Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

My issue with that one was he mocked my post and what I had been saying. My co worker was totally in the wrong, and another female co worker who was right there thought so even more than I did! But dex mocked that post and subtly misrepresented the gist of what I had originally said.

So if a mod posts stuff like that how can I count on him to back me up or be impartial if I report something that's out of line. He was marginally out of line with the tone of his post, so why would he care if someone else is out of line?

See, that's why Mods are supposed to conduct themselves at a higher level than the average poster.


But if the who and what are factually accurate you can't disregard that just because the why, where or when may be unpalatable.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

In most cases I agree with you. But if a thread is a dumpster fire scanning through 3 or 4 pages a couple times a day isn't an outrageous expectation.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Guys, if you want to talk about James Bond, talk about it in the James Bond thread. If the discussion here isn't kept on general environment concerns, it will be shut down. I've deleted off-topic posts.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Those posts were good examples, though, of part of the problem. Accusing people of being racists, sexists, etc, over some otherwise pretty benign differences of opinion. The environment here is fairly toxic and confrontational, unfortunately.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Hey man, I hear you. I started a thread a little while back about ignoring mods who post in subforums that they do not personally moderate. I think if the mod of Book Talk wants to come into Movie Talk and diss every single movie based on a novel because the book is factually better, I should be able to put their posts on ignore in the Movie Talk subforum while still seeing their posts in Book Talk. In this case, Dex IS a mod of Movie Talk, and although you took his post as "mocking" I don't see that connection. What I see is one poster saying your paragraph, quote, "isn't so far off from 'She shouldn't have been wearing that outfit/walking in that neighborhood' type arguments." to which Dex replied, quote, "I'm pretty sure he's made that argument about his coworkers tits in the Sexual Harassment thread" which... I don't see how that's mocking as much as recollecting a previous argument you made. But again, the common theme here seems to be... if you have a problem with the specific post, report it. And if it's a mod doing it in their own subforum, report it to an Admin specifically (I imagine you can do this by PMing Adam or Vin). Or heck, just reply and say, "NO, that's not what I said in that thread. Stop lying about me."


(EDITED as per what IBJoel said above. Don't think of this as a discussion about Gunn. Think of this as a discussion about how this kind of shaming campaign plays out, and how the environment of DVDTalk can affect the way we discuss these things)

I thought it was pretty clear that I was not saying that it should be disregarded if aspects of why/where/when are unpalatable. I feel like I haven't misrepresented what you're saying, so I would appreciate the same. For clarity sake, all I'm saying is, yes the factually accurate parts matter, but the severity of the outcome - whether that's public attention or employer action - relies heavily on why, where, when, and how that information was disseminated into the public eye. It's weaponized outrage, and by going along with it, regular folks fall right into the trap of an Angry Jack or useful idiot type of role; parroting the factually accurate points, sure, but being willfully dismissive of the motivations behind the very public shaming.
And when someone tries to educate them on the why, where, when and how of it all, they themselves get aggressive and defensive. "I'M not alt-right! I'm just stating the facts! I don't care about the drama!"
I get it. I really do. As I said in a previous post, some people can be overly aggressive in addressing posts like yours in that thread, to a fault. I know I acted the same way toward you and others in the Ghostbusters thread 2 years ago. I do apologize if I took those arguments too far, too.

My message here, to boil it down, is:
You're saying I can't disregard the factually accurate who and what, even if the why, where, or when may be unpalatable.
I'm saying, YOU can't disregard the factual accuracy of why, where, when, and how the information became part of yet another online outrage war, just because the who and what are also factually accurate.
I get that you feel like you've done nothing to associate with the alt-right, which is why I agree 100% that the person who joked about you attending a rally should have been corrected by a mod. However, the source of the information matters, and when you're in that thread, saying it shouldn't matter, it's hard to judge your motivations for doing so. People tend to assume the worst, which is a big problem, but I think you just genuinely don't care where it came from, and I can applaud that to a degree. But you have to be able to recognize that by not caring yet repeating that the punishment was applicable (or whatever your specific position may be), you're playing a part that enables these folks to keep targeting more people; both in regard to casuals like us and famous people like Gunn, because that's exactly what they've done. They started with low-hanging fruit a few years back, and have worked their way up to more famous people. Hell, I think one forum member (who I won't name specifically, since he may not appreciate it) was targeted by a semi-famous author (who may not be alt-right, but is loved by many in those groups).

