January 09, 2005

• Well, Free Republic is one possibility, though cosmetically it doesn't look much like MeFi or MoFi.
• Also, littlegreenfootballs.com is most certainly to the right of center.
• Both Free Republic and littlegreenfootballs will send shivers up the spine of the normal monkey/meta types.... I can hardly stand reading them... Free republic blasted an article (and me by name) that was syndicated...... ahhh sidedish, you out there??? :)
• I probably wasn't being clear with my post. As a liberal/democrat/leftist type, I'm look to expand my daily link cirlce a bit. Meta/monkey has political posts, but it also has just plain neat (non political) stuff that makes me go "wow". Free republic seems mostly ok, while I stopped reading little green footballs years ago due to the amount of bile it spews. I just looked at it again and feel dirty.
• Keep in mind that the aforementioned sites focus primarily on politics and culture. If you're looking for something more like MoFi/MeFi (with an emphasis on the ephemeral "best of the web"), then I've not seen that. Mokeyfilter has some marvelously articulate conservatives (moreso that MetaFilter IMO), but that info probably doesn't help you either.
• I find any site that isn't expressly political and / or right-wing religious will be labelled as 'liberal'. Slashdot gets tagged as liberal all the time, as does low-brow Fark.com, constantly, every time the post a story that isn't flattering to Bush. American Republicans tend to feel uncomfortable in places where their views aren't the dominant majority, and will label anything that isn't to their liking "liberal". The trouble is that a site like MoFi attracts a demographic that is 1) younger and 2) healthily international, so perhaps a site that caters to the interests of older American visitors might be more republican-leaning.
• Brandon, if your screen is feeling dirty, you could try this site to clean it up (couldn't resist).
• Mokeyfilter has some marvelously articulate conservatives Who are they? Are you out there, guys? Not being a smartass, just honestly dont know. I myself am quite liberal, but I often find myself expressing a conservative-esque POV here, just because I believe in critical thinking and perspective, ie I hate Bush, but I dont think comparing him to Hitler or sayign America is now "facist" is realistic or helpful.
• The mere acknowledgement that there are two sides of an issue makes one "liberal" these days. That is so incredibly sad.
• drjimmy11, although he doesn't post here too much anymore, there have been countless threads in the past where f8xmulder has defended many republican ideals quite eloquently.
• I agree, f8xmulder is missed here.
• IIRC, Fes has also held many republican ideals, although Bush didn't quite cut it as a true republican.
• See Here
• From reading those earlier threads, I think y'all are too quick to suck f8xmulder's or Fes's dicks. That's all. Hope this elevates the discourse.
• This is a really interesting phenomenon, and it doesn't only apply to web. I'd argue that there's no radio equivalent to the breadth of coverage that NPR gives you (not just news, but culture in general), and while many people would argue that it leans left, there's no right-wing equivalent. I guess you/I could argue the reason for it in many ways, depending on your/my own agenda. It does seem to me that there's something almost religious in the way that right-wing media works; the political viewpoint absolutely overwhelms everything else to the point of obsession, so that it just becomes about being conservative above all else.
• space coyote-I've been coming to the same conclusion myself, though I doubt whether it's conservatives feel uncomfortable and more than they're backlashing against liberals these days and it always feels good to slay the enemy. It also seems that the conservatives are more interested in talking mostly about politics because they're trying to stop the "liberal media". ah well
• Slashdot gets tagged as liberal all the time Really? If anything, I'd think that Slashdot's main political influence is a sort of fratboy libertarianism, brought on by too many keggers and too much Ayn Rand.
• Grignr, unless your being sarcastic you ought to read this thread. Just about everyone that posted there disagreed with f8x but the thread is filled with nothing more than civilised discourse. Each side defended there opinions without digressing to flaming.
• No I am not being sarcastic. F8xmulter might be superficially civil, but I don't find much logical consistency in the stuff he writes, even in that thread (though it would be pointless to redo those arguments). Civility at the cost of reason seems a bit expensive to me, though perhaps not to MoFi at large. And now I've said... too much.
• we can't be civil and reasonable, Grignr? Is a virulent, bile-spewing rantfest somehow more effective than otherwise? I know that I prefer not to be beaten about the head with anyone's viewpoint!
• It would be a better, loving world if we would just adopt Thunderdome to solve our problems. or jello wrestling.
• Sure, one can be civil and reasonable, but reasonable must come first. Who here is arguing for a "virulent, bile-spewing rantfest"? The height of civility in society is to smile politely at people you disagree with, not break out in laudative verse whenever they show up. To address the general point, I think one of the prime frustrations of online liberals is that we never seem to be able to find a satisfactory presentation of the opposite position on any given topic. I too would love to have a pet conservative who would give me a well-constructed argument whenever I said "jump!", but that isn't likely. The best we are left with is reading people like James Lileks or Eugene Volokh. I don't think any chatty forum like a *Filter can hope to do better. (The conservatives have the opposite problem, of course.)
• I too would love to have a pet conservative Gee, you really think friendly discourse is vanishingly rare? I can't imagine why. Sexual humor and referring to people who disagree with you as your pets makes you so much fun to be around. Maybe — and I'm just throwing this out here — maybe the problem isn't that nobody's having a friendly conversation any more. Maybe the problem is that the people who are interested in conversation just think you're an asshole.
• Unless you actually happen to be an asshole.
• The height of civility in society is to smile politely at people you disagree with No. That is not the height of civility. You are confusing the height of civility with the depth of insincerity.
• No, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think online discourse is too friendly. I think people grant their opponents far too much. Everyone has become accustomed to having dozens of agreeing responses for anything they say online, no matter how unreasonable. That is why someone can say, for example, that "that religion" (meaning Islam) is incompatible with democracy, or that gay marriage is an offence to individual rights, and invariably someone will pipe up with a "Bravo! How civilly said!"
• Anyway, I can't win this one. Have a good day all.

