I don't generally think that people here have a problem with the First Amendment as much as they like to label people. For all the abuse the left takes, I rarely see somebody on the left calling somebody on the right a fascist, or corporate tool, or neo-nazi, etc., although the right has no problem calling the left Communist or unpatriotic, etc. So I think in that sense it's one sided.
With respect to Brian, I think the problem is not just a matter of viewpoint. I for one, come to these boards to see if there is information or a different, well-thought-out viewpoint that I haven't considered. And I think for the most part you will find people who are willing to indulge this and respond thoughtfully. On the other hand, there are others who seem to only respond in talking points, by either distorting information or obviously excluding inconvenient information, or in the worst cases, just using completely impenetrable logic to argue in support of their points. I think it is at that point you reach a frustration level, especially since the forum is by nature interactive, that you want to lash out at what you consider somebody else's abject stupidity. And part of you is sitting there thinking, "is this person just ignorant/stupid, or does he know better and is just trying to get away with pushing a view because he's picked a side and can't back down?" Neither one is good.
You may have not read many of B286's posts, but I have. I'll give you a random assortment straight from memory from the last 6 months:
- Challenged Democrats to put forth a plan for "saving" Social Security while denying that the President hadn't in fact put forth his own. Kept arrogantly denying despite the indisputable fact that there was no actual suggested plan.
- Recently suggested that Wal-Mart was incredibly forward-looking by offering its New Orleans employees 3 days of pay and certain small subsidies, because it encouraged them to look for a job, evidently while homeless and living in a shelter. By that measure, offering no pay would be incredibly progressive.
- Tried to argue that GWB's track record of failure showed strong evidence of a strong work ethic. I'm not saying that it shows evidence of a weak work ethic, but certainly not a strong one.
- Tried to argue there were no "abstinence-only" programs being pushed by the Administration, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
- In general denies knowledge of well-known events and in worst cases, tries to impeach your source despite third-party verification and his unwillingness to actually look.
I think you get the point. It's sort of a basic human instinct - to profile somebody based on a limited level of interaction. However, there are a lot of people here with a lot of posts on diverse subjects, so I don't think it's entirely unfair to get a sense for their worldview from these writings.
I think what you arrive at is that people's worldview tends to be pretty fixed, and I think that in our current political environment, people have real difficulty, especially on the edges, with even acknowledging facts that contradict their views. I want to say that there is a backlash in this country against enlightenment, but that might get me into trouble.
For my part, I read a lot, and I mean a lot. I just read Freakonomics, which was quite interesting, if brief. Check out the chapter on Roe v. Wade. Certain to stir up a lot of controversy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"