Introducing the Current Affairs/IMHO forum

Claiming a person has dementia with zero medical proof is a pretty pointless discussion. You could push it on the conspiracy theories forum I imagine.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

Claiming a person has dementia with zero medical proof is a pretty pointless discussion. You could push it on the conspiracy theories forum I imagine.

We discuss things all the time that there is evidence for. Evidence is enough for discussion.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

We discuss things all the time that there is evidence for. Evidence is enough for discussion.

They show edited clips of a man who has a lifelong stammer, the fact is that you, I, sky news nor anyone else can correctly diagnose Biden or anyone else just from watching video clips out of context.

Tokyo

2u2me wrote: »

Everything is your call. You are the grand power, you are the admin...

Next I'm sure you'll say I'm engaging in circular arguments and threadban men, I've seen the form from you before.

That you choose to ignore those clips because of the show that presents it is yet more evidence of your bias...

What sources exactly are endorsed by the ministry of truth.....

All you are proving right now is that you are utterly unable to make an argument without making it a personal attack - the very thing that other posters have pointed out with respect to your posting style but you deny.

You are right, I am a site admin, and ultimately the final say on many site decisions falls on myself and the other admins, with the support of the community managers. I make no apology for that. But it has nothing to do with the given situation.

My point was, and still is, that you are trying to push your particular style of 'debate' - namely ranting at anybody that doesn't share your world view, and/or devolving the conversation by making it personal. The forum, through its charter, has laid out how it wishes these conversations take place, and has proscribed your particular style of shouting people down ad infinitum. Whether you feel that your particular approach, as apparently, endorsed by James Lindsay, is acceptable, is irrelevant - i.e not your call to make. That's the prerogative of the forum mods, and they have made it clear how the discussion - regardless of which side of it you happen to fall - should proceed.

My point still stands. The forum mods have asked that the 'dementia', 'shaky Joe' narrative be dropped. As has been pointed out by many others, there's no evidence to support that narrative. You may feel that your talk show video clip constitutes evidence, but most people wouldn't. And if without such 'evidence' you aren't able to back your argument up, then I would argue that your argument isn't particularly strong to begin with, if it requires National Enquirer style support to prop it up.

jaysus I'll say it again

the mods have some patience

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

jaysus I'll say it again

the mods have some patience

+1 on this, I wouldnt be able to tolerate it in their position.If it were a full time paid job you would be thinking about quitting.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Were you not on here before claiming to be of Asian descent. If not you have the exact same posting style, but that seems common enough for posters claiming this place is a liberal hub and they are all being bullied by the mods.

2u2me

DubInMeath wrote: »

Were you not on here before claiming to be of Asian descent. If not you have the exact same posting style, but that seems common enough for posters claiming this place is a liberal hub and they are all being bullied by the mods.

Could either you or one of the three people who thanked your post point to where I said mods were bullying people. Tah.

I've said mods are being bullied into shutting down conversations and topics that the woke users don't like. They do this by calling them racist and accusing them of being like 4chan etc..

The fact that my arguments have garnered absolutely no questions, only statements like 'it's not happening' 'it's all in your head' 'you know this not to be true' etc.. etc.. should show the neutral reader just how much of a nerve has been touched by this topic.

Were it untrue whyare the most woke of people that inhabit these boards in here to attack me for what I'm saying. Not engaging with what I'm saying, attacking me. Hilarious stuff.

Tokyo

2u2me wrote: »

I've said mods are being bullied into shutting down conversations and topics that the woke users don't like. They do this by calling them racist and accusing them of being like 4chan etc.

I sincerely doubt that what follows is going to make a blind bit of difference to your opinion, but God loves a trier and all that.

As well as being a site admin, I'm also a mod of that forum, as is Beasty. My role as admin as for the betterment of the site as a whole - keeping the site running smoothly, and trying to maintain an online space where conversation can take place with a modicum of decency and mutual respect. Respectfully, a small subset of posters ensure that every admin here gets told exactly what they think of them on a daily basis. It's part of the job that every admin just brushes off. The point being, I don't feel 'bullied' as a mod of the CA forum, nor do I feel a sudden compulsion to shut down conversation because I've been browbeaten by reported posts.

