Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Aug 22, 2017 21:05:08 GMT -5
Real Americans understand that our nation was born in a rebellion against tyranny. Thankfully Moon is a real American. I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. Tyranny: unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. I'm still irritated about the situations of President Trump (D rumpf) = whatever it got coded to be because it's so partisan, and wimp (P ussy) = Wimp or whatever it coded it to be, etc. that is not within a topic restriction. Personally, I don't care if religion and abortion were to be discussed. The only topic I'm sick of seeing Uppity Joe bring up is his homophobia. Watching you get your ass kicked for being misogynist is okay with me too.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 23, 2017 2:27:59 GMT -5
I'm still irritated about the situations of President Trump (D rumpf) = whatever it got coded to be because it's so partisan, and wimp (P ussy) = Wimp or whatever it coded it to be, etc. that is not within a topic restriction. The term bans were decided by popular vote, and I didn't even set up the vote. In my entire time here, I've never banned any thing or any one. You do me wrong by calling me a tyrant for a harmless proposal. I can take it from the hoi polloi, but from you...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,704
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 23, 2017 4:32:58 GMT -5
Real Americans understand that our nation was born in a rebellion against tyranny. Thankfully Moon is a real American. I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. My guess is the only one who really wants that thread is you. So some give a crap because of the increasing moderation and restrictions especially since non conservatives can't use any bad descriptors or call Trump names after putting up with that since this board was created. If some of the conservatives or anyone really liked your idea they would have posted in its defense as support. But they didn't. The pro Trumpers just want threads to be free of any disparaging words against Trump. They aren't looking to just discuss policy from what I've seen.
... they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse which still surprises me given how vocal a couple posters were on how they would call their person out if it were them. Hah.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 23, 2017 9:36:44 GMT -5
I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. Tr My guess is the only one who really wants that thread is you. So some give a crap because of the increasing moderation and restrictions especially since non conservatives can't use any bad descriptors or call Trump names after putting up with that since this board was created. If some of the conservatives or anyone really liked your idea they would have posted in its defense as support. But they didn't. The pro Trumpers just want threads to be free of any disparaging words against Trump. They aren't looking to just discuss policy from what I've seen.
... they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse which still surprises me given how vocal a couple posters were on how they would call their person out if it were them. Hah.
Let's conduct a spot poll. Value Buy, jkapp, @jma23, zibazinski, Shooby, @anne81, b2r, Phoenix84, @richardintn - The proposal is dead now and will remain so, but to sate our curiosity: Please 'like' this post if a Trump-free thread (i.e. mentioning Pres. Trump in this thread would be off-limits) is something you would have appreciated on P/CE. If you're indifferent or opposed to the idea, please 'like' Optimist's post that I'm replying to. Vote honestly. If you really couldn't care less, you're not going to hurt my feelings.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 23, 2017 9:41:31 GMT -5
I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. My guess is the only one who really wants that thread is you. So some give a crap because of the increasing moderation and restrictions especially since non conservatives can't use any bad descriptors or call Trump names after putting up with that since this board was created. If some of the conservatives or anyone really liked your idea they would have posted in its defense as support. But they didn't. The pro Trumpers just want threads to be free of any disparaging words against Trump. They aren't looking to just discuss policy from what I've seen.
... they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse which still surprises me given how vocal a couple posters were on how they would call their person out if it were them. Hah.
