The exodus of the blue avatars

[Calthrina950]

For those claiming it wouldn't be like this if the GOP was more respectable, name one R outside the Northeast not unanimously opposed to by red avatars.Youngkin was feared with such a vigor, you'd think he was trying to abolish democracy and lock up any minorities in Virginia.

Even Baker, Hogan, and Sununu are viewed negatively by many, if not most, left-leaning posters here. Just about the only elected Republican politician who probably has a net positive approval rating here overall is Phil Scott, and Scott is virtually indistinguishable from a Democrat.

[Calthrina950]

This thread exposes a fundamental "disconnect" between red and blue avatars, which helps to explain why this forum has become more of an "echo chamber" than it was previously. Many red avatars seem to believe that the Republican Party is an illegitimate, anti-American party, bent on introducing fascism and authoritarianism into the United States. They view Republicans as being a threat to their livelihoods, to those of their loved ones, and to those of minority groups who they see as uniquely vulnerable. Thus, it is no surprise that red avatars would not be interested in engaging with those who they believe is the enemy, and it is no surprise that they would not tolerate any arguments or positions deriving from what they consider to be a place of hatred, of anger, and of intolerance.

Blue avatars, on their part, believe that they are unwelcome here, that there is an inherent ideological bias among the moderators, and that these biases have enabled red avatars to get away with behaviors for which they would be punished. And yes, it is true that many Republicans also believe that the Democratic Party is illegitimate and that it is extremist, out of touch with their values and their perception of what this country should be. That adds "fuel to the fire", if I can use that phrase, and it makes blue avatars reluctant to back down from their positions and more likely to defend those positions as they view them necessary. Political polarization, therefore, has sorted people into clearly defined, diametrically opposed ideological camps, and these camps reduce the incentive for bipartisanship and for magnanimity towards others.

[Calthrina950]

This thread exposes a fundamental "disconnect" between red and blue avatars, which helps to explain why this forum has become more of an "echo chamber" than it was previously. Many red avatars seem to believe that the Republican Party is an illegitimate, anti-American party, bent on introducing fascism and authoritarianism into the United States. They view Republicans as being a threat to their livelihoods, to those of their loved ones, and to those of minority groups who they see as uniquely vulnerable. Thus, it is no surprise that red avatars would be interested in engaging with those who they believe is the enemy, and it is no surprise that they would not tolerate any arguments or positions deriving from what they consider to be a place of hatred, of anger, and of intolerance.

Blue avatars, on their part, believe that they are unwelcome here, that there is an inherent ideological bias among the moderators, and that these bias has enabled red avatars to get away with behaviors for which they would be punished. And yes, it is true that many Republicans also believe that the Democratic Party is illegitimate and that it is extremist, out of touch with their values and their perception of what this country should be. That adds "fuel to the fire", if I can use that phrase, and it makes blue avatars reluctant to back down from their positions or to defend those positions as they view them necessary. Political polarization, therefore, has sorted people into clearly defined, diametrically opposed ideological camps, and these camps reduce the incentive for bipartisanship and for magnanimity towards others.

I think this post is inaccurate and I can tell you as a blue avatar when many red avatars call people that I know terrorist enabler or traitors , that I have zero interest in being nice to those posters and I more or less will respond in an extremely hostile way to those posters and there should be no surprise of that. This is why we have become so hostile to the mods as well because rather than putting a stop to all this rhetoric they have effectively enabled it cause many deep down also believe it and I can tell you that has greatly alienated blue avatars and conservatives from here especially given they do stamp down equivalent rhetoric from the right on here.

I btw also have proposed solutions that would greatly reduce the heat on here and all of them have been rejected . One of them was to create a sticky mega thread regarding LGBT issues(particularly Trans Issues) or really any culture war issue at this point if you want to reduce the heat here.

I am certainly aware of the attacks that red avatars have made against their blue counterparts. I've been subject to some of these attacks myself, as you very well know. There has to be a more consistent enforcement of this site's Terms of Service, and they need to be applied more equitably to posters of all ideological persuasions and perspectives. I also do think that creating threads for specific culture war issues probably would help to alleviate tension here.

