Saving the PSF - How can we, as a community, make this place better

[Koya 11,652]

1 hour ago, badmojo1006 said:

It would make me sad, but @Joe Bryant probably best to shut it down. 

This thread proves, in my mind, that people are too entranced to change

 

I am not coming away with this sentiment.  A very small minority perhaps - which by the way, is much the same percentage that engage in the most egregious behavior in general - but I think some constructive thoughts and positive posts have resulted here.

Again, for those that hate the PSF so much, I don't know why it's so difficult to simply not come here.  That said, we do owe it to ourselves, and moreso Joe and his team, to do better. Not try; do.

[Summer Wheat 282]

The superiority complex takes over more in the PSF than any other forum.  If a person is not 100% totally briefed on a topic and knows every factoid inside and out they are insulted as stupid instead of being educated on the topic. Not everybody follows Trump or politics 24-7 but sometimes would like to converse on issue.  Here it is almost impossible because there are a handful of guys who seem to be on here and know every topic 24-7.

[John Bender 6,521]

1 minute ago, Summer Wheat said:

The superiority complex takes over more in the PSF than any other forum.  If a person is not 100% totally briefed on a topic and knows every factoid inside and out they are insulted as stupid instead of being educated on the topic. Not everybody follows Trump or politics 24-7 but sometimes would like to converse on issue.  Here it is almost impossible because there are a handful of guys who seem to be on here and know every topic 24-7.

nah

[Koya 11,652]

1 hour ago, steelcitysledgehammers said:

Lurkers of the PSF unite! 

I don't have much to add to Mene's post as he's covered the majority of my sentiments.  I just don't want to see this place go without letting the decision makers know that there are some of us who consider this subforum to be an excellent source of not only information, but also behavior.  It's a shame the (few) bad actors and their actions are getting more attention than the (mostly) courteous and insightful posters whose goals are to understand, enlighten and sometimes entertain.

I recognize I'm owed nothing, but if this place is shut down, I didn't want it to go without voicing my desire to keep it available.

#SaveThePSF

J

This is why I lurked often during my year's self exile (which unfortunately I only broke to ##### in a misguided attempt to make things better... emphasis on misguided.  Apologies @Joe Bryant)

One thing that would be a shame to lose is the passion so many posters bring to this forum, from so many perspectives - politically and otherwise. 

[Thunderlips 3,919]

Threads on politics on this board (both originally when they were peppered throughout the FFA and now with the PSF) used to be a place to argue and learn.  Now, (in a lot of ways) it's just become The Springer Show.....yelling, bloviating not even trying to engage in legitimate political argument/discussion.

 

It's basically a mirror of politics in America today.  

[Koya 11,652]

1 hour ago, That one guy said:

I think something many people should do is read and catch up on an entire thread prior to replying.  I think a major contributor to the dog pile effect is a knee-jerk “oh no, this cannot stand” reaction to a post/poster.  There’s a really good chance that someone has already responded to whatever issue you might have, just keep reading and find out before posting

Ooof, I broke that rule here.  And dammit, there I go again.

:stonedbanana:

 

(if we only put in the freaking :wastedbanana: and :stonedbanana: emojis, back when we still just called them smilies, this would be a far different place.  Jus' saying)

[KCitons 4,145]

Just now, GoBirds said:

I think you are right, all allowing this venting forums has done is divide people on the board. Hopefully when they do it it’s done the right way, and not just because of a Trump re-election and the meltdowns that ensue. 

I don't disagree with this. But, let's extrapolate it out to the rest of society. IE shutting down this board. We are in the midst of unprecedented political turmoil. Should we shut down media? Or perhaps shut down town halls or protests? They are all ways that people from both sides express their opinions. Silencing voices never solves the problem. Embracing it and recognizing the problem leads to solutions. We need to find ways to extend olive branches when met with conflict. If our elected officials can't do this, maybe we can in this small corner of the internet. 

I've been called a troll. But, ignored most of it. Because I know I'm not trolling. I've done some self reflecting after the conversation that Noonan had the last couple of days in the other thread. I had already refrained from my usual posting frequency in the gun thread because I felt it was becoming unproductive. It doesn't mean I've changed my stance. And I doubt those I disagree with believe I've changed either. We just don't need to argue about it any longer. I stated over and over that I was searching for win-win compromise. I think everyone should be looking for that type of solution when they engage in any discussion. The feelings you get from winning your point on a message board are short lived. The benefits from reaching common ground are long lasting. 