It's not because the source is "conservative" or "liberal" or "alt-right" or "antifa" or anything like that. What matters is the repeated observable behavior of these human beings who are targeting others. And the repeated observable behavior of the people who "exposed" Gunn's tweets and dress-up photos has been to find anyone they can shame and ruin. By saying that doesn't matter, because Gunn's shitty jokes were real, is to give them exactly what they want.

I'm not sure I can explain that any better, but I hope you'll carefully consider what I'm saying without thinking I'm piling onto any kind of character assassination on you.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

I'll address your well reasoned points above by pm to keep the thread on topic.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

:up:

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

And what if they "scan through" and just miss the personal attack tucked at the end of an otherwise reasonable post? Asking people to report problem posts isn't an outrageous expectation either.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Busy at work today. Boy did I miss a doozy here.

My 2 cents real quick:

I've noticed a boycott of the politics forum by a number of conservative posters. That is their right to not post if they choose to. I've also noticed the anger level on the left hand side rising especially since the 2016 election. I think in a civilized discussion forum you should express your views in a non personal attack kind of way. My father has been a baseball umpire for many years. His philosophy for arguments with the team managers was always, "You can say my call sucks, but when you say I suck, you're gone." That's generally the standard I use with the forums. If people want to post their ideas, they have to be prepared for people to disagree with those ideas, sometimes vehemently. The line is drawn to me when name calling starts in on a poster and not their ideas. To me it's ok if you call someone's economic idea Communist, but when you say something like, "well, you're just a Communist," that's where the personal attack can start. Obviously each case is different, but when threads devolve into, "Well, this poster is this..." is when mods should take action.

As far as requiring mods to monitor threads that are "becoming dumpster fires." I'm only looking at this thread now, hours after it has started and trying to catch up as best I can. Folks need to use the Report this Post button if they want the mods to take notice. That's really all I can say about it.

As far as the forum being too left wing, yeah, it's a bit of an echo chamber these days. How is that going to change unless conservative posters post in that forum? Are there some angry liberals regularly posting in the Politics forum? Yes, but if they're not personally attacking you, you have the choice to ignore them. There are a few posters who post outlandish things in the forum. I don't interact with them on purpose. I don't have anyone on ignore (I pretty much have to), but that's also an option if you can resist the urge to click on their blocked posts.

I could probably wade into the female Ghostbusters, or the black James Bond topics, but that would probably be a huge sidetrack of this thread. All I can say to everyone is, put yourself in the other side's shoes once in a while and consider how they see the world. It's the only way we're going to be able to communicate in a civilized manner here. Reducing people to categories just makes it easier to dismiss them instead of thinking about what they said and discussing it.

Ok, maybe that was more like 4 or 5 cents.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Yeah, but if they have gotten to the point where they post something and 5 or 6 people immediately jump all over them with angry responses, sometimes including accusations of racism and sexism, what's the point of posting at all? When you just get shouted down repeatedly with the most harmful personal attacks people can make it really becomes pointless. There is no discussion, just anger.

Which leads to...
I'm 50, and I was interested in politics since 1976 (I couldn't understand how Carter won, so I paid attention to the news in a way that most 8 or 9 year olds don't). I have NEVER seen anything even remotely close to this, not even after the 2000 election, and that was really bad. People are behaving in ways that they would have been embarrassed to behave just 5 years ago.

Honestly, it kind of makes me sad. Sad, frustrated, angry that they're so angry and taking that anger out on the wrong people. It's the ugliest time in society in my entire life. It's depressing.

And that's why I pay little attention to politics anymore. It's just too stupid and too depressing. Both sides are guilty.

That is EXACTLY what I've been saying.

And parsing the, "Well, they didn't really say YOU were a racist," even if they quoted two separate comments of yours and then directly said, "The only reason to believe those things is if someone is racist." That's still accusing someone of being racist and shouldn't be acceptable.

Attacking someone's character or integrity just can't be allowed, or this board will be worth nothing.

Ya think??

But it's not just in the Politics forum. It's spilled over into the Movie and TV forums, too. And there is a group of people with clear left wing views who DO engage in personal attacks and harassment. And that is what has chased off a lot of conservatives and moderates.

Who wants to take that kind of abuse? Why should they have to???

