NG political party system

[TheWakingDeath]

ok, well, if any of you want to read JudgeDredd's post on the monster i've created "teh liberals lounge" that's where i got my idea from. so props to judge D
anyhoo, i've been thinking, with all these lounges popping up, what if there is some positive energy in all this stupidity. if the point of them is too unify people of the same political camps, what if we built up a NG political party system were people could go to their own thread and discuss the politcal views of their party, argue on the groups opinion on different issues and in general learn more about what it means to be a liberal, conservative, etc. and help people figure out where they really stand in the political scale.
any one who's interested in maybe helping form this system, and organizing it, post your opinions here. or just come here to flame me, since it's such a popular activity
note: if these groups come to be they will not be "lounge" threads, but rather, places of active and constructive political debate. hopefully they'll help organize and unify the different camps and then people won't complain that they feel like they're the only "conservative, liberal, moderate" in a thread of "everybody" else i really think that was the original intent when kaos started the "right" lounge

[Zalbun]

But That Undermines the Entire BBS system where people of all different points of view can debate or share ideas about how things should Work. If we split it up into a party system then the BBS would be run by two machines just like the us. We simply cannot let that happen!

- FYI I hate the Two Party system in America

[FUNKbrs]

This is the part where I explain that this problem has already been solved by the formation of two private forums:

PC

DAG

[TheWakingDeath]

At 12/15/03 10:03 PM, Zalbun wrote: But That Undermines the Entire BBS system where people of all different points of view can debate or share ideas about how things should Work. If we split it up into a party system then the BBS would be run by two machines just like the us. We simply cannot let that happen!

- FYI I hate the Two Party system in America

it's not intended too! oh why am i so misunderstood?!
yes, the spirit of the bbs is that people with diverse ideas can come together and discuss things and not neccessarily agree, and this isn't supposed to change that. the intent is for people to also have a sense that they aren't along in their views, that there are others who agree with them. believe me, when people don't feel cornered they tend to argue more intelligently. of course bbs will always have a diversity of opinions. it's just and idea, a freaking IDEA that maybe we could also have a system for people to refine their arguements and test their arguements against a group that supports them and isn't going to flame the shit out of them. 99% of every criticism on this board is abusive and destructive and doesn't benefit anyone, and hurts the integrity of the thread. i'm sick of all the childish taunting of a lot of people here. can't you treat each other with some goddamn decency and respect or are you all a bunch of fucking juveniles? well?

[TheWakingDeath]

and another thing, who ever said it would be just "two" political parties? i despise that system as much as you. i don't know how many different parties there would be, the possibilities are limited only by everyones desire to participate. and the best part is: you don't have to have ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT! doesn't that sound great?! you can't be an independant, you don't have to join any group.

[JudgeDredd]

"two party systems are only twice as good as one party systems, right?"

As far as has been stated (The Shrike) both PC and DAG are not supposed to be representative of any particular party system of the political spectrum. Both were founded as a way to bypass the constraints of NG allowing; flexability, control, kinship, identity, etc.
What constraints i hear you ask? Well spend some time in the Club section to see an online version of anarchy. If you're an anarchist then the freeforall is nothing to worry about.

My thoughts are that political beliefs used to be - tended to be - very loyal by nature (kinda like religion) so that one's parents remained committed to 1 or other party system over many years or decades. However, the more parties, the more diverse and common will be the defections, splinters and factions.

Newly formed online groups take time to settle into a pattern ..but do not be mistaken, with momentum, time, and participation, they will develop character. Whatever they lack in locality, they make up for with geopolitical diversity. So the real question is, "does structure help bring about objectives and outcome?" and is this the same foundation of all political movements since we humans first learned to organize ourselves collectively?

Basically, is "Onlineness" an age-old process in a hi-tech format?

[Slizor]

The problem is that people don't know their political views. Most of the "Conservatives" here don't know what Conservatism is. No-one knows what Liberalism is and people are too stupid to realize what socialism is.

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/15/03 10:03 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: This is the part where I explain that this problem has already been solved by the formation of two private forums:

PC

DAG

Shouldn't there be one for me and me only? Oh, wait, that's my Dark Side Of Tony Blair thread...

[SKS-Hyper]

Heh, I think that it's a very good idea. STOP! Don't go quoting that, I mean it! Anyway, the reason I think that it's a good idea is that it will spread awareness as 'iz' and judge have already pointed out. Secondly, there will not be a two party system! It is completely impossible because this is a message board and anyone, I mean anyone with a computer that has internet connection, can put down their opinions without anything more than ridicule as a consequence, and therefore, there will be so many diverse perspectives that there is no possible way for it to boil down into only two groups!