I'm worried that it doesn't matter. Being an anonymous message board, may be exactly what some people want. The ability to curb stomp someone that thinks differently than they do, for the shear joy of acting like a jerk without accountability. We can't get away from that. We can hold them accountable and weed out those that don't want to make this a productive place.

[Caesar 516]

3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

The superiority complex takes over more in the PSF than any other forum.  If a person is not 100% totally briefed on a topic and knows every factoid inside and out they are insulted as stupid instead of being educated on the topic. Not everybody follows Trump or politics 24-7 but sometimes would like to converse on issue.  Here it is almost impossible because there are a handful of guys who seem to be on here and know every topic 24-7.

Agree with this.  I've been hesitant to engage at times because of that exact mentality.

[roadkill1292 9,721]

3 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

The superiority complex takes over more in the PSF than any other forum.  If a person is not 100% totally briefed on a topic and knows every factoid inside and out they are insulted as stupid instead of being educated on the topic. Not everybody follows Trump or politics 24-7 but sometimes would like to converse on issue.  Here it is almost impossible because there are a handful of guys who seem to be on here and know every topic 24-7.

Goodness, no. This is where not-very-knowledgeable people like me come to get things explained to them. We have people here who know stuff. That's really helpful, not intimidating.

[jplvr 542]

JMO, but you should look for less moderation, not more. If you're going to allow the place to continue, stop giving people reasons to be offended. "See, this guy broke the rules too" is such a ####ty fight to have. Make this the Wild Wild West, and tell people to put on their big kid panties before coming here.

Or kill it... either way works.

This place skewed left a long, long time ago, and while that was fine, the conversations we had say in 2005 were a lot more friendly and respectful. When you allowed one guy to pretty much hijack every political thread, it ran a lot of people off.

[ren hoek 3,488]

13 minutes ago, Koya said:

@ren hoek- I'd like to personally apologize for any accusations I've said that were out of line.  I could say more to provide nuance, but feel it may run counter to the purpose of this thread, and perhaps even better offline. But if I've stated things in a manner that spurred more negativity or feeling of attack than positivity and feeling of discourse, I take responsibility for that.

Thanks Koya- always thought you were a good guy on here, even when things got a bit carried away there.  You're all good.  

[Koya 11,652]

13 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

I think you are right, all allowing this venting forums has done is divide people on the board. Hopefully when they do it it’s done the right way, and not just because of a Trump re-election and the meltdowns that ensue. 

I'd respectfully disagree.  I used to rarely post in political threads. But we are at a precarious time in our nation's and global history, so with all that is going on, especially since the Trump administration took the reigns (and in the lead up to it), I actually ended up finding far more value here than even the FFA.   If not for this board, I'd probably check out the Shark Pool, but not much else. 

Then again, I'm just re-acclimating after a years hiatus. Then again, again, maybe it's the lack of a yoga pants thread.

 

[Caesar 516]

1 hour ago, That one guy said:

I think something many people should do is read and catch up on an entire thread prior to replying.  I think a major contributor to the dog pile effect is a knee-jerk “oh no, this cannot stand” reaction to a post/poster.  There’s a really good chance that someone has already responded to whatever issue you might have, just keep reading and find out before posting

This would be a lot easier if the threads did not get to 25 pages of negativity and slander in about 2 hours.   5 pages of two posters going back and forth about their perception of what a word means is exhausting.

[Koya 11,652]

6 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Agree with this.  I've been hesitant to engage at times because of that exact mentality.

Oh you'll be fine.  Come on in... just don't turn your back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mile High 3,991]

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

[Henry Ford 59,286]

31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Anchovies in Caesar? Yea or nay? 

Yes. Also, if they’re not in the dressing it isn’t a Caesar. 

[Koya 11,652]

30 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Can you define what you deem to be a "falsehood" please?

You created the thread with that opinion and it gave me pause, now I see you doubling down on it so I'd like to see if you might be willing to clarify that position.

