I do want conservatives on here

[2ManyBlueCups]

I don’t recall anyone calling Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell “DEI hires.” The problem with the right wing’s implication of someone being a “DEI hire” is that it is an insinuation that the person was completely unqualified for the job to which they were hired. Let’s all be very honest about that. The implication in calling Harris a DEI hire is that she was completely unqualified to be nominated as a vice presidential candidate, which is obviously absurd on its considering that she was the attorney general of the largest state in the union, and a United States Senator after that. There is not one single person who can credibly impugn those credentials and qualifications as “meritless.”

The same people that call her a DEI hire voted for a reality TV star to become President.

 

[superrific]

I believe it can either help or hurt. It can help when done correctly by bringing new perspectives. It can hurt when done incorrectly if more qualified candidates are passed over on the basis of not checking the race, gender, or whatever other boxes the organization is trying to check.

An obvious example of DEI hurting an organization would be female referees in the NBA. There’s no benefit to the NBA to having female refs, and performance-wise the female refs for the most part have been atrocious.

"In an anonymous 2023 survey of NBA players conducted by The Athletic, Moyer-Gleich received several votes for the "best ref" in the league. In 2024, the NBA selected Moyer-Gleich for a playoff assignment for the first time which would make her the second woman to referee a playoff game after Violet Palmer."

Ashley Moyer-Gleich - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is why we have DEI and other similar policies. It's because people like you don't even try to sideline your prejudices and pre-conceived notions. When Trump talks about foreign leaders treating Kamala like a "play doll," who do you think he's talking to? HE IS TALKING TO YOU. He is talking to the people just assumes that women can't do the job unless their competence is proven, whereas white dudes are just automatically presumed to be good. Get back to me when there's a female ref who was throwing games.

 

[superrific]

See my post directly above yours for my thoughts on DEI. Basically I think it’s good for companies and the like to not be run solely by old white guys, so in that regard there’s a place for considering diversity that can absolutely help bring fresh perspectives.

But any time you deal with affirmative action or similar, there is also the risk that you start being too prejudiced in your hires and start passing up the best candidates.

Generally the companies I have worked for have thought about diversity in ways that I find are helpful. But Joe Biden announcing to the world that he was going to hire a black woman to the Supreme Court (or VP) is absurd and significantly undermined the credibility of both women. Even though both of them were actually perfectly qualified to just be chosen based on merit and not their race/gender.

Does that answer your question?

In no universe does that announcement "undermine" the "credibility" of Kamala or Ketanji Brown Jackson. It only does that for people who see successful and intelligent black women as the exception, rather than the norm. Let's use some examples:

1. It is well-known that Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity. As Reagan's WH counsel -- who was there when the selection was made and who is no friend of liberals -- wrote:

"In the course of our discussion with Reagan the first time we were talking about the candidates … we had talked about Scalia. Reagan had asked me whether Scalia was of Italian extraction. I think he used the word ‘extraction,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he’s of Italian extraction.’ Reagan said, ‘That’s the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him.’ We brought Scalia in… . The president met Scalia, and he offered Scalia the job right on the spot, in about 15 minutes, very little ceremony here. Scalia accepted on the spot. He was delighted. That was it… .

“I think [Reagan] felt that it would be great to put an Italian American on the Supreme Court. He had all the usual American instincts: ‘We don’t have an Italian American on the court, so we ought to have one.’ "

Does this undermine Scalia's credibility? Reagan didn't publicly announce it, but it is now part of the public record. Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity as a white man.

2. It is also well-known that Brennan was appointed because he was a Catholic.

The president's advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican. Cardinal Francis Spellman had asked Eisenhower to appoint a Catholic to the court. Brennan was one of two candidates who met Eisenhower's three criteria: experience on lower courts; relative youth and good health; and a Catholic.

3. Of course, we all know that Clarence Thomas was appointed because he was black. It was probably the most cynical appointment in American history. Bush wanted to replace Marshall with a black man -- I guess he wanted there to be a "black seat" on the court? So he chose the black man least like Marshall, who also happened to be one of the least qualified people ever appointed to the Court.

I've never heard a conservative refer to Clarence Thomas as a DEI hire. Hmm.

