Political forums on the Organissimo board

[Soul Stream]

I honestly don't understand why it's a big deal. If you don't like it, stay away. People that don't come here because of the politics forum are either waaay too thin skinned or have no willpower. Seems rather silly.

Am I worried about losing people because of the politics forum? Not really. I would think people would have enough common sense to stay out of something they find negative in some way.

I think Jim has the right idea here. I don't think it's realistic to expect any political forum on the internet to be a healthy, civil affair all, most or some of the time.

When there's sharks in the water you enter at your own risk. My advice would be to get out of the water for a while.

[Rooster_Ties]

Greg, how the heck can any of the rest of us get in on discussions about serious world events, with you and Chris going at it like you did today?? Or Johnny and whoever else??

I'm seriously not trying to pick on you in this. And I think I've paid you more respect than many have around here, so I hope you do know I'm not trying to place all the blame on you for these kinds of things.

But damn it, you are part of the problem. Not the only part, but you and the others who engage in this kind of behavior, seem to not give a flying fuck about how far you take things.

NOBODY every backs down. The rhetoric only gets stirred up, faster and faster, and FASTER!!! It drifts over into other political threads. In occasionally even leaches into non-political threads.

Like I said before, it ain't nothin' but...

Edited August 21, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[catesta]

After all, it was just shark week.

[RonF]

Is it too much to ask to be civil to one another? Can we not disagree without calling one another vile, or sick, or a fat fuck or an idiot or...you get the idea.

No, and Yes.

I think the majority of the posters are civil, however this may not be true with the majority of the posts.

When you start seeing things like fat fuck, idiot, etc.etc.etc., it is unfortunate, but often these comments are retracted. (I said often, not always)

I just hate to see a development of new rules here, and would rather everyone make an effort to improve civility on their own.

I agree with catesta. Some of you guys are sounding like the board is practically dead because of political sparring. That's just not the case. Summer is traditionally a slow time for posting. It is for me anyway. As for the bad thread in question, I haven't even looked at it. Not once. The title told me to stay away. Easy.

I'm with everyone else as far as the aljerkson, fat fuck, idiot stuff is concerned. My god, it's so adolescent. But catesta's right, much better for those involved to make the changes on their own. And I, too, believe that it's completely realistic. A thread like this might open some eyes. But please, no new board rules for the sake of a few. It makes no sense.

[Simon Weil]

The posting of images of Middle Eastern victims of violence has always, in my mind, been the "go-nuclear" option in the political threads. I remember once having to resist the urge to post a picture of a victim on the old Blue Note boards, because I felt it was going to take the discussion to a more volatile level. It's sure done that here.

<snip>

But I wouldn't censor it.

I would censor it. I mean, with all moderators there's a threshold level at which a thread just becomes unacceptable - and, for me, this tit-for-tat nasty picture posting passes that.

In general, I think it's hard to effectively stop determined people who, let's say, appear to stay more or less within bounds, while posting in a needling or manipulative or otherwise aggressive spirit that impacts negatively on those surrounding them. Let's say those people who play by the rules, but not by the spirit of the game.

It's hard to get rid of such perpetrators, but one can send them to Coventry.

Simon Weil

[Guest GregM]

Greg, how the heck can any of the rest of us get in on discussions about serious world events, with you and Chris going at it like you did today??  Or Johnny and whoever else??

You can get in on whatever discussion you want. I think you know enough about me to understand that I prefer a substantive, topical discussion to the name-calling.

But damn it, you are part of the problem.  Not the only part, but you and the others who engage in this kind of behavior, seem to not give a flying fuck about how far you take things.

And what kind of behavior is that? Railing incessantly like you're doing? Posting pics like all these crossfire pics you post? Really, what's the big difference? You're trying to make a point. If we were discussing a current event, and you didn't think I understood the gravity, you'd probably post a picture or article.

NOBODY every backs down.  The rhetoric only gets stirred up, faster and faster, and FASTER!!!  It drifts over into other political threads.  In occasionally even leaches into non-political threads.

Like I've said before, it's nothin' but...

Welcome to the internet.

Edited August 21, 2003 by GregM

[John L]

Go read this thread: (seriously)

No, thank you. I am not going to that thread. Reading the news every day upsets me enough and, given who is registered here, I have a rough idea of what might be there.

The beauty of a PC is that you can click what you want to click. I am not clicking that.

[Rooster_Ties]

Greg, one difference is that 98% of the people here don't engage in the level and degree of verbal combat that 2% do. And the 2% that do, make it virtually impossible for any kind of reasonable discussion of a number of topics in the Politics forum.

