Psi

I'm quite sure that I saw the word "fucktard" in writing the first time in this forum. And you wrote it.

Groucho

Another thing that would help the moderators if if people would stop using the "Report Post" feature as an "I Disagree" button.

davidh777

So it's become the equivalent of "FAKE NEWS!"?

cultshock

I think I first saw that word here too.

DVD Polizei

And it was appropriately used.

Thanks for reminding me.

DVD Polizei

It's become the equivalent of attacking somebody with passive-aggressive intent because it is known reporting a post requires more moderation and attention to that post. Has nothing to do with Fake News, but everything to do with wanting to prevent another opinion from being heard.

More like...a FAKE DISCUSSION button.

mspmms

Guess it depends on who is being attacked, no equivalence needed and asking about it here is apparently shut down.

Vibiana

WCChiCubsFan

I voted to keep the forum.

Recently the environment in the forum has become a lot less toxic, hopefully the recent change will be permanent.

DVD Polizei

Really. You must have different glasses than I do, or you're just conveniently overlooking particular comments posted there.

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-p...ssues-358.html

I was suspended for a month for my "poor attempt at humor" by responding the same way a while back.

This is just a recent example.

There are several more.

Draven

Agreed. It’s downright pleasant.

hdnmickey

It appears to be time that the rules regarding generalizations be applied to links and posted images.

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13372299-post8942.html

DVD Polizei

What generalizations would those be. Explain, please. And how would they apply to that post.

Adam Tyner

It would be frowned upon to post "all Democrats are racist". Why would it then be okay to say "this writer brings up an excellent point" hyperlinked to a page that says "all Democrats are racist"?

hdnmickey

With a ttile that reads "The Racist Left".

DVD Polizei

Grundle did not post "All Democrats are racist".

Also, as long as the enforcement is unilateral. I still have yet to see this put into practice.

If you want to say that the person posting a link is responsible for ALL THE CONTENT OF THAT WEBSITE WHICH IS LINKED...fine. Make it so. But enforce this rule across the board. I would imagine few external links will be placed in posts, and that's ok with me.

Are we to have a list of approved websites to post? Are we to have a group of people to approve certain links to outside sources? Are we to nullify what an outside person says that is true, but yet on another page is commenting on things that are blatantly prejudiced and wrong?

You are telling me we don't have "Republicans are racist" posts in the Politics forum, or posts which unconditionally put Trump and Republicans into the KKK crowd?

Kind of have two things going on here, but the racial implying is rather apparent, and here's an example:

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13368842-post2672.html

Once again, the "white male" post, as if all white males are made a certain way or behave a certain way.

So, I've already posted 2 examples of racial overtones in recent posts. How many will it take to make certain people realize that one type of posting is considered ok as long as it's on the "correct" political side.

mspmms

I'm going to ask again, is posting in a thread (by name) DVD Talk members are all White Supremacist? Is posting "Repubs are just a bunch of assholes" OK?

Adam Tyner

"No generalizations" would address both of those.

Dan

^ I'm surprised you were able to decode what he was saying.

I don't see a thread saying "DVD Talk members are all White Supremacist"

I DO see a post saying "the Repubs are just a bunch of assholes" but in the context of that thread:

It's clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that this comment is directed at THE republicans that were grilling Strzok, not ALL "Repubs."

One would think that using these two examples as "generalizations" that must be stopped are disingenuously grasping at straws, to say the least.

GhostLee

The first example was not a "generalization," though I can see how it could be mistaken for one. The post mspmms referred to named specific DVD Talk members as "white supremacists."

As for your second example, I think there's some straw grasping in the way you've presented it. It's a bit disingenuous to bring up "reading comprehension" while misreading, or misrepresenting, the context of the quoted posts.

In the first place, basic reading comprehension does not suggest that "the Repubs" applies only to certain GOP members; unless the writer makes absolutely clear that it does, then one can safely assume it describes the whole party. And since Person B made no such distinction, presuming that they did is where the straw comes in.

In the second place, and more importantly, you bolded Person B's sentence but somehow failed to bold this sentence from Person A. Allow me:

The way Goodlatte endlessly pushed to silence Strzok and any dissenting objections by Democrats at the vast unfounded aspersions being cast by GOP members proved the entire party knows there is real fuckery to be revealed soon.

Notice that Person A wrote "the entire party," and Person B's "the Repubs are just a bunch of assholes" comment was in the very next post. There's no way to interpret Person A as meaning only "THE Republicans that were grilling Strzok," and since B's comment followed immediately, there's also no basis to presume that B was referring to just a few republicans. It's just basic reading comprehension.

