I do want conservatives on here

[wmheel1287]

^Integrity is just a word in the dictionary to you, isn't it? Anyone can go to the ZZLP and look at the banned posters thread and see you're straight up lying.

So I have a question based on this post...does this mean that you believe a cursory examination of the makeup of a group of punished individuals says more about the motives of those doing the punishing than it does the actions of those who were punished?

It's a sincere question.

 

[heel79]

So I have a question based on this post...does this mean that you believe a cursory examination of the makeup of a group of punished individuals says more about the motives of those doing the punishing than it does the actions of those who were punished?

It's a sincere question.

I will take a stab. In think generally speaking bans are given more frequently to cons than liberals. It's less that the cons don't deserve as liberals get to slide. I also think, and it's not talked as much about, when liberals start garbage troll threads they are allowed but when cons start some threads portraying a leftie fav in bad light gets locked more quickly. That is my sincere answer.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I will take a stab. In think generally speaking bans are given more frequently to cons than liberals. It's less that the cons don't deserve as liberals get to slide. I also think, and it's not talked as much about, when liberals start garbage troll threads they are allowed but when cons start some threads portraying a leftie fav in bad light gets locked more quickly. That is my sincere answer.

What’s an example of a leftie garbage troll thread?

 

[Centerpiece]

I will take a stab. In think generally speaking bans are given more frequently to cons than liberals. It's less that the cons don't deserve as liberals get to slide. I also think, and it's not talked as much about, when liberals start garbage troll threads they are allowed but when cons start some threads portraying a leftie fav in bad light gets locked more quickly. That is my sincere answer.

I can’t say for sure, but I’m guessing the “cons” as you put it tended to post more trollish type stuff, peddle conspiracy theories, anti science stuff when it came to the pandemic, “fine people on both sides in Charlottesville” stuff, some totally untrue stuff about Trump being a great businessman, birtherism and spreading other outrageous and verifiable lies that Trump said over the years.

Once fact-checked, weighed, measured and found wanting, the Mods did what Mods do: they cut out the rabble rousing riffraff trying to spread conspiracy theories and untruths.

The reason why (supposedly) there weren’t many liberals banned (temporarily or otherwise) is simply because they didn’t post inane and verifiable falsehoods. Their positions were easily defended and they also were quick to call out the BS from the right. The mods simply came down on the side of truth, law and order and equality under the law. (By that I mean the “cons” broke the board rules more so than the “libs”)

Finally, I’ll add, the mods would give warnings, edit comments, etc. and after all that, if the poster didn’t comply, they got banned. Apparently that happened to some posters more than others.

 

[heel79]

I can’t say for sure, but I’m guessing the “cons” as you put it tended to post more trollish type stuff, peddle conspiracy theories, anti science stuff when it came to the pandemic, “fine people on both sides in Charlottesville” stuff, some totally untrue stuff about Trump being a great businessman, birtherism and spreading other outrageous and verifiable lies that Trump said over the years.

Once fact-checked, weighed, measured and found wanting, the Mods did what Mods do: they cut out the rabble rousing riffraff trying to spread conspiracy theories and untruths.

The reason why (supposedly) there weren’t many liberals banned (temporarily or otherwise) is simply because they didn’t post inane and verifiable falsehoods. Their positions were easily defended and they also were quick to call out the BS from the right. The mods simply came down on the side of truth, law and order and equality under the law. (By that I mean the “cons” broke the board rules more so than the “libs”)

I want to be clear. I gave up. I quit caring. I think there were some decent cons who gave up as well and you were left with what you were left with. I was attacked verbally again and again without consequence and even by mods. Called racist, sexist, stupid. On and on and told it was rough and tumble. Little chance to engage. One of my favorite stories is I gave $100 to go fund acct to benefit perhaps my biggest attacker who I won't name. No thanks at all and couple days later calling me names. Told me alot.

 

[heel79]

What’s an example of a leftie garbage troll thread?

One titled will their racism backfire? So to participate I guess you have to stipulate any critic of Harris is racist. There is plenty to criticize her for. The border failure but also her aggressive prosecution of POC on marijuana and other drug charges. That post is not in good faith.