[Calthrina950]

this might be the single biggest reason there are so few blue avs.  The sh**tty ones can't hack it or freak out and get banned.  sh**tty red avs can and do stick around for years.  Some of them are Atlas "institutions".

And the low quality of the median red avatar contributes greatly to creating the climate I spoke of where the forum simply isn't worth making serious contributions to anymore. Sometimes I see a thread I want to post in, but scrolling through and seeing a wall of Reddit-tier takes from Democrats disabuses me of any interest in participating.

"We are more than happy to participate, but you're all too stupid that it's not even worth it!"

Wow, great argument there. It sounds like you're very secure in your belief system.

I am in the minority on a number of issues on Atlas (particularly trans rights), but I always defend my beliefs no matter how many people disagree with me.

Look, Atlas is unlike most social media giants in that there's no algorithm stacking the deck against you. We're a relatively small community, we're completely anonymous, and moderation here is generally lax enough that you don't have to worry about getting your posts removed unless you engage in a personal attack. There's nothing holding you back from defending your beliefs and engaging with red avatars, unless you're afraid that they're going to get more recommends than you.

If blue avatars/conservatives aren't able to defend their arguments on Atlas of all places, then that's not on red avatars. That's on blue avatars.

Your argument then, is that the forum is a fair place for both sides to make their arguments? That there is no bias present among moderation, or generally? I have said in the past that this forum certainly does give considerable leeway to posters, far more so than what you see on many other websites. I've constantly raised the example of AlternateHistory.com, whose administrator, Ian the Admin, and moderators, primarily CalBear, are utterly ruthless towards those who they see as violating their forum's policies. Oftentimes, they tend to be particularly harsh with those who express right-leaning or conservative viewpoints. We are lucky that such is not the case here.

But I think it would be wrong to say that this forum is without its faults. There a number of right-leaning or conservative posters who do make an effort to engage on here, and who are interested in debate. But they oftentimes find that the other side is not willing to give some credit to their arguments, even in the sense of conceding that a poster made a decent point. There have been instances in which right-leaning posters have suffered disproportionate punishment, compared to what has been meted out to their left-leaning counterparts. And there are times where it seems as if there ought to be only one correct viewpoint on a particular issue, and if anyone deviates from that viewpoint, they are ostracized.

Atlas is far from being one of the worst forums on the Internet, but there can be an effort to lower the tempo of arguments we have seen here, and to enforce standards that are more equitably applied.

[Calthrina950]

And there are times where it seems as if there ought to be only one correct viewpoint on a particular issue, and if anyone deviates from that viewpoint, they are ostracized.

There ARE many situations where there is only one correct viewpoint, and expressing other viewpoints results in being ostracized. And that's a good thing. Let me give you some examples.

"Democracy is bad."
"Political violence is not only acceptable, it's good."
"Genocide is good."
"Trump won the election due to Democratic voter fraud."
"Non-white and non-heterosexual people do not deserve the same rights as white heterosexuals."
"The majority of LBGTQ people are groomers / pedophiles."
"The medical community is in a woke conspiracy to sterile trans kids as a form of genocide."

If you want to lay out multiple good arguments for these kinds of viewpoints, you might not be ostracized for SOME of them, seeing as how you are operating on a logical basis and can defend your position in a debate, but otherwise, you probably will be (and should be) regarded as an idiot or a bigot or both, depending which one we're talking about.

Obviously, there are situations where there is only one valid viewpoint - at least, a viewpoint that the vast majority of civilized people can agree to. But I'm talking about issues of policy, such as abortion, immigration, and energy, to give a few examples, where there is a "consensus", as established among red avatars, and that anyone who breaks that "consensus" is to be regarded with scorn or with contempt. Even the most mundane kinds of issues can be cause for this to be the case. I encountered this many times over the last several years. There is a difference between criticizing someone for promoting violence or for wishing ill upon other people, and criticizing someone in the same vein for not sharing your viewpoint on a particular policy or political issue.

[Calthrina950]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

[Calthrina950]

I'll make another comment, and say that this thread certainly does demonstrate why nothing will change with regards to the current situation on this forum. Blue and red avatars have fundamentally different views of what this forum is and what it should be. It is unlikely that they will find any sort of common ground on this. Red avatars do not believe that this forum is inherently exclusive of opposing political viewpoints and believe that blue avatars are simply incapable of debating properly or defending their beliefs. Blue avatars think it is a waste of time to contribute in a space which, they feel, is hostile to them.

