African American slaves in USA today by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

African American slaves in USA today

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Thursday, June 17, 2010 21:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2158
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:26 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
People who host well-managed threads would probably get the best discussions going on. Threadmakers would soon gain reputations for their fairness or lack thereof. People serious about intelligent debate and learning would congregate into threads they feel are open and safe.

I like the idea that people would have the option of engaging in discussions that they knew would be more or less civil. Probably a lot of timid souls are scared away from internet politics discussions because of the inevitably hostile discourse that goes on.

Hopefully people wouldn't be censored on account of their political views as well as their behaviour. I couldn't handle a site where every thread was partisan territory belonging to one side or the other...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:47 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I've seen far too many sites go from no moderation to "slight" or "mild" moderation. One day you could say "Fuck"; the next, you couldn't even type in - and I'm not making this up; this is absolutely true, this actually happened to one of my best friends - "WTF?" in a post without it getting deleted. And if you did it again, like asking "WTF just happened to my post?", you got banned. He did.

Seriously.

And that was considered "mild" moderation.

Then it went to political views. I was a moderator, and was banned because I spoke out against the Iraq war, stating that in my estimation, it would cost well over a trillion dollars and we'd be mired there for ten years, minimum, and it could very well crash our economy, crippling us for a generation as a nation. I was told that I was not only unwelcome, but un-American, and crazy besides, because no way would this war last more than a month, and the costs would all be incurred by the Iraqis, who would gladly pay us for their liberation.

That board no longer exists. A new one was started the very next day, and now has more than triple the membership that old board had at its peak.

I prefer to use my own ignore feature, by simply choosing who I respond to, and in what fashion. It's not without its glitches; just today I got down in the mud with KaneRiver and responded to it in the same fashion as it spoke to me, and that was not my proudest moment. But I prefer to make such choices myself, not have them made for me automatically. There's too much I might miss. PN posts a lot of crazy, and 98% of his stuff I'll just skim right over - but once in a great while, there's something of real use and substance there that no one else would post or even notice, and that would all be lost if he were put on my "ignore" list. Ditto Wulf. And with Rappy, it's just fun to twist his tail and listen to him scream. ;)

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:05 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
But I prefer to make such choices myself, not have them made for me automatically.

I disagree with your wording, the ignore option gives extra choice, not less - people just need to realise what it means to completely ignore someone, and then make their own decision. They might be aware that they will miss out, but still feel it worth it.

My one experience of moderation was not a good one either. But Anthony's idea of everyone being a moderator for their own thread, rather than us having a few 'overlords' for the whole site, could I think work. My only fear as I say, is a creeping partisan censorship, and divide. I would be up for the experiment though.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:17 AM

BYTEMITE

Mnnn. I don't like that either, sad to say. There might be a few of us who would be pretty open with threads, but partisan divide with individual moderators wouldn't be just possible, but pretty much inevitable.

The forums are owned by us (and Haken), and so the threads are also owned by the larger group of us, not the original posters necessarily. Everyone participates in the discussion, and everyone has a stake in it. No one here would like to be silenced in any thread.

We're already too likely for threads to devolve into partisan lashings and back and forth for me to think Wulf's scenario about separation/segregation isn't what would happen.

As I've been thinking about it, I've got to conclude that's going to happen even if there is a mirror forum. Eventually people just won't use the mirror forum, and it will become a bunch of mutual back-patting. So it's likely this would be the outcome, whether the choice is moderators OR an ignore feature.

Thought I'd come up with a good compromise there. Darn. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:12 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
But I prefer to make such choices myself, not have them made for me automatically.

I disagree with your wording, the ignore option gives extra choice, not less - people just need to realise what it means to completely ignore someone, and then make their own decision. They might be aware that they will miss out, but still feel it worth it.

My one experience of moderation was not a good one either. But Anthony's idea of everyone being a moderator for their own thread, rather than us having a few 'overlords' for the whole site, could I think work. My only fear as I say, is a creeping partisan censorship, and divide. I would be up for the experiment though.

Heads should roll

You're right, KPO - I disagree with my wording, too. Let me try to clarify a bit. I'm fine with the idea of ignoring someone's posts. I tend to ignore an awful lot of PN's posts, for example. But if I just flick a switch that sets PN to "ignore" - and I never see his posts at all - then it's MY loss, not his. And I'm not comfortable with telling my computer who I want to ignore and who I don't, because it doesn't have the fuzzy logic ability to say, "Ignore PN, except when he says something sensible about flying or driving." He's either all the way ignored, or not at all. No middle ground.