they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse
If they do respond, it's with "well, he won the election"... or "better than Obama, Hillary, etc". They can't even defend their guy. #pathetic
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 9:46:02 GMT -5
I'd like a thread where we could discuss politics and politicians without being bombarded. It'll never happen though.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 9:46:58 GMT -5
I don't need to defend trump anymore than anyone needs to defend hillary or obama.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Aug 23, 2017 10:40:35 GMT -5
I'm still irritated about the situations of President Trump (D rumpf) = whatever it got coded to be because it's so partisan, and wimp (P ussy) = Wimp or whatever it coded it to be, etc. that is not within a topic restriction. The term bans were decided by popular vote, and I didn't even set up the vote. In my entire time here, I've never banned any thing or any one. You do me wrong by calling me a tyrant for a harmless proposal. I can take it from the hoi polloi, but from you... I know it wasn't you for those other things that's why I wanted to stop you before you started hanging around with a bad crowd. You've always been good about not over moderating what people say over here even if you don't like what's being said. Using "tyranny" was kind of a joke any way since it was you I was responding to. But the double standards from people around here are starting to piss me the fuck off.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 23, 2017 10:47:02 GMT -5
Real Americans understand that our nation was born in a rebellion against tyranny. Thankfully Moon is a real American. I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. i couldn't care less about your proposal, your thread, this thread, your post, this post, or you. six cookies, please.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 23, 2017 10:52:06 GMT -5
I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. i couldn't care less about your proposal, your thread, this thread, your post, this post, or you. six cookies, please. You're not a critic, though, are you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 23, 2017 11:16:12 GMT -5
i couldn't care less about your proposal, your thread, this thread, your post, this post, or you. six cookies, please. You're not a critic, though, are you? oh no! me? never! (sarcasm off) edit: i see that "not making it about me" lasted for one post. back to 12 steps.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 11:31:45 GMT -5
The term bans were decided by popular vote, and I didn't even set up the vote. In my entire time here, I've never banned any thing or any one. You do me wrong by calling me a tyrant for a harmless proposal. I can take it from the hoi polloi, but from you... I know it wasn't you for those other things that's why I wanted to stop you before you started hanging around with a bad crowd. You've always been good about not over moderating what people say over here even if you don't like what's being said. Using "tyranny" was kind of a joke any way since it was you I was responding to. But the double standards from people around here are starting to piss me the fuck off. Me too
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 15:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 12:02:03 GMT -5
My guess is the only one who really wants that thread is you. So some give a crap because of the increasing moderation and restrictions especially since non conservatives can't use any bad descriptors or call Trump names after putting up with that since this board was created. If some of the conservatives or anyone really liked your idea they would have posted in its defense as support. But they didn't. The pro Trumpers just want threads to be free of any disparaging words against Trump. They aren't looking to just discuss policy from what I've seen.
... they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse which still surprises me given how vocal a couple posters were on how they would call their person out if it were them. Hah.
they are often silent when Trump does something really stupid or obtuse
If they do respond, it's with "well, he won the election"... or "better than Obama, Hillary, etc". They can't even defend their guy. #pathetic Your premise being that I have to defend him ? He's the president of the United States. He can defend himself. Now if he only knew you existed.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 23, 2017 12:52:27 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with.
We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 12:55:07 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with. We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists. It'd be nice to be able to discuss things without being shouted down by people who can't handle that someone thinks differently than they do. Plus the tacit approval by those that should be neutral.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 23, 2017 13:22:49 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with. We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists. It'd be nice to be able to discuss things without being shouted down by people who can't handle that someone thinks differently than they do. Plus the tacit approval by those that should be neutral. That's one of the reasons message boards exist. On a message board, nobody can shout you down. In a message board discussion, who "should be neutral"? Are there some who, in your view, shouldn't be allowed to have and express an opinion? On this message board, calling others derogatory names is not allowed. That's not expressing an opinion about the subject under discussion, which is why it's prohibited and posts containing such personal insults are removed. A thread that degenerates into name-calling is not a discussion. In fact, that kind of thing is what results in the end of discussion and the beginnings of a childish, sandbox war. There are plenty of posts on this board, and others, that express both sides of just about any issue you can name. On the useful and interesting boards I've seen and read, civil discussion is what's promoted. That's how we learn. While most won't change their opinion, the expression of a differing opinion is not an attack unless the poster posting it decides it's okay to denigrate other posters rather than speak to the subject under discussion.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 13:29:58 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with. We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists. I even listen to Rush Limbaugh occasionally for that reason. Not often or for long, but I do. I don't want to overdo my borrowing that talent from God. That's more than I'm willing to do. 🤢
