Does DU need/want a debate section for respectful RWers?

[white_wolf]

I've been to a few different forums that have sections for debating the views opposing the mainstream of the Forum. Should DU3 have a special section where we respectful RWers and libertarians can debate us and we can debate them? They would be restricted to that one forum, but it might help us convince the more moderate ones. What do you all think?

[zaj]

1. Absolutely!

Debate is what makes this country great.

[musette_sf]

18. Those who wish to debate with pubs and libertarians

have plenty of sites to do so.

Compromising DU, when the RW Noise Machine owns almost ALL the microphones and PA systems, will only dilute the purpose of the site. I'm fed up with RW appeasement in general, and I'm not about to want to appease "respectful" wingers and I-got-mine-atarians on DU.

I haven't missed wingers and IGMatarians on DU for lo these 7 years, and I've suffered no lack of debate, I can go to other sites for that.

[blondeatlast]

2. No. nt

[hlthe2b]

3. Seems that even with the DLCer Democrats, we argue pretty

intensely. I think RW subforum would be a real "free for all." But, I also know we had some self-identified Republicans in past yeaars who did post for a while and were quite respectful. I think they are welcome if they follow the rules, but that is hard for many to do.

[white_wolf]

7. Well one reason I bring this up is we did have a republican here

a few weeks ago who made one post, he seemed fairly respectful to me, but he was banned in like an hour. His opening post seemed okay, anyway, I didn't read the whole thread, I just think we might have more of an impact if we had an open debate section.

[hlthe2b]

11. Hmm...

I don't think policy has changed to the point that a respectful conservative could not self identify and still post. But, perhaps I am wrong.

[UTUSN]

4. No. Just, no. We get quite enough "debating" and debating is futile to start with.

Even "winning" an argument is futile and nobody can ever be convinced.

[anneboleyn]

68. I, for one, am tired of accommodating them. They never reach out to us.

But they always demand to be accommodated and "heard," even on DU apparently. They already dominate cable news and the airwaves, so it's nice to have a place in which we can be free from all of that noise. I agree about the arguments also. Nobody "wins."

[Wait Wut]

79. There are some that do.

A year or so back I was on Conservative Underground. I normally debate with some humor, and many of the regulars there enjoyed a little more light-hearted debate. The moderator wasn't as thrilled, however. He actually started a thread to see how many wanted to have me banned.

An overwhelming majority voted to keep me there. I even received several private messages and friend requests. Haven't been back in forever, though. Not sure what it's like now. The mods and heads were taking it in a very obvious teaper direction.

Talking Points Memo has always been open to opposing views, but things work differently there. The regulars were good at self-regulating, so the disrespect was never as over-the-top like it can get here.

I honestly don't think it would work at DU. Folks here aren't very open to discussing opposing views even from their own side.

[Raksha]

5. No.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. No. I have no desire to have somebody parrot what is said everyday on TV ''news".

[fredamae]

8. I think it's vital!

Great idea!

[blondeatlast]

36. Okay--the RRRWingers need to be moderated and the rest of us

get a free-for-all.

Bless your heart...

[fredamae]

87. Ok, sounds fair :)

I'm just thinking that it is another opportunity to educate some folks who in turn, might "turn" a couple. I also understand other's points of view.

I'm new here, I defer the decision to those of you who have enjoyed relative peace on DU :)

[blondeatlast]

Peace? Sure--"peace."

That's an interesting way of putting it.

[musette_sf]

9. No, thanks

DU is my refuge. There's a whole big world out there to engage with Pubs and libertarians. And we have MORE than enough libertarians flying under the radar here anyway,

[Angry Dragon]

10. I would go along with that

[JaneQPublic]

12. "respectful" + "RWers" = oxymoron (nt)

[closeupready]

13. No, absolutely not. If I want to read their garbage,

I'll go elsewhere. We shouldn't be subjected to it here. I know my enemy well enough on my own, and most certainly do NOT appreciate people bringing their shit here, imposing on us.

[Solly Mack]

14. Fuck no. Part of the reason for DU is to get away from right wingers.

[musette_sf]

21. hell to the yeah

[SidDithers]

15. No...nt

Sid

[jpak]

16. No - cuz there ain't none. It will be a koookoo bin

yup

[CC]

17. No. n/t

[leftstreet]

19. Only if it's completely unmoderated

:o

[blondeatlast]

39. +1. nt

[SecularMotion]

52. I like the way you think

:)

[mmonk]

62. LOL

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. No, there are plenty of places to go to argue with the nitwits. n/t

[Bragi]

20. Yes, it's a good idea

Actual civil discourse might break out, but it's worth a try anyway.

