P&R News

[Dill]

(08-22-2023, 04:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Do you threaten to shutdown the forum when Trump was accused of Russia collusion and the liberal bases posted on this lie over and over again? It appears you have made a decision to attack conservatives. It appears I am your target.

I know the liberal posters are applauding, they love to see conservative voices shut down versus debating the facts.

This is me sharing my opinion as you stated is permitted, just as you just stated your opinion. I will follow the CoC, my expectations you make others follow it as well.

Please combine any threads with similar topics, I tried to delete some, but it would not allow me to do it.

I'm applauding as someone who likes clean debate, focused on arguments and not on persons--or at least not on forum members.  

Also, I don't want to see you singled out as a "problem." Unless you think your views cannot thrive on their own merits in open debate, I'm betting you'll have no worries from a bit more "refereeing" of debates. I take B-holic at his word when he says it is not political positions which bother him, but the nastiness derailing threads. If he is offering us this space for rational debate, then we shouldn't repay that kindness with dysfunction and stress. 

While I suspect anxiety prompts you to start more threads than necessary, I learn many things from your posts because I cannot follow ALL the right wing news sources, but I want to know what is going on with them. While I generally disagree with you on what reaches a level of actionable evidence or what constitutes a "lie," you have frequently alerted me to aspects of the "Biden Crime Family" prosecution I'd likely never have found on my own. I see that as value and a contribution to the forum. It helps me understand what is really going on in U.S. politics beyond what I can glean from the news. So I don't want you to leave or stop posting. I don't want to participate in a boring "echo chamber" of liberal views. 

I'm also anxious about the direction the country is going and about the upcoming election. We share that, though from opposite ends of the spectrum.  We may be the only regular Fox viewers in the forum as well. So from henceforth lets start from our commonalties. As the forum "extremists," we both have to be especially careful to respect civil norms as well standards of rational argument. 

[BengalYankee]

(08-22-2023, 06:03 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Roman actually had his 1st chemo session last Monday. He did pretty well overall. 

On the transgender issue...I'll address it publicly so there won't be any confusion going forward.

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. But, if you're talking about a specific person who clearly identifies one way or another, then that's how you should refer to them in this forum. It's just a simple, respectful courtesy...even if you disagree personally. 

Thank goodness for Roman's wellness. We have a cat and we love him dearly.

On the transgender issue. This is a private website and I concur and respect to call a person whatever they want to be called. But the dings were after the fact. As you stated moving forward for no confusion. But there is/was confusion prior to the dings, besides the CoC there were no warnings, just punishment even when I warned another member not to misgender a person, I got dinged for telling that member the Mods would punish him for misgendering a person. I don't know if that other member got dinged like I did, but I did see his post was deleted. 

Again, I know this is a private website but half the country has a different opinion see what happened to Bud Light's sales and speaking of Bud Light that was my punishment for displaying an image[front page of the NY Post] of the marketing team that was eventually fired stating under the image of the Bud Light Marketing team stating their old commercial "Real Men of Genious". 

In conclusion.

1. The Marketing team of Bud Light caused Anheuser Busch Billions of dollars.
2. The Marketing team was eventually fired.
3. "Real Men of Genious" was a popular advertisement for Bud Light.
4. No warning about misgendering a "Celebrity".   
5. Warning another member not to misgender a transgender otherwise he will get punished.

I received two dings in the process. 

[CJD]

(08-22-2023, 05:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Just gut feeling reading the forum (room). Maybe I am just being paranoid being one of few conservatives that post regularly in this forum.

I've always felt like this forum leaned conservative. I mean, even the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll shows slightly more people here think he is than not (granted, that includes critiques from the left as well). I don't think Bengalholic's ends are to discriminate against conservatives. If he did, the forum would probably just end haha.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-23-2023, 10:52 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I've always felt like this forum leaned conservative. I mean, even the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll shows slightly more people here think he is than not (granted, that includes critiques from the left as well). I don't think Bengalholic's ends are to discriminate against conservatives. If he did, the forum would probably just end haha.

