…to your regularly scheduled programming, but I wanted to break in to take the pulse and gauge if there is any interest in taking another stab at an apparently elusive goal.
I've been a part of, or watched closely, four…actually five going back to usenet days… different attempts to establish discussion groups or communities seeking to 'cross the aisle' or facilitate talking to the other 'side'. All of them either morphed into something else, or waned toward eventual failure.
In thinking back on each, they were all very different, but all of them got off track pretty much the same way. Human nature I suppose. I'm not really certain it is even possible, over a long period of time, to make such an animal survive. So the general question is, should one bother?
The reason for the question is that I've toyed with various ideas on how to craft and maintain such a forum, but usually toss them aside because I doubt there is enough genuine interest. After all, if the goal to speak to the "other side" – and listen to them too – was important enough to everyone, the prior exercises would not have drifted so easily from that goal. Why spend the time, effort, and money to launch something, not to mention the unending headaches of maintaining it, if only a tiny handful of people seek it?
Is there genuine interest?
Obviously, if you, individually, are happy with the Forvm.org, and think it hasn't failed, then you would naturally view things differently – as is your right. In addition, this is why I would not attempt to change it. It has gone where the majority wanted it go. No problem, just not what I was seeking when we launched it, or what I was working toward when I agreed to serve as an inaugural Troikateer, and not all what I was attempting to thwart during my bloody reign as ruthless and despicable dictator.
Soooo… if in a few months I decided to pull the trigger and cobble something together, is anyone interested in helping, lending a technical hand, writing, or just visiting? It wouldn't be very soon, but I don't want to waste any of my few remaining brain cells thinking about it if there is little interest.
Thanks for your time.
--
Time Magazine Person of the Year - 2006
Those of us with short attention spans
(#73552)and insatiable desires for instant gratification would love to know what Mac has decided from this discussion, and what structure he has in mind for this new venture assuming he has received sufficient encouragement to proceed.
I mean, a few months is like forever in blog time, how can I possibly wait =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Leaning against.
(#73557)“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentNow I know why I didn't want to write this
(#73470)I've tried to start to write this, but when I think about it I pretty quickly look for something else to do. It seems sort of pointless in a way, yet I don't feel right about ignoring honest implorations asking me to do it. Dang, this feels like work. I'm not even sure where to start.
All right, let me start my answering BG's question:
The simple answer is human nature. The practical answer is that site population/demographics create a tipping point where human nature can't be resisted. After I posted this diary, it occurred to me that I'd witnessed the same transition occur on a site that had absolutely nothing to do with politics. All it seems to take is people feeling strongly enough about something for their tribal instincts to kick in.
The tribal stuff actually helps in many ways in the beginning, and acts like a sort of glue that keeps people coming back and give sites ongoing life. However, when either one side or the other gets one of two things, sometimes both, it can be the beginning of the end. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. The first and most common is simply driven by population. When one tribe gets enough of a population advantage over the other, it consciously and sub-consciously alters how each tribe behaves. The less common is the behavior by participates who emerge as de facto tribal leaders. If they demonstrate by word and deed a dedication to the whole, it helps keep things on keel, but if they instead focus on "beating" the other side, it goes as one would predict (the Forvm, to my knowledge, has leaned toward the former rather than the latter).
So the population dynamics brings two consequences. One already well stated by Irving is this:
The second was touched on by Traveller:
He's quite right, and he's also a bit wrong. People may write for themselves, but they post for an audience. Everyone writes and sub-consciously edits with their audience in mind. If the audience changes, the sub-conscious editor alters his approach. Or if you as a practice write only toward a particular sub-audience your internal editor ignores the audience as a whole. It becomes rather easier to write things that get approving nods from one tribe that only drive the other tribe up the wall.
I'd be willing to guess some people are unaware of how their writing changes, or how different it looks to an neutral observer. I realize now that I write very differently given the original vision for the forvm, than I did in the earliest days of tacitus.org. Some of that is purposeful, and some is not.
Additionally, there are traits common to people who lean one way politically that will exacerbate problems if their side gains any advantage in population. The traits are obviously different, but the advantage is what brings out the lesser angels.
The lesser angels thing then brings Overton's Window into play, and the definition of acceptable shifts as the minority of the majority feels more comfortable howling at their favorite moons. The shifts make it difficult, if not pointless, for the minority to engage or defend their views.
That's enough for now, I'm hungry. Maybe more later.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Sounds like you need a fixed population
(#73473)which in turn sounds like an invite-only site.
Not advocating that* or suggesting that this is your plan, just saying where I see the above leading.
*Not not advocating it either, I haven't thought it through to be honest. Might be an interesting experiment, and it would certainly prevent the Forvm being "replaced" to any significant degree.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentNot really
(#73474)It means there has to be some kind of anchor that keeps things on track regardless of the population variance. The inmates running the asylum is what eventually does in community based sites. So rather than a pure democracy, there'd have to be something more like a republic with a eye toward protecting minority rights.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentSounds like a classic blog, actually.
(#73475)Single blogger who's lord of the comments section, a la Tacitus 1.0 & 2.0. The success or failure (as well as the definition of fairness) depends entirely on the blog owner, of course, but the model works pretty well in the real world.
I have a feeling you're as strapped for time as most of us here, and not likely to go pro as it were, or to be able to police comment sections full time...in which case you'd want to be able to allow others to provide front page content and do some of that work. Lesser Macallans. It's a thought, at least.
And you could always come here to bleg for readers. :)
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentDoesn't have to be one lord...
(#73493)I've been advocating various forms of senior membership for some time. Writers with authority to directly post stories, commenters with additional powers once they become a known quantity. That sort of thing. I recall support of the notion from Sulla and a couple of others, but the bulk of right and left members sent me packing.
I still think it's a mistake to value a guy who started yesterday the same as people who have been here for years.
On the other hand, a single proprietor is unlikely to achieve balance, particularly if said proprietor has a strong ideological bent, and Mac does. It's one reason I never started a blog, beyond the time issue. Tacitus worked because Josh was not around half the time, and he is pretty tolerant to begin with. There were times when I was driven away by what I saw as arbitrary favoritism (Hunter's inexcusably long stay comes to mind.), but overall he did as good a job as a strong partisan could be expected to, and more.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentBlog title suggestion: Nanny Nanny Boo Boo :) -nt
(#73479).
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentDisagree to Somewhat, Mac...Bird Dog Especially, But I Suspect
(#73472)...others also are draw, if only subconsciously, to the idea that they are bringing their truth to the unwashed masses...in this case libs and Dems and progressives.
This may be unique to myself, but I went to Tacitus because Drum or Kos or Atrois didn't need my voice...they were already with me. They didn't need to hear what I have to say.
The Forvm has changed in its demographics to be sure, but so has the tilting in the Electorate also, the great "Liberal," meme as a bogyman is losing some of its force and reason everywhere.
Liberals and the Liberal Label no long signifies the Devil.
Things change.
As our most prolific Conservative, along with Mr. V and Bernard of course among others, I sometimes wonder what impels their continuing efforts. Surly they can be heard in more convivial surroundings...but they stay here.
As should you, by the way....(smile)
Best Wishes, Traveller
- reply
parentThe unwashed
(#73680)...others also are draw, if only subconsciously, to the idea that they are bringing their truth to the unwashed masses...
But there are plenty of other...and more fun...places to drop those sorts of bombs to watch the unwashed convulse. It is perhaps that The Forvm has drifted slightly off the trade winds. It's not radical enough for the enjoyment of button-pushing (like RedState or DU), yet partisan enough to discourage the very-real effort required for thoughtful discourse.
- reply
parentYou may *think* you're a liberal, but you actually aren't, Trav.
(#73480)Too damned unpredictable.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentTrue, Tom, But Harley Has a Point That Has Been Bothering Me
(#73491)...what are the Conservative arguments? What do Conservatives stand for now?
Being pro-Bush is just silly and who wants to have that argument anymore?
What is missing from the Forvm and other sites is an honest articulation of what Conservatives want. I really don't know what you guys are about anymore.
Small Government...Bush isn't your guy for this. Lower taxes, sure, but we would probably split on differences where to spend money...people or corporate welfare?
That's the argument to have and I think that we'd have more commonality than most would suspect on this.
There are others.
Etc.
Traveller
- reply
parentWhat do conservatives stand for?
(#73659)It's two years old, but it still applies.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentTrav, don't mean to pick on you...
(#73496)...but you're providing a good example here.
First you layout that a widely held position is worthless:
Even though 35% of the country disagrees. It is only silly to you and the choir, but you dismiss it out of hand.
Then you go on to lay out what you think would be acceptable for a conservative to argue. Not what he might want to argue or what he'd like to say or discuss, but a narrow list of things you think they should talk about. If the tables were reversed, would you see that as inviting?
I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across that way, but it is symptomatic of the phenomena I was outlining. Your internal editor is less inclined toward worrying about a segment of the audience.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI think that...
(#73503)...if the choir is made up of 65%, then it's a pretty big choir, don't you?
So you've got the loyalists. We've got ours too. But you've lost the middle, which is not the choir, and you still don't seem to be able to admit it.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentSo one is supposed to stop being conservative
(#73514)Because the Majority is not conservative?
I'm trying to see your point. It seems to be a complete non-sequitur gloat.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentOf course not.
(#73528)You should stick to your beliefs. As I just pointed out to Mac, I certainly held to mine when the shoe was on the other foot. You were there, so I'm sure you remember.
But admitting the failure that is the bush presidency does not require you to compromise your beliefs, as such. It requires only that you get in sync with political reality today.
Of all our arguments there is only one thing, just one, that I hope I get you to change your mind on, and that is our relationship, as a nation and a civilization, with the environment.
On most other positions I can see a logic to the conservative position, and as I've noted before I have become more economically conservative over time (though this is no endorsement of this particular administration). I harbor doubts in many other areas of discussion. I'll readily admit that the last two Republican mayors of New York were better than their Democratic predecessors, and I've thought a great deal about why that might be.
But if Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Pataki came to understand the environment without becoming rabid leftists, so can you. If Margaret Thacher (a chemist by training) could do it, so can you. I really hope you consider it, and I say this as a friend.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentIt seems that "failure" is being predicated on polls
(#73555)Not on actual accomplishments.
I'd say he was better than his dad overall. But that's not really great shakes. Bush 41 was presented with central world crisis: Kuwait - reversed the invasion but left the aggressor in place. He punted, it is perverse fate that the middle east returned to haunt his son.
Each presidency has a different era to contend with. Bush 41 saw the end of the cold war and immediately spent the defense dividend, without bothering to investigate whether there were other threats to worry about. Clinton enjoyed a vaction from history, spent even more of the defense dividend, and did fine for 8 years - but his legacy is forever intertwined with an opposition legislature and his own appetites. Bush 43 looked forward to reducing US military activity even more, and focusing on compassionate conservatism (whatever that means).
W has been largely a wash economically. Came in during a recession after a big boom, goes our with recession looming after a small boom.
Somewhat successful with judicial picks, but really not enough enegy put into filling vacancies.
He failed to change Social Security, and failed to reduce big government. But he was the epitomy of a big government Republican. We used to call them "Country Club Republicans", Bush 43 morphed that into the oxymoron "Big Government Conservative".