Not so much doubling down as recognizing how much of a wedge this specific issue creates here - and in general. After all, we have a President that calls 100% factually based, well sourced, clearly demonstrated facts as "fake news" - that is an assault on the truth.  We have certain extreme media, some representing far left and some representing far right perspectives, that are at the least accused of spin at best, and outright lies and blatant falsehoods at worst.  We have seen a significant increase in gaslighting and propaganda in general in this nation.

With that as backdrop, I guess it comes down to the reality that "falsehood" is now somehow in the eye of the beholder. What some of us think is a clear objective, incontrovertible fact, others say is a falsehood.

I recognize that in this environment, and certainly on this forum, there is no judge or arbiter of the truth (I'd repeatedly asked Joe and company to be just that, but now understand that may be an impossible ask considering their position and considering the nature of this outlet).

 

SO: When one of us sees something that we feel is a falsehood, how should we react to not promote more negativity but rather more discourse? It's not about what is or is not a falsehood since we may never disagree.  It is not at this point, imo, even about whether someone is purposefully promoting known falsehoods for some ulterior motive.  Because again, who is the judge on if indeed, it is a falsehood.  What it IS about is how to we constructively engage when someone puts forth a statement that we feel, with sourcing and objective facts, logic and reason, is a falsehood.

I hope that helps you better understand my position as of this moment, and when I wrote that comment to DN.  I've evolved my thoughts having read 8 pages of this thread, in regard to where I may have stood a day ago. And I thank those who responded earnestly, to help me get there.

[Henry Ford 59,286]

22 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I vote IK to be a mod.

Seems like more of a goth. 

[supermike80 705]

Just now, Koya said:

Not so much doubling down as recognizing how much of a wedge this specific issue creates here - and in general. After all, we have a President that calls 100% factually based, well sourced, clearly demonstrated facts as "fake news" - that is an assault on the truth.  We have certain extreme media, some representing far left and some representing far right perspectives, that are at the least accused of spin at best, and outright lies and blatant falsehoods at worst.  We have seen a significant increase in gaslighting and propaganda in general in this nation.

With that as backdrop, I guess it comes down to the reality that "falsehood" is now somehow in the eye of the beholder. What some of us think is a clear objective, incontrovertible fact, others say is a falsehood.

I recognize that in this environment, and certainly on this forum, there is no judge or arbiter of the truth (I'd repeatedly asked Joe and company to be just that, but now understand that may be an impossible ask considering their position and considering the nature of this outlet).

 

SO: When one of us sees something that we feel is a falsehood, how should we react to not promote more negativity but rather more discourse? It's not about what is or is not a falsehood since we may never disagree.  It is not at this point, imo, even about whether someone is purposefully promoting known falsehoods for some ulterior motive.  Because again, who is the judge on if indeed, it is a falsehood.  What it IS about is how to we constructively engage when someone puts forth a statement that we feel, with sourcing and objective facts, logic and reason, is a falsehood.

I hope that helps you better understand my position as of this moment, and when I wrote that comment to DN.  I've evolved my thoughts having read 8 pages of this thread, in regard to where I may have stood a day ago. And I thank those who responded earnestly, to help me get there.

Well that's kind of what I was getting at.  I feel calling someones opinion a falsehood isnt a good idea.  Opinions are what they are.  Certainly they can be wrong in someones eyes, but falsehood implies that the other side is fact, and that I dont agree with

[John Bender 6,521]

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Yes. Also, if they’re not in the dressing it isn’t a Caesar. 

They should be ON a caesar. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by John Bender

[Koya 11,652]

Just now, supermike80 said:

Well that's kind of what I was getting at.  I feel calling someones opinion a falsehood isnt a good idea.  Opinions are what they are.  Certainly they can be wrong in someones eyes, but falsehood implies that the other side is fact, and that I dont agree with

Don't want to further hijack this thread with this one issue - perhaps worth a thread of its own - but there is a difference between opinions and facts. And stating a falsehood but calling it an opinion doesn't change the underlying reality.

Would you prefer if I use the term "lie" - that seems to have a more negative connotation than falsehood, hence my choice of the latter.

Saying that Trump won the most votes in the last election, as one example, would be a lie. It's not an opinion. It's clear fact.  (not suggesting anyone has stated that, but it would be a clear example).

