YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUSPENDED! (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't really believe these are very different. They cherry pick facts specifically to get an emotional reaction or because they know that nobody will read the entire story they linked to. 

ETA: and sometimes those facts arent even really facts

Disinformation is an intelligence term of art. Misinformation means basically you're misinformed or you're misinforming others. Some misinformation is used in disinformation but not all is, but all disinformation almost always requires misinformation to operate.

If you say to me, "Hey Sid, that claim you keep repeating is totally wrong, where did you get that? And btw you need to stop because it's not accurate.' That's one thing. - If you say to me 'Hey Sid, this was started by agents for the Kremlin' then that's a claim about disinformation. It's not just misinformation it's an actual campaign with manufactured facts with a political purpose. It's like saying guns are used in assault and terrorism so there isn't really much difference between the two. It's more or less an active measure. Unfortunately this is not something that by and large the US ever used to have to worry about, and especially not coming from the US government or state or associated actors within it.

And I think that's part of the reason things are so sharp these days. This isn't just 'the president had nothing to do with this, he's not a crook' or 'Hey pal a BJ is not an impeachable offense', people feel like media and informational actors arer purposefully acting to harm society and our democracy. We can argue whether it's that serious but I think that's the reason for the vituperation.

 

[KCitons]

And yeah, changed my avatar. 

Don't worry, I don't think we're going to get to a place where real names and pictures are required. This seemed like the right thing for me. 

Nice picture. 

I think many would choose to leave before posting under their real name. I would.

I think of the swatting incidents that happen over video games. I would worry about your liability if something happened to one of your posters due to requiring the use of real names. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If that happens, I'd suggest putting that person on ignore.

By the dirt-stained knees of 1000 kneeling saints, the blood of all righteous martyrs, and the halos of the angels please listen to Joe on this.

If you come to believe it's bad faith just ignore them.

 

[eoMMan]

By the dirt-stained knees of 1000 kneeling saints, the blood of all righteous martyrs, and the halos of the angels please listen to Joe on this.

If you come to believe it's bad faith just ignore them.

Can we ignore members only for certain forums?

I ask because some members contribute to other forums and their posts are useful/funny/interesting but in the political forums....not so much.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Can we ignore members only for certain forums?

Sorry, but no. 

 

[cosjobs]

And yeah, changed my avatar. 

Don't worry, I don't think we're going to get to a place where real names and pictures are required. This seemed like the right thing for me. 

Well sure. its easy to post your pic as an avatar when someone is as attractive as you are.

 

[Van Dyman]

You're asking why people get worked up when people are blatantly lying?  I feel like this is a trick question  

For me, personally, lying/dishonesty is an integrity issue.  As such, I don't get worked up over it.  I correct the lie and move on.  There was a time where I'd correct it every single time I saw it because I thought if I didn't people who didn't know different would start believing it because they were seeing it so much.  I don't do that anymore.  It's pretty clear that some people choose to live their lives differently and it's not within my ability to change their mind.  So, when I see someone repeating the same debunked nonsense over and over after being corrected over and over, I assume they are really not attempting to have a genuine discussion.  Why waste my time on someone like that?  Am I bothered by it?  No.  Does it make me a little frustrated that people are ok with being lied to and lying to others, yes.  I don't tolerate it from my kids.  It's unacceptable and we have strict rules around lying.  Why would I be ok with that sort of behavior from a grown adult who supposedly knows better when I'm not ok with it from my kids?  The difference here is, I can do something about my kids.  A grown adult?  Not so much.

Regarding the bolded, YES! That's what makes it hard to ignore, at least for some of us.

 

[The Commish]

Regarding the bolded, YES! That's what makes it hard to ignore, at least for some of us.

If it helps any, I got over this by realizing the group here isn't your average American.  They can see what's going on and don't fall for nonsense most of the time.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Well sure. its easy to post your pic as an avatar when someone is as attractive as you are.

Yeah right  

And yes, this qualifies as ok with two words and an emoji.

 

[matuski]

It is either true that Republicans haven't been allowed in the impeachment inquiry or they have.  both can't be true and to say 'who knows' seems lazy.  

I can't imagine I am the first person to note this, but you are incorrect here.

It depends on whether you are using "Republicans" as a plural (ie a few or some Republicans), or as all encompassing (ALL Republicans).

Either can be true or false, but one can be true while the other is false as well.

 

[cosjobs]

I can't imagine I am the first person to note this, but you are incorrect here.

It depends on whether you are using "Republicans" as a plural, or as all encompassing (ALL Republicans).