Bush spent more on AIDs R&D and support to Africa than his predecessors.
Bush authorized funds for stem cell research that Clinton did not.
W got "No Child Left Behind" passed along with his tax cuts.
W failed to control spending, but as I got tired of telling John Cole - W was always big government, he did not run as a Reaganite, except on taxes.
It seems you hint that Bush is a failure because he has a bad relationship with "the environment."
Kyoto was killed by the US Senate before W was inaugerated.
For me W's biggest failure was that he is completely incapable of a sustained effort to use the bully pulpit to press his vision forward. Probably because he is a reactor, not a man with a vision. W's biggest personal fault, his stubbornness, is also the thing that allowed him to stick to his guns in Iraq without running. LBJ micromanaged, and when public opinion turned he ran. W refused to micromanage (and stubbornly stuck to subordinates too long), but refused to run, eventually he stumbled upon hopefully the right mix in Iraq.
As Ken White noted, the mismangaed occupation of Iraq has put us back 2 years. As I've noted, finally getting COIN in place, and the correct commander, we now have a chance of gaining an Iraqii ally that is not a totalitarian regime.
So, MA, no I won't admit to your vague derogation - it is simply meaningless name calling.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentAll I can say is wow
(#73591)as you could probably guess, I vehemently disagree. I'm sure there will be a Bush 43 wrap-up diary in the fall or early next year, we can go over all this stuff at that time
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentWash economically.
(#73574)Uh . . . no. Our grandchildren will curse Bush's name. He turned the Social Security transition into the Social Security crisis through his gross mismanagement of the nation's finances.
We will be a weaker, poorer nation for decades because of Bush.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentYour grandchildren will...
(#73575)...actually your grandchildren will probably end up being leaders in the Young Republicans.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentSee, this is why I like tomsyl.
(#73581)When he makes some ridiculous claim, he has the stones to make it (1) resolvable in the next year or two and (2) a betting proposition.
Anyway, we'll see. For all I know, the Parties will do another flip-flop in fifty years, just as the Republicans went from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Torture.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentactually, what you *really* like about me
(#73604)is that I agreed with your choice of tequila as stakes, instead of insisting on, say, Patron Anejo.
And JFTR, The Repubs went from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Cadillac after too many limousine liberals were seen riding around in Continentals.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentActually, I'm not a tequila drinker
(#73615)I was kinda hoping to negotiate for some of that mescal my buddy keeps on me to try. ;)
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI'm flexible but not sure you want to do that.
(#73620)I once stuck a bottle of supposedly high-quality mescal in my luggage and it broke on the way back from Mexico City. Though it killed all the roaches in the suitcase (mescal is prescribed as a vermicide in some countries), it also dissolved the glue that held the luggage together, ate holes in my favorite pair of Sansabelt slacks, and short-circuited a clock radio. So it's fine if you really want to do this, but I'm not responsible for any, uh, gastric perturbations that result. (If you win, of course - a big, big if.)
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentHeck, mezcal can do all those things
(#73652)even if the bottle *doesn't* break. In other words, you were looking for an excuse to shop for new clothes. :)
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentHeh.
(#73625)I'll have to ask him what he recommends.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentUm
(#73606)pretty sure that most politicians have been avoiding Continentals for a while.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentYou are validating "skeptics" with your link.
(#73607)For shame.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentInterlined...
(#73567)Because it's you.
Not on actual accomplishments.
Yes, on actual accomplishments.
He punted, it is perverse fate that the middle east returned to haunt his son.
No, he did the wise thing. His son came back to haunt the Middle East, given that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
but his legacy is forever intertwined with an opposition legislature and his own appetites.
Granted, Clinton's legacy is weak in many ways. But the subject is bush.
43 looked forward to reducing US military activity even more.
Can you back that up? He was surrounded by neocons who schooled him on their aggressive theories. I see no evidence that reducing the US military footprint was in the cards, quite the opposite.
W has been largely a wash economically. Came in during a recession after a big boom, goes our with recession looming after a small boom.
There is the little matter of adding three trillion to the debt, or thereabouts. A borrowed party, as the dollar's fall is making clear. Our economy is ever smaller as a percentage of World GDP, even more so than can be explained by the rise of China. And China funds us. That will end well, I'm sure.
He failed to change Social Security.
To gut it, you mean. Yes, and a good thing, too.
and failed to reduce big government
He never tried, had no interest in it. Failure is when you try.
Bush spent more on AIDs R&D and support to Africa than his predecessors.
The US percentage of world aid is so low now that the UK is trying to figure out how not to pass us and make us look bad.
Bush authorized funds for stem cell research that Clinton did not.
On just a few lines of cells. Most human stem cell research is now done outside the US. Funding with strings like that is no funding at all.
It seems you hint that Bush is a failure because he has a bad relationship with "the environment."
No, bush is a failure for everything. The environment thing was a personal message from me to you, in good faith. If you can imagine conceding just one issue to me of all, just one, by all means make it this one.
Kyoto was killed by the US Senate before W was inaugurated.
Indeed. Clinton was a dismal failure in energy policy, and didn't try very hard to begin with.
For me W's biggest failure was that he is completely incapable of a sustained effort to use the bully pulpit to press his vision forward.
I agree wholeheartedly with that phrase, up to the word "effort".
but refused to run
I'm on record against running. I only began to consider the option in early 2007 when it became clear to me that bush was incapable of managing this right. The military formula has improved somewhat, but overall it's still a disaster. Infrastructure is still dismal, billions were wasted, and more billions are unaccounted for. Billions that could have made a big difference.
LBJ was also a national disgrace. You will get no argument from me there.
we now have a chance of gaining an Iraqii ally that is not a totalitarian regime.
I doubt that. More so for women, who are being killed for daring to hold a job.
So, MA, no I won't admit to your vague derogation - it is simply meaningless name calling.
I hope I've de-vagued it for you.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentOn shrinking the military
(#73593)That was the plan, at least for the Army anyway. Transformation/modularization coupled with the Future Combat System are both geared toward a smaller more expeditionary Army to deal with the Bosnias, Somalias and Haittis. You have to also remember that Rummy was a big air power guy. The WOT pretty much shelved the smaller Army idea.
Chuck Norris recently returned from the Virgin Islands. Now they are just called 'The Islands'.
- reply
parentFCS is costly.
(#73639)shrinkingTheArmy != shrinkingTheMilitary
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentManpower is costlier
(#73645)Especially if you want to train and equip them.
W expressly ran on less overseas interventions - then history returned.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentOr he was lying through his teeth.
(#73754)Since we all know he was planning to invade Iraq from Day 1.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentEvilChimpyMcHitlerBurton Alert!
(#73759)Love how W is evil, dumb, and able to leap tall Congresses in a single bound.
Which is it: mad genius able to control the minds of the masses, or incompetent tool of corporate interests?
The Jingoist
- reply
parentObviously, incompetent tool of corporate interests
(#73768)No one would ever call Shrub a genius, mad or otherwise. You really need to bone up on your liberal studies. I would suggest a few hours at Democratic Underground.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentNot a Bad Defense, Steve, Not That I Agree At All...
(#73563)...but it is well said and I am glad that someone has come forward to make the argument. It was a good read...and that's all you get in life sometimes.
Traveller
- reply
parentRedacted -nt-
(#73522).
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI keep hearing
(#73524)around here that bush isn't really a conservative.
Maybe those 35% just like their team colors? Or maybe bush is an actual conservative?
True conservative politicians (according to the righties here) have become scarce! Reagan, rotting in his grave may be the last one left!
- reply
parentAllow Me To Translate!
(#73521)The whole idea of 'the choir' is meant as an insult, a synonym for a diminished entity that believes only in itself. Fair enough, and all part of the process. But an insult nonetheless. It becomes worthwhile, IMO, to then point out that it ain't just the 'choir' anymore. But rather the choir, the organist, the organ, the pastor, and a clear and growing majority of the congregation. Also the front steps of the church and most of the parking spaces.
This in no way means you have to be anything other than what you like. It doesn't mean you're wrong or right. It's really more a response to the insult itself.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentVery strange
(#73525)I've never heard of the concept of "preaching to the choir" as being insulting to anyone. That's just really strange.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentNot so Strange, Actually
(#73548)First, I didn't say 'preaching to the choir' and neither did anybody else. The exact quote was...
Even though 35% of the country disagrees. It is only silly to you and the choir, but you dismiss it out of hand.
'You and the choir' is not synonymous with 'you and the really smart people you hang out with.' It's an invidious reference to 'you' and the people who think exactly like you do -- but are unable to think beyond the boundaries of, you know, the diminished group known as 'the choir.' One might say 'you and the Kos crowd' instead, for example.
I felt compelled for unknown reasons to point out that the choir in question is somewhat bigger than the remark assumes.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentBut far More Importantly
(#73551)Your diary is not about my willingness to play semantic games --would that it were! -- but rather about a pretty interesting idea, concept, etc. I don't know if it can work. (Maybe, like the unicorn, it's an imaginary construct born of hope.)
Speaking of hope, I hope you don't take the back and forth here as evidence that it's not worth the trouble. In looking over the thread, I think we have a very basic problem that you might look at this way:
It's sorta like leaving your wife, then calling her up several months later and asking her if she has any ideas about the Perfect Marriage blog you're starting. There's bound to be some disagreement, even resentment. But that doesn't mean the idea isn't worthwhile.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentWe're more like Big Love, though. :) -nt-
(#73650).
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentNo, still very strange
(#73550)That's working way to hard to find insult where none was meant. The quote you used is an obvious reference to 'preaching to the choir' and to pretend otherwise is just searching for something that isn't there.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentLook
(#73578)at you two! Bickering, just like old times! I brings a tear to me eye, it does! Mac, you've gotta' stay now!!!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentUnfortunately
(#73588)It's only reminding me of why I left in the first place.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWell, Your Loss...Lots of Interesting Stuff Today.....nt
(#73589)Traveller
- reply
parentLike the Unicorn!
(#73553)And so we come full circle! :)
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentThe choir here is 65%
(#73506)Has been for quite a while. That doesn't mean in a group of 20 people that 13 ought to be a**h*l*s to the other 7.
I've never had the middle, and been used to being in a small minority my entire adult life. What are you claiming I can't seem to admit?
And the size of the choir is precisely the point.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWhat you can't admit...
(#73515)...is that bush is running a failed presidency.
Has been for quite a while. That doesn't mean in a group of 20 people that 13 ought to be a**h*l*s to the other 7.
So, this is how you see the Forvm? Really? That's pretty insulting. You are calling the left a**h*l*s, and you are also insulting your right-wing friends by implying they tolerate it.
Aren't you being thin-skinned? I was an anti-war commenter in the early days of Tacitus, 1.0, Movable Type, and I was probably outnumbered 10 to 1, since even half the democrats were pro-war, and the left was the minority then. Well, I dealt with the cards such as they were, and one reason was that they reflected the state of the country. Today the Forvm is pretty representative as well.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentOh stop it
(#73517)No I won't admit to your opinion. Gosh how surprising.
No, I never said anything like that. I was responding to your fallacious argument that size of the choir justified anything.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentYou missed the point.
