictions), if even he still counts as left, going only by the fiscal policies, then left / right is completely meaningless, because only the absolute most extreme neoliberals would even qualify as right leaning. All the other issues in politics aside...
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
1,350
1,604
410
The Left has gone so far off the deep end that the entire world leans right... I mean, when your "plan" is to get rid of cars/planes and think the planet only has 12 years left and you want to insert government fully into everyone's healthcare when you've already fucked it up once and can't even fix a small scale healthcare problem like the VA... AND you want to do nothing but continue to whinge about losing an election that happened three years ago by trying to impeach a dude who didn't do anything to begin with yet you promised everyone he was a closet Commie. It's hard for anyone except the extreme nut cases say they lean left when this is where the party is.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
33,449
5,387
1,340
The Left has gone so far off the deep end that the entire world leans right... I mean, when your "plan" is to get rid of cars/planes and think the planet only has 12 years left and you want to insert government fully into everyone's healthcare when you've already fucked it up once and can't even fix a small scale healthcare problem like the VA... AND you want to do nothing but continue to whinge about losing an election that happened three years ago by trying to impeach a dude who didn't do anything to begin with yet you promised everyone he was a closet Commie. It's hard for anyone except the extreme nut cases say they lean left when this is where the party is.
goddamn heresjohnny, stay woke you wonderful bastard
 

epicnemesis

Member
May 9, 2008
482
369
955
No? You lefties love your quotas
This is comment of the year. It’s just too perfect.

The disproportionality isn’t really a problem as long as those who express other views aren’t harassed specifically for those views. (That tends to happen here as well unfortunately, though not to the same level as other forums, and not from moderators)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,529
1,300
815
Starting your response with "are you trying to claim..." when I am responding to your wild claims in the thread you made is gonna be a pass from me, dawg. I'm here to have conversation. You're here to stir shit.

By the way, it took me all of 10 seconds to simply pick out of your most recent threads as my examples. If you consider that "stalkerish", that says more about your own inflated sense of self than anything else.
"There is a lean according to the my view of front page thread, is that a problem" is a wild claim? Or was it my claim that Democratic views get as much of an honest shake from this userbase as conservative views get on Ree? I have a feeling you just really detest being compared to Reee, which is understandable, the the political mirroring is, in my view, inescapable as someone who had been banned from both OldGAF and Ree for saying right-leaning things. You're definition of "wild" is truly absurd, and demonstrative of the political bubble you've swaddled yourself in for comfort. You wouldn't survive more than a day on Ree even if the mods would stop banning conservative viewpoints, as the overwhelming pushback from the user base and actual "wild " and 'radical" and "uncharitable" views against the right would give you a stroke, seeing as how you can't even stand my center left version.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,424
4,198
375
My wild claim of "there is a lean according to the my view of front page posts, is that a problem"? You're definition of "wild" is truly absurd, and demonstrative of the political bubble you've swaddled yourself in for comfort. You wouldn't survive more than a day on Ree even if the mods would stop banning conservative viewpoints, as the to the overwhelming pushback from the user base and actual "wild " and 'radical" and "uncharitable" views against conservationism would literally give you a stroke, seeing as how you can't even stand the center left.
You mean if someone who isn't a leftist went to a forum full of proud socialist, communists and far left progressives they
might not be popular. What a shocking revelation🙄

I've said this before and I'll say it again - unless you are fully behind free markets, unfettered capitalism or libertarianism, you are either centrist or leaning left.

People who vote for Trump have a net motivation for government intervention. They are not small c conservatives or libertarians.

You are all on the left.
There is that classic dragonfart stupidity
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
"There is a lean according to the my view of front page thread, is that a problem" is a wild claim? Or was it my claim that Democratic views get as much of an honest shake from this userbase as conservative views get on Ree? I have a feeling you just really detest being compared to Reee, which is understandable, the the political mirroring is, in my view, inescapable as someone who had been banned from both OldGAF and Ree for saying too right-leaning things. You're definition of "wild" is truly absurd, and demonstrative of the political bubble you've swaddled yourself in for comfort. You wouldn't survive more than a day on Ree even if the mods would stop banning conservative viewpoints, as the overwhelming pushback from the user base and actual "wild " and 'radical" and "uncharitable" views against conservationism would give you a stroke, seeing as how you can't even stand my center left version.
Lots of mind-reading but even less substance that your OP.

Remove any of the parts that concern you knowing what is going on in my head and your paragraph vanishes.

Take this as a clue as to why your ideology is withering.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
My wild claim of "there is a lean according to the front page posts, is that a problem"? You're definition of "wild" is truly absurd, and demonstrative of the political bubble you've swaddled yourself in for comfort.
Your claim is wrong. As I've told you, at best with your methodology it is "a lean of threads on front page [at time x:y:z, on date æ.ø.å]", at worst "my perception of a lean on the front page based on a set of binary groups". You need a far better methodology to make a point.