[krista4 13,642]

6 hours ago, jamny said:

Joe is spelling it out for us right here. Just treat people with a little respect. As if you are speaking to them face to face. Now, if this is how you treat people IRL, maybe this isn't the board for you. But ask yourself, every time you post, if what you are writing falls into any of these categories. The whole ""transcript" nonsense is a perfect example. Either put Noonan on ignore, scroll past or if you must reply, write "not a transcript" and move on to your actual discussion. No need to badger him over and over on it. Move on!

 

and FWIW, I don't blame Trump. Things have gotten a lot angrier around here since the yoga pants thread and Who's Hottest threads were banned. 

Lots of excellent posts in this thread, but mostly they're making it all too complicated.  This post IMO hits the nail on the head.  For god's sake, it isn't that hard.  "It's not fair"-type posts (not an actual quote) miss the point entirely.  Guess what?  The forum is never going to be "fair" in the sense of any one person's definition.  Some might think it unfair that they were suspended for a post while others who've done what they consider to be worse were not.  Some might think it unfair because the moderators don't smack down every post that is a misstatement of fact.  Some might think it unfair that others with different viewpoints "pile on."  

Joe put it right out there, as jamny points out.  His goal is not fairness or whatever you think it should be; it is civility.  It is remembering that it's better to be kind than to be right.  And really, that is such an easy ask!  It doesn't rely on someone else's behavior; it only asks that we control our own actions.  Seems a lot simpler than more mods, banning particular posters, more banning of particular words or actions, or any of the other suggestions in this thread.

My "brother" in Nicaragua was having marital problems several years ago, and I offhandedly said to him, "Julio, just don't be an [filtered word that involves a word for a donkey combined with a word for what you'd dig in the ground.]"  And for the last several years he has told me over and over that that changed his life because he just always remembers, "Krista says don't be [word]," and in implementing that simple thought his marriage has become a million times better.  It sounds silly but is just as easy to implement here:  "don't be [word]."  Just don't.  I can't for the life of me figure out why people "hate" someone on the internet they don't know, but if you do, or if they just push your buttons too much for you not to be an [word] to them, then just put that person on ignore and have a happier life and happier forum.

Edited October 25, 2019 by krista4

[squistion 10,642]

6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Yes. Also, if they’re not in the dressing it isn’t a Caesar. 

By definition either in the salad or part of the dressing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_salad

A Caesar salad (also spelled Cesar and Cesare) is a green salad of romaine lettuce and croutons dressed with lemon juice (or lime juice), olive oil, egg, Worcestershire sauce, anchovies, garlic, Dijon mustard, Parmesan cheese, and black pepper.

[Maurile Tremblay 19,373]

1 hour ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Imo the “mob mentality” around here is when everyone disagrees with a posters opinion on something, then it turns into “don’t feed the troll”, “put him on ignore!!!” , “he voted for Gary Johnson rolleyes” etc.  from the same crew.

It happens all the time

I agree with this. I also think it's hard for members of the mob to recognize it when it happens -- i.e., the mob isn't doing it on purpose, but is instead unaware of itself.

[supermike80 705]

1 minute ago, Koya said:

Don't want to further hijack this thread with this one issue - perhaps worth a thread of its own - but there is a difference between opinions and facts. And stating a falsehood but calling it an opinion doesn't change the underlying reality.

Would you prefer if I use the term "lie" - that seems to have a more negative connotation than falsehood, hence my choice of the latter.

Saying that Trump won the most votes in the last election, as one example, would be a lie. It's not an opinion. It's clear fact.  (not suggesting anyone has stated that, but it would be a clear example).

See that completely depends on what you call a fact.  As someone said before, calling the Washington Monument an obelisk is a fact.

Saying President Washington was a wonderful president is an opinion.

[Don't Noonan 4,838]

41 minutes ago, Koya said:

🤝

@Don't Noonan - I pledge to be more excellent in my responses to you (they are rarely exchanges, and I'll take responsibility for much of that).

If I can ask you a very sincere and honest question, and I hope you take it in that manner:

One of the issues on this board is a feeling that some posters are purposefully putting out falsehoods.  It goes both ways, and I know you personally have been at the center of many such accusations, and perhaps indeed, attacks - and I know you have accused others of engaging in such behavior.  FYI, this post is not to suggest either you nor they (nor me) is right or wrong, but more a question of how we should handle such posts in the future, in the spirit of being better to one another and fostering more constructive discourse.

