Forum Feedback and Support Post forum feedback and related problems, here.

Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Old 06-29-18, 09:25 AM
  #51  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 521
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Hi guys,

Sorry I didn't respond to this until now. We definitely take racism as the ignorant folly it is, but we're only so many here. So please report any post that you find objectionable, it's the only way we and the moderators can see everything.

Spam is pretty easy to pick out, but when an established member posts something that looks like a normal opinion at a glance, it can be overlooked.

mspmms, thank for making this thread to have a discussion about this and thank you for your own signature.
IBJoel is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 10:27 AM
  #52  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,524
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I'm fine with the mods saying "Hmmm, this is a close call, I'll err on the side of not banning this person." But we've got posters who consistently traffic in racist tropes, usually with a sly wink and a fig leaf of plausible deniability. I don't think we need to take someone at face value when they call black people apes and, when called on it, say "What!? I was just quoting Starship Troopers!"
Just checking in here before I leave today and I believe the key here is trend. On it's own the dog whistling filled dense of the Concentration Camps (complete with trying to spin that they aren't CC's) coupled with many other similar posts is a trend. And given the amount of it lately, it's turning this place into Breitbart lite. If it contnues I suspect many will bail because if we wanted to part of a site like that, we would go to Breitbart.
hdnmickey is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 10:40 AM
  #53  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
mspmms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. No preferred pronouns
Posts: 13,464
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by IBJoel View Post
mspmms, thank for making this thread to have a discussion about this and thank you for your own signature.
mspmms is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 10:48 AM
  #54  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by IBJoel View Post
Hi guys,

Sorry I didn't respond to this until now. We definitely take racism as the ignorant folly it is, but we're only so many here. So please report any post that you find objectionable, it's the only way we and the moderators can see everything.

Spam is pretty easy to pick out, but when an established member posts something that looks like a normal opinion at a glance, it can be overlooked.

mspmms, thank for making this thread to have a discussion about this and thank you for your own signature.
Many of us have reported these users for years. Some of us have had in depth conversations with mods about it, and were told to put them on ignore and not engage. It’s really disheartening.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 12:50 PM
  #55  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 521
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Supermallet View Post
Many of us have reported these users for years. Some of us have had in depth conversations with mods about it, and were told to put them on ignore and not engage. It’s really disheartening.
Totally understandable. Essentially, we at IB take a hand's-off approach, since each forum is different and what might fly on abctalk.com what be totally off-limits for xyzforums.com. DVDTalk has a much wider spectrum of political views than most of our other sites.

I'll speak with the mods and try to find some kind of compromise for the politics forum that respects free speech, but doesn't just ignore problematic views.
IBJoel is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 03:59 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 39,876
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

This is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but is there a way the forum can also block quoted posts from users I have on ignore?
slop101 is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 04:34 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Hero
 
davidh777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 41,628
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Count me among those stuck between "ignore them, and maybe they'll go away" and "leaving them unchallenged will just embolden them."
davidh777 is offline  
Old 06-29-18, 05:40 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Hero
 
TomOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 33,369
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by slop101 View Post
This is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, but is there a way the forum can also block quoted posts from users I have on ignore?
This has been brought up before but I can't remember what was said as to why not.
TomOpus is offline  
Old 06-30-18, 09:32 PM
  #59  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by IBJoel View Post
Totally understandable. Essentially, we at IB take a hand's-off approach, since each forum is different and what might fly on abctalk.com what be totally off-limits for xyzforums.com. DVDTalk has a much wider spectrum of political views than most of our other sites.

I'll speak with the mods and try to find some kind of compromise for the politics forum that respects free speech, but doesn't just ignore problematic views.
Perhaps you could define "problematic views." Hopefully, that wouldn't include "views that go against the majority views"...because that wouldn't encourage an open marketplace of ideas (which most of us want despite the open mocking of that idea by at least one prominent poster).

What we are experiencing as comic relief are the most uncivil, blatant trolling members engaging in an active campaign to get users banned because they don't like their views. They don't hesitate in admitting that they have been complaining for years about those members whom they don't like. The complainers are those who have lowered the level of dialogue with repeated vulgar personal atracks, the vilest, basest lies about their targets, and general childish reactions to anyone who dares to oppose their self-righteous views. They follow posters around and try their best to provoke arguments, and when their targets respond not in kind but with a blast of logic that skewers the insulter, their reaction is fierce...the same as most bullies react, in my lengthy experience of dealing with bullies. So they...the true trollers...call the solid responses that foil them "trolling." Just like all bullies who love to gang up on others in order to increase their own self-esteem, they can't stand it when their intended victims don't roll over or get upset but respond calmly and logically in a way that exposes the shallowness of the bully's views. So they resort to the only thing left...if you can't beat 'em, ban 'em.

Ignoring these racist trolls hasn't made them go away; rather, it just makes them gnash their teeth and double down on their personal attacks. Ironically, even though their childish behavior is discussed off the board ( with bewilderment, amazement, and no small amount of amusement), their targets don't imitate their public complaining dance...whether because it looks so immature or because their targets really just don't care about their lunacy.