Yeah, but then if they DO engage in personal attacks and harassment you'll never know, so then you can't even report it!

And that's my point. The Mods DO have to be a little more proactive. And they have to leave their own biases at the door. Just because some of them agree with the positions of the people on the left doesn't mean that they should treat them with kid gloves or overlook rules violations.


The problem is when the loudest people on the left view people on the right as bad or evil and somehow less worthy as human beings, how can we communicate in a civilized manner? That's where we are in 2018 - the left views people on the right not as people with differing opinions and philosophies, they view them as bad or evil and people that must be stopped! How can a conservative relate to that or accept that? The unblievable anger levels on the left have made rational discussion nearly impossible when they just launch attacks rather than treating people with different points of view as people.

I can't put myself into that mindset. I just don't understand it. The anger, the hatred, the viewing of people with differing ideas as bad or even evil - I don't get it.

The OLD liberal ideals, equality, compassion, caring, looking out for others, tolerance of other views and ideas - that stuff I can understand and relate to, but we don't see that here or in much public discourse anymore. I always saw liberals as good people with the best of intentions that didn't always worry about the reality of unintended consequences or human motivation. They were good people who cared about others. I don't see that in modern liberals. I see people who care about liberals and think of conservatives as somehow subhuman. Does that kind of ring a bell?

Now, is that just the people who are shouting the loudest and getting the most attention? Probably. But they're out there in numbers large enough that the less angry and less militant liberals are drowned out, and when you get people on this board acting like the loud ones, well, that makes respectful discussion almost impossible.

I can put myself in the shoes of old (pre 2000) liberals, but not modern liberals. And I'm a moderate who believes in strict enforcement of anti discrimination laws, legalization of marijuana, etc.

It used to be that the left preached tolerance of ideas. Not anymore.

And am I reducing people to a group? Maybe. Probably. I don't know how else to view a group of people with similar ideals and similar online tactics.

But when they're telling you that you're a bad person, or you have bad/evil/racist views how can you have a rational discussion? Those are some ugly accusations, and they hurt.

Again, who wants to take that kind of abuse, and who should have to??

The funny thing is while most people become more conservative as they age, I've gotten more moderate. And even as someone who has many centrist and even some left of center views, I'm still attacked and treated like the enemy who must be eliminated rather than a fellow human being.

How do you deal with that? You can't, not when they're allowed to pull out the racist/sexist/homophobe/liar cards without repercussions.

Like I said, there is a huge problem here, and, as I noted in the original post, I'm nowhere near the only person who thinks so.

So what is the Admin & Mod team going to do about it? The current strategy isn't working.

As I've noted before, I mod another board (a college sports board, and, trust me, it gets UGLY), and I've had to bring down the ban hammer many times because there are some people who just don't want to follow the rules and don't believe that they have to treat people with any kind of civility. Funny thing on that board - people on the right and people on the left both get really mad at me because they think I favor the other side, when all I favor is civility and following forum rules! So if I'm going after left leaning Mods here it may not be entirely fair, but it's only because I don't see many conservative posters accusing the liberal posters of anything equal in stature to racism, sexism, etc. That's character destroying stuff, and I can't imagine what a conservative could accuse a liberal of that would have even remotely close to the same weight as racism and sexism.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

I can remember when the board seemed to be the opposite. When "politics" got spun off into its own board about fifteen years ago during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the nature of the board was mostly conservative and pro-war, and it was the folks on the liberal side who would get piled on and attacked.

Over the years, as readership shrank, I'm guessing most of those conservative posters just wandered off like many of the others, and one became a dope fiend.

Kind of a fine line there. If you say that someone's beliefs and opinions are communist or racist, then you're pretty much saying they are a communist or racist.

As far as the tenor of political debate, there's no doubt that it has coarsened, but that's the way it is in the real world outside. There's a lot of anger and resentment out there, and it's been cultivated for decades. I mean, Jesus... watch Fox News, listen to talk radio, read political matter on twitter and facebook. It shouldn't be surprising that it's spilling in over here.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

:lol:

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Any personal attacks shouldn't happen, but I don't see where its the mods' fault if you post an unpopular opinion. If 5-6 people post that they disagree, well that's their prerogative. It's not the mods' responsibility to enforce a parity between viewpoints.

You never were on Usenet then. Personal attacks for anything, even non-political viewpoints, were par for the course.