Secondly, I feel it is important to point out the fact that it isn't like it is going to be an election or something so it really doesn't matter. No group will hold any sort of power that other 'party boards' can't have.

Thirdly, what is the harm? Seriously, there is no harm that can concievably come from it. And, even if by some freakish thing or another it does cause some harm, it will be a victimless crime! If someone can rationally explain how simply making a topic board based on what 'iz' proposed would cause any real sort of problem, I'm all ears (I'm not going to hear the end of that am I?). Even if you do quote me remember these things: 1) You can't stop me or anyone else from doing so, 2) If you don't like it then don't participate or involve yourself with that topic board, and 3) If you hate the idea so much that you feel you need to protest it, then just go and make your own little topic board about it and you can (b word that rhymes with witch [I don't know is cussing is allowed or not is why I didn't say it]) about it all you want! SO THERE!

Lastly, I think the only thing that would make doing what 'iz' proposed "bad," is the fear that the government is watching and monitoring these message boards so they can deport the radicals, which is probably (hopefully) not going to happen.

[Zalbun]

I meant I hated the American Rwo-Party System, Not that the Newgrounds system would be two-partied. I don't feel strongly enough about this anyomre that i would want to seriously protest. Whatever, Just make the parties if you want, ill just ignore them.

[heyitsjohn]

i think this idea is flawed in general. what's the point of people going into a tread to talk about the views they all agree on? eventually the thread would stagnate and die, like a gangrenouse appendage. the point of this political forum is to debate with people who have differing opinions. if all the liberals got together it would be like "I HATE BUSH" "me too" "same here" "PRO-CHOICE" "yea" " KILL THE REPUBLICANS" "that's exactly what i was thinking". same thing for conservative thread, only the exact opposite. only people not being fools would probably be the moderates, there would probably be enough diversity among them to have a civil discussion going on for a decent amount of time.

[SKS-Hyper]

(Sigh), heyitsjohn, there are three reasons why I feel that this is a good idea in response to your own reasons.
First off, you said "what's the point of people going into a tread to talk about the views they all agree on?" Well, I've gotta say that perhaps this makes sense. But, unfortunately I must point out that you are saying that every single person in the "party" will completely agree with each other...Forgive me, but I think that this is utterly asinine (and if my tone comes off disdainful and asinine as well).

Seriously, supposing all of the conservatives have a message board for example. They talk about issues in this message board. They will not talk about bush being cool all the time, trust me, they will come up with important things to talk about, like "What would be the best way to handle social security" or "How much money should be spent." Also on a side note, not all conservatives are happy and if you knew the fundamentals of the different political parties, which is precisely what we are thinking about expanding here, you would know that Bush is spending a lot of money and that spending enormous amouts of money is not in accordance with conservative practice or doctrine.

The second reason that I feel this is a good idea is because what I had previously posted. Even if it doesn't work out, it is of no harm to anyone and if it just becomes stagnant and dies then, well, it dies and there is no problem. It literally does not hurt to try. If someone is willing to make a thread for it, then good luck to you and I hope it works out.

My final reason is that historically, political parties have divided and been splinttered into sects. Just look at the original parties of the United States, the Federalists and Antifederalists are not even talked about today! Also look at politics today, trust me when I say that there is not complete unity even between political party members that hold office. You have neo-conservatives, left-wing conservatives, right-wing liberals, moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, liberal federalists, liberal antifederalists, conservative federalists, conservative antifederalists, democratic communtists, republican communists, social communists, social democrats, social republicans, etc. The list goes on and on, and all of the ones I just named fit into two parties and you are telling me that they will all agree? Maybe its just me, but I don't think so...But hey if you think otherwise just reply with why and I'll keep up the conversation. Oh, and lets not forget about the liberal conservatives and the conservative liberals!

[Jimsween]

At 12/16/03 08:35 AM, Slizor wrote: The problem is that people don't know their political views. Most of the "Conservatives" here don't know what Conservatism is. No-one knows what Liberalism is and people are too stupid to realize what socialism is.

Because we all know Slizor's definitions are the right ones, and no others are right, only his, and if yours are different than his, you are stupid.

[D2Kvirus]

You mean I have to fork out £1000 just to stand as an Independent? Figures...

[NEMESiSZ]

No one on the internet has any view besides far-left, anti-usa.

After all, look who invented it.

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/17/03 09:58 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No one on the internet has any view besides far-left, anti-usa.

After all, look who invented it.

What, apart from you?

Pause and think about what you're saying, or wait until I get Jimsween's Greatest Hits published.

There's tons of them on this board: 70TA, ardshepard, AmericanBANNEDASS, diazapim, Dagoveas...are you thinking you transcend them, or don't they fit into this schema of yours?