 

[Centerpiece]

I want to be clear. I gave up. I quit caring. I think there were some decent cons who gave up as well and you were left with what you were left with. I was attacked verbally again and again without consequence and even by mods. Called racist, sexist, stupid. On and on and told it was rough and tumble. Little chance to engage. One of my favorite stories is I gave $100 to go fund acct to benefit perhaps my biggest attacker who I won't name. No thanks at all and couple days later calling me names. Told me alot.

Sorry that happened to you if you were clearly innocent of all findings and then smeared with name calling. I was late to the game over there, that’s why I qualified my response as “I can’t be sure”.
However, I will add that if you stated some things over there that came down on the same side as a redneck Maga carrying rebel flags and marching in Charlottesville, then chances are you would be called “racist”. Same with “sexist” if you’re on board with The Handmaids Tale and JD Vance, etc. I can see where you might be labeled that.

As far as “stupid” I would hope your attacker would have said something like “don’t be stupid” instead of “you are stupid”.

 

[nycfan]

A few things EVERYONE can do to help maintain open and even heated discussions and debates:

* don’t engage in personal attacks. There is a big difference between alleging a position or post is bigoted in some way VERSUS calling the poster a bigot (or a troll). If you think a post is bigoted, explain why, don’t just hurl angry invective (no matter how justified you may feel or even be)

* make liberal use of the IGNORE features. You can ignore a poster OR A THREAD. If you find a thread making it difficult for you to keep your temper in check, don’t engage and if you can’t resist, put the entire thread on ignore.

* all that said, in my view, as a community there are things we shouldn’t have to tolerate — bigoted slurs but also refusal to dial back personal attacks, intentional repeated needling of specific posters and refusal to honor requests to keep threads on topic; we shouldn’t have to tolerate posters who demonstrate their intention to derail threads rather than contribute/debate

I’m just one member of the community, so please don’t take these as hard and fast rules — so far, we don’t really have any rules and very light touch moderation. I assume we will have to add more moderators sooner rather than later, but so far we’ve done a pretty good job launching a vibrant discussion site and having people be fairly reasonable about backing down to de-escalate when needed

 

[heel79]

Sorry that happened to you if you were clearly innocent of all findings and then smeared with name calling. I was late to the game over there, that’s why I qualified my response as “I can’t be sure”.
However, I will add that if you stated some things over there that came down on the same side as a redneck Maga carrying rebel flags and marching in Charlottesville, then chances are you would be called “racist”. Same with “sexist” if you’re on board with The Handmaids Tale and JD Vance, etc. I can see where you might be labeled that.

As far as “stupid” I would hope your attacker would have said something like “don’t be stupid” instead of “you are stupid”.

No. Called names directly even by snoop. I have never voted for trump and even linked at least one edit in which I called him a liar but I was still maga. Often I would get called something I would link edit that might kick aside the notion. I defended nfl players for kneeling editorially and said sc needed to move confederate stuff from capitol. Crickets. One poster said I mocked people on food stamps and I linked edit that pointed out how modest the average benefit was in this country and most receipents had jobs. Crickets. It was always a swarm when I would post and mods allowed.

 

[CallMeTyler]

One titled will their racism backfire? So to participate I guess you have to stipulate any critic of Harris is racist. There is plenty to criticize her for. The border failure but also her aggressive prosecution of POC on marijuana and other drug charges. That post is not in good faith.

That thread was intended to address specific attacks.

Kamala has been called a DEI hire by Trump, his campaign, and a significant # of GOP. Trump claims she “isn’t black” and lies about her heritage. He tweeted a post to delegitimize her ethnicity using her birth certificate as “proof” she isn’t black. He posts photos of her with her Indian family to further discredit her.

Those are all racial attacks with very obvious intentions. Acknowledgment of that would be a good place to start.

 

[CFordUNC]

One titled will their racism backfire? So to participate I guess you have to stipulate any critic of Harris is racist. There is plenty to criticize her for. The border failure but also her aggressive prosecution of POC on marijuana and other drug charges. That post is not in good faith.

Nobody has said that any criticism of Harris is inherently racist or misogynistic, or that any person criticizing Harris is inherently racist or misogynistic. There are tons of blatant examples of racism and misogyny in criticizing her, though, and that’s what you were seeing on that thread and that’s what you are going to see on this board. Criticism of her further left policy ideas in the 2020 primaries is obviously completely valid. Calling her a whore or a hoe or “the original hawk rush girl” or a “DEI hire” are very clearly tinged with racism and misogyny. I’m certain you can see the difference.

