Posted on 09/14/2005 8:01:41 PM PDT by 1stAmendmentRocks
Scope: To study the behavioral patterns of self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives over a long period time in a cyber environment, particularly a political discussion board. Some things to consider:
A) Do they conform to standard definitions of liberals and conservatives B) Does their behavior change over time? C) How does the outside world influence them? D) Does no moderation work better than moderation?
Our study group consisted of 5 psychology majors and one advisor. We had 2 students who graded themselves as politically “liberal”, 2 as “conservatives”, and 1 as “moderate”.
Several participants were informed of study to help introduce influences and monitor reactions.
Timeframe: Study commenced shortly after the Politics and Current Events section created at www.brucespringsteen.net. This how our search led us to the site. The original thread that predated and apparently let to this section was studied and evaluated as well with above considerations.
Observations:
1) Long-time (over 6 mos.) self-proclaimed liberals appeared to change with time as they spent increasingly more time on the board. At first many were seemed willing to civilly engage other posters with varying viewpoints, but as time went on they quickly fell into a rut of “us” vs “them” and developed a “pack mentality” in which many vehemently struck back not at the viewpoint per se, but the person. Personal attacks seemed commonplace on political opponents, and when one started attacking, many of the others followed. The liberal ideas of tolerance and understanding appeared to wane quite rapidly once one “became” a member. Some self-proclaimed conservatives “attacked” back, however it was not usually in reaction to attacks from liberals. The severity of the profanity was greatly on the side of the liberals, and very little self-policing occurred. 2) During the time when the board had very little moderation from the Sony Moderator and no volunteer Participant Moderators there was some self-policing from each side, though it was observed that the only way to quiet the personal attacks and profanity was for others to ignore them. Some engaged each vociferously with an even playing field. This system appeared to work pretty well, as neither “side” appeared to have an advantage. Since there wasn’t an EDIT feature then what was posted usually stayed, and we noticed very little if any actual censuring from the Sony Moderator. 3) After the introduction of Participant Moderators it didn’t take long for the board to go downhill in civility and personal attacks. In many cases these moderators would actually fuel the incivility which bread resentment. The Participant Moderators all appear to have “not liked” (putting it mildly perhaps) President Bush, and one could actually categorize the “Bush-haters” in one camp, and others were either conservative and had varying opinions of Bush and his Administration. Some conservatives staunchly defended him and his actions, especially in regards to the Iraq situation, while others defended conservative ideals independent of the Bush Admin. Though it was observed that the “Bush-haters” would quickly “pigeon-hole’ any new posters into “their” Bush-hating camp or be viewed as “enemies” if they did not follow their patterns. 4) The Participant Moderators as we first observed were created out of a demand to “control” trolls who came frequently to the site, first, after it came under the Sony umbrella, and then again after Bruce public supported the Dixie Chicks comments while on tour in Europe and their subsequent bashing by some of their followers and actions taken by radio stations in not airing their music. Rather than just ignoring those that came on board to bash Bruce for his support, they were engaged and sparks flew. The Sony Moderator didn’t appear to police this very much which led to asking for volunteer moderators. Liberal posters seemed to forget how to ignore offensive posts. 5) It was soon apparent to most of us in our group including the “liberals” and the “moderate” that censoring, suspensions, and banning favored the “liberal” Bush-hating group. Some “liberals” appeared to get away with quite a lot of personal attacks and gross profanity. Some “non Bush-haters” reacted and they were then censored, suspended and/or banned. Several of the moderators actually were observed using profanity, getting a reaction, deleting their (moderator’s) profanity, then using the “evidence” when “locking” threads to have said poster suspend and/or banned. This happened repeatedly over several months. 6) Conservative posters who protested these actions if they survived not getting banned were “branded” paranoid, whiners, and few other choice words. 7) Continuous complaining finally lead to Participant Moderators to lessen their actions, apparently as instructed by the Sony Moderator. 8) However this did not lead to more civilized discussions as some Participant Moderators still made personal attacks on conservatives and did not “moderate” some of the most profanity-laden posters. 9) Some liberals and conservatives left the board voluntarily as many voiced their opinions as the acidity and toxic environment that the board had degenerated into. 10) Several conservatives started a parallel site in to civilly discuss politics and music. Several liberals then proclaimed Bruce’s site as “theirs” and attempted to steer new conservative posters to go there and stay. 11) We observed that online personal threats by certain posters were not dealt with in a responsible manner, by neither Volunteer Moderators nor the Sony Moderator. One individual made repeated physical threats to numerous posters apparently with impunity. The poster was a Bush-hater and made no bones about what should be done with Bush and his supporters. That in itself was not crossing the line, but the personal threats to other posters did cross the line. This part seemed unbelievable by all in our study group and nearly caused several of us to take actions ourselves to alert authorities and/or Sony. The last observance is when said poster enlisted help from other “liberal” posters in a thread to find one of his targets. The target of the attacks was one of the conservative banned posters who had started a blog posting a conservative viewpoint, attacking the “liberals”. While we didn’t condone such action, it was understandable after observing actions taken to remove this poster from the board, while much more severe behavior were not policed, and this poster was apparently giving it back to them without the threat of banning or censoring. The last straw was when the “liberal” poster posted a threat on the “conservative” poster’s blog to remove the blog by a certain time or face the fate of threat. When the deadline went by, personal information as the “conservatives” physical location were posted, and most recently, the “conservative’s” place of employment. It appeared that more than one liberal poster was in collusion with said poster. 12) Our study group and advisor were surprised at then lengths a “liberal” poster, supported by their “liberal” group would go to quiet a “conservative” who fought back without resorting to tactics like physical threats and posting very personal information.