• Anyway, I can't win this one. Have a good day all.

  See, that's the problem as I see it - conversation is not a competition, with a prize for the most brutal dismemberment of your opponent. Conversation is about communicating with other people. Also, walking away when you're not 'winning' is a bit crap.
• Everyone has become accustomed to having dozens of agreeing responses for anything they say online And yet, strangely, here I am disagreeing with you. I think, once again, you are confused about what 'civility' means, and what it implies. someone can say, for example, that "that religion" (meaning Islam) is incompatible with democracy... and invariably someone will pipe up with a "Bravo! How civilly said!" You wanna go check this thread, dude?
• I think online discourse is too friendly. Stuff it up your arse, you mofo! (Better?)
• From reading those earlier threads, I think y'all are too quick to suck f8xmulder's or Fes's dicks. ... The height of civility in society is to smile politely at people you disagree with, not break out in laudative verse whenever they show up. Grignr User since: January 04, 2005 Many of us have come to know f8x and Fes as thoughtful human beings through months of conversing with them in hundreds of threads, most of which were not related to politics. With all due respect, perhaps you should attempt a few conversations with them yourself before jumping to conclusions.

• ... before jumping to conclusions

  Conclusions about what? My complaint wasn't about f8xmulder or Fes.

  you are confused about what 'civility' means

  You're probably right. /bows out
• You wanna go check *this thread*, dude? Thanks flashboy, I added my own hearty chomp!
• I disagree with civility in all its forms. Up with barbarism (or is it barbarity?).
• up your barbarism, pal!
• I suppose it could be argued that the majority of the political stuff that gets greenlighted on Fark tends to have a rightward slant.
• The Republicans must be paying Drew more money than the Liberals.
• Grignr - winning isn't the point. Discussing is. That's why we love f8x - he's been willing to listen to our arguments (not the angry kind) and come back with his viewpoint. And,Fez, whom I think of as more libertarian than "conservative" has always given us gentlemanly conversation. coppermac is more emotional, but presents some things to think about. The fun part is having people around who can challenge your opinions. I'm thankful that those people stay. Decent conversation was the norm once, in my day, and can get really complicated, but the challenge is always there. Trying to "win" is just wanking. (Thanks, Wolof.) I do wish we were more evenly balanced here. Having more articulate folks who disagree with the majority would be healthy. It's too easy to get into circle jerk mode when you're preaching to the already convinced. Being forced to rethink the things I've held dear for all those years lets me continue to progress. So, if new folks sign up with opinions that are not in the majority, I'm confident we won't just run them off. Or, if we do, I may be forced to excercise my "older than Bluehorse" power.
• Conservatives post less on the 'Filters because we have jobs. /runs and hides
• One day I'll get off welfare, put on some shoes, cut my hair, buy a car and become the right-winger you all dream of.
• "From reading those earlier threads, I think y'all are too quick to suck f8xmulder's or Fes's dicks. That's all. Hope this elevates the discourse." -- Grignr. I agree. As a conservative, I'm generally disgusted by actions, words and tactics of other so-called conservatives. Bigotry and the embracing of false patriotism, warmongering and smug satisfaction with a status quo that will destroy society aren't conservative objectives as far as I know. Opposition to human rights and freedoms, fiscal idiocy in order to fill the pockets of your buddies and fearmongering in the general population (and in the insane religious right, in particular) have nothing to do with conservatism as I understand it, and I resent handing over the word 'conservative' to a bunch of thieves and liars. I prefer a smaller government, and encouraging people to be responsible for their actions. Personal and group stability should be a goal, and while social change can be good, in a stable society, gradual change is preferred to sudden, shocking coup. That said, we are all aware that our societies are not stable (the one I currently live in is more stable than the one I recently left, I'll admit), so we have to expect some demands for rapid change (ending U.S. military attacks of sovereign nations, the legalization of same-sex marriage, etc.), which are normally 'liberal' ideals. It seems like only 'liberal' ideals can be useful now, and any conservative who refuses to consider the option is either too tightly tied to the money or status tree or too contrary and bitter to make the admission. We don't need more conservatives. We need more people willing to effect change.
