A question for the FYM masses.

[maude]

Why is it that on this forum prejudice is generally not tolerated in regards to sex, race, and religion, but when it comes to political affiliation, it becomes ok? Prejudice is the mark of an ignorant people and I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent posters on this forum, from both sides of the political spectrum, reduce so many interesting discussions into democart vs. republican bashing nonsense. If it's wrong to dismiss or show a lack of respect toward an individual based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or religion, then isn't it just as wrong to do so based on their political "label"?

 

[freetobeme]

Very good question. I have often wondered the same thing. Everyone here claims to be so tolerant and inclusive, yet when someone expresses a viewpoint other than the prevailant one, they are attacked. The majority of people here seem to be college democrats, internet libs and are very, very judgemental of others. I guess they're only tolerant of those who are like them. So, aren't they the very thing they claim to despise? Because the mods generally share their views, and mods are apparently chosen on the basis of their views, the mods take their side, thus all of the people expressing other viewpoints are banned from here. That's the way to do it, shut up everyone who disagrees with you, shout them down, band them, so you can be right.

 

[JMScoopy]

i said i wouldnt post here anymore, but i gotta say to this thread. hopefully it wont be locked in 5 minutes.

 

[BVS]

If it's wrong to dismiss or show a lack of respect toward an individual based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or religion, then isn't it just as wrong to do so based on their political "label"?

Gender, sex, race these are all things we're born with and can't control.

Idealogy is a choice, and they are choices that effect the lives of everyone around us. So it is much different.

Now that being said, no I don't think it's OK to reduce someone down to a label, and one shouldn't make assumptions based on that label.

 

[BVS]

Very good question. I have often wondered the same thing. Everyone here claims to be so tolerant and inclusive, yet when someone expresses a viewpoint other than the prevailant one, they are attacked. The majority of people here seem to be college democrats, internet libs and are very, very judgemental of others. I guess they're only tolerant of those who are like them. So, aren't they the very thing they claim to despise? Because the mods generally share their views, and mods are apparently chosen on the basis of their views, the mods take their side, thus all of the people expressing other viewpoints are banned from here. That's the way to do it, shut up everyone who disagrees with you, shout them down, band them, so you can be right.

Great insight for someone who joined yesterday.

You make general sweeping judgements in a thread discouraging against it. That's great.

So who are you really?
*beware of the troll*

 

[Diemen]

Ah the joy of alters.

Back to the original post: I find it just a bit amusing (read: disturbing) that you include political affiliation in the same group as sex, race and religion.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think we should be willing to look at ourselves based on the question. I don't think we should get defensive everytime someone questions the atmosphere in FYM.

To you original statement: Are political positions the same as gender, race, religion? No. So you cannot fully expect the same standards to apply.

That being said, people do learn things about other people's views and, in many cases, something about their own views. Obviously, you see something else happening in these threads. Remember, FYM is not the same thing as face to face or group discussion. You can get away with behvior on line that you would do in person.

People come here for different reasons - good and bad. The real bad apples are either banned or go away on their own. That doesn't necessarily leave us with the paradise of political discussion.

 

[Sicy]

Because the mods generally share their views, and mods are apparently chosen on the basis of their views, the mods take their side, thus all of the people expressing other viewpoints are banned from here. That's the way to do it, shut up everyone who disagrees with you, shout them down, band them, so you can be right.

Yes, we ban people all the time for simply expressing their viewpoints.

Maybe you should get your facts straight 'newbie' and read our rules before making accusations or assumptions (Rules) . If people consistantly break the rules while expressing their viewpoints, well they need to take responsibility for their actions. Oh but wait, you already know all about the rules, you've been here for years.

Why dont you stop making alters already, constantly having to hide behind other screen names. It's getting old.

 

[verte76]

That being said, people do learn things about other people's views and, in many cases, something about their own views.

I've come to understand why some people are conservative. I'm a liberal, like most people in FYM. But I also believe that we don't have all of the answers and are perfectly capable of screwing up big time. I don't agree with the conservatives but sometimes I can see where they're coming from. Does this make any sense?

 

[melon]

Why is it that on this forum prejudice is generally not tolerated in regards to sex, race, and religion, but when it comes to political affiliation, it becomes ok? Prejudice is the mark of an ignorant people and I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent posters on this forum, from both sides of the political spectrum, reduce so many interesting discussions into democart vs. republican bashing nonsense. If it's wrong to dismiss or show a lack of respect toward an individual based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or religion, then isn't it just as wrong to do so based on their political "label"?