By the way, what border failure are you referring to? I just read yesterday that the number of illegal border crossings has fallen to low levels equivalent to mid-summer 2020- which, as I’m sure you’re aware, was under a completely different presidential administration.

 

[heel79]

That thread was intended to address specific attacks.

Kamala has been called a DEI hire by Trump, his campaign, and a significant # of GOP. Trump claims she “isn’t black” and lies about her heritage. He tweeted a post to delegitimize her ethnicity using her birth certificate as “proof” she isn’t black. He posts photos of her with her Indian family to further discredit her.

Those are all racial attacks with very obvious intentions. Acknowledgment of that would be a good place to start.

I hate trump. He is perhaps the worst human on earth.

That thread was intended to address specific attacks.

Kamala has been called a DEI hire by Trump, his campaign, and a significant # of GOP. Trump claims she “isn’t black” and lies about her heritage. He tweeted a post to delegitimize her ethnicity using her birth certificate as “proof” she isn’t black. He posts photos of her with her Indian family to further discredit her.

Those are all racial attacks with very obvious intentions. Acknowledgment of that would be a good place to start.

I hate trump. We know why she was picked. If you declare you will pick black woman and do, that will be the criticism. Bowing out here.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I hate trump. He is perhaps the worst human on earth.

I hate trump. We know why she was picked. If you declare you will pick black woman and do, that will be the criticism. Bowing out here.

So you agree with the racial attacks.

Honestly 79, I don’t think your participation in communities like this will ever get you to reevaluate your ideas.

There’s so much opportunity to learn and grow by listening to others different from yourself. So you have racial tendencies, you can change those. So you don’t understand what trans people are, you can learn and better understand. Using this community to engage honestly would go a long way to challenge your preconceptions.

 

[farce©]

If you declare you will pick black woman and do, that will be the criticism. Bowing out here.

No, the criticism is that she is unqualified because she fit the hiring criteria.

 

[korgguy1971]

Anyone can go to the ZZLP and look at the banned posters thread and see you're straight up lying.

Come on now - this is objectively just not true and there was no need to accuse CMT of lying or being disingenuous. A cursory perusal of just one of the banned posters threads reveals several so-called "libs" - some of whom were very popular or well-known. I've screen-scraped them here for your convenience:

https://247sports.com/college/north-carolina/board/106149/contents/banned-posters-thread-54392235

Jan 19th, 2017, 7:51 PM
Vojak & WayneKenoff - 48 hour ban each.

Jan 30th, 2017, 7:36 AM
McAdooSmackinYou - banned for personal attacks

Feb 2nd, 2017, 6:41 AM
McAdooSmackinYou - 1 month ban for personal attack in these posts:

Mar 10th, 2017, 5:57 AM
SHC - banned for personal attacks, length TBD

May 11th, 2017, 5:46 AM
heelracg - 14 day ban for personal attack (extra length due to prior bans)

Aug 31st, 2017, 1:36 PM
Sandinista - banned for personal attacks - Length TBD

Sep 14th, 2017, 2:05 AM
SweetHomeCarolina - blacklisted 48 hours for frequent use of profanity.

Dec 13th, 2017, 10:24 PM
SweetHomeCarolina - banned for personal attacks - length TBD

Feb 15th, 2018, 8:54 PM
NovaHeel - 30 day ban for personal attacks (telling multiple posters to "F off and die")

Mar 7th, 2018, 5:09 PM
SweetHomeCarolina - Banned for repeated refusal to heed moderator requests CeilingRoofGOAT - Banned for trolling

Feb 16th, 2019, 4:44 PM
WMHeel1287 - 48 hour ban for personal attack
WaynetheDrain - 7 day ban for personal attack

Apr 12th, 2019, 9:47 PM
HenryRoark - banned 24 hours due to personal attacks

Jul 5th, 2019, 10:46 PM
The following were banned for 1 week (final length TBD) for off topic posting contrary to moderator warnings:
HenryRoark
1moretimeagain

Oct 9th, 2019, 11:51 AM
ZooView - banned for personal attacks and off-topic posting contrary to moderator warnings, length TBD (3/4)

There are more "conservative" or MAGA banned posters in aggregate, but you'd have to look at the reason they were banned - some of which are listed even with the offending poster's exact statement and are pretty blatant attacks, homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. Ther are also many which are alias/spoof accounts from previously returned banned posters as well. Sometimes posts - from "both sides" - will be edited or will just get nuked altogether without any moderator warning. That has definitely happened to me, and most times, in fairness, I deserved it and I knew it - and that's why I didn't complain about it.