• Grignr, could you kindly stop threatening to bow out, and actually do it, tard-boy. And I'll second that Fes is almost always good value; f8x & rocket88 likewise. LarryC:L Funny thing is that the only time I've seen massed ranks of "conservatives" was at the Destiny Church hatefest-on-parliament. Which must have been one of the largest collections of welfare cases in New Zealand...
• *laughs* Is that true, rodgerd?
• I used to consider myself a(n atheist) conservative but too many people at the head of the movement make everyone else look bad, so now I try to avoid the labels altogether. Anyway, MoFi as a whole is farther left than I am, even on basic principles. I think, for example, I take a more pessimistic view of human nature (greedy, self-centered), so I tend to oppose social programs that try to help people who only take advantage of the generosity or work the system to their advantage. Also, my views on a bunch of issues probably sit at odds with most MoFites (on affirmative action, on Iraq, on tax cuts, etc.). But I'm still a Canadian, and I'm more or less happy with our health care system, our pension programs, and Crown corporations. All that said, I'm easily annoyed by the likes of Michael Moore, who I believe are as bad for discourse as the Bill O'Reillys of the world, except I think the Michael Moore-style FPPs get a bit of a pass around here while conservative demogogery is dismissed out of hand. On the whole, though, I think MoFi is full of civil, open-minded people, just not a ton of political diversity, for better or worse. I'm not sure which, actually. I'm sorry that I can't answer the original question, as it's one I've often tried to find an answer to myself.
• tracicle: "One day I'll get off welfare, put on some shoes, cut my hair, buy a car and become the right-winger you all dream of." Fine, more for me then! coppermac: "We don't need more conservatives. We need more people willing to effect change." Actually, what we need is more politicians who can stand on their heads and juggle marbles with their feet. In combat boots. I'll give 'em extra bonus points if they can keep both hands in their pants pockets.
• Hope this elevates the discourse. It doesn't. But thanks for playing. From now on, I say that we shall only have one political party.
• If that political party is the Surprise Party, I'm all for it. A banana to the monkey who gets that esoteric reference.
• Conservatism, real conservatism, is dead. Liberalism, real liberalism, is also dead. Those are 18th century distinctions, not 21st. What we have now are reactionary neoconservatives, post-Marx progressives tied into a raft of identity politics, and a vast uncertain mishmash of a middle. Liberalism, at its most extreme, is inherently alienating as people's focus on the individual allows them to deny the very real construction of a common society, while the extreme of collectivist thought has given us corporatism (Italian Fascism) and communism. Neither in pure form are viable solutions. We don't need more of either. You won't find a forum like this that leans to the right, precicely because the values that allow a community like this to work are eschewed by most of the right. Those values are things like endorsing dissent, encouraging diversity as an a means to a more robust discussion, and the very valuing of that robust discussion. While it was not always so, the current incarnation of conservatism simply does not share the values that are inherent to political actions like free media and intellectual discussion. This is not to say that all on the left value these things either, because you'll often see lockstep localized leftist communities. But when an open membership community is availible and its moderation policy is not partisanship, it will inherently lean to the left as it acts within a framework of liberal values. NPR is liberal in the sense of "many," Fox News is conservative in the sense of "limited." Monkeyfilter is liberal in the sense of "many," FreeRepublic is conservative in the sense of "limited."