Dan

No. It's called understanding nuance, which you've also completely failed to do.

GhostLee

Understanding nuance ≠ manufacturing nuance. Nice try, though.

Dan

Manufactured? Like this:

1. mspmms said someone said "DVD Talk members are all White Supremacist" except for the fact that nobody said that. If he didn't mean ALL DVD Talk members, then he shouldn't have said the word ALL.
If you can somehow infer that "the Repubs are just a bunch of assholes" in the context of that discussion refers to ALL Republicans when it was obviously about those grilling the FBI agent in that hearing, then why can't you infer the same when someone actually uses the word ALL when they say "(by name) DVD Talk members are all White Supremacist" ? Maybe because you're being disingenuous? Hmm...

2. And if that was the only thing that was said, it would be a personal insult, but since you're so interested in context (when it fits your narrative), what was actually said was (and I'll remove the names, to avoid a biased interpretation):

Instead of responding to the content of that observation -- a nuanced observation made after years of interaction with those posters on topics related to race -- mspmms complains that they said "DVD Talk members are all White Supremacist" which they did not say, and you ignore the full statement because "white supremacist" is a loaded term. One can be a white supremacist without marching the streets yelling "You will not replace us!" but maybe that's some kind of "manufactured nuance" you'd rather continue to dismiss.

edit: Perhaps my comments above seem a bit aggressive. That's not my intent. Let me rephrase it in a different way: if mspmms or anyone else feels that those two posts are inappropriate, then they've got the right to call them out and give an explanation (to the mods, in their own words, unless they feel comfortable explaining his own reasoning publicly) why he thinks those posts should be against the rules, but explanations given out of proper context ("He called them white supremacists! personal attack!" or guilt by association like "he said the repubs are assholes after someone else said 'the entire party'! Generalization!") are of no value to fostering honest discussion. I'm not saying the posts aren't questionable behavior (something the mods can determine themselves), just that it's pretty disingenuous to say something along the lines of, "Should people be allowed to call each other white supremacists or say republicans are assholes?" when ignoring the sentences or words from the same person that came immediately after it. We can all do better than that.

edit2: and just to dive a little bit deeper
This is completely unsound and invalid logic because it, again, ignores the contents and context of the overall discussion. You can cherry pick a few select words from two sentences all you like, if that's your strategy here, but it's quite obviously a discussion about the hearing, as was the case for most of the discussion in that thread that day both before and after those posts were made. Either you can't see that, or you're pretending you can't for the sake of making a fallacious point. Sure they could have been worded better, but those upset by those statements were free to ask for clarification at any time.

VinVega

I responded to you via email and got a bounce back. Please provide a valid email in your profile. Thanks.

DVD Polizei

This is why we all need to refrain from the racist discussion, as there is none. It's all accusatory from both sides, and let's be realistic...proves nothing and adds nothing to the conversation here. The echo's of arguments made online don't need to be brought into Politics, and they are just rehashed over and over when the topic comes up.

It should be mostly up to the person making the comment, who needs to mostly make sure they are not offending others. A generous, "what I mean is", would be great versus, "Because you identify with X, therefore you are Y." type of nonsense.

In other words, you can't hide behind comprehension deficits, Dan. You have to make up for them since you're the one making the accusation and bringing the topic up. After all, because you're the one making the comments, it is trusted you should be in a better position to convey your meaning.

If not, then don't make the comment.

For example, if I'm going to say most Xcrats or Rcans are racist...I better explain myself. The opinion is fine. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. But to take it further, one needs to elaborate extensively on why that view is held, and to address the opposition participating in that forum, that they are not being grouped in that category because the fact of the situation is...they don't know enough about the opposing posters to make such a claim.

If they are...then we're talking defamatory commentary which certainly has traducing qualities, because none of us knows each other so well as to ascertain racist qualities.

These days, calling a person racist has a lot of stigma attached to it, and can embarrass the person, at the least. This is against IB's rules. There is no way around it. So my suggestion like I said in the beginning, is to refrain from making comments that would even suggest participants on the forum are racist or even have that quality.

If you do? It is NOT up the receiving end of the person to attempt to try and make you or the mods understand. It is up to YOU to convince that person you did not mean illicit intent, since YOU decided to bring that argument into the discussion.

It is up to YOU, to make darn sure you know what you're doing.

The Politics forum is just that. Politics. Talking policies is what is supposed to be happening, versus being a soundboard for free accusatory commentary.