Me neither, never heard of them. Of course, I will be looking them up now....No idea who the Potato brothers are but they must be a big deal if you are walking away because of them.
Enjoy your golden years of retirement.
The food truck?Me neither, never heard of them. Of course, I will be looking them up now....No idea who the Potato brothers are but they must be a big deal if you are walking away because of them.
Enjoy your golden years of retirement.
Who's gonna name the Bears thread?
That seems a little extreme. As much as I don't care about the royal family, what's going on with them is newsworthy.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.
Yea I didn’t ask why it got nuked. @Joe Bryant any idea?That seems a little extreme. As much as I don't care about the royal family, what's going on with them is newsworthy.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.
I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
Honest question, but when everything you read, hear online or in MSM is political and divisive, how does any thread survive? Every headline is click air and acts to trigger one side or the other. It's like everyone's identity starts with which side of the line you lean towards. If you're constant trying to avoid it, it'll never work.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.
this is 100 percent right and i hate it even more that the morons pushing such conspiracies have their lead consumption enabled theories legitimized in the name of supposedly presenting both sides sometimes there aint two sides and thats just how it is take that to the bank brohanI started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
It's because there are conspiracy theories going around about it, and those eventually seem to turn political these days.
I'd like to lodge formally that that sort of deference to conspiracy theories is a bad move. That it might get political is a red herring. There is a serious problem when verifiable facts are being debated as political disagreements. Sandy Hook conspiracies should not be tabled because they are purportedly within the political realm. The facts of Sandy Hook and the subsequent child deaths are not debatable. If we do choose to go that route, then the conspiratorial nonsense has completely won the day. It masquerades then as a legitimate point of view or opinion when it is the complete opposite of legitimate or within the realm of opinion.
I hate seeing easily-proven truth get usurped by people that live their lives fancifully and borderline crazily.
Honest question, but when everything you read, hear online or in MSM is political and divisive, how does any thread survive? Every headline is click air and acts to trigger one side or the other. It's like everyone's identity starts with which side of the line you lean towards. If you're constant trying to avoid it, it'll never work.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.
Honest question, but when everything you read, hear online or in MSM is political and divisive, how does any thread survive?
But every thread has the "potential" to veer into politics. Even the thread in question was nukes before it cold even start. It didn't have a chance. Or the other instances mentioned in this thread. Whether it's political or conspiracies, the judgement to nuke a thread is still based on opinions of the moderation if it's killed before it starts.Honest question, but when everything you read, hear online or in MSM is political and divisive, how does any thread survive? Every headline is click air and acts to trigger one side or the other. It's like everyone's identity starts with which side of the line you lean towards. If you're constant trying to avoid it, it'll never work.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.
It seems to be working pretty well since the politics forum was killed off imo. Of course there’s a ton of grey area but the thread in question, however we’ll-intentioned, almost certainly would’ve veered into politics.
Yea I didn’t ask why it got nuked. @Joe Bryant any idea?That seems a little extreme. As much as I don't care about the royal family, what's going on with them is newsworthy.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.
But every thread has the "potential" to veer into politics.
Oh yea it was when the AP put the kill notice on that picture. That was newsworthy! But I truly don’t care.Yea I didn’t ask why it got nuked. @Joe Bryant any idea?That seems a little extreme. As much as I don't care about the royal family, what's going on with them is newsworthy.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately. Still don’t understand why, she’s not a divisive political figure, but you just gotta roll with the rules here sometimes.
Not sure. It may have been the conspiracy angle. Looking at the log it was, "But now the AP just announced not to use it as it’s fake! I was skeptical but baby it’s conspiracy time!!"
I'm sure we get plenty wrong on these.
But every thread has the "potential" to veer into politics. Even the thread in question was nukes before it cold even start. It didn't have a chance. Or the other instances mentioned in this thread. Whether it's political or conspiracies, the judgement to nuke a thread is still based on opinions of the moderation if it's killed before it starts.Honest question, but when everything you read, hear online or in MSM is political and divisive, how does any thread survive? Every headline is click air and acts to trigger one side or the other. It's like everyone's identity starts with which side of the line you lean towards. If you're constant trying to avoid it, it'll never work.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.
It seems to be working pretty well since the politics forum was killed off imo. Of course there’s a ton of grey area but the thread in question, however we’ll-intentioned, almost certainly would’ve veered into politics.
100% chance he posts again.
I had no idea who they were. I googled them and didn't see the politics but maybe I didn't dig deep enough. I just saw a couple of truly awful people.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.
I had no idea who they were. I googled them and didn't see the politics but maybe I didn't dig deep enough. I just saw a couple of truly awful people.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.![]()
I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
It's because there are conspiracy theories going around about it, and those eventually seem to turn political these days.