I'm posting all the "Crossfire" images, because I think Crossfire (on CNN) is often one of the most useless things on television. …it, and programs just like it - where people just shout and shout at each other, never attempting to actually listen to each other (let alone try to understand where the other side is coming from), or actually to respond to what the other side is saying. Often, our Political threads turn out the same way.

Earlier today, you and I had a good and healthy exchange in the "Alleged Presidential Lies" thread (see how I characterized the subject of that thread in a non-“fanning the flames” manner!) – so my point is that it is possible to have a reasonable exchange of ideas, even when people disagree. Which is certainly not what you and Chris were up to earlier today.

What I'm suggesting is that a very small minority of people here on the board (including yourself, Greg, and a few others) are often soaking up all the oxygen in the Political forums. Not every day, but more often than is healthy for the board (IMHO). As someone (myself) who would also like to participate in those same Political threads, I'm getting tired of it - and I think others are too.

Also, my "rant"-like response to this situation today, has been uncharacteristic of my behavior on this board, since I joined in March. I'm afraid the same cannot be said of a handful of others who post quite heavily in the Politics forums, where often "rant" is the rule, rather than the "exception".

Edited August 21, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Guest GregM]

Sorry Rooster, I just don't buy it. We're having a decent conversation now. We had a decent conversation on the politics board earlier (which proves it's possible). Even when I'm trading insults with chris or johnny or whoever, as soon as a topical post appears, I'm the first one to discuss it and try to get the conversation going in a somewhat substantive direction. I would PREFER that, to the insults.

In Crossfire (a show I've never even seen) I don't imagine you have the opportunity to interact with other people who have similar interests or to express your opinions. Here you do. That's why we're here. I don't buy the idea that 2% are shutting out 98%. Those who want to post do so. Those who don't want to post, don't.

[Rooster_Ties]

I would PREFER that, to the insults.

If that's the case, Greg, then why do you engage in such behavior?? And why so often??

How does a dozen (or over time, dozens and dozens!!) of personally charged and insulting posts of a highly inflammatory nature, do anything to further the "real" discussion that you claim to enjoy more??

I think it's pretty disingenuous for you to say that you prefer a substantive discussion over a good "bash 'em as hard as you can" argument. Your behavior would tend to argue to the contrary.

(And I shudder to imagine what some of these "discussions" would be like if they were face to face.)

Edited August 21, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Johnny E]

Don't pull me or chris into this. All we posted were flowers and puppies. Greg on the otherhand posts dead babies and personal insults. Ban greg is what I say.

[Rooster_Ties]

Funny stuff, Johnny. Really, I'm rolling on the floor (seriously!!).

But come on, admit it. You and Chris are part of the problem, as much as Greg is. And some other guys don't help either. Any ideas for how to keep things better in control??

Remember what Joe Henderson said...

"If You're Not Part Of The Solution, You're Part Of The Problem"

Edited August 21, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Jim Alfredson]

Perhaps the greatest solution would be to leave the politics forum alone and let Johnny, Greg, and Chris just hash it out, mano a mano for a couple weeks. They'd probably get so bored with each other that they'd knock it off for a change.

So how about it? An organissimo-wide self-imposed ban on the politics forum, for everyone except the dasterdly trio?

[connoisseur series500]

Wow! All this substantive discussion I've been missing out on over the last couple days while I've been having login problems!

Rooster is a terrific guy and I am sympathetic to his concerns. Still, I am totally against any kind of censorship or topic segregation or anthing like that. People are just themselves. Greg is Greg; Johnny is Johnny, Chris is Chris, Mark is a Moose, and Catesta is gay! No just kidding. BTW, Jacknife is a HUGE Dodo Greene fan.

Really, these guys are just expressing their personalities. Why chain Johnny down? I like him the way he is, even if he is off his rocker! I've actually grown to like him very much (maybe I'm the gay ).

Anyway, I grew up in an Italian family where we all yelled at each other. I don't happen to like that very much as my personality is more emotionally moderate, but we've got to let people act as they are. Truth is more important on this board than peace. In my house, however, I'll take peace.

Rooster, you've a cool guy and you can still communicate your moderate views to people like myself or to others in the middle of all the ranting from the diehards. That's okay. Your quiet voice is still heard, believe it or not; and you will get some responses.

Don't change anything Jim. As usual, you are employing good sense in leaving things alone.

[Big Al]

Can the software be set up in such a way that individual members can determine which forums' new posts aer displayed when they click on the "View New Posts" link?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I log on here, the first thing I click is "View New Posts." Now, normally I don't like reading the Political threads, but they are displayed because that's the way it should be. Unfortunately, I'm sometimes a sucker for an argument and get hooked into one of these threads; then my anger gets the best of me and I let it bring me down.