As a matter of courtesy and by means of explanation to other CA mods, myself I (and other mods do the same) often make a note in the reported posts of my thoughts on that particular RP, or a request for a second opinion if I feel that my take on the RP may be just one interpretation. I can tell you from experience that there are plenty of accusations of racism in reported posts that are met with a mod note of "no, it's not", accusations of trolling that are labelled as being unsubstantiated, accusations of accounts being rereg accounts that if we don't get an instant match, we give the benefit of the doubt to and observe their posting style for a while. In short, the modding-by-ticking-boxes you describe doesn't exist. This very thread is an example on that, in that posters who may agree with me on this particular point have certainly not agreed with me in the past precisely because we didn't just respond to an accusation of racism/homophobia/whatever and instead decided to see if it were a one off, a poor choice of words, or whether it was a pattern of behaviour.

With respect to bias, for the most part, I don't have a horse in the race when it comes to current events - I've lived the other side of the word for enough time for them not to particularly impact me. I mod/admin from the perspective of allowing as fair a conversation to take place from all points of view, within the confines of reasonable discourse.

As far as I'm concerned, I have been patient with my responses to you, as have others, and have provided what I consider to be a reasonable explanation of the situation. You on the other hand have responded with personal insults and jabs at myself or others who don't agree with you.

This is the end of the line for this discussion from my point of view. You've been given a response from forum mods. You've been given multiple responses from a site admin. Should you choose to ignore them and form your own view on the situation then that's up to you. You posted in feedback. You were given a response to your feedback. Anything after that is soapboxing.

2u2me

mike_ie wrote: »

My point still stands. The forum mods have asked that the 'dementia', 'shaky Joe' narrative be dropped. As has been pointed out by many others, there's no evidence to support that narrative. You may feel that your talk show video clip constitutes evidence, but most people wouldn't. And if without such 'evidence' you aren't able to back your argument up, then I would argue that your argument isn't particularly strong to begin with, if it requires National Enquirer style support to prop it up.

Ah ok, I thought this was a "In my honest opinion" forum. If I feel it constitutes evidence that's not good enough; I'm not allowed to talk about it because most other people disagree.

Got it, glad we're getting somewhere.

In this clip we have Julian Castra (democratic nominee) questioning whether Biden forgot what he said 2 minutes ago.

We have commentators from MSNBC questioning biden's cognitive decline(with clips to back that up)

Corey Brooker(democrat) questions whether Biden can survie a long gruelling campaign and get the ball over the line.

CNN report that Rep. Tim Ryan(democrat) says Biden is declining and doesn't have the energy to take on Donald Trump.

"It is a concern you're hearing from a lot of people in the country. It's unclear sometimes when he's articulating positions, a lack of clarity. " -

Tim Ryan.
Here's a clip from the CNN website.

Emma Vigeland of the Young Turks(Very lefty) criticizes how so many people are pretending this doesn't exist; the evidence we are seeing of Biden's cognitive decline.

"We'll prop up a guy who's obviously mentally declining"-

Vigeland.

"Before Biden became the consensus establishment choice three weeks ago- and Democratic operatives thus tried to impose a ban on speaking ill of him while deceitfully pretending they and their clients never did so far for fear that it could cost them future consulting or political gigs within the Biden controlled party. It was commonly and routinely acknowledged, even on DNC propaganda outlets such as MSNBC that Biden's cognitive decline was an open secret among Democratic party officials who believed it posed a serious threat to his ability to campaign, let alone beat Trump, let alone govern as president. "

Glenn Greenwald, the intercept.

All in that 4 minute series of clips.

People were talking about this long before now especially during the democratic primaries. This is an issue a few of the candidates even attacked him on. It was an open secret in the democrat party. Here are some posts from politics from during that time.

Rjd2 wrote: »

Convincing Bidens base that he is cognitively unsound rather than a racist should be the way to go for his opponents. However will his opponents realise that? The Harris attack on him went down great online, but looking at his numbers he's still cruising to the nomination.

droidus wrote: »

Trump is going to tear Biden to shreds in the debates. Regardless of his politics he is clearly on a downward spiral cognitively, plus he has all of the establishment baggage of Clinton. He may actually be a worse candidate.

What exactly constitutes evidence of cognitive decline?

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Could either you or one of the three people who thanked your post point to where I said mods were bullying people. Tah.

I've said mods are being bullied into shutting down conversations and topics that the woke users don't like. They do this by calling them racist and accusing them of being like 4chan etc..

The fact that my arguments have garnered absolutely no questions, only statements like 'it's not happening' 'it's all in your head' 'you know this not to be true' etc.. etc.. should show the neutral reader just how much of a nerve has been touched by this topic.

