Douchebag Thread for Politics & Religion Spill Over

[Saunders]

Can we split this tangent about how this thread was created into its own thread so we don't clutter up my political conversations?

 

[Danny Bateman]

Can we split this tangent about how this thread was created into its own thread so we don't clutter up my political conversations?

Live footage of Knapp:

He'll do it. He ain't skurred.

 

[JJ Husker]

I have a concern with a mod/admin appearing to get personally frustrated by a situation and then using their power to correct it while showing an air of disgust.

IDK, I think this has been on the horizon for quite awhile. Read through the last 20 pages of the DBHOF and notice all the comments from various posters about how it is being cluttered up with political BS. Off the top of my head, I know Paul Crewe and others have commented to that effect numerous times.

And I don't understand concern about a mod/admin appearing to be personally frustrated, correcting it, or showing an air of disgust about it. They are people just like the rest of us. And I would be the first in line to complain if I felt opinions were being censured or prevented. Or, is the real concern here that you feel it was done to stymie anti-Trump discussion? If that's the concern, that discussion is still here, readily accessible to all. I don't understand some people's preoccupation to keep the DBHOF pure but I really don't understand opposition to having a more targeted place for heated political discussion. Seems to me that everyone wins if the topics are kept more on topic.

 

[Enhance]

Bingo.

We have page after page in the DBHOF thread of people going after each other based on topics that may not have wide ranging appeal on the board (i.e. politics). If the argument is 'people weren't calling each other douchebags' then we should go ahead and delete or move 90-to-95% of that thread.

Perhaps a politics DBHOF thread is necessary - I can see the tough position this puts you in because politics is a lot more controversial and pervasive than something like recruiting.

However, you make your opinion and distaste for the problem known by calling it political "sh#t" and then moving it to its own thread. From my position, viewing you as a person with authority on the board, your reaction and handling of the situation is disappointing.

Do you have a problem with the "X vs Huskerboard" threads? Are they not in the same vein?

This is purely an observation, but aren't most of those threads either excerpts from non-Woodshed threads or started by the person who has a problem with poster X? I can't recall, though it may have happened, a breakout thread from the DBHOF. I'm willing to stand corrected.

Regardless, I don't think that changes your handling of the concern or the manner in which the issue was handled. I can understand you being personally irritated by it as you are human, but when you let the emotion spill into an authoritative decision, I think that's a problem. This is the perception I had when you called it political "sh#t."

It was named that for all of 30 seconds while I was moving threads. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Saunders, don't pretend you don't have an emotional stake or personal irritation surrounding politics and the spillover in forum or board. Your posts following the "sh#t" one made it pretty clear you feel this way. I don't think I need to quote them to prove that.

Besides, I'm not mad that you do find it to all to be irritating. Seriously, you're human (I think....

)

My point is simple - you appear to be making exceptions based off a personal grudge for a particular topic, and your first justification (and explanation) was a brief sentence that called it all "sh#t." Consider this my constructive criticism and we can leave it at that. Whether you agree with me or not or will take it under consideration is your prerogative.

 

[Redux]

You read what you want to read. I took it one way, you took it another. And in your confrontational way, you label me....again.

If you don't want people analyzing, criticizing, or (in your opinion) manipulating your perspective, then don't engage in the conversation in the first place, particularly if you're not willing or able to defend your assertions. This is an incredibly problematic method of message board interaction.
You can't claim disinterest in a conversation (or the resulting replies) when you willingly enter it, regardless of your intention or perceived lack of deference. It assuredly doesn't give the right to play victim.

This attitude is the equivalent of walking up to someone on the street, punching them in the face, and then running away while screaming "I don't really care to fight you!"

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something."

You're like a day late with this. I already said I'm going to do my damndest to not offer any opinions anymore. It's not worth the headache/shitshow/dogpile that follows.

 

[Redux]

Think about the absurdity of the sanctity of a thread called the "Douschebag Hall of Fame."

That thread has been a dumpster fire for ten years, but now we have to clean it up? Because people sympathetic to Trump or Republicans caught feelings? That's the dumbest part about all of this.

The fact you believe this is a big part of the problem with the political discussion around here.

 

[knapplc]

The problem with the political discussion around here is people bring feelings to a facts fight. You're not the worst at that, Redux, but you are one of the biggest contributors.

 

[Enhance]

I have a concern with a mod/admin appearing to get personally frustrated by a situation and then using their power to correct it while showing an air of disgust.

IDK, I think this has been on the horizon for quite awhile. Read through the last 20 pages of the DBHOF and notice all the comments from various posters about how it is being cluttered up with political BS. Off the top of my head, I know Paul Crewe and others have commented to that effect numerous times.

And I don't understand concern about a mod/admin appearing to be personally frustrated, correcting it, or showing an air of disgust about it. They are people just like the rest of us. And I would be the first in line to complain if I felt opinions were being censured or prevented. Or, is the real concern here that you feel it was done to stymie anti-Trump discussion? If that's the concern, that discussion is still here, readily accessible to all. I don't understand some people's preoccupation to keep the DBHOF pure but I really don't understand opposition to having a more targeted place for heated political discussion. Seems to me that everyone wins if the topics are kept more on topic.

He's human and I understand emotional investment. The problem, in my opinion, is when a mod/admin gives off the appearance that they're making a decision based on emotion. I don't think that's wise from an authoritative position.

Regardless, I don't fully disagree with Saunders' decision. I can see the arguments for and against what he did. I think he made a judgement call and I can respect that. I just didn't agree with the initial handling of it.

 

[Saunders]

I think you're reading a bit more into it than needed, but let's just call it the straw that broke the camels back. I read a fair amount of political coverage, even here, I just don't engage alot. Part of it is I don't have time, and other is that I try stick to topics I know. The healthcare stuff bothers the hell out of me, and my wife works in that industry, and her summary of the current AHCA is that it's a dumpster fire. It's going to screw over people we know, really, really bad.

I say we consider this the thread new home for when the P&R stuff spills into the non-woodshed (or P&R) areas. People have asked for it before, and IMO, it's been a long time coming. I hope it will serve the board best for when that stuff happens. The discussions can continue in here, and those that don't wanna engage don't have to.

 

[Enhance]

Fair enough, Saunders. As I said - I don't fully disagree with the decision. I disagreed with the way it unfolded.

I also believe this creates a fairly substantial gray area for what is and isn't supposed to go in the DBHOF, but, it is what is now.

 

[Saunders]

Fair enough, Saunders. As I said - I don't fully disagree with the decision. I disagreed with the way it unfolded.

I also believe this creates a fairly substantial gray area for what is and isn't supposed to go in the DBHOF, but, it is what is now.

Trust me, if we had a rulebook, it would make my job infinitely easier! Instead, all too often, it's like calling balls and strikes.

 

[zoogs]

I don't think there's any sanctity to the DBHOF. Many a discussion running through there over the years could have been split of. Usually they're left in the giant cluster. This has been a lengthy and pretty interesting debate so I don't mind at all that it's got its own thread, which isn't to say I think the DBHOF should now be policed for all political talk.

Also, the meta discussion of the thread splitting is legitimately disturbing to the sanctity of this erstwhile political discussion

 

[Enhance]

Fair enough, Saunders. As I said - I don't fully disagree with the decision. I disagreed with the way it unfolded.

I also believe this creates a fairly substantial gray area for what is and isn't supposed to go in the DBHOF, but, it is what is now.

Trust me, if we had a rulebook, it would make my job infinitely easier! Instead, all too often, it's like calling balls and strikes.

Does that mean I can snap a bat over my leg and threaten your mustache if I don't like a call?

Wait, you'll probably toss me.

Please don't.

 

[Saunders]

Fair enough, Saunders. As I said - I don't fully disagree with the decision. I disagreed with the way it unfolded.

I also believe this creates a fairly substantial gray area for what is and isn't supposed to go in the DBHOF, but, it is what is now.

Trust me, if we had a rulebook, it would make my job infinitely easier! Instead, all too often, it's like calling balls and strikes.

Does that mean I can snap a bat over my leg and threaten your mustache if I don't like a call?

Wait, you'll probably toss me.

Please don't.

Ha, joke's on you. I can't grow facial hair for sh#t.

Also, tie goes to the runner isn't an actual rule.

Don't @ me.

 

[JJ Husker]

The problem with the political discussion around here is people bring feelings to a facts fight. You're not the worst at that, Redux, but you are one of the biggest contributors.

Not to rekindle the fire but, sometimes a person may just want to express a feeling or an anecdotal story. Maybe political discussion should be nothing but facts 247 365 but, let's face it, that isn't always going to be the case. Many/Most of the disagreements we have here on HB stem from people basically agreeing but approaching the issue from slightly different angles. I don't think this problem will ever go away as long as we all have free will, unique ideas and a preference for how we approach any subject. And certainly we can't force others to behave only as we want them to. That would be a quite scary place.

Maybe some of the problem with political discussion around here is people failing to recognize when a comment is just a feeling or just a passing observation and want to turn it into a facts fight. IMO, that is exactly what happened in that status update. Redux made a comment, others wanted it to be a policy debate, Redux didn't want that, and then the fit hit the shan.