4. So anyway, I guess that the Court's credibility survived these blatant affirmative action hires. But oh no, the president says he wants to appoint a black woman in exactly the same way that Reagan wanted to appoint an Italian, and suddenly her credibility is undermined.

5. Oh, also, I await your criticism of Roy Cooper being considered for the VP slot. It's well known that Kamala is going to select a white man, because of the whiteness and the maleness. People are open about it. They are trying to reach the persuadable swing voters who just can't deal with the idea of two women on a ticket. Reaching black voters, though, is apparently identity politics.

 

[superrific]

Second, Dems should not agree Kamala was a DEI hire, even if we believe DEI is a very good and important principle for social change.

There's the other problem, which is there is no such thing as a "DEI" hire. DEI is a recruitment strategy, first implemented by the US military. It is not a quota or affirmative action or anything of the sort.

DEI was mainstreamed as a direct result of Supreme Court decision authored by [checks notes] noted liberal firebrand Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote that racial preferences in admissions were suspect but the military's approach (the military had written an amicus brief in the case) of using race-conscious RECRUITMENT was laudable. Hence DEI.

 

[nycfan]

See my post directly above yours for my thoughts on DEI. Basically I think it’s good for companies and the like to not be run solely by old white guys, so in that regard there’s a place for considering diversity that can absolutely help bring fresh perspectives.

But any time you deal with affirmative action or similar, there is also the risk that you start being too prejudiced in your hires and start passing up the best candidates.

Generally the companies I have worked for have thought about diversity in ways that I find are helpful. But Joe Biden announcing to the world that he was going to hire a black woman to the Supreme Court (or VP) is absurd and significantly undermined the credibility of both women. Even though both of them were actually perfectly qualified to just be chosen based on merit and not their race/gender.

Does that answer your question?

It does, thanks, and our prior posts missed each other.

 

[Enigma94]

I thought the old board was moderated unevenly too. Saw conservatives regularly called magats and no one cared, but libtard would get you banned post haste.

And the number of people who called krafty a troll was ridiculous. Libs should just stfu about "trolls"..."Troll!!!" Is like the pheromone hornets release when they feel their hive is under attack

In general I agree with you here and specifically as it relates to Krafty. Bethel is another example. I will say that I have posted conservative viewpoints without being attacked, but I’ve tried to come at it with supportable evidence based posts. The problem is the board was infected with more than a few conservatives who were there just to troll. I mean ocs has admitted to having three aliases he used to antagonize liberal posters and I’d guess he wasn’t the only one. Combine that with the handful of truly bigoted posters that showed up and I sort of understand why the response was overly harsh a lot of the time.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Well, according to most of the Trump posters who have flooded the old ZZLP over the last few days of its existence this new ZZLP is doomed to fail and will become a ghost town within a year, especially if Trump wins the election. I totally disagree, but they're really clinging to that hope and wish. And the bitterness and resentment being directed at Snoop and the other IC ZZLP mods by many Trump posters over there is something, even by IC ZZLP standards. You can almost see their bitterness and resentment and spittle coming right through the computer screen, clee especially.

 

[superrific]

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.

You are perfectly capable of understanding the likely reactions from what you do post, and from what you don't. You're not a simpleton. I'm convinced that you post things in order to get the reaction you are hoping for, which fuels your psychodrama. I mean, if that's what you want to do to yourself, it's not my issue. It's just tiring from this end.

That's why your editorial about the ZZLP is salient. You've said that the editorial just "mentions" ZZLP and your real point is something else, but actually the first 40% of your article was about the ZZLP -- suggesting that it was very much the point. And it's just hard to for me to believe that any of your readers actually cared. I've long wondered whether that article was evidence of 1) a psychological need for validation of grievances; while 2) not really having anything in your life to be aggrieved about.

But then you talked about losing your job at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, and it made me think that you did have a grievance. You would write about how you didn't care, but it certainly seemed to me that you were hurt by it. And it was at that time that your ZZLP grievances started to enlarge and intensify. The ZZLP editorial, IIRC, came after you were relieved of your editorial position.

So what I see is considerable evidence that your feelings of persecution on the ZZLP (and you are expressing persecution, as you have repeatedly talked about your experience as if you were specifically singled out in ways that other posters aren't) are transferences. I don't know you; obviously I can't diagnose that on a message board and I'm not a person able to diagnose that reliably, and so I'm offering it here as a thought. It seems to me that the ZZLP took on greater significance for you, that it began to be a microcosm of your frustrations about so many other things. Fighting with mods was a stand-in for fighting with other people who you couldn't fight so effectively.

 

[farce©]

Well, according to most of the Trump posters who have flooded the old ZZLP over the last few days of its existence this new ZZLP is doomed to fail and will become a ghost town within a year, especially if Trump wins the election. I totally disagree, but they're really clinging to that hope and wish. And the bitterness and resentment being directed at Snoop and the other IC ZZLP mods by many Trump posters over there is something, even by IC ZZLP standards. You can almost see their bitterness and resentment and spittle coming right through the computer screen, clee especially.

Since we have a Wordle thread here now, I've had no reason to visit IC in a week or so. I decided to go there today since I was unsure when they were going to actually lock down the ZZL-P.

My God what a mess they have on their hands over there. There are a whole bunch of bitter assholes spewing venom that has apparently been repressed for a long time. Some poster is whining about how CFord treated ole hickory and accused him of beating up on an old man. clee is bitching about shit that happened years ago that seemingly still impacts his quality of life.

And the ZZL ban thread shows that Snoop has banned OCS from the regular ZZL! "OCS89 - banned for political discussions and trolling"

What a shitshow.

 

[05C40]

Heel79,
Assuming the 79 is the year you graduated from college and that college experience was somewhere in the 4 to 8 year range, then: 1) we are about the same age with me perhaps being a few years older, 2) we were raised in the same side of the state, Eastern, i.e. rural, 3) the politics we were exposed to growing up were pretty much the same, 4) you may have grown up in a more prosperous household, but not enough to really make a different at this far remove in time, and 5) we both pursued careers where to large extent our professional success was measured by our ability to convince others of the positions we advocate.

In complete honesty, sometimes you come across as being irritated that those on this and various predecessor boards do not give full value to the knowledge and insights you have gained from your life experiences. And I do not intend to in anyway diminish those life experiences. You have lived in a time and place and worked in an occupation that allowed you unique insights into not only the events of the day, but nuanced insights into some of the most complicated events of the day. And you were in a position were many people looked to you for an explanation for what they did not understand and for what life had left them woefully unprepared to understand. And I believe you were very good at explaining things to people who really had a vested interest in not wanting to understand the very thing that you were explaining to them.

All of which is to say, the enormous respect and reputation you built up over the decades of your profession mean absolute squat here. And the more you complain about being treated unfairly, the less impact your insights carry.

If you genuinely enjoy being a contrarian and revel in the distain of those whom you believe have no real or authentic desire to understand the actual complexity of life, then GO WITH IT! But drop the whole woe is me to have the suffer the slings and arrows of those who refuse to listen or learn from those different from themselves. This is an internet board whose common factor is North Carolina. As such, the overwhelming majority of the participants either now or for some significant parts of our lives have lived, worked, and socialized in a deeply conservative environment.

We need no Virgil to guide us through and explain the hellscape that is today's Conservative movement.

 

[CFordUNC]

Since we have a Wordle thread here now, I've had no reason to visit IC in a week or so. I decided to go there today since I was unsure when they were going to actually lock down the ZZL-P.

My God what a mess they have on their hands over there. There are a whole bunch of bitter assholes spewing venom that has apparently been repressed for a long time. Some poster is whining about how CFord treated ole hickory and accused him of beating up on an old man. clee is bitching about shit that happened years ago that seemingly still impacts his quality of life.

And the ZZL ban thread shows that Snoop has banned OCS from the regular ZZL! "OCS89 - banned for political discussions and trolling"

What a shitshow.

Yeah, I had to poke my head in over there one last time this morning before the board locks down and got a huge kick out of that. Those dudes just aren't happy in life if they can't feel like they're being oppressed to allow themselves to wallow in their recreational victimhood. It's such a sad way to live life.

