To answer Perrie's question -

1stwarrior
By:  @1stwarrior, 5 months ago
Comments: 301 ..

Tags

Perrie's comment - 

This is not what Perrie envisioned when she started NT but, surprisingly, she won't stop them - not because of the shit they constantly throw, but because . . . . . . . . . .

I want NT back to what it was intended for.

But because what?

Do you even know why I started NT? 

Please enlighten me. 

My response -

OK, very easy to do - when NT started, I was asked by a number of people to come over from NV and be a "Moderator" to help this growing blog continue to be a friendly place to visit, talk and discuss - totally unlike NV.

Initially, NT was a nice friendly place to visit, talk and discuss - initially, which is what we were all told NT was designed for.

However, in the past 12 to 18 months, a number of the NV rejects/banned members have gotten a foothold on the Front Page and you can just friggin' forget about "a nice friendly place to visit, talk and discuss."  Their goal is to rag everybody who doesn't side with them to death.  They call names, they ALWAYS derail a discussion so they can control the flow of the thread, they have been reported to the ONE moderator and, actually, occasionally, they receive a slap on the wrist or maybe even a two day suspension (Whoopdeeeeedooooooo).

YOU have been asked a number of times why those folks haven't been/aren't banned and your response has been - "I don't ban anyone 'cause that's not what this site is about."

When the "boys" start slamming people with personal insults, purple penning them without SERIOUS time off hasn't/won't do shit to bring NT's membership back up to the 700+ that we "used" to have.  Those "boys" have cost us (NT) membership and they will continue to do so unless they actually start receiving real penalties for their piss-poor attitudes/attacks on other members.

So - no, NT ain't like it was when we started because a couple of "boys" are dominating the entire Front Page with pure bullshit and bullying - and people are leaving and will continue to leave until it stops.

You can't be the only moderator.  If the other five don't want the job, find someone else who will 'cause you're only one person and you have too much of your plate to be chasing after ambulances.

In a nutshell, that's what I was led to believe the "new" NT was going to be.

Now, I realize I'm going to receive a lot of flack - probably even be asked to take this thread down - but this particular issue needs to be brought up and discussed.

MY RED BOX RULE - STAY ON TOPIC OR STAY OFF THIS THREAD - 'BOUT AS SIMPLE AS IT NEEDS TO BE.

Flagging unavailable
1stwarrior
link 12/16/16 11:45:08PM @1stwarrior:

If you can't discuss the thread, stay away - we don't need additional BS being thrown about.

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 12:06:10AM @nowhere-man:

I would have to say your right on the money, and it hasn't been the last year or so, it has been a couple of years now that this has taken place.

The sad thing is she knows it.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 12:14:22AM @cerenkov:

It's a hard line to walk. Some of the liberal spammers here are driving the site down.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 12:19:16AM @perrie-halpern:

And there it is. Because what is really being said is that it's all the liberals faults. Ironically, I get it the other way around too. Maybe the word is fair, that we should be looking for. My job here is to be fair. Does it meet X criteria or not. It really is that simple. 

And for the record, we have lost some really nice liberals over some really rude conservatives. Did I let them ruin the site too?

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 12:28:56AM @cerenkov:

No. Conservatives are perfect. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 12:29:20AM @nowhere-man:

Of course not, the rude conservative are just as bad as the rude liberals.

The issue is they think they have the right.

And by all accounts, they do.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:00:17AM @1stwarrior:

Actually NWM, it's not the rude liberals or the rude conservatives.  It's the rude people who believe the computer is the perfect place to hide and spill their disdain for any and everything behind their cloak of invisibility and protection.

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 12:58:28PM @nowhere-man:

Agreed, those whose only purpose is to disrupt and destroy.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 01:00:30PM @johnrussell:

How about blowhard? What about people whose only purpose is to blowhard? 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:26:52PM @perrie-halpern:

And John how does that add to this discussion? In fact, it is a rather ironic comment. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 01:40:49PM @nowhere-man:

Actually sweets, it kinda like a badge of honor.