[Vanje]

22. No

[Lex]

23. "respectful rightwingers"

Hope springs eternal.

[Oilwellian]

117. An oxymoron if you will. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

24. No.

[no limit]

25. I don't see what it would hurt

[EstimatedProphet]

26. DU burp.

[anneboleyn]

71. Ming the Merciless. Brilliant. "Pathetic Earthlings!"

[Horse with no Name]

27. No. I know what they stand for and I am not interested.n/t

[Kingofalldems]

28. Sure if the republicans posing as Democrats would come out

[Cleita]

29. No. They seldom stay respectful. If you want to

duel with conservatives, there is YouTube and other venues to play with them.

[Jim__]

30. Sure. A separate section could be avoided by people who didn't want to participate.

Only people wanting to debate with RWers would have to put up with the arguments.

[Uben]

31. No. Why waste bandwidth?

I don't argue with republicans. It is futile. If you wanna argue with them, do it somewhere else, not here. Their ignorance is intolerable.

[pintobean]

32. No. Plenty show up here (temporarily) and aren't welcome.

[kentuck]

33. A lot of DUers with no institutional memory...

There is a reason it is the way it is. The site was so disrupted when first opened that the Admins had to figure out a way to save it from the right-wing talking points. There was no room to discuss democratic ideas and options because we were too busy arguing with nonsensical bullshit from the freepers. We knew all their talking points already. They were a waste of time to rehash over and over. So it decided to keep it open for Democrats and progressives. You don't think there is enough infighting as is? :-)

[Maeve]

76. Agreed--it becomes hell for moderators, too

How can you answer talking points without flat-out calling them liars sooner or later?

There are plenty of places to try to have civil discourse with conservatives--go check out how well that works, then come back to the relative sanity of DU.

[GodlessBiker]

34. No.

[JuniperLea]

35. It failed once already... nope, shouldn't try again...

We have enough debate internally... and I'm not ready for a bunch of all caps typing poor spellers with attitude beyond their IQ.

[ismnotwasm]

37. No n/t

[Drale]

38. If you can find any respectful right wingers

I don't think you'll be able to find any though.

[DainBramaged]

40. There's a shitload here now, respectful, no......

[JCMach1]

41. ummm HELL NO!

[Newest Reality]

42. In some other context,

that would be a reasonable idea.

However, since most of what I encounter from RWers is based on what they have been told to think, believe, write and say, generally speaking, why waste time dealing with issues that the media and GOP fashion for their consumption? We see it and hear it all the time and the corporate media is complicit in framing and relaying the message.

So, we would be on the defense more than having a debate. The RW message is an aggressive fabrication designed to support and further the intents, power and control of exploitative manipulators who represent our current Status Quo and its exclusive agenda.

Nope, let's not give them anymore space to air their fictitious hatred, divisiveness, exploitation, greed and domination games -- they have enough already. The paid sock-puppets will just make more money spewing inanities, if we do.

[Cirque du So-What]

43. No

You may as well bash your head against a concrete-block wall as try to make any headway with RWers - respectful or not. The day DU gets opened to Republicans is the day I leave & never bother looking back. Besides, DU has a place where the RW viewpoint is embraced every mother-scratchin' day, although it's limited to a single topic. Decorum prevents me from mentioning it by name, but it rhymes with 'fun.'

On edit: a cursory glance at discussions occurring in that forum reveals that what passes for political discourse is *anything BUT* 'respectful.' Considering what you know about every other forum here - with nothing but ostensible 'democrats' making up the participants - imagine RWers and libertarians thrown into the mix. Like I said, the day such a zoo becomes a reality is my last day here.

[Iggo]

44. Not just No, but Fuck No. (n/t)

[blondeatlast]

45. This may be the only issue on which the warring factions of DU can agree. Congratulations. nt

[seabeyond]

46. no. i have been on repug/dem boards and repugs dont debate respectfully

it is a head pounding on the wall kinda experience. no desire for facts.

[glinda]

47. No.Sets a dangerous precedent.

[whoneedstickets]

48. We have it, its called the Gun Forum. They aren't that respectful..

..but you can read all the standard Freeper arguments there.