As I said earlier on this thread, though, I suspect it's less about the moderation that bothers them and more so that they hate that liberal/non-MAGA posters don't take them or their views seriously. That is to say, we find them to be weird people with weird opinions. If it was really about moderation, those posters would go find some message board with a hard-right conservative slant where they can spout their nonsense conspiracy theories to their hearts' content without worrying about moderator action. But it's not about moderation. It's that they crave the attention and the affirmation for their viewpoints that highly intelligent, highly educated folks like which populate this community are not going to give them.

 

[Zoo_View]

Since we have a Wordle thread here now, I've had no reason to visit IC in a week or so. I decided to go there today since I was unsure when they were going to actually lock down the ZZL-P.

My God what a mess they have on their hands over there. There are a whole bunch of bitter assholes spewing venom that has apparently been repressed for a long time. Some poster is whining about how CFord treated ole hickory and accused him of beating up on an old man. clee is bitching about shit that happened years ago that seemingly still impacts his quality of life.

And the ZZL ban thread shows that Snoop has banned OCS from the regular ZZL! "OCS89 - banned for political discussions and trolling"

What a shitshow.

I went over today.

Reminded me just how bad that board’s software is.

 

[heel79]

Heel79,
Assuming the 79 is the year you graduated from college and that college experience was somewhere in the 4 to 8 year range, then: 1) we are about the same age with me perhaps being a few years older, 2) we were raised in the same side of the state, Eastern, i.e. rural, 3) the politics we were exposed to growing up were pretty much the same, 4) you may have grown up in a more prosperous household, but not enough to really make a different at this far remove in time, and 5) we both pursued careers where to large extent our professional success was measured by our ability to convince others of the positions we advocate.

In complete honesty, sometimes you come across as being irritated that those on this and various predecessor boards do not give full value to the knowledge and insights you have gained from your life experiences. And I do not intend to in anyway diminish those life experiences. You have lived in a time and place and worked in an occupation that allowed you unique insights into not only the events of the day, but nuanced insights into some of the most complicated events of the day. And you were in a position were many people looked to you for an explanation for what they did not understand and for what life had left them woefully unprepared to understand. And I believe you were very good at explaining things to people who really had a vested interest in not wanting to understand the very thing that you were explaining to them.

All of which is to say, the enormous respect and reputation you built up over the decades of your profession mean absolute squat here. And the more you complain about being treated unfairly, the less impact your insights carry.

If you genuinely enjoy being a contrarian and revel in the distain of those whom you believe have no real or authentic desire to understand the actual complexity of life, then GO WITH IT! But drop the whole woe is me to have the suffer the slings and arrows of those who refuse to listen or learn from those different from themselves. This is an internet board whose common factor is North Carolina. As such, the overwhelming majority of the participants either now or for some significant parts of our lives have lived, worked, and socialized in a deeply conservative environment.

We need no Virgil to guide us through and explain the hellscape that is today's Conservative movement.

To you and to Super,
Super first. I am not bitter and have never been about losing my job. I literally asked them to lay me off, not necessarily thinking they would, but it made sense for many reasons. I was at the end of my career, and others at the beginning. I had a high salary. I was worn out also with 65 hour weeks. It did free me up on this board to a degree, and it probably led me to do some things I otherwise would not have. I outed myself as an editor on ZZL soon after finding it, which was a mistake, and there were at least two attempts 15 to 20 years ago to get me fired by posts I made on here that were sent to corporate/ So I guess I felt liberated.
I am very happy for a 67 year old man, still work 35 hours a week at a golf course, I just took on a writing assignment that will keep me busy for a year. My column is about my life by design, and the fact that ONCE in more than 6,000 columns/edit, that ZZLP got a mention I find incredible that it seems to have such shelf life here. I did not post it here, someone else did. I made some fun of the ZZLP. Big deal.

As for my feeling persecuted, yea, I didn't like the ganging up, etc. But I have not talked about that in a couple of years because I just decided not to participate for the most part. When I did, it always became about me, and I got the blame for that. Even on this thread, someone recalled a situation from 2019 regarding that murder, and of course the ZZLP mention. My posts on here and IC about the demise of the board I have said I felt the moderating was uneven, and others have agreed. I really am over it.
I have not clue why the board is being shut down, and I am sorry it is happening. I don't necessarily think it is because cons got active, but I don't know.