You make an assumption that political dissent is the equivalent of "prejudice." Politics, along with religion, however, have the distinction of being completely learned. No person, alive or dead, is physically tied to any ideology.

And perhaps we can blame this on the post-9/11 collapse of postmodernism. To agree that both liberal and conservative opinions are equally valid would be the equivalent to what conservatives deride as "relativism." As much as I personally tried to argue that "objectivity," as we say, is really a construct of "cultural subjectivity," conservatives would not have that. To them, there had to be one path towards righteousness--an "Objective Moral Law," as they put it. As such, for my past self to state that both conservative and liberal opinions are equally valid would be to incite anger to those very conservatives I was trying to appease.

Frankly, my patience has run out. There is one path, and the conservatives have chosen the wrong one, in spite of all the education, progress, logic, philosophy, and blatant fact that modern civilization provides. In a pluralistic society, it is true that we are free to believe what we would like, and I would never once suggest shutting down dissenting thought through force. But if someone wants to use their constitutional right to believe that there's a leprechaun and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I have my constitutional right to tell them that they're delusional and full of crap. And, likewise, while it is society's constitutional right to be racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynist in the privacy of their own home and in the realm of discourse, it is also my constitutional right to do everything in my power to prove them wrong when they try to legislate their ignorance and tyranny onto the rest of us.

After all, this is precisely what conservatives think of liberals. I'm merely returning the favor.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

^Melon, what precisely do you mean by 'conservative'?

 

[melon]

^Melon, what precisely do you mean by 'conservative'?

I should be specific in that I'm referring to social conservatives.

I am more than willing to engage in the marketplace of ideas when it comes to political conservatism versus political liberalism, and I bear no ill will towards those political conservatives who do not harbor any of the bigotry that permeates social conservatism. In fact, politically, I have learned a lot from the debate between the two sides.

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my original response here, but, as you know, American conservative politics is rather inextricably tied to social conservatism. I find the fact that the Tories in the UK have abandoned much of their old prejudices on social issues to be refreshing.

Melon

 

[verte76]

I enjoy your posts, melon. I understand your frustrations, sometimes I have them too, and I have my frustrations in other areas of discussion, particularly some of the discussions of Islam.

 

[indra]

I enjoy your posts, melon. I understand your frustrations, sometimes I have them too, and I have my frustrations in other areas of discussion, particularly some of the discussions of Islam.

I think we all have those frustrations (in different areas, depending on each person's view). The people who do best understand that, the people who don't do well whine.

 

[freetobeme]

So much for the 'Hide My IP' program

*uninstalls*

*returns for refund*

 

[BVS]

So much for the 'Hide My IP' program

*uninstalls*

*returns for refund*

Well it's pretty obvious, program or not...

 

[Axver]

So much for the 'Hide My IP' program

*uninstalls*

*returns for refund*

You know, it is only a messageboard.

 

[maycocksean]

Why is it that on this forum prejudice is generally not tolerated in regards to sex, race, and religion, but when it comes to political affiliation, it becomes ok? Prejudice is the mark of an ignorant people and I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent posters on this forum, from both sides of the political spectrum, reduce so many interesting discussions into democart vs. republican bashing nonsense. If it's wrong to dismiss or show a lack of respect toward an individual based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or religion, then isn't it just as wrong to do so based on their political "label"?

I understand your frustrations, though on the whole I find that the positive things to be gained on this forum far outweigh the negative. I appreciate the diversity of views found here, and while liberals do outnumber conservatives here, I admire the courage and tenacity of conservative posters to stick it out, and keep being the voices of dissent. Voices dissenting from the "majority" have great value, if only to force the majority not get lazy in their thinking and views.

That said, I think prejudice can exist against people based on ideology or perhaps more accurately stereotyping. It's so easy to read a person's views on issue and assume you know all about that person and can predict what their views will be on all other issues. Like most stereotypes, there's just enough truth in them, to make it easy to generalize to everyone. I know I've been guilty of this stereotyping, and I've been proved wrong in my assumptions on many occasions. And to be honest, being proved wrong is when I learn the most on this forum.

In a sense all of us on this forum have a certain amount of "arrogance" if you will. You have to be at least a little cocky to be as opinionated as we all are!

 

[BVS]

maycocksean, I like you posting style...

and by the way, that's not a sarcastic wink...

 

[Screwtape2]

I've only been here for a few days alot of which has been on FYM and haven't encountered this stuff. Even if I'm wrong I find that it is better to talk then to engage in the other alternatives. If someone makes fair points, there will always be someone to defend your viewpoint. If U2 fans are anything, they're feisty but at the same time they will listen if what is said is free of the prejudicial things that have no place in conversation or debate. U2 fans are not afraid to turn on one of thier own if they are out of line.

