Where are the liberal trolls?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 04:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

I think there is but we don't use political labeling when we express our views because we realize it is a childish act. We let our views speak for us without having to feel like we belong to some exclusive club.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

Interesting observation.

I know some people enjoy Fred's whatsahoozit and no one is forced to read it, but some of the "political discussion" really drags down the site as a whole (imho, of course). I quoted that phrase because many topics are posted under that guise when they have very little to do with politics and involve absolutely ZERO discussion.

The forum moderators (?) should code-in a system that automatically replaces words like "liberal", "conservative", etc with "puppies" and "kitty cats".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 17 2007, 08:41 PM) [snapback]444624[/snapback]</div>

Very well put!

 

Lets face it, the liberals are just a little slower. But once they get started they never stop. This thread is a good example.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

Several possible reasons:

1. God,
2. Evolution which always seeks out superior performance.
3. Maturation - as the website, and also seen in humans, ages it becomes smarter more experienced and more conservative --- if you are not a liberal at age 20 you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by age 40 you have no brain.

 

PriusChat is already a bastion of liberal trolls. You all just don't recognize each other as such because you are all nodding your heads instead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 07:38 PM) [snapback]444497[/snapback]</div>

My interpretation is that those who author that kind of post, quite clearly meant to provoke arguments and not discourse or intelligent debate, are the least confident of their position, regardless of the rhetoric used. This is basically digital bullying; it would not surprise me if these posters were the class bullies in their school years and are just continuing in a different format/media.

Here's my lunch money. Now go away.

 

The baseline on Prius Chat is extreme liberal left bias.

Someone new could come in here and say the most outrageous liberal crap on the planet and it wouldn't be detected as troll, but gather a round of "Amen, preach it brother"...

Which is why common sense and anything even approaching moral is seen as being a troll.

You really should get off of Prius Chat into... let's say... the real world sometime and find out that everyone doesn't think like this. There are normal people in the world who can think for themselves.

 

I really do think that part of it is that you don't label someone that shares your views a "troll." The liberals are definitely in the majority on this board and so it's only the posts by conservatives that get labeled as troll-like. Moreover, I'm sure that a lot of the conservative folks that post to this board realize that everyone here is liberal and feel a need to overcompensate. Also, there are definitely some parallels between annoying things the conservatives do (i.e. dbermanmd always relating every discussion back to Iraq) to annoying things some liberals do (i.e. MANY people relating everything back to how much Bush sucks). As a Bush-hating, pinko commie liberal, even I am a bit bothered sometimes by the reflexive, not-thought-through responses of some of my brethren. It's just not something that bothers me as much as it does when a conservative does it, since I generally share the view of the liberal.

Oh, and I forgot to say: Bush sucks.

 

I think in general reality has a liberal bias. The further you are from logic and reality, the louder you need to be. Also, most conservative ideas rest on a logical flaw that can be easily be exposed with a sentence or two. Hence, requiring a paragraph or two of mental gymnastics for the conservative to justify their position.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ May 18 2007, 09:36 AM) [snapback]444780[/snapback]</div>

They could - but I think PintoGirl's point was that no one does, at least in the ~1 year she's been on PC. So you're not really addressing her point, but postulating what would happen if someone did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 18 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]444781[/snapback]</div>

Iran i think you meant to say - only becuase imho - the greatest mistake that can be made today is allowing them to go nuclear. this being said, quite a few of your fellow liberals go back to iraq whenever possible to - often going to directly to American casualties...

otherwise, nicely said.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 18 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]444781[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe it's as simple as not sharing views; it's more the semantics of the way the message is delivered that earns a "troll" label.

Is there any evidence to back up the claim that liberals are in the majority on this board? I seem to remember some kind of a poll (about the political majority of the board) happening but I thought it was inconclusive since I believe it spun off into a tangential death-spiral. Btw, I'm not challenging what you said, since it's not the first or only time this has been stated, but I am curious if this has been proven one way or the other.