This sounds like a microcosm of American politics.

Democrats tell Republicans that GOP modern policies are illogical and/or immoral, and try to debate with Republicans in order to show that the GOP position doesn't hold up to logic and/or morality when scrutinized. Republicans USUALLY either refuse to debate altogether or they argue in bad faith so they can "win / stalemate" debates, even though the entire reason the Dems wanted to debate in the first place was to have a good faith discussion and show conservatives that the Dem position is more logical and/or more moral.

One MIGHT deduce from this that the Republicans don't really have superior ideas these days, otherwise they would be more willing (and maybe even eager) to debate in good faith and show the Dems why their left wing ideas make less sense than GOP ideas.

One major problem I see here is that you are assuming that Democratic positions on public policy are the only justifiable and morally correct ones, and that Republicans need to be "enlightened" and given a clear path out of their ignorance. If only they are able to see the light and repent for the evil of their ways, then can they thrive. That would imply that a one-party system ought to prevail. Of course, there is the argument that our Founding Fathers never envisioned a system of political parties such as the one we have. But they also didn't envision a society in which everyone would share the same viewpoints. I tend to believe that a society where there is only one worldview and where dissenting opinions are ruled illegitimate or are discouraged, is not a society that will thrive.

And this gets to the root of why blue and red avatars can't "just get along" on this forum, and why the situation won't change. You're unlikely to win over converts or to persuade people if you tell them that they are ignorant and that their way of thinking and believing is completely out of place in the modern world. In fact, telling people such things makes it more likely that they will double down on their preexisting beliefs. Obviously, Republicans or the "right" have a nasty habit of painting Democrats and the left with one brush, and considering them to be enemies of society and of common decency. That is clearly not the correct or appropriate approach either.

[Calthrina950]

One major problem I see here is that you are assuming that Democratic positions on public policy are the only justifiable and morally correct ones, and that Republicans need to be "enlightened" and given a clear path out of their ignorance. If only they are able to see the light and repent for the evil of their ways, then can they thrive. That would imply that a one-party system ought to prevail.

Your entire argument here is predicated on the idea that the Dems are "normal-ish" left or center-left party, and the Republicans are a "normal-ish" right or center-right party. Your logic doesn't take into account a number of extremely important factors, including one of the parties becoming anti-democracy, one of the parties taking their fight against civil rights too far, one party deciding that facts and science are getting in their way so they become anti-science and promote "alternative facts", etc.

Basically, your viewpoint here only applies in a "normal" situation, which 2022 America is not in. YES, the Democrat position that climate change is real and some sort of human intervention is needed is the only justifiable and morally correct position. YES, the Democrat position that America should remain a democracy with free and fair elections is the only justifiable and morally correct position. We've even had a small handful of posters in 2020 and 2021 advocating for absolutely zero COVID restrictions, NOT on the basis of "they don't work", but on the basis of "they might actually work, but individual freedom is more important". That is the morally wrong position and it isn't justifiable.

I'm not trying to be an a$$h0le here, but this premise that "all ideas are equally valid" that favours Republicans happens to fit the definition of "cultural marxism" that the far-right claims to be at war with. Just saying.

You are obviously aware that I been very critical of the direction Republicans have gone in, particularly with regards to Trump. I am not a Trumpist, far from it, and I've generally been accused in the past of taking a "#both sides" approach to politics. I think it is inherently unfair to accuse all Democrats, or all Republicans, of possessing the exact same viewpoints on every issue, and that is done too frequently here. It is also inherently unfair to assert that one political party is morally correct on every issue.

Let us assume that we were in an alternate timeline, in which Trump had never become President and the Republican Party resembled that of the Bush Era. I have no doubt that there would still be harsh criticism of it and its adherents on this forum, and you would still have assertions that only one train of thought is sustainable or defensible. What you're saying here is that this forum should be a space for only one train of thought. I don't believe that Leip - who founded Atlas more than twenty years ago - would have intended for this to be an echo chamber.