I may or may not decide to continue to post on this board, but what I will not do is get drawn into arguments that get personal, etc. I will retreat. Just does not interest me.

I will continue to lurk. As I have said and will again, I think there are some incredibly intelligent people on here with great perspectives, and I truly believe me contributing adds very little. There are also plenty of people who are just jerks, who showed up every time I posted with personal attacks with mods doing anything. Yea, it pissed me off and I responded sometimes in kind. I don't intend to get drawn into that anymore.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

In no universe does that announcement "undermine" the "credibility" of Kamala or Ketanji Brown Jackson. It only does that for people who see successful and intelligent black women as the exception, rather than the norm. Let's use some examples:

1. It is well-known that Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity. As Reagan's WH counsel -- who was there when the selection was made and who is no friend of liberals -- wrote:

"In the course of our discussion with Reagan the first time we were talking about the candidates … we had talked about Scalia. Reagan had asked me whether Scalia was of Italian extraction. I think he used the word ‘extraction,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he’s of Italian extraction.’ Reagan said, ‘That’s the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him.’ We brought Scalia in… . The president met Scalia, and he offered Scalia the job right on the spot, in about 15 minutes, very little ceremony here. Scalia accepted on the spot. He was delighted. That was it… .

“I think [Reagan] felt that it would be great to put an Italian American on the Supreme Court. He had all the usual American instincts: ‘We don’t have an Italian American on the court, so we ought to have one.’ "

Does this undermine Scalia's credibility? Reagan didn't publicly announce it, but it is now part of the public record. Scalia was chosen for his ethnicity as a white man.

2. It is also well-known that Brennan was appointed because he was a Catholic.

The president's advisers thought the appointment of a Roman Catholic Democrat from the Northeast would woo critical voters in the upcoming re-election campaign for Eisenhower, a Republican. Cardinal Francis Spellman had asked Eisenhower to appoint a Catholic to the court. Brennan was one of two candidates who met Eisenhower's three criteria: experience on lower courts; relative youth and good health; and a Catholic.

3. Of course, we all know that Clarence Thomas was appointed because he was black. It was probably the most cynical appointment in American history. Bush wanted to replace Marshall with a black man -- I guess he wanted there to be a "black seat" on the court? So he chose the black man least like Marshall, who also happened to be one of the least qualified people ever appointed to the Court.

I've never heard a conservative refer to Clarence Thomas as a DEI hire. Hmm.

4. So anyway, I guess that the Court's credibility survived these blatant affirmative action hires. But oh no, the president says he wants to appoint a black woman in exactly the same way that Reagan wanted to appoint an Italian, and suddenly her credibility is undermined.

5. Oh, also, I await your criticism of Roy Cooper being considered for the VP slot. It's well known that Kamala is going to select a white man, because of the whiteness and the maleness. People are open about it. They are trying to reach the persuadable swing voters who just can't deal with the idea of two women on a ticket. Reaching black voters, though, is apparently identity politics.

If at any point Kamala Harris announces that only white men are worthy of consideration for her VP, then yeah it’d be the exact same and worthy of criticism. I highly doubt she comes out and says that like Biden did in the past.

Democrats just don’t get it. You can literally choose the exact same folks you would’ve chosen anyways and check whatever DEI boxes you want. But just don’t announce to the world that you’re only picking them because of race and gender, because it undermines them.

 

[superrific]

To you and to Super,
Super first. I am not bitter and have never been about losing my job. I literally asked them to lay me off, not necessarily thinking they would, but it made sense for many reasons. I was at the end of my career, and others at the beginning. I had a high salary. I was worn out also with 65 hour weeks. It did free me up on this board to a degree, and it probably led me to do some things I otherwise would not have. I outed myself as an editor on ZZL soon after finding it, which was a mistake, and there were at least two attempts 15 to 20 years ago to get me fired by posts I made on here that were sent to corporate/ So I guess I felt liberated.
I am very happy for a 67 year old man, still work 35 hours a week at a golf course, I just took on a writing assignment that will keep me busy for a year. My column is about my life by design, and the fact that ONCE in more than 6,000 columns/edit, that ZZLP got a mention I find incredible that it seems to have such shelf life here. I did not post it here, someone else did. I made some fun of the ZZLP. Big deal.