 

Attribution: xkcd.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ May 18 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]444787[/snapback]</div>

here are some interesting questions i would like you to answer to see what type of mental gymnastics you may have to go through - yes or no will be fine thanks:

1. should the Constitution be amended to allow a mother to terminate her pregnancy without exception?
2. should two men be allowed to marry and should four people be allowed to marry each other?
3. should capital punishment be allowed?
4. do all people have a right to a free press?
5. do all people have a right to a unbiased judiciary?
6. do all people have a right to self-determination?
7. do all people have a right to obtain an education?
8. do all people have a right to express their religion without fear of persecution or harm?
9. do higher taxes lead to prosperity?
10. are Islamists "freedom fighters"?
11.did george bush have prior knowledge of 9/11?
12. there should be total and complete separation of church from state in the USA?

thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 09:10 AM) [snapback]444809[/snapback]</div>

1. None of my business. I can not get pregnant so I would not presume to have an opinion on that.
2. If it makes them happy.
3. That would be just an opinion. I think yes but pretty much only if the criminal is caught in fraganti or the evidence is overwhelming.
4. Sure.
5. Sure.
6. Sure. By the way depending on your answer to this it could be contradictory to 1 and 2.
7. Sure.
8. Sure.
9. Sometimes. It varies with the situation.
10. No. Killing is bad.
11. I think "Bin Laden determined to strike America" was a hint. I personally would not have gone on vacation.
12. There should be no relationship between church and state. Tithe should be income and taxed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 18 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]444809[/snapback]</div>

You know, "yes or no" really removes some (IMO valid) answers... (Of course, I feel that is your point) Specifically...

I feel the government should have absolutly nothing to do with marriage. It's a religious institution, and if any number of people wish to get married, and their church will do it, why should the government get in the way?

However, there are obviously some government-granted benefits to marriage that really do depend on it being limited to two people. If one person in a polygamous relationship is in the hospital, who makes the decisions? In a two-person marriage, that's obvious. With more, it's more difficult. Do you go with the majority? What if there is no majority?

I'd have the government grant civil unions that would grant the same rights and privileges as marriage today to any pairings of two people, regardless of gender, and leave "marriage" to the religions to deal with.

I suppose you could summarize that as "yes"... but I don't feel "yes" is the entire answer.

(Also, why specifically two men? Do you expect or have a different answer for two women?)

(To answer the remaining questions... 1 no (but only because of "without exception"), 3 yes (but only in cases of extreme flight risk and danger to the public. I feel life in prison is a better punishment), 4 yes, 5 yes, I don't know what you are asking with 6, 7 yes, 8 yes, 9 no (but neither do lower taxes), 10 no, 11 Wth, 12 yes)

 

That about proves the point that the baseline here is far left extremeism...

 

I think the reason you see that, Pinto Girl, is because most people are here to enjoy themselves and have a civil discussion. Due to the nature of the Prius, it's been a imostly liberal car (although i think thats starting to even out now), so a majority of the board is liberal.

The few who come to message boards looking to cause trouble, get in a fight, whatever, will naturally take a diametrically opposite view than what they feel the majority of the board feels. Since they're looking for an argument, they don't bother to take the time to post civilly.

For example, lets say there's an incident with a bombing in Iraq that's way out of the ordinary - hundreds of people die, or it's a dirty bomb, or something. The first class of people mentioned above would post something along the lines of "This is a horrible incident, i hope they catch those responsible, i hope we didn't have too many troops injured, etc". Someone wanting to pick a fight, on the other hand, would post something along the lines of "If the liberals have their way, there would be more bombing, more destruction, and more death in Iraq. This would look like a walk in the park compared to when the liberals have us pull out"

Two completely different ways of looking at the same situation... one is intended to sympathize, share knowledge, and start a discussion, while the other is intended to start a fight.


So in short, you see this because those wishing to make a splash and start a fight are going to pick a view point they believe is opposite of the views of the majority of the board.