[JDPriestly]

49. The RWers and libertarians spew their views all day on talk radio

and TV. This is an oasis for the rest of us normal Americans.

Normally, I would be for dialogue, but I come to DU to exchange information with people who share my values. I really enjoy the fact that this is the one place on the web where I will be able to gather the information and facts that I need and want to know without a lot of static and interference from shortsighted loudmouths.

I oppose having any intrusion from the RW or libertarians.

[swilton]

50. I would rather see a left vs. left debate - a la

a primary challenge to Obama.

The right fringe is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Demonizing the likes of Trump, Palin, Bachman, and debates over same gets a few laughs but gets nowhere vis a vis solving the mega problems facing this country.

[fasttense]

51. No

RepubliCONS are not hardly ever respectful. Sure, they may start out that way but eventually they move on to racism, sexism, personal insults and stupidity.

Just check out some boards like AOL that allow RepubliCONS on their Democratic boards. You can not have a logical insult free discussion with these people.

I know, I've tried. They can always come here and post if they remain respectful, racist and sexism free. But the only ones I see here are here to post RepubliCON talking points and then leave logic and manners by the wayside when you point out their inconsistent logic.

[houstonintc]

53. We should be open to discussion and debate...

Even internally many of us may hold views others might dub Conservative.

I myself might be considered fairly traditional or conservative in some old fashioned sense of the word by some standards, at least on some issues. In general we should always be open to dissent, debate, and discussion.

[JoePhilly]

54. Might remind those who attack Obama endlessly what we're up against. nt

[woofless]

55. No.

[LLStarks]

56. Sure. Why not? The budget debate is turning DU into an echo chamber. nt

[blondeatlast]

57. This thread is clearly demonstrating why the idea is not at all necessary.

Siiiigh...

[SoCalDem]

58. NO.. they already infect 99.9999999% of every "debate".. they should stay out of here

[xxqqqzme]

59. No -

absolutely not. They already occupy way too much of the media. They don't need any other avenues for their lame ass views.

[RagAss]

60. I believe your proposal has 2 chances.....None and None Whatsoever !

[ohheckyeah]

61. I tried that on my blog

and I got the same talking points over and over and over again. I finally just banned the rightwingers from my blog. What's the point in debating the same talking points repeatedly?

[Keefer]

63. I vote yes.

Why not? The more their crazy ideas are out in the open, the more they get rejected. In the words of one of their heroes: "Bring it on."

[yawnmaster]

65. plenty of other places that are not here. eom

[NoGOPZone]

64. Better idea is to let these respectful RWers try to bring some civility

to their rabid brethren where they are allowed to post.

[Forkboy]

66. If there's other forums where they can be debated, do it there.

:)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

93. It would be funny though if a freeper showed up with a Mothra avatar and challenged you.

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

95. Inconceivable!

When those two fought Mothra won. Now, I may be as dumb as mayonnaise, but that's still smarter than a Freeper, so I couldn't lose. The whole thing would be historically inaccurate!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

96. .

:spray: :thumbsup: "Freepers, dumber than mayonnaise since 1997"

[yawnmaster]

67. I don't think so.

[yawnmaster]

69. What would we really get out of it? Except for those that just want to debate for ...

the sake of debate (and many do!), I think in the end the negatives outweigh that positive.

[retread]

70. "Respectful RWers"???

[anneboleyn]

72. an oxymoron, aye.

[ecstatic]

73. um.. no... it's hard enough keeping discussions with the "respectful" greens,

socialists, anarchists, etc. respectful.

[white_wolf]

104. I'm a respectful socialist.

I, honestly haven't seen very many unrespectful members of any of the groups you mentioned.

[H2O Man]

74. Other than GD?

[Warren Stupidity]

75. seriously

[tekisui]

80. That was to be my response.

[Zorra]

113. LOL!

incoming!
:hide:

[johnnie]

77. Nope

It's very very rare that a right winger has any sense. I've tried talking to some of them and there hasn't been one that can think for themselves.

[elocs]

78. No. DU is a refuge for Democrats, not a place for debate/dialog with RWers,

respectful or otherwise.

[CTyankee]

81. It seems to me that this would be redundant since DUers are always

posting RW articles and then skillfully knocking down their talking points one by one. Others join in and by the end of the day the talking point is pretty much shredded.