I'd like to lodge formally that that sort of deference to conspiracy theories is a bad move. That it might get political is a red herring. There is a serious problem when verifiable facts are being debated as political disagreements. Sandy Hook conspiracies should not be tabled because they are purportedly within the political realm. The facts of Sandy Hook and the subsequent child deaths are not debatable. If we do choose to go that route, then the conspiratorial nonsense has completely won the day. It masquerades then as a legitimate point of view or opinion when it is the complete opposite of legitimate or within the realm of opinion.
I hate seeing easily-proven truth get usurped by people that live their lives fancifully and borderline crazily.
Easy might be an overstatement, but I get the sentiment. Wouldn’t it be worth letting at least some of them play out before closing them? What is the harm? Genuinely asking.But every thread has the "potential" to veer into politics.
Of course. But some are obviously bound to go there and easy to predict.
I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.
A few weeks ago, I was asked nicely to drop a particular line of argument about the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus. I genuinely didn't perceive that as political, but I understand that in 2024 people still freak out over this stuff, and the ownership does not want freak-outs in this forum, so I dropped it. No problem. I can go elsewhere if I want to debate this stuff (I don't), and preserving a good community that makes for good gameday threads is more important anyway.
I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
It's because there are conspiracy theories going around about it, and those eventually seem to turn political these days.
I'd like to lodge formally that that sort of deference to conspiracy theories is a bad move. That it might get political is a red herring. There is a serious problem when verifiable facts are being debated as political disagreements. Sandy Hook conspiracies should not be tabled because they are purportedly within the political realm. The facts of Sandy Hook and the subsequent child deaths are not debatable. If we do choose to go that route, then the conspiratorial nonsense has completely won the day. It masquerades then as a legitimate point of view or opinion when it is the complete opposite of legitimate or within the realm of opinion.
I hate seeing easily-proven truth get usurped by people that live their lives fancifully and borderline crazily.
And this is why the thread was axed.I had no idea who they were. I googled them and didn't see the politics but maybe I didn't dig deep enough. I just saw a couple of truly awful people.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.![]()
This is why we can’t have nice things. You’re allowed to make derogatory comments about people, but if anybody were to question why the thread gets axed.
If I make a comment on why you think those people are awful then I get axed.
You admit that you knew nothing about them but after googling them for five minutes and not finding the political stuff, you call them awful
You do make a valid point and I understand where you are coming from.I had no idea who they were. I googled them and didn't see the politics but maybe I didn't dig deep enough. I just saw a couple of truly awful people.Sorry to hear that. I thought I was as polite as I could in letting you know the Tate Brothers thread was going to unavoidably become political.
I realize not everyone agrees with us trying to stay away from political threads. I have no idea if that's the right thing. But it's how we're trying to operate.
We'll hopefully still be here if you decide to return. All the best to you whichever way you decide to go.![]()
This is why we can’t have nice things. You’re allowed to make derogatory comments about people, but if anybody were to question why the thread gets axed.
If I make a comment on why you think those people are awful then I get axed.
You admit that you knew nothing about them but after googling them for five minutes and not finding the political stuff, you call them awful
Ah, I get it now. I've stayed away from that whole thing, but I sincerely feel bad for Jets fans. You guys deserve better than this.I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.
A few weeks ago, I was asked nicely to drop a particular line of argument about the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus. I genuinely didn't perceive that as political, but I understand that in 2024 people still freak out over this stuff, and the ownership does not want freak-outs in this forum, so I dropped it. No problem. I can go elsewhere if I want to debate this stuff (I don't), and preserving a good community that makes for good gameday threads is more important anyway.
I understand your points, and I don't like reading political and emotional freak-outs any more than the next person. I also like the game threads politics-free and that the camaraderie in them is really part of the lifeblood of the board. We agree upon that. For further background, let me state that I have never once commented on the broader no-politics rule the board adopted, even when the PSF was shutting down and so many others did. Nary a peep came from this quarter. I was really unsure how I felt and how it would work, so I trusted the people running the show and making the decision.
What I do find suspect and bad for the larger community are thread police who aren't moderators telling you not to discuss something like your favorite team's starting QB having espoused conspiracy theories that you personally have witnessed to be false because of first-hand knowledge, conspiracy theories that have netted 1.1 billion dollars in defamation damages from those that use a media platform to promote them because they are verifiably false and not anyone's political opinion; but rather, events that have been found as fact in a court of law—facts bolstered by overwhelming and indisputable evidence to the contrary.
