To provoke and insult ?

[MigL]

"A thread on the legacy of Obama might be welcomed - but not if, from the get go, the thread is designed to provoke and insult."

 

I don't think that the fact that some people are a little upset or disappointed by the results of a democratically decided President Elect is a valid reason to shut down a thread.

Why would it be different if the same thread was opened a year from now ( and not provocative ), other than the fact that some are a little sensitive and raw about the election outcome, and so, its considered 'provocative' currently ?

Shouldn't we be able to discuss 'sensitive' issues on this forum, or do we need to account for when someone is in a 'bad mood' ?

 

And as far as I can tell, the only person to hurl an insult is Phi, although he did provide the 'reasoning' behind his assertion.

 

Just providing my opinion, which isn't necessarily worth anything.

[Endy0816]

You can have one but it should be balanced in tone.

 

Obama's deportation of more illegal immigrants than Bush, alongside making progress on the rights of homosexuals.

 

That kind of thing would promote levelheaded discussion.

[StringJunky]

"A thread on the legacy of Obama might be welcomed - but not if, from the get go, the thread is designed to provoke and insult."

 

I don't think that the fact that some people are a little upset or disappointed by the results of a democratically decided President Elect is a valid reason to shut down a thread.

Why would it be different if the same thread was opened a year from now ( and not provocative ), other than the fact that some are a little sensitive and raw about the election outcome, and so, its considered 'provocative' currently ?

Shouldn't we be able to discuss 'sensitive' issues on this forum, or do we need to account for when someone is in a 'bad mood' ?

 

And as far as I can tell, the only person to hurl an insult is Phi, although he did provide the 'reasoning' behind his assertion.

 

Just providing my opinion, which isn't necessarily worth anything.

It was clear from the off that OP the was not interested in a reasoned discussion.... to be frank, he was being a knob.

[Phi for All]

I shouldn't have taken the bait, that was my bad. He got what he wanted.

 

Frankly, I'm glad he's here, since it seems half my country thinks along the same lines. Always good to know where folks are coming from. Always good to know what the extremes are.

[CharonY]

Except, of course, it is more and more obvious that his views are actually not extreme.

[geordief]

You know,it was probably always going to happen one of these elections .

 

The problem always was "how can so many people be taken (willfully?) in?"

 

To loose the election was a double whammy but it should bring things into clearer focus .

 

Hopefully not just 4 entirely wasted years (if we see them out)

 

We have to live and learn.

[Over 9000]

You know,it was probably always going to happen one of these elections .

 

The problem always was "how can so many people be taken (willfully?) in?"

 

I guess the Media/Finance nexus can't fool all of the people all of the time.

[MigL]

Its obvious where I'm going with this.

The discussion is all about the frustration with the election results, and how people feel that Waitforufo is 'rubbing salt in their wounds.

Shouldn't we be able to get past that and discuss B. Obama's accomplishments and shortcomings with civility, and without having to wait for the frustration and grieving to end ?

 

Whatever happened yesterday, the US is still one of the only countries in the world I'd consider living in. And there's enough checks and balances in the government that half of the outlandish things D. Trump has mentioned, he won't be able to do. The other half, he won't want to do once he takes office in January and reality bites him in the ass ( remember how B Obama was going to close Guantanamo Bay ? How did that turn out ? )

 

Besides, I don't see why you guys are worried. I'm the one who has to take four people out for lunch and drinks tomorrow because I lost the bets I made against D Trump.

[Ophiolite]

I've always thought it more productive to allow, in String Junky's words, knobs to strut their stuff, rather than shut them down. I understand the arguments against this. I just don't agree with them.

 

Since I don't trust myself not to close some one down simply because they disagree with me rather than because they are genuinely wrong, why would I trust someone else to do this with full objectivity.

[StringJunky]

I've always thought it more productive to allow, in String Junky's words, knobs to strut their stuff, rather than shut them down. I understand the arguments against this. I just don't agree with them.

You are entitled to your opinion but why waste time reading bollocks? Why is it more productive... they just get their arse kicked and learn nothing. It's not cute speaking your mind when it hurts people and the ulterior motive is just that.

Edited November 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

You are entitled to your opinion but why waste time reading bollocks? Why is it more productive... they just get their arse kicked and learn nothing. It's not cute speaking your mind when it hurts people and the ulterior motive is just that.

I've addressed these very points in another thread. I have no idea which one.

 

1. You don't know it is bollocks until you have read it.

2. It is important to know what "the other side" is thinking.

3. Their interpretations may be faulty, but their facts may be right.

4. "When they came for me there was no one left to protest."

5. Who was hurt by an attack on Obama's legacy? If the attack was faulty there is no reason to be hurt. If the attack was well founded they better grow up and face reality.

6. It was not demonstrated that the ulterior motive was to cause hurt.

7. Do you think I should avoid, on Christian Forums, arguing for evolution and against a 6,000 year old Earth? I am pretty sure my arguments hurt some people there.

[DrP]

5 - "who was hurt... face reality"

 

I would say (probably because I thought he was good for your country) that unwarranted attacks based on not quite true facts and spurious lies, sorry I mean arguments, hurt society as a whole. I think this because people that are reading those arguments might believe that there is truth behind them and believe them and then vote for what they believe to be 'the lesser of 2 evils' when the 'evil' that stated is way over exaggerated or just actually not true at all.

[Ophiolite]

5 - "who was hurt... face reality"

 

I would say (probably because I thought he was good for your country) that unwarranted attacks based on not quite true facts and spurious lies, sorry I mean arguments, hurt society as a whole. I think this because people that are reading those arguments might believe that there is truth behind them and believe them and then vote for what they believe to be 'the lesser of 2 evils' when the 'evil' that stated is way over exaggerated or just actually not true at all.

