The exodus of the blue avatars

[T'Chenka]

Atlas has been around for two decades, through Dubya, Obama, and Trump, but now in the Biden / post-Trump era, a notable number of blue avatars have decided to either post way less or take a hiatus from the blog altogether.

The explanation that has been given to us is that Atlas is becoming a left wing echo chamber, but is that really the case? I'm interested in hearing what the community at large has to say about this.

[T'Chenka]

Personally, I think the Republican Party has jumped the shark, abandoning the truth, abandoning democracy and shifting their focus from more important issues to owning the libs and culture wars (even over democracy). Instead of the blue avatar community here watching the party leave them and becoming green or yellow avatars, I feel like a lot of the Republicans here (and everywhere in general) have instead followed Trump down the rabbit hole. The GOP's actions and policies are no longer as defensible in rational debates, and the blue avatars are frustrated that their ability to win / stalemate arguments in good faith is disappearing.

[T'Chenka]

There are instances where threads vehemently attacking the GOP for things are roundly applauded while threads pointing out Democrats' failures are quickly met with "why is this an issue?" or "not a problem. Next!".

Many people including myself would strongly argue that the organization known as the Republican Party and the politicians that represent it are not as honest, moral or reasonable as they used to be pre-Trump. We would also argue that the current problems with the GOP are MUCH much more serious (and dangerous) than the current problems with the Democratic Party, and they are in fact putting the lives of poor people, women and minorities at risk even more than they usually do, as well as the very democracy that is the fabric of America.

You may not agree with that, but many people do, and the evidence seems to bear that out as well. If ANY political party is doing that, regardless of their place on the political spectrum or what country we're talking about, it's reasonably follows that many people will attack them and cheer when others attack them until they get their s__t together and go back to being a "normal" party that focuses on policy and supports democracy.

I guess blue avatars don't want to have to defend the GOP's actions? Their grievance seems to be that their party is under attack, but they haven't considered the full context of what their party is doing to the country and WHY people are attacking them more than usual. That's my take anyways.

So I guess a more accurate description would be that Atlas in 2022 is an "anti-GOP echo chamber", seeing as how the GOP and the right wing itself are two very different things that have a lot overlap with each other. Many right wingers have rejected the post-Trump GOP and become independents.

[T'Chenka]

Personally, I think the Republican Party has jumped the shark, abandoning the truth, abandoning democracy and shifting their focus from more important issues to owning the libs and culture wars (even over democracy). Instead of the blue avatar community here watching the party leave them and becoming green or yellow avatars, I feel like a lot of the Republicans here (and everywhere in general) have instead followed Trump down the rabbit hole. The GOP's actions and policies are no longer as defensible in rational debates, and the blue avatars are frustrated that their ability to win / stalemate arguments in good faith is disappearing.

Are you under the impression this forum encourages rational, good faith debates?

Overall, yes, it does. When right wingers want to argue in good faith, discussions happen. Usually people agree to disagree, but occasionally people re-evaluate their positions. This doesn't happen often enough, but the forum does facilitate it and welcome it.

[T'Chenka]

If you want to actually debate or have substantive discussions with someone than discord is clearly a better medium but this is a better medium for discussion about past elections , alternative history or just if you want to comment on the news but aren’t really interested in debating .

Disagree :

Debate is better in a forum format, as your posts are way more likely to be seen by everybody and therefore people can't get away with posting nonsense without getting called out for it.

[T'Chenka]

For me, the reason I've been posting here has been that my life outside of Atlas has gotten a lot more busy

And this is something else that distinguishes blue avatars from red ones.  We're real people with real jobs, families and other commitments competing for our time while red avatars have always skewed younger/more engaged. 

I work 44 hours every week, sometimes more. Badger works probably 50 hours per week (ballpark figure) or more.

[T'Chenka]

I think much of this has less to do with the culture of Atlas and more to do with the nature of conservatism itself. At best, conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo, so they haven't really though about how they might defend their beliefs. They've never had to. They're not advocating for any kind of change, so they don't have any institutions or leaders to challenge. Conservatives generally hail from echo chambers and have rarely, if ever, had their belief system challenged. They haven't been exposed to liberal/progressive line of thought. If they have, it's been a strawman or extremist outlier manufactured by Fox News or some other conservative outlet. So when they finally do encounter a left-leaning person who competently defends their beliefs, it feels like a personal attack. It's the same reason why many conservatives feel that their opinions are not welcome in a university setting. It's the first time where someone has actually made them defend why they believe what they believe.