As another poster noted, their hypocrisy is staggering. They call others "liars" and "cowards" even as they cowardly lie about their targets. They refuse to back up their base, vile accusations...because they can't. They continually and repeatedly call others vile names and then blame their target ("He made me curse him" didn't go over too well back in grade school, did it?). They routinely engage in attacks upon religious beliefs with untrue statements, continually make stereotypical racist remarks, try to suppress views which are expressly logically if that logic threatens their worldview, and generally just act like nasty people. They even go so far as to use their targets for their own personal gain until they've gotten what they want...then drop the pretense of congeniality and say they've been "complaining" about those people all the while. What sort of individual does that?

The ultimate irony comes when viewing their actual, verifiable offenses and insults (including repeated, unabashed ridiculing and denigrating the mods and the entire forum with their signatures. Sort of makes you wonder why they hang around a "dying" forum with the moderators who, according to them, are enablers of "white supremacy."

That little "indiscretion" should reveal all one needs to know about their character. If they can't cow their targets and can't get their way with their complaints, they turn upon the moderators and the forum itself. And no amount of back-tracking can ever walk back those statements and excuse them no matter how hard they try. Just like Ms. Barr, they crossed the line for good.

I've spoken with one of their frequent targets, and he would love to have the opportunity to expose the twisted lies of the bigoted hypocrites who have done nothing but run the forum down with attacks upon many other members over a wide range of issues in other forums as well as this one. Every accusation they make toward others actually applies to themselves with other besides. Rather than sharpen their wits and improve their reasoning and communication skills, they choose the low road every time. People have tolerated their behavior for years (and their partisan enablers ignore their offenses and side with them). Unreal.

In the real world, they'd be told to put up or shut up. In the real world, you win debates with facts and logic, not with lies and whining.

Also, in the real world, they wouldn't dare tell vicious lies about others to their targets' faces, because they can't hide behind a computer screen. Take the lie that has been repeated about a member calling black people "apes." In my opinion, repeated libeling of another member ought to be grounds for banning. And when the aggrieved member proves a point with an illustration and another member falsely and illofically twists that humorous, FACT-BASED dismissal of the asinine accusation into yet another lie, that member has just abdicated any pretense of personal integrity.

And anyone supporting those lies ought to be ashamed to be an enabler...and ought to wise up. You can't preach about civility when you're identifying with and encouraging boorish behavior.

Apologies for posting in such a mild manner, but we're experiencing a heat wave, and I'm kinda snookered from a long day outside in 100 degree (heat index) temps. At least we're being civil.

(No resemblance to any actual person, living or dead, is intentional or is implied.

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-30-18 at 10:01 PM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 06-30-18, 10:05 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,783
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Wowee!

As a dear friend used to say to me, ‘when you point a finger at me, you’ve got four pointing back at yourself.’

(Due respect to the thumb.)
Kurt D is offline  
Old 06-30-18, 10:51 PM
  #61  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by TomOpus View Post
This has been brought up before but I can't remember what was said as to why not.
The simple way is to scroll downward.

Heck, when scrolling backward from latest post to read other unread previous posts, the observant reader can identify the frequent poster with a large degree of accuracy based upon "tells" such as repeated phrases, epithets, grammar, vocabulary, mistakes, obsessions, etc. Ignoring a member is the easiest thing in the world for anyone with any small amount of computer proficiency.

Just say scroll.

Just speaking personally, I constantly encounter views here that are racist, sexist, biased against religion, endorsing what millions consider to be crimes against humanity, endorsing destructive public policies, endorsing anti-American views, etc. And others share one or more of those perceptions. Yet we don't complain and constantly go running to the mods to gripe, try to self-indulgently derail threads to air personal grudges, and advocate ( and scheme) to get the users we find to be offensive and who hold abhorrent views to be banned. We're not afraid to read such views even though there's little hope for changing those abhorrent views; there is value in hearing others try to justify those views and in challenging those views (and having one's own views challenged). It doesn't matter if others prefer that a set of "approved" views be a litmus test for membership to keep the strain "pure." For partisan websites, that's SOP. That has never been the underlying principle at DVDTalk, although it could become that if some get their wish.

If we want to exclude based upon rules violations, there's going to be a long line forming ahead. If we're going to include views considered objectionable or remarks that are condescending or sarcastic, everyone can start packing their bags. We might want to consider false equivalency when comparing a sarcastic retort to a vulgar, unmitigated, uninstigated attack.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-01-18 at 05:10 AM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 06-30-18, 11:25 PM
  #62  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
It's about having the site's built-in audience and reach, and using that to spread hateful rhetoric, ideally unchallenged by the other active users by getting them frustrated enough to just ignore them or leave, and unchallenged by the mods because technically speaking, rules aren't being brokeh.
I totally agree about the bad faith posters wanting to have free reign to spew their hatred.

For instance, when posters continually post lies about entire groups and specific people despite others demonstrating that the allegations are based upon fiction, some posters refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong. Those same posters repeatedly tell vicious lies: pro-life people don't care about babies...they just want to "control women;" those wanting secure borders just hate brown people; evangelical Christians don't believe in science; Republican senators are praying for another school massacre, etc., etc. In the latter example, an enabler maintained that there could be other interpretations of that sentiment...of course, no other explanation was forthcoming.

It's instructive that the same enabler said in a different thread that he enjoys trolling (even as he complains about trolling.

Frusrating as it can be, most of us just take the bad faith posters with a grain of salt. We're not going to allow a few bad apples to make us leave. Eventually those people will find a new hobby.