I don't trust the motives of those who would silence people about that situation. I don't think they operate with the community we have at FootballGuys.com on their mind. Indeed, I'm sure they don't. They simply do not want speech because they do not like the truth of the speech, nor can they rationalize a weird undercurrent of social alliance with the progenitors of these theories, so they attempt to shut down all speech contrary to their liking. To say Sandy Hook happened is an apolitical statement no matter how much people try to stuff it under the rubric of political discourse, and acquiescing to the demands that one keep the threads free of talk about these relevant issues gives those commenters a heckler's veto over almost any issue they can concoct as plausibly political.
Further, when discussing a player's potential, or making predictions for his performance for next year like in the thread in question, it would seem important that one consider off-field factors as well as on-field ones insofar as the off-field concerns have an effect on the on-field performance or availability. If a player is being considered for a VP position in the presidential race that might cost him playing time, or if a player has had his views about a local event that people feel very strongly about disclosed by the media in that market—a disclosure that might harm his future performance by virtue of being nearly run out of town—we should be allowed to address those concerns. Especially when they would cut into playing time or effectiveness of that player. That should be what we're doing here.
The whole thing—the way it was handled by the moderators and how it was outwardly approached by certain commenters—makes me think that there are people using the political moratorium here for something more sinister and cynical than simply keeping politics out of the discussion. It sounds like the smothering of speech and basic facts because it doesn't fit the commenters' desires. It strikes me as an outright attempt at the suppression of relevant facts and relevant conversation regarding the player and his beliefs, even when those beliefs have a good chance of affecting his future performance. If we're here for football then you can't shut off the glaringly obvious, no matter how off-the-field one would like it to be. The world doesn't work that way.
But be that as it may be, I don't trust the newfound way in which discourse becomes silenced out of appeals to decorum. When someone believes rank and disprovable falsities, it is not the job of the person stating facts to humor those fanciful beliefs, especially when those beliefs would have earned a proper shunning or reprimands by sensible people in sensible times. And maybe these are not sensible times, but I cannot say that we are better off shutting down facts and truthful observations for comity's sake. It is foolish to let these things fester or allow them to stifle reasonable conversation in the name of a begrudging coexistence that renders truth a casualty, a coexistence where silence is complicit in the evil and delusional nature of certain postulations.
I kind of stopped myself. This place absolutely sucks now and we are moderated like children. I've moved onto reddit. Come here for the tv threads only now.If I am not allowed to openly discuss things I support and individuals I have interest in in a world that constantly shuts down the discussion of things deemed inappropriate by the powers that be, then footballguys serves no use to me. So long
Ah, I get it now. I've stayed away from that whole thing, but I sincerely feel bad for Jets fans. You guys deserve better than this.
Well, they are Jets fans.Ah, I get it now. I've stayed away from that whole thing, but I sincerely feel bad for Jets fans. You guys deserve better than this.I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.
A few weeks ago, I was asked nicely to drop a particular line of argument about the origins of the SARS-CoV2 virus. I genuinely didn't perceive that as political, but I understand that in 2024 people still freak out over this stuff, and the ownership does not want freak-outs in this forum, so I dropped it. No problem. I can go elsewhere if I want to debate this stuff (I don't), and preserving a good community that makes for good gameday threads is more important anyway.
I understand your points, and I don't like reading political and emotional freak-outs any more than the next person. I also like the game threads politics-free and that the camaraderie in them is really part of the lifeblood of the board. We agree upon that. For further background, let me state that I have never once commented on the broader no-politics rule the board adopted, even when the PSF was shutting down and so many others did. Nary a peep came from this quarter. I was really unsure how I felt and how it would work, so I trusted the people running the show and making the decision.
What I do find suspect and bad for the larger community are thread police who aren't moderators telling you not to discuss something like your favorite team's starting QB having espoused conspiracy theories that you personally have witnessed to be false because of first-hand knowledge, conspiracy theories that have netted 1.1 billion dollars in defamation damages from those that use a media platform to promote them because they are verifiably false and not anyone's political opinion; but rather, events that have been found as fact in a court of law—facts bolstered by overwhelming and indisputable evidence to the contrary.
I don't trust the motives of those who would silence people about that situation. I don't think they operate with the community we have at FootballGuys.com on their mind. Indeed, I'm sure they don't. They simply do not want speech because they do not like the truth of the speech, nor can they rationalize a weird undercurrent of social alliance with the progenitors of these theories, so they attempt to shut down all speech contrary to their liking. To say Sandy Hook happened is an apolitical statement no matter how much people try to stuff it under the rubric of political discourse, and acquiescing to the demands that one keep the threads free of talk about these relevant issues gives those commenters a heckler's veto over almost any issue they can concoct as plausibly political.