Valid point. My counter argument would be that it is better to get these arguments into the open so they can be dismantled with facts, rather than allowed to fester and build in a self-serving thought-ghetto.

 

At the root of my several posts on this matter is my fear that some members (and staff) are prejudging all of a members posts based upon their perception of the character of that poster. If this occurring - and it seems to me that it sometimes does - then this is simply wrong. I feel compelled to speak against it.

[swansont]

5. Who was hurt by an attack on Obama's legacy? If the attack was faulty there is no reason to be hurt. If the attack was well founded they better grow up and face reality.

 

The OP wasn't a discussion of Obama's legacy. The modnote comments were spot-on in their critique, IMO, and the thread closure was appropriate. Nobody is stopping an actual discussion of his legacy.

 

 

Nobody is stopping a discussion of what Trump's presidency might entail, either. But, as a word of caution, such duscussions will need to follow the rules. Of particular concern would be soapboxing (i.e. No representing opinion as fact, and backing up assertions)

 

Edit to add: and, if anyone feels or has felt that moderator action was unwarranted, they can make their case in an appropriate manner. But remember to explain how you weren't breaking rules rather than complaining that someone else was.

[StringJunky]

At the root of my several posts on this matter is my fear that some members (and staff) are prejudging all of a members posts based upon their perception of the character of that poster. If this occurring - and it seems to me that it sometimes does - then this is simply wrong. I feel compelled to speak against it.

Despite knowing what certain long-time members are generally like I will pat them on the back when I agree with them; I consider myself fair with my contempt and praise and will dish both out with the same enthusiam and sincerity.

Edited November 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

The OP wasn't a discussion of Obama's legacy. The modnote comments were spot-on in their critique, IMO, and the thread closure was appropriate. Nobody is stopping an actual discussion of his legacy.

waitforufos's post was implicitly a discussion and a provocative critique of Obama's legacy. The fact that I found his remarks offensive and ignorant is really beside the point. By all means, let us pretend such views do not exist by suppressing them.

 

 

Edit to add: and, if anyone feels or has felt that moderator action was unwarranted, they can make their case in an appropriate manner. But remember to explain how you weren't breaking rules rather than complaining that someone else was.

I felt the moderator action was misguided. That is an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I leave it to the moderator staff to decide whether or not I am breaking the rules.

[waitforufo]

I was simply pointing out that President Obama will be most remembered for putting President Elect Donald Trump in the white house. When President Donald Trump is finished, most of the rest of President Obama's accomplishments will be nullified.

Edited November 11, 2016 by waitforufo

[StringJunky]

waitforufos's post was implicitly a discussion and a provocative critique of Obama's legacy. The fact that I found his remarks offensive and ignorant is really beside the point. By all means, let us pretend such views do not exist by suppressing them.

The definition of insanity: doing the the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I can understand, and even support, your view with a person that is an unknown quantity but not with someone with a well-etched track record of thinking and responding a certain way.

Edited November 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[MigL]

The fact of the matter is that about 50% of ALL Americans who voted in this election also think and respond that certain way.

Do you want to censor their opinions also ?

[StringJunky]

The fact of the matter is that about 50% of ALL Americans who voted in this election also think and respond that certain way.

Do you want to censor their opinions also ?

It can't be be done and I never meant what I said to be extrapolated to the whole US electorate.

[CharonY]

I think phrasing of OP made it look like one of the low-effort soap-boxing posts. That being said, while I initially disagreed with the decision, after reading the whole thread it was rather obvious that OP did not intend to initiate discussion. Though other members may not be entirely blameless, the quick turn to the worse of the thread was clearly at least encouraged by OP.

 

What I would suggest is to request OP restates the post in a way to facility discussion, such as "can/will Trump reverse Obama's policies" and we can start talking about things that may or may not happen. Alternative just move them into Lounge, let him be happy and start a thread with the potential policies and consequences thereof (including the fact that Trump just made a reversal on ACA).

[swansont]

waitforufos's post was implicitly a discussion and a provocative critique of Obama's legacy. The fact that I found his remarks offensive and ignorant is really beside the point. By all means, let us pretend such views do not exist by suppressing them.

 

 

As the modnote explained and I have reiterated, anyone is free to start up such a discussion if they can do so without breaking rules. So to present this means that you, too, are being deliberately provocative, or your reading comprehension needs some work, as no viewpoints are actually being suppressed.

I was simply pointing out that President Obama will be most remembered for putting President Elect Donald Trump in the white house. When President Donald Trump is finished, most of the rest of President Obama's accomplishments will be nullified.

Then it's too bad for the fate of that particular thread you chose the phrasing in it, rather than this.

[Ophiolite]

 

As the modnote explained and I have reiterated, anyone is free to start up such a discussion if they can do so without breaking rules. So to present this means that you, too, are being deliberately provocative, or your reading comprehension needs some work, as no viewpoints are actually being suppressed.

 

Wrong again. Perhaps I am being provocative, but I assure you it is not deliberate. As far as I can see there is a restriction being imposed through the interpretation of the rules. Perhaps, it is not my reading comprehension that is fault.

[swansont]

Wrong again. Perhaps I am being provocative, but I assure you it is not deliberate. As far as I can see there is a restriction being imposed through the interpretation of the rules. Perhaps, it is not my reading comprehension that is fault.

If your provocation is accidental, perhaps you should include your brain in the processing path next time. Otherwise I don't see how calling out the staff for engaging in censorship when it was clearly explained the the subject matter was not the issue is not deliberate. So apology accepted for your admission of posting without thinking.

 

And that goes for the other thread, too. It doesn't have to be deliberate, but a thread closure with an option to re-open is about the most benign mod action there is, for a violation.