Were it untrue whyare the most woke of people that inhabit these boards in here to attack me for what I'm saying. Not engaging with what I'm saying, attacking me. Hilarious stuff.

You would be the first person to ever describe me as woke so thanks for the laugh and welcome back kim.

Can't see the mods being bullied into closing down threads, more the fact that posters go into circular rants, don't move on and stamp their feet like a toddler having a tantrum that requires intervention.

Beasty

2u2me wrote: »

Ah ok, I thought this was a "In my honest opinion" forum. If I feel it constitutes evidence that's not good enough; I'm not allowed to talk about it because most other people disagree.

Got it, glad we're getting somewhere.

In this clip we have Julian Castra (democratic nominee) questioning whether Biden forgot what he said 2 minutes ago.

We have commentators from MSNBC questioning biden's cognitive decline(with clips to back that up)

Corey Brooker(democrat) questions whether Biden can survie a long gruelling campaign and get the ball over the line.

CNN report that Rep. Tim Ryan(democrat) says Biden is declining and doesn't have the energy to take on Donald Trump.
Tim Ryan.
Here's a clip from the CNN website.

Emma Vigeland of the Young Turks(Very lefty) criticizes how so many people are pretending this doesn't exist; the evidence we are seeing of Biden's cognitive decline.
Vigeland.


Glenn Greenwald, the intercept.

All in that 4 minute series of clips.

People were talking about this long before now especially during the democratic primaries. This is an issue a few of the candidates even attacked him on. It was an open secret in the democrat party. Here are some posts from politics from during that time.






What exactly constitutes evidence of cognitive decline?

Just drop it now

This forum is for sitewide feedback, not you trying to get your political messages across

Any more of this here and you will lose posting privileges

If you have a problem with this instruction take it to PM or Help Desk

Deebles McBeebles

Anyone else having trouble remembering the before times? I have no idea what this thread is about anymore...

Oh yeah, the "all lives matter" thread. Well intentioned at the start, has now become an echo chamber of 5/6/7 lads just posting videos from untrusted Twitter sources about how awful all BLM protesters are. The other side of the debate is long gone and the entire last page (as of now) isn't even anything to do with ALM or BLM. Its been said before on here that eventually, with the same arguments from various different posters, often new accounts, that people give up on the thread and the topic and just leave them to it. I think its happened on that thread. Its run its course big time. I don't want it closed though, good to keep all that sort of behaviour in the one thread I suppose.

It's similar in a lot of the more extreme threads. It's just people pushing pretty extreme views and left to it. Eg the refugee/migrant threads.

Deebles McBeebles

Deleted User wrote: »

It's similar in a lot of the more extreme threads. It's just people pushing pretty extreme views and left to it. Eg the refugee/migrant threads.

Another thread I am not very familiar with but seems they know "the real truth" about immigration and multiculturalism. I stopped bothering to engage after the George Floyd thread when I realised I was wasting my time caring about the opinions of strangers on Boards. That time could be better spent **** or having an afternoon nap. Both important endeavours as one gets older.

Discodog

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Another thread I am not very familiar with but seems they know "the real truth" about immigration and multiculturalism. I stopped bothering to engage after the George Floyd thread when I realised I was wasting my time caring about the opinions of strangers on Boards. That time could be better spent **** or having an afternoon nap. Both important endeavours as one gets older.

Exactly & when that happens Boards dies as all the reasonable people that welcome debate, simply don't bother.

Deebles McBeebles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Anyone else having trouble remembering the before times? I have no idea what this thread is about anymore...

Oh yeah, the "all lives matter" thread. Well intentioned at the start, has now become an echo chamber of 5/6/7 lads just posting videos from untrusted Twitter sources about how awful all BLM protesters are. The other side of the debate is long gone and the entire last page (as of now) isn't even anything to do with ALM or BLM. Its been said before on here that eventually, with the same arguments from various different posters, often new accounts, that people give up on the thread and the topic and just leave them to it. I think its happened on that thread. Its run its course big time. I don't want it closed though, good to keep all that sort of behaviour in the one thread I suppose.

Ah know what your talking about, there is a quote from Mark Twain that is apt for it.

Have to laugh when these patriots rush in to defend and quote an English tool with numerous criminal convictions who is known for being anti Irish

Deebles McBeebles

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah know what your talking about, there is a quote from Mark Twain that is apt for it.

Have to laugh when these patriots rush in to defend and quote an English tool with numerous criminal convictions who is known for being anti Irish

I reckon I know the quote alright, D. I've had cause to take heed of it quite recently.