(#73531)And it was not that the choir is large. The choir, both our choirs, are of a pretty fixed size.
It is that it's not just the choir now. It is, as Harley pointed out more elegantly than I could, the choir and a good chunk of the congregation.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentI clearly didn't miss the point.
(#73534)I'm the one who made the point for goodness sake. The only difference seems to be you think it justifies something.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentSorry, you lost me.
(#73542)nt
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentMac, Not to Assign You a Sisyphusian Task....
(#73500)...but if you want to argue that Bush is a great president or that Bush & Co was a great administration, go ahead and make your arguments.
Otherwise, the charge that Conservatives are failing to make their case...whatever that may be...stands unanswered.
To paraphrase Freud, What do they Want!?!
Damned if I see it in this thread.
Traveller
- reply
parentSorry I don't follow
(#73501)This thread isn't about what conservatives want so I can see why you would not find it here. Further, the "charge" is going to go pretty unanswered because nobody appears to think it is worth the effort.
BTW, I see you didn't answer my question. Wish you had.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWell, Coming From Years of Usenet and Its Brutal Abuses...
(#73505)...the simple kind of argument twisting that goes on here seems pretty tame.
Be that as it may, if you want to frame my liberal arguments for me...who am I to object? Is it fair? Who knows, this is all communication...ever shifting, ever expanding, moving hither and thro...just conversation.
(I thought it was a pretty nice twist to tweak Scott and Bernard on Philip Agee with Scotter Libby. It's all about being smart, or trying to be smart, or having fun, something like that)
Traveller
- reply
parentSorry Trav, but you're kidding yourself.
(#73476)That's about the 47th time someone's invoked the "world's gone liberal/it's hard being a conservative" canard. I mean come on, do you think *any* right leaning posters at the forvm are now suddenly liberals and democrats? What'd they do, change their screen names and start ranting about BushHitlerMcChimpyHaliburton? No, they walked away from here, not their beliefs and inclinations.
The Electorate hasn't permanently changed, and the people who think conservatives are dead for a generation are going to be pretty disappointed down the road. However, even if that bit of dreaming were true, it does nothing to explain why conservatives are walking away from here.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI Must Wade In!
(#73484)Well, not really. But I will. Nobody's minds have been changed by the Great Liberal Tsunami. It's just that the context has changed. (As it will again, of course.) It was more fun to be a Dem during the Clinton admin. than after. Which makes obvious sense. It stands to reason that fighting the good conservative fight was a heck of a lot more fun when the Prez was announcing Mission Accomplished than in the almost immediate aftermath. So sure, nobody walked away from their beliefs. They just walked away when it turned out defending them wasn't nearly as much fun as celebrating them. This is human nature and hardly surprising. And more accurate than the Mean Ol' Lefties Ruined My Fun canard. Speaking of canards.
And I agree, conservatives aren't dead for a generation. It's just that at the moment, no one seems to know what a conservative is. But I'm sure that'll get worked out in due time.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentSpeaking of canards...
(#73488)...actually, you aren't speaking of one. Nobody has ever postulated "Mean Ol' Lefties Ruined My Fun." Though I understand the convenience and impulse in making that one up, it's a pretty dumb waste of time. Not to mention bad faith.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parenti Can Think of Some Folks...
(#73489)...Who postulated exactly that. Though they may have phrased it differently.
But maybe this is a good object lesson in the sometime difficulty in finding common ground. I offer what is obviously an opinion re past events here at the Forvm. And you accuse me of bad faith.
I bet Barrack Obama wouldn't do that.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentI bet Oprah would
(#73492)Sen. Obama probably wouldn't appreciate that kind of simple reinvention of his positions either.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI have it on good authority
(#73478)that spc67 is currently chairman of the People's Democratic Vegan Resistance Front of San Francisco.
On the other hand, BlaiseP is rumored to be doing oppo research and attack ads for the Romney campaign, so perhaps these things even out.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentAre you saying BP is the antipode of James Carville?
(#73481)Now there's a scary thought - an articulate, multi-lingual Southern hit-man with a basilisk stare and a Republican honcho for a wife. I once saw a Space Marine attacked by one of those things in Halo 3, and it wasn't pretty.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentGood start.
(#73471)Thanks for putting it down.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentIt's all Macallan's fault. He used the "meta" tag.
(#73115)But seriously, folks, Macallan didn't say The Forvm had failed or is failing, though it's reasonable to assume he thinks so. He said that bipartisan sites tend to either morph into something else or drift towards eventual failure. He didn't specify which category he thinks the Forvm falls into.
In fact he didn't mention the Forvm at all [edit: except as background to his main point], and explicitly stated that problems/changes here are not the subject of this diary. The question is: how can one build a bipartisan site that avoids the fate of so many others?
Can we please keep discussion here to that topic, avoiding discussion about The Forvm (except as relates to the question), and especially avoiding attacks however veiled on Macallan and other conservative regulars for leaving?
Keep discussions On Topic, thanks.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
Death to Caesar!!!
(#73172)He's too ambitious and wants his own site! Ah...Ahem...carry on...
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentE Tu, Bluto?
(#73483)"I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye."
-Deep Thoughts
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI understand the key to the Rosetta Stone
(#73485)baffled paleographers for years...they were stumped trying to find a classical Greek rhyme for 'finich'.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentSites do seem to drift...
(#73125)ObWi's commenters go largely to the left. I wish I could think of a site off the top of my head where there are bipartisan opinions posted and an even split in comments between left and right, let alone a largely rightward-leaning group of commenters. Sad to say, it seems that too many conservative commenters (hi, Moe....) are more comfortable with sites like RedState that ban apostate opinions st the drop of a hat.
Frankly, this place has done the best job I know of in maintaining some sort of balance between left and right. Mac, I'm curious as to what you're looking for on a new site: is it a better balance of comments and posts, or more exploration of areas of agreement between right and left in American politics?
- reply
parentI don't think balance is the problem,
(#73162)I think as Mac stated in a number of places many months ago, what bothers him and some other commenters is the tone. I.e. they don't mind being outnumbered, as long as they and their opinions aren't dismissed out of hand, with an unshakable presumption of bad faith. I don't think the overall tone of this place has gone that way, but it does happen.
Also, there's simple exhaustion with seeing the same arguments rehearsed over & over. Finally, as I mentioned below, there's the fact that conservatives have basically won most of their major aims in recent years, and so have less compelling need to put forth new arguments. I believe that might explain a bit of waning interest from the less partisan conservatives.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentYou walked out on us Mac
(#73035)Why don't you come back to the Forvm and try to make it better instead of creating something similar from scratch?
Also, no matter how many times I listen to the ideas that tax cuts pay for themselves or global warming doesn't exist those ideas will always be false. Conservatives didn't run away from the Forvm with their tails between their legs because the big, mean Liberals didn't listen to them. They ran away because they got their butts handed to them over and over again. The Conservatives who have stayed and prospered, blogospherically speaking, have been the ones who attempt to argue theory instead of rhetoric.
To sum up, if you can't get what you want out of the Forvm then maybe the problem lies with you and not our blog. If that is true, then my guess is you will have a harder time fixing that then you will have starting a new blog.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
Spoken like a spurned crush.
(#73056)Ok, Blue, good job at insulting the commenter and all those to your right who have stayed to participate.
"I'm right, and I've proven it over and over."
That is the blog equivalent of my 11 year old acting like my 3 year old - he knows better, but is acting stubborn:
"la, la, la, I can't hear you, la, la, la".
Dennis Prager has an interesting article expounding on the "can't we get along" theme:
The idea that the left and right will merge here is silly, more productive would be the idea of finding where is the mid-point that could be acceptable to both sides on the issues of the day.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentFair Enuf, Steve
(#73104)But you undercut your position by posting Prager's thinwittery. You do better on your own.
The idea that Shrub's politics were not 'divisive' is a straight-up lie. The Rovian approach to winning the White House -- a successful approach, BTW -- was to play on existing divisions. That's how you get the base energized. We can argue whether or not that's a good idea -- the current state of the GOP suggests it isn't, IMO -- but pretending that Bush's approach, excuse me, his 'policies', is no less divisive than Obama's is simply inane. Also, as mentioned, a lie.
The notion that the 'craving for unity' is "frequently childish" is just more wingtard chest thumping. That the latter posture is currently being rejected by voters in both parties is, IMO, a very good sign. Prager's style of politics is of the past. I'm more than happy to leave it and him there.
Your last sentence is absolutely sane, correct, and more proof that you don't need Prager to make your points for you.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentDidn't mean to insult you
(#73082)I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my comment. If I did insult you then I apologize.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentDisagree with Pragar
(#73069)First, the obvious: Obama's "left-wing" political positions generally enjoy greater support among voters than do Bush's "right-wing" positions. Next, the substance: Obama has worked with Republicans (such as Coburn) on points of mutual agreement, rather than demonized them on points of disagreement.
Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.
Yes, that would be lovely. Let's see, who has made more of an effort to employ civil discourse and tolerance, Bush or Obama? Really, after years of Bush admin officials essentially questioning the patriotism of liberals who dared oppose their agenda, this is a bit rich.
And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language?
Pragar shows a complete misunderstanding of what "unite" actually means to Obama -- as demonstrated in his Senate record as well as his rhetoric, Obama seeks to exploit points of agreement to make concrete progress, not to eliminate points of disagreement. He's not seeking some bland "we're all the same" pseudo-unity, he's asking (and inspiring) people to work together despite their differences for those goals we share as Americans.
I agree with your final paragraph.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentAw. Can we be a little more charitable?
(#73044)Not to mention courteous. The conservatives who have stayed on as regular posters are actually, like Bird Dog, solid centrists. The reason for this site (and maybe the blogosphere in general) to be tilting left at the moment is that the left has an urgent agenda during this election year, and the Republicans not so much.
Think about it, the great GOP partisan causes of the past decade have all been fought over and more or less resolved: defeat and ignominy of the Clintons; war against Iraq; militant response to 9/11; the slow murder of welfare (for poor people) via the death of 1000 tax cuts.
And you know what? They pretty much got their way on all of those issues. We're living in a world created by their ideology, and now our urgent cause is figuring out how to fix the damage without letting them pin responsibility for it on Democrats. But if conservatives are dropping somewhat out of public discussions, it's largely because there's nothing more for them to discuss. They won.
So can we knock of the nya nya comments and imputations of cowardice? I myself am very interested in what the online right is thinking these days, especially someone like Macallan who actually does a lot of thinking. I think we all should be. Though we have the advantages of an unpopular President, war fatigue, and economic unrest, the Democratic house is far from being in order.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentSolid centrist?! Aaiiieee!!
(#73410)But I will cop to moderate conservative.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentCalling a spade a spade
(#73055)I don't think Mac's diary is very courteous and I am responding in kind. He quits on us, claims this site has failed without explaining why and then asks if we will help him create another site with the same mission statement. Where I come from that kind of hubris usually calls for a go Cheney yourself. A lot of people have done a great deal of work to get this site up and keep it running. If Mac really does have a solution that might help us run this site better then why doesn't he just share it with us? Why all the drama?
