So – just curious – if what Hari Sheldon did is so terrible, and the leftist moderators would ban anyone who said exactly the same thing about left… how come Octupus is still among us? Just a few days ago he claimed that everyone on the ‘American Left’ is a wannabe Jihadi who would love to behead anyone who disagrees with them:
I await Octopus’s beheading (or at least his banning) with bated breath.
No one is saying that what Hari Seldon did is so terrible.
He did not say that this was a matter of true or false. If that’s what he meant, he should stop by and clear that up.
“If what Hari Seldon did is evidence of a double standard” then
Yes, but in this case, the ref was sitting in the stands when he made the comment.
In the @Magiver’s post that had been moderated, he had demonstrated a repeated unwillingness to look at facts that had been posted and cited, and continued to make the same counterfactual claim. Whether he believed his words to be true or not, he was posting solely for the purpose of disrupting the thread and causing others to have to continue to show him citations that he would not bother to look at.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a 911 truther, but I’ve seen them get moderated eventually as they contribute nothing, and simply cause more and more agitation as they refuse to accept reality. They may believe that they are 100% correct, but they are stilling being disruptive, being a jerk, and trolling to continue to insist on their claims in spite of evidence to the contrary. A ref saying, “That pass was incomplete as it bounced several times on the ground, and you continuing to claim that you caught it cleanly in spite of all evidence to the contrary isn’t doing you any favors.”
This was less like a ref claiming that a pass was complete because he wanted his team to score, and more like a ref mentioning that a pass was complete because he saw that it did not hit the ground. “I’d have called that incomplete except I saw him catch it cleanly.”
As I said, the only thing problematic at all is that mods need to be careful about any jokes that they make, even when they are not moderating, as there are those who look for any sign that they can use to feed their persecution complex.
I believe he did.
I think it’s important to distinguish between a lie and a falsehood. If i believe i have a ten dollar bill in my pocket, and say, “i have a ten dollar bill in my pocket”, it’s false, but not a lie. If you ask me to check, and i stick my hand in my pocket and realize i left my wallet at home, and continue to claim i have a ten dollar bill, it becomes a lie. If you say, “wait, i saw your wallet on the kitchen table, are you sure the money is in your pocket?” and i ignore you, i might be trolling, or or disruptive to conversation.
Context matters.
I believe you are incorrect.
I do have a problem with it. To be clear, I believe the statement is basically true. And if it were in a single sentence of a post that defended the proposition of the GOP as a violent, white nationalist organization, it would be fine. But as the entirety of a post, it serves no purpose other than to rile up conservative posters and virtue-signal to everyone else that madmonk is on our side. I’m not sure that’s valuable in GD. Perhaps if we consistently modded that as trolling, GD would become a more debate-oriented forum. Or it would wither away with no content left. But I think it’s probably worth a try.
A debate has to be based on the premise that the facts behind the argument being made is true. Otherwise, as in formal logic, an argument starting with a false statement can have any outcome, true, false, or meaningless. It’s a total waste of everybody’s time.
Here is a true fact. The GOP has been The Official Party of White Supremacy since Nixon’s Southern Strategy. That was fifty years ago. Every being sentient enough to use a computer on the Dope has spent their entire adult life under this truth. (Well, maybe not Hari Seldon. Ever he spent a good 20%, though.)
The Republican President of the United States joyously proclaims his support for white supremacists. He handpicks associates and appointees who show their support for white supremacists. He refuses to help state governors unless they support white supremacy.
Literally no political debate can take place unless this fact underlies the entire argument. Any poster denying this fact is either woefully ignorant about reality or deliberately trolling. There is no third option. Saying this has nothing to do with “virtue-signaling” any more than saying that the capital of the country is Washington, DC. Starting a debate with any other city in the present day as the capital would be shot down immediately. But one is as true as the other.
I don’t see how this is relevant to this thread.
The same post on the right doesn’t get a warning either:
It would, were my rubric adopted. I’m advocating for a change of how GD (and P&E) are modded, not pleading to have moderation applied evenly. I think it’s already relatively even. It’s just leading to fora that don’t work as well as they should. IMHO.
I’m perfectly fine with any level of strictness, as long as it’s fairly applied. I just don’t want a blue moderator saying “This post reaches X level of offensiveness but it’s okay because it’s blue, but that same-X-level offensive post gets a warning because it’s red” (or vice versa.) That’s partisan.
Set the strictness level however you please, but make it non-partisan. Make the 3-point line equidistant for both teams.
It’s a good thing that’s not what happened, then! 
You could try reading the post just above mine, the one I was responding to.
No argument from me on the evenness. The only difference is that I’m not agnostic towards my preferred level of strictness.
That’s because what I am posting doesn’t violate any rule. Now, of course one could stretch trolling or jerk to anything but what I posted is far far less damning than 100s of posts daily or weekly that broadly categorize political groups. The problem is some groups are untouchable while other groups can be categorized with factually untrue and extraordinarily hyperbolic assertions with not only no repercussions but explicit approval. That’s the problem.
Right! A right winger like yourself can allege that democrats want to chop off people’s heads, a factually true and extraordinarily hyperbolic assertion made only to illicit outraged responses, but nothing is done, because of the double standard moderating here.
In case anyone forgot, here is an example of a factually untrue and extraordinarily hyperbolic assertion: