The most popular conservative news websites

[_Uncle Ed]

Putting it as you have amply illustrates the quality of some of these comments sections. If you feel strongly that they are repositories of well-reasoned rebuttal and debate, then I invite you to post some links to the 'comments' sections of any articles from, say, the top 5 sources listed in the OP. Then anyone reading your defense can judge for themselves the relative level of quality and maturity that is on display within those sections, and decide to what degree of maturity, relevance or reason their purpose serves. If your point is valid then it would be more easily demonstrated this way than than by writing paragraph after paragraph of text heavily laden with little more than emotional reasoning and partisan characterizations.

You've misunderstood my annoyance at the deliberate heavy-handed moderating of "comments" fora at the end of news or editorial articles. Or worse, the elimination of the fora altogether: it isn't because I feel that a great deal of "well-reasoned" thoughts, or rational thoughts, or even honest thoughts grace those discussion boards. What is lacking is admission that there is nothing to fear from what anyone might say about anything to anyone else. It is a control feature of society, and I dislike control. The technology is there. It is almost free to set up and let it go autopilot style. So why not? My favorite follow up to any piece is to see what people say after reading it, or what they say pretending to have read it; and responses to responses, etc. This is a window into the public mind, the splintered thought processes that make up human interactions.

Yes, I did go on today, untypically. I'll try to hold myself back tomorrow.

[_Uncle Ed]

He should hang out with the feminists at Jezebel sometime. They're a warm bunch.

Sounds scary! I don't spend my life on my 'puter, really, I don't. And the limited amount of time I do spend is visiting refdesk.com's Auto News Feed, where I will open each news source and read the headlines. When a piece looks like it isn't clickbait and is pertinent to current affairs on the National scale, I will open it and read. And, if there is a comments board I will go take a look at the newest comments only; and if I have an opinion, or see egregious crap being posted, I will pick an example to be made of and tear into him with truth. That's about it for me. I can't be bothered to read tomes of results from "research". And neither can 99% of the voters in this country, or anywhere else for that matter. We rely on each other to vote their gut. That's why, incredibly, The Donald won: gut voting.

[_Uncle Ed]

...

I also believe most Americans would prefer US to leave Afghanistan as well.

Like many Americans, Pakistanis believe there are certain elements in US and Pakistani establishment which would prefer this war keeps on going on, what do we call it? Millitary-Industrial Complex? US has that problem? Guess what? Many Pakistanis think they have a similar problem too. At the end of the day, it's the middle and lower class that actually suffers i.e. Majority of the population.

At the end of the day, it's better for both sides to figure this ____ out so we can all end what is turning out to be a forever war.

Regards

Not that I expect to him to even make it this far down my post, but Uncle Ed, if for some reason you actually read posts by others that are longer than two sentences I strongly urge you to go to information aggregator sites like Reddit and subscribe to a variety of subreddits, or least read a variety of subreddits, to ensure you're getting yourself out of any echo chambers you might inadvertently be frequenting. You'll have to wade through a lot of noise to find some gems like the one above, but that's the burden we bear in this day and age when there's a firehose of information being loosed on the Internet day in an day out.

- Doc

I read that piece. And I am one who wants the US OUT of the Middle East and subcontinent. Astan is the most medieval place on the planet, culturally and politically and religiously. Pakistan is an old ally. We really should be reliable for them. But we need to keep our physical presence out of there, period. Our tech allows surgical strikes. When the rare expediency arises, we can go in, do the surgery and withdraw: message sent and mission accomplished.

I tried Reddit briefly once or twice. It hasn't gelled. I think the interface is jarring and lacking somehow. Maybe I found it too cluttered. I'm logged in. I'll try again.

[_Uncle Ed]

If conservatism is defined by a support of a Nozickian night watchman state, then almost no one in the United States is conservative and the people who describe themselves as conservatives that you seem to like and vote for are so far from what that is that your worldview looks incoherent. You're simultaneously defining true conservatism as a form of hardline libertarianism while sounding trumpets of joy for some of the least libertarian people in politics. It makes no sense.

It's called cooperation with the powers that be. Orrin Hatch is good at that. I like the approach. I've been defining what a true conservative is, and "Nozickian" is close enough I guess (after a quick search into the term): minimalist gov't and trust the inherent goodness in human nature. But, I admit that conservatives as a general group contain a minority of my kind of definition of conservative. It is the true definition though, the pure one. All else partakes of the taint of socialism, and the gov't controls that go along with it. Anyone who says that they should be in charge because they know their way is right, damn the rest, is no conservative: I don't care how small s/he wants the gov't to be.

[_Uncle Ed]

Finally, socialism is in my book any system that grows dependency on government to supply what individuals are supposed to provide for themselves

I think you just pin-pointed your problem: you're relying on your own ignorance.

Try reading an actual book instead of relying on your book. Funny how by your own definition, "Socialists" tend to thrive in Red States.

What is that assertion supposed to prove? Red or Blue, this Nation is far too gone toward socialism as it is. So welfare/entitlement is rampant everywhere, even especially in rural, economically depressed areas. People are self interested above all else; and a handout is going to be taken, even if it means betraying spoken ideals of independence and limited gov't, etc.

I have a problem? It is ignorance? Well, I'll be swizzled. I don't read actual books? Not enough, there isn't enough time, and reading puts me to sleep.

[_Ceeboo]

Why should campuses feel obligated to let idiots like Shapiro speak?

For exactly the same reason that idiots like you are allowed to speak.
Hint - American citizens.
Can you figure it our from here KG, or do you need more help?

These are institutions of higher learning

They are also public universities located in the United States Of America.
Do you need me to spell this one out for you too?

Shapiro's only interest in speaking to these schools

Forgive me if I don't have any confidence in your claim to know what motivates Shapiro.
After all - I do know what motivates you.

