PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING In The Political Forum

[General Zod]

Originally Posted by VinVega

Personally, I lean to the left on a lot of issues, so I'm generally going to side with the opinion of the lefty posters, however, I have gotten lefty posters exiled and suspended from the site for some of the things we've discussed in this very post.

I've found you to be very centric.. I was a little suprised to read this. Perhaps you bounce back and forth for the sake of discussion? I've also found you to be very even-handed as well.

[VinVega]

Originally Posted by General Zod

I've found you to be very centric.. I was a little suprised to read this. Perhaps you bounce back and forth for the sake of discussion? I've also found you to be very even-handed as well.

I think my posting style is centric for the sake of discussion (and I have moved to the center since my college days), but things like the tax cuts, SS reform, the Iraq War, gay marriage bans, cutting off access to abortion I'm all against the Bush administration and Republicans on. I just don't rail so much anymore.

[Jadow]

Mod note: The follow sub-thread was split from another thread and put here due to the fact it became a discussion on the generalization policy

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Jadow

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

Chomsky's a 'super villain'? The 'American left' are rooting for them? Please. Maybe if you read once in a while your spelling might improve.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Jadow

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

I'd consider myself part of the American left. Why would I want my child to live in a world controlled by Ahmadinejad and Kim. I think this is most absurd post I have ever read on DVDTalk.

BTW, isn't this a gross generalization that is supposed to be frowned upon?

[nemein]

Originally Posted by Jadow

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

Mod note: As mentioned generalizations like this are frowned upon here. If you wish to contribute to the discussion please feel free, but leave this sort of out of it.

thx

[TheAllPurposeNothing]

Originally Posted by Jadow

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

"Super villains?"

Ajbimadad - He'll be your Dad and then send you to your room without supper.

The Chomsker - able to burn through linguistic irregularity with his amazing heat vision.

Chaves - Confuses average people and super heroes alike by mispelling his name.

Kim-Chee - Able to render the west to their knees with both his nuclear ambitions and spicy cabbage.

Do yourself a favor...step away from the comic books for a few minutes. I'd like to introduce you to this thing called Reality.

[VinVega]

Originally Posted by Jadow

Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them.

Yes and all conservatives want to put poor people out on the street.*

[Mod note]Let's keep the generalizations out of the thread.[/mod note]

* - used to prove a point that cartoon generalizations from either side of the spectrum are a waste of time here.



Mod note from nemein: I just wanted to add any further comments about this will just be deleted so as to not further derail the thread. "Cleanup" of these things is easier if people just report it w/o commenting in the thread

thx

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by VinVega

Mod note from nemein: I just wanted to add any further comments about this will just be deleted so as to not further derail the thread. "Cleanup" of these things is easier if people just report it w/o commenting in the thread

thx

I'd actually like an answer to my question. I'm asking why anyone would think that those on the left would align themselves with Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad. How would that benefit me? Why does Chomsky criticizing our government equate to praise for our common enemies?

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by CRM114

I'd actually like an answer to my question. I'm asking why anyone would think that those on the left would align themselves with Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad.

Maybe Hugo Chavez would be the one to pose the question to.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

I'd actually like an answer to my question. I'm asking why anyone would think that those on the left would align themselves with Kim Jong Il or Ahmadinejad. How would that benefit me? Why does Chomsky criticizing our government equate to praise for our common enemies?

So you are saying we should allow generalizations as long as the bring up a good point/start a good debate? IMHO if we want people to stop using them we should shut them down and any discussion brought about by them (esp the inevitable mocking/joke responses) asap.

[nemein]

If we can no longer talk about the right of left just close down the forum altogether, since any discussion about a party or ideology will constitute by definition a generalization.

The rule has been in place almost a year now and so far most people don't seem to have a problem carrying on a reasonable conversation, including a high level of disagreement on some topics. I agree it's hard to talk about any topic w/o generalizing at some point. The ones that fall under the rule though are those similar to the one that sparked this discussion since it really only seems to be a trolling post that is meant more to provoke a flame war than a discussion. If you want a flame war over politics there are plenty of other sides on the I'net that'll fulfill your needs. I like to think we are trying to do something different here.

Also, I take very strong issue with mods deleting or editing comments. It shows great disrespect for posters, and makes me doubt whether what I'm reading has been modified or altered.