Such as calling someone who makes a few pedophile jokes a "sick fuck," implying they're an actual pedophile, and wishing you could beat them up?

Again, personal attacks shouldn't be allowed, and aren't. However, is someone finds a view bad/racist/sexist, they should be able to say so, and you should defend/clarify your viewpoint. I don't want racist statements to be able to go unchallenged just because it may hurt the feelings of the person saying them.

If you have views that can be construed, even superficially, as sexist or racist, that's on you. You have to defend or clarify them. It's not necessarily a liberal's fault they don't hold views that are as deeply controversial.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

What does that comment have to do with the discussion in here? Again, another lame attack at Conservatives, when it didn't need to be.

So, now you're into "revenge" mode, because you've lost so many elections over the years and you and many of your ilk have discovered a cheaper, less-expensive way to get your jabs in, by insulting people anywhere and everywhere you can?


You know, you blame Fox News and while I agree it's a shithole of a network...just don't watch it. I hardly ever do unless they screw up in some way...and I'm considered a Conservative. So, why are you continually blaming others for your behaviors?

The very same reasons you use to toss explosive insults into all of your conversations...could easily apply to my own justifications for insulting you every chance I could get.

Do you and your kind, not observe this rather cyclic behavior?

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

But was Usenet moderated. Big difference between then and now, where you have a politically correct website banning people for one thing...then on the other hand, stating rather conspicuously that if those same suspended people (assuming they returned) don't like the environment...they should just leave the discussion/forum and not come back.

I don't think that's a healthy way to approach the goals of a valid discussion forum, but that's just me.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

It's a matter of degrees really, and how people take accusations of being racist, sexist, communist as absolutes. If you call someone racist, they think you're basically accusing them of being in the KKK. If you call them sexist, they think you're saying they're akin to Harvey Weinstein. If you call them communist, they think you're calling them akin to Stalin or Mao Zedong. Those accusations tend to have an "all or nothing" feel to them, especially for the accused.

When you say that a particular view they have is, say racists, you may be by association implying they're racist, but only a little racist, i.e. only with that particular view. I think they tend to be a little more open to discussion and even possibly introspection as opposed to when the personal accusations are made, where the urge for the accused is to go into full defense mode and just go "I'm not racist," instead of exploring their own views.

However, some people can get overly defensive if you even suggest that one of their viewpoints is racist, sexist, etc. I think this was an issue in the "Video Game Tropes vs Women" thread, where a lot of people seemed to think that because that video series was saying certain tropes in games are sexist, that any game that had that trope was full-on sexist and thus a bad game, and then by extension that they were full-on sexist and bad if they liked that game. It caused a lot of rancor, and that anger got directed at the person making the videos, who was just trying to start a conversation about these tropes.

Basically, I think all of us, myself included, may hold some views that could be considered racist, sexist, etc, i.e. bigoted in some way. Sometimes is just because we go along with the status quo and don't really question it. When those views are challenged, we should be willing to do some introspection and think about why we have those views, instead of just getting instantly defensive about them.

As someone who tends to challenge other people's ideas and opinions, I tend to get more success at an actual discussion when challenging only the view, not disparaging the person. Now, it doesn't always work, and I may sometimes fail at making/keeping the distinction, but I think it's worthwhile to do.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

No doubt that there's a big difference, but that's the point. DVDTalk is moderated, and the discussion likely never gets as bad as it did on Usenet. It certainly never has based on my experience.

B5Erik's statement of this being "the worst it's ever been" was based on his own limited experience, or possibly forgetting how bad discussions could get in other discussion formats.

Well, if the people were banned for breaking forum rules, and they don't like that they need to abide by forum rules, then yes, they should leave.

If there's a valid grievance with the environment in the forums, that should be discussed and addressed. You seem to think there's selective enforcement; you should go into that more.

However, the mods aren't here to coddle you. If you're in a thread with mostly liberals and you post a conservative view, expect a lot of pushback. It shouldn't devolve into attacks or harassment, but they're as entitled to their views as you are. The point shouldn't be to try and encourage more of a particular viewpoint at some misguided goal of "balance," but to foster an environment where even someone with an unpopular viewpoint has the opportunity to state it, and then defend it.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

My name is Winston "Story" Zeddemore, DVDTalkers.
I've only been with the moderators for a couple of weeks, but I gotta tell you: this job ain't easy.
Since I joined these men, I have seen posts that'll turn you white!