I never intended to and I never did insult any of the Conservatives with the cojones to stick around and try to make this site work. Regardless of how much I may disagree with them politically, I have a lot of respect for each and every one of them.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentPlease quit skirting the posting rules.
(#73080)Nobody accused you of insulting the Conservatives who stick around, just the other kind.
Mac didn't "quit" on us and doesn't owe us any explanation whatsoever; participation here is voluntary in the fullest sense of the word. People stick around because they want to, and leave because they want to. Interest either compels them or it doesn't. Also, Conservatives who've stuck around don't have more cojones than conservatives who've left.
I'm sorry that Mac has grown disenchanted with this place to the point of leaving and curious to know why, but I'm glad he's still interested in hearing from "the other side" enough to work out a forum more to his liking, and still more glad that he thinks of this site as a natural starting point. Notably, neither of those things has ought to do with his masculine endowments, so please. Knock it off and keep the diary on topic.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentCalling a Spade a Spade
(#73079)Look gang, discussions on the order of "Republican Party/Conservatives = Fascism (overt or convenient idiots)" is giving credence to essentialy the vilest slander in American politics. The fact that some on the right here have attempted to reason with the audience, and put up with the insult, does not lessen the insult - in fact the tacit acceptance to the terms of the debate by the left here causes me dispair.
As Lowrey notes in his comment on Jonah Goldberg's reversal of the insult:
Blue, you are angry because Mac and others did not stick around, despite repeated invitations to shut up. Sorry, your ire does not resonate here.
(Other memes that are counter productive: "Christianists", "christianity opposes science", "Conserviative = racist". Each of these is inherently insulting.)
The Jingoist
- reply
parentAfter years of politely...
(#73270)...putting up with "moonbat" and various other thinly disguised insults, not to mention "traitor", forgive me for not caring.
Your side gives plenty. Understandably you don't like to be on the receiving end.
I think applying "fascist" to Republicans in general is needlessly irritating hyperbole, but when I look at a site such as Free Republic I do see quite a few brown shirt candidates. Not all of them, but too many to dismiss as a mere few loons, I'm afraid.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentYears where?
(#73290)Since I can't recall any occasion where you specifically were called either a moonbat or a traitor here, and that while as a mod anyone who would have said democrats were moonbats or traitors would have gotten the boot from me, I frankly don't see any equivalency.
He isn't talking about what kind of crap you might read out on the intertubes, he's talking about what you can read here.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWho was specifically called a fascist?
(#73297)and what was the result? (A link would also be appreciated.)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentHmm,
(#73296)the equivalence between traitor and fascist is that both are serious accusations.
As to whether I personally was called a moonbat or not, I recall being called one on Tacitus, though not here, except by association.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parent
(#73860)- reply
parentBy what association?
(#73362)I'm almost certain you aren't Rosie O'Donnell.
Look, I'm not particularly fond of the term or it's use, but I can't recall it ever being applied to a broad group that you'd feel a claim to such as "democrats" or "The Left" (at least never here).
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI Seem To Recall. . .
(#73298). . .being accused of not having a soul back in the day at Tacitus without any bans, suspensions, or severe looks resulting. Things are a bit more mellow these days.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentIt was Harley, wasn't it?
(#73301)Another "discussion" about the Yankees gone sour!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentNo
(#73303)Though I do seem to recall a hooker-related metaphor around the time that Ah-nuld displaced Governor Monochrome. Bygones. :-)
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.--from Ulysses, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
- reply
parentHeh....
(#73311)Bygones, indeed! (Needless to say, I have no memory of the comment, or, oddly enuf, Ah-nuld's victory.)
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentFascists Everywhere!
(#73150)This is old as the hills. Right wingers are called Fascists. Left Wingers are called Communists. That right wingers have managed to escape blacklisting and HUAC witchhunts by and large is probably worth mentioning, and may be why I have little sympathy for those who feel grievously wounded. By a misapplied descriptive.
That, of course, doesn't make it accurate, fair, worthwhile, or helpful in the larger context. But speaking as a defeatist Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey of long standing, I'd suggest manning up and not letting the little things bug you.
And this seems to be a hangup for many. Michelle Malkin was recently and incorrectly cited in Kristol's debut NY Times op-ed. She made of point of suggesting that the only time she usually appeared on that page was when someone called her a Fascist. That the latter is obviously and manifestly untrue suggests that this particular bugaboo sometimes leads to a weird psychological state that manages to combine pride and victimhood.
So there's that.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentHow odd
(#73092)How odd, then, that here the attempt was to "shut up" and bludgeon into silence liberals who wished to examine (not endorse, examine) the question of what constitutes fascism and which characteristics of such might be shared by the GOP today.
Under the mantle of interpreting insults directed at the leaders of the Republican party as personal attacks, no less. Talk about stifling discussion!
How many diaries have we had here asking whether actions by Democratic congressional leaders were aiding the enemies of America? Several that I can recall offhand, and frankly most of them were pretty well done, with reasonable support offered for the premise and no real reason for liberals to take personal affront.
I'm coming to the conclusion that there are simply some topics that cannot be debated or even discussed without hurt feelings -- it's a shame, IMO, but maybe that's just the way the internet works.
I'm quite curious as to where Mac weighs in on this -- spirited but respectful discussion of controversial topics, or avoidance of, shall we say, insulting premises?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI think Jordan answered your straw man well
(#73112)Here:
The Jingoist
- reply
parentNoted, thanks,
(#73160)and, of course, respectfully disagreed =) It's very useful to see what the consensus is, though, and I have no problem going along with it, particularly if it is codified so as to avoid subjectivity as far as possible.
Still curious about Mac's take on debating controversial topics, but I am getting the impression there is a long line of people interested in his opinions at the moment, so I'll take a number.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentFunny, I do not see where I told you not to argue.
(#73183)I'm just pointing out (over and over) that name calling is not productive - and defending it is defending lack of thought, not effective discussion or argument.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentWasn't referring to you,
(#73210)was commenting on BD's original statement. But even without an actual rule, if people are inclined to interpret such as "defending lack of thought" or "a useless exercise" then, to me, it's a de-facto community standard that I ought to respect... at least a little =) I have no problem with that, really, and probably shouldn't have got into it again but I was curious as to how such topics would be handled on Mac's dream site.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentI'm coming to the conclusion
(#73100)I'm coming to the conclusion that there are simply some topics that cannot be debated or even discussed without hurt feelings -- it's a shame, IMO, but maybe that's just the way the internet works.
The advice to steer clear of discussions involving politics and religion long predates the Internet.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
- reply
parentDisagree.
(#73276)Sort of. One nice thing about discussing politics and religion on the internet tubes is that we all get to walk away with all our teeth.
Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
parent"The tacit acceptance ... by the left here"
(#73084)Uh, pardon? I seem to recall, when that stuff was being hashed out, that the use of the term, and the rationale for its use, were largely rejected by the leftish commentariat here. I'm also a bit surprised, given that debate, there's been no discussion of Goldberg's book - one would think it'd give some good 'good for the goose, good for the gander' opportunities, at least.
As for your other 'memes' - the first and the last are, I agree, non-starters. The second, while overbroad, does touch on something important; not all of Christendom has quite the enlightened attitude of the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to evolution, after all.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentIf you mean, "get over it" is rejection, ok.
(#73102)Hank's response seemed to me the middle left position:
http://theforvm.org/diary/bird-dog/the-baby-murdering-surrendercrat-party#comment-67129
The Jingoist
- reply
parentFair enough.
(#73108)My impression of the responses may have been influenced by my habits of paying attention ... selectively. I suppose I didn't follow that kerfuffle very closely to begin with, either.
Well anyway, and FWIW, I'm sympathetic.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentThanks, hobbesist
(#73180)I do appreciate the fact that conservatives are listened to, or at least allowed to speak by those who do not wish to listen here - it is not the case elsewhere.
But just another touch on the why do conservatives leave point: "get over it" and "man up" are whistling past the graveyard acts of denial.
Brendan and Hank demand that Mac explain why he left, he desires not to get embroiled in a flame war. I provide a response and get "man up".
http://theforvm.org/diary/macallan/pardon-the-interruption#comment-73150
My point was not to complain about "unfairness" but to point out that anger over Mac leaving was not justified by reality of how he individually and conservatives in genaral have been treated.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentPlease correct this statement
(#73204)Brendan and Hank demand that Mac explain why he left
I believe this is not accurate, please correct or cite. Thanks.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentCorrection, Sorry Brendan
(#73212)Blue and Hank demand explanations, Brendan is just curious. ;)
The Jingoist
- reply
parentI requested an explanation
(#73261)I don't think I'm in a position to demand anything.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentGo for the Thin Mints!
(#73262)nt
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI now demand Girl Scout cookies
(#73249)I prefer the peanut butter sandwich variety but will settle for thin mints. If this demand is not met I may drop it, but I am making no promises. You should all know I have a yellow lab here and I am not afraid to use him. Now cough up the cookies!!
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentThin mints on the way.
(#73271)Mr. Furious will forward.
Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
parentThanks!
(#73216)I have enough problems taking responsibility for what I do say =P
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentOh, Now You're Just Asking For It
(#73190)I'm fine with Mac leaving -- tho' I miss him and wish he hadn't -- and don't need him to explain a thing. "Man up" referred to the weird conservative reaction to the absurd, and again I believe it to be absurd, charge of fascism. (To such an extent, BTW, that Michelle Malkin hallucinates it. If only to feel aggrieved.)
As mentioned, lefty/commie, righty/nazi is part of the game. Unfair, thinwitted, off-point, and wholly unnecessary. But hey, it happens. As stated previously, why sweat the small stuff?
(And I feel compelled to add, again, that a lotta folks on the left had their lives destroyed due to that inaccurate association. So forgive me if I don't shed too many tears for Malkin et al who, at the worst, suffered an unfair insult.)
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentI must admit
(#73211)I was a lot more sanguine about the "fascism" thing until recently, when conservatives started lecturing me about Supporting The President in Time of War and how it was none of my concern what the government does with terrorism suspects.
Fascism? Maybe not. But if that line of thinking isn't the incubator of fascism, I don't know what is.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentI'm sympathetic to that line of thinking, too.
(#73230)But, for my part, the GOP seemed to stray more closely to a kind of authoritarian liberalism (the latter in the broad, Lockean sense of the term) than it did fascism proper.
Sadly, I don't think the willingness to torture is a distinct marker of fascisms.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentAgreed.
(#73374)But the willingness to cover up, obfuscate, twist meanings of words to confuse, and to flat-out lie..........are.
Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
parent....are......politicians? -nt-
(#73461)nt
- reply
parentWell, I'd argue that you are exaggerating
(#73214)But since you do not provide links or quotes, I'd be guessing at what the heck you are talking about.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentClearly you don't browse the comments at LGF
(#73215)or other conservative sites... and neither do I. Anymore.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentsnk, I do not visit LGF
(#73228)The conservative sites I frequent offer regular and explicit criticism of Bush. He is not a conservative leader, he is an R leader, which makes him more conservative than a D, but he is not Reagan (the last "Conservative Leader"). If you want to see regular critiques of Bush and his admin, just go to NRO. Of course, that would defeat your knee-jerk argument for supporting an ugly slur.
