The Socialist Response

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:25 pm

American Dream » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:08 pm wrote:I'm going to pass on that at this point in time, Robert. While Elvis is just as entitled as anyone else to make comments on other posts, I am not interested in getting into a "thing" about it right now. I often find those sorts of interactions across polarized difference to be unhelpful, both for myself and for the board. I think there's content in the general guidelines that cautions about those sorts of things and I'm going to stay on the side of not feeding the flames of escalating or unhelpful arguments, which I believe to be a generally good thing to do.

I have some points of clarification and discussion for you but not in this moment, nor in this thread.

stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:55 pm wrote:I appreciate you making an effort to give us your perspective of the article you're sharing, American Dream. But what do you really think about it, aside from it not being warmongering? Do you think perhaps Elvis is correct with his point where this one-sided writer is incorrect?


To be clear, I didn't mention the critique Elvis made to try to start an unhelpful argument. The content in the general guidelines you're referring to encourages arguments to be "issue-based" in the hopes they will "generate more light than heat" as Jeff puts it. If I wanted to start a flame war, I would have mentioned MacCruiskeen's objections. I didn't realize that you had the same "polarized difference" toward Elvis. Frankly, I really wasn't aware of any antagonism between you two beyond issue-based arguments. Is that really the case?

My question to you was done because, as my co-moderator put it, any editorializing on copypasta should "put a human touch on the information." So that's why I'm curious, what do you really think about it, aside from it not being warmongering?
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:35 pm

It seems you did help start a flame war, at least on one side. I am staying out of it.

I'm ready to get on the same page with you regarding the "warmongering" thing.

Five days ago, I tried to log on and was rather shocked to find that I couldn't and instead reading this message:

Information

You have been banned from this board until Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:00 am.

Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.

Reason given for ban: article is warmongering w/o dissenting commentary

A ban has been issued on your username.


I've not yet hears a reasonable explanation for that.

Didn't you yourself develop a highly idiosyncratic interpretation for a rule that was against what would more commonly be called "Hate Speech" and then proceed to apply it only to me?

That is certainly how it appears. If you think I am not completely understanding your actions please provide further information on what is informing your thoughts and actions.




stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:25 pm wrote:
To be clear, I didn't mention the critique Elvis made to try to start an unhelpful argument. The content in the general guidelines you're referring to encourages arguments to be "issue-based" in the hopes they will "generate more light than heat" as Jeff puts it. If I wanted to start a flame war, I would have mentioned MacCruiskeen's objections. I didn't realize that you had the same "polarized difference" toward Elvis. Frankly, I really wasn't aware of any antagonism between you two beyond issue-based arguments. Is that really the case?

My question to you was done because, as my co-moderator put it, any editorializing on copypasta should "put a human touch on the information." So that's why I'm curious, what do you really think about it, aside from it not being warmongering?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19708
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Elvis » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:43 pm

stillrobertpaulsen wrote: I didn't realize that you had the same "polarized difference" toward Elvis. Frankly, I really wasn't aware of any antagonism between you two beyond issue-based arguments.


I'm arguing the issues but getting nothing back. The furthest I've seen AD go to acknowledge the bountiful evidence of the White Helmets' overlap with ISIS terrorists was a dismissive dodge along the lines of, 'there might be some interesting things in that video, but....' — never addressing the evidence issues. I have brought it up and laid it out many times, but there is never discussion, no counter-argument from AD. That's not critical thinking, it's heel-digging denial.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:47 pm

American Dream » Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:08 pm wrote:I'm going to pass on that at this point in time, Robert. While Elvis is just as entitled as anyone else to make comments on other posts, I am not interested in getting into a "thing" about it right now. I often find those sorts of interactions across polarized difference to be unhelpful, both for myself and for the board. I think there's content in the general guidelines that cautions about those sorts of things and I'm going to stay on the side of not feeding the flames of escalating or unhelpful arguments, which I believe to be a generally good thing to do.

I have some points of clarification and discussion for you but not in this moment, nor in this thread.



You never stop pulling this devious, dishonest and incredibly creepy stunt. Moderators are the only members of this Discussion Board you will even condescend to reply to, and then your "reply" consists of - what? A flat refusal to reply to them, a content-free five-line ramble about what you personally are or are not "interested in", along with a typically snooty but completely vague promise/threat to supply some unspecified kind of "clarification" at some unspecified time and place of your own choosing. (As if you'd been asked to solve some incredibly knotty mathematical problem or something!)

It is bullshit, and it is blatantly obvious bullshit.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9533
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Elvis » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:07 pm

American Dream wrote:While Elvis is just as entitled as anyone else to make comments on other posts, I am not interested in getting into a "thing" about it right now.


That "thing' called discussion?

That's how discussion boards work: people post something, then people discuss it. Care to join in? :basicsmile


Or are there forum guidelines discouraging discussion??...
American Dream wrote: I think there's content in the general guidelines that cautions about those sorts of things

:shock:
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:17 pm

Elvis you cant post a Monty Python jab at someone and then declare an innocent attempt at legitimate discourse.
I have an image in my mind of AD - the person that posts articles, it does not correlate at all with yours and Mac's.
SRP specifically suspended AD for warmongering. If AD is really a war monger he should be permanently banned. He is not. SRP knows this.
It really appears to me that SRP is catering to your and Macs concerns to the point of suspending AD for not providing commentary quickly enough to defend an author that others accuse of being a war monger. That is ridiculous!
Whats worse SRP states that without clarification than AD must share the beliefs of the author and is therefore a warmongerer!
That's dangerous thinking.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:21 pm

Elvis wrote:American Dream wrote:
I think there's content in the general guidelines that cautions about those sorts of things


Its called trolling, you are doing it now!
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:28 pm

On this being a "discussion" board and the demand that more in depth discussion takes place.
What about the readers that never post a single thought? Should we lock them out?
What about Jeff Wells himself? He started this shit.
No one owes anyone anything. Get over it.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Elvis » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:01 pm

I'm not demanding more discussion take place, I'm asking nicely, because I want to understand AD's viewpoint. As it stands, he just keeps repeating the same themes and dismissive dodges and just ignores any critical discussion about the issues.

I reserve the right to lose patience and post funny Monty Python clips that characterize the situation.

How is my critique of a posted article "trolling"? Help me out; I don't want to be a troll, but I do want to discuss the issues, that's why I'm here.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:15 pm

Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:21 pm wrote:
Elvis wrote:American Dream wrote:
I think there's content in the general guidelines that cautions about those sorts of things


Its called trolling, you are doing it now!


OK, Burnt Hill, you've just earned yourself an official warning. You might want to step back and step out if you can't keep your arguments issue-based. That is what Elvis is trying to do. I don't see you doing that.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:17 pm

American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:35 pm wrote:It seems you did help start a flame war, at least on one side. I am staying out of it.

I'm ready to get on the same page with you regarding the "warmongering" thing.


Then you need to start taking responsibility for your actions, including your lack of them when discussion is warranted, which is what precipitated what you are describing as a flame war. Try answering questions on issue-based arguments, as a token of good faith that you are actually posting on General Discussion for discussion.

American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:35 pm wrote:Didn't you yourself develop a highly idiosyncratic interpretation for a rule that was against what would more commonly be called "Hate Speech" and then proceed to apply it only to me?


Wrong. It doesn't just apply to you. It applies to everyone.

stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:52 pm wrote:But this is an effort on our parts to maintain consistency here - we are not asking American Dream to do anything that we would not ask any other member to do - it's just that we don't have to ask most other members. They just do it on their own accord, either out of a desire to clarify or maybe just simple courtesy. It shouldn't have to be an exercise in pulling teeth. Hopefully as a result of my action it won't be in the future.


Call it an idiosyncratic interpretation if you want, but in my book, there is no greater form of violence on this planet than warmongering. And I don't think it's idiosyncratic to say it has no place on this board coming from anyone.

stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:25 pm wrote:
To be clear, I didn't mention the critique Elvis made to try to start an unhelpful argument. The content in the general guidelines you're referring to encourages arguments to be "issue-based" in the hopes they will "generate more light than heat" as Jeff puts it. If I wanted to start a flame war, I would have mentioned MacCruiskeen's objections. I didn't realize that you had the same "polarized difference" toward Elvis. Frankly, I really wasn't aware of any antagonism between you two beyond issue-based arguments. Is that really the case?

My question to you was done because, as my co-moderator put it, any editorializing on copypasta should "put a human touch on the information." So that's why I'm curious, what do you really think about it, aside from it not being warmongering?


Now, if you're here for discussion, would you mind answering my repeated questions? Or if not, I could just move this thread to Data Dump. What do you want?

On edit: this isn't even your thread, so I'm not going to move this, or lock it. I think I want my questions answered. Please.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:35 pm

Elvis, posting the Monty Python jab and then the "thing" called discussion post was trolling AD, as minor as it was, why would you expect a discussion if that is your approach?

And SRP, exactly what am I being warned about? Derailing a thread? You must be kidding.
User avatar
Burnt Hill
 
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: down down
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:56 pm

Burnt Hill » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:35 pm wrote:Elvis, posting the Monty Python jab and then the "thing" called discussion post was trolling AD, as minor as it was, why would you expect a discussion if that is your approach?

And SRP, exactly what am I being warned about? Derailing a thread? You must be kidding.


No, I'm not kidding, and at this point, after I asked you to back off, you are being deliberately disruptive. Also, your description of Elvis's entreaties with AD is dishonest on your part. Elvis asked a question, I repeated it, then AD made it clear he didn't want to discuss it with Elvis. Leaving that out shows you're not interested in discussion, just fanning flames.

So take the week off.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:20 pm

@srp

We haven't really gotten very far with the "warmongering" policy. If I'm not mistaken, it seems to hinge on some particular interpretation of this:

Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.


We should all be clear what your policy regarding "warmongering" says is proscribed speech, right?.

Also, I did not think you intended to ignite a flamewar with Elvis. My point was that I do not want to, nor do I have to, engage with anyone where there is a destructive dynamic. I would ask that any moderators who want to do a good job here be consistent about interrupting bullying, abuse, and related behaviors. This would be the single most effective way of making the board better, in my view.

I invite you to (re)post whatever questions you think have slipped through the cracks and I will be happy to respond, though i may seek clarification on your premises, since I want to give a meaningful response.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19708
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Socialist Response

Postby peartreed » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:40 pm

stillrobertpaulsen – You might give me a week off too because I fully agree with Burnt Hill commentary above. I disagree also with the reasons for his ban and the earlier ban of AD. Disagreement with you and your rationale is not “disruptive”.

RI is assuredly a discussion board but it has never been exclusively so. Posts of articles without accompanying commentary have always been common and, in my case, very much appreciated as news items I might otherwise miss on the topic.

Your threat to send AD posts to Data Dump illustrates your intent for that section to become the “copy/pasta” dump, whatever new name you choose to call it. It appears you are going to enforce a new rule that General Discussion must include discussion, whatever that section is renamed. Otherwise you ban dissenters who do not comply with your insistence to engage in discussion with their critics.

If this is the new moderation technique and policy for the board, then count me out.

Both Elvis and MacCruiskeen have consistently trolled and teased AD mercilessly on the pretense of engaging in discussion only to escalate argument and harassment. You have now followed their modus operandi as the moderator challenging AD.

I’m with Burnt Hill and others disturbed by your unfair actions and I also object. You need to cite the new rules and policy.
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 12 guests