Interesting that you view the forum in that light, as I have always felt the situation to be the opposite, as I have always viewed your opinions as more moderate rather than staunchly based.  As to the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll? It is possible that some with liberal points of view also feel like JB is possibly corrupt, just as I as a conservative also feel that DJT has committed some wrongs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 11:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting that you view the forum in that light, as I have always felt the situation to be the opposite, as I have always viewed your opinions as more moderate rather than staunchly based.  As to the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll? It is possible that some with liberal points of view also feel like JB is possibly corrupt, just as I as a conservative also feel that DJT has committed some wrongs.

The number of people who voted in that poll far exceeds the number of people who post on a regular basis, or even a semi-regular basis.  The reasons for that are probably varied, some people may feel other posters already articulate their positions.  Some may be intimidated to enter the fray, as it can get rather heated.  Some people just enjoy reading the threads and don't feel the need to participate.  There are likely other reasons.  As for which way the forum skews among active posters, my views on this are known.  I have a hard time understanding how anyone feels it tilts conservative as the only active posters I'd put squarely in that camp are Luvnit (who is a rather recent addition), and Brad.  Michaelsean would probably be described as conservative, but he doesn't post much anymore.  Outside of that I'd say it splits about 50/50 with moderate and liberal posters.

There are far more active liberal posters than there are conservative ones, and I don't think it's even close.

[BengalYankee]

(08-23-2023, 11:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting that you view the forum in that light, as I have always felt the situation to be the opposite, as I have always viewed your opinions as more moderate rather than staunchly based.  As to the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll? It is possible that some with liberal points of view also feel like JB is possibly corrupt, just as I as a conservative also feel that DJT has committed some wrongs.

[BengalYankee]

(08-23-2023, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The number of people who voted in that poll far exceeds the number of people who post on a regular basis, or even a semi-regular basis.  The reasons for that are probably varied, some people may feel other posters already articulate their positions.  Some may be intimidated to enter the fray, as it can get rather heated.  Some people just enjoy reading the threads and don't feel the need to participate.  There are likely other reasons.  As for which way the forum skews among active posters, my views on this are known.  I have a hard time understanding how anyone feels it tilts conservative as the only active posters I'd put squarely in that camp are Luvnit (who is a rather recent addition), and Brad.  Michaelsean would probably be described as conservative, but he doesn't post much anymore.  Outside of that I'd say it splits about 50/50 with moderate and liberal posters.

There are far more active liberal posters than there are conservative ones, and I don't think it's even close.

[basballguy]

(08-22-2023, 01:40 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Everyone is allowed to express their opinions. The issue is when expressing that opinion turns juvenile, dishonest, inflammatory, etc. For those that want to talk politics that way, Twitter and Facebook would be better options. 

I think if you're going to say this behavior is happening (especially in terms of dishonesty and inflammatory comments) you should give some specific examples....maybe a running thread of "here's what not to do or say and why"....you can start with me if you want

I don't think there's a single person in this forum that posts dishonest information.  I do think there is a huge segment of posters that talk out of their ass trying to pass off anecdotal experiences as fact.  In that sense those individuals could probably come off as being dishonest but I doubt there's negative intentions behind it.  

(08-22-2023, 06:03 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. But, if you're talking about a specific person who clearly identifies one way or another, then that's how you should refer to them in this forum. It's just a simple, respectful courtesy...even if you disagree personally. 

So we're now "dinging" people for what they say about public figures?  I feel like that would get every user of this forum banned based on what they've said about Biden and Trump over the years.

Moderating what people say about public figures is a dangerously slippery slope if you are an advocate for independent conversation like you imply here.

Moderating users based on what they say about public figures is an awful idea and will not allow for neutral moderation.  If done correctly, every user on this forum would be banned within a week for shit they say about DJT and JB alone.

-----------

Personally, the tone of this thread seems focused on going after conservative posters. 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-23-2023, 12:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: Bengalholic

I think if you're going to say this behavior is happening (especially in terms of dishonesty and inflammatory comments) you should give some specific examples....maybe a running thread of "here's what not to do or say and why"....you can start with me if you want

I don't think there's a single person in this forum that posts dishonest information.  I do think there is a huge segment of posters that talk out of their ass trying to pass off anecdotal experiences as fact.  In that sense those individuals could probably come off as being dishonest but I doubt there's negative intentions behind it.  