If/when that should occur in the future, what is the best means for us to substantively engage... how do we have a constructive discussion rather than the ping pong "you lied" to lead to a "no I didn't" type he said/she said?

I mean this sincerely, as I think we all want to abide by what would be consider the truth (I'd hope so at least).  And obviously the same goes for those that you see make a statement that you believe is at best not fully true, and potentially a flat out lie.

This seems to be a core issue, and again this is not about blame or whether its true or not since we likely differ in that opinion. It's about how should we react to others when we see something repeatedly stated that we feel has been shown to not be representative of the truth.

I do look forward to your answer and hope you see this in the positive spirit in which my question intends. Thank you.

I just spent 10 minutes going through yesterday's exchange picking quotes out to link here and then accidentally hit quote in the long thread and lost them.  🤬  Not wasting time doing it again.

There was one or two posters that responded perfectly fine saying that yes it was called a transcript by the media but the fine print said it wasn't verbatim.  That is perfectly fine, then the discussion should lead to was anything relevant to the impeachment left out or was it minor details or national security info.  Nope, we had groups of folks demanding I don't call it a transcript and called me a liar.  I posted a link of CNN, CBS, NBC calling it a transcript and Joe commented that I was correct and Fish and others were crying for no reason.

You yourself said I was either intentionally spreading false info or trolling.  Can you see where I and the majority of the public are coming from?  Should we not believe the media?  Should I assume Trump altered the transcript or didn't include damaging parts like you guys obviously do?  

[GROOT 850]

4 hours ago, identikit said:

Your last comment about travel was grossly inappropriate.

You had already made your point (which was more than valid).

Just my opinion.

By simply  showing an example of what i was talking about? Is this what it has come too? If so,  the political forum needs to go.

[Sheriff Bart 12,587]

I've found that if I post when I'm completely nude it makes me more compassionate to the views of others.

[Ramblin Wreck 11,790]

6 minutes ago, Koya said:

Not so much doubling down as recognizing how much of a wedge this specific issue creates here - and in general. After all, we have a President that calls 100% factually based, well sourced, clearly demonstrated facts as "fake news" - that is an assault on the truth.  We have certain extreme media, some representing far left and some representing far right perspectives, that are at the least accused of spin at best, and outright lies and blatant falsehoods at worst.  We have seen a significant increase in gaslighting and propaganda in general in this nation.

With that as backdrop, I guess it comes down to the reality that "falsehood" is now somehow in the eye of the beholder. What some of us think is a clear objective, incontrovertible fact, others say is a falsehood.

I recognize that in this environment, and certainly on this forum, there is no judge or arbiter of the truth (I'd repeatedly asked Joe and company to be just that, but now understand that may be an impossible ask considering their position and considering the nature of this outlet).

 

SO: When one of us sees something that we feel is a falsehood, how should we react to not promote more negativity but rather more discourse? It's not about what is or is not a falsehood since we may never disagree.  It is not at this point, imo, even about whether someone is purposefully promoting known falsehoods for some ulterior motive.  Because again, who is the judge on if indeed, it is a falsehood.  What it IS about is how to we constructively engage when someone puts forth a statement that we feel, with sourcing and objective facts, logic and reason, is a falsehood.

I hope that helps you better understand my position as of this moment, and when I wrote that comment to DN.  I've evolved my thoughts having read 8 pages of this thread, in regard to where I may have stood a day ago. And I thank those who responded earnestly, to help me get there.

I think asking a question to clarify is fine.  But when the other guy clearly doesn't see it as false then let it go.   The issue though is no one will let it go and they hammer the guy expecting to beat him down into seeing it their way (with a dozen others jumping in to dogpile) and then they follow that guy around from thread to thread and continue to hammer him.

Noonan posted several links yesterday referring to the memo as a transcript.  So he wasn't just making it up or anything.  And I still can't believe how much time people spent worrying about the damn word "transcript".  Crazy.

[rockaction 15,238]

1 minute ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I've found that if I post when I'm completely nude it makes me more compassionate to the views of others.

Tender is the night, Bart.

[krista4 13,642]

As an aside, I think this forum would be a lot worse if we didn't have any Trump supporters here.  While I probably don't agree with them on 99% of matters, I want to hear their views if they are being sincere.  That of course goes for conservative, non-Trump people as well.  I agree that the "piling on" happens way too often.  Really, why does anyone need to be the 12th person to say "not a transcript"?  I suggest that people read through the rest of the replies before posting their own.