• I think civility is about learning to smile politely at people you disagree with. Not during Question Period, if you are a reporter or a politician, and not during political debate, but at the dinner table or in a reception, or on a non-political discussion board like Monkeyfilter. I have learned the hard way that discussing politics at dinner with people I don't know well is a very bad idea. It can ruin good food. That said, if politics (or morality, or economic policy, all of which are very much tied into politics) is being discussed, the best approach is to present your ideas framed with the reasons you hold them. If you believe the other person has factual inaccuracies, you correct them (nicely and with solid facts). But ultimately, it may just come down to holding different beliefs. I don't believe in small government or leaving people on their own to get by, because (in my experience) government has done things more efficiently than private businesses (still inefficiently, but not as inefficiently), and because I have a moral belief that every human being in our society deserves a certain amount of care. These opinions are half fact-based (that society functions better, has better health outcomes, etc, under social democracy) and half purely moral (my morality is that people should take care of the old, poor, less capable just cause, with no strings attached). I might be able to marshall the facts to change someone's mind, but if they have a different moral system, they may never agree with me. And that is how we get diversity (which is also a good thing) - if they are nice about it, they might save me from moving to extremes, and we all find a nice middle way (though I personally would rather that middle way was more Swedish than American). The only time when I get really seriously annoyed is when people not only don't know the social facts, but deny their significance even when presented with them. The United States (where I live), for instance, is a very nice country with a high standard of living. It does not, however, have the highest standard of living in the world; indeed, for a first-world country, it has a worryingly high infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy. This suggests to me that there are some problems with either inequality or health care, or perhaps both (as these measuares are affected by either). The U.S. also has a high GDP, but also a high GINI index (compared to other first world nations), which means that GDP is not very evenly distributed. Social mobility out of the lowest socioeconomic categories is also lower in the U.S. than many other first world nations. This is not U.S. bashing - this is just trying to understand the realities of American society. In fact, no one would care about any of this except to try to improve American society, and to make it an even better place to live. But I have met people (not here) who refuse to even acknowledge the facts, as if to acknowledge would be disloyal or make you a communist or something (I'm not sure what). I struggle with this myself - I have certain ideals I would love to be true, but, as a historian, and as a responsible citizen, I cannot let those ideals override reality. I am currently studying enclosure - and the reality is that enclosure likely did (for a variety of reasons) increase agricultural production in 17th and 18th century England. To say otherwise would be falsifying history. It likely also had the consequence of increasing economic inequality, which is the other side of the story. Historians have this great debate over enclosure (was it good or bad?), but really both positions are true - it was good and bad, for different people and in different ways. And now I stop blathering.
• Wrote BearGuy: "If that political party is the Surprise Party, I'm all for it. A banana to the monkey who gets that esoteric reference." Gracie, if you want to get elected we'll have to get rid of George.
• "Monkey and Meta filter tend to learn to the liberal/ democrat side." What passes for liberal/democrat is neither. The whole American scene has skewed so far to the Right in the past 20 years that Nixon would count as a liberal now. It was funny to hear the Clintons called "leftist".
• Hey guys - take it to metafilter. I think they like this stuff over there.
• For the record, I don't know of any right-of-center online communities that are similar to MoFi in scope and congeniality (dick sucking comments notwithstanding). I've been out of it for the past few months though, and my perspective is highly suspect.
• That ain't all what's suspect. *gives f8x the crookeye*
• I've been out of it for the past few months though... Still celebrating the election win, f8x??? ;-)
• The crookeye, eh? Eeep. At least it's not the stiff one-eye. That would be "teh gay"!
• Actually rocket88, I'm a tad disappointed Kerry didn't win. I want my turn to whine ;-) No actually, I've just been super busy with my own busy - it's really cut my internet time down. I am back to lurking here on MoFi, only popping my head up whenever I hear my name bandied about in conjunction with sucking dicks.
• super busy with my own busy That should be *business*. Keeps me up nights, you know, brain cells dying, drinking, gaahh!
• well said, js and jb.
• Hi, f8x! Glad to see you're still around even if it's just now and then.
• hi bees!