Actually, in the current example, you simply want the staff to moderate in your favor, ordering posters to refrain from using the word “torture” for an act that has been identified as torture by the U.S. goverrnment before it began to engage in it.
You are not calling for neutrality, but for an enforcement of Neo-con orthodoxy. So you are not mad about partisanship, (if any existed), only that your side is not favored as you would prefer.
This is silly. No one was ordered to use the term “torture.” The euphemism was employed several times in the thread without any repercussions, at all. There was not even any discussion in the thread as to whether one term or another should be preferred before Rand Rover tried to hijack the thread with a complaint that the staff was not forbidding the word torture.
You sure about that? Really really sure?
You know, everything I’ve said on the subject is right in this thread, all in black and white, in words of not much more than one syllable. You can read it as slow as you like. Perhaps you could share with us the post that led you to make the conclusion you did above.
I agreed with Rover’s original beef but this is silly. Just because someone is offending your right-wing sensitivities doesn’t mean that the mods should mod for content, the thing you supposedly were dead-set against when you first made this thread.
Pretty much all of them. Why are you whining about the use of the word “torture” if you don’t want it suppressed? That was where you went off the rails in the original thread: you claimed that the issue of “torture” was “off topic”:
Since you are now just playing word games, (as I suspected was your intention from the beginning), I will leave you to it.
I agree with the position that an ‘orthodoxy’ inhibits both discussion and intellectual growth. And this board most definitely has certain ‘orthodox’ positions which can cripple discussion. When the positions are noted, the knee-jerk reaction is to deny and attack. It gets as vicious as a school playground in here sometimes. Snarky little parsings and posturings back and forth … I like a good fight as much as anyone, but they aren’t good anymore. They’re boring.
The result is just a lot of wasted posts and wasted threads and wasted time. Why can’t we all just acknowledge a point occasionally, and move on?
As for modding for content, if we posit that Mods are human, we must accept that Mods have opinions; if we further assume that no human is perfect, we will conclude that, yes, the Mods will moderate in line with their opinions rather than the strict policy of the board occasionally. I submit the board would be a better place if this did not happen.
You, Rand Rover, have done your best to discourage such an improvement in this board with your currently baseless accusation. There was no such bias in the thread.
The fact remains that Marley jumped the gun with his moderation. And yes, it’s a FACT.
You silly boy, you.
I guess when you have to invent imaginary crimes, resorting to personal insults is the best you can do to support your position.
Wow. It’s really sad (among other things) that you’ve spent so much time posting in this thread without understanding what I’m saying.
See the exchange in this thread between Giraffe and I. All I am saying is that the mods currently draw the line for what is acceptable and what isn’t along political lines. I wish they would draw the line along the lines of whether someone is a spammer or a jerk and leave politics out of it.
So, I don’t want the mods to tell people not to say “torture.”. All I said was that the fact the mods allow “torture” and don’t allow discussion of race/IQ studies in Africa threads shows the line is drawn on a political basis.
Using “silly” is a personal insult? I wouldn’t have guessed that to be the case, especially the opinion of someone who uses it so regularly. A Mod, no less.
Oh wait, you’re just being silly, aren’t you? Teeheehee.
I weighed in earlier in this thread, and i actually supported your OP. I thought that the closing of the 75-option poll was pointless, especially since a 50-option poll was allowed to stand. I even have some sympathy for your position on the issue of whether questions of race and IQ should be allowed in threads about the relative development of Africa
But you’re really making yourself look irrational here, by equating two things that are not the same. If the mods had allowed the word “torture,” but cracked down on someone using an term like “enhanced interrogation,” i’d be on board with you. That would be modding for content, especially in a thread where both of those terms are really incidental to the main question, which is whether waterboarding worked or not, and whether the fact that it might have worked would justify its use.
You, and anyone else, were quite welcome to join that thread and make an observation along the lines of, “It seems that waterboarding did work, and i think that justifies the use of such enhanced interrogation techniques.” Both “torture” and “enhanced interrogation techniques” are political terms used to describe waterboarding. The fact that the mods allowed “torture” in this case is completely unrelated to the more general issue of modding for content, and is also not comparable to the issue of race/IQ.
I still think you have something of a point on the poll described in the OP, and even on the race/IQ thing, but this latest complaint is completely silly and irrelevant.
Fair points, mhendo. At this point I’m just happy that you understand what I’m saying (so far that makes two with Giraffe). I’ll continue to provide examples of this as they come up, and I’m sure a better one than the torture example will come along.
There is a distinct difference between “You ____ boy” and “This is ____”. Whatever word you fill in the blank. The first is definitely a personal remark (a remark aimed at the person) that the second is not.