(Not to bring race and Ghostbusters into this again, but... ;))

I’m just getting to this thread. I haven’t really been here for 2 days due to a swamped work week. Missing you all, actually. Thanks for your patience as I try to play keep up here. I'm the new mod on the block and I'll offer a little bit of insight that I don't think breaks team confidentiality while also giving you some “behind the scenes” food for thought: This job is harder than I'd ever imagined. It takes a lot of work, individually and/or as a team, to make the right call. And even then, things like tone, approach, timeliness, level of response, follow-up, etc. all require consideration. It’s a lot. The volume isn’t like Evan Almighty and his emails, but I’ll say it’s a lot for an unpaid servant role, even with team support. Don't read that as a call to feel sorry for mods. Just know we’re not only trying to do our best we’re trying to do better the next time and the next time. And I truly had no idea until I became one, it was a humbling realization for me, personally. I won’t speak for any mods but myself so I’ll say I appreciate your support and welcome any non-anonymous feedback you have for me here or in PM. Thank you for your grace!

I have five thoughts. None are brief. But they all get a story and stories are fun. There's also a tl;dr version of each thought with a video, so you can read that version, instead, if you like.

1. Use the resources at your disposal. Part of my job is working with couples who are getting ready to get married. It’s one of my favorite things, without a doubt. We cover a lot of ground during a few meetings, and not only do I get to know them, I get to know what they’re like together. Sometimes, meetings can get pretty raw and emotional. They always love each other, but wow, sometimes they have a lot of baggage that’s still not dealt with. I always tell couples right up front in the first few minutes of our first meeting, before we look at any of their materials, before I hear one thing about their families, before I witness one shred of disagreement or one hint of true love, that they should consider couples’ counseling with a licensed therapist (I am not a licensed therapist, which is why I call our meetings "premarital conversations" instead of "premarital counseling"). I do it immediately because I want to affirm it’s okay to value all the tools at their disposal so they can be proactive, not reactive. If I said that in the middle of our meetings, they’d think it was in response to something (they’d probably be right) and it’s just going to go downhill from there.

Pretend it’s your first day here and so you’re proactively receiving this message: use the forum tools. Report posts (and be specific in what you write). Use the ignore function (and don’t worry if others aren’t because you do what works for you). Those tools are there to help you and others have a healthy experience. No shame in using them when it feels right at all! And don't forget: even though they aren't forum software features, other tools at your disposal include taking a calming breath, asking clarifying questions, letting a draft sit a little bit before posting if you're ramped up, taking a break to think about how much a discussion really matters to you, and yes, clicking/tapping/walking away from the thread and disengaging.

tl;dr = Use the resources at your disposal.


2. Reading into something doesn’t help. I once had a very challenging situation at work. While in an interview, a person I really respect who was on the interview team shared something I had told them in confidence earlier that year while they were serving me in a mentorship capacity. They did so because they thought the interview team should know about it and hear me address it. I was very hurt. I swallowed my emotions in the moment, addressed the point, and gladly shifted into another subject. After the interview, I felt compelled to sit down and talk about it with this person with a 3rd-party mediator. During the conversation, I said this situation stinks. The person said, “Okay, I get it. I’m a stinky person!” I said no, I’m saying the situation stinks. They said, “Yes, I hear you. You think I stink.” They couldn’t differentiate between what I was saying about the situation and what they thought I was saying about them as a person. To this day, I’m pretty sure they think I said they are a stinky person. It’s really unfortunate.

We do better if we read what people write instead of read into what people write. Don’t fill in the gaps. Don’t jump to conclusions. If someone writes a post heavy on the inference, it’s not helpful, I completely agree. But neither is a response that slathers on the conjecture. Take a step back and ask if you’re really responding to what’s there or not. Ask a clarifying question It’s like that Mandela Effect on Movies thread. Let’s not gaslight ourselves into believing something that isn’t there.

tl;dr = Reading into something doesn't help.


3. Telling people what they are only exacerbates the situation. One of my favorite parts of leading a youth camp is watching how campers build camaraderie together. We’re always encouraging them to find ways to connect and one way some campers do this is by creating nicknames. One camper, for example, ended up with quite the poison ivy rash one year and he and his friends called him Ivy Boy the rest of the week. He liked it, he was in on it, it worked. But one year there was a teen whose friends said his unruly behavior meant he was wild, a wild animal, so they started calling him Zoo Boy. He didn’t like that, and an effort had to be taken for people to not say it. The rule at camp is simple: it’s only your name if you say it’s your name. No one gets to label you or say who you are or what you are. Even for the camper called Zoo Boy, it was impossible for him to consider whether the “wild” choices he was making were appropriate because he was so upset by being labeled. It wasn’t until after the nickname calmed down that people were able to speak with him about his choices and only then was he able to give them real thought and subsequently change his attitude.

There is, for example, a world of difference between saying someone is racist and saying what someone said or did is racist. One is about who they are (identity), one is about what they did (choice). Put in our terms, it’s one is about the poster, one is about the post. It's simple: our comments need to be about the post, not the poster. That doesn't change. No one is going to respond well to being called a racist. Nobody. Not those who say something blatantly racist, not the people who say something ignorantly racist, not even those who say what’s well-meaning-but-sorry-still-racist. For what it’s worth, I believe everyone – and yeah, I do mean everyone, including you and me – is on that spectrum. Everyone thinks or does something racist. And, to be called a racist doesn’t solve anything. Please, call out the post ("Can you see how this can come off as racist?"), not the poster ("You're a racist."). Watch the video by DJ and cultural commentator Jay Smooth below for inspiration. If your post is being called out and you think it’s you being called out personally, please refer to Thought #2.

tl;dr = Telling people what they are only exacerbates the situation.


4. You won’t always know the result of reporting a post and that’s hard. A very challenging part of my job is I’m a mandatory reporter. Meaning, if I encounter a person who I suspect or witness is suffering a form of abuse, I'm legally required to report that to the appropriate authority. This often involves minors, particularly when I'm serving in an in loco parentis role. One does one's best to do well in this regard, but I doubt anyone is perfect. When I report my observations to the proper authorities, that's where my involvement ends. I don't get to ask them later what happened. They don't get to circle back to me and give me an FYI on what happened next. Nothing. Every single time. I have to trust the system is full of good people trying to make good calls about good care for vulnerable young people. I have to pray there's more justice than not, more caring than not, that it's a more healthy system than not and good people are genuinely working hard to make it better. It's not perfect, because we're all human. It isn’t always easy, but then again, trust is based on faith and faith isn’t always easy, either.

Take the time to report a post. Look to those in authority to do their best. Be glad when the result is obvious, like a PM back or a public mod note or deleted posts or the word “suspended” under someone’s name. Trust when you don’t see those public results that it’s still being taken seriously. You won’t see things like the PM or email to the person whose post is in question or the team dialogue about particular challenges, for example. And I can see how that's frustrating. I've been there, absolutely. Please, continue doing what needs to be done. Report the posts, trust we’re doing our best, continue to hold us accountable in a loving way, and hopefully, good results happen more than not. Yes, I know we sometimes come off as "bureaucratic fools," but a healthy, thriving community is our goal, seriously!

tl;dr = You won't always know the result of reporting a post and that's hard.


5. Treat people here like they’re real people. In response to some teens I work with experiencing cyber bullying from “friends” they also knew IRL, I recently came across a shared with them a podcast episode featuring a licensed therapist who claims there’s data that shows when we’re online, we have a worldwide tendency to boil a person down to a construct instead of a fellow human being. We post at them, we categorize and simplify and compartmentalize them. We dehumanize them. Unless, and this is the big unless, unless we actively resist the urge to do this. Unless we intentionally see the person we’re interacting with online as a real, fellow person with real, fellow person feelings. Teenagers are not known for being masters of empathy but it’s definitely the season of their lives when they most need to try practicing it. It's a good podcast, it may even be worth posting here and discussing it together to see if the thoughts and data on the good and bad of online and social media interactions are reflected in our community and consider what we want to do to enhance one and diminish the other.

Friends, we’re all human, so we all make mistakes. But we’re all fully human, so we’re not just traits or tendencies. Putting someone in a box so they’re easier to communicate with is exactly the way none of us wants to be treated, and we can’t treat others this way. We’re called to love our neighbors. Personally, I’m called to see everyone as a fellow child of God. That’s my starting point for interacting with people. For my personal life, going from an atheist to a person of faith, believing that everyone is a fellow loved child of God has personally helped me be less cynical and angry and more optimistic and generous. I’m not perfect at it, I’m not the best at it, I have days I don’t do well with it. But when I see you as worthy of love as me, it’s harder to treat you like a hypothetical construct or boss battle at the end of the level or “the other.” We’re all Otters, so let’s embrace that.

tl;dr = Treat people here like they're real people.