However, this is MY fault; not the Board's, not any individual member.

So I was thinking, perhaps in each member's "My Controls" section, there could be a checklist, listing each forum that would display on the "New Posts" screen. The member could check off the forums he/she wants displayed (or if the member doesn't want to customize his list in such a way, it would automatically default to showing every forum's new post), and leave un-checked the forums he/she doesn't want displayed. This way, if the "New Posts" screen is one's entryway into the world of the Organissimo Board, and say f'rinstance a member doesn't want to be tempted by the Politics forum, he (I) could simply leave that forum un-checked, and those posts would not be displayed.

This way, nobody would complain about a particular forum if one doesn't make the temptation available to one's self. Or something like that.

[Dmitry]

I for one do not lose any sleep over political disagreements I may have with any members here, and have no personal problems with any that I know of.

I do see exchanges that I think may be unnecessary, and in some cases stupid, but what are you gonna' do?

Some of it is way overboard I agree, but I don't know what is reasonable, except ignoring it.

Weren't you the one who suggested to me to put Johnny E. Bush in the cement boots and give Greg electro-shock therapy?

Or was it vice versa?

Anyway, I agree.

[Jim Alfredson]

And why don't I just hold your hand when you cross the street?!?!

All kidding aside (and I am just kidding, Al) that is probably possible but not something I would be able to do. That would require some major programming that I'm just not knowledgeable at. Sorry.

[Big Al]

All kidding aside (and I am just kidding, Al) that is probably possible but not something I would be able to do. That would require some major programming that I'm just not knowledgeable at. Sorry.

That's cool. I'm not familiar with BB software, and thought that might've been something that came with the package.

Oh well, back to fighting temptation again. DAMN!

[Guest GregM]

I would PREFER that, to the insults.

If that's the case, Greg, then why do you engage in such behavior?? And why so often??

How does a dozen (or over time, dozens and dozens!!) of personally charged and insulting posts of a highly inflammatory nature, do anything to further the "real" discussion that you claim to enjoy more??

I think it's pretty disingenuous for you to say that you prefer a substantive discussion over a good "bash 'em as hard as you can" argument. Your behavior would tend to argue to the contrary.

(And I shudder to imagine what some of these "discussions" would be like if they were face to face.)

I already told you why I "engage in such behavior". I see no reason to back down and my whole reason for being on this board is because this board was allowing folks like Chris to levy insults against me while I wasn't even here. Sorry if you can't understand that. Maybe if you had come down on Chris and spoken up for someone who wasn't even here to defend himself, he wouldn't have come back.

Your question about how the insults further the topical posts is rhetorical. I can address a topic or, when the thread veers off into the ad hominem, I can roll with the punches there, too. It isn't that complicated and it isn't that big a deal.

Speaking of which, I've about had it with you calling me "disingenuous", "a big part of the problem" and for suggesting that something should be done about me. I've been pretty patient with this line of reasoning from you and explained my take on it and you still are railing railing railing. Knock it off already.

Your idea that these discussions would be even worse face to face is kind of funny. I'm a very quiet, soft-spoken person in real life. Don't fall into the trap of Johnny and chris who think they know me. You don't and you won't.

Edited August 21, 2003 by GregM

[Christiern]

I'm a very quiet, soft-spoken person in real life. Don't fall into the trap of Johnny and chris who think they know me. You don't and you won't.

Interesting, so there's a "quiet, soft-spoken" person behind the arrogant, name-calling contrarian who spews his hatred on these boards? Well, you could have fooled me (and quite a few others, I suspect)! But you haven't--what we have seen on this and other boards besmirched by your obsessive rhetoric is not a very nice person, but rather one who goes out of his way to start arguments that invariably lead to his hurling puerile insults at anyone who disagrees with his narrow views.

I realize that it is easy to misjudge people when all you see is their pixels, and that flareups are common, but most of us overcome that--most of us can get along even when our ideologies differ. You obviously can't so, no, you cannot convince me that there is a nice person hiding behind all that hatred.

[Rooster_Ties]

Speaking of which, I've about had it with you calling me "disingenuous", "a big part of the problem" and for suggesting that something should be done about me. I've been pretty patient with this line of reasoning from you and explained my take on it and you still are railing railing railing. Knock it off already.

I just searched back though this thread, and the others yesterday - and not once did I ever say you were a "big" part of the problem. I did, however, say that I thought you were part of the problem, and in every case - I went on to say that others here were also part of the problem. (And I did this so as not to single you out.)