It means you have made your point so well that he has no response other than one word.

Reducing John to one word.

Now that is an accomplishment.

And, his response is either an admission that he knows that he is responsible, or, a paranoid delusion that we are all blaming him.

But what would we be without John?

At least we know what to expect with him. He does highlight the liberal positions quite well for them to be destroyed in place by others.

And besides, he's become like a pet around here. Lovable little thing.

Don't go too hard on him....

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 06:10:33PM @1stwarrior:

Looking in the mirror again John?

Why don't/won't you actually discuss the topic and quit being an antagonizer?

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:29:48AM @perrie-halpern:

Ist, you wanted some answers and I will give them to you. 

First of all, the site predates most of you by years. Of all the members here, Mac, Larry, Krish, Petey Jonathan, Buzz, Bob, Randy, Gene, Mike and even though he joined 6 mo laters... Bruce are the only original members. The site was started because NV was going after people they didn't like. First my original partner Dana was fraudulently banned from NV, and when we all protested (Mac the loudest), they went after Mac, by inventing a new code 5a overnight and without notice to the NV community. Everyone was outraged and everyone said they were going to do something about it, but after waiting a month, nothing happened, so I started NV with Dana. 

Then Dana and I had a falling out. She started to do the very thing we left NV over. Banning people on her whim. First Bob, when she had a fight with him over the a weekend I was away over a difference of opinion, and then she went after wmolaw/Terry. When I wouldn't let her ban him for the same kind of fight she had with Bob, and then she got nasty to Bruce (I won't repeat what she called him) and I took his side, she quit NT and started Stew & Brew, with Relentless Comedy... and Gene, left with her then. 

The site was supposed to be a refuge for free speech, something I felt was limited at NV. Our first members, for the most part were conservatives, who were banned from NV for being nothing more than conservatives. Now being that I am an independent, I felt a bit like a fish out of water, but I wanted to stay true our roots of free speech. So when I read that the people who were banned came here, I have to laugh, since it was conservatives that were coming over by the droves. John was the first liberal to come here, and he came on his own, not because he was banned.   Slowly people who were unhappy with life on NV came over, and I never asked what their political affiliation was or if they were banned or not.  

Now when the site first started we had "The 5 Simple Rules". The idea was that we would treat each other like we were at a dinner party and bring those manners. But then there was the fact that NV allowed cursing... and Bruce joined and the language only became more colorful.. and we soon realized that with adults that wasn't going to work. The site was always dedicated to the members and so we did our first meta article about what the rules we thought should be and after that, wmolaw, Bruce and I drafted our first real CoC. It looked pretty much like the one we have now, but shorter. We also figured out how to moderate after trying several attempts at various methods that failed. Tll today, I will tell you that both Bruce and Randy, as a team, were our first real mods and did an amazing job. Since then I felt it was important to try and have the full spectrum on the mod team. It helped give us each persepective. 

When NV decided to go with "Nations", we had a large influx of members. Some came because of the format change, and others came because we offered groups, both private and open, which NV didn't have anymore. 

Which brings me to this.. some of those questions and comment 1st made:

However, in the past 12 to 18 months, a number of the NV rejects/banned members have gotten a foothold on the Front Page

To my knowledge, there is not an active member here that has been banned within the last 3 years from NV. In fact, the bulk of our members still post on both. 

They call names, they ALWAYS derail a discussion so they can control the flow of the thread, they have been reported to the ONE moderator and, actually, occasionally, they receive a slap on the wrist or maybe even a two day suspension (Whoopdeeeeedooooooo).

The derailment happens from both sides of the political spectrum. Furthermore, 3 months ago I started a sliding scale of suspensions. Most people usually fall in line after 1, 2 day suspension for at least a while. And even with that, I am constantly accused of favoring one side or the other... But my job here is to keep order... not to be the warden. 

Now we never had 700 members at anyone time. We actually have over 1,000, they just don't show on the member list. But that aside, people come and go. 