  

 

lol do you deny that conservatives are generally in echo chambers?

no less than progressives are in

A lot of progressives spend time socializing and debating with mainstream Democrats / center-left people who are their love-hate allies against the right wing. Rose Twitter is the loudest progressive voice, but that doesn't mean it's where most progressives actually are.

[T'Chenka]

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.

Supporting politicians from the other side of the spectrum and being able to have civil agree-to-disagree policy debates between the right and left in good faith are two very different things.

[T'Chenka]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

[T'Chenka]

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.

[T'Chenka]

I think a big disconnect here is that blue avatars deep down might not believe leftists and Democrats when they say that...

- if the Democratic Party and Joe Biden had done January 6th against Trump who won the election
- Newsom was acting like Mastriano is now regarding the 2024 electoral college
- Democrats were engaging in voter suppression tactics
- Hundreds of Democrats in the federal and state congresses were approving of all of this

... if that were happening, and not the other way around, red avatars and burgundy avatars would begin temporarily voting Republican to make sure that the Democratic Party paid very deeply for doing that and was forced to become pro-democracy again in order to win back support of the voters.

I think that a lot of blue avatars think the red avatars are full of s__t when they say that they would be doing that, even though it's true. The idea that Democrats would actually value democracy over policy sounds like bulls__t to them.

I don’t think “red avatars” are a monolith, so it’s tough for me to say anything about them, but surely you can agree this isn’t true of the present leadership of the Democratic Party?

I don't really understand what you're asking me here...

[T'Chenka]

Whether you recognize that, in general, the present leadership of the Democratic Party is more motivated by will to power than sincere ideological belief, while the present leadership of the Republican Party is more motivated by sincere ideological belief than will to power.

I don't necessarily think this is true. I see more evidence that the GOP is willing to do whatever it takes to gain power than the Democrats.

[T'Chenka]

If someone believes the results from 2020 were questionable, a position which 40%+ of the country holds according to polling, a certain moderator will delete your posts (even if they're permitted within the TOS) and have you muted.

This should not happen IMO. They should be free to post their nonsense, and get 50 posts in reply laughing at their tomfoolery. Maybe that's why posts get deleted? To prevent threads from being derailed by people dunking on Big Lie truthers?

[T'Chenka]

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.

[T'Chenka]

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.

[T'Chenka]

It’s ironic how Chenka is just as moralistic as the religious right is , just of course in a different manner

I make no apologies for it.

[T'Chenka]

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.

On the contrary, I would like to see a forum with a bunch of Bush-era Republicans. Obviously there would be harsh criticisms, which is inevitable, and you would still see people like myself holding the viewpoints that Bushism isn't defensible, but we would not be as vocal and passionate about it, as Bushism isn't at war with democracy and reality as much as Trumpism is.

[T'Chenka]

Nonsense.  Liberals and conservatives disagree on some very fundamental things.  It is not in "bad faith" to reject how your opponent frames an issue; instead, it is (when done well) the highest and most essential from of debate.  

"Arguing in bad faith" meaning using strawmen, denying the facts, interpreting the facts in an illogical but politically conventient way, ignoring context when it's convenient, not debating with somebody in an honest way where both sides could potentially learn something and MAYBE alter their views, not abandon a good faith argument or switch to bad faith when they start losing the argument, or abandon a debate altogether where the other person is arguing in good faith when they can no longer provide a good faith rebuttal.

Several well known blue avatars that I won't name do several of these all the time. Red avatars typically abandon debates when the other side refuses to acknowledge facts or context. Not the same thing.

[T'Chenka]

Lockdowns were always a horrible idea. Pre-vaccine there should have been nothing more than mask requirements during the peaks of waves. I have no problem with the March 2020 lockdowns because we had no idea what the hell was going on. But the ones continuing after that were bad and wrong, and especially the ones in winter 2020-21 (which happened in a few states including CA) were indefensible. Trump was right to go after the Dem governors of those midwestern states in May and June 2020.

