Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Truce
We’ve reached a point in this cycle a lot like the end of the SSM debate. One side is currently ascendant and the other is acutely sensitive to anything that seems like gloating or punching down. We would encourage the former group to show a little sensitivity and the latter to grow a thicker skin.
For those who are now planning to vote for Trump, continuing to scold the Never Trump members is doing a disservice to the site and to the members themselves. It is one thing to work to try and persuade them to come over, it is another to morally castigate them. Trump is the nominee, that battle has been won. Psychoanalyzing, name calling, and gloating over Never Trump members will not bring them over, but it will poison the well for civil discussion after the election regardless of the outcome. It would be well to show some grace here.
For the Never Trump members, continuing to declare that Trump voters are somehow really progressives, pro big government, betrayers of the conservative movement, etc., is both reading intent into the actions of others and attempting to read such people out of the party / movement. You personally may feel it immoral to vote for Trump, you personally may believe that Trump is ruining the party or brand or future electoral chances, but to continue to insist that Trump supporters / voters on this site have betrayed conservative principles or that they are all advocates of an enlarged government is to engage with them in bad faith. It would be well to take them at their word when they say they believe a Trump victory would actually achieve conservative ends. No one is asking you to agree with them.
For both sides, a final word. Not every post disagreeable to you actually needs your disagreement. If you cannot engage with the post in a civil way then refrain from commenting. Not every disagreeable comment within a post needs your disagreement either. More than a fair number of flags of late are directed at one member or another claiming “bad faith” in some comment or line of argument, and most of this stems from from one side or another 1) reading intent where none was stated, 2) morally castigating the other’s position on Trump, or 3) some variation of “obviously you do not believe what you are saying.”
We are a little over a month out from the election and, as of this writing, the race is still competitive and we’re all more than a little bit tense. Arguing over whether we should or should not vote for Trump is, of course, still fair game, but continuing personal attacks on members for their stated positions is not. Further, it is in poor form to continue to assume ill intent or “bad faith” on each others’ comments and posts. Argue all you want over whether we should vote for Trump, but stop trying to morally condemn the other side.
Published in General
These points would have more weight if @skipsul weren’t a moderator.
We all know he’s just trying to lessen his workload.
Dock his pay!
Don’t worry, I’ve summoned the PIT.
Not my choices, not my circus…Thanks, anyway!
I’ve been saving my abuse for editors and contributors lately.
That’s pure calumny, sir, and you are an etaoin shrdlu!
I think @Arahant had some sort of stroke at the end there.
Let them scold away, it cannot change my core belief that Donald Trump would be a disaster for the United States. Doesn’t matter what the effect on the party is, I am concerned about the nation.
Isn’t there a Skipsul rule about threads like this?
Well there’s always the Moral Scold rule: anytime someone asks for civility the probability someone will comment that it’s OK for them to morally scold in the first 10 comments is 1.
…and it’s just bad form. That’s why I’ve tried to make it clear when I get involved in these Trump related threads that I still dig my center-right Trump voting brothers and sisters. I wish it wasn’t such a family food fight this time around, but I also recognize that reasonable people can and are disagreeing on this whole thing.
People see things differently than I do, they set up the problem a bit differently, and might run the math differently. It doesn’t make them bad people. We just disagree at this particular point in time.
Right, We have a candidate who knows no decency, either in his personal life (drugs, women, sexual misconduct, stiffing his contractors, sticking his lenders with unpaid debt by declaring bankruptcy) and his political life… (attacking POW’s and gold star families, attacking the looks of his opponents, calling his opponents names, attacking the moderators bodily functions or integrity) and all that before we get to his policy prescriptions of tariffs, religious discrimination, withdrawing from our alliances with the rest of the world, increasing the debt/deficit….
I just morally scold Trump, not his followers. Problem solved.
That just what someone like you would say! ;)
Here the distinction between Trump Voters and Trump Enthusiasts is important. You’re right that most Trump voters simply have a different calculation of the risks involved than I do. I don’t dispute their sincerity.
However, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that those who advocate nationalism at the expense of small government and free markets are not what most of us, both Reluctant and Never, would call “conservative.” (The emphasis is important. There’s nothing wrong with nationalism in and of itself.)
And?
Agreed. One of the things I’ve found interesting is that @tkc1101 and I — who could hardly disagree more on Trump — both started this cycle favoring either Walker or Perry.
Don’t make me pull out the Stallone!
gesundheit
There’s a Presidential election?? Who knew???
I’m afraid I don’t visit those threads anymore. And I am SO much happier. Ahhhh! (But for those who do, listen to skipsul!)
Really, this is not the post to rehash this.
Like, are there not enough places to argue??!!
But if we can’t start a fight here where can we start one?
Asking for a friend.
I should have said this earlier, but I wholly endorse Skip’s OP.
One thing that deserves extra stress is that telling someone what they think is a difficult and potentially dangerous thing to do. This doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done — it can be very illuminating — but efforts that make the attempt explicit as an attempt are likely going to go over much better.
“Based on your saying X, it sounds like you think Y,” may be presumptuous (and wrong), but it admits the possibility that it may be wrong or incomplete.
“You think Y” — especially when Y is uncomplimentary — is far more likely to cause trouble.
Exactly. If you just haven’t had enough of it yet and want to make the case why you are voting for or against someone, go for it. But enough of the badgering and scolding.
And I should have said as well that Tom got it going by writing the first sentence.
This post is not mine alone, it’s a collective response from some very tired and cranky editors and moderators.
Wishing for civility and adherence to the code of conduct is a wonderful thing, but I think any meaningful improvement is unlikely until this election is in the rear-view mirror. This is a winner take all contest for the soul of right-wing ideology. No one should be surprised it is contentious. Whether or not we can come back together after the election on whatever common ground remains between us is yet to be seen.
In the interim, the editors may want to consider whether or not allowing flash mobs to promote [expletive]posting to the main feed is a wise idea. Main feed promotion is the one thing that can and should be controlled in order to make sure the brand is well represented.