Among other things - Shapiro speaks at these schools to present an extremely rare conservative voice/view on a variety of things - and to advise/help conservative students with the very difficult and very real challenges of being an american college student who happens to be politically conservative - in a college environment that is heavily left-leaning with the great majority of college professors being politically cemented on the far left. (Did you mention the word indoctrination, Kevin?)

This is like expecting Baptist Churches to let Liberal guests speak whenever they want to, otherwise they're just against free speech.

No, your example isn't just really stupid - it clearly displays your complete lack of understanding of what some american citizens believe are really important issues/rights.

[_Uncle Ed]

Conspiracy my @$$!

Yes conspiracy. The conspiracy is posed by the losers last year: making this "bot" thing out to be so nefarious that normal people get sucked in. Irrational readers get sucked in, but not most voters, who actually look at IDs on web fora and notice suspicious duplication and fake one liner hits, posting questionable suspicious content. You read something and then you go look for corroboration at a real news agency source. Not there! Well, dog my cats, and color me surprised. More fake news.

There were/are these kids in Macedonia, too, making up fake news and posting them in the sidebars of real news homepages, and reaping thousands of dollars in the new clickbait industry. Anyone who voted against Hillary based on the egregious faked stories was a voter who can't be pulled into a camp based on facts; they believe what they want to. The sin is heavily on all sides, because there are a lot of irrational people. But most of them did not bother to vote and seldom do. They're too busy wasting their lives on the Net reading and watching crap and gossiping.

There is no conspiracy taking over web fora. There are faked accounts and always will be. And any attentive reader can tell what is faked: if not instantly, then quickly enough by looking for confirmation.

[_canpakes]

You've misunderstood my annoyance at the deliberate heavy-handed moderating of "comments" fora at the end of news or editorial articles. Or worse, the elimination of the fora altogether: it isn't because I feel that a great deal of "well-reasoned" thoughts, or rational thoughts, or even honest thoughts grace those discussion boards. What is lacking is admission that there is nothing to fear from what anyone might say about anything to anyone else.

This clarification doesn't do much to change that fact that your original statement based on a helluva faulty premise:

"In my experience, "conservative" websites that assert that they are news sources promote dialogue by including reader forums to comment on, with a minimal amount of policing/monitoring. "Liberal" websites (egregiously CNN) either do not include comment forums at all or heavily regulate them."

As example, I'm pretty sure that I could accurately call The Weekly Standard a 'conservative'-oriented publication. If you drop in on their website, you'll note that the posted articles don't generally allow open commenting; your response options are limited to sending an email to the editors, or the article author.

It is a control feature of society, and I dislike control.

You like control when it suits you. You abhor control when you feel that it gets in the way of what you want. This is no different, on average, than how most folks feel.

In this case, you had control when you decided to read the article. Where your control stops is in demanding that the website host your response to their work. And you find it disturbing that you cannot control their lack of interest in your opinion.

The technology is there. It is almost free to set up and let it go autopilot style. So why not?

Before you ask that, you should be able to tell me why it is advantageous to have a comments section for every possible posted article or news piece, or feel that it is owed to you to be provided with this entertainment via someone else's resources and bandwidth.

If that works for some folks, then fine, let 'em implement the function. I'm sure that there are a lot of websites out there that feel that enabling commenting helps to gather the typical lowbrow, agitating, angry herd long enough to allow some of them to get distracted and generate a little commerce from the sidebar ads for gold coin bullion, Pizzagate books and bladder control pills. But not everyone caters to the same audience, or needs to host the same circus, and deciding not to do so is no certain indication of any particular political leanings.

Anyhow, I'm still waiting for some links from you to some examples from the website list that you believe demonstrate mature debate and/or a quality exchange of ideas.

[_EAllusion]

Polls routinely show large numbers of self-described Republicans believing fake news stories. Whether that's due to bot engagement or not is a separate question, but it is simply not the case that normal conservatives are too smart to believe false news stories. Even now something on the order of half of all Republicans are birthers. Nearly half of Republicans believed in Pizzagate.

I think restricting comments sections due to bot spamming would be more to do with being cost-effective with sever resources than it does fears about Russian influence. And the sites that do fully restrict comments often are most worried about vitriol and paying for the infrastructure to maintain them.

[_Uncle Ed]

You should be able to tell me why it is advantageous to have a comments section for every possible posted article or news piece, or feel that it is owed to you to be provided with this entertainment via someone else's resources and bandwidth.

I think that including a comments forum is an attraction. It should generate revenue. But apparently the owners disagree.

If that works for some folks, then fine, let 'em implement the function. I'm sure that there are a lot of websites out there that feel that enabling commenting helps to gather the typical lowbrow, agitating, angry herd long enough to allow some of them to get distracted and generate a little commerce from the sidebar ads for gold coin bullion, Pizzagate books and bladder control pills. But not everyone caters to the same audience, or needs to host the same circus, and deciding not to do so is no certain indication of any particular political leanings.

Anyhow, I'm still waiting for some links from you to some examples from the website list that you believe demonstrate mature debate and/or a quality exchange of ideas.

Refdesk.com's Auto News Feed has (currently) 19 news and information sources. Only ABC, Breitbart, Fox, USA Today, UPI and WND have comments boards, and not on all articles. The majority of the offered News Feed sources are liberal. Out of that paltry offering of fora only FOX comments demonstrate any degree of rational thought. Even ABC's forum is invaded by rabidly attacking neo cons. WND isn't that bad, but it tends toward the evangelical sort. As I said above, the inclusion of comments boards allows me to read examples of how the readers at that forum think. That is educational. I get more from the comments, usually, than the pieces being commented on. I also said that the climate appears to be changing of late:
with reasonable interchange seemingly on the decline.