Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Perknose, Aug 3, 2012.
So... some folks said that things would get better after the election.
Anyone seeing it? Not me.
Heh at least wait for the hard feelings to subside.
Which decade do you think that will be?
Give it awhile until the teasing stops as they earned it for a bit with so much hate they posted.
I started a thread about Coulter today and on the first page I got this reply: "I bet Coulter likes it up the butt with a donkey punch."
Nothing is going to change around here until some proper rules of behavior are instituted and enforced.
I'm not a mod, of course, but I'm betting a comment like that is good for at least a sanction ... if someone reports it. It seems over the line to me, and I think Coulter is one of the most repugnant people on Earth.
Read the rule as it was not broken there.
If it bothers you this much stay away from P&N for awhile.
I don't believe there is anything in the rules prohibiting us from insulting Coulter. :hmm:
There isn't anything in the rules right now prohibiting anything at all.
I think Coulter is a target-rich environment enough without getting into sex acts.
The only consolation I can offer you is "lighten up, Francis."
There's nothing in the rules prohibiting anything at all, but in practice it's a different matter. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on you stand a much better chance of being reined in if you're on the right. I'll also freely admit that's my perception and my bias may skew my observations.
Maybe it's not your bias and maybe those on the right do stand a much better chance of being reined in. Maybe, just maybe, it is because their thought process can trend towards toxic much more often, though. I'm not saying definitely, mind you. Just food for thought.
I agree with monovillage.
I don't think it's intentional, I think it's a result of the confusing rules currently in place and the inconsistent way they are enforced.
Define "toxic" as it applies to the ATP&N forum. I mean it sounds good, but what does it actually mean in terms of posting political observations or comments?
"Toxic" as in something that hurts the system into which it is introduced. Not the good kind of hurt, like a needle from a syringe delivering a vaccine or a bitter tasting spoonful of medicine that will eventually help cure the system of what ails it, but the bad kind of hurt like when someone downs a cup full of Drano or when someone asks someone else to define a word that everyone knows what it means, including the one asking for the definition, because he wants to debate the irrelevant finer points of the definition rather than actually evaluate the original post as a whole.
Definitions aren't what I would consider irrelevant in evaluating whether a post is "toxic" or not. You are just dodging the question when you can't give an honest and fair evaluation of what is "toxic" in terms of posting in this political/news forum.
"Toxic" as in claiming I dodged your question when in actuality I answered it directly. I bolded the answer above so you can't claim you missed it again. It *should* have been relatively easy for you to extrapolate that ATP&N is the system and anything that anything that "hurts" ATP&N could be classified as "toxic."
Delving into the nitty-gritty of what is toxic, or what "hurts" the forum, has already been shown to be a subjective thing. For example, if I called you a fucking retard, you and many others might think that that would qualify as toxic while others might not. This is why you want to go there in the first place. You know that once you get into the subjective level, nobody can "win," therefore you cannot "lose."
What you refuse to see, is that all that matters in this forum is what the people responsible for running it want it to be. They are the ones who get to decide what is or is not toxic. Not you. Not me. They have opened up avenues for discussion allowing us, the members, to voice our opinions about what we would like the forum to be. Avenues like this thread, and the poll I started that was merged into it. The problem is, you don't want to believe what the poll tells you. The poll tells you that the members here overwhelmingly believe that intellectual dishonesty is a bigger problem than insults. Rather than look at it and accept that other people do not think like you do, you instead go into a state of denial, claiming that the way the poll was introduced was biased.
There is no way to objectively identify what toxic is because we all have different body chemistries. To the right everything on the left is toxic and visa versa. Both are brain dead in the other's eyes. Every point anybody can make can be countered by an opposite opinion. And if you tell this to the left or the right they will deny it. Only the other side is insane. The number of objective people like myself is exceedingly small.
That is why I believe that if you eliminate personal attacks and unsubstanciated or unargued opinions you eliminate a lot of the grief. Anybody who attacks my point of view is in for trouble. That is why, when I post a point of view backed up by incredible logic and reason, I want to hear from anybody dense enough to disagree, first before they present their own worthless case, that they say:
Dear Sir, I respect your opinion and have considered it from every angle and find it to be profoundly compelling, but I have a small question here which I wish you to clarify for me. I thought reality worked this way and here are my reasons. What is your considered opinion of this, and to which I would have to reply:
Dear Sir, you raise an excellent point worthy of consideration and how I see it is this:
No put downs and no unsupported opinions blown out people's asses. We don't need, I think, to catch every violation. We have been told the job for moderators is too large. Maybe we could figure out how to create a random number that would identify some single thread, maybe one a week, or whatever is possible to do, and review some random number of posts in that thread, in case it is too big a thread to handle given the Mod's time. People found in violation could get some kind of sanction that would accumulate to increasing time bans.
I think if we leave it up to decent people to moderate themselves the decent people will do that while they get their teeth kicked in. I don't think that's fair or balanced which puts unnecessary work on folk who don't care about appearing reasonable, like myself.
Good to see that you support different rules for different points of view. I'm not surprised.
You're my hero Moonie.
Dear Moonie, I think I detect in your post that you favor different rules for different points of view. I see that (......) and (<<<<<) Am I correct or incorrect about this?
Dear mono, I don't know how to answer because I saw nothing to support your case. I don't know what case you are trying to make. I appreciate your interest but would need clarification to respond. I am particularly puzzled since I do not support different rules for different points of views. I support the notion that putting other people down should not be allowed and that nobody left or right, should be able to unload personal opinions without providing reasons for they think support them. The debate can then proceed over the logicality and persuasiveness of the provided reasons. In shout, we need to have something constructive and supposedly factual to discuss.
PS, calling me a hero actually seems to me more like a put down here. I feel you were being sarcastic. Am I wrong?
No sarcasm meant, we disagree on many things, especially your penchant for thinking that a conservative political stance is indicative of brain damage, but I have no perception that you're malicious about it.
Mister Perknose -- Clean Up This Forum.
Good luck with that C.K.
Because you members voted to allow personal attacks in P&N
She is right, I don't normally pay any attention to the bickering at the top threads.
I will continue to invite the resident cocksuckers to blow me.
That is all they are capable of and apparently approved.
AH! A perfect example of a toxic post! Being purposefully dense in misstating the point of another's post and a sarcastic backhanded compliment!