The Offending Posts Commentary Thread

knapplc said:
I guess I thought my rhetoric was not dissimilar to that of H1N1 and Dewiz and Ric Flair.  If referring to people as "idiots" for supporting Trump is beyond the pale, what do we call what they've been doing in P&R for the past two years?  Desirable rhetoric?
Click to expand...




I call it also not appropriate but for some inexplicable reason allowed. I guess in an attempt at being balanced or something. But pretty much everyone in P&R has devolved into hurling vague insults at 'sides' to some extent - it's just that most others also simultaneously offer solid contributions. Ric/Dewiz/et al almost exclusively offer trash, brainwashed lunacy and cancer.

 
I’m curious what was considered offensive about this post by Ric.

“Yeah, America loves losers. They especially love losers who fake their ancestry.”

I understand many of the other problems with some of his posts but what on earth was wrong with this one?

 
JJ Husker said:
I’m curious what was considered offensive about this post by Ric.

“Yeah, America loves losers. They especially love losers who fake their ancestry.”

I understand many of the other problems with some of his posts but what on earth was wrong with this one?
Click to expand...


Assuming the subtle Obama isn't American jab

 
JJ Husker said:
I’m curious what was considered offensive about this post by Ric.

“Yeah, America loves losers. They especially love losers who fake their ancestry.”

I understand many of the other problems with some of his posts but what on earth was wrong with this one?
Click to expand...




He also posted this:

Yeah, God forbid you have to run a white male.  :facepalm:

Beto’s a loser. His Hispanic sounding nickname makes him as much of a fraud as Elizabeth Warren.
Click to expand...




They're probably not by themselves worthy of a ban, but more of a last straw. He's been straddling the line with racism and sexism since he started posting here.

Also, the first line was a reply to me and was clearly a troll post. I had stated that the Democrats might need to nominate a White male for president, which I've posted before. Anyone with a brain can see that I think the necessity is unfortunate. Not that I think having a White male nominee is unfortunate, but he's trolling by pretending he thinks I'm against White males.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
He also posted this:

They're probably not by themselves worthy of a ban, but more of a last straw. He's been straddling the line with racism and sexism since he started posting here.

Also, the first line was a reply to me and was clearly a troll post. I had stated that the Democrats might need to nominate a White male for president, which I've posted before. Anyone with a brain can see that I think the necessity is unfortunate. Not that I think having a White male nominee is unfortunate, but he's trolling by pretending he thinks I'm against White males.
Click to expand...


I could find a hundred examples of things he’s posted that could be considered ban worthy. These two posts don’t begin to make the list. The gist of them may have been a little off color but if that is now the criteria.....

Suggesting the dems seem a little hesitant to support white males, not a terrible stretch given the source.

Calling a politician a loser. Not earth shattering.

Saying that Elizabeth Warren’s (a politician in the public eye) claim to Native American status is fake. That’s a highly defensible position given what we know now.

The worst thing in that whole deal is mentioning that his nickname sounds Hispanic and that makes him a fake but it if that is what passes as an openly racist and bannable statement now.....I don’t know what to say. Seems more like censorship of a certain ideology than an attempt to keep the discourse civil.

Like I say, I could give two sh#ts but P&R is already a pretty one-sided echo chamber. Ric is probably a bad example to offer up why that’s not a good thing but he was one of the very few remaining who began to give any kind of glimpse into another viewpoint in that forum. It may have been a flawed viewpoint but at least it was something different.

 
JJ Husker said:
I could find a hundred examples of things he’s posted that could be considered ban worthy. These two posts don’t begin to make the list. The gist of them may have been a little off color but if that is now the criteria.....

Suggesting the dems seem a little hesitant to support white males, not a terrible stretch given the source.

Calling a politician a loser. Not earth shattering.

Saying that Elizabeth Warren’s (a politician in the public eye) claim to Native American status is fake. That’s a highly defensible position given what we know now.

The worst thing in that whole deal is mentioning that his nickname sounds Hispanic and that makes him a fake but it if that is what passes as an openly racist and bannable statement now.....I don’t know what to say. Seems more like censorship of a certain ideology than an attempt to keep the discourse civil.

Like I say, I could give two sh#ts but P&R is already a pretty one-sided echo chamber. Ric is probably a bad example to offer up why that’s not a good thing but he was one of the very few remaining who began to give any kind of glimpse into another viewpoint in that forum. It may have been a flawed viewpoint but at least it was something different.
Click to expand...






You say you're not there much, so you probably don't know the details of what you're commenting on, especially with the "Seems more like censorship of a certain ideology" line. Ric was treated more than fair. He was given far more slack than any other poster in that forum, because of his ideology, as I see it. Anyone else posting the way he posted would have been gone much earlier, imho. MC was also deserving of a ban, but he was an a$$h@!e/idiot about 50% as often as Ric.