Moderating users based on what they say about public figures is an awful idea and will not allow for neutral moderation.  If done correctly, every user on this forum would be banned within a week for shit they say about DJT and JB alone.

-----------

Personally, the tone of this thread seems focused on going after conservative posters. 

I don't think that anyone intentionally posts dishonest information with the intent of misleading anyone, but it does happen.  I've posted things over the years that I thought to be true at the moment, and then was shown contradictory information that changed my opinion.

I believe that it's already been stated that this thread isn't going after members of either particular political ideology, as much as in the way they go about delivering and discussing their respective messages.

[basballguy]

(08-23-2023, 12:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I believe that it's already been stated that this thread isn't going after members of either particular political ideology, as much as in the way they go about delivering and discussing their respective messages.

So what I mean is, it's clearly being driven by left leaning complaints on this forum.  The talking points seem to be some of the same (but false) talking points we see other users make about conservative posters here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2023, 12:35 PM)basballguy Wrote: So what I mean is, it's clearly being driven by left leaning complaints on this forum.  The talking points seem to be some of the same (but false) talking points we see other users make about conservative posters here.

Honestly, it's really immaterial what prompted it.  It's Holic's board, he can moderate it as he chooses.  I don't really see any bias in the way this forum is moderated, although I certainly haven't always agreed with decisions made.  I'd wait and see what changes are actually made before worrying about this type of thing.  Just my opinion.

[basballguy]

(08-23-2023, 12:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, it's really immaterial what prompted it.  It's Holic's board, he can moderate it as he chooses.  I don't really see any bias in the way this forum is moderated, although I certainly haven't always agreed with decisions made.  I'd wait and see what changes are actually made before worrying about this type of thing.  Just my opinion.

I'm not even taking a position of who is allowed to do what (I'll float ideas)...but ultimately I don't care.  It's a thread that's got people providing feedback/opinions and i'm just giving it from my experience.  

[*Nately120*]

(08-23-2023, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are far more active liberal posters than there are conservative ones, and I don't think it's even close.

I feel like the 2022 midterms were a point where conservatives tended to avoid this section, and I don't blame them because that had to be a pretty miserable fumble on the part of their political party.  It's like in sports when my team wins and I want to hear as many podcasts and read articles about it that week as I can, but when they lose I tend to focus more on other areas that interest me.

[Dill]

(08-23-2023, 12:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: Moderating users based on what they say about public figures is an awful idea and will not allow for neutral moderation.  If done correctly, every user on this forum would be banned within a week for shit they say about DJT and JB alone.

My sense of B'holic's reference to "juvenile" and "inflammatory" behavior, etc. was more related to how we treat each other.

Not sure he would have a problem if I called Trump a "lying, womanizing pig who talks out his ass." But I don't know.

However, I'm DAMN sure he'd have a problem if I called YOU a "lying, womanizing pig" etc. He wouldn't let it fly because I'm "left leaning."

With you, I'd like to see examples of what counts as bad behavior, and maybe let people discuss them a bit, stuff "both sides" might easily agree on, at least in the abstract. Figure out what rules might work well and what might not. (I foresee possible disagreements over what counts as "off topic.") 

Some of the invective might lessen if more could agree that just saying something doesn't make it true. Let evidence make the point.

Also it seems to me that people could better realize that most invective just describes their feelings--not the actual object of their ire. 
E.g. "X is a stupid idiot" is really just angry expressive noise, like a child stamping his feet, and not a statement of fact.

Finally, many of us count good friends among the moderators, but we expect them to do their duty if we violate the rules. Because they are friends, we should have an extra incentive NOT to put them in the stressful position of having to rap another friend's knuckles. 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-23-2023, 01:24 PM)Dill Wrote: My sense of B'holic's reference to "juvenal" and "inflammatory" behavior, etc. was more related to how we treat each other.

Not sure he would have a problem if I called Trump a "lying, womanizing pig who talks out his ass." But I don't know.