Last edited by creekdipper; 06-30-18 at 11:34 PM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 01:06 AM
  #63  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,460
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Joel (or any other mods/admins) --

Since the "ape" thing seems to be a point of contention, here is the original post where the ape discussion starts:

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13123506-post3221.html

From there, the thread continues and you can read it for yourself. But I would characterize it as several posters -- most notably creekdipper -- making the argument that the term "ape" is not necessarily racist. As poster after poster continues to explain the racially charged history of calling black people apes, creekdipper digs in his heels and insists ... I'm not even sure what he's insisting, though he did change his signature for some time to include a quote from Starship Troopers in which one of the characters calls others "apes," I guess to somehow prove that it was wrong for Michelle Obama to characterize being called an ape as a racially charged attack.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 03:42 AM
  #64  
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 20,152
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I totally agree about the bad faith posters wanting to have free reign to spew their hatred.
I look forward to you, from this point forward, calling out your buddies when they do it, then.

I'm spoilerizing the rest because it's long.
Spoiler:
For instance, when posters continually post lies about entire groups and specific people despite others demonstrating that the allegations are based upon fiction,
Let's take one example, yes? I agree 100% with you that you did not call black people apes, despite what some here have said. I think it's unconscionable for them to spread such lies. Rather, instead of calling black people apes, what you DID do was write pages upon pages of text explaining how you felt that calling a black person an ape wouldn't be racist, if someone did do it, if (and I may be getting this part wrong, as it's been awhile, so feel free to correct me if this is a strawman) they don't mean it to be racist when they say it. That about right? Then you later said something to the effect of, "It's just a mental exercise" or "It doesn't really matter."

some posters refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong.
Ain't that the damn truth. I have made specific concerted efforts to point out exactly how certain people were dead wrong about something, using cold hard facts and logic (the real kind, structured in a sound and valid way, not whatever "logic" some other folks think they've learned), only to be met with obfuscation, lies, and goalpost-shifting.

Those same posters repeatedly tell vicious lies: pro-life people don't care about babies...they just want to "control women;"
Those monsters! Actions speak louder than words, so I agree that pro-lifers should expose these lies for what they are by championing government assistance for affordable-child-care programs, women's rights organizations like UltraViolet, PP, NOoW, ACLU (not monsters, btw), and RAINN, and explain exactly what type of sex education they want taught to teens, and ALL of the various ways to avoid pregnancy, not just the single most obvious one. Those would all be excellent ways for pro-lifers to show, not tell, those liars that they care about real, living, breathing, human babies, and want women to have all of the choices available to avoid feeling controlled by any one group.

those wanting secure borders just hate brown people;
Optics are quite a thing, eh?
I would suggest that those who want "secure borders" should be free to clearly state exactly what they do and do not want the government to do about it. Folks who came to the country, legally or otherwise, may be a little apprehensive about putting their fate in the hands of uninformed natural born citizens (who they themselves descended from immigrants, legal or otherwise) who don't appear to understand the complexities of the issues that cause them to leave their country of origin.

evangelical Christians don't believe in science;
Those who suggest that group doesn't believe in ANY science are liars, yes. I think everyone (and I do mean everyone) should take the time to read some academic studies every once in awhile. I also think a lot of folks (not just the group mentioned) are irrationally skeptical about some areas of scientific understanding that are pretty well established.

Republican senators are praying for another school massacre, etc., etc. In the latter example, an enabler maintained that there could be other interpretations of that sentiment...of course, no other explanation was forthcoming.
Ah yes. That "enabler" said this very "enabling" thing:
Is he "saying that Republicans pray for more school massacres" ??
That's not what was explicitly said. That may have been the implication (intended or not), sure, but there could be other interpretations. Still, I'd give it the highest probability.
It's a shitty post, doesn't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban.


Super enabling, that. One other explanation, that the enabler may have mentioned later, was that the suggestion could be that the prayers were explicitly for the victims of the massacres that actually occurred, not necessarily for future events that have not yet happened. Doesn't really matter though, as the point was clear, and the first interpretation is the most likely, as noted. and I'll quote it again: "It's a shitty post, doesn't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban."
Meanwhile, I recall a different enabler expressing - to a poster who said that he expected some people on the forum would want to see Tim Allen caught with an underage boy - that he didn't take issue with such a baseless assertion, brushed off as not being meant to be taken as fact, but rather, just that it was ill-advised, as he knew the response would be intense criticism, and even mentioned the other post above. if it were me, I'd say something like, "They're both shitty posts, don't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban."


It's instructive that the same enabler said in a different thread that he enjoys trolling (even as he complains about trolling.)
Fixed your open parentheses. I hope that's okay.
Anyway, I believe that enabler said, "Sometimes engaging with established trolls is fun for the ol' psyche, or just to push their buttons a little bit."
Sounds like a "who watches the Watchmen?" sort of thing. Weird that it keeps getting brought up. One thing that's missing from that comment, though, is that person saying that they partake in that psyche-entertaining activity. Odd. To these eyes, it looks like they were merely offering up some friendly analysis of why some might engage in such a way.


Oh, hey, since you mentioned the Marketplace of Ideas (tm), maybe a "prominent poster" mocks the idea because, in its modern usage by certain individuals, it's... kind of a joke, and is rarely, if ever, invoked to prop up a truly neutral pro free speech position.

