IBJoel

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.

hdnmickey

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.

mspmms

Supermallet

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.

IBJoel

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.

slop101

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?

davidh777

Count me among those stuck between "ignore them, and maybe they'll go away" and "leaving them unchallenged will just embolden them."

TomOpus

This has been brought up before but I can't remember what was said as to why not.

creekdipper

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.

Kurt D

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.)

creekdipper

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.

creekdipper

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.

JasonF

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.

Dan

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.

creekdipper

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.

creekdipper

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.

kefrank

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.

JasonF

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.

Kurt D

It's an instructive anecdote for sure.

slop101

That will be met with deaf ears by those who need to hear it most.

cultshock

Ain't that the truth. I totally get what you are saying kefrank, I've worked with people like that as well.

creekdipper

That much is for sure.

creekdipper

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.

gryffinmaster

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.

creekdipper

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.