And we do ban... but the crime must be terrible, like death-wishing of disclosing private info on the site. But the issue really boils down to this. The election cycle brought out the worst in people, and maybe that is why you say it seems to have gotten worse over the last year. But you are going to have to sit down and ask yourselves this question when you complain about the front page... do you really want censorship? Who decides what belongs on the front page? I think you will find that question rather troubling... since what 1 person would find objectionable, another will not and vice versa. 

To that end, there will be changes at NT, but not in the way of censorship.. but with the groups. This way there will be a place for everyone. 

And yes, I would love to find other mods, but the job is hard and thankless and you have to be able to work as a team. That is not always possible and I have lost members over moderation. Being the bad guy is hard to do... and even understanding what I do is even harder, and add to that a thick skin and the right temperament and it is really hard to find, so I wish I could wave a wand and get more, but it doesn't work that way. 

Anyway, this will be my only post for the evening. I have had a lot of stuff going on in my real life and I am pooped. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:47:14AM @1stwarrior:

Perrie - I have and always will admire your strength, unbiasness and dedication to NT.  You have and are doing an extremely admirable job.  But, as others mention below, you can not run the site by yourself.  I mean, my gawd, you have a life of your own that this site totally interferes with.  Obviously your family supports you in your endeavors or else we wouldn't be up and running.

You can't be expected to sooth all the ills being pushed 'cause, as Bruce and Randy have said, everybody has their own direction and, unfortunately, you have taken on the task of attempting to herd cats.

There are others on this site that have a dominance thing and they have to push it.  Well, true, that is human nature.  But what they don't seem to understand is that EVERYONE has their own opinion and, given the opportunity, they would like to express it without the fear of getting their azzzez kicked and ridiculed because a dominant soul doesn't like which direction the discussion is going.

Freedom of speech is a great thing and it's a wonderful gift.  But, as SCOTUS has stated, speech is free as long as you don't start putting boundaries on what others can say and as long as you don't target someone in a harmful manner.  The targeting of free speech on NT has gotten way out of hand and is becoming harmful as PJ mentions below.  Many times it appears that a few of the members have nothing more that an angst against any walking, talking thing and they have to spew their hate, disdain, anger and frustrations AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE and not discuss the topic/thread/seed/article.

I will never ridicule others 'til, as my people say, I've walked a mile in their moccasins and then my "ridicule" will be done in the way, again, of my people, as an attempt to educate - gently, softly, cautiously.  There are others on NT who already educate that way - and it pizzes the hell out of the dominant ones so they go after them in a very big way.

You will always have my support and I just ask for your support in trying to get others to start working on/with a level playing field.  As Bruce stated - there no longer seems to be a mutual "Hun" for all to band together on - and we've seriously forgotten that and have replaced our "warring" against the "Hun" of folks we don't agree with.

Thanks Perrie.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:28:47PM @perrie-halpern:

1st I hear everyone and that is why I am in the middle of some major function changes here on NT. I think it will solve a lot of what people are complaining about. Like anything new, there will be an adjustment period, before we know if it works, but I do believe it will... given what I have read here. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Aeonpax
link 01/02/17 10:33:43AM @aeonpax:

`

"And for the record, we have lost some really nice liberals over some really nude conservatives."

Flagging unavailable
 
Dean Moriarty
link 01/02/17 10:39:02AM @dean-moriarty:

Welcome back 😎

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 01/02/17 10:39:58AM @sixpick:

Yea, and rude ones too.  Just kidding. Nice to see you AeonPax.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 01/02/17 12:39:32PM @1stwarrior:

Good to see you again Aeon - Happy New Year's.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 01/02/17 02:56:54PM @dowser:

Good to see you, Aeon!!!  Welcome home!

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/17/16 12:34:42AM @df:

Cerenkov: I wouldn't limit the comment to liberals only.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 12:43:34AM @cerenkov:

I concur.

Flagging unavailable
 
KatPen
link 12/16/16 11:54:43PM @katpen:

What a hard job Perrie has!  I admire her for her hard work and her sense of .....geeze..... what's the opposite of censorship?    I truly do not know where that "fine line" of balance is between fairness and letting the hateful comments continue.  I do agree she does need "real" help.  The other Mods can help but as I understand it Perrie has "the final word".   (I may be dead wrong about that.)