The R party is only by default the more conservative party - the D's have excised their conservative wing/tendencies.
That is, Lieberman may be the last of the Scoop Jackson D's for a while. I'd guess Ed Koch would be another defense conservative D, but he's not running for anything.
Now, LGF is a place where a pro-Defense, pro-war proprietor posts and allows for a massive echo-chamber. The idea that someone ranting anonamously in the comments section of a war-blog supports PM's idea that the Republican Party is institutionally fascist and its leaders are fascists is itself simply ludicrous.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentI will be certain to remember your words
(#73237)the next time I encounter the word "moonbat".
You own your wackos, and we own ours. And I think there are a whole lot more of both than you're crediting. Remember that leaders are moderate almost by definition; even Gov. Wallace could claim, with a straight face, not to be racist. His supporters, on the other hand... not so much.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parent"Moonbat" = crazy ideas, but "fascist" = evil ideas.
(#73369)Each side has its fringe wackos, all right* (we call ours "wingmuts" BTW), but as I understand the term, a moonbat is someone far out of the mainstream, angry (eg with BDS or CDS), and extremist and hyperbolic in their comments; all of these are individual attributes. I don't recall any conservative here saying that the Democratic Party is composed entirely of moonbats, or has moonbattery as its defining characteristic. That's illogical, anyway; a party can't be its own fringe.
But even if that had happened, it would be fundamentally different from saying "Republicans are Fascists", with all the implications of unconstitutional dominance and control over the country that implies. All that said, we had a civil, intelligent discussion on the subject, with almost all liberals criticizing the blind use of the term. There always will be a few who are convinced they're right on this, but the majority seemed to consider the fascist meme little more than a subset of Godwin's law.
Here's what I distilled from the discussion: Anyone who calls Republicans fascists is a moonbat. %^>
*Ron Paul as our Dennis Kucinich?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentnananananananana nanananananana moonbat!
(#73861)- reply
parentSo if mainstream Republican party
(#73372)adopts a set of Facist policies that makes all
honest commentators moonbats...
...hum.
- reply
parentYour list of "honest commentators" surely differs from mine
(#73378)and the thesis underlying your hypothetical is again essentially "I'm right; your wrong. Your party is a bunch of fascists; I'm just truthfully pointing that out."
BTW, could you please tell me when AMTRAK starts running on time? %^>
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentWo, wo, wo, wait a second
(#73243)I cannot buy a single premise of your argument - your post seems to be more about emotion than reason:
the next time I encounter the word "moonbat".
- Name calling = Fascism. NOT. Not all discourtesy is fascistic.
You own your wackos, and we own ours.
- Not even close to being any kind of argument, much less do you ever come close to "owning" or even policing your own wackos (which is kind of Mac's point as Jordan reminds). In any case, guilt by association is a crock, it was a crock when McCarthy tried it, it is a crock now, especially on the internet where most of the posts are anonamous steam-blowing.
Remember that leaders are moderate almost by definition
- And what evidence do you have for this assertion? Now you are touching on a belief that could be the source of PM's issues, under this assumption: if Bush is EvilChimpyMcHitlerBurton then anyone who voted for Bush must be EvilChimpyMcHitlerBurton squared. Now you've joined in the insulting.
Here's where my eyes glaze over: any argument that relies on the assumption that a large portion of the electorate is being duped continuously and systematically.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentNot at all
(#73244)You've misconstrued my argument completely. I don't think anyone is being duped and I thought I was fairly explicit that the Republican leadership is not fascist. My contention is that a fair amount of that leadership's support comes from people who are, if not actually fascist, far too enamored of authoritarianism and far too willing to squelch dissent in the name of unity.
The flip side of this argument would be that a fair amount of the Democratic leadership's support comes from people who think the US government was behind 9/11 and that the military should be disbanded. Sadly, I have come to believe that that is also true.
I was really trying to be as evenhanded as possible, but apparently it's verboten to suggest that any American conservatives could have beliefs that are essentially fascist. Unfortunately, I am quite certain that it is true, and in numbers much higher than I would have guessed eight years ago.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentIt's not verboten
(#73250)It could just be really dumb.
But then you are certain it is true.
Out of curiosity, when you encounter certitude in others, do you think to yourself, "by jove, they really do know everything!" or are you more likely to think they're on the uninformed side, and their certitude is only possible because of a bit of ignorance?
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentThat depends on what they're certain about. nt
(#73251).
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentI bet it doesn't
(#73252)but then I'm not certain about that...
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentOk, Now I get it.
(#73248)I was reading your comment as a generalization - I'm leery of broad criticism's being supported by relerence to the amount of ugly comments posted anywhere.
I have no problems with addressing specific beliefs that are advocated by specific posters - it is easier to laugh at them while deconstructing arguments.
It is hard to argue with "I have the names of 10 American Conservatives who are essentially fascist in by briefcase".
I am certain that whatever the number of "American Conservatives who are essentially fascist" is, it is not electorally significant in US politics. Buchanan is a loon, but he's an isolationist apologist not an advocate of state-owned anything. There is no broad constituency for Fascists (or Communists) in the US. I worry that there is a constituency that would support the disbanding of the US Military (San Francisco seems only to be the tip of a pacifist iceberg). Of course, my opinion could come from where I view the the world.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentIndeed
(#73255)The other side's extremists are always more visible and worrying than one's own. I'd do well to keep that in mind myself and I really shouldn't have jumped in at all -- experience should have taught me by now that these discussions aren't productive.
Is the "all soldiers are war criminals" demographic really bigger than the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" demo? I don't know how we'd establish such a thing.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentI'm not sure I agree with the premise.
(#73256)The Dems are too far right for a lot of lefties -- the Greens probably represent 1-2% of the electorate, and the hardcore Commies and Socialists have their own Parties. While the Anarchists have . . . something, I guess. I'm not sure how that works.
I mean, yeah, the Constitution Party. But the Libertarians aren't authoritarians in the same way, so they're just way less scary.
I actually don't think that Bush is terribly far toward the center for his Party. I think he talks a good game, but if you look at the Bush Administration's record, it's hardcore authoritarian mixed with some cynical bread and circuses. The DoJ politicization scandals and Don Siegelman's current conviction basically for being a Democratic governor in Alabama are both much stronger movements toward centralization of power than most folks are comfortable with.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentOr, you know,
(#73225)on this site.*
*note that only one of the posited ideas was advocated for in this post; the other was advocated against. I'm just saying.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentContext grasshopper.
(#73236)Provide the entire thread, and you see that tomsyl agrees with Traveller, not a right wing firebrand as your gotcha proposes: http://theforvm.org/diary/catchy/doj-to-investigate-cia#comment-71825.
Following your link to the parent, kinda shows that tomsyl was overreacting to username, not an uncommon event. That is unless you think tomsyl is a fascist?
The Jingoist
- reply
parentHey, now.
(#73239)That's entrapment.
And, um, tomsyl's position through the entire thread is that while it was illegal for the tapes to be destroyed, the underlying issue (of torture of detainees) is not one which invites scrutiny.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentHere's what I might have said if our roles were reversed:
(#73370)PM: You also blatantly mischaracterized my position in the post above. Which should serve as my reminder, again, not to engage in a discussion with you that involves partisan politics. Link.
Your mischaracterization of my position is as wrong now as it was then. Judging from the comments, almost every besides you understood my point, even if they disagreed with it. Do you have no support for your point other than ancient history?
Anyway, I'm obviously still happy to engage in discussions with you that involve partisan politics.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentI don't understand what you are saying.
(#73426)First, I was not a part of that conversation. We briefly discussed a tangential note, which was my despair at the likely relative lack of press coverage.
Second, your position was extremely clearly stated, and stillnotking restated it without any objection from you.
This is an inexact medium, and you may have rethought something, but the sentiment at the time appears clear.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentRead the whole subthread dispassionately and you will understand
(#73436)In particular, Steve Malynn's response, which I seconded. And the part about the inherent lawlessness of the CIA. And the part where I point out that I am predicting JQ Public's response.
Sheesh. Why are you so determined to rehash this? did the discussion get under your skin so much that you want to go back to it in an entirely different thread?
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentNot particularly.
(#73438)I just wanted to correct first the notion that I participated in the first place and second the notion that I sought to mischaracterize your position. I didn't participate, and to the extent that there was misinterpretation, it was shared.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentPM, this is so yesterday.
(#73442)Anyone who wants to go back to that thread and reread it can do so. I'm still at a loss as to why you brought it up here out of the blue, but Have better things to do than refight an old issue.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parenti can haz last wurd?
(#73444)kthxbai.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI'd respond, but then you wouldn't have the last word.
(#73449)Mister Mxyzptlk.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentSorry about misreading you
(#73198)I think we are talking past each other - I think Davinci has a good diary going HERE - especially Sulla's posts. As well as Jordan's post HERE.
Much as I think PM is mad for actually believing R=F, I try to talk with him, but there are diminishing returns when you have to fight the same conceit in every discussion.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentGot It, and Agreed. nt
(#73203)“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
- reply
parentI would think I was mad too,
(#73201)if I held that opinion -- but, in fact, I have made it clear that it is the institution and leadership which are the issue. There are almost certainly rank and file Republicans who are Fascists, but 1/5 of the country self-identifies as Republican. Obviously they are not all on board for the entire program.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentYour defense is self-parody.
(#73219)That is, you are certain that Repubilcan leaders and the institutional Republican Party is fascist, but the rank and file are simply dupes, willing or unwilling.
Now, the nuance is, you have redefined fascist to mean just what it is you want, regardless of what it means to the rest of the world. This tendency, of course, bears no relation to why anyone from the right would tend to think your argument is in bad faith. Noooooo, nothing there, move along.
The Jingoist
- reply
parentThat's an interesting counterargument.
(#73222)Where's the tipping point? That is, does a Party have to explicitly self-identify as Fascist, or can it be essentially deceitful? Is the fundamental premise that 20% of the American public absolutely cannot be wrong about something this important? Because I can find some pretty important things that have a 20% minority ready to go with.
I have made no attempt to redefine Fascism; I made clear in the discussion that I felt that it was the closest word to describe what was taking place, despite the one large departure from classical Fascism -- the shift from totalitarian openness to authoritarian misdirection.
I expect to be accused of arguing in bad faith by folks who mischaracterize my position. It's human nature to accuse one's opponents or adversaries of doing what one is doing.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI can only say...
(#73205)It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentYeah, that's an issue.
(#73207)So the question is -- is this an Overton Window thing, where folks need to get used to the idea, or is this a "this guy is absurd" thing.
In my defense, I did call the election results, so I like to think that I'm at least vaguely in touch with reality. But people compartmentalize well. Pros and cons, pros and cons...
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentDo you want an honest answer? - nt
(#73209)nt
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentHeh, I kinda inferred yours.
(#73213)I was just trying to introduce a little, ya know, nuance.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentReally?
(#73217)Nuance?
Do you want an honest observation on that, or can you infer that too?
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentThe only thing I won't tolerate...
(#73220)...is intolerance!
Look, man, there is a massive non-meeting of the minds here. I'm trying to wave it off with a bit of humor of the self-deprecating variety. I even went so far as to use one of Trevino's favorite sets of ideas. I have gathered that you're deeply offended by the characterization, but I'm deeply offended by its aptness -- so why don't we display a little bit of that deep commitment to civility and let this particular sleeping dog lie?