The intent of the term is that everyone should be free to speak and everyone should be free to hear anyone speak. Those with controversial ideas (say, someone who wants to bring slavery back) has as much right to be heard as those with mainstream ideas; in fact, Hitchens said those types deserve extra protection because 1) those ideas must have taken extra effort to come up with, 2) there might be a grain of truth, and 3) it might get people to ask themselves 'why do I know what I already know?' So if one agrees that a pro-slavery guy deserves extra protection to spread his message of (let's be honest) hate, one would also have to agree that other marginalized groups should also have this protection (LGBT, people of color, etc.) to spread their message of love and inclusiveness. I don't think you would disagree.
So why is it that whenever the Marketplace of Ideas comes up as an excuse to let someone say whatever they want to say, it's generally in defense of blatantly hateful stuff like Nazis marching, calling PP doctors murderers, or refusing to serve LGBT folks? I never see the opposing sides (Jewish people, pro-choicers, and LGBT folks and their allies) tout this Marketplace of Ideas in order to let themselves be heard.

Further, people who tout it, tend to do so around the same time that they're complaining about being called bad names. And I get it, nobody likes being called bad names. People usually call each other those things in order to get each other to stop talking. But it's quite curious; they want the freedom, in the Marketplace of Ideas, to say,(I'm using an example here) "I'm not racist, but slavery was actually good for black people in the long run." but they complain that they're the ones being silenced when someone says, "No, that's really racist, my dude, and that kind of rhetoric doesn't belong here."

This quote says what I'm saying much better than I could say it:

"Conservatives and classical liberals are constantly complaining to me about how the words 'transphobe,' 'racist,' 'islamophobe,' and so on are being used to silence them. And in a sense, they're kind of right. I mean, people are saying those things to you because they want you to stop saying what you're saying. But of course, this is pretty microscopic as far as restrictions on free speech go...
It's a subtle, indirect way of trying to get you not to say a certain thing...

But, if you're willing to grant that words like 'islamophobia' can have a subtle silencing effect, you should also be willing to grant that small acts of sexism, racism, homophobia, can likewise suppress the speech of marginalized people...
When I bring this up with classical liberals, they uniformly respond, 'If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! The internet's just like that. Why can't you just deal with it?' to which I respond, 'Why can't you just deal with being called a racist on college campuses? Academia is just like that. And whatever you say to that, there's the answer to your question.'

It's literally impossible to protect everyone's speech equally, because some forms of speech tend to dampen other forms of speech. So there comes a point where you have to choose whose side you're on.
In this case, do you want to defend the speech of misogynists or the speech of women?
Racists or people of color?
Homophobes and transphobes or queer people?
And I'm not talking about passing laws here, I'm talking about establishing norms of discourse.
...
You only seem to stand up for the right of people not to be silenced by the threat of slurs like 'racist' or 'transphobe' and in fact you present the topic like it's the most important political issue in the world right now. But on the subject of how bigoted attitudes and speech may silence people of color, women, queer people, and other marginalized groups, you seem to have absolutely nothing to say."
The rest is in a 15-minute video. If you're interested in exploring some ideas on the topic that you haven't yet considered, I'll provide the link.
Dan is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 03:46 AM
  #65  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Joel (or any other mods/admins) --

Since the "ape" thing seems to be a point of contention, here is the original post where the ape discussion starts:

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13123506-post3221.html

From there, the thread continues and you can read it for yourself. But I would characterize it as several posters -- most notably creekdipper -- making the argument that the term "ape" is not necessarily racist. As poster after poster continues to explain the racially charged history of calling black people apes, creekdipper digs in his heels and insists ... I'm not even sure what he's insisting, though he did change his signature for some time to include a quote from Starship Troopers in which one of the characters calls others "apes," I guess to somehow prove that it was wrong for Michelle Obama to characterize being called an ape as a racially charged attack.
Joel (and any other mods/admins)...

Thank you for investigating a situation that has been coming to a head for years. It is indeed a serious matter when some forum members publicly attack other forum members (plural, including moderators) with vulgar insults, libels/slanders, and false, demeaning characterizations. In past history, duels have been fought over far less; in recent history, large legal judgments for defamation of character have been levied. Btw...all of what I have described can be substantiated with fact...not "perception."

Since the accuser is no longer being coy and is naming me as his target, I'll return the favor by point I out that JasonF has not only falsely accused me of calling black people "apes" but continues to ignore the posts to which he links.

Note that he doesn't post a quote backing up his very specific lie but instead posts a long conversation involvoling multiple members (in which I was a latecomer). Other posters were arguing that the term "ape" "isn't inherently racist," while others vehemently disagreed. I weighed in late on the side that, while it can be racist, it doesn't have to be.

At this point, please note that JasonF above disingenuously brings up a crass speculation callously ignoring what I actually said in his own linked conversation. To wit: "The term applied to Mrs. Obama was undoubtedly racist." That's as clear as it can be, and JasonF is not a stupid person. It can be argued that his blatant ignoring of the facts he himself has presented suggests that he is dishonest, but he's not stupid.