Conclusions:
1) Long time "liberal" posters became less tolerant, more-hateful, less understanding and less willing to converse civilly with the "other" side as time went on.
2) The introduction of Participant Moderators had a detrimental effect on the civility of the board and contributed to its negative tone and ever-present confrontational condition.
3) Asking for civility by a few posters, while sounding good, rarely materialized as "regulars" kept appearing to drag the board down.
4) Conservative posters learned to live with the unspoken rules that "liberals" ruled the board, and the posted Sony Rules were summarily ignored, un-enforced, or applied in an unbalanced manner.
5) In general; conservative posters showed respect for their liberal counterparts, rarely digressing into name-calling, physical threats, etc. They showed more understanding of liberal and their viewpoints, and though they may not have shown them much love, they surely didn't exhibit the "liberal" hatred shown them, except on occasion.
6) It was demonstrated that some "liberals" formed a somewhat non-public group to discuss ways to cause "mischief" towards conservative posters. We found no evidence of like-wise conservative group doing the same. We found this behavior very childish, and certainly not liberal by the classic definition.
In short, we found that by and large the "liberals" were "haters" of everything Bush and branded their counterpart "conservatives" as enemies to be struck down using any means possible including obviously illegal and deceitful threats, etc. Most could hardly be considered “liberal” by the standard definition. At times it was difficult for our group to realize that most of the liberals claimed to long-time Bruce fans. The irony was that nearly ever new conservative poster had his/her Bruce-loyalty questioned.
We found the conservatives to more tolerant and understanding of their counterparts, at times humorously laughing off attacks rather than counter-attacking. They generally stuck to the political issues being discussed rather than digress into personal attacks.We’d almost call most of them “liberal”.
We are passing our study to incoming group of psychology students, who at their discretion can continue study for any further developments.
Like to political section of Springsteen board
http://forums1.sonymusic.com/groupee/forums/a/frm/f/486103162
I couldn't believe it when I read it on FR today! What crap, huh?
LOL
You don't have a link do you?
Interesting. It needs proof reading before posting though. Some sentences don't make sense.
Anyone who reads both FR and DU already knows all this and more, but it's interesting to see it confirmed by a (somewhat) scientific study.
You will find that "free speech" applies to everyone except for new posters on Free Republic. Just watch and see. LOL
Interesting. Is this also your thread? :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484783/posts
I'd appreciate a ping if you post that study.
You can see the same mentality at work on the editorial pages of most daily newspapers. You don't need links for this one; it's self-evident truth.
The Justice said he had NO CHOICE because another court case ruled against the Pledge.
The Supremes overturned the case based on the plaintiff not having custody over the children he was ligating over.
This time there were three plaintiffs who were guardians of their children who made the complaint.
Yep, this needs to be b.tch slapped to hell where it came from.
Liberals cooperate with(anything).
Conservatives enjoy the challenge(to anyhting).
 |
 |
 |
|||
|
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
!
It could be a 'study' of our responses. If it is they managed to cobble together a scenerio that closely approximates real life. Any of us who read over at the DUmmies (or other lib sites) can attest to that.
The stalking, ganging up, and 'outing' fits the RATS like a driving glove. That's the part that hooked me. I've seen the first two at DU a lot, even amoung their own. The slightest out of cadence step and there is a herd rushing that poor sap. It must be scary to look over your shoulder and see a rushing crowd that once were your friends.
It's just barely college stuff. Perhaps a synopsys of something, but I'd give it a D for grammar, research (no footnotes or attributions), and lack of formatting.
No, that is not my post or article.
Thanks for asking though.
Yup. And, if it is a study, there are no doubt posts that we would be less likely to accept.
I'd expect better writing, though, for bait.
Well, Admin Mon was pinged and we are all still posting to the thread, while 1stAmend is absent. Perhaps on the East Coast and gone to bed. I'm going down to the beach to listen to the waves.
The study I posted is not in it's final finished form yet, and has not been completely edited.
I apologize for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
