I'm not inclined to participate in Discussionist, but those type do comparisons do have value. I've been very curious from a social point of view what responses would be on various topics in the different venues

I couldn't think of a better one.


Excellent job!

Sun Tzu and Clausewitz both stressed the importance of understanding the mind of your opponent. This seems a way of doing so.

The OP got few responses here because most agree with it. Over there, the same image is kind of like flame-bait.

It was the anti-abortion comments that drew the discussion there. Do you really think, for one moment, that any minds were changed on that issue? And of what value is such a discussion to the upcoming midterms?

If you have nothing better to do, by all means, engage in discussion with people with whom you disagree entirely. But it seems to me a waste of time and a fool's errand: I learned long ago that there is never any winning the argument in these situations. I'm not saying we should only have circle jerks and talk to people with whom we agree. But there's enough disagreement here within a purportedly progressive community; I don't need to be trying to convince right-wingers that abortion should remain legal.

And unless we understand the opposition, winning is a lot harder.

If it's important to know that a lot of conservatives are anti-abortion, and that no matter what you say or what rational arguments or legal precedents you put forth they will remain locked in their rabid anti-woman, pro-gun ideas ... what precisely do you propose that (Democratic) candidates do to win?

Are you saying they should cater to these folk on abortion (or gun) issues?

I'm completely confused by your thinking here.

But surface knowledge isn't enough. In order to win, you have to be able to show the voting public the precise nature of their fuckwittery. And we can't do that if all we ourselves know is a rough outline of how they think.

Some here think debating Wingnuts is a waste of time. And it is, if it's converting them that you're after.

But it's the independent voters, watching the debate, that we can sway by beating the Wingnuts in the marketplace of ideas. They watch both sides, listen to both sides, and decide.

We can't assume that our ideas are so obviously correct that everyone will agree with us. For one thing, that has not been the case. No, we have to step outside of our comfort zones and spread our message.

we never will.
The other side lies and is dishonest. They believe in a false ideology.
They can't win on the issues
They believe in Faux Noise and wing nut radio
Why debate that?
All that site does is give them another platform to say the same shit they say on Freerepublic.
Go there if you don 'to understand them yet.

why the hell can't they spell?

I am 68 and we say they are a bunch of old white men so they may have the same problem as I do. Also my i phone changes things on me.

They are motivated solely by fear, hatred, paranoia and money.

I fail to see why Free Republic Lite is needed to prove that notion.

If you're implying that Discussionist is useful as a means of conducting rigorous research, I doubt it. Or even informal research, plenty of people here on DU have conducted, yep, rigorous political science research - ask them.

But I agree that if you feel like wasting time there spinning your wheels, no skin off my nose.

feel like they have to walk on eggshells to voice a desenting opinion when it comes to a number of topics.