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentI'm not offended at all
(#73229)It would have to have some grain of truth to actually be... you know offensive.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI think
(#73221)of it more as a massive meeting of non-minds but that's just me...
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentOm. -nt-
(#73224).
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- reply
parentIt's nothing.
(#73189)I think, in the main, the level of bad faith with which conservative contributors - be it you, tom, vin, BD, Sulla, whoever - are often read is a real black mark on this site. I don't do much of anything to counteract it, I realize, as I'm barely more than a lurker around here (with no plans to up my level of involvement - if anything, the reverse), so I never quite feel it's my place. Maybe not the right attitude.
And, JFTR, my selective listening is hardly limited to the conservative participants here. Quite the opposite in fact - more than half the reason I come by this place is to try to adjust for the fact that I spend (or spent, anyway) so much time around academics. (In case you haven't heard, the academy does tend to lean left.)
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentOne gets used to it after a while.
(#73307)The readings in bad faith, I mean.
One got a lot of practice, back in my day.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
- reply
parentMore like imagining a spade is a spade
(#73061)Nice little bit of self-parody. And fairly illustrative to boot. Well done.
Seems like a lot work though.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentSo if it isn't all about you then tell us your secret
(#73081)How are you going to succeed where we have all failed?
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentThe crow flies at midnight
(#73086)That's the secret!
However, I don't recall stating that I had a secret, or for that matter that this site has "failed", so it's a little hard to take the discussion where you want to go.
I thought I was merely asking if there is enough interest to even start to think about how one would go about it. I just re-read the diary, and that idea seems to be communicated clearly; so again I'm not sure where you're coming from, or why you feel the need to lead with your chin.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentThen I'm confused
(#73412)In the body of the post, you wrote: "Obviously, if you, individually, are happy with the Forvm.org, and think it hasn't failed, then you would naturally view things differently – as is your right."
I took that to mean that your view differs from others who believe that this site hasn't failed, the clear implication being that you think it has indeed failed. Was I wrong?
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentSince
(#73418)…the subject is a completely subjective one, I took pains to highlight that subjectivity and its being in the eyes of the beholder. That shouldn't confuse anyone.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentLess confused, but still not clear
(#73420)It still reads to me that, in your own subjective eyes (which you behold), your views differ from others' views that the site has not failed. If you don't want to say anymore, fine, it's easier to pry open a live geoduck.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentA riddle,
(#73425)…shrouded in a mystery, inside an enigma, wrapped with a National Review, stuffed into a chalupa.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentAhh, the chalupa, king of all mysteries....
(#73430)it's a tostada. No, it's a taco. No wait, it's kind of a Mexican gyro. The mind reels.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentYesterday I was confused.
(#73439)Today?
I'm still confused, but now I'm also starving. And thanks to your use of gyro and reels so close together, dizzy to boot.
Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- reply
parentMeaning Hillary supporters are dancing a reel after yesterday?
(#73443)I didn't know she had Irish seamen in her ancestry.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentYeah right, it is just me
(#73107)You say:
Did you read these comments?
Bernard asked you: link
Brendan said: link
platosearwax said: link
Gramsky said: link
Hank said: link
Bird Dog said: link
Did they all misread your diary too? If you truly didn't intent to call this site a failure then maybe your communications skills are a big part of your dissatisfaction with our blog.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentEh, Blue, look closely at Mac's post.
(#73143)He mentions being associated with a number of sites that have failed, going back to Usenet (holy dating yourself, Batman!); he never says that The Forvm is one such. I wanted to know what those experiences have in common.
To be fair, however, I suspected that Mac wasn't too happy with the way this one is going, either.
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentI have read it a number of times
(#73148)I don't think my reading of his diary is unique. Just about all the comments made before mine mentioned the success or failure of the Forvm. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentIt's a nice chin
(#73113)I see you spent a lot of effort quoting everyone except the guy you think has communication skill difficulties. Funny that.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentCome on, Mac
(#73119)while you didn't explicitly say this site has "failed", the fact that you don't post here any more and that you're planning to set up a site that is trying to do what we do at least implies that you think that there are things we should be doing that we are not. Don't be so coy, lay out what you think about this site and your proposed new site. You started the conversation, lay out the details. Or don't, but then don't complain about people here "not getting it".
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentCome on yourself, Hank
(#73147)I never complained "about people here 'not getting it'". I'm telling Blue, individually and specifically, I can't argue with his imagination. It seems stupid to have to argue against points never made. Sort of like your last line, and what I'm having to do here...
;-)
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentMac, let me take the other side here.
(#73153)You never said that this site is a failure or is headed towards failure. It was all very neutral. The thing is, the mere fact that you would want to open up another site sort of does imply that there's something less than ideal about this one. This naturally concerns people, particularly folks who put a lot of time and effort into this one.
I think I understand why you don't want to open up a can of worms about what might be wrong, looking at how quickly the discussion of whether you even said such a thing got heated. Take it as an honest question from me, and I'm not looking to comment further or argue about it; what would you change if you started you started your hypothetical new site?
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentFor the record Mac ... I miss your wit around here
(#73152)I wish you the best in any site and would look in and engage as time permits. If I had the knowledge to help with the tech side I would but I do not.
I think the thing that many people wonder how it would be different. Still you seem to not be interested in hoeing that road. Still the goal is also my goal for posting here.
From what I have read it is a perception of tone. In fact I have seen both sides of it. At Tacitus and here with both sides using rhetoric etc. To less the goal of conversation to a degree. It is also human nature to have difficulty with certain topics.
Other posters might remember the Watson debate.... The Global warming and science debates. Still I have to think that looking back at those threads their were some posters that were at least trying to engage and not judge the issues on misstatements and or outright hostility.
The problems I see are we don't even see the same things as problems or in many case share the same goals. I don't see any posts by conservatives on health care, Climate change unless it is to try and discredit the consensus view. Still maybe that is all we can hope for that posts like that make both sides engage... It might be the only way to discuss reforms etc...
Again good luck if you move forward just take that some people have taken your absents and statements to mean you left because you see the basic left/right engagement as not what you are looking for. As incorrect as that might be you offer little insight into other areas. It might that you just don't feel inclined to get into the type of debate that would entail. Anyway best of luck in the future and I hope you and yours the best in the coming year.. (Of course except when it comes to politics :)
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
parentOK
(#73151)but per your original post, what have we "morphed into" and what problems do you see that would stir you into creating a new site? I'm asking for constructive criticism here. We're obviously not doing something right in your view since you participate here very infrequently. I'm just trying to get a detailed critique. You were a mod here, what's changed since then?
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentAs stated here
(#73156)http://www.theforvm.org/diary/macallan/pardon-the-interruption#comment-72952
That was not my goal, and I didn't feel as a guest I should go there.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentIt's a little late for that
(#73260)look, shoot me an email if you don't want to put it out there for public consumption, but I am interested in your views on this.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentFine
(#73279)I'll try to put something together tomorrow. Unless someone has any objections.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI object!!!
(#73283)JK! But... this isn't going to be about a bunch of strangers sitting around a dinner table again, is it?
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parent*Now* you've done it.
(#73329)We'll just have to wait another day or two...
Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- reply
parentYou were the first person quoted Mr. Smartypants
(#73118)Why is it that everyone but you seems to thinks that you called or at least inferred that this site a failure?
"And now you run in search of the Jedi. They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness that is to come." -Darth Sion
- reply
parentBlue
(#73145)I still don't understand why you are insisting on making a public something of yourself. What gives? Your only quote of me is my stating something that exactly refutes your tangent.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI'll read
(#73026)But my commenting history is spotty enough that I can't guarantee a lot of participation. I think the goal is a worthy one but I don't think this place has necessarily failed as that it has tilted a bit to the left. The idea that civil conversation from the left and right can happen is still alive here and I see it all the time, just not as many from the right have stuck around.
I don't want to start a whole other discussion, but why is that, the many of the righties took off? Is it something that will happen to any sight? Does this happen in reverse, with a supposed bipartisan forum tilting to the right as the lefties leave? Are there more lefties online? Who needs a political science thesis, because I want answers!
Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
I agree with you
(#73025)I think it has failed.
When I first encountered Tacitus I was looking for Roman
military history, in particular Scotland and the campaigns.
I thought that someone picking Tacitus as a site name would
have a high credibility, academically, professionally, and
I have to say that I was deeply disapointed.
People end up posting like laywers in the US, that
any distortion, any oblique view, is fine as long as it
serves the single purpose of beating down differing
opinions. Actual open discussion is rare, look at
acceptance of data, methods used for years and accepted
are suddenly suspect if the politics of the writer are
not in agreement with the critic. Personal attacks are
common and barely restrained. There is little humor
which would at least lighten the dogma.
Yeah Im interested, but I dont see how to overcome the
hurdles of groups being self selecting in this environment
and getting quality and wide ranging posts from people
who dont have the time to put in....
Many of us *are* lawyers in the US - from both sides
(#73120)of the political spectrum. We/they have an absolute right to express their views, in the US anyway. Just saying.
BTW, I wish I were a plumber instead of going to law school. Both the hours and the pay are better, and you get out more. Plus, plumbers actually fix stuff instead of drilling holes in pipes and then charging people to tell them they have a leak.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentNo one enters court
(#73164)seeking a fair and balanced... well maybe the jury and
maybe the judge at a push...
Of course you are entitled to opinions and also to
express them...
- reply
parent"Many of us are lawyers"
(#73131)Finally, someone gets to the heart of the problem with this place ...
Oh, I kid. C'mon. You know I love you guys.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentWhere should I serve you with the complaint
(#73157)in the lawsuit I just filed? (It's a motion for lotion.)
PS you're already in default. I hope IRL you are a Nevada corporation.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentGood luck
(#73006)with your new venture, if you decide to proceed. However, I'm not sure exactly what it is that you are planning to do that would be different from what other sites do that would make it successful on your terms. I can tell you from my experience that you'll run into a scaling problem if your new site is at all successful - that is, unless you have a lot of free time on your hands or a lot of volunteer moderators who share your exact vision as to what the new site should be, it will be very difficult to maintain over time.
I'd be interested in what you view as the failure of this site and others, and what exactly you plan to do that would be different.
I blame it all on the Internet
Count me in
(#72999)I think I know what you're going for, and I'd love to participate in some way. A few years ago I was kicking around the idea of starting a companion site to ObWi, cherry-picking the interesting posts but establishing a mission statement and rules that explicitly stated the sort of environment I was after, rather than the "be vaguely civil" list that that site has limped along with. But I didn't think I could do it on my own, and I got the sense that most people were happy enough with things the way they were. Sounds like maybe you were thinking along similar lines.
As a Forum for Centrist Discussion
(#72995)This site is pretty much unparalleled. It's tilted a bit to the left from when it was founded by Tacitus refugees, but on the whole, I think that this is a perfect venue for sharing thoughts, arguing, &c. In a weird way, it scratches the same "itch" that Usenet satisfied in its pre-ghost town days.
So I don't really see a need to go elsewhere.