However, as far as observations go, I think there's been less posting of threads by @Nobody_Important and @Yoshi, who've been in my anecdotal experience the once posting a lot of progressive/liberal/"whatever label you want" threads, while some other posters have continued or upped their thread posting.
This is further shown by at the moment of this post in which there are 40 threads on the front page (sans the 2 stickies), two posters @DunDunDunpachi and @cryptoadam have 8 and 5 of them each respectively, meaning 13 threads made by two posters. Meaning they account for 32.5% of the threads, which might explain your "lean".

Threads are a terrible measure of any interesting information about lean, more so as a snapshot with terrible methodology behind it.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,634
2,215
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
However, as far as observations go, I think there's been less posting of threads by @Nobody_Important and @Yoshi, who've been in my anecdotal experience the once posting a lot of progressive/liberal/"whatever label you want" threads, while some other posters have continued or upped their thread posting.
I do not think I have ever been posting many topics (in politics or elsewhere).
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,529
1,300
815
Your claim is wrong. As I've told you, at best with your methodology it is "a lean of threads on front page [at time x:y:z, on date æ.ø.å]", at worst "my perception of a lean on the front page based on a set of binary groups". You need a far better methodology to make a point.

However, as far as observations go, I think there's been less posting of threads by @Nobody_Important and @Yoshi, who've been in my anecdotal experience the once posting a lot of progressive/liberal/"whatever label you want" threads, while some other posters have continued or upped their thread posting.
This is further shown by at the moment of this post in which there are 40 threads on the front page (sans the 2 stickies), two posters @DunDunDunpachi and @cryptoadam have 8 and 5 of them each respectively, meaning 13 threads made by two posters. Meaning they account for 32.5% of the threads, which might explain your "lean".

Threads are a terrible measure of any interesting information about lean, more so as a snapshot with terrible methodology behind it.
I agree cryptoadams thread creation rates help create a steeper lean; of the 26 lean right/antileft threads, he created 8 of them. Dun was much lower at 2. In all there were 16 users who created those 26 threads. This is compared to the 4 who created the 4 left leaning threads, one who is right leaning 99% of the time on everything else (Super Mario).

Within threads themselves I at first attempted to tally how long it took to find a dissenting POV from the OP, as that would give a more detailed indication of echo chamber levels. I gave up after getting half way through because it was taking absurd amounts of time to read through every front page of every thread, but the rough estimate was that it took an average of 15-20 posts in a anti-left right lean thread to find someone directly arguing against OP's framing (of course some were sooner, some were later, it's an average). For the anti-right left lean groups, A race-based took 6, When they see us took 4, and Do you think Trump took 1. (I now support is more difficult to assess as getting rid of tips in favor of higher wages seems a centrist proposal despite higher wages being a leftist position; the thread revolves around tips rather than political question of raising wages. Me including this thread as "lean left" was generous as it is). The summary in my OP is of course a small sample size but it would be completely not surprising if this trend held with better data, especially considering the history of GAFs userbase and moderation policy changes.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
21,905
13,987
2,060
“People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them.”

― George Bernard Shaw
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
I do not think I have ever been posting many topics (in politics or elsewhere).
Might just be me misremembering, but I remembered at some point you having a presence with threads on politics.

Or, wait, I'm not racist, but I think I mistook you for luigimario (who apparently got banned without me noticing) since you're both green. 🤷‍♂️ That would explain it. :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
lol @ Arkage the Frustrated Stone Cold Loser Leftist trying to beat me at my own game by LOL reacting me. If you can’t beat em, join em! Keep the salt flowing buddy, it’s delicious 😋
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Cunth

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
33,449
5,387
1,340
“People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them.”

― George Bernard Shaw
truuf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EviLore

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,424
4,198
375
so really what it comes down to is liberal posters here make less threads than conservatives, and that hurts Arkages feelings?
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
so really what it comes down to is liberal posters here make less threads than conservatives, and that hurts Arkages feelings?
I honestly wouldn't even say that is entirely true.

A bunch of people like pointing out hypocrisy. And while someone may laugh and point at AOC (for example) it doesn't mean they are Republican. I laugh at her all the time, but I am still a Democrat. You can be on the left and still far from that far left.

But just because someone criticizes the Right or Left, doesn't mean they are on that opposing side.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
I honestly wouldn't even say that is entirely true.

A bunch of people like pointing out hypocrisy. And while someone may laugh and point at AOC (for example) it doesn't mean they are Republican. I laugh at her all the time, but I am still a Democrat. You can be on the left and still far from that far left.

