That's an interesting observation - my perception of this thread and other political threads on these boards is that there has been very little flaming of either Obama or Pailin. Of course, there has been criticism of both candidates, but that's to be expected in discussions of this sort.
To specify, I was taking issue with Terry's assertion that Palin just got "flamed." And I put it in scare quotes for a reason. Terry said:
It's a good thing she's not a member of this board, or that might be construed as a flame
I really don't want get into the gray area of the hows and whys of the hostility I've seen, so let me walk that back and suppose, okay *qualitatively* they've been criticized about the same (I don't feel this, but for the sake of argument...). Under that metric then they both got "flamed" or neither did.
Quantitatively, however, there's been significant pro-right voices over pro-left voices. So that's a more tangible reason why Terry's protests over Palin's treatment on the boards (how many questioned her again? Two?) appears harsh and uneven to me.
Also my perception is that there has been not been substantially more hostility to either candidate. It may be, Alcyone, that you percieve that there has been more toward Obama because he has been a candidate for a much longer time than has Palin and so there have been more comments about him? Just a thought.
I was thinking specifically about this thread, plus the Wall Street thread. So, not from where I'm standing.
But complaining (as far as my feelings about hostility and the number of voices on one side or another go), I want to stress, was never the point.
My statements centered around Terry's strong assertion (to the extent of stating Palin got "flamed") that Palin was somehow recieving "unwarranted attacks" on the boards supported by some implicitly objective metric ("My comments were not prompted by attacks against "my candidate."[...]"), that he would also stand up if the same had been thrown at Obama.
That claim shows me that "unwarranted" is not really an objective judgement though its being presented as such (it's that last part that strikes me). As I mentioned, in light of the support Palin has recieved on this thread, the lack of objectivity (the "uneveness") in that statement/defense becomes all the more clear to me.
alcyone