I haven't reread the long conversation that ensued, but I recall using histological examples, hypothetical examples, common sense examples, and the like to support Abob's contention re: what seems ridiculously obvious. If I recall, I even used the example of a black mother or father confronting someone assaulting their daughter and saying, "Get off her, you ape!"...and was told that this usage, too, had to stem from racism. That just sounds like crazy talk to me...like someone so indoctrinated with an ideology that they refuse to listen to reason. And I maintain that the position that there could never, EVER be an exception is just silly posturing that ignores reality.

For taking that philosophical position grounded in reality, I was accused of advocating calling black people apes. ??? That is the lowest form of "argument"...resort g to personal insults. From there it became "wanting" to call black people apes to being accused of having actually called black people apes. That lie, told with the full knowledge that it was a lie, could land an accuser in court if it could be proven that it was being told with malicious intent and had caused damage to the target's reputation and/or livelihood. I think we should conduct ourselves online the same way we would be required to "in real life."

What was my response? Although exasperated by the nonsensical nature of it, I didn't imitate JasonF's ACTUAL insult of "You can go fuck yourself." Didn't call him a bigot, white supremacist, or say he was a toxic troll or mentally ill.

Rather, I posted a meme from Starship Troopers illustrating a pop culture reference applying the term to a squad of soldiers...including a black soldier. The point was painfully obvious: we see such references in media and aren't offended because we're smart enough to understand context. We don't choose a ridiculous, demonstrably-false position and "dig in our heels" (to quote JasonF) and refuse to admit that maybe we need to qualify our position instead of being such an absolutist idealologue. JasonF knew very well the point I was making and that I had clearly stated that in almost all circumstances that applying the term would be racist...the key words being "almost all."

Please read the entire conversation taking place among many members, and I think you'll understand my response to defamatory statements being a dig that reminded the "anointed" (a term borrowed from the esteemed African-American philosopher Thomas Sowell) that they were wrong. You can call it a rhetorical rejoinder employing a metaphorical middle finger to libelers and slanderers or just an expression of "Your position is asinine and I don't care what names you call me...it's still an asinine position to take." I wouldn't disagree with either of those, and I think that "condescension" and "sarcasm" in response to vile, base accusations made with malicious intent is not only very mild but entirely justified. (I also thought it was clever, but that's just my warped sense of humor).

To me, it's incredible but sad to experience being admonished for doing something that "could be perceived" in a certain way...without even being asked for an explanation..while others run rampant with personal attacks through the forum. I understand that mods "get tired" of hearing complaints about some posters, but I'd ask the mods to seriously examine the nature of the complaints rather than the volume. I (and others) could report multiple posts every day if that's what's wanted, usually involving the same group of posters who appear to follow similar m.o.'s and have made their contempt for certain posters well-known. Just in the past couple of days, we've seen several memes generally attacking "Republicans," "conservative Republicans," "American evangelicals," etc. We've one of the complaining members above attack Artman's character by referencing his religion. We continue to see snide references to members from other members claiming to ignore them. This isn't the DVDTalk I've known over most off the 17 years I've been here, although at least one of the members I've referenced was admonished for personal attacks as far back as 2005, I believe, according to a sticky.

I couldn't have lasted 30 years as a public school teacher and coach if I were the person JasonF has portrayed me to be. I think some who consider themselves to be "neutral" should ask themselves to look again at whom they are supporting, enabling, or at very least ignoring when it comes to bad behavior. Rather than reporting the "fuck you's," you have people publicly cheering on this behavior as though it represents some great accomplishment. Would they feel the same if their opponents suddenly started using turning those words toward them and their compatriots? If they were called "baby murderers," "traitors," "morons," "bigots" and the like, would they be as tolerant as those they attack?

Sometimes you have to wonder if that's really what some want. After all, if the forum can't be purged of those that THEY don't to be "deplorable," a few have suggested "nuking" the forum. They'd rather see the forum be razed to the ground rather than "tolerate" dissenting views. And this is supposed to represent "anti-fascism"?

Also consider that some of the most vocal bomb-throwers have self-identified as "outliers" from mainstream views.

I, for one, am sick of hearing a few people here mock civil discourse and a forum open to ideas different from theirs. There are plenty of ideologue websites for those who are incensed by dissent and only want to be surrounded by fellow travelers. All of us could retreat to those spaces where we could freely demonize the opposition all day long. One would think that being allowed to be in the majority here and to daily grind axes would satisfy those calling for bans.

I don't think the mods/admins want to see a tit-for-tat response with every "perceived" offense or "objectionable" post being reported. I submit that the most visible current targets of these "perceived' affronts have shown admirable restraint in keeping the forum from going into total meltdown mode. The complainers aren't satisfied with the ignore function...they want everyone to follow suit. Failing that, they call for termination with extreme prejudice. Failing that, they call for the nuclear option.

P.S. For movie fans, I'd suggest watching g the original version if "Brian's Song" and watch Gale Sayers' reaction to being called an indisputably-racist epithet by Brian Piccolo. The absolutist might learn something from them.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-01-18 at 04:05 AM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 04:19 AM
  #66  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Dan View Post
I look forward to you, from this point forward, calling out your buddies when they do it, then.

I'm spoilerizing the rest because it's long.
Spoiler:

Let's take one example, yes? I agree 100% with you that you did not call black people apes, despite what some here have said. I think it's unconscionable for them to spread such lies. Rather, instead of calling black people apes, what you DID do was write pages upon pages of text explaining how you felt that calling a black person an ape wouldn't be racist, if someone did do it, if (and I may be getting this part wrong, as it's been awhile, so feel free to correct me if this is a strawman) they don't mean it to be racist when they say it. That about right? Then you later said something to the effect of, "It's just a mental exercise" or "It doesn't really matter."