Thats not to say CA is all like that but I've found you're better off not engaging with these inevitably Steve Bannon looking types, who spend all day on Boards, blaming the woes in their lives on "the blacks" or "the foreigners". All you get is a circle jerk of the same 3 arguments or passive-aggressive replies when they get annoyed at someone seeing them for what they are.

Muahahaha

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Anyone else having trouble remembering the before times? I have no idea what this thread is about anymore...

Oh yeah, the "all lives matter" thread. Well intentioned at the start, has now become an echo chamber of 5/6/7 lads just posting videos from untrusted Twitter sources about how awful all BLM protesters are. The other side of the debate is long gone and the entire last page (as of now) isn't even anything to do with ALM or BLM. Its been said before on here that eventually, with the same arguments from various different posters, often new accounts, that people give up on the thread and the topic and just leave them to it. I think its happened on that thread. Its run its course big time. I don't want it closed though, good to keep all that sort of behaviour in the one thread I suppose.

Without a doubt, that thread was fine for a few weeks and then descended into the usual bile. I wouldnt even bother clicking into it anymore because you know what you're going to get.

Agree that it shouldnt be closed if it corrals those types of posts into one place and makes it easier for others to avoid.

Annasopra

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Another thread I am not very familiar with but seems they know "the real truth" about immigration and multiculturalism. I stopped bothering to engage after the George Floyd thread when I realised I was wasting my time caring about the opinions of strangers on Boards. That time could be better spent **** or having an afternoon nap. Both important endeavours as one gets older.

I noticed too the immigration thread was started by a rereg troll. It was left open despite the fact it was started by a rereg troll yet similar threads were closed.

EmmetSpiceland

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I noticed too the immigration thread was started by a rereg troll. It was left open despite the fact it was started by a rereg troll yet similar threads were closed.

That may well be, J, but keeping a thread like that open is a necessary “evil”. It’s not ideal but it’s for the benefit of the rest of the site.

Quantum Erasure

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I reckon I know the quote alright, D. I've had cause to take heed of it quite recently.
....
All you get is a circle jerk of the same 3 arguments or passive-aggressive replies ...

...

Deebles McBeebles

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I noticed too the immigration thread was started by a rereg troll. It was left open despite the fact it was started by a rereg troll yet similar threads were closed.

With good reason I'm sure, Joey. Its a topic worthy of discussion as long as it doesn't go too far.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

...

I'm not sure I get you, Q. You might elaborate what your point is in relation to feedback for CA/IMHO.

Quantum Erasure

something about passive aggressive replies and a certain quote from Mark Twain, things like that amuse me

Deebles McBeebles

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

something about passive aggressive replies and a certain quote from Mark Twain, things like that amuse me

Ah! I think between us we've completed passive-aggressive bingo there.

Outlaw Pete

Just received an on-thread warning for saying to a user that my question was rhetorical. Yet the CA mods will tell you that there is no bias in moderation. Don't make me laugh. Not a chance one of Boards left leaning users would be chastised for something like that. Now the mod can just come along when I have been reported again (as of course I will be) and say "Okay, Pete, that's enough, you've had two warnings [one for a vid dump which was anything but] and so you're threadbanned" which is of course just what the lefties want as they love nothing more than have those that disagree with them removed from the discussion.

Is there anyway, at all, that CA mods could sit down and discuss just what does and doesn't not merit actioning, or giving warnings for, and then stick to that hold all users to that standard and not just those who don't lean to the left, and get reported everytime they dare disagree with the liberal consensus.

Oh and I have to say it's quite laughable than since all discussion was banned discussing Biden's cognitive decline, the same users seemingly all have no issue with posting about Trump's. Again, mods, wake up and see that you are being manipulated via the report button to censor users just because their views are not appreciated, not because of any genuine belief that the charter has been breached.

Baggly

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't just soapboxing with those questions.

The thread isn't there for you to put words in people's mouths. If you want to discuss a topic, do. If you don't, don't hijack the thread with multiple rhetorical questions designed not to further the discussion but to flag your own beliefs.

As usual there is an issue with HOW someone posts and this is interpreted as an issue with what they are posting.