Whenever a message is edited there is a note at the bottom indicating it has been. If there is a way of editing w/o that happening I don't know of it. For the most part we also try to edit (or in many cases just quote and comment) as opposed to out right delete since it eliminates "what happened to my post" questions from people and also lets people know what sort of posts are frowned upon. Those that are edited or outright deleted are usually of such a nature (obvious spamming/trolling/personal attack) that it is best to just remove them. IMHO this one would have been such a case but several people already quoted/commented on it and I didn't want to remove all those so I left it. Although I did delete a couple of posts that were made after my "further posts will be deleted" comment. The amusing thing is over the years we've also received many complaints about "why do you let reported posts remain instead of deleting them"... I guess you can't please everyone.

In my opinion, mods should only intervene when open aggression or personal attacks are involved.

So the statements "Chaves, Ajbimadad (sp), Kim, Chomsky, super villains are rising again, and the American left is rooting for them." is not something you would consider to be open aggression or akin to a personal attack?

[wendersfan]

There are ways of reducing complex subjects into more general, digestible posts without resorting to what amounts to bigotry. It helps if one doesn't simply make crap up, such as stating that the American left is rooting for someone like Kim Jong-il. Another would be to avoid phrasing things in such a way that people are left thinking you believe anyone with whom you disagree is below you morally, or that the view they hold with which you disagree are also morally inferior.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by nemein

So you are saying we should allow generalizations as long as the bring up a good point/start a good debate? IMHO if we want people to stop using them we should shut them down and any discussion brought about by them (esp the inevitable mocking/joke responses) asap.

No, not at all nemein. I'm merely interested in why someone would think the left want Ahmadinejad to suceed. I'm still waiting for the answer.

And Chavez is a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way from Ahmadinejad.

[Ky-Fi]

Originally Posted by CRM114

No, not at all nemein. I'm merely interested in why someone would think the left want Ahmadinejad to suceed. I'm still waiting for the answer.

And Chavez is a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way from Ahmadinejad.

Well, I don't think "the left" (meaning anyone who doesn't vote Republican) wants Ahmadinejad to succeed. But as far as elements of the far left being sympathetic to the Islamists worldwide, here's an analysis of the European left that I thought was quite interesting:

(And here's the whole piece for those interested:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24274 )


******************
Storhaug: I totally agree with Hedegaard that the abolition of capitalism is not a topic for the leftists in general in the public debate anymore. It seems that the leftist have understood for quite some years that pure socialism is a lost case. But in many ways, the Left has just transformed the idea concerning economical equality, into cultural equality.

From here on, the leftists have taken the idea even further; if you are not white, you are per definition a victim of discrimination. And the new perspective is that if you are a Muslim in Europe, you are per definition also a victim of irrational hatred from the majority society.

The Left in Norway has now even constructed a new term; "new racism". “The new racist” is a person who is critical to political Islam. This false construction, combined with also labelling those who are critical to political Islam as “Islamophobes”, has its obvious parallels to techniques used by the followers of Stalin. The new totalitarianism is, in this respect, to try to strangle a debate about the obvious problematic sides of multiculturalism and politicized religion. It is a new ideological war where the “good” leftist sees a useful weapon against the “evil” establishment. And this is where the leftists seem to believe they will fight a noble fight for the poor and suppressed all over the world.

To bring in hard facts in the debate, is extremely difficult. The heart of the debate is almost totally based on emotions, a kind of competition between “the good and the bad guy”. The “good” is the one who without reservations and documentation wants open borders in the name of so-called humanity. The “bad” is the one who says that the politics of open borders, and hence splitting up a nation into parallel societies, is the road to destruction of both the economy and the basis values in a democratic society. Everybody in the end turn out as losers. To sum up; the Left sees multiculturalism as the possibility to regain lost ideological power in our new historic era.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Well, I don't think "the left" (meaning anyone who doesn't vote Republican) wants Ahmadinejad to succeed. But as far as elements of the far left being sympathetic to the Islamists worldwide, here's an analysis of the European left that I thought was quite interesting:

(deletia)

The post that started this particular line of discussion specified the American left. Typically, European countries have a much wider range of political ideologies included in the mainstream than we have in the US (but I'm sure you know that.)