Ain't that the damn truth. I have made specific concerted efforts to point out exactly how certain people were dead wrong about something, using cold hard facts and logic (the real kind, structured in a sound and valid way, not whatever "logic" some other folks think they've learned), only to be met with obfuscation, lies, and goalpost-shifting.


Those monsters! Actions speak louder than words, so I agree that pro-lifers should expose these lies for what they are by championing government assistance for affordable-child-care programs, women's rights organizations like UltraViolet, PP, NOoW, ACLU (not monsters, btw), and RAINN, and explain exactly what type of sex education they want taught to teens, and ALL of the various ways to avoid pregnancy, not just the single most obvious one. Those would all be excellent ways for pro-lifers to show, not tell, those liars that they care about real, living, breathing, human babies, and want women to have all of the choices available to avoid feeling controlled by any one group.


Optics are quite a thing, eh?
I would suggest that those who want "secure borders" should be free to clearly state exactly what they do and do not want the government to do about it. Folks who came to the country, legally or otherwise, may be a little apprehensive about putting their fate in the hands of uninformed natural born citizens (who they themselves descended from immigrants, legal or otherwise) who don't appear to understand the complexities of the issues that cause them to leave their country of origin.


Those who suggest that group doesn't believe in ANY science are liars, yes. I think everyone (and I do mean everyone) should take the time to read some academic studies every once in awhile. I also think a lot of folks (not just the group mentioned) are irrationally skeptical about some areas of scientific understanding that are pretty well established.


Ah yes. That "enabler" said this very "enabling" thing:
Is he "saying that Republicans pray for more school massacres" ??
That's not what was explicitly said. That may have been the implication (intended or not), sure, but there could be other interpretations. Still, I'd give it the highest probability.
It's a shitty post, doesn't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban.


Super enabling, that. One other explanation, that the enabler may have mentioned later, was that the suggestion could be that the prayers were explicitly for the victims of the massacres that actually occurred, not necessarily for future events that have not yet happened. Doesn't really matter though, as the point was clear, and the first interpretation is the most likely, as noted. and I'll quote it again: "It's a shitty post, doesn't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban."
Meanwhile, I recall a different enabler expressing - to a poster who said that he expected some people on the forum would want to see Tim Allen caught with an underage boy - that he didn't take issue with such a baseless assertion, brushed off as not being meant to be taken as fact, but rather, just that it was ill-advised, as he knew the response would be intense criticism, and even mentioned the other post above. if it were me, I'd say something like, "They're both shitty posts, don't belong on this forum, and should be potentially worthy of a suspension or an outright ban."



Fixed your open parentheses. I hope that's okay.
Anyway, I believe that enabler said, "Sometimes engaging with established trolls is fun for the ol' psyche, or just to push their buttons a little bit."
Sounds like a "who watches the Watchmen?" sort of thing. Weird that it keeps getting brought up. One thing that's missing from that comment, though, is that person saying that they partake in that psyche-entertaining activity. Odd. To these eyes, it looks like they were merely offering up some friendly analysis of why some might engage in such a way.


Oh, hey, since you mentioned the Marketplace of Ideas (tm), maybe a "prominent poster" mocks the idea because, in its modern usage by certain individuals, it's... kind of a joke, and is rarely, if ever, invoked to prop up a truly neutral pro free speech position.

The intent of the term is that everyone should be free to speak and everyone should be free to hear anyone speak. Those with controversial ideas (say, someone who wants to bring slavery back) has as much right to be heard as those with mainstream ideas; in fact, Hitchens said those types deserve extra protection because 1) those ideas must have taken extra effort to come up with, 2) there might be a grain of truth, and 3) it might get people to ask themselves 'why do I know what I already know?' So if one agrees that a pro-slavery guy deserves extra protection to spread his message of (let's be honest) hate, one would also have to agree that other marginalized groups should also have this protection (LGBT, people of color, etc.) to spread their message of love and inclusiveness. I don't think you would disagree.
So why is it that whenever the Marketplace of Ideas comes up as an excuse to let someone say whatever they want to say, it's generally in defense of blatantly hateful stuff like Nazis marching, calling PP doctors murderers, or refusing to serve LGBT folks? I never see the opposing sides (Jewish people, pro-choicers, and LGBT folks and their allies) tout this Marketplace of Ideas in order to let themselves be heard.

Further, people who tout it, tend to do so around the same time that they're complaining about being called bad names. And I get it, nobody likes being called bad names. People usually call each other those things in order to get each other to stop talking. But it's quite curious; they want the freedom, in the Marketplace of Ideas, to say,(I'm using an example here) "I'm not racist, but slavery was actually good for black people in the long run." but they complain that they're the ones being silenced when someone says, "No, that's really racist, my dude, and that kind of rhetoric doesn't belong here."

This quote says what I'm saying much better than I could say it:



The rest is in a 15-minute video. If you're interested in exploring some ideas on the topic that you haven't yet considered, I'll provide the link.
So you're in agreement with me 100% that I'm right and never called black people apes. Good.