You have no idea what my political leanings are. To accuse me of being motivated politically is just silly.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just received an on-thread warning for saying to a user that my question was rhetorical. Yet the CA mods will tell you that there is no bias in moderation. Don't make me laugh. Not a chance one of Boards left leaning users would be chastised for something like that. Now the mod can just come along when I have been reported again (as of course I will be) and say "Okay, Pete, that's enough, you've had two warnings [one for a vid dump which was anything but] and so you're threadbanned" which is of course just what the lefties want as they love nothing more than have those that disagree with them removed from the discussion.

Is there anyway, at all, that CA mods could sit down and discuss just what does and doesn't not merit actioning, or giving warnings for, and then stick to that hold all users to that standard and not just those who don't lean to the left, and get reported everytime they dare disagree with the liberal consensus.

Oh and I have to say it's quite laughable than since all discussion was banned discussing Biden's cognitive decline, the same users seemingly all have no issue with posting about Trump's. Again, mods, wake up and see that you are being manipulated via the report button to censor users just because their views are not appreciated, not because of any genuine belief that the charter has been breached.

Read the warning in the thread and doesn't equate to the above.

It might help if you actually answered questions put to you in these threads rather than hiding out for a while and coming back with a load of video dumps and ignoring answers given to you by other people.

Outlaw Pete

Baggly wrote: »

The thread isn't there for you to put words in people's mouths.

I didn't put any words in a user's mouth, Baggly. This is ridiculous carry on you're at here.

The user asked me why Trump had called members of the military "losers" and added that he"definitely" did (something which is not true as there is no proof he did so currently). No problem with that by the way, mind, let the user say what he wants, but I should be able to reply to the user making such an allegation (assuming I don't break the rules that is) how I choose to without a mod jumping down my throat and saying I put words in the user's mouth.

Here is my reply:

Not a chance you'd so easily believe Biden had done/said something on such scant evidence and so why the philosophical difference when it's Trump, eh? Rhetorical question of course as we know why.

What I mean by that, obviously, is it the philosophical difference is down to his bias. Again, I put no words in his mouth.

I then replied to a 2nd user who also made the claim that Trump called WWII heroes "losers and suckers" in a post where he referred to other users as "Zealots" and said we all had "TDS" -:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump describes American soldiers killed fighting the Nazis as "losers and suckers" and his zealots jump to his defence lol.

TDS is alive and well in you all.

Funny how you had no issue with something which is clearly against the charter (attacking posters rather than posts) but yet have given me an on-thread warning about putting words in user's mouths. Utterly ridiculous moderation.

If you want to discuss a topic, do. If you don't, don't hijack the thread with multiple rhetorical questions designed not to further the discussion but to flag your own beliefs.

Your moderation is a disgrace here. I did not do what you are saying. Yes, I used a rhetorical question to make a point but it is absurd to categorize my doing so as "hijacking the thread".

You have no idea what my political leanings are. To accuse me of being motivated politically is just silly.

I'm calling it how I see it and this nitpicking moderation is always going one way. You would never see a left leaning user moderated in this manner and no matter how many times examples are given you all look the way. Show me just once where you (or another mod) accused a left leaning user of hijacking a thread because they dared used a rhetorical question to make a point.

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't put any words in a user's mouth, Baggly. This is ridiculous carry on you're at here.

The user asked me why Trump had called members of the military "losers" and added that he"definitely" did (something which is not true as there is no proof he did so currently). No problem with that by the way, mind, let the user say what he wants, but I should be able to reply to the user making such an allegation (assuming I don't break the rules that is) how I choose to without a mod jumping down my throat and saying I put words in the user's mouth.

Here is my reply:



What I mean by that, obviously, is it the philosophical difference is down to his bias. Again, I put no words in his mouth.

I then replied to a 2nd user who also made the claim that Trump called WWII heroes "losers and suckers" in a post where he referred to other users as "Zealots" and said we all had "TDS" -:



Funny how you had no issue with something which is clearly against the charter (attacking posters rather than posts) but yet have given me an on-thread warning about putting words in user's mouths. Utterly ridiculous moderation.



Your moderation is a disgrace here. I did not do what you are saying. Yes, I used a rhetorical question to make a point but it is absurd to categorize my doing so as "hijacking the thread".



I'm calling it how I see it and this nitpicking moderation is always going one way. You would never see a left leaning user moderated in this manner and no matter how many times examples are given you all look the way. Show me just once where you (or another mod) accused a left leaning user of hijacking a thread because they dared used a rhetorical question to make a point.

Not an attack, a description

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/zealot

If you describe someone as a zealot, you think that their views and actions are very extreme, especially in following a particular political or religious belief.