Further, when discussing a player's potential, or making predictions for his performance for next year like in the thread in question, it would seem important that one consider off-field factors as well as on-field ones insofar as the off-field concerns have an effect on the on-field performance or availability. If a player is being considered for a VP position in the presidential race that might cost him playing time, or if a player has had his views about a local event that people feel very strongly about disclosed by the media in that market—a disclosure that might harm his future performance by virtue of being nearly run out of town—we should be allowed to address those concerns. Especially when they would cut into playing time or effectiveness of that player. That should be what we're doing here.
The whole thing—the way it was handled by the moderators and how it was outwardly approached by certain commenters—makes me think that there are people using the political moratorium here for something more sinister and cynical than simply keeping politics out of the discussion. It sounds like the smothering of speech and basic facts because it doesn't fit the commenters' desires. It strikes me as an outright attempt at the suppression of relevant facts and relevant conversation regarding the player and his beliefs, even when those beliefs have a good chance of affecting his future performance. If we're here for football then you can't shut off the glaringly obvious, no matter how off-the-field one would like it to be. The world doesn't work that way.
But be that as it may be, I don't trust the newfound way in which discourse becomes silenced out of appeals to decorum. When someone believes rank and disprovable falsities, it is not the job of the person stating facts to humor those fanciful beliefs, especially when those beliefs would have earned a proper shunning or reprimands by sensible people in sensible times. And maybe these are not sensible times, but I cannot say that we are better off shutting down facts and truthful observations for comity's sake. It is foolish to let these things fester or allow them to stifle reasonable conversation in the name of a begrudging coexistence that renders truth a casualty, a coexistence where silence is complicit in the evil and delusional nature of certain postulations.
I'm with you. I think he's owed an apology, frankly. Other than speculating about whether or not one of the kids had a snot bubble, what was the big deal?Kate Middleton. Come on
Im going to miss Flap
Totally agree with this take.I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
It's because there are conspiracy theories going around about it, and those eventually seem to turn political these days.
I'd like to lodge formally that that sort of deference to conspiracy theories is a bad move. That it might get political is a red herring. There is a serious problem when verifiable facts are being debated as political disagreements. Sandy Hook conspiracies should not be tabled because they are purportedly within the political realm. The facts of Sandy Hook and the subsequent child deaths are not debatable. If we do choose to go that route, then the conspiratorial nonsense has completely won the day. It masquerades then as a legitimate point of view or opinion when it is the complete opposite of legitimate or within the realm of opinion.
I hate seeing easily-proven truth get usurped by people that live their lives fancifully and borderline crazily.
Makes for an interesting possible thread crossover: I wonder if the death of “third places” has had an impact on our ability to have reasonable conversations with each other? I think it’s almost certainly true. Discussions online veer immediately to the extreme too often it seems because everyone has become too comfortable with creating caricature straw men that they’re fighting against because there is no real relationship there like there would be if you got into a discussion down at the Elk Club.
The Elk Club? When did we all turn 70?I tend to agree, but the fact is that there are a lot of topics that should be non-political in theory, but are unfortunately political in fact. I think that's stupid, but it's not Joe's fault. He's just reacting to the world as it is, as opposed to the world as we would like it to be.I started a Kate Middleton thread last week and it got nuked immediately.
It's because there are conspiracy theories going around about it, and those eventually seem to turn political these days.
I'd like to lodge formally that that sort of deference to conspiracy theories is a bad move. That it might get political is a red herring. There is a serious problem when verifiable facts are being debated as political disagreements. Sandy Hook conspiracies should not be tabled because they are purportedly within the political realm. The facts of Sandy Hook and the subsequent child deaths are not debatable. If we do choose to go that route, then the conspiratorial nonsense has completely won the day. It masquerades then as a legitimate point of view or opinion when it is the complete opposite of legitimate or within the realm of opinion.
I hate seeing easily-proven truth get usurped by people that live their lives fancifully and borderline crazily.
Makes for an interesting possible thread crossover: I wonder if the death of “third places” has had an impact on our ability to have reasonable conversations with each other? I think it’s almost certainly true. Discussions online veer immediately to the extreme too often it seems because everyone has become too comfortable with creating caricature straw men that they’re fighting against because there is no real relationship there like there would be if you got into a discussion down at the Elk Club.
I know that. But the brush seems very broad and not very discriminating in its sweep.I'm with you. I think he's owed an apology, frankly. Other than speculating about whether or not one of the kids had a snot bubble, what was the big deal?Kate Middleton. Come on
Im going to miss Flap
That was Cappy. flap was starting a thread on the Tate brothers, who are a lot more problematic and are themselves trafficking in conspiracy theories. I'm not saying the thread should have been stopped, but we should get the context and facts correct before castigating the decision.