Then you're also in agreement that JasonF intentionally and repeatedly lied about me, correct?

I missed the part where you stated that about "your buddy."

I'll gladly "call out" ANY AND ALL" of "my buddies" IF they ever deliberately lie about another member. And if they refuse to acknowledge it and publicly man up and apologize them, I'll report them to the mods.

How about your demonstrating how it's done as an example of "good faith" to show that you apply standards equally? That's fair and easy enough to do...right?

As soon as you do that, I'll watch the video. Otherwise, why bother if the message only cuts one way?

If you really want me to address the spoilerized part (and I'm purposely using neutral words), I'll be happy to do it via PM as I offered to before. I understand your hesitancy only because of those who might be inclined to mischaracterized private exchanges since that very thing happened to me within the last few days. I'll be happy to respond here, but it will be a brief and curt response to the point. I would love to point out a glaring logical flaw to which you left yourself wide open with the Allen, particularly in light of the other remarks. "Be careful of setting precedents" might be the courtroom principle invoked.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-01-18 at 04:36 AM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 09:32 AM
  #67  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 6,608
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

I've been reminded recently of a former co-worker of mine. He was a high performer, very intelligent, very direct, and unapologetically verbose. I'd had a hand in his hiring process and as his slight superior, we ended up having a very good and unique working chemistry together. But it wasn't long before complaints were raised by others that he worked with of inappropriate, damaging behavior. As I was in a minor position of authority over him I was involved in handling these complaints. He consistently had an explanation that always involved some deficiency in the other party that he couldn't be reasonably expected to account for or have any control over. At first these explanations seemed to make sense, and he was given latitude while the offended parties ultimately moved away from the organization. But eventually the complaints continued from others - of passive aggression, inappropriate domineering, manipulation, etc - and they were too numerous and involved to fit the premise that he was always in the right and everyone else had issues that caused the problem. When challenged on it, he would say, "I will gladly admit that I'm wrong and apologize if someone can just show me what I did wrong. Explain to me what I did that was wrong." When attempts were made to do so, using several different approaches, they were consistently met with long soliloquies that, when distilled down, continued to frame him as the one and only victim. He was unable to bring himself to ever accept an ounce of responsibility, even though at least two of the offended parties ended up being diagnosed with psychological trauma that limited their ability to work in the future, as a direct result of working with him. He was put on an action plan that he ultimately found unpalatable and decided to resign. My understanding from those who still have some occasional contact with him is that he still believes to this day that he's the one who was wronged and he accepts no personal responsibility.

Pride is a really ugly thing. I lament the fact that we couldn't get through to him to see why his behavior was so damaging to others and ultimately to the workplace. He had many qualities that would have continued to be very valuable to the organization. But I don't ever lament the fact that he's gone, because the organization has been immensely healthier since his exit.
kefrank is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 10:02 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,460
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Thanks kefrank. I'm not going to bother to refute creekdipper's massive defense of the time he argued that it's not necessarily racist to call black people apes, or however he wants to characterize it. I linked to the discussion; people can read it for themselves and decide. The guy's a passive-aggressive gaslighter, and I'm through trying to engage with him.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 10:09 AM
  #69  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Kurt D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,783
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by kefrank View Post
I've been reminded recently of a former co-worker of mine. He was a high performer, very intelligent, very direct, and unapologetically verbose. I'd had a hand in his hiring process and as his slight superior, we ended up having a very good and unique working chemistry together. But it wasn't long before complaints were raised by others that he worked with of inappropriate, damaging behavior. As I was in a minor position of authority over him I was involved in handling these complaints. He consistently had an explanation that always involved some deficiency in the other party that he couldn't be reasonably expected to account for or have any control over. At first these explanations seemed to make sense, and he was given latitude while the offended parties ultimately moved away from the organization. But eventually the complaints continued from others - of passive aggression, inappropriate domineering, manipulation, etc - and they were too numerous and involved to fit the premise that he was always in the right and everyone else had issues that caused the problem. When challenged on it, he would say, "I will gladly admit that I'm wrong and apologize if someone can just show me what I did wrong. Explain to me what I did that was wrong." When attempts were made to do so, using several different approaches, they were consistently met with long soliloquies that, when distilled down, continued to frame him as the one and only victim. He was unable to bring himself to ever accept an ounce of responsibility, even though at least two of the offended parties ended up being diagnosed with psychological trauma that limited their ability to work in the future, as a direct result of working with him. He was put on an action plan that he ultimately found unpalatable and decided to resign. My understanding from those who still have some occasional contact with him is that he still believes to this day that he's the one who was wronged and he accepts no personal responsibility.

Pride is a really ugly thing. I lament the fact that we couldn't get through to him to see why his behavior was so damaging to others and ultimately to the workplace. He had many qualities that would have continued to be very valuable to the organization. But I don't ever lament the fact that he's gone, because the organization has been immensely healthier since his exit.
It's an instructive anecdote for sure.
Kurt D is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 11:35 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 39,876
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by Kurtie Dee View Post
It's an instructive anecdote for sure.
That will be met with deaf ears by those who need to hear it most.
slop101 is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 01:42 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cultshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: True North Strong & Free
Posts: 12,367
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by slop101 View Post
That will be met with deaf ears by those who need to hear it most.
Ain't that the truth. I totally get what you are saying kefrank, I've worked with people like that as well.
cultshock is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 01:46 PM
  #72  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by slop101 View Post
That will be met with deaf ears by those who need to hear it most.
That much is for sure.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-01-18, 02:18 PM
  #73  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Thanks kefrank. I'm not going to bother to refute creekdipper's massive defense of the time he argued that it's not necessarily racist to call black people apes, or however he wants to characterize it. I linked to the discussion; people can read it for themselves and decide. The guy's a passive-aggressive gaslighter, and I'm through trying to engage with him.
And you'll never admit that you lied, either, even though one of your buddies acknowledged that fact. You can use all the trendy terms you want, but that's an inescapable fact.