[NEMESiSZ]

At 12/17/03 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote: There's tons of them on this board: 70TA, ardshepard, AmericanBANNEDASS, diazapim, Dagoveas...are you thinking you transcend them, or don't they fit into this schema of yours?

I do transcend them, becuase much like yourself, they rarely know what they're talking about.

The simple fact you can remember the names of any specific person who has disagreed (for whatever reason, usually because they're even stupider than the left-leaners) with the liberal trend here proves my point, if you tried to name all the left wingers you'd probably die of starvation halfway through the list.

[Jimsween]

At 12/17/03 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Pause and think about what you're saying, or wait until I get Jimsween's Greatest Hits published.

Just because I'm not whiny like you doesn't mean I'm conservative.

[SKS-Hyper]

Hmmm, um Nemesisz, I got a question for you? Are you simple? No, actually my question is, are you aware that there are more than two political systems that people support? First off, I am not a left-wing liberal nor am I a right-wing conservative. In fact, I despise the principles and goals of Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, the Members of the Flat Earth Society (which are online and they have a site), the Confederate pride whatevers, and close-minded idiots who talk and talk and say nothing.

Secondly, I recall that their just happens to be an NG communist party board, and they are online. Also, I will argue all day against the politics of basically anyone who wants me to. Personally, I'm more of an absolute dictatorial advocate, but this is not the point.

The point is not if everyone online is the same political affiliation, this has already been addressed! )You would know this had you read the other posts.) The real issue here is whether the time and effort would be beneficial, which is basically what we have been deciding. I have concluded that it is not harmful and therefore is either beneficial or harmless, so really, if you would just give us reasons why doing a party thread would be in some way harmful, then perhaps a relevant discussion would ensue, but right now, we don't need to talk about what has already been resolved.

[Dagodevas]

At 12/17/03 04:44 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/17/03 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Pause and think about what you're saying, or wait until I get Jimsween's Greatest Hits published.

Just because I'm not whiny like you doesn't mean I'm conservative.

And alas, history repeats itself again...

[NEMESiSZ]

At 12/17/03 05:13 PM, SKS_Hyper wrote: Hmmm, um Nemesisz

While I'm sure you've gathered a lot from your eight posts here, maybe you should stick around longer before assuming you know how people think, that would be great, thanks.

Learn to recognize hyperbole when you see it, also. See if you can squeeze that on your to-do list in between "act important at a forum" and "download porn."

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/17/03 09:58 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No one on the internet has any view besides far-left...

when some internet dudes run the world, i'm sure they'll espouse rightist views :)

...anti-usa. After all, look who invented it.

didn't America invent the internet, ..err, EVERYTHING!??

[Ravens-Grin]

At 12/17/03 06:44 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: didn't America invent the internet, ..err, EVERYTHING!??

I thought it was Al Gore that invented the internet.

Anyways, this is a good idea. Sure people will have the same general ideas about stuff, but it will get rid of the "Bush sux0rs mi latte" kind of topics. There are many conflicting views even inside a political party. Hell, political parties aren't even functional anymore, but it gives the people an idea on what they should expect from a certain group. That is what people end up doing. The masses want things to be simplified. They want views on a certain topic that impacts their life and simplify this into a group of people that want it, like political parties. It is just a mere convenience so that people don't have to become overwhelmed into politics. Though you guys probably disagree without that idea.

[Slizor]

Because we all know Slizor's definitions are the right ones, and no others are right, only his, and if yours are different than his, you are stupid.

I would never claim the definitions as my own. No no, they are the views of philosophers, professors and writers. Sure, there can be a disagreement over certain things.........but some things just don't pass.

[JudgeDredd]

yes Raven's, u got the gist of it.. could be divided into 3 rough groups of political-posters;

-those who wanna "get it off their chest" instead of "bottling it up inside spitefully" (the H8'rs)

-those who have serious ambition to affect change and want to hone their debating skills (the DB8'rs)

-and a group that hangs somewhere between the other two; online protagonists hoping to turn rhetoric into action somehow (erm, the PLA'rs)

"be whatever you wanna or gonna be,
just hard to be u like u know u shud be,
lost in a crowd of pleasers and teasers,
soapbox reciters, haters and debaters,
misguided youth, makers and fakers,
a new-world-order of networked players" -JD
_

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/17/03 04:44 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 12/17/03 10:08 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Pause and think about what you're saying, or wait until I get Jimsween's Greatest Hits published.

Just because I'm not whiny like you doesn't mean I'm conservative.

Chapter 4: "Oops! Did I just say that?"

For a Liberal, you're sure Right Wing. And whiny.