The vast majority of research and data indicates that if we used a time machine and did what you're proposing, a lot more people would have died or developed long-term heart or lung illnesses. When I say "a lot", I mean hundreds of thousands and possibly over a million.

What was so extremely important that made saving all of those lives "a horrible idea"? The concept of anti-collectivist libertarianism? I'm sure that would have comforted all the people who lost family members and comforted the people who died as they lay there dying.

[T'Chenka]

Or the reasons we value life to begin with. Life is valued in large part because it is good and worth living. Making life miserable merely for the sake of not letting a single person die is bizarre. I'd rather live 60 great years than 80 miserable ones.

Thank god we have right wingers to make these decisions for us all!

[T'Chenka]

Do you even think about what you post?

Lol of course I do. I'm not the one trying to make a false equivelance between ignoring experts to get people killed and mildly inconveniencing entitled hyper-anti-collectivists.

[T'Chenka]

Black Lives Matter and the defenses of BLM's activities have, indeed, being given immunity from criticism.  Any questioning of why people are silent in the face of BLM's crimes and destruction is made with allegations of "whataboutism" and inane personal attacks, no matter how inane the point that is being made by the Red Avatars.  And the Red Avatars lack self-control.  

Dude, you are no longer able to make a post on this forum without mentioning Black Lives Matter it. Who is the one that lacks self-control?

[T'Chenka]

I personally believe that many people want the Blue Avatars to leave.  They don't want any Republicans, and especially not Trump Republicans.  (I wonder how they deal with real life where my opinions are commonplace, but that's another sotry.)  They only want Republicans who were/are some form of RINO.  And their broad strategy in the Culture War (a war well worth fighting from my perspective) is to demonize.  That's a reflection of the real world at that time, but the real world does present some ability to push back against that.

We just want blue avatars who can defend their positions, believe in facts and logic, argue in good faith, and don't hold deplorable positions like "most gay people are pedophiles", "twelve year old girls who were raped by their dad should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term even if it puts their life at risk", "democracy isn't as important as policy", "if triple the amount of people died during COVID but we had no restrictions at all, it would have been worth it".

Other than that, bring on the blue avatars. I welcome them. But we might be asking for too much?

[T'Chenka]

... Second, your "Big Lie" line is tiresome.  Millions of Americans that are educated, work and pay taxes (you're in the process of one and not there for there yet for the other two) don't believe that the 2020 election was fairly administered, and they don't believe that irregularities and unconstitutional changes to voting procedures were given fair hearings in Court. 

LMAO.
Oh my. Where to start.
If people "are tiresome," they are tired of hearing garbage by those who try to defend trump's "stolen election" gibberish, such as the stuff you are posting here.
Millions of American Idiots are the only ones believing in this "the election was not fairly administered" horse-manure.
I mean honestly ... you were even pushing that "our election did not adhere to international election standards" hogwash, just 6 months ago or so.
Are you not embarrassed by all this?
You have really gone down-hill since the 2015 trump years. Good God.

Not to mention that a lot of the 60-something cases that either failed in court or were tossed out before the proceedings even began were overseen by Republican judges, some of whom were Trump appointees.

[T'Chenka]

I apologize for interjecting myself here, but at the end of the day what matters is respecting the rule of law, which means peacefully hewing to court decisions as to whether votes were legally cast or accurately counted. No electoral count or election is perfect, and at the margins there are errors and sure, possibly some fraud. What made the 2022 election and its aftermath different from other elections, is the refusal to respect the decisions of the courts when issues were litigated, and the violence, and the post election attempts to commit further fraud with phony electors, trying to coerce Pence to violate the law, and now we find out attempting to tamper with voting machines.

One can try to claim, hey, everyone does it, it has all been done before, but to me it is entirely unpersuasive. Even if it had been done before, that does not make this latest iteration any less execrable. That is my opinion on this matter.

You're approaching this rationally, which won't convince Trump cultists. They are working their way backwards from their cult beliefs (they election wasn't stolen, Trump is innocent) and then trying to find a logical way to build arguments around that. All we can do is demonstate clearly when they are wrong and how they are wrong as publically as possible, and make it clear to everybody that they aren't making rational assertions.