- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,420
@Gandhi:
I'm not forgetting the strong support I received last year from you and many others over the course of my campaign. In fact, it's the very reason I decided to run this year despite deciding early on I wouldn't. My decision came only about six hours before the deadline; the reason was that the candidates had, in my opinion, not offered sufficient proposals up to then. Don't get me wrong: the field of candidates is incredibly strong this year, there are many candidates that could have received my vote just based on my respect for the contribution they bring to this forum (shoutout to @Kafir-kun, @Quipling who actually announced seven minutes after me (and technically after the deadline IIRC), @Falsedawn, even @snakedafunky who I couldn't vote for due to his insane Hitler campaign). But I was not sure this would achieve the intended outcome.
You're only partially correct in pointing out the @MusterX fiasco as a result of my 'bipartisanship' campaign. It was actually a purely tactical move designed to give me access to a voter pool I could otherwise would not have been able to (and, eventually, did not) access.
Last year, the reason @Palis won the POTWR was the insane number of, as you call them, deplorabots. In fact, I received many votes from the sane right (including e.g. @JudoThrowFiasco and @Arkain2K). So don't get me wrong, I know I am fighting that exact issue. Last year, we were risking devolving into an alt-right echo chamber. The reason people voted for @Palis was mainly political alignment (and the fact that their campaign was probably more fun). Now, with the (self-)purge of many far right-wing posters, this place is definitely more balanced than it was before; however, I visit the WR mainly because I want to be exposed to arguments from both sides. I know for example I'll mostly align with your views on most issues. But the actual value add the WR brings is reading the "other" opinions and either changing, adapting, or furthering your own opinion. We need the conservatives, as they need us, and we cannot have the War Room become a liberal echo chamber (note: there's currently NO evidence of danger for that; just saying that this is also not the way to go).
Therefore, and now we're back to the points I made earlier, I want to achieve two things and have laid out policy proposals for these:
1) Fighting shitposting (building the Wall and making the OT / SB / Heavies / Stormfront pay for it)
2) Bridging the divide
And number 2 is a tricky one. Both you and @HomerThompson said honesty and the non-falsification of facts is a prerequisite for discussion. The thing is though, in this age, where you actually have discussions about what facts are and what a believable source is (and there's no consensus!), this negotiation over the veracity of facts actually needs to be part of the discussion. Heck, I've done that myself many times before (e.g. http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/9...rape-and-sex-offenses.3304531/#post-119611713 ). The issue is that we're not just dealing with those who alter facts on purpose, but also with those who seriously believe in the legitimacy of their flawed sources. But if we neglect #2, then #1 may just further the echo chamber.
I'm not forgetting the strong support I received last year from you and many others over the course of my campaign. In fact, it's the very reason I decided to run this year despite deciding early on I wouldn't. My decision came only about six hours before the deadline; the reason was that the candidates had, in my opinion, not offered sufficient proposals up to then. Don't get me wrong: the field of candidates is incredibly strong this year, there are many candidates that could have received my vote just based on my respect for the contribution they bring to this forum (shoutout to @Kafir-kun, @Quipling who actually announced seven minutes after me (and technically after the deadline IIRC), @Falsedawn, even @snakedafunky who I couldn't vote for due to his insane Hitler campaign). But I was not sure this would achieve the intended outcome.
You're only partially correct in pointing out the @MusterX fiasco as a result of my 'bipartisanship' campaign. It was actually a purely tactical move designed to give me access to a voter pool I could otherwise would not have been able to (and, eventually, did not) access.
Last year, the reason @Palis won the POTWR was the insane number of, as you call them, deplorabots. In fact, I received many votes from the sane right (including e.g. @JudoThrowFiasco and @Arkain2K). So don't get me wrong, I know I am fighting that exact issue. Last year, we were risking devolving into an alt-right echo chamber. The reason people voted for @Palis was mainly political alignment (and the fact that their campaign was probably more fun). Now, with the (self-)purge of many far right-wing posters, this place is definitely more balanced than it was before; however, I visit the WR mainly because I want to be exposed to arguments from both sides. I know for example I'll mostly align with your views on most issues. But the actual value add the WR brings is reading the "other" opinions and either changing, adapting, or furthering your own opinion. We need the conservatives, as they need us, and we cannot have the War Room become a liberal echo chamber (note: there's currently NO evidence of danger for that; just saying that this is also not the way to go).
Therefore, and now we're back to the points I made earlier, I want to achieve two things and have laid out policy proposals for these:
1) Fighting shitposting (building the Wall and making the OT / SB / Heavies / Stormfront pay for it)
2) Bridging the divide
And number 2 is a tricky one. Both you and @HomerThompson said honesty and the non-falsification of facts is a prerequisite for discussion. The thing is though, in this age, where you actually have discussions about what facts are and what a believable source is (and there's no consensus!), this negotiation over the veracity of facts actually needs to be part of the discussion. Heck, I've done that myself many times before (e.g. http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/9...rape-and-sex-offenses.3304531/#post-119611713 ). The issue is that we're not just dealing with those who alter facts on purpose, but also with those who seriously believe in the legitimacy of their flawed sources. But if we neglect #2, then #1 may just further the echo chamber.