[Summer Wheat 282]

24 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Goodness, no. This is where not-very-knowledgeable people like me come to get things explained to them. We have people here who know stuff. That's really helpful, not intimidating.

Maybe at times if you agree with them.  If not you are stupid.

[rockaction 15,238]

Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

I think asking a question to clarify is fine.  But when the other guy clearly doesn't see it as false then let it go.   The issue though is no one will let it go and they hammer the guy expecting to beat him down into seeing it their way (with a dozen others jumping in to dogpile) and then they follow that guy around from thread to thread and continue to hammer him.

Noonan posted several links yesterday referring to the memo as a transcript.  So he wasn't just making it up or anything.  And I still can't believe how much time people spent worrying about the damn word "transcript".  Crazy.

I'm not here to back Noonan or not, but I keep seeing this on the forum. It's a weird sort of witch trial mentality/vibe that goes on. "You're the witch!" "She's the witch!" "Well, burn the witch!"

It's tiresome, and why I don't post here as often as I used to. 

[Ramblin Wreck 11,790]

44 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Bingo 

Also it would be nice to discuss those topics without constantly involving Trump, which never ends well.  I can't tell you the number of times I've posted an opinion on a subject and get 10 replies "So you won't be voting for Trump in 2020 then?" or some similar reply that's nothing to do with the actual subject.   It ends the discussion every single time.

I mean go ahead and have a thread for Trump sucks.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  It's when it comes into every other thread it's awful.  I mean you can't discuss AOC or anyone else without a bunch of B-b-b-b-but Trump posts.  

[Caesar 516]

1 minute ago, krista4 said:

As an aside, I think this forum would be a lot worse if we didn't have any Trump supporters here.  While I probably don't agree with them on 99% of matters, I want to hear their views if they are being sincere.  That of course goes for conservative, non-Trump people as well.  I agree that the "piling on" happens way too often.  Really, why does anyone need to be the 12th person to say "not a transcript"?  I suggest that people read through the rest of the replies before posting their own.

I am usually more interested in HOW someone got to their opinion of things than what their opinion of things actually is.  Obviously, I need to know the latter to get to the former, but I find the former much more informative and interesting.

[John Bender 6,521]

5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'm not here to back Noonan or not, but I keep seeing this on the forum. It's a weird sort of witch trial mentality/vibe that goes on. "You're the witch!" "She's the witch!" "Well, burn the witch!"

It's tiresome, and why I don't post here as often as I used to. 

I mean, all of us have expressed the want for dissent and discussion. he's literally the definition of an internet troll. I think 5 or 6 months ago and I paraphrase "I just love seeing liberals getting riled up" - Dont Noonan. That's a troll. That's it and that's all. Then he comes here and cries about being outnumbered. Hit someone and run behind the teacher and cry number 1 suspect. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by John Bender

[That one guy 1,655]

3 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I've found that if I post when I'm completely nude it makes me more compassionate to the views of others.

I tried that.  It alleviating any tendencies to posting things that would get reported here, but in turn garnered numerous reports to HR at the office.  

[krista4 13,642]

Just now, Caesar said:

I am usually more interested in HOW someone got to their opinion of things than what their opinion of things actually is.  Obviously, I need to know the latter to get to the former, but I find the former much more informative and interesting.

Excellent point.  I agree completely.

[Sheriff Bart 12,587]

Just now, That one guy said:

I tried that.  It alleviating any tendencies to posting things that would get reported here, but in turn garnered numerous reports to HR at the office.  

Americans are so uptight.

[KCitons 4,145]

5 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

I just spent 10 minutes going through yesterday's exchange picking quotes out to link here and then accidentally hit quote in the long thread and lost them.  🤬  Not wasting time doing it again.

There was one or two posters that responded perfectly fine saying that yes it was called a transcript by the media but the fine print said it wasn't verbatim.  That is perfectly fine, then the discussion should lead to was anything relevant to the impeachment left out or was it minor details or national security info.  Nope, we had groups of folks demanding I don't call it a transcript and called me a liar.  I posted a link of CNN, CBS, NBC calling it a transcript and Joe commented that I was correct and Fish and others were crying for no reason.