What do you want to accomplish?
(#72976)In other words, if you create a debate site with roughly the same rules as here why do you think the results will be different?
And if not, what other rules do you propose that you hope will make it work?
This place is my vacation.
If this site is a failure,
(#72974)then it is the least failed of the sites that encourage left-right participation.
Since my experience with the ObWingers, it is extremely rare for informative and reasonably civil debate to occur between left and right. I don't know if Moe has said this publicly, but he gave it all had at ObWi, but the site still turned left-wing and became an unfriendly environment for anyone to the right of Olympia Snowe, and he is less optimistic than I that such a site can be sustained.
I wasn't really here when you decided to hang things up, so I have no idea why you think this place has failed, but I'm not optimistic that you'll find the environment you're looking for, human nature being what it is.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
I'd put it on my blogroll.
(#72968)While I disagree that the forvm has failed (it's a bar for former taciturns, not a debate society), I agree that there is room on the internet for a place where both sides can talk and listen equally. The trick is in avoiding what seems to be an inevitable tipping point where a community tilts one way or the other. How? I don't know. But if you've figured out a way, count me in.
"In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad."~Nietzsche
The secret...
(#72962)...to understanding the nature of a site like this is that if you, as a partisan, are 100% happy with it, then it is not really a site that is crossing the aisle, as you put it.
The whole point is that we make each other mad, within reason, because our positions really are different, and even our way of approaching reality is different. It is not merely a matter of agreeing to disagree.
We don't listen much, but we listen some, and certainly more than each side does in our country (or many others). Not to put too fine a point on it, but you particularly don't register with me as being a star listener here (nor do I claim such honored status for myself).
Really, there isn't much more we can realistically hope for. You are sure free to try though. Good luck.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
Mac, I'd certainly be happy to help
(#72956)any way I could - at least until PM passes me in total number of comments posted here, which could take a year or more . . .
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
A Lofty Goal
(#72919)that I fear you will never attain, Mac.
I will visit and participate in your new venture and wish you luck in your search for your albino horse.
~At times like these I am reminded of the immortal words of Socrates when he said...."I drank what?"
Albino horse!
(#72965)Never heard that before. Like the calico cat. Males are really rare, and nobody has ever come across a fertile male calico cat. Doesn't exist.
Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
parentTreason!
(#72907)Imagine a virtual cage around Mac's post, if you will, and treat it as a speech from a former exile now succesfully captured + imprisoned.
... I'd be interested to hear what exactly would be different at the new site.
Then I'd wonder why we don't at elast float those same ideas here.
... Actually I've enjoyed the place the past several days. Lots of good diaries + discussion. So you're hitting me at the wrong time, but I'd be very curious to see whatever you come up with. Your reputation of course precedes you and might even allow for an early release from your recent imprisonment.
Just a note on the standing problem of too much leftward drift + departing conservatives. We've lost too many right-leaning commenters, but also picked up some new folks like John + Juker.
... personally, if I get frustrated with the comments sections, I consider the success of this place along other dimensions than political. One of our top 5 posts was HankP's diary on architecture and one of the most enjoyable recent diaries for me was tomsyl's classic rock post. Also BG's discussion on the nature of truth was fun.
That's a lot of variety and as I say, I'm less inclined to call this place a 'failure' this week than I have been at any time over the past few months.
... naturally, we need some high profile lefty bannings to give this place some more balance, which is why God made sure I was elected moderator...
... Anyway, Mac, I would certainly visit any new project of yours, would expect it to be interesting, and wish you all the best.
Keep your eye on this site as well. Ya never know what might happen.
Catchy sucks and is ruining the site... the punk he is...
(#72913):) LOL
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
parentYou positively *know* that will just encourage him
(#72957)He'll likely have that post bronzed and mounted on a koa wood base if I don't delete it first. There's no surer sign that someone's Made It in life than S&R kudos.
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentCount me in for a visit.
(#72878)Unfortunately I don't have the time, skill, or talent to help in any more practical way, and no particular insight into why such attempts tend to fail.
I wonder, does the same thing tend to happen with all organizations...representative democracies, for example?
Also for what it's worth, I don't think this site has "failed", though it has gone through ups and downs and the repetitious arguments can be tedious. For my money the main ingredient that is missing is Tacitus who, for all that I disagreed with his politics and his thinking, had the rare ability to be simultaneously provocative and even-handed; a tyrant and a liberator of speech. That guy could really get a discussion going. Highbrow flamebait. Maybe the fact that he had the bully seat was a good thing in some ways; while our more democratic setup here certainly encourages conversation, it has a hard time finding direction.
Anyhoo, glad you still have the blogging bug, and good luck with the project.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
"Highbrow flamebait"
(#72880)On the nose.
And that's what we're so desperately missing - though a few make some valiant efforts.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentI agree, but I'm not convinced
(#72899)that everyone who will say they agree actually agrees in practice. Perhaps the difference between "highbrow flamebait" and what I guess we have to call "lowbrow flamebait" is too subjective.
My definition is rather simple: when someone has written at length, laying out an argument and attempting to support it, and avoided personal attacks, then it's "highbrow flamebait" and ought to be encouraged*. If, on the other hand, someone has thrown out a few sentences clearly intended to provoke heat rather than light, it's "lowbrow flamebait" and ought to be ignored.
*Assuming, that is, that the goal is spirited discussion rather than placid agreement. And obviously there are some arguments that are beyond the pale and shouldn't be permitted to be posted, but again this is probably subjective.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentbrendanm98, Haven't You Yourself Sought Commentators....
(#72903)....here for Swords Crossed?
I never minded this because thematically our goals and approaches were pretty much the same, and SW was another Josh creation eventually abandoned.
There are lots of sites out there if a person wants to write and argue and comment...but there are apparently only so many people willing to invest the time and effort to do substantial postings.
I am obviously of mixed feelings over Mac setting up yet another place and thereby diluting the pool of available posters.
Eventually, everyone has Nothing.
Traveller
- reply
parentSort of, yeah
(#72925)I tried to avoid explicitly begging for visits, I wrote some stuff only for here and some stuff only for SC and some for both, and I have heavily linked to the Forvm from SC and encouraged SC users to post here. But any traffic to SC was nice to get and I certainly had the secondary intention of making SC more visible while simultaneously participating here. To be brutally honest SC receives almost no traffic from here (and vice-versa, I'm sure), a handful of referrals a month, but that's fine, I wouldn't be comfortable trying to pimp for more, and I like that people are aware of it.
I don't think we have any regulars at SC who came from the Forvm to SC, with the exception of Bird Dog. I did put out a beg for him and I'm glad I did, but I don't feel like his participation on SC detracts from the Forvm since he mostly cross-posts (as was requested, and is very much appreciated, don't get me wrong).
I would love to see SC and the Forvm work together more on specific projects (e.g., formal debates) but the goal I had in mind there certainly wasn't to draw traffic from the Forvm to SC, it was/is to increase traffic to both sites.
FWIW, I came to Tacitus way back when from Redstate, and now the only blogs I regularly post on are SC and the Forvm. I have accounts and post now and then on several others, because I enjoy reading and responding to a wide range of topics and political viewpoints, but the sites that keep me coming back are SC and here.
Anyway, I understand your feelings and appreciate your question and if there's a general consensus that I ought to be doing something different with respect to how I refer to SC here I'll of course respect that. Not that I necessarily took your post that way, just wanted to throw that out there.
Without more details as to what Mac has in mind it's hard to say how it would impact the Forvm, but I'm guessing it would be minimal. Particularly if it filled a different niche.
Edit: God, that got long. Sorry =/
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentHow about a merger?
(#72973)There are unique visitors to both, and the tone and tenor and content are similar.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentSvords Croffed? ;) -nt-
(#72997).
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentYes, Crossed Forvm!
(#73000)Both sites are a bit smallish, so why not merge and get a larger, more dynamic audience?
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parentWhat's the buy out package? =)
(#73003)I think there's something to having multiple sites with differing characters, allies but not identical. Like countries in the EU, preserving the individual culture but working together for mutual benefit. Or states in the US. (The Forvm is Germany and SC Belgium, or else the Forvm is Texas and SC Rhode Island, of course.) So in that context Mac's site would be a new country (or state) in the "bipartisan debate/discussion" coalition.
That said, I'm certainly open to the idea of a merger, although it's not really my call. Ender took over after Trevino left and he runs SC. Also I have no idea what posters here or there would think.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentStock, junk bonds (not Barry) and a playa to be named later.
(#73158)--o--
Politicians spend our money like a pimp with only a week to live. CJ Boxx
- reply
parentDidn't intend to be presumptuous,
(#73007)but it seems an idea worth exploring, especially given that both sites were essentially founded by the same person and there is quite a bit of overlap.
"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy
- reply
parenteh
(#73009)WetherMan and I have put in an awful lot of work to just dissolve the site (although I speak here only for myself). But I don't own the site, have the mods put it up for a vote if you think it's a good idea.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentWhy dissolve?
(#73015)The Forvum is the bigger of the two so hosting would stay here.
We run around 25,000 visitors per month and about 80,000 page views. Swords runs about 4,000 visitors and 14,000 page views.
Both sites are Drupal. A full diary/story/comments/members merger might be actually fairly easy to do. Drupal SQL tables are straightforward. I've already toyed with them. The only oddity would be that either the imported comments would be numbered as new ones.
Both current URL's should continue to work indefinitely. A new name could be devised, such as "Swords at the Forvm" or something.
I think our design is better, though it could be altered a bit to reflect the merger. Sword's original color scheme was light blue, so a light blue element could be added.
I have no idea how they do governance at swords or if anybody in either site is interested. I'm just saying it could be done.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.' -Chesterton
- reply
parentSwords at the Forum
(#73166)sounds like full contact blogging.
- reply
parentPimp all you want, Brendan. :)
(#72955)I hope most people here would agree that keeping esprit de blog high is a good thing, and that cross-promoting discussion and whatnot is a vital part of what makes the blogosphere work. Imagine Drum not linking to Drezner, Insty not hat-tipping to Malkin, etc.
When you get down to it a lot of blogging is nothing but a hyperlink tag on the words Hey! Look over there!
:)
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentHeh, thanks to you and catchy
(#72970)and in that spirit I'm looking forward to Mac's venture... might be interesting to see who drops in, I bet some seriously old-school types would come by if notified.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentBut first things first...
(#72960)On a scale of 1 to 10, how good would you look wearing a thong?
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentI'm wearing a pair of em right now!
(#72967)Oh, you meant the other thongs.
Ok, take the love child of Arnold Schoenberg and Vin Diesel, take away the muscles and the tan, add a few bits of string and there you go. Oops, I forgot the body hair -- on the plus side I never look nude. Ever notice the word hirsute kinda sounds like hair suit?
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentBad english.
(#72969)Boxers are plural, as are briefs and panties, but a bikini is singular, as is a thong.
Unless you're like me, that is. I need a pair of thongs. It's a containment issue.
;-}
Me: We! -- Ali
- reply
parentVery much doubt it
(#72929)if there's a general consensus that I ought to be doing something different with respect to how I refer to SC here
I like how you like SC.
Plus appreciate the visitors from there. We've had some good ones show up.