Now, if I use my own ignore feature that I have in my head ("Do I want to waste time reading another anti-Jew rant? No, I do not." [Skip] ), I have made a conscious choice to ignore certain posts of certain users, without ignoring every single thing that user might say, or even every single thing they might say only in the RWED area.

Some users annoy me. I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that I annoy some users. That said, I wouldn't want to just blot them from the landscape completely, because even when we're in vehement disagreement, I'm gaining valuable insight into how their minds work (or, in some cases, why their minds DON'T work). I'd rather choose not to ignore that flow of information. My greatest disappointment with the Obama administration - and with government in general - is that people tend to surround themselves with sycophantic hangers-on who only tell them what they want to hear, and never what they damned well may NEED to hear. You see it all the time in Hollywood and celebrity culture, too; nobody has ever been around to just tell these people, "No, don't do that, because you're going to come off looking like a douchebag at best, or a complete fucking half-witted evil sonofabitch at worst, and you're likely to go to jail to boot."

I can learn as much from those I disagree with as I can from those I agree with. I'd prefer to keep the flow of information going in both directions. As Frem has pointed out time and again, PN and Kane are the prices we pay for really free speech. I'm okay with that price. I can always turn away, or play down to their level.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I can learn as much from those I disagree with as I can from those I agree with. I'd prefer to keep the flow of information going in both directions."

Exactly right.

Good job.

"As Frem has pointed out time and again, Nix and others are the prices we pay for really free speech. I'm okay with that price. I can always turn away, or play down to their level."

Corrected that for you, but.. right again.

"You see it all the time in Hollywood and celebrity culture, too; nobody has ever been around to just tell these people, "No, don't do that, because you're going to come off looking like a douchebag at best, or a complete fucking half-witted evil sonofabitch at worst, and you're likely to go to jail to boot."

Hmmm... George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg come to mind for some reason...

For the record, Han shot first, Indiana never went after fraking space aliens, and the commandos carried guns NOT walkie-talkies in ET...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 7:25 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"For the record if there were an ignore function, right now, I personally wouldn't choose to use it on anyone. Apart from maybe Wulf's videos.

:-p "

....nothing wrong with the videos I post, dammit... (sniff)

lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 7:35 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Hmmm... George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg come to mind for some reason...

I was thinking more of Lindsay Lohan and Plaxico Burress as prime examples, but Lucas & Spielberg definitely have their sins to attone for. :)

Quote:

For the record, Han shot first, Indiana never went after fraking space aliens, and the commandos carried guns NOT walkie-talkies in ET...

Right on all counts.

Mike

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Thought I'd come up with a good compromise there. Darn. :(

Based on the false presumption that some folk might be able to.

You still don't really understand that mindset, do you ?

They *have* to attack and destroy, utterly, if they can, anything that isn't just like them, because it's mere existance and ability to prosper throws back in their face the idea that it *MUST* be their way or no way, and makes it all a lie, reducing all they believe to a petty little sham.

So *of course* they are incapable of compromise, the very act is a betrayal of all they hold dear - I thought I made that clear with the explaination of being Crazy Eddie'd ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:20 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Thought I'd come up with a good compromise there. Darn. :(

Based on the false presumption that some folk might be able to.

You still don't really understand that mindset, do you ?

They *have* to attack and destroy, utterly, if they can, anything that isn't just like them, because it's mere existance and ability to prosper throws back in their face the idea that it *MUST* be their way or no way, and makes it all a lie, reducing all they believe to a petty little sham.

So *of course* they are incapable of compromise, the very act is a betrayal of all they hold dear - I thought I made that clear with the explaination of being Crazy Eddie'd ?

-Frem

I just hope those type of people stay in the minority and never get big enough weapons to destroy the majority...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:31 AM

BYTEMITE

I have to believe all people are able to compromise for the sake of problem solving, or my idea of a peaceful anarchic society goes out the window.

On further review of the logic I used, the solution I proposed wouldn't solve the problem, but create a new, worse one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Able ?
Sure.

Willing ?
Well, that's the rub isn't it - when you have folks who really would rather destroy you, themselves, everything around them, than have it any other way than their own, what DO you do about them ?

And make no mistake, they'll do exactly that, they really are that far gone, a lot of em - and too many of em are in political power.

Just imagine the combination of that kind of juvenille petulance and access to launch codes, and you know why I never *ever* want them to see it coming.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:15 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

i think you guys do pretty well with no moderators. You seem to moderate each other most of the time.

Personally, I don't have any issue with words, you can scroll down posts and not really worry, but I have been offended by some of the photos posted here - the dead foetuses, graphic depictions of violence. Not something I would ever choose to look at, and if there were a warning, I'd just not go to that thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE