rlmorel,
So in real life you’re a badass who faces down your opponents, but on the internet you ask people to be respectful of your opinions, while you’re posting statements opposed to theirs?
I understand the desire for that, but it doesn’t evince strength, but a fear of being forcefully opposed even in cyberspace. With kind of seems counter to your other claim.
The way I see it you’re abetting fraud, and I can’t really find it in myself to respect that. I guess my point about my other internet contentions is that I already am being a lot more respectful of many who choose to be willfully ignorant on here,(not specifically you) than I ordinarily would be on forums that give more leeway for what is allowed to be said.
Trust me, I respect what I can and should, but I also am not afraid to oppose folks and oppose their beliefs, and even make enemies of them if they so choose.
Most Conservatives are mentally poorly equipped to win.
https://www.rooshv.com/conservatives-are-losers
That article sort of gives a general description of why the rabid Left have always kicked the butt of the “nice” Conservatives, in maters of culture and politics. They stole the election and we just politely grab our ankles until further notice. They post altered video as reality, and we make excuses for them. LOL That isn’t a winning mindset.
"...but on the internet you ask people to be respectful of your opinions, while you’re posting statements opposed to theirs?"
That is 100% correct.
Disagreement is not Disrespect.
I don't see why any reasonable person who wishes to engage in meaningful and rational discourse would think otherwise. I fully expect people to be respectful of my opinions (within rational limits) as post statements in opposition to theirs.
Do you have another way we should engage in meaningful discourse on any issue, never mind just complex ones?
Now, if someone reasonably states a difference of opinion, why not respond with something such as "I think you are off-base on this, and here is why"? There might be meaningful and respectful dialogue, and someone might actually get educated or change their mind.
Instead, we see insults and disrespect for the crime of having a reasonable difference of opinion. Being "reasonable" and being "right" are not the same thing. The key thing here that seems to have escaped you is that for reasonably posting opinions in a polite and respectful manner (show me a post before I was attacked where my discourse was anything less that polite and respectful) I was derisively laughed at, called a "mark", accused of being "plain dumb", "lacking of critical thinking skills", outright called a "simpleton", an "abetter of fraud" and so on.
Call me old fashioned, and on today's "rough & tumble" Internet, that makes me all of those things above to some people, but I believe in talking to people online in the same fashion I would exercise in a face-to-face discussion. Yes, I know, that is so un-modern. But I believe in giving people "Default Respect" until they give me a reason not to.
If I were talking face-to-face with someone and they made a statement that was either wrong or something I had a disagreement with, I would not laugh derisively in their face and call them a "mark", "plain dumb", or a "simpleton". (which is what happens in this very forum every day, never mind our interactions) In real life, what person would do that? The honest answer is, in the real world, nobody would.
Because people wouldn't associate with you. It is as simple as that.
So yes. If I am respectful in my posts where I haven't been personally attacked as a precursor, I fully expect people to be respectful of my opinions even if I am wrong or disagree. Can you explain to me how that is a bad thing?
By the way, I understand that calling me a "badass" facing down my opponents (and your false insinuation that I portray myself that way) is not an original thought by you, and you are simply picking op on a pejorative use of it applied by someone else (as is often done on the "rough & tumble" jungle of the Internet) but I made the accurate and truthful statement about facing off our enemies in the streets for a specific reason, that of your characterization of needing "soothed feelings" or a "support animal" for making factual statements about the nature of discourse on Free Republic.
It is a fact that I have been to several dozen counterprotests against Leftists, and that in almost in all cases our side were outnumbered, sometimes up to tens of thousands to one doesn't indicate I am a "badass", it means I am a concerned conservative who felt that I needed to do more than sit behind my keyboard and generate text, though I do that too because I see value in it.
And in nearly all of these protests, I was lucky enough to develop a great relationship with the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic, and have had the opportunity to meet all of them in person and spend a good deal of time in polite and reasonable discourse with them outside Walter Reed or at Olney, or outside the White House, so these weren't trips down to the corner in a neighboring town, they were almost always a ten hour car ride, and not in a bus paid for by someone else.
So that is a rational and accurate framing of the issue that confirms I am no shrinking violet and unafraid to be in a face to face confrontation as compared to an Internet "keyboard warrior" who feels that engaging in pithy long distance insults from behind an anonymous keyboard is a fair substitute. And to note: I hate the face to face contact with those people. Some people such as the late, and fondly remembered Doctor Raoul took enjoyment in his interaction with them. I didn't, but saw it as something I needed to do.
So, even if I don't deny being a keyboard warrior has its place as well for many of us (like me) who can no longer travel or engage in live face-offs, I believe (as we are all going to find out) that it isn't a replacement for making ourselves seen.