- reply
parentI wouldn't worry, Trav.
(#72914)I overall trust the community's tastes.
If Mac creates sumthin better, we should all go over there. That would be a win.
If it's not as good, commenters would return. So, no real loss.
Either way we wouldn't lose.
Plus we'd at least get to see some Mac posting for awhile, which I for one would welcome.
- reply
parentHighbrow Flamebait is a Virtue? And is Mac Only Poaching?
(#72896)...you know, when Tacitus was here a little bit ago, I was trying to be friendly and welcome him home with a post mentioning Hamilton...and Josh being not only Hamiltonian, but actually Hamilton-like himself.
A few hours later I realized that this comment, by those with a subtle turn of mind, might actually be seen as an insult and not friendly or inviting at all.
In the final analysis I decided to leave it as it was because I myself didn't know if I meant it as friendly or cutting. Such are the vicissitudes of writing.
More pointedly, is Mac here only to poach for a proposed site of his own our diminishing set of conservative commentators?
Is this theft by friendly query?
And what is this to be, Red State 2, the sequel, but with a different set of more open commentators but still weighted to the right?
So they can finally find some psychological equilibrium? That may be the secret sub-text promise, but I still see a Caesar marching on Rome, thereafter and ever after chasing after some ephemeral sense of legitimacy, ever the seeking, never the finding.
Thus is the way of the world.
Traveller
- reply
parentNo offense Trav...
(#72918)...but if I "poached" every active conservative from here that would be how many people?
Certainly not enough to bother starting something new.
Perhaps, I'm being foolish, but attracting conservatives wasn't even on the radar of things I was wondering about.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentNot poach
(#72902)I see it as complementary, something different that wouldn't replace the Forvm.
But then, I'm a bit biased, since I view Swords Crossed as (a humble) teammate rather than competitor to the Forvm.
Seems to me the more locations for debate/discussion, the better. Particularly if they all have their own unique aspects and character, which the Forvm certainly has in spades.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentAgreed, it's more like a nightclub opening across the street,
(#72905)one without the fine girls, deafening sound system, and criminally expensive drinks.
You might worry to see your customers heading over to a rival, but the presence of another club turns your neighborhood into a "hot area," which will in turn draw more and more club kids to the flypaper that is hipness. Rising tide and all that.
The more people out there laying down the booty beat of bipartisan debate, the better.
Thank you! Vote Republican!
- reply
parentHell son
(#73032)we got both kinds of politics Country AND Western.
- reply
parent"Laying down the booty beat of bipatisan debate"
(#72917)Should be our next motto.
- reply
parentHum Mac ..I would look in but I am still trying to understand
(#72877)what it means to have a conversation even here.. I as a left of center poster have not been privy to any attempts by the right of center to engage in debate beyond a certain level. I ask questions and get few answers that are on point or engaging. It might be that confirmation bias has won out and all such trials are doomed.
It would be nice if any of the poster that have moved on such as yourself would explain the failure you see here and as I have heard at wings to have this kind of place. I mean I stop by red state and see that people are not allowed to even take the opposition side in debates. It is an echo chamber and nothing else... Kos for all its failing does better but their is a self enforcing view that works the same.. I have never seen that kind of thing here we give second and third chances. You even banned many from your side.
Still unless someone address the distraction makers and brings the point to a head.. Most policy conversations breakdown.. If people preach an ethos that is undefendable they sometimes don't last... If they can't live by the rules they also don't last... Still without someone that has left articulating from the conservative side what is wrong and what kind of solutions they see as needed and willing to debate them why should we leave one place for another.. Still I miss your wit and humor and am sorry that you pulled the plug... It takes thick skin and the ability to adjust ones views to have that kind of site. Something that is missing may be diplomacy. Still we have elected moderators that are from both sides in all elections. The disputes between moderators has never been public so it is hard to see if that was an issue...
Still if you think it has merit and a chance of finding common ground etc... Then fire away.. Still I have not given up on this place and its roots... Funny I even posted about this topic today... http://theforvm.org/diary/bird-dog/about-those-lancet-studies-on-civilian-deaths-in-iraq#comment-72826
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
Count Me In
(#72874)Like others, I'm content with the way things work here, but I'd be more than curious to see what you come up with. And agree that the real question is, given human nature, can such an animal survive?
Let's find out.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Multiculturalsim
(#72859)It has gone where the majority wanted it go.
My experience has been that such site's die when they attract a majority of regulars who aren't interested in the original "speak/listen to the other side" intent. Thus the Democratic principle is it's own downfall. Two wolves & a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Tyranny of the Majority and all that...
What I have seen work (somewhat with all the usual caveates), are forums with an invitation only section. There's the regular rough & tumble part of the forum where anyone can post and majority rules. Then there's the Invitation-only part where everyone can read, but only invited individuals can post. This can have numerous configuration options.
For example an anon. posting section, a registered posting section, and an invitation-only posting section. I've seen it where the invitation-only is established only for certain topics/threads. Different posters are invited just for that thread.
I've seen it where the invite is automatic after a poster reaches some threshold of posts (signifing a commitment to the forum). I've seen it where every post in the rough & tumble section gets voted on by others (as to quality)...those with a consistent quality rating get invited. And I've seen it with the moderator of the thread, just selecting who they want.
This can create an elitism or aristocracy which rubs everyone the wrong way, of course. So it's just one of what may be many possible ideas for your future project.
I don't see the signal-to-noise ratio being a terrible problem
(#72910)Most forums that require invitation-only areas are those dealing with extremely popular and/or youth-oriented topics like computer games. We don't exactly have a d00d problem on The Forvm.
There are very few commenters here that I'd characterize as "net negatives". There are only one or two that I don't bother to read. As far as a focus on content goes, The Forvm is a clear success. It's not as popular as we might like, but that has pros and cons.
I don't know why conservatives have been leaving in disproportionate numbers. I'm not even sure that really is the case. My memory is that The Forvm (as opposed to tacitus.org) was always a majority-lefty site, and we have lost quite a few regular liberal commenters as well.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentModern Music
(#73142)I don't see the signal-to-noise ratio being a terrible problem...
...and the Left doesn't think the MSM really leans Left. I certainly didn't think my music choices where the "noise" my parents thought they were. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I suppose a majority of left posters would be tolerable if the noise level were low...but a slight increase in noise by a majority will drown out a similar increase by a minority. I think the point being that a majority tends towards tyranny without active checks & balances to protect minority rights. To the majority...everything looks fine.
- reply
parentDepends how it is run
(#72855)if you're not afraid to bring the bam stick down I'd be interested.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
I'd be interested
(#72862)Whether or not the blam stick is ready to hand.
I'd be there mainly as a visitor, maybe an occasional diary.
The big question is, how do you propose to remedy the problems that seem to crop up in any bipartisan site in the design of a new site?
For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin
- reply
parentEnforcing the spirit rules
(#72866)and not letting partisan dipwads skate on technicalities.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentA site
(#72871)Mr. Sulla,
Can just as easily go off the rails if someone with the blam stick starts interpreting the spirit rules to include "anything or anyone I don't like"
I think who has the responsibility and who has comment priviliges are more important. Is it a dictatorship, a troikette, a # of comments based meritocracy like Irving is suggesting, or something else?
For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise - B. Franklin
- reply
parentThere are reasons
(#72879)Mr. Weyland for why some people are less liked than others. The virtue of tolerance is not absolute. And I care little for how many people wield the responsibility, so long as it allows for a fair exchange of ideas as opposed to encouraging smarmy me-tooism.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
- reply
parentAbsolutely.
(#72852)I'm there, for what it's worth.
If you can't pull it off, nobody can.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
I Think We All Find Where We Are Comfortable...
(#72851)...the Forvm works for me very well. I especially like the fact that we can write on any subject we may like...and I tend to think that people largely write for themselves...to try on new ideas like a new set of clothes.
Does this look good, or not? Did I express myself well or not? What do I really think? Am I right or am I wrong? Are there things that I am missing?
I mean the fact that Bird Dog seems comfortable in such a place as The Forvm as am I...speaks well for this set up.
I'd be curious Mac, why wasn't the Forvm effective for you?
God knows there is a broad spectrum of opinion here.
And Politics all the time, everyday in every way and never ending...can be a pretty thin gruel.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Well...
(#72872)Or do they write for themselves and to solicit reactions from others?
Actually, it speaks well for you and BD. However, if BD is your metric for the Right, the problem is he isn't leaning as far from the middle as people just assume.
I think there is a broad spectrum of opinion held here, but a narrowing palette expressed.
[sigh]
I probably shouldn't waste anyone's time or bandwidth trying to explain it.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWell ...
(#72893)oh ...alright, but only if BlaiseP can join! :) I kid because I love... Seriously Mac, I don't think you'd be wasting b-width. Afterall, Trav AND Bernard asked basically the same question.
To everyone: I think that over time as posters move more towards the center the diaries become less "provocative" and more middle of the road. Hell, let's all agree that we like the diaries to have a bit of an edge, to get the blood boiling or at least simmering and have certain key flamebaitishness to them.
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentMy goal
(#72952)...wasn't to trigger a meta discussion about what's wrong here, and I'm reluctant to add fuel to that fire.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentOh, come on
(#73096)You can't just come in and say "The Forvm sucks and I'm making my own site to do what it was supposed to do" and then clam up when asked for specifics.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentGood thing
(#73098)I didn't say any of those things. Whew!
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentNo, no, of course not
(#73176)You're just "taking another stab at an apparently elusive goal". Would that be one of the more obscure Guinness records then, or what?
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- reply
parentTo late diary is up.. It was brewing anyway.. you just
(#72954)made me take the time... Since I am trying to understand the meta of the problem that has caused you and other to leave it has been a topic on any number of occasions with talk of emails being sent out etc...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- reply
parentI doubt too many here have moved toward the center, exactly.
(#72897)But with a more-or-less stable group of contributors, either a consensus starts to form, or the same old fights lose their luster. Not all disagreements are productive ones.
Bene vixit, bene qui latuit
- reply
parentOk, Ok
(#72904)I was trying to find a charitable way of saying things have a tendency to become "stale" over time. Can we agree on the use of the word "stale" at least! C'mon, hobbesist! I lay down my gauntlet before you... Mortal, you've earned this!!!
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- reply
parentSure
(#72850)To all of the above, subject to time and skill constraints.
I don't think the Forvm has "failed" at all, but your venture sounds like a nice way to complement and add to the (scarce!) bipartisan online dialog.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
This website is doing well
(#72849)Not as many people posting entries about politics, but that's a function of the news cycle. When interesting things happen -- caucuses, bush overreaching, etc -- then there's a flurry of activity.
I'd sure as hell visit or write.
(#72848)As far as technical concerns go, I'll be of little help. My end of things during my day job starts at SAS and SQL, runs through MATLAB and Minitab and ends at Access and Excel. None of those is readily applicable to running a site.
Follow-up: You wrote "In thinking back on each, they were all very different, but all of them got off track pretty much the same way."
What's the taxonomy or mode of failure, as you see it?
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
are you a developer?
(#73289)i thought you did something else.
This place is my vacation.
- reply
parentthose aren't developer tools
(#73862)- reply
parent