The only exception to all of these thoughts is if someone posts a "nice bargain" on used bootleg region 3 fool-screen DivX titles on eBay without a free shipping coupon code. Those people are the suck-ke-ke-ke and they must be mocked to no end.

Thanks for reading. Always glad to hear from you about your experience of the site.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Well, that's my point though, Jay G. People are banned/suspended because of selective authority. True, that is still up to the website, but we shouldn't pretend, anymore, that DVD Talk is equal to everyone when it comes to the politics forum, and now it's spreading. But it's not just those who have been dealt with by mods. It's just anyone who has a Conservative view on an issue. You could be a Democrat in the politics forum but if you have one or two Conservative views...you're labeled a racist. Now, we see it happening outside that forum as well.

If you're a moderator, you moderate. Why is it somehow ok to get involved in political discussions? If you're a mod in politics, you really shouldn't be posting there. At all. That forum is an exception. If you're a mod elsewhere, the discussions are objective and even subjective, but politics has nothing to do with those discussions and you can use your authority without prejudice. But in politics...that's just unrealistic to say a Left-leaning or Right-leaning mod is going to be fair.

That's fantasy taking hold.

And of course, a few have decided to bring their politics outside of the politics forum because they felt they couldn't insult enough people where they were (because most people left, except one person who routinely gets insulted).

Again, the advice to that person is just to leave. That person should have an advocate, to demonstrate fairness and equality (isn't that what many are crying for or were?) and keep them involved in the highly biased conversations.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Then who could possibly moderate politics? Everybody has a leaning. Now whether or not the moderator can put those leanings aside when making decisions is another thing completely.

And, for the record, there are forums out there who throw the ban stick out there HARD for anybody who doesn't go with the rank and file. For example, you will be banned from the_donald reddit community for ANY criticism of Donald Trump. If you say he's too conservative? BAN. If you say he's too liberal? BAN.

DVDTalk allows all viewpoints to post. If people want to boycott because they feel it's a circle jerk that's fine, but before the boycott they were BEGGED to please defend some of the stuff that was going on. Instead all we got were passive-aggressive "Trump Derangement Syndrome" cartoons. My advice to those folks: if you think people are "deranged" for criticizing Trump, come tell us why. You might convince somebody. Simply posting cartoons or doing drive by posts every time the economy has an uptick is not contributing to the discussion.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

I don’t think echo chamber is the right phrase. When the Republican Party is electing people and enacting policies that even lifelong conservatives are attacking, the attacks on Trump in our forum are coming from the left and the right. I’m a current and lifelong Republican who has never voted Democratic in my life, but even the worst Democrat is better than a Trumpist imho. So again, I think an echo chamber of sorts is to be expected in certain situations. This is an obvious one.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

I was going to basically type the same thing, so I'll just quote your post and add that what I find to be the real sticking point is that people that hold bigoted views believe they have the right to free speech. WHich in their minds means they shouldn't be told those views are bigoted, and thus are acitng like bigots. Look not further than the recent posts here arguing that Nazi's aren't that much of a problem because they've stopped "murdering" people.

Which also takes me to my next point. Things are largely the way they are because simple things like belvieving in equal rights has become "politcal". Well, only for those that stand on a poltical platform that rallies against those things. And to have a form of insult for those that dare speak up against their poltical platform, they make up new insults like "SJW" or "snowflake".

If the mods are going to start giving into the wishes of those expecting their bigotry not to be called what it is, they're should also put and end to the labels of "SJW" and the like. Otherwise they're just letting it all reverse back to the folks that decided to make equal rights for human beings a poltical battle rather than something that just is because it's the way it should be in this country.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Exactly. I've also posted before that if the choice is between an echo chamber, and a forum full pf more Trump like bigotry, I'll learn to deal with echos.

But given that we still lhave the same extreme right blog posts happening multiple times per day, the poltics forum is still far from anything that resembles an echo chamber.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

The only thing I'm going to say in this thread is that I think everyone should read story's post several times, reflect on it, and take it to heart. Discussion on this forum would be a lot better if we all did that.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

So you equate the term, "SJW," with the term, "Racist?"