However, I'm DAMN sure he'd have a problem if I called YOU a "lying, womanizing pig" etc. He wouldn't let it fly because I'm "left leaning."

With you, I'd like to see examples of what counts as bad behavior, and maybe let people discuss them a bit, stuff "both sides" might easily agree on, at least in the abstract. Figure out what rules might work well and what might not. (I foresee possible disagreements over what counts as "off topic.") 

Some of the invective might lessen if more could agree that just saying something doesn't make it true. Let evidence make the point.

Also it seems to me that people could better realize that most invective just describes their feelings--not the actual object of their ire. 
E.g. "X is a stupid idiot" is really just angry expressive noise, like a child stamping his feet, and not a statement of fact.

Finally, many of us count good friends among the moderators, but we expect them to do their duty if we violate the rules. Because they are friends, we should have an extra incentive NOT to put them in the stressful position of having to rap another friend's knuckles. 

Absolutely correct.  One of the points of emphasis when we did the reboot of P&R a few years back was to eliminate name calling and personal attacks.  Some of the posters who frequent P&R these days were considerably less active, and in some cases not yet even members at that time.  

And while our opinions on some topics may differ, you can always count on fair and respectful treatment by myself and the entire Bengalsboard Staff.

[Bengalholic]

(08-23-2023, 12:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: I think if you're going to say this behavior is happening (especially in terms of dishonesty and inflammatory comments) you should give some specific examples....maybe a running thread of "here's what not to do or say and why"....you can start with me if you want

I don't think there's a single person in this forum that posts dishonest information.  I do think there is a huge segment of posters that talk out of their ass trying to pass off anecdotal experiences as fact.  In that sense those individuals could probably come off as being dishonest but I doubt there's negative intentions behind it. 

When I mention dishonesty, I'm referring to a pattern I've noticed of members misrepresenting what others are saying, putting words in their mouths that they never said and accusing them of holding positions they never said they hold...usually to help their own argument. It's a dishonest approach, that sends a discussion down the crapper very quickly. 

In terms of the inflammatory, I'm talking about the amount of insults, name calling and personal attacks I've come across. Again, this is not only against the rules, but also makes the conversation about the members involved, instead of the topic at hand.

Quote:So we're now "dinging" people for what they say about public figures?  I feel like that would get every user of this forum banned based on what they've said about Biden and Trump over the years.

Moderating what people say about public figures is a dangerously slippery slope if you are an advocate for independent conversation like you imply here.

Moderating users based on what they say about public figures is an awful idea and will not allow for neutral moderation.  If done correctly, every user on this forum would be banned within a week for shit they say about DJT and JB alone.

-----------

This is a useful example of why making sure you understand what the person you're responding to actually said is important, and not asking for clarification could lead to misinterpreting them...and not arguing the actual point they made.

In this case, Yankee asked me about how to refer to celebrity transgender people, and I gave him an answer. You took that and expanded it to public figures in general, which was not the topic. Instead of asking a question, you assumed something that was never talked about. Do you see the issue there...and how it can lead to a conversation going off the rails?

Quote:Personally, the tone of this thread seems focused on going after conservative posters. 

The focus is on improving behavior and interactions...so that P&R will remain a place for liberals AND conservatives to hang out and talk politics. It would die off pretty quickly IMO, if it ever became a place for just one side or the other. 

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-22-2023, 04:21 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Do you threaten to shutdown the forum when Trump was accused of Russia collusion and the liberal bases posted on this lie over and over again? It appears you have made a decision to attack conservatives. It appears I am your target.

This is where you are dead wrong and most likely what 'Bengalholic is talking about.  Instead of parroting what you hear off AM radio and far-right podcasts, take the time to read the full 448-page Mueller report.  Also, the list of criminal indictments against Trump.  You'd be surprised of what you might learn.   I'm not going to say you come on here and flat-out lie, but not "doing your research" and just parroting right-wing podcast talking points just shows a lack of effort.

Here are some excerpts from Mueller's interview regarding his findings.

• Through two years of this investigation, through the indictment of 34 individuals, with 8 guilty pleas and 1 finding of guilt after trial. Mueller then spelled out clearly in his final report, Robert Mueller made one thing crystal clear: Russia attempted to interfere with our 2016 election.
  

