I’ll take that as an admission that **Starving Artist **was directing accusations of genocide at liberals which was just jim-dandy with you. Enjoy the movie.
You haven’t taken up any of the numerous offers that new postsers have given us to watch it online? It’s so nice of peopel to join up and give us those precious links!
As for Starving Artist’s posts, he didn’t outright accuse liberals of genocide, but pretty close. He said millions had been killed or had their lives ruined. I’d call that weasel wording to get the zinger in (millions killed) and still have an out if called on it. Now, millions killed isn’t always genocide, but it’s still killing a lot of people.
I was going to take it as an admission that he wanted to go see a movie with his wife, but what do I know?
Oh for heaven’s sake, this isn’t that difficult. I’m no fan of Starving Artist, but it’s child’s play to see how his words don’t accuse liberals of genocide.
“Party X introduced policies which, while well intentioned, inadvertently led to the deaths of millions.”
I thought the word “vile” was a touch much. I saw a little anger and I saw some hyperbole but I didn’t see anything vile since i am sure no one was advocating raping babies. I think calling the poster down was adequate.
Where did Starving Artist say liberals were “well-intentioned” or that their policies “inadvertently” led to genocide? You can insert those terms if you’re determined to sugarcoat what he did say, but he did say exactly what he said. And got away scottfree with putting it exactly as he put it.
I actually like this moderation. It used a light hand and will make the discussions more substantive.
It also has a HUGE upside. Either it will lead to Der Trihs being banned very soon or we’ll have a hellava show watching the mods excuse his nearly constant bile. Either way, it’s a win.
Of course, the powers that be could decide that there are different rules concerning tone for each forum independently. And then there could be a chart indicating such. And then there could be a reminder window with the chart pop up every time you hit “submit”. Or perhaps, each post could be submitted for approval before being posted.
Bu that nonsense aside, it’s either bye-bye to Der Trihs or it’s Mod pretzel-tying time.
Did SA mean “millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals’ actions” or “millions more people have died or had their lives ruined as a direct result of liberals’ policies”? There is a difference – the latter is nowhere near comparable to Obama himself raping little girls – and it looks to me like the latter was intended. YMOV.
Let me be quite clear: when i listed those quotes from Starving Artist i was NOT asserting that he had accused liberals of genocide. I disagree with the argument you’re making here, pseudotriton ruber ruber.
I was simply noting that these types of broad, moderately offensive, and unsupportable generalizations about particular political positions have a long history on this board, and that if the mods are going to start punishing them, they’ll need a pretty big ban hammer.
They have Golden Retrievers in Mexico.
Not so much of one that SA would be able to slide, IMO. He’s either stating outright that liberals have deliberately supported genocidal policies, or that they have supported policies that have resulted in genocide–not all that much difference, either way, since liberals in his views are still okay with the policies they supported and don’t mind the genocidal results. You say could the same, pretty much, about the Nazis, and it doesn’t begin to excuse it or mitigate it.
I never said he said that. I was making a plausible interpretation of his post. If anyone else takes issue with it I’ll try to explain myself to them, but you seem like you just want to be petulant, so I don’t see any benefit to me engaging with you anymore in this thread.
mhendo, I get where you’re coming from. The problem is the mods in GD and Elections have an impossible task. Contentious political debate is always going to have some broad assertions and exaggerations. The mods have to make constant judgement calls as to which to allow and which not to. Allow none and you stifle debate. Allow all and debate gets suffocated by bile. So they have to make constant judgement calls. There’s no clear line and anyone will always be able to say “Hey, why did you allow this and not that?” And there won’t always be a good answer.
That said the examples in the OP, especially Inigo Montoya’s post, were clearly over the line. Inigo even acknowledges this. And he didn’t get a warning for breaking a rule, he just got a note asking him to reign it in.
That’s a great rationalization …especially since they wouldn’t have to go so far as “preventing” engagement. They could however, look for someone less inclined to participate … maybe even one that epitomizes the GD decorum when the Mod hat is off.
Would someone other than me please engage Larry Borgia on his b.s. here? Seems to me he’s got no response, but is taking the tack of claiming to be offended by my tone, which (he seems to think) will exempt him from elaborating on his claim, which seems to me entirely nonsensical.
Emphasis added.
I think either of those bits could reasonably be interpreted as “well intentioned” and that therefore, the policies led to “inadvertent” consequences.
So, yeah, I agree with Larry. That is to say, it is one, reasonable interpretation even if it isn’t the only reasonable interpretation.
Since this is a volunteer gig, generally people want to moderate the forums that interest them as posters. To a lesser extent it would probably be hard to maintain any kind of consistent tone in moderation if the forum mods were not also participants. It might be reasonable to ask people to read a forum all day and not participate (or rarely participate) if this were a paid full-time job. Since it isn’t, the mods’ interests play a role in their assignments. That might not be ideal because it can create some complications, but in a system like this one, it makes sense.
And how do you interpret “willful” and "hedonistic’? Remember, SA isn’t listing a bunch of possibilities, he’s listing a bunch of cumulative traits all of which apply to his thesis. You can’t just handwave away the adjectives that refute the case you’re trying to make, and point to the ones that might conceivably be tortured into supporting your argument.
Sheesh… I had no idea you read the forum all day. I figured you primarily searched on Posters and Subjects you suspected might provide fodder. 
How about my suggestion that Mods serve as shining examples of the proper decorum?
The suggestion that Mods recuse themselves is one I’ve been making for several years now, with almost no effect. I’m not suggesting that Mods cannot participate in threads as posters, merely that they recognize when they are getting exorcised or personally and emotionally involved in a thread such that their objectivity might come into question, at which point, they can choose to ask some other Mod to take over modding that thread, and they can go nuts as a poster, or else that they will stop posting in it. (Probably the former is to be preferred, since as Mods they can still affect the thread in the direction they want it to go as posters.) This describes a very small proportion of the threads here–most of the time, Mods have no animosity or passion (or the thread is not one that encourages such inflamed feelings), but I have to believe after the futile discussions that Mods are encouraged to think of “abusing their privileged position on occasion” as just one of the perks of an overworked, underpaid job and constitutes a form of payment. “Yeah, it’s a lot of work, but sometimes we’ll let you act like a total prick and get away with it.”
Here’s his list of adjectives:
will·ful
adjective
1.deliberate, voluntary, or intentional: The coroner ruled the death willful murder.
2.unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed.
#1 makes no sense in context, so I assume #2, and that doesn’t contradict what I posted earlier.
*he·don·ist
noun
- a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification.*
That is, they are so self-absorbed that they are unaware of the negative impact their ideas have on society.
But the key point is, he’s comparing liberals to adolescents. That is, folks who are unschooled in the ways of the world. Idealistic and self-absorbed.
And that’s as far as I’m going to take this. SA is not a poster I’m in the habit of paying attention to, and I have no interest in parsing his posts any further. Feel free to have the final say, and we’ll let those reading this determine who they think has the better argument.