Honestly, you know damned well that once someone is labeled a racist or a sexist it's over for them. Their personal character is destroyed, they have zero credibility as a human being, and they might as well leave the board.

Labeling someone as a SJW doesn't have that kind of impact. Not even close. Hell, for some people it's a badge of honor (wanting, "Social Justice," even in extreme ways, doesn't have the negative connotation that being a racist does).

Labeling ANYONE in that way, on a personal character basis, cannot be allowed on any functioning board, or the board will end up with only one group - the group with the greater numbers in the first place.

Personal attacks, including things like, "Anyone who believes that is a racist," cannot be allowed.

There is no need to jump all over a board member just because you don't agree with his posts. That holds true for either side. No one has to be an asshole about, "Challenging," someone's point of view and harassing that person.

We can have civil discourse. We SHOULD have civil discourse. But we don't.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

So is your goal to squash all non left views?

How about moderate views that are more in the middle? Those people are getting jumped on, too.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Labeling of posters is a no-no, period. Whether you call somebody a "jerk" or a "nazi" it isn't allowed. There isn't a degree that is "okay".

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Why? I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and open to different views.

Now, if you're talking about truly offensive comments, then, absolutely, there should be pushback. But if you're just talking about differences of opinions or philosophies? No, there should not be aggressive, harassing pushback, just civil disagreements.

No board member should have to put up with harassment.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Well, I've been labeled a racist, sexist, misogynist, liar, alt-right, and the people who did it are still around...

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Well, given that it's also directed at those that champion for equal rights for gays, or even just women, I going to go with... no.

Maybe, if you ignore all the like minded people that agree with those bigoted views. To those people, the others that dare to support equal rights end up in the same damged character boat once they are labled as a "SJW". If you think it's any different it's probaly because you have returned to only caring about what affects you.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Did you completely skip Trevor's post?

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

I have yet to see anybody throwing around SJW, and other derogatory labels for liberals, even warned to cut it off. Despite many reports of those posts. Just saying...

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

That's probably because SJW doesn't have the negative character connotation that racist does. For a lot of people it's a POSITIVE.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Just like bigot. At least for Trump, and all those that contiue to support his views after they were exposed as racist, homophobic, etc. Because why else why would they continue to support bigotry?

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

99% of the time (yes, THAT often) it's used as a pejorative and generalization about anyone to the left of the person using it. It's absolutely meant to minimize their views to irrelevant and unworthy of a measured civil response.

It's a garbage title used to dismiss the poster instead of the post. It's not as "severe" as racist or whatever but it's still proof positive that it's being used to silence someone being disagreed with.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

This whole forum is becoming a Politics dumping ground. Why don't you invade Book Talk?

Or change the site name to PoliticTalk.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Whose fault is it that movies, TV shows, that features non-straight white males in leading roles are often labeled as a political movie/show and rallied against as such? Serious question because I think that is answer many people seem to be looking for lately.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Not when said views stem from exclusion and hate. Liberals have no obligation to be open and/or tolerant to all viewpoints.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Didn't you just state that you were called racist? Has your personal character been destroyed, with zero credibility as a human being? Name calling is bad, but you're delving into hyperbole here.

I meant "pushback" in terms of people offering opposing opinions, and challenging the viewpoint. And people take the "liberals are supposed to be tolerant" to absurd degrees. Bigotry and hate don't need to be tolerated. The cries of "you're intolerant of my intolerance" is a false equivalence.

People on the forum should be tolerant to the point of allowing other people to speak, without name calling or harassment. But they don't have to just accept any and all viewpoints without disagreement. Yes, you can post your argument, and then I can post mine. And if 5 other people disagree with you as well, so be it.

Again, I've stated I've been the lone dissenter in a thread before. Is it lonely? Yes. Can it be frustrating to be the only one arguing a certain viewpoint, while 4 other people disagree with each of my posts, while agreeing and complementing each others? Sure. But that's not harassment, and not something that's the job of the mods to fix. If I can't change any minds, or find a common ground, or nobody else comes in to agree with me, I have to continually decide whether to continue posting, or to say my piece and move on.

Re: Houston, We Have A Problem...
 

Yes, I believe in social justice, but I feel that most people using the term SJW intend to do it in a sneering, condescending way. At least that's how I read it in the context of their other words.