Here's the last thing Mueller said on June 3, 2019:
• Robert Mueller:
  "And, I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
  And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you."
• Over the course of his nearly two-year-long probe, special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors have now indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes.
• The 448-page Mueller report contains copious detail about how Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, both by using social media to influence American voters with misinformation and by hacking into the Clinton campaign’s computers. Russian operatives also connected with WikiLeaks to release the stolen material. Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham share some of the key findings.
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/inside-the-mueller-report-a-sophisticated-russian-interference-campaign
  

[Bengalholic]

(08-23-2023, 04:01 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: This is where you are dead wrong and most likely what 'Bengalholic is talking about.  Instead of parroting what you hear off AM radio and far-right podcasts, take the time to read the full 448-page Mueller report.  Also, the list of criminal indictments against Trump.  You'd be surprised of what you might learn.   I'm not going to say you come on here and flat-out lie, but not "doing your research" and just parroting right-wing podcast talking points just shows a lack of effort.

Here are some excerpts from Mueller's interview regarding his findings.

• Through two years of this investigation, through the indictment of 34 individuals, and then spelled out clearly in his final report, Robert Mueller made one thing crystal clear: Russia attempted to interfere with our 2016 election.
  

Here's the last thing Mueller said on June 3, 2019:
• Robert Mueller:
  "And, I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
  And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Thank you."
• Over the course of his nearly two-year-long probe, special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors have now indicted 34 individuals and three Russian businesses on charges ranging from computer hacking to conspiracy and financial crimes.
• The 448-page Mueller report contains copious detail about how Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, both by using social media to influence American voters with misinformation and by hacking into the Clinton campaign’s computers. Russian operatives also connected with WikiLeaks to release the stolen material. Lisa Desjardins and William Brangham share some of the key findings.
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/inside-the-mueller-report-a-sophisticated-russian-interference-campaign
  

I was actually referring to other things when I referred to dishonest approaches, which I talked about in the reply to basballguy.

The situation you bring up is different. 

If someone post something they believe to be true and others object...they have the opportunity to challenge it. That's the way it should work. If someone is making a claim, they should have to provide proof. If someone doesn't think the proof is accurate or truthful, they can provide evidence or arguments against the claim. 

[CJD]

(08-23-2023, 11:13 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting that you view the forum in that light, as I have always felt the situation to be the opposite, as I have always viewed your opinions as more moderate rather than staunchly based.  As to the "Is Joe Biden corrupt" poll? It is possible that some with liberal points of view also feel like JB is possibly corrupt, just as I as a conservative also feel that DJT has committed some wrongs.

This is interesting, haha. I think what you're picking up on is that I'm a pragmatist. But I don't think I would fall under any categorization as moderate, especially not in America . My ideal world is pretty far left. It's just I understand that we operate in a world where a lot of my ideals are not (yet) possible, so we have to work with what we've got :).

[CJD]

(08-23-2023, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The number of people who voted in that poll far exceeds the number of people who post on a regular basis, or even a semi-regular basis.  The reasons for that are probably varied, some people may feel other posters already articulate their positions.  Some may be intimidated to enter the fray, as it can get rather heated.  Some people just enjoy reading the threads and don't feel the need to participate.  There are likely other reasons.  As for which way the forum skews among active posters, my views on this are known.  I have a hard time understanding how anyone feels it tilts conservative as the only active posters I'd put squarely in that camp are Luvnit (who is a rather recent addition), and Brad.  Michaelsean would probably be described as conservative, but he doesn't post much anymore.  Outside of that I'd say it splits about 50/50 with moderate and liberal posters.

There are far more active liberal posters than there are conservative ones, and I don't think it's even close.

I think there are more vocal and active liberal posters than conservatives (GMDino and Dill are two of the most active people in this forum and are very liberal), but I've perceived there to be a larger volume of low post/occasional post conservatives.

Another disconnect may be what you consider a "moderate."

If I were to consider most of the moderates to be conservatives (because I'm a crazy leftist), then a 50/50 split between moderates and liberals + some conservatives would be a lean conservative in my book.