I do not know the answer, but I do support Perrie and her years of labor of love for this site and its members.  

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:48:20AM @1stwarrior:

You're right Kat - and Perrie walks a very, very fine line conducting her moderation.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/17/16 12:05:39AM @df:

I've been saying this same exact thing for a couple year now. and every one here knows it including Perrie.  She cannot handle this alone. I have told her this.  The problem is that those that you mentioned, 1st. (not by name), bully the moderators so they quit moderating. and also some times the moderation is a little bias.  It would be hard to find some one that the bullying and confrontation does not bother. The penalties are way too light. for those that are constantly getting them.  They play the system, they game the penalties.  I thank you for bringing this up as I quit bring this up do to a sore head from the brick wall. Sorry Perrie, but that is what I feel when trying to discuss this with you.  and now that some one else has brought it up maybe just maybe you may listen,  not talk or argue, but listen to what your membership is saying. 

This problem is on all sides of the coin. some times we get dragged into the fray unintentionally.  Some times we just get pissed off at the bullies, name callers and the stalking that goes on.  Hey we are human and we do have our feelings that do get ruffled.   And a lot of time that ruffling is on purpose trying to get some one to break the CoC and get vacation time. 

So I think this article is a good opportunity for ALL to civilly discuss this topic.  No name calling, no names need be used as we all know whom we are talking about any way.

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 12/17/16 01:23:44AM @ttga:

My dear friend Perrie,

There's a reason this comment is placed where it is.  Think about it (did you really think he was acting alone)?  I won't say much right now; but you were told several years back, "deal harshly with the trolls or there will be a war" (by harshly, I mean, warn them once, then BAN THEIR ASSES).  You called it a "personality conflict" and chose to deal with it leniently.  You now have a war on your hands.  Nobody wanted it. The trolls hoped to win without it and we hoped it wouldn't be necessary.  We were both wrong; and now, I fear that you are stuck with the results.  I hate that, but the choice was yours.  Sometimes, being a badass at the beginning stops small problems before they become big problems.

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 01:30:35AM @nowhere-man:

And she already knows this.

Remember, in one of those Meta articles she posted an example of a political forum's rules that maintained a civil atmosphere on that forum.

But said rules were draconian to say the least. (and soundly rejected by the membership)

I posted the example of Ars Technica, which were also a bit on the draconian side, but effective and just as rejected.

It is not all Perrie's fault this forum is the way it is.

But there does come a point in time where you learn to take the bull by the horns or the bull winds up crapping all over the place.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:50:33AM @1stwarrior:

Exactly Rock - you HAVE to play the heavy sometimes for the betterment of all.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:36:49PM @perrie-halpern:

What you guys don't take into consideration, is if I got as "hard" as you are asking of me, I would be banning about 50% of the membership at this point. How productive would that be? Sorry, as a teacher, I was never one of those who threw the kid outside of the class, to get them to behave. It served no purpose, other than to get them out of my sight. I would much rather do my job and mold a good student then discard them. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 01:50:03PM @nowhere-man:

Problem is the people your dealing with on the board have been out of class for a very long time. They know the score already.

Classroom guidance isn't nearly as effective as it needs to be.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/17/16 01:53:07PM @df:

I don't think any one is saying to ban anyone, Perrie.  I believe that they are saying your punishment for offenders, including me, is too soft.  Many that get those vacations just laugh at them.  But longer vactaions for 2nd and third offenses should be much harsher. I suggest that we have our annual voting on those punishments.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 06:13:21PM @1stwarrior:

I was never one of those who threw the kid outside of the class, to get them to behave.

True Perrie, but you sure as hell don't let them graduate until they learn how to play nice.

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 12:19:25PM @sixpick:

student

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/18/16 03:44:48PM @nowhere-man:

Wow! she did exactly what I would teach my granddaughter to do in the same situation.

That was not teaching.....

I'm surprised she didn't give him a bit more. (but then she is only ten or twelve)

Perfect response to bullying, you don't have to stand there and take it, that girl is going to go far...

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 07:10:37PM @hal-a-lujah:

Ttga - you wouldn't know a troll if it sold you a suspension bridge.

Flagging unavailable
 
Steve Ott
link 12/17/16 12:23:18AM @steve-ott:

So it has been some time since I have been on here I know, but I have been a member for several years. A nice, safe public space is a nice thought, but the only way to maintain it is to fight at some point. 

There are two ways to fight trolls, ignore them, or beat the shit out of them. Perhaps I need to post articles myself to see what kind of flak I would get. But when I ask them questions directly in threads, I very seldom get answers. Probably because I ask them to defend statements they have made, they really aren't into that. A trolls skin usually isn't all that thick, mine is. 

The only way to make a safe space on the interwebs is to make it private, and even then, at some point, a light will be shone on it.

The only thing I really know about life is this, make a stand or get out of the way.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:52:17AM @1stwarrior:

Or as we used to say in the Marines - lead, follow or get out of the way.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/17/16 01:49:41PM @df:

Boy did you white wash that saying 1st.

"lead follow or get the f out of the way."

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/17/16 12:58:41AM @sixpick:

Personally I think tending this site is like being a teacher in a rowdy classroom of first graders.  I believe some people wake up in the morning and all they want to do is fight all day.  Now it takes the first person to start this fighting and the Lord knows I've done my share, but not too long ago I started thinking it wasn't worth it and decided to not take everything as seriously as I've been guilty of in the past, since I don't know a single person I've swayed over to my way of thinking in all these years.  I bet you can say the same thing.

I understand some people are really upset over the election results, but it is what it is and it's kind of like stepping in some poop.  It's too late now.  We can come up with all kinds of reasons it turned out the way it did and all of them can be right, but we're not going to change anything.

I suggest everyone take a look at yourselves and realize no one is forcing you to participate in an article.  You don't see any guns aimed at you on the Front Page, do you?

Here's the problem.  When you fuss and fight all day it makes you sick, hurts your stomach or in some cases it makes you laugh, but you start to build up a hatred of other members on the site and it's kind of hard to rid yourself of these feelings once they've set in.

We don't act anything like adults should act.  We act like unruly children.  Perrie isn't in the best of health either and I honestly don't know how she does it.  I couldn't put up with all this crap day in and day out every day with all the technical problems that arise as well.

I'd take articles that started getting too hot and move them to "Heated Discussions" and forget about them.  We'd still have our "Speak Your Mind".  I think you'd find some of the problems would vanish very soon.  The seeders would be nicer to the people commenting on their articles and the commenters would probably hold back as well.

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:39:17PM @perrie-halpern:

Great post Six.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/18/16 11:25:25AM @johnrussell:

Sixpick has posted hundreds of false articles videos and comments to this site. Although I don't have any desire to fight with him, I don't see him deserving of any praise either. If the regular posting of lies is allowed to continue, it will not only destroy Newstalkers, it will destroy forums like this across the board. 

I am not talking about censorship, I am talking about an open acknowledgement by people, who "don't want to get involved" that this is a major issue in America today. 

Politifact just named "fake news" the Lie Of The Year for 2016. Last year it was the collected statements of Donald Trump. 

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 12:30:03PM @sixpick:

Thanks for being there for me John.

You know I had a choice.  Your choice wasn't so bad, but I had a choice too.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/18/16 12:37:43PM @johnrussell:

You should have thought of that when you were posting all those false articles and videos. 

Someone posted this video on another seed a day or two ago. It reminded me of the time you posted it on Newstalkers a few years ago

 

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 02:08:56PM @sixpick:

Yea, that was a pretty good one, wasn't it?

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Newsweek-Obama-Gay-President.jpg

 

 

 

Newsweek


leftcenter01

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

Notes: Newsweek is an American weekly news magazine founded in 1933.  Over the last few years it’s content has shifted more to the left.  If this trend continues this source may move to Left bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Did you see the Larry Sinclair video?  It was something else.

So where do we go from here?

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 12:29:23PM @sixpick:

Thanks Perrie.  I think the mold is beginning to set.

Flagging unavailable
 
Kavika
link 12/17/16 01:00:27AM @kavika:

Most articles on the FP are political in nature. Both liberal and conservative and the other side pisses all over them. That is a fact.

Non political articles don't last on FP for long. Again that is a fact.

If you want to keep it civil, don't post political articles because they won't say civil.

If you want to change the front page, and don't like the political slant of the FP, post something that is of interest to you. Whether it stays for more than 5 minutes is another matter all together.

Your other choice is to stick to a group that has the type of articles you like or want to discuss. There are a number of groups on NT you can choose from, or start your own.  

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Enoch
link 12/17/16 10:44:59AM @enoch:

Dear Friend Krav Maga: Good points. Many good points have been raised in this article.

Here is some food for thought.

As a site which talks about news, there will be a lot of political articles and seeds. Mostly seeds. 

The front page doesn't see many non-political articles on there for very long. They rapidly get crowded out. Those wishing to be taken seriously need to first take others seriously. There is no credibility in the alternative.

Greedy crowding out wins no friends and merits no consideration. No one who is closed to others has any right to ask others to be open to them. Share share, that's fair.

Selfish isn't generous of spirit. The latter rules the day for the greater good of the site.  

More articles of varied topics which unite rather than divide is part of the answer.

There are limits to how many articles a specific author may contribute in a defined time span. How about a limit on article types? Diversity is part of nature. Let's diversify with more topics. 

There is too much name calling and too may personal attacks. When an article or seed is presented for discussion, let's discuss. Address ideas, don't attack others. 

The less infantile adults act, the fewer Moderators will be needed, and less often at that. 

For years now you and I as brothers in spirit have co-authored pieces of advocacy, humor, culture, and heritage. It has been a most rewarding experience for us both. The comments in our joint ventures reflect that when quality is provided, site members and visitors rise to the event. Quality begets quality. And vice versa.

Over the years, other joint article I co-authored with Al-316, Raven Wing, Grisham, Vlad's Dog, Arch Man and many others (most recently with Katpen) have shown the following.

Where there is mutual respect, warmth, content, quality of writing, and encouraging others to participate, learn from and teach each other in a mode of fellowship good things result.

We need more collaborative efforts centering on what unites. not what divides. On what inspires, not what puts down. On being helpful, not hurtful. Its called growing up and being an adult.

We don't always need to agree on everything or even many things to find common ground. We do need to be open to it, and work with and from it. 

Onward and upward.

Peace and Abundant Blessings to One and All.

Enoch.        

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 10:52:05AM @johnrussell:

The problem that Newstalkers has , I think more than any other, is that the number of people who regularly contribute to the forum is small. And to compound that issue, many people insist on making 10 or 15 comments on one article, and the 'debate' soon becomes highly repetitive, and worse, clogs up the flow of topics on the front page, giving the illusion that a few topics dominate. People should try to move on from a seed after they have made a few comments expressing their opinion about it. 

I have seeded many non political topics. Over the years I am sure I have seeded more non political topics than anyone here. The majority of them are lucky to get two or three comments, some of them don't get any. It is hardly worth the trouble. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 10:08:08PM @cerenkov:

"People should try to move on from a seed after they have made a few comments expressing their opinion about it. "

I think it's more an issue about how the FP is organized. If it just displayed the last dozen or so seeds commented on...

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 10:59:33AM @1stwarrior:

Respect Enoch - respect.  So absolutely, perfectly true.

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/17/16 06:59:08PM @xxjefferson51:

What some refer to as the front page is really the news and politics page.  It is one of a dozen or so titled topic pages available.  About 90% of what is seeded on NT outside of individuals groups is seeded on the news and politics page.  Sometimes things get seeded there even if it were better related to one of the other pages , for fear it would get ignored there.  If people not wanting current events and politics seeded their articles to a more related page and discussed it there those pages would gain traction and those not wanting to dwell on politics would bypass the stuff that frustrates them.  