Either can be true or false, but one can be true while the other is false as well.

oh come on

 

[matuski]

oh come on

what - self explanatory I think?

I am not getting caught up in whatever the fight is now.. but as a point of fact. 

eta - surely I am not the first to point it out?

 

[jomar]

I can't imagine I am the first person to note this, but you are incorrect here.

It depends on whether you are using "Republicans" as a plural (ie a few or some Republicans), or as all encompassing (ALL Republicans).

Either can be true or false, but one can be true while the other is false as well.

is this like when Bill Clinton said it depends on what the definition of is is?  didn't make any sense back then either. 

as it stands, saying 'Republicans have not been allowed to participate in the inquiry' is false.  the poster is free to change his statement to clarify it to then make it correct but we all know that doesn't happen. he disappears and comes back the next day with the same nonsense.  there is no response to clarify what he means, just the same false talking point repeated.  rinse and repeat for a weak until eventually another poster says he thinks its just 'trolling', and then you get people whining about being called trolls and how its just a difference of opinion.  

 

[John Blutarsky]

is this like when Bill Clinton said it depends on what the definition of is is?  didn't make any sense back then either. 

as it stands, saying 'Republicans have not been allowed to participate in the inquiry' is false.  the poster is free to change his statement to clarify it to then make it correct but we all know that doesn't happen. he disappears and comes back the next day with the same nonsense.  there is no response to clarify what he means, just the same false talking point repeated.  rinse and repeat for a weak until eventually another poster says he thinks its just 'trolling', and then you get people whining about being called trolls and how its just a difference of opinion.  

Is this still happening?

 

[matuski]

is this like when Bill Clinton said it depends on what the definition of is is?  didn't make any sense back then either. 

Not complicated, not hard to make sense of.

"Republicans" can mean two things.  Republicans can mean a few republicans.  Or it can said as a way to refer to all republicans.

So again.. you were incorrect.

 

[matuski]

Is this still happening?

Trying to stop the spread of misinformation.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe, you give us more credit than many of us are do.  The patience you expend here on us is admirable, you are, in that metric, a fair better man than I and you may be in other metrics as well.  I hope that you do not feel your patience has been abused as the hours turn to days.  Regardless, thanks for trying.  thanks for setting the example that some things are worth a bit of forbearance.  You give me hope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU5_-lLjhQw

Now I'm not saying you are Bilbo, but I am not saying you are not.

Thank you GB

 

[BassNBrew]

Well sure. its easy to post your pic as an avatar when someone is as attractive as you are.

Nice try. MT is still going to ban you

 

[Henry Ford]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU5_-lLjhQw

Now I'm not saying you are Bilbo, but I am not saying you are not.

It’s a good thing Joe isn’t dyslexic or you’d be suspended for this. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Not complicated, not hard to make sense of.

"Republicans" can mean two things.  Republicans can mean a few republicans.  Or it can said as a way to refer to all republicans.

So again.. you were incorrect.

So Democrats have also not been allowed to participate. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It’s a good thing Joe isn’t dyslexic or you’d be suspended for this. 

Were he dyslexic I would try to sell him that it was not me, but rather Wickless Dunders who posted that.  Dude is always getting me in trouble. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Were he dyslexic I would try to sell him that it was not me, but rather Wickless Dunders who posted that.  Dude is always getting me in trouble. 

Good point. H3nrg Forb is the bane of my existence. 

 

[sho nuff]

Were he dyslexic I would try to sell him that it was not me, but rather Wickless Dunders who posted that.  Dude is always getting me in trouble. 

Good point. H3nrg Forb is the bane of my existence. 

Joe 8ryant likes this....

 

[Koya]

Not complicated, not hard to make sense of.

"Republicans" can mean two things.  Republicans can mean a few republicans.  Or it can said as a way to refer to all republicans.

So again.. you were incorrect.

It’s also not hard to see that these types of tactics (using language that is purposefully vague and being obtuse) runs counter to forwarding constructive conversation, and in fact, is a tool often utilized purposefully conflate, confuse, and degrade the quality of conversation. 
 

Shouldn’t we have enough respect for each other and this community to try and be clear, to avoid using language that is, by nature, confusing. Most of all, when that lack of clarity is pointed out, wouldnt someone that wants to forward the discussion and positive discourse look to just clarify and use better language rather than dig in their heels to suggest what they said is or could be viewed as “right” in a game of semantics?

 

[matuski]

It’s also not hard to see that these types of tactics (using language that is purposefully vague and being obtuse) runs counter to forwarding constructive conversation, and in fact, is a tool often utilized purposefully conflate, confuse, and degrade the quality of conversation. 
 