I've also never suggested that anything be done about you in particular. (Or else find the post. Quote it back to me.)

Maybe the closest thing I ever said to was this...

I would agree that things have gotten worse since Greg joined (sorry Greg, that's the way I see it). BUT, it takes two to tango, and more than two are tangoing (sp?) with Greg - and sometimes tangoing with each other as well.

And in that quote (as in all my other posts on this topic yesterday) I discuss the behaviors of multiple people on this board. Whether or not I think you (Greg) are the worst offender in this matter is immaterial to this discussion. And my opinion on that matter has NOT been provided in any of my posts to date (nor will it).

What’s more important (in my opinion) is that several people have behaved beyond the call of what I think is appropriate on this board. But it's not my board, so all I am doing is what I think is appropriate – and that is voicing my opinion about behaviors I find objectionable. And I’m doing so in a way that doesn’t hurl insults, nor single out any one person in this.

And, as I’ve said many times, I’m not suggesting anyone be banned from the board. (Or at least not without a formal process like I've discussed, where specific numbers of infractions are tallied, with b3-er being the sole judge in these matters.)

Edited August 21, 2003 by Rooster_Ties

[Rooster_Ties]

I'm a very quiet, soft-spoken person in real life. Don't fall into the trap of Johnny and chris who think they know me. You don't and you won't.

Interesting, so there's a "quiet, soft-spoken" person behind the arrogant, name-calling contrarian who spews his hatred on these boards? Well, you could have fooled me (and quite a few others, I suspect)! But you haven't--what we have seen on this and other boards besmirched by your obsessive rhetoric is not a very nice person, but rather one who goes out of his way to start arguments that invariably lead to his hurling puerile insults at anyone who disagrees with his narrow views.

I realize that it is easy to misjudge people when all you see is their pixels, and that flareups are common, but most of us overcome that--most of us can get along even when our ideologies differ. You obviously can't so, no, you cannot convince me that there is a nice person hiding behind all that hatred.

Here we go again...

[Guest GregM]

See what I mean?

With Chris, it's purely ad hominem. There is no place for logic, or substance or dialog. That is why I have to resort to insults with types like that. It is what his type understands and what his ilk is intellectually capable of handling.

Edited August 21, 2003 by GregM

[Jim Dye]

Well look who is back!

So much for dramatic promises of staying away for a while.

I just enjoy the other aspects of the board too much to let this crap get to me. Plus, I wanted to participate in the blindfold test, so here I am with my tail between my legs. Come on, let me have it!

SERENITY NOW! is my new mantra.

Just a couple of comments.

Greg, you keep bringing up that fact that the only reason you came here was that people were talking behind your back.

How does one talk behind someone's back when they are posting on a public forum? A forum that you knew existed! You chose not to come here when BNBB shut down. Sure, people made some jabs at you when you were not around, but you had to have known that would happen. Especially considering the sparring that went on at the BNBB. What did you expect?

Next, all this talk about not censoring the board is fine and dandy.

However,

i'll bet anyone here that if there was an abortion thread and someone started posting graphic pictures of bloody fetuses, that you'd all be losing your fucking minds.

I think the picture posting frenzy went too far. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but I thought it was in poor taste and actually did more to hurt your arguments than help them.

I disagree that a political forum would be dull without all the heavy-handedness, but many of you enjoy the fighting. Heck, maybe I enjoy it too in a twisted kind of way.

Anyway, it looks like you all have spoken here and that the majority of you just choose to ignore what you don't want to see. I can respect that.

Edited August 21, 2003 by Jim Dye

[Guest GregM]

Greg, you keep bringing up that fact that the only reason you came here was that people were talking behind your back.

How does one talk behind someone's back when they are posting on a public forum? A forum that you knew existed! You chose not to come here when BNBB shut down.

Are you asking me or telling me? Fact is, I was blissfully unaware of this board until I was linked here. I did not know about this board, had never visited this board, did not lurk on this board and was linked to this board via a polarity thread when it became clear folks here were still carrying grudges.

I think the picture posting frenzy went too far. Maybe I'm just a wuss, but I thought it was in poor taste and actually did more to hurt your arguments than help them.

Frenzy? I posted one small pic, in which no blood was shown--just three orthodox Jews trying to resuscitate a 4-month old. The picture was related to the thread. How this "hurt my argument" is a figment of your imagaination, which is quite active judging by your description of my posting a single small picture a "frenzy". I don't mind you being a "wuss", but at least be a wuss with some sense of perspective.

Edited August 21, 2003 by GregM