You yourself said I was either intentionally spreading false info or trolling.  Can you see where I and the majority of the public are coming from?  Should we not believe the media?  Should I assume Trump altered the transcript or didn't include damaging parts like you guys obviously do?  

I spent some time discussing this with you. I would ask, why concentrate on the negative when there are positive interactions that lead to more productive outcomes. You'll be happier in the end.

[jamny 5,120]

4 minutes ago, GROOT said:

By simply  showing an example of what i was talking about? Is this what it has come too? If so,  the political forum needs to go.

How about adding "You should travel more often", which clearly implies wishing harm to them.

[KCitons 4,145]

6 minutes ago, Sheriff Bart said:

I've found that if I post when I'm completely nude it makes me more compassionate to the views of others.

Not since the yoga pants thread.

[Don't Noonan 4,838]

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

I spent some time discussing this with you. I would ask, why concentrate on the negative when there are positive interactions that lead to more productive outcomes. You'll be happier in the end.

You were one of the few who were cordial, thank you.

[Henry Ford 59,286]

11 minutes ago, John Bender said:

They should be ON a caesar. 

Both. 

[Summer Wheat 282]

5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree with this. I also think it's hard for members of the mob to recognize it when it happens -- i.e., the mob isn't doing it on purpose, but is instead unaware of itself.

This....I don` think they do it as a "mob" per say.  But there are maybe 10-15 guys who respond the exact same way to opposing views and in a snarky way.  I am on the mob side most of the time but when I have not been they have piled on me as well. I just don`t agree with everything that either side does.  If I don`t like something Pelosi says I am labeled a closet Trumper.   It is crazy.

[Caesar 516]

Serious idea that I haven't fully thought out, so it might be complete junk.

What about anonymous anonymity?  I think a lot of the time people take who is saying something and infer from there.  In fact, I have seen this where someone references someone's post from another thread before attacking, or pointing out their hipocrisy.  (news flash, we are all hipocrites in some way) What if there simply wasn't a name attached to each post?  Would that lead to more or less combative discourse?  

 

[Don't Noonan 4,838]

3 minutes ago, John Bender said:

I mean, all of us have expressed the want for dissent and discussion. he's literally the definition of an internet message. I think 5 or 6 months ago and I paraphrase "I just love seeing liberals getting riled up" - Dont Noonan. That's a troll. That's it and that's all. Then he comes here and cries about being outnumbered. Hit someone and run behind the teacher and cry number 1 suspect. 

This simply isn't true.  Not sure what happened to you as you used to be a good dude.  For what it's worth, I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are.

[rockaction 15,238]

1 minute ago, John Bender said:

I mean, all of us have expressed the want for dissent and discussion. he's literally the definition of an internet message. I think 5 or 6 months ago and I paraphrase "I just love seeing liberals getting riled up" - Dont Noonan. That's a troll. That's it and that's all. Then he comes here and cries about being outnumbered. Hit someone and run behind the teacher and cry number 1 suspect. 

Which is why I tried to take Don't Noonan off of the table and generalize the behavior. It's not just Don't Noonan. It doesn't have to be about the poster's past. It can be issue-specific, politician-specific, anything you want.

There is this sense that even I've gotten where internet disconnect leads to a feeling of piling on by one side. When I've defended certain things, I've gotten up to the same twenty questions asked twenty different ways by twenty people. It's part of the format. It would more efficient to hold a presser at that point. It feels like a figurative avalanche, and is a literal avalanche of effort, castigation, and words at times.

I guess I'm not even sure politics in a forum like this can really be done on the internet in conversational style, actually, which means I'm abdicating or freeing up a little responsibility of those involved. In order to stay human and on point and fun requires a finesse most of us don't have. 

[identikit 1,199]

9 minutes ago, GROOT said:

By simply  showing an example of what i was talking about? Is this what it has come too? If so,  the political forum needs to go.

Your last comment was unacceptable.

If can't see that, I just don't know what else to say.

 

[John Bender 6,521]

1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

This simply isn't true.  Not sure what happened to you as you used to be a good dude.  For what it's worth, I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are.

Sure, I mean I know it happened, but it doesnt matter at this point either way tbh. It's old even if our interpretation is different. I get it and I'm good to move it through.