This conversation appears to be about personal grievances, again. One or more of the moderators needs to bow out if that is the case. What is that called? Recuse? Something like that. We are no longer addressing Rules (general process), we are addressing single issues which the moderator team can deal with based on unique reports.
I do not think that this is still a serious conversation about the process, it is now just team sports. As usual.
We can call people accomplices to murder, because this is a forum not a workplace. We can call people bigots, because this is a forum not a workplace. And we can call people right-wing Trumpists and insurrectionists, because this is a forum not a workplace. And in Prison, we can tell people to eat poo and perform anatomically difficult sex acts on themselves.
Did Lem take a few along the way, sure. Did she dish it out, absolutely. We can't have women threatening the nuclear option and then asking for rule changes to the board and expect this conversation to be taken seriously. Crying about ALL CAPS while ranting about the gene pool damage from republicans is about the laziest whining victimization BS I have seen in a while. We can call people pissboys, but we can't then assign them a range of possible reactions or responses.
My advice here would be for Atlanticmike to just insult PROGRESSIVE WOMEN, rather than a PROGRESSIVE WOMAN. Problem solved. The rules promote it, and Gadianton perfected it. Follow the leader.
Another thing. This board thrives on the personal attacks of the poster over the facts. If anyone wants to change that, you do not need a rule change. Just stick to the facts and quit your stupid prejudice assumptions about the motive of the poster (allowed per the rules). If I think the vaccine is not working, it is not because I listened to Trump or Rogan, you dumbasses. And if you need me to be a bad person and wrong in the head so you can avoid real debates and topics, great. But, then brace yourself for a sewage deluge of capital letters and a reflection of your cabals and ideologies. It is not that hard, if you make this a conversation about ideologies and prejudice, then you will get a conversation about PROGRESSIVES and I will call you names. What is so hard about this? And what lazy ass whining petulant screaming nanny BS hysteria does it take to require the nanny cabal moderators to protect one ideology over another? Jesus Christ on a cauliflower crust. This is not that hard.
We can call people accomplices to murder, because this is a forum not a workplace. We can call people bigots, because this is a forum not a workplace. And we can call people right-wing Trumpists and insurrectionists, because this is a forum not a workplace. And in Prison, we can tell people to eat poo and perform anatomically difficult sex acts on themselves.
Being that a work place exists somewhere with some rules makes no difference to what happens on this or any other board, or the rules and guidelines applied to them.
Crying about ALL CAPS while ranting about the gene pool damage from republicans is about the laziest whining victimization BS I have seen in a while.
I don’t think that anyone has proposed that individual words can’t be presented in ALLCAPS. A rule against ALLCAPS use doesn’t discriminate by ideology, anyway. Are you trying to construct a straw man?
Threads titled with ALLCAPS would be out. Use normal writing protocol. This sort of ALLCAPS rule exists on other boards; the precedent has been around for a while.
Another thing. This board thrives on the personal attacks of the poster over the facts. If anyone wants to change that, you do not need a rule change. Just stick to the facts and quit your stupid prejudice assumptions about the motive of the poster (allowed per the rules).
Also Cultellus, next sentence -
If I think the vaccine is not working, it is not because I listened to Trump or Rogan, you dumbasses.
I didn’t see any facts there, but I did see a stupid prejudiced assumption.
You should better acquaint yourself with your own rhetoric.
Another thing. This board thrives on the personal attacks of the poster over the facts. If anyone wants to change that, you do not need a rule change. Just stick to the facts and quit your stupid prejudice assumptions about the motive of the poster (allowed per the rules).
Also Cultellus, next sentence -
If I think the vaccine is not working, it is not because I listened to Trump or Rogan, you dumbasses.
I didn’t see any facts there, but I did see a stupid prejudiced assumption.
You should better acquaint yourself with your own rhetoric.
Rhetoric is the point. Remember when Trump said if Biden wins then Antifa and BLM are coming for the suburbs? They don’t. Remember when Trump said that after election day the "fake news media" would suddenly stop caring about Coronavirus? "'Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid.’ By the way, on November 4, you won’t hear about it anymore." They don’t. Remember when they said Covid will magically disappear by Easter 2020? They don’t.