 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 01:01:23AM @johnrussell:

What was Perrie's question?

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/17/16 01:07:24AM @sixpick:

Got me?

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:00:18AM @1stwarrior:

Read the intro John - quite as plain as day.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 01:20:17AM @johnrussell:

Most current events discussion forums that I have seen do not allow seeds from Infowars. It is amazing how the simple act of getting rid of that and similar trash elevates the tone of a forum. Here there has been a dedication to a so called right to free speech (that does not exist on a private forum) so we are left to find our way through a toxic dump of false claims, conspiracy theories, constant nonsense, and endless drivel passed off as "humor". There probably is no way out, to be honest about it.

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 12/17/16 01:44:11AM @ttga:

Most current events discussion forums that I have seen do not allow seeds from Infowars. It is amazing how the simple act of getting rid of that and similar trash elevates the tone of a forum.

John,

This right here says that YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.  If you can't stop your constant war against Inforwars, then you are part of the problem.  You must stop that or you will suffer the fate of the rest. (ie. you will be destroyed along with the rest of the trolls.)  That's too bad because you have many other things to offer.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 09:39:33AM @johnrussell:

Most current events discussion forums that I have seen do not allow seeds from Infowars. It is amazing how the simple act of getting rid of that and similar trash elevates the tone of a forum.

John,

This right here says that YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.  If you can't stop your constant war against Inforwars, then you are part of the problem.  You must stop that or you will suffer the fate of the rest. (ie. you will be destroyed along with the rest of the trolls.)  That's too bad because you have many other things to offer.

 

I don't generally take advice from far right delusionals. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:03:50AM @1stwarrior:

I don't generally take advice from far right delusionals. 

And therein lies a large part of the problem.  Not only do you not "take advice", but you, for the most part, have no idea of how to give advice without denigrating or degrading the author or source.  Discussion of a topic?????  BBBBRRRRUUUUUHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA.  Yeah - that's your largest inability - discussing a topic.  Your strongest suit???  Attacking - attacking - attacking - the source or the author (point made in your comment to Rock).

Not very helpful John - not very helpful.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 11:09:19AM @johnrussell:

We have people here who regularly want to "discuss" information that is in reality provable nonsense. Of course I am not going to "discuss" whether or not Hillary Clinton is hiding 14 different fatal illnesses. etc. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:24:26AM @1stwarrior:

that is in reality provable nonsense.

Provable by whom John?  Just you??  Because they don't match your cutting board, does that make them false?

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 01:57:30PM @perrie-halpern:

John,

The advice that TTGA gave had nothing to do with politics or anything else. It is about the site. Take it in the way that it was meant. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
link 12/17/16 11:03:34AM @sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom:

Most current events discussion forums that I have seen do not allow seeds from Infowars.

While I acknowledge that you possess above-average intelligence, it would be lovely if you could recognize that trait in others.  There are several 'media' outlets that produce an abundance of silly shit on a daily basis.  However, I truly believe that most NT community members are clever enough to decipher the difference.  I also believe that the community members who seed the above-mentioned silly shit, are 100% aware that it is silly shit, and are looking for a bite.  Personally speaking, if I have doubts about the origin of a seeded article in which I am interested, or by which I am appalled, mortified, disgusted, befuddled, or just plain pissed-off, it only takes a few seconds of research to learn the truth.  Wouldn't you prefer caveat emptor  over censorship?

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 11:07:22AM @johnrussell:

Self-censorship for the good of the forum would do the trick. 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 11:11:23AM @johnrussell:

Sister, we have someone who wants to promote anarchy. The easiest and most fun way to do that is to regularly seed disinformation. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:20:56AM @1stwarrior:

it would be lovely if you could recognize that trait in others.

Not everyone is the same - and it's a damn good thing.  When we discuss with others, we "should" be expressing our ideas with the expectation that others will understand that those are OUR ideas - not theirs.

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/17/16 01:23:04AM @sixpick:

Most current events discussion forums that I have seen do not allow seeds from Infowars.