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 23, 2017 15:42:54 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with. We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists. There are major conceptual differences between a "safe space" and the proposed thread. For one, the materials that are off-limits in a safe space are far broader than "Don't mention individuals X and Y." Safe spaces ban ideas and complete schools of thought. Where my proposal is the equivalent of "Don't swear.", a safe space is the equivalent of "Don't use adjectives." For another, I only resent safe spaces when they're unavoidable. If a leftist student society wants to turn their 5:00 meetings into safe spaces where nobody is allowed to use male pronouns, I couldn't care less. The world is full of venues with topic restrictions. You don't go into a church and start blaspheming, for example. You don't walk into the midst of a climate change seminar and tell an invited speaker he's a globalist flunky and full of crap. Safe spaces become a problem when they envelop entire campuses or organizations that people can't reasonably avoid. A single thread on P/CE doesn't even come close. Thirdly, safe spaces are established with the intent of sheltering people from opinions they consider personally harmful, while all the other venues mentioned (churches, symposiums, the proposed thread) institute topic restrictions because they elevate the level of discussion. The participants don't want to bicker about fundamentals like "Does God exist?", "Is climate change real?", "What is Donald Trump's opinion?". In these venues, certain fundamental issues are already decided and serve as a platform for the next tier of discussion. It's not as though participants never stray into other venues where fundamentals are questioned, but while they're in the topic-restricted venues, bickering over more fundamental questions is a waste of time. Hence the restrictions serve a fundamentally different purpose than safe spaces. In the case of a a Trump-free thread, the purpose of the restriction is to drown out the noise, finger-pointing and ideological garbage that has overwhelmed the rest of P/CE. I'm sorry if I cause personal offense by calling your endless, utterly suffocating invective every time the man breaks wind "ideological garbage", but if we compressed the last six months of P/CE into a single thread by eliminating redundancy, it would wind up three pages long, with 90% of posters having one post each that read, "I hate Donald Trump and every single thing the man does." Besides that, there'd be maybe three posts worth of unique material on the Russian conspiracy, three about the KKK, two about impeachment and the 25th amendment, one that read "Donald Trump has bad hair and an orange complexion. Yuk yuk.", one that read "He's not as bad as Hillary.", one that read "He won the election. Get over it." and that's it. Use whatever terminology you want, but my proposal ain't no safe space. It was an oasis in a wasteland. And from the conservative vote thus far, it looks like I'm not alone in seeing the utility.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 23, 2017 16:10:27 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,466
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 23, 2017 16:13:42 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 16:17:43 GMT -5
I even listen to Rush Limbaugh occasionally for that reason. Not often or for long, but I do. I don't want to overdo my borrowing that talent from God. That's more than I'm willing to do. 🤢 My ex would borrow my car and change all my stations to Rush. Another excellent reason he is an ex. Even DH knew better than to ""Rush is Right " with me.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 23, 2017 16:30:04 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of creating safe spaces so that dissenting opinion cannot be heard. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that we're in the mess to begin with. We have different cable news outlets, we have different talk radio shows, we see different facebook feeds, hell, some people even have different facts. None of this is helpful. I disagree with many posters, but I want to hear their voices when we discuss an issue. Because even if I don't understand how or why they hold the opinion that they do, at least I know that opinion exists. It'd be nice to be able to discuss things without being shouted down by people who can't handle that someone thinks differently than they do. Plus the tacit approval by those that should be neutral. Someone having a different opinion isn't being shouted down. I'm going to disagree and debate as much as anyone. I am going to argue my case. Just because i do that doesn't mean I don't want to hear dissenting opinions. And it doesn't mean I don't expect someone to argue that case. I don't think that is a negative thing. I think it's the exact opposite. if you want to find a space where you discuss things with people who agree with your perspective there are plenty of places to have those conversations in various places on the web. If you don't want to talk politics at all, there are hundreds of threads on this board that are politics free (and billions all over the web).
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 23, 2017 16:30:53 GMT -5
It'd be nice to be able to discuss things without being shouted down by people who can't handle that someone thinks differently than they do. Plus the tacit approval by those that should be neutral. Someone having a different opinion isn't being shouted down. I'm going to disagree and debate as much as anyone. I am going to argue my case. Just because i do that doesn't mean I don't want to hear dissenting opinions. And it doesn't mean I don't expect someone to argue that case. I don't think that is a negative thing. I think it's the exact opposite. Good for you
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 23, 2017 17:32:52 GMT -5
I assume "real Americans" can also distinguish between tyranny and a single thread with a topic restriction. Riddle me this: if a request for a Trump- and Obama-free thread constitutes "tyranny", what would you call the mandatory forum-wide ban on abortion, religious discussion, photoshopped images, speculation on member bans, etc.? Reasonable accommodation? A cookie badge to the critic who first admits they don't give a crap about the thread, they're just offended that Uppity Joe is sick to death of the only topic they're capable of discussing for more than two minutes. Tyranny: unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. I'm still irritated about the situations of President Trump (D rumpf) = whatever it got coded to be because it's so partisan, and wimp (P ussy) = Wimp or whatever it coded it to be, etc. that is not within a topic restriction. Personally, I don't care if religion and abortion were to be discussed. The only topic I'm sick of seeing Uppity Joe bring up is his homophobia. Watching you get your ass kicked for being misogynist is okay with me too. Oh, you mean like Trump threatening to shut down Congress because of the wall? There's some first-rate tyranny, right there!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,704
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Aug 23, 2017 18:17:47 GMT -5
Tyranny: unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. I'm still irritated about the situations of President Trump (D rumpf) = whatever it got coded to be because it's so partisan, and wimp (P ussy) = Wimp or whatever it coded it to be, etc. that is not within a topic restriction. Personally, I don't care if religion and abortion were to be discussed. The only topic I'm sick of seeing Uppity Joe bring up is his homophobia. Watching you get your ass kicked for being misogynist is okay with me too. Oh, you mean like Trump threatening to shut down Congress because of the wall? There's some first-rate tyranny, right there! Almost makes me wish I was an elected congress critter. For my time on the floor, I will read the transcript of Trump's conversation with the Mexican President. I call it, we won't build that wall.
|
|