What I like about Atlas; the jewel in the Atlas crown

[Torie]

There was a thread about what one dislikes about Atlas, and one about what one likes, the latter of which seems to have disappeared, perhaps for lack of interest. We live in dyspeptic times.

Which is precisely the reason that one thing we should value about Atlas, and indeed treasure as an endangered species, it’s jewel in its crown, is its culture of tolerance towards posters of diverging viewpoints, a culture that is itself under stress much to my dismay.

The social media and internet is steadily moving towards places of monocultures, politically and otherwise. To the extent there is disagreement and discussion, it is more in the nature of one line insults than anything else. Demonizing the other, the better to destroy them, is job one.

I thought of Atlas and how precious it is in its culture, when reading the tract below by Lee Bollinger, my first-year contracts professor whom I used to terrorize in class as I slapped on micro-economic concepts into the case law, lashing out at one decision and then the next. Anyway, Mr. Bollinger branched out in the ensuing years, and his signature issue was and is the First Amendment, and the culture of tolerance penumbra in which it is wrapped.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/can-the-first-amendment-save-us.php

“But above all else, the most distressing aspect of the recent period of aggression toward freedom of speech and press in this country is the willing rejection of Holmes’s starting premise: that overcoming the natural and, in his terms, “logical” impulse to persecute others who disagree with or are different from us is the hallmark of a civilized society. When you relish intolerance, you are reversing course on one of the most profound tenets of modern thought.”

The culture of tolerance is under assault. One might ponder that, and what this site means to you, the next time you are tempted to call out a fellow poster as a fascist, a predatory capitalist, a racist, a homophobe, pick your insult of choice, focusing on motives rather than textual content and ideas. Less is more. If and when this site dies, what is there to replace it, and its niche in the public square? What?

[T'Chenka]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

[°Leprechaun]

The above mentioned thread still exists:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=544129.0

[dead0man]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

even if all of that's true, that's still only about 20% of what Torie is talking about.  We don't have a lot of blueavs if you haven't noticed.

[T'Chenka]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

even if all of that's true, that's still only about 20% of what Torie is talking about.  We don't have a lot of blueavs if you haven't noticed.

This is true. I was actually planning on quoting just the bottom paragraph of his post before typing all of that, but I was short on time and a little scatter-brained.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

Reminds me of r/AbortionDebate drama. The weekly meta thread was always pro-choice users complaining about how pro-lifers were treated with "kid gloves" and allowed to debate in bad faith.

[T'Chenka]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

Reminds me of r/AbortionDebate drama. The weekly meta thread was always pro-choice users complaining about how pro-lifers were treated with "kid gloves" and allowed to debate in bad faith.

Users are allowed to debate in bad faith, and I'm not sure there should rules against it unless they're very specifically worded, but the problem on Atlas is that the community doesn't come together in a bipartisan way to call out bad faith arguments. When a blue avatar is exposed as a bad faith actor, right wing posters almost never call them out, because they are on the same "team". I would certainly not expect every right winger to call out every bad faith right wing post, that would be silly. BUT, we see an EXTREMELY low amount of that happening, as compared to what you would hope to see.

[T'Chenka]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

Oftentimes this is due to the possibility of being moderated if you speak too openly or clearly.

This thread, for example, doesn't have to be an anti-Uganda circlejerk. But I've found that posts which are approving of the law are removed. Similarly, other posts which are tr

That's obviously the goal of many users of this website, to quash "bigots" who they see as morally and intellectually inferior. They often attempt to get posts challenging their favored opinion removed from the website. Sometimes they get their way, as well.

At the end of the day the website belongs to the moderators. If they want opposition gone, it is what it is. But don't be surprised when other tactics such as ambiguity are used.

Another point is that this doesn't extend to all the moderators, in particular Torie, who has argued in favor of posts denying and criticizing a chosen identity of his, staying up, even as he strongly disagrees with them.

Blue avatars could say things like "I support the law but I don't think I'm allowed to elaborate". That would be good faith. Lying about your position isn't a valid way to represent yourself.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want to say, Torie is a good moderator. I like the way he conducts himself in his duties and in public.

[T'Chenka]

I'm not a blue avatar, but I attempted to make a post in support of the law (just as you envisioned), with zero further elaboration, and little ambiguity on what I thought. The post was removed within minutes.

It was also an extremely short post, since I just wanted to break the circlejerk occurring on the thread. I have no desire to debate on this issue.

That's disappointing.  The mods shouldn't be deleting that kind of stuff IMO, especially if you made a point to not elaborate and get into details about what some may consider offensive.

[Farmlands]

I'm not a blue avatar, but I attempted to make a post in support of the law (just as you envisioned), with zero further elaboration, and little ambiguity on what I thought. The post was removed within minutes.

It was also an extremely short post, since I just wanted to break the circlejerk occurring on the thread. I have no desire to debate on this issue.