As for my feeling persecuted, yea, I didn't like the ganging up, etc. But I have not talked about that in a couple of years because I just decided not to participate for the most part. When I did, it always became about me, and I got the blame for that. Even on this thread, someone recalled a situation from 2019 regarding that murder, and of course the ZZLP mention. My posts on here and IC about the demise of the board I have said I felt the moderating was uneven, and others have agreed. I really am over it.
I have not clue why the board is being shut down, and I am sorry it is happening. I don't necessarily think it is because cons got active, but I don't know.

I may or may not decide to continue to post on this board, but what I will not do is get drawn into arguments that get personal, etc. I will retreat. Just does not interest me.

I will continue to lurk. As I have said and will again, I think there are some incredibly intelligent people on here with great perspectives, and I truly believe me contributing adds very little. There are also plenty of people who are just jerks, who showed up every time I posted with personal attacks with mods doing anything. Yea, it pissed me off and I responded sometimes in kind. I don't intend to get drawn into that anymore.

I was bringing up the editorial at least partly in jest. I was saying that I had no problem with what you did with respect to that other incident, and then trying to add levity by switching to something less important (I thought I had made that clear). It's not like I think about it often. Like I said, I only see you on a message board and I won't claim any insight into your personality. It has long seemed to me that you weren't totally at peace with what went down at the paper, but I want to emphasize the word "seemed." If you are at peace and happy, then that's good.

I agree that you are sometimes a lightning rod. In some instances, it has been unfair. In some instances, I think you bring it on, whether you realize it or not. In most cases, it usually goes on longer than necessary.

As far as the situation from 2019 -- I think it's important to take account of what happened here. Pretty much everyone is supporting you. One poster raised an allegation. Speaking for me, I asked you what happened, and you answered in some detail, and I found the answer more than satisfactory. As did pretty much everyone else. So the resolution was pro-heel79, because you acted reasonably. And again, speaking for myself, that's how I try to carry myself all the time. Listen, assess objectively, think, and only then react. I don't always live up to my own standards because to do so is almost impossible on charged emotional issues like politics, but I try. I think a lot of others try.

At the same time, I'm honest. I will give you credit where it's due; I will also criticize if that's warranted. I won't apologize for that, and I think that's what you want anyway.

 

[superrific]

If at any point Kamala Harris announces that only white men are worthy of consideration for her VP, then yeah it’d be the exact same and worthy of criticism. I highly doubt she comes out and says that like Biden did in the past.

Democrats just don’t get it. You can literally choose the exact same folks you would’ve chosen anyways and check whatever DEI boxes you want. But just don’t announce to the world that you’re only picking them because of race and gender, because it undermines them.

1. Pretty much everyone is saying only white men are being considered. Kamala hasn't said that, but her surrogates have been. Liberal journalists have been. I would say that it's close to accepted fact that only white men are being seriously considered.

2. Our experience is not that "we can choose the same folks we would have chosen anyway" and conservatives will just accept that. The mayor of Baltimore was subject to all sorts of racially-charged allegations after the bridge collapse, and nobody had announced that only black men would be considered for his position.

Our experience is that virtually every minority or woman appointed or nominated by liberals (and sometimes by others) gets attacked over their identities. Sotomayor got attacked about her ethnicity and heritage. And look, Krafty calls Eileen Cannon an affirmative action hire. He's a conservative. He's on our team for the moment, more or less, but his instinct to demean women and minorities seems to be still with him. Of all the things to say about Cannon -- I mean, the problem was not that she was given a leg up because of her ethnicity. The problem was that Trump was appointing people to judgeships who never should have sniffed a short list. Most of those guys are white man. K-man in Amarillo. Doughty in LA. Half the Fifth Circuit, and so on. All white men.

So this whole, "Biden undermined Kamala by saying he was going to pick a black woman" is really disingenuous. White conservatives, especially men, will try to undermine them at every turn, no matter how they are introduced. If Biden hadn't said that he was appointing a black woman to the Court, conservatives would have accused her of being just that because they do that all the time. All. The. Time.

 

[SnoopRob]

I thought the old board was moderated unevenly too. Saw conservatives regularly called magats and no one cared, but libtard would get you banned post haste.