Also, bans aren't based on 1 post, and I already stated I didn't think the post was ban worthy. Ric was definitely deserving of a ban though, which you seem to already be stating. He almost assuredly wasn't banned for 1 post.

And I don't know if my post didn't make sense to you, or what, but the s#!tty thing about the White male post was that he was purposely trolling, which he did constantly. I don't give a f#&% what gender or race a person running for office is, and he was talking directly to me, a non-Democrat, not to Democrats in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
You say you're not there much, so you probably don't know the details of what you're commenting on, especially with the "Seems more like censorship of a certain ideology" line. Ric was treated more than fair. He was given far more slack than any other poster in that forum, because of his ideology, as I see it. Anyone else posting the way he posted would have been gone much earlier, imho. MC was also deserving of a ban, but he was an a$$h@!e/idiot about 50% as often as Ric.

Also, bans aren't based on 1 post, and I already stated I didn't think the post was ban worthy. Ric was definitely deserving of a ban though, which you seem to already be stating. He almost assuredly wasn't banned for 1 post.

And I don't know if my post didn't make sense to you, or what, but the s#!tty thing about the White male post was that he was purposely trolling, which he did constantly. I don't give a f#&% what gender or race a person running for office is, and he was talking directly to me, a non-Democrat, not to Democrats in general.
Click to expand...
You're right, I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't been in that forum much lately but I have seen enough to know he was given a plenty long leash. The censorship of ideology comment was probably way off base. But it can appear to be that way when the ratio of differing viewpoints is so lopsided. I don't agree with most of what he said or the way he said it but it did make that forum a bit more interesting to me. It gets pretty boring and stale to see the same 10 or 20 posters constantly lamenting the same subject and seemingly being in lockstep with each other. Unfortunately, and maybe because it's a mostly indefensible position, the very few who have tried representing the other side have been really poor at it and have come off like asshats.

 
JJ Husker said:
It gets pretty boring and stale to see the same 10 or 20 posters constantly lamenting the same subject and seemingly being in lockstep with each other.
Click to expand...




I agree entirely. Which is why it's such a shame that those on the right (at least on Huskerboard) seem to have such a higher propensity for being immature, trolling, unable to deal in facts, resorting to personal attacks and ad hominem defenses, etc. 

 
I skip about 2/3 of this board because the subject matter doesn't interest me.  Recruiting, Basketball, Other Husker Sports, Tech Central, The Outdoors, Contest Crib...

I suppose instead of just not reading it, I should spend my time in the Shed bitching about all the parts of the board that aren't my areas of interest.

Unless the problem isn't that you just don't like it, it's that your opinions aren't supported there.  And that's more of a you problem than a P&R problem.

 
Landlord said:
I agree entirely. Which is why it's such a shame that those on the right (at least on Huskerboard) seem to have such a higher propensity for being immature, trolling, unable to deal in facts, resorting to personal attacks and ad hominem defenses, etc. 
Click to expand...


That's decidedly not exclusive to this board.

I'd love it if we had some articulate, reasonable folks who prefer truly conservative solutions to society's problems to kick around ideas they like in P&R. A lot of us may not really get exposed to them otherwise and we could then debate them on the merits. They could advocate for ideas and others could provide skepticism when appropriate. Maybe they could change some minds.

The problem is the conservative movement itself as a whole is rapidly devolving into what you described. I know for a fact that doesn't describe all conservatives because I've heard people who buck the trend. But the problem is it does describe the guy in the driver's seat and everything rolls downhill. Chances are if you meet a self-described conservative on the street they're more likely to be that way than not.

 
JJ Husker said:
You're right, I probably don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't been in that forum much lately but I have seen enough to know he was given a plenty long leash. The censorship of ideology comment was probably way off base. But it can appear to be that way when the ratio of differing viewpoints is so lopsided. I don't agree with most of what he said or the way he said it but it did make that forum a bit more interesting to me. It gets pretty boring and stale to see the same 10 or 20 posters constantly lamenting the same subject and seemingly being in lockstep with each other. Unfortunately, and maybe because it's a mostly indefensible position, the very few who have tried representing the other side have been really poor at it and have come off like asshats.
Click to expand...


It's also a problem that they people cranking out "conservative" policy nowadays have done a demonstrably sh#tty, dishonest job. 

So much of what conservative intellectualism has become now is just Trump apologism, reverse engineering a veneer of high-mindedness to paste over the talking points of the day, claiming victimhood/persecution at the hands of broader society and earning bonus points for who can trigger the libs the most that it's become really hard to defend modern conservatism with a straight face. 

They're the dog that caught the milk truck and now they're just along for the ride.

Moreover, I've never felt Ric, Bnil, Dewiz, etc. have ever been in there operating in good faith, except for very rare occasions. They generally pop in to be contrarian, drop some talking points, and refuse to budge an inch when presented with counterarguments. The rest of us probably are guilty of that at times, but not to the same extent. But then are they going in there to have a reasonable conversation or push a specific agenda?

 
Back
Top