That's disappointing.  The mods shouldn't be deleting that kind of stuff IMO, especially if you made a point to not elaborate and get into details about what some may consider offensive.

It is their website at the end of the day and they get to make decisions on what discourse is acceptable here.

Do you want me to try again? I'll go for it, but don't be surprised if I get moderated a second time.

I think you should be allowed and the post should stay. That way, LGBT people, about forty percent of the website, will understand your position on the death penalty for homosexual acts when engaging with you, a tiny detail which may be important to know.

[Alben Barkley]

The problem is that a LOT of blue avatars / right wingers refuse to openly state their beliefs and/or argue in good faith. I would be overjoyed if the Republicans here would just speak openly and honestly about what their policy preferences and ideologies are, and then make an honest effort to defend their beliefs and their policy positions.

This isn't really an opinion, it's more of a conclusion I've come to based on the data. If you pay close attention and you read posts on this forum over a period of several months (or years), it becomes clearer and clearer.

The most obvious recent example is the trans issue, where right wing posters laughed at and derided leftists for correctly predicting how the right wing assault on trans rights was going to play out. One poster famously accused the leftist posters of being "insane liars" when they correctly predicted what was going to happen. How did the leftist posters know what was going to happen? Do we have clairvoyant posters here? No. They just understood how the GOP operates in bad faith and wisely does not take their words at face value. Analyzing their actions, you can figure out what they actually want, regardless of what they say.

I love how OP so eloquently stated what he likes about Atlas remaining a bastion of relatively free thought compared to what the rest of the internet has become, and here you come in like a wrecking ball explaining why this pisses you off and you'd like to put an end to it.

As strongly as I disagree with the blue avatars and as intense as our arguments can sometimes become, I wouldn't want to ban them or drive them away. I don't want Atlas to become just another online echo chamber. If nothing else, it's just no fun.

[T'Chenka]

I love how OP so eloquently stated what he likes about Atlas remaining a bastion of relatively free thought compared to what the rest of the internet has become, and here you come in like a wrecking ball explaining why this pisses you off and you'd like to put an end to it.

I mostly agree with the OP actually. The last paragraph of the OP is what my post was a response to. I should have been more clear. Basically, what I'm getting at is that I like that we have different people with different opinions here, BUT if they're going to lie about their beliefs or make bad faith arguments, instead of just being honest, then you can't reasonably expect that other people looking for good faith conversations won't be pissed off and annoyed by that, for multiple reasons.

[Alben Barkley]

I love how OP so eloquently stated what he likes about Atlas remaining a bastion of relatively free thought compared to what the rest of the internet has become, and here you come in like a wrecking ball explaining why this pisses you off and you'd like to put an end to it.

I mostly agree with the OP actually. The last paragraph of the OP is what my post was a response to. I should have been more clear. Basically, what I'm getting at is that I like that we have different people with different opinions here, BUT if they're going to lie about their beliefs or make bad faith arguments, instead of just being honest, then you can't reasonably expect that other people looking for good faith conversations won't be pissed off and annoyed by that, for multiple reasons.

You may be falsely assuming people are making bad faith arguments, however. Just because you disagree or even don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not a view held in good faith. I’m not saying there are no bad faith actors here, there certainly are, but I don’t think that applies to the majority of the blue avatars. Indeed there are a few green/red avatars I think it applies just as much to…

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The problem with blue avatars is that they don't realize the programs that they are on already were created by D's not RS SSA, was created by FDR and Truman extended it survivors benefits, Medicare and Medicaid FDR, Obamacare Obamacare and Clinton could of passed Hillarycare thru Reconciliation Obama did Scott Brown blocked it Ds had 55 seats in 1993 and could of lowered the threshold to 55 seats for the Filibuster

They seem along with Fox News to content to stoping D's from getting the Filibuster proof Trifecta and it would advantage all of us none of us are super rich even if you are middle class, Super rich are Bill Gates, Oprah, Wayne Newton and Donald Trump and guess where Native Americans got their Per Capita reparations Wayne Newton, so they owe African American, because Wayne Newton was close to Reagan

When we win AZ, OH, MO and FL and Biden is tied with Trump in FL and Deegan is ahead in Jacksonville mayor race they will see they will benefit from the Filibuster

Guess whom benefitted from Buckley v Valeo Koch bros whom spearhead Ronald Reagan easy victory over Carter and Mondale whom were heavily outspent , not Teddy Kennedy

[°Leprechaun]

Much of atlas is highly toxic, but occasionally there are really good topics discussed. The concept of having an "Atlas University" (perhaps a stickied thread or even a forum) appeals to me. Atlas University would be a place to go to discuss Great Ideas (especially topics other than current politics or religion).

Ad hominem attacks would be taboo.

If this appeals to anyone I will start a thread entitled "Atlas University" on the off topic board.