And the number of people who called krafty a troll was ridiculous. Libs should just stfu about "trolls"..."Troll!!!" Is like the pheromone hornets release when they feel their hive is under attack

I'd like to clear up a misconception in this post, no one was ever banned for calling someone a "libtard" alone. It's simply a false statement.

All that would have happened when someone was called a "libtard" is that -tard would be changed to -****. If a poster repeatedly kept doing it they would get a request by PM to stop since it is a form of evading the filter. And then if they kept going with it they would likely get a warning to knock it off. And only then if they kept going would there be a chance of a ban.

 

[heel79]

I was bringing up the editorial at least partly in jest. I was saying that I had no problem with what you did with respect to that other incident, and then trying to add levity by switching to something less important (I thought I had made that clear). It's not like I think about it often. Like I said, I only see you on a message board and I won't claim any insight into your personality. It has long seemed to me that you weren't totally at peace with what went down at the paper, but I want to emphasize the word "seemed." If you are at peace and happy, then that's good.

I agree that you are sometimes a lightning rod. In some instances, it has been unfair. In some instances, I think you bring it on, whether you realize it or not. In most cases, it usually goes on longer than necessary.

As far as the situation from 2019 -- I think it's important to take account of what happened here. Pretty much everyone is supporting you. One poster raised an allegation. Speaking for me, I asked you what happened, and you answered in some detail, and I found the answer more than satisfactory. As did pretty much everyone else. So the resolution was pro-heel79, because you acted reasonably. And again, speaking for myself, that's how I try to carry myself all the time. Listen, assess objectively, think, and only then react. I don't always live up to my own standards because to do so is almost impossible on charged emotional issues like politics, but I try. I think a lot of others try.

At the same time, I'm honest. I will give you credit where it's due; I will also criticize if that's warranted. I won't apologize for that, and I think that's what you want anyway.

I do agree that the 2019 deal git a different reax here but I know people are trying to get this off in a good start. I shared the exact same info in zzlp and was crucified. Or that's my memory. So perhaps this will be a place that is more thoughtful and welcoming. We will see.

 

[superrific]

I do agree that the 2019 deal git a different reax here but I know people are trying to get this off in a good start. I shared the exact same info in zzlp and was crucified. Or that's my memory. So perhaps this will be a place that is more thoughtful and welcoming. We will see.

I don't remember you ever discussing that on the ZZLP. Maybe it was on the ZZL? In any event, I am not trying to get this place off to a good start. I'm just being me.

The other thing to appreciate that people who are besieged by trolls will come to see the world as trolls versus non-trolls. When 9 out of every 10 conservative poster user names is a troll account, then it's not unreasonable for people to view poster #10 in that light. It's not fair to poster #10, but message boards can't really work any other way. You just can't expect people to keep an open mind about every new person, in the face of experience in which almost all of those people turn out to be worthless as posters.

So are there people quick to judge? Too quick. Sure. At least part of the blame needs to go to the trolls who ruin things for the rest of us.

 

[superrific]

I agree, and it is just as mentally weak for people to go whining and crying and screaming to the moderators instead of just putting posters on ignore.

Ignore doesn't solve the problem of trolls ruining things for everyone. In fact, in some ways, it might make it worse.

This relates to another post of mine on this thread, but let's go with it again. Suppose there are 10 new posters. Troll after troll doing their thing, espousing conservative BS. You throw them all on ignore. Now serious poster #10 comes along, and his views are generally aligned with the others. Except his are thought-out, considered and he can defend them. Will he get the chance, or will people throw him on ignore when he starts talking favorably about something Trump did..

I think that's one reason why you are reluctant to put people on ignore. And that system of hearing someone out and then choosing to ignore them can work. But it can also easily and possibly imperceptibly deteriorate into hasty judgment.

I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to do. I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily solve the problem with trolls. It perhaps solves one problem, while opening another. This is also not to say that banning is preferable, though at least banning has the virtue of procedural fairness. Before people are banned, they are usually warned, and they are given a chance to explain themselves, and it's only after they have failed numerous tests that they get banned. Almost always, people who get banned do so by choice, and in fact it might even be their intention. The ignore solution has no such safeguards. Anyone can click the button and boom! it's done.