Now, certainly many of those on the left, even in the US, harbor more positive feelings for Hugo Chavez than those on the right. He is, in some ways, nothing more than a Latin American Huey Long. But it's hard to imagine anyone in their right mind, from Europe or America, who supports the regimes of Kim or Ahmadinejad. At that point it's not right/left, it's merely crazy/not crazy.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Ky-Fi

Well, I don't think "the left" (meaning anyone who doesn't vote Republican) wants Ahmadinejad to succeed. But as far as elements of the far left being sympathetic to the Islamists worldwide, here's an analysis of the European left that I thought was quite interesting:

(And here's the whole piece for those interested:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=24274 )

The original post stated simply "the American left." Not the far left. Not the Norwegian left. Not the Eurpean left. I AM THE AMERICAN LEFT. Why on earth would I want my children to grow up in a world led by Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad? Folks on the right really need to think before saying things like this.

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds

Of course you don't. But why do their ideas and positions seem to converge? What are the implications and consequences of that, deliberate or otherwise?

Thats a bizarre point. Why do the ideologies of Adolf Hitler, Patrick Buchanan and Ted Nugent converge?

[CRM114]

Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds

Ok, in what points do they converge?

Exactly. If you want, I can actually find something.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

Exactly. If you want, I can actually find something.

If you do please start it as a new thread. This was moved here to contain the discussion about moderation of the forum and how the rule about generalizations are to be applied. If you want to have the "the left supports XYZ" debate please do, but as a new thread (or take it back to the Chomsky thread for all I care... ). I say this more in the sense that it'll be easier for people to find it than anything else.


Overall I think how this discussion has progressed is a good example of one of the difficulties of moderating the forum, threads morph as they go on. We try to keep liked conversations grouped and try to keep everyone on an even level (aka try to quell the more outrageous/inflamatory comments). It's not as easy as it may look since it is a balancing act between all the different people/opinions/mind sets that are out there.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by CRM114

No, not at all nemein. I'm merely interested in why someone would think the left want Ahmadinejad to suceed. I'm still waiting for the answer.

And Chavez is a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG way from Ahmadinejad.

It was reported as a generalization (and you mentioned it as such in your post) which to me seemed to indicate something should have been done about it. Something was done and now people are complaining... I don't have insight into what you people are thinking beyond what you post so sending IMHO conflicting signals doesn't help when it comes to moderating.

[nemein]

Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds

I felt though the action I replied to didn't warrant it, since it was both generating interesting discussion and making a point about the affinity of particular viewpoints.

One person's "intersting discussion" is another person's "generalization" and/or personal attack though. IMHO the comment was of the level that it crossed the boundary of what we have defined as a "bad" generalization. The rules here are nebulous enough w/o allowing such obvious violations as this to go w/o comment.

However, we must be careful not to stifle debate either, especially at the macro level where you're dealing with ideologies and parties as a whole.

I agree and hopefully we don't do that too often. There are some statements that are problematic enough though that to allow them to stand is only going to cause further problems IMHO, including (but not limited to) later accusation by one side or the other "you let XYZ comment stand before... why aren't you doing anything about this post[er]... you're biased..." etc etc etc

It is much better to include a mod note beneath the "offending" message than to delete or edit the original content. Otherwise, the integrity of the discussion is severely compromised.

That's just it, the comments that are usually removed are of the nature that they are seemingly meant to derail the discussion, or they trump the original discussion and people just start arguing back and forth about the comment (aka a flame war ensues).

[VinVega]

Originally Posted by nemein

The rule has been in place almost a year now and so far most people don't seem to have a problem carrying on a reasonable conversation, including a high level of disagreement on some topics. I agree it's hard to talk about any topic w/o generalizing at some point. The ones that fall under the rule though are those similar to the one that sparked this discussion since it really only seems to be a trolling post that is meant more to provoke a flame war than a discussion. If you want a flame war over politics there are plenty of other sides on the I'net that'll fulfill your needs. I like to think we are trying to do something different here.

That's really all it comes down to for me. Go to the Yahoo boards if you want an unmoderated free for all. You can flame the other side to your heart's content.

[Canadian Bacon]

Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds

Talking about flaming, what's with the avatar? Is that Alec Baldwin?

anyone who doesn't know that's John Travolta in Pulp Fiction doesn't belong in this forum

[crazyronin]

Its just that its...so small.

But I'm sure you're used to hearing that