Others will carry water for you and run interference (along with their own transgressions), but you won't refute because you can't refute.

It's no coincidence that the worst rule-breakers find no fault with their own "side" but invent grievances to try to silence others with strong opinions. That behavior provides all sorts of useful anecdotes about integrity.

There's an old adage about the proof being in the puddin'. When the best "discourse" one can muster up is "you can go fuck yourself," I don't think anyone is going to miss that sort of "engagement." Just a shame that it took so long to make that decision.

As for the lengthy missive, that goes to show that some were never interested in discourse. One can patiently explain step-by-step in exquisite detail, and it falls upon deaf ears who never considered any opinion other than their own. That some are close-minded is no shock, but it's mildly surprising to see some of their supporters sign aboard based solely upon shared ideology.

That's why the forum remains polarized. People are so invested in defending their own ideology that they'll stoop to behavior they would never have dreamed they could commit or condone in others. And they justify because it aids their endgame.

That's devolution of culture and the idea of "tolerance" when the only positions one can tolerate is one's own.

I'm surprised that certain users haven't suggested having separate subgroups in order to insulate themselves from opinions they don't share.

Where we seem headed is a forum split into two camps who will talk about each other but not to each other.

Last edited by creekdipper; 07-01-18 at 02:30 PM.
creekdipper is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 08:12 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
gryffinmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ancient City
Posts: 6,538
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by kefrank View Post
I've been reminded recently of a former co-worker of mine. He was a high performer, very intelligent, very direct, and unapologetically verbose. I'd had a hand in his hiring process and as his slight superior, we ended up having a very good and unique working chemistry together. But it wasn't long before complaints were raised by others that he worked with of inappropriate, damaging behavior. As I was in a minor position of authority over him I was involved in handling these complaints. He consistently had an explanation that always involved some deficiency in the other party that he couldn't be reasonably expected to account for or have any control over. At first these explanations seemed to make sense, and he was given latitude while the offended parties ultimately moved away from the organization. But eventually the complaints continued from others - of passive aggression, inappropriate domineering, manipulation, etc - and they were too numerous and involved to fit the premise that he was always in the right and everyone else had issues that caused the problem. When challenged on it, he would say, "I will gladly admit that I'm wrong and apologize if someone can just show me what I did wrong. Explain to me what I did that was wrong." When attempts were made to do so, using several different approaches, they were consistently met with long soliloquies that, when distilled down, continued to frame him as the one and only victim. He was unable to bring himself to ever accept an ounce of responsibility, even though at least two of the offended parties ended up being diagnosed with psychological trauma that limited their ability to work in the future, as a direct result of working with him. He was put on an action plan that he ultimately found unpalatable and decided to resign. My understanding from those who still have some occasional contact with him is that he still believes to this day that he's the one who was wronged and he accepts no personal responsibility.

Pride is a really ugly thing. I lament the fact that we couldn't get through to him to see why his behavior was so damaging to others and ultimately to the workplace. He had many qualities that would have continued to be very valuable to the organization. But I don't ever lament the fact that he's gone, because the organization has been immensely healthier since his exit.


Originally Posted by creekdipper View Post
I'm surprised that certain users haven't suggested having separate subgroups in order to insulate themselves from opinions they don't share.
I’ve personally only seen this suggestion once here, and it didn’t come from someone who’d be classified as coming from the left side of the aisle.
gryffinmaster is offline  
Old 07-02-18, 08:40 AM
  #75  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 21,582
Re: Why is this sig being allowed in the forum?

Originally Posted by gryffinmaster View Post

I’ve personally only seen this suggestion once here, and it didn’t come from someone who’d be classified as coming from the left side of the aisle.
True. What I've seen have been threats to pull a Brexit or suggestions to nuke the forum if demands aren't met.

And those have come from one side of the aisle...along with calls for banning users for going against the grain and chronic application of double standards.

When one viewpoint can tolerate all amounts of abhorrent views from ideological opponents while the opponents call for banning of contrary views, that begs the question: Who actually believes in free speech? Certinly, those on the side of banning speech aren't advocating that their speech found offensive to others be banned.

In effect, one viewpoint is asking the site owners to stake out an "authorized, official" point of view that will be recognized and to exclude views falling outside those narrow parameters.

In a word...censorship.

The owners have and have always had that prerogative. Admirably, they have always resisted the clarion call for censorship, even when their personal opinions might align with the majority view.

That is what has attracted people from different backgrounds who relish robust, civil debate. Quickest way to kill a discussion forum is to only allow one view. Even rabid partisans quickly grow tired of seeing the same view expressed endlessly.

Good job from owners, administrators, and mods for maintaining neutrality.
creekdipper is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.