John, I don't think it is the articles themselves as much as it is all the comments below the article that is the problem.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 01:28:42AM @johnrussell:

If you didn't have the articles then there would be no comments below them.

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 01:38:25AM @nowhere-man:

So lets eliminate all articles from Salon, which is about the same level as Infowars on the opposite side....

Just so we have an appreciation for the slippery slope.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 09:35:32AM @johnrussell:

Infowars has an article on it's site this morning which claims that the entire Russian hacking story is a hoax. "It never happened" Alex Jones says in the video. 

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/17/16 07:13:40PM @xxjefferson51:

Slippery slope. Besides if you banned a conservative site, one could go to that site read an article they like and then find where else the article might have been picked up and seed it from the other site.  I remember from my NV days when I'd seed something from Fox News or NewMax and wait in place for a left winger to attack the source which was inevitable and then I'd paste the same article directly from AP or Reuters, which I already had.  They when confronted demanded I censor myself to using their msm.  

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/17/16 01:43:51AM @sixpick:

Amazing.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:26:40AM @1stwarrior:

Spoken like a true closed minded person.

John - EVERYONE has an opinion and that is their right and privilege.  Just because it doesn't match yours, doesn't make it a "worthless piece of shit" as you as so apt of saying.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 11:42:10AM @johnrussell:

Cynical and anarchic disinformation is not worthy of "discussion". 

I have spent hours debunking conspiracy and nutjob theories on this site. What have you done to oppose disinformation and conspiracy theories? 

Flagging unavailable
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link 12/17/16 02:31:45PM @perrie-halpern:

Let me put this to bed about sources. 

The only kind of source that is not allowed are those that are knowingly fake and they can't be posted in the News & Politics section. They can be posted in the satire section. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to have a litmus test, since the internet is always evolving, and we would have to make a mile long list (and agree upon it) of recognized sources, which is totally undoable. 

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 02:50:00PM @johnrussell:

all you are doing is enabling constant nonsense on your site

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:36:06AM @1stwarrior:

And, what is your remedy for it John?

Flagging unavailable
 
#MAGA!
link 12/17/16 01:38:46AM @therealbruce:

Well.  Allow me to opine.

I'm sitting here watching the movie 1941.  It's at the part where the riot is gong on at the dance hall.  Army fighting Navy fighting Marines fighting Zoot Suits.  Until Motor Sgt Frank Tree reminds everyone that they are on the same side, and the real enemy is the Lousy Hun.  Then the air raid siren galvanizes everyone into action.

Now, it kinda reminds me of what's going on here.  We have Liberals fighting Conservatives fighting Libertarians fighting...well..fighting each other.  Now unfortunately we don't have a common enemy like the Lousy Hun.  But we should.  Our common enemy should be ignorance. 

We're supposed to be fighting ignorance.  We post articles and should debate the merits.  Instead, we attack the source.  We post opinions and should debate the concepts.  Instead, we attack the author. 

I've watch this site grow into the mess it is now.  I've seen excellent debate devolve into personal attacks designed to belittle a person and his or her party. 

I remember when we debated opinions.  And then we started debating the facts those opinions were based on.  And that's okay.  Until we started dismissing facts because of the source.  And then we dismissed the member because of his source.

And that's where we fail.  Because we can't fight the ignorance if we fight the person. 

Now, It's not a Liberal thing.  It's not a Conservative thing.  It's not a Libertarian, or a Christian, or an Athiest, or a Native American, or a Jewish thing.  WE'RE ALL GUILTY of it.

We go into an article and instead of comment on the article, or someone's comment, we have to denigrate the person for making the comment.  How does that help?

I've kinda backed off of my involvement of late.  The reason is simple.  You people have lost the ability to debate.  I come on the site every few days or so, and look through the articles on the front page.  There may be one or two that catch my eye, and I'll read them.  Sometimes I'll comment.  But most of the time, I'll just read the comments and think to myself:  "Moron".  Or "What a dumbass".  In the past, I would have put those thoughts in writing.  But for the most part, I just let them slip by.