Shouldn’t we have enough respect for each other and this community to try and be clear, to avoid using language that is, by nature, confusing. Most of all, when that lack of clarity is pointed out, wouldnt someone that wants to forward the discussion and positive discourse look to just clarify and use better language rather than dig in their heels to suggest what they said is or could be viewed as “right” in a game of semantics?

jomar made an absolute claim, and in this case... he is/was wrong.  Often the case when you use absolutes.  

Doesn't seem controversial to me. 

I'm not reading the thread at this point (just responding to quoted posts), if more has come from this than the simple fact I pointed out - I missed it.

 

[matuski]

So Democrats have also not been allowed to participate. 

Correct, this could be correct.

 

[Henry Ford]

Correct, this could be correct.

So the statement “Republicans and Democrats have been excluded from the impeachment process” is not only correct in your opinion, but also truthful. 

 

[Da Guru]

Disinformation is an intelligence term of art. Misinformation means basically you're misinformed or you're misinforming others. Some misinformation is used in disinformation but not all is, but all disinformation almost always requires misinformation to operate.

If you say to me, "Hey Sid, that claim you keep repeating is totally wrong, where did you get that? And btw you need to stop because it's not accurate.' That's one thing. - If you say to me 'Hey Sid, this was started by agents for the Kremlin' then that's a claim about disinformation. It's not just misinformation it's an actual campaign with manufactured facts with a political purpose. It's like saying guns are used in assault and terrorism so there isn't really much difference between the two. It's more or less an active measure. Unfortunately this is not something that by and large the US ever used to have to worry about, and especially not coming from the US government or state or associated actors within it.

And I think that's part of the reason things are so sharp these days. This isn't just 'the president had nothing to do with this, he's not a crook' or 'Hey pal a BJ is not an impeachable offense', people feel like media and informational actors arer purposefully acting to harm society and our democracy. We can argue whether it's that serious but I think that's the reason for the vituperation.

For well over a decade our FF drafts are full of disinformation before and during the draft.

 

[jomar]

So the statement “Republicans and Democrats have been excluded from the impeachment process” is not only correct in your opinion, but also truthful. 

who knows? is where this ends up every time

 

[cosjobs]

jomar made an absolute claim, and in this case... he is/was wrong.  Often the case when you use absolutes.  

Doesn't seem controversial to me. 

I'm not reading the thread at this point (just responding to quoted posts), if more has come from this than the simple fact I pointed out - I missed it.

:whoosh:

 

[roadkill1292]

Can somebody besides the two making the arguments help me understand this "Republicans were allowed into the process" but "Republicans were also not allowed in the process" argument?

I think I just injured myself trying to phrase that question in a way that is, uh, currently allowed.

 

[Henry Ford]

Can somebody besides the two making the arguments help me understand this "Republicans were allowed into the process" but "Republicans were also not allowed in the process" argument?

I think I just injured myself trying to phrase that question in a way that is, uh, currently allowed.

Republicans (individuals who are part of the committees) were allowed in the process.  Republicans (other individuals who were not) were not allowed.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Republicans (individuals who are part of the committees) were allowed in the process.  Republicans (other individuals who were not) were not allowed.

An invitation only affair.  Others were stopped by the bouncers at the door.  .

 

[roadkill1292]

Republicans (individuals who are part of the committees) were allowed in the process.  Republicans (other individuals who were not) were not allowed.

Well, that's what I thought. But I couldn't see how that was relevant in any way so I was confused.

 

[The Commish]

Can somebody besides the two making the arguments help me understand this "Republicans were allowed into the process" but "Republicans were also not allowed in the process" argument?

I think I just injured myself trying to phrase that question in a way that is, uh, currently allowed.

They didn't use words like "any" "all" "none" specifically.  Of course with context, those are obviously implied.  Some would lead you to believe all they were attempting to say was "Republicans who weren't part of the committees weren't allowed in the room for depositions" etc.  Which is the equivalent of "duh" as the same applies to Democrats, which they don't mention.  

 

[The Commish]

Well, that's what I thought. But I couldn't see how that was relevant in any way so I was confused.

It was pretty clear the GOP leadership and congressional reps were trying to make it sound like only the Democrats were in the room initially.  That was proven wrong, then this argument surfaced.  I'm pretty sure you can connect the dots GB.

 

[[scooter]]

2. If you want to offer other posters tips on how they should or shouldn't be posting in this subforum, do it in the saving the PSF thread. If you do it in a thread about occupational licensing reform, you will be suspended for a week.