On and on and damned on. It’s never about facts. It’s just endless rhetoric and bad faith arguments. And when reasonable people finally lose patience and lash out the former is now a victim! They get to be even more aggrieved than before! And around we go! It’s an infinite recursion of BS and emotionalism.
I didn’t see any facts there, but I did see a stupid prejudiced assumption.
You should better acquaint yourself with your own rhetoric.
Rhetoric is the point. Remember when Trump said if Biden wins then Antifa and BLM are coming for the suburbs? They don’t. Remember when Trump said that after election day the "fake news media" would suddenly stop caring about Coronavirus? "'Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid.’ By the way, on November 4, you won’t hear about it anymore." They don’t. Remember when they said Covid will magically disappear by Easter 2020? They don’t.
On and on and damned on. It’s never about facts. It’s just endless rhetoric and bad faith arguments. And when reasonable people finally lose patience and lash out the former is now a victim! They get to be even more aggrieved than before! And around we go! It’s an infinite recursion of BS and emotionalism.
Rhetoric is the point. Remember when Trump said if Biden wins then Antifa and BLM are coming for the suburbs? They don’t. Remember when Trump said that after election day the "fake news media" would suddenly stop caring about Coronavirus? "'Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid.’ By the way, on November 4, you won’t hear about it anymore." They don’t. Remember when they said Covid will magically disappear by Easter 2020? They don’t.
On and on and damned on. It’s never about facts. It’s just endless rhetoric and bad faith arguments. And when reasonable people finally lose patience and lash out the former is now a victim! They get to be even more aggrieved than before! And around we go! It’s an infinite recursion of BS and emotionalism.
Rhetoric is the point. Remember when Trump said if Biden wins then Antifa and BLM are coming for the suburbs? They don’t. Remember when Trump said that after election day the "fake news media" would suddenly stop caring about Coronavirus? "'Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid.’ By the way, on November 4, you won’t hear about it anymore." They don’t. Remember when they said Covid will magically disappear by Easter 2020? They don’t.
On and on and F'ing on. It’s never about facts. It’s just endless rhetoric and bad faith arguments. And when reasonable people finally lose patience and lash out the former is now a victim! They get to be even more aggrieved than before! And around we go! It’s an infinite recursion of B.S. and emotionalism.
Facts and logic don't cut the mustard with the kind of people you are talking about - that great vague borderless mass of the incoherently aggrieved who seem mainly to take their identity from social media. What matters is the sense of grievance, and if you point out that one of their beliefs has been falsified by the facts (such as, that the press did not and has not stopped talking about COVID after the election was over), then that only gives new energy to the endless self-propagating sense that someone, somewhere is doing bad stuff to them. And they will find something else.
For the moment, the person who (mostly) functions as 'our guy' for the aggrieved is Trump. Alas, one day it may be someone else, not a blinkered narcissist like Trump, but someone much brighter and much more ruthless. May I not see that day!
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Your behavior here has more closely resembles that of a terrorist who bombs a hospital......
That's way too much mustard on that dog - like 5 gallons too much!
With all that underbrush cleared away, here’s what I did talk about: your harassment of Lem. Do you disagree that what you’ve been doing is harassing her?
But the harassment needs to stop, and that is what I hope you’ll do.
That's a very reasonable and palatable amount of mustard on that dog - like the perfect amount.
Yeah, I think the Lem harassment needs to stop too (I also hope it does stop.) It's inappropriate and it crosses the line (by a lot in my opinion)
One dog - Really good. The other dog, yucky. (That's 500 and that get's you in the MLB Hall Of Fame - So that's pretty good)
Thanks, Ceebs. I'll take .500 any day. The terrorist analogy was (intentionally) over the top, as sometimes principles are easiest to see in extreme cases. The reason we often say "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is to avoid communicating that we will not reward bad conduct, even by simply agreeing to negotiate, because it encourages more harmful conduct. Mike's approach to the board, from the beginning, has been to engage in what he knows is disruptive and unacceptable behavior, offering to stop only if someone will "negotiate" with him. It's like hostage taking, with the hostage in this case being the discussion forum. I don't use the analogy to claim that Mike is as evil as a hostage taking terrorist. I use it to illustrate the tactic and to explain why his offer to "negotiate" doesn't give him the moral high ground he seems to be claiming.
But I care more about the second hot dog than the first, so I'm happy you find it tasty. And I appreciate the feedback.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