That said, can we all just start fresh here on this new board? I personally am making a concerted effort to be different here than I was at the ZZLP, and although I would not presume to speak for others here, I would feel highly confident that most here are too.

 

[wmheel1287]

I hate trump. He is perhaps the worst human on earth.

I hate trump. We know why she was picked. If you declare you will pick black woman and do, that will be the criticism. Bowing out here.

Couple of thoughts here.

It can simultaneously be true that someone sets out with a goal of choosing a person of color, a female, a member of another group AND chooses someone who is highly qualified. This notion of "choose the best person" is, to me, a simpleton approach. There are too many variables in humanity to think there is a single best person for any position.

As an example, I'm putting together a conference agenda currently and have made a point to include a couple of females and a couple of persons of color as speakers. Why? Because magically over the years the speakers at this same event have been overwhelmingly male and white. Does that mean I'm intentionally passing up better qualified presenters? No. It means I'm recognizing that maybe previous choices have overlooked some very qualified persons and representation and diversity of thought are both important.

Secondly, it's hard to take it seriously that you seek this well intentioned great debate when you have a sincere engagement going on without any insult yet you immediately "bow out" from what you ostensibly wanted all along.

 

[nycfan]

So you agree with the racial attacks.

Honestly 79, I don’t think your participation in communities like this will ever get you to reevaluate your ideas.

There’s so much opportunity to learn and grow by listening to others different from yourself. So you have racial tendencies, you can change those. So you don’t understand what trans people are, you can learn and better understand. Using this community to engage honestly would go a long way to challenge your preconceptions.

I didn’t read that to agree with all or even most racial attacks on Harris, but to argue that when you announce race is a key consideration in picking a candidate you are open to an argument that race is valued over other qualifications.

I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the costs and benefits of viewing everyone through a prism of demographics, but it is nearly impossible to so without things devolving into outrage and outrageous behavior.

 

[heel79]

So you agree with the racial attacks.

Honestly 79, I don’t think your participation in communities like this will ever get you to reevaluate your ideas.

There’s so much opportunity to learn and grow by listening to others different from yourself. So you have racial tendencies, you can change those. So you don’t understand what trans people are, you can learn and better understand. Using this community to engage honestly would go a long way to challenge your preconceptions.

I have changed multiple positions because of my engagement. Multiple. Over couple decades. Death penalty. Gay marriage. Prosecution of drug crimes. Confederate memorials and more. That is why I still lurk. I need to return to just that.

 

[CFordUNC]

I am asking these following questions with every bit of genuine sincerity that I can muster.

Why do conservative leaning posters never, ever, ever start threads, or discuss on existing threads, conservative policy principles and ideas? Why is almost every conservative leaning poster’s contribution to the board almost always some variation of whining about how left leaning the board is, how unfair the moderation is, how mean the other posters are, etc.? We have an entire thread right here on this new board discussing how we sincerely want conservative thought included on this board, and yet this thread has devolved into the same exact whining about how this whole community is just so mean and so oppressive of poor, hapless conservative posters? Why even come to a message board community in the first place that you know is going to cause you frustration, irritation, insecurity, or even anger? How does that even make sense?

 

[heel79]

Couple of thoughts here.

It can simultaneously be true that someone sets out with a goal of choosing a person of color, a female, a member of another group AND chooses someone who is highly qualified. This notion of "choose the best person" is, to me, a simpleton approach. There are too many variables in humanity to think there is a single best person for any position.

As an example, I'm putting together a conference agenda currently and have made a point to include a couple of females and a couple of persons of color as speakers. Why? Because magically over the years the speakers at this same event have been overwhelmingly male and white. Does that mean I'm intentionally passing up better qualified presenters? No. It means I'm recognizing that maybe previous choices have overlooked some very qualified persons and representation and diversity of thought are both important.

Secondly, it's hard to take it seriously that you seek this well intentioned great debate when you have a sincere engagement going on without any insult yet you immediately "bow out" from what you ostensibly wanted all along.

I am at work. Plus I have seen this playbook. Not upset about anything.bits all good.