 

[maycocksean]

maycocksean, I like you posting style...

Thanks!

 

[Screwtape2]

I second that. You're very good with your posts. I read your newest thread, you've got a talent. I only hope after a few weeks I can post half as well as you.

 

[BonosSaint]

Re: Re: A question for the FYM masses.

In a sense all of us on this forum have a certain amount of "arrogance" if you will. You have to be at least a little cocky to be as opinionated as we all are!

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: A question for the FYM masses.

Frankly, my patience has run out. There is one path, and the conservatives have chosen the wrong one, in spite of all the education, progress, logic, philosophy, and blatant fact that modern civilization provides. In a pluralistic society, it is true that we are free to believe what we would like, and I would never once suggest shutting down dissenting thought through force. But if someone wants to use their constitutional right to believe that there's a leprechaun and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I have my constitutional right to tell them that they're delusional and full of crap. And, likewise, while it is society's constitutional right to be racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynist in the privacy of their own home and in the realm of discourse, it is also my constitutional right to do everything in my power to prove them wrong when they try to legislate their ignorance and tyranny onto the rest of us.

After all, this is precisely what conservatives think of liberals. I'm merely returning the favor.

Melon

Are you "returning the favor" in response to individuals here or in life in general?

 

[BonosSaint]

My money's on Melon.

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Re: A question for the FYM masses.

Are you "returning the favor" in response to individuals here or in life in general?

Life in general. But specific individuals here fit the bill, as well.

Melon

 

[bonoman]

Why is it that on this forum prejudice is generally not tolerated in regards to sex, race, and religion, but when it comes to political affiliation, it becomes ok? Prejudice is the mark of an ignorant people and I have to wonder when I see otherwise intelligent posters on this forum, from both sides of the political spectrum, reduce so many interesting discussions into democart vs. republican bashing nonsense. If it's wrong to dismiss or show a lack of respect toward an individual based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, or religion, then isn't it just as wrong to do so based on their political "label"?

I take exception that things get reduced down to Democrats vs Republicans.

You are being prejudice againist me and the rest of the people that do not live in the US and are not dems or republicans. Just because I'm from Canada doesnt mean I have to be left out,

Give me a break!

 

[Angela Harlem]

Re: Re: A question for the FYM masses.

I take exception that things get reduced down to Democrats vs Republicans.

You are being prejudice againist me and the rest of the people that do not live in the US and are not dems or republicans. Just because I'm from Canada doesnt mean I have to be left out,

Give me a break!

I used to be neutral(ish). Years ago, I mean, and when I first started reading this. Then I began to learn and pay attention to much more than I perhaps had done before. Then I began to moderate and had to view things utterly neutrally, or at least try. I'm not sure when it started happening, but after a while I just could not ignore ideals and viewpoints which utterly stink. Am I always right? I dont know, and it isn't the point. I dont think I even listen anymore. I just get riled. If I had hackles they'd be raised. And why do I do this? Because I think some defunct self-torture chip in my brain burnt out back then some time, and I am still trying to just understand why some think the way you do here. I am extremely thankful that this forum is not real life. I used to get my back up when people said we act differently on here to real life. But now I accept that freely. I certainly do, and am not only not ashamed of that, but actually grateful. I dont want to see viewpoints like some which are professed on here offline as well. I dont want to have an FYM life. I can turn this computer off and pretend it doesn't exist when it reaches the point where I say 'this person must be joking!'. And I am grateful becuse I dont get my hackles up offline like on here. I dont see the person I wish I was able to demonstrate my point on gun control on.

 

[nbcrusader]

I take exception that things get reduced down to Democrats vs Republicans.

It is easier to discuss things in terms of labels than it is to discuss things in terms of ideas.

It is easier to discuss sets of ideas than to discuss the application of those ideas in a principled fashion.

This is an imperfect method of communication, the value of which depends on the consistent quality of the shared messages.

 

[bonoman]

It is easier to discuss things in terms of labels than it is to discuss things in terms of ideas.

It is easier to discuss sets of ideas than to discuss the application of those ideas in a principled fashion.

This is an imperfect method of communication, the value of which depends on the consistent quality of the shared messages.

Thanks for the thumbs up, but I've had to read your post seven times now and my head still hurts

I just put in a 14 hours shift, do you think I need to be subjected to such thinking

Great post!