As long as we have DUers willing to read/hear the RW arguments and rehash them here on DU for the rest of us who cannot bring ourselves to endure them, we'll have more than enough RW views to educate us.

One of the reasons I watch Morning Joe is to catch the drift of RW thinking on a current subject of debate. When I present my findings on DU I often get responses such as "I never watch that crap." That's fine, but some of us like to be aware of what the other side has planned so we can be ready for them.

[Recursion]

82. There are boards for that. I don't think this is one. (nt)

[Canuckistanian]

84. No. They infiltrate EVERY CORNER of a discussion board

Even technical or hobby forums. And DU is SO MUCH more than a political discussion site.

I'm glad DU is here and I like the rules.

[MrSlayer]

85. Yes. It's kind of boring in the echo chamber.

I like a spirited debate.

[blondeatlast]

91. 1. So there's no spirited debate right here? 2. Can't a spirited

argument be found elsewhere on the intertubes?

I used to moderate a diabetes board that got as nasty as a GD/P bprimary battle over the Atkins diet--and I'm not exaggerating.

[MrSlayer]

111. There is some. But it's not quite the same.

I like to rip into people every so often and that sort of behavior in not encouraged here.

[cynatnite]

86. This question gets asked periodically and the answer is always the same...

I absolutely DO NOT want RWer's of any stripe here at DU. I come here to get away from their toxicity.

[maddezmom]

88. No thanks

:)

[geardaddy]

89. Nope. n/t

[cynatnite]

90. I should also add that at one time they were allowed here at DU in the early days...

It was an unmitigated disaster from what we've been told. Skinner and Elad purged DU of those types because of how bad DU had gotten as a result.

You let them in one place, before you know it, they're in every forum.

It's good to know those types will NEVER be welcome here.

[Ahpook]

92. Probably not a good idea

This site is nice to grab the latest headlines with discussion. Besides, these freaks don't understand what a civil discussion is. They will come in bloated up with the bullshit talking points. Once those are shot down they resort to name calling.

Happens on every other forum I visit.

[highplainsdem]

94. White_wolf, if there ARE any "more moderate ones" who might be convinced, they're much more likely

to be convinced by seeing news stories in LBN (or blunt discussions here among Democrats) about all the harm Republicans are doing. No polite little debating forum is likely to change their minds if they show up just to debate. You'll be much more likely to see GOP operatives posting there to amuse themselves, or Freepers trying desperately to sound reasonable for a while, just to try to distract Dems online from what Republicans are actually doing.

[philly_bob]

97. Chill out, DUers. I think it would be healthy & it would spread liberalism

by example...

[blondeatlast]

103. Because there is no other place on the internets for political debate--yes, DU

must absolutely step in to fill that void.

Geez.

[Baclava]

98. Not only no - but hell no..... we have enough warmongers here

You know who you are.



Oh,Oh... I'm about to be censored again...I just know it.

[shanti]

99. no n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

100. Respectful RW? Nooooo.

[kentuck]

101. I think they may already be here?

under deep cover.

[Wind Dancer]

102. No! n/t

[proud patriot]

105. I enjoy debating them

:shrug:

[MilesColtrane]

106. No

There was a study done fairly recently that showed that presenting someone with facts that disprove with their opinions only makes them more adamantly defend and believe their faulty viewpoints.

Besides, if I ever get the urge to argue with a Neanderfuck, I can always walk out my door and find plenty of them.

[Thegonagle]

107. Why not? If limited to the "respectful," it would be a pretty small section anyway. nt

[LanternWaste]

108. I'd love to see it, but the GOP posters would most likely get...

I'd love to see it, but the GOP posters would most likely get dog-piled on regardless of how polite and civil they were.

[murdoch]

109. Nader and Palestine and so forth

I remember years ago posts being locked and people even being banned for supporting Nader.

Also currently, posts which discuss say the recent white phosphorous attacks by Israel on Gaza are moved to a special forum, which has its own strict and convoluted rules.

We should have a forum where people who supported Nader and the like, or who are against the IDF killing civilians and the like, can discuss these things without having their threads locked or getting banned.

[mountainlion55]

110. NO!

NO NADA ZILCH Zero NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[Generic Other]

112. count me out

I don't speak irrationalese.

[lonestarnot]

114. Fuck no! I don't want no stinkin' pugs! Eva! Anywhere.

[JVS]

115. We already have disrespectful ones among us.

[ddeclue]

116. no.