But just because someone criticizes the Right or Left, doesn't mean they are on that opposing side.
Yeah, but Frustrated Stone Cold Loser Leftist isn't pointing out hypocrisy; he's complaining about an unequal outcome that doesn't suit his sensibilities. He's effectively making a pay gap argument. There's no one stopping him from creating the threads he wants to see or participating in a way that shifts the Overton Window back in his preferred direction, but rather than put in the requisite effort at the input end of the system, he would rather point at the outcome end and cry foul. Even EL is dunking on his immature mentality with the Shaw quote.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
Yeah, but Frustrated Stone Cold Loser Leftist isn't pointing out hypocrisy; he's complaining about an unequal outcome that doesn't suit his sensibilities. He's effectively making a pay gap argument. There's no one stopping him from creating the threads he wants to see or participating in a way that shifts the Overton Window back in his preferred direction, but rather than put in the requisite effort at the input end of the system, he would rather point at the outcome end and cry foul. Even EL is dunking on his immature mentality with the Shaw quote.
Well that has been a complaint for some time now. Some at least acknowledge that they aren't creating threads.
 

bucyou

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
1,190
1,509
550
conservatism is like abstinence, its works flawlessly when actually implemented
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
Well that has been a complaint for some time now. Some at least acknowledge that they aren't creating threads.
Right, but it's not even about just creating threads for the sake of it. It's about creating threads that resonate and foster discussion. There have been plenty of left-leaning threads that do this, like strange headache's. But Frustrated Stone Cold Loser Leftist sucks at it because he always goes in with a chip on his shoulder and no semblance of a sense of humour. Every OP he has ever written has been dripping with bitterness and resentment. He doesn't respect the intelligence of his audience and so doesn't expect us to read between the lines. I have tried to tell him before that his problem is the approach, not necessarily the content, but he just cries tone policing, shuts off to the feedback and carries on losing. Why do you think I call him Frustrated Leftist?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
conservatism is like abstinence, its works flawlessly when actually implemented
Conservatism is conservatism. It's not necessarily a specific set of beliefs. It's usually something entailing respect for the wisdom tradition and slow change, which often means often economic policies harkening to 18/19th century or 1960-80s for some. With that it usually comes with a more traditional social policy as well.
Progressives would be the contrast, whereupon they constantly seek something beyond, the antithesis of the establishment, whether new economic policies or expanding social policies. This is a bit reductionistic as well (it's more symbolic for the overall struggle), but that'd be the general idea of each. Working very much like a hegelian dialectic and keeping society going along. Conservatives and progressives are needed, they are the essence of life. And life is chaotic and environments and needs change, leading to a necessary adaptability, it requires progress and it requires to conserve. The economic waves, the waves of war, the pendulum swinging in politics. We have to always adapt to survive.

If "this is it and it is done" was all, then we'd functionally have stopped evolving. So "works flawlessly" is something that I find ridiculous. Could just as well have said "communism is like abstinence, it works flawlessly as long as you follow it religiously".
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
OP paints a pretty convincing picture (of at least a limited time point). Having lurked here after the entire exodus, and having seen before/after, the current climate of the politics board has a fairly strong conservative lean. If criticism is to be given to ResetEra for being left wing, then it should be equally applied here. Pretending that this board is centrist at the moment is fairly delusional.

conservatism is like abstinence, its works flawlessly when actually implemented
Abstinence is miserable; you may not be the best salesman for conservatism.
 
Last edited:

brap

Member
Jan 9, 2018
4,285
8,399
680
Neogaf is a pretty conservative site. I know this because there aren't enough people that support communism, hate white people, and post about how much they love girls with penises. If you aren't one of those people you're pretty right wing.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
OP paints a pretty convincing picture (of at least a limited time point). Having lurked here after the entire exodus, and having seen before/after, the current climate of the politics board has a fairly strong conservative lean.
There is no question that GAF is further to the right than Ree, but that does not mean that GAF is a conservative site. It is likely that you, like much of the internet for the past decade, have become accustomed to an Overton Window that has been skewed so far left that traditionally moderate opinions like sustainable immigration policy now appear to you as radical far right hate speech.

If criticism is to be given to ResetEra for being left wing, then it should be equally applied here. Pretending that this board is centrist at the moment is fairly delusional.
Why? One is a product of enforced groupthink while the other is a product of free thought and expression. They are not equivalent opposites. If certain ideas cannot compete, why should they be given affirmative action?

Below is an illustration of how I see the Overton Windows of GAF and Ree superimposed onto the political horseshoe. If you have spent too long in the Ree echo chamber and warped your mind, of course you will perceive GAF as being right wing, but it's not -- it's because you have gone so far left. GAF is a mix of left and right, but if you feel that one side is not represented enough for your liking, do something about it. There is nothing stopping you, but don't expect a free pass and a leg up because you see yourself as a political minority.

I'm so tired of you ideologically broken types who can only think in terms of equity of group outcome. GAF and the world in general owe you nothing.

 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,291
816
880
What's that old yarn the regressive left likes to spin?

"When you are used to privilege, equality feels like opression?"

NeoGAF is evening out the playing field in it's own space; this is the aftermath of years of screeching harpies after they flew off to roost elsewhere.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,656
355
790
It's really neither here nor there which way this place leans. People are going to observe what they want. There are still dogpiles, but they're hardly the spectacle they used to be before the exodus. It's still a lot of posters talking past each other, which you're gonna get everywhere on the internet, so it's hardly exclusive to this forum. Especially when talking politics.