4. You will be suspended for telling other posters "Don't" or anything similar. (PM them if you are sincerely trying to be helpful.)

These are both good rules in theory...

 

[Joe Bryant]

These are both good rules in theory...

Agreed. Try your best please to use them in reality. 

 

[John Blutarsky]

They can't help themselves

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/780181-official-donald-j-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22286495

 

[FF Ninja]

What does it mean when you get a point vs. not getting a point? I got a point for   in agreement with some news someone posted, IIRC. My post was deleted so I can't even look up exactly what it was. It was part of a multi-reply post (to multiple people), IIRC, so it's not like the   was posted by itself and it wasn't used in the typical negative fashion where it is posted in reply to someone you disagree with (implying you are laughing AT them). To make it even weirder, it says I got one point for "spamming" which makes no sense bc I think it was my only post in the PSF that day. If not, one of very few.

 

[msommer]

What does it mean when you get a point vs. not getting a point? I got a point for   in agreement with some news someone posted, IIRC. My post was deleted so I can't even look up exactly what it was. It was part of a multi-reply post (to multiple people), IIRC, so it's not like the   was posted by itself and it wasn't used in the typical negative fashion where it is posted in reply to someone you disagree with (implying you are laughing AT them). To make it even weirder, it says I got one point for "spamming" which makes no sense bc I think it was my only post in the PSF that day. If not, one of very few.

You need to type minimum two words to use an emoji.

 

[[scooter]]

What does it mean when you get a point vs. not getting a point? I got a point for   in agreement with some news someone posted, IIRC. My post was deleted so I can't even look up exactly what it was. It was part of a multi-reply post (to multiple people), IIRC, so it's not like the   was posted by itself and it wasn't used in the typical negative fashion where it is posted in reply to someone you disagree with (implying you are laughing AT them). To make it even weirder, it says I got one point for "spamming" which makes no sense bc I think it was my only post in the PSF that day. If not, one of very few.

Sometimes posts get deleted because you quoted something objectionable.

As for "spamming", that was probably just mod shorthand for "I don't feel like typing out a full explanation of what you did, but it was bad."

 

[Juxtatarot]

What does it mean when you get a point vs. not getting a point?

It becomes part of your permanent record.  This can impact you ability to get a new job, it lowers your credit score by approximately 20 points, and may raise your insurance premiums.

 

[FF Ninja]

You need to type minimum two words to use an emoji.

I did! And I think I was replying to several people just like this post. I don't believe I was replying to any people I disagreed with, either. So my emoji was definitely not attacking any specific poster. IIRC, The General had posted something absurd that happened and I laughed and said it was an embarrassing time to be an American (this was not hyperbole - what's going on now is genuinely embarrassing and is the first thing to come up when traveling abroad). 

Sometimes posts get deleted because you quoted something objectionable.

As for "spamming", that was probably just mod shorthand for "I don't feel like typing out a full explanation of what you did, but it was bad."

I don't think it was objectionable, but in that particular thread people often object to the reporting of facts... so you never know.

It becomes part of your permanent record.  This can impact you ability to get a new job, it lowers your credit score by approximately 20 points, and may raise your insurance premiums.

The wife's idea of freezing our credit score has already paid off!

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I got banned years ago for posting Biggie lyrics. Just enjoy the mystery.

 

[John Blutarsky]

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/780181-official-donald-j-trump-impeachment-whistleblower-thread/?do=findComment&comment=22287859

"boot lickers"  This isn't what they want, we don't want this place shut down.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

What not to do if you're suspended:

Don't make or use an alias account. 

Is this one being enforced or just window dressing?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is this one being enforced or just window dressing?

Please whine less. Maurile doesn't have time write stuff that is "window dressing". If you know someone is using an alias account, report it. It's not complicated. 

 

[Slapdash]

Just as a point of parliamentary procedure, should we continue to direct questions/complaints about moderation here?  I do have a nifty thread for it already, but the shutdown of the other thread makes me wonder if it is being barred overall.  Just curious.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Just as a point of parliamentary procedure, should we continue to direct questions/complaints about moderation here?  I do have a nifty thread for it already, but the shutdown of the other thread makes me wonder if it is being barred overall.  Just curious.

These non-political threads are to the PSF what the PSF is to the FFA: a place to concentrate all annoying discussion into one place so that it's cordoned off.

We need a place like that here. It can be this thread or it can be the moderation thread, but let's pick just one. I'd say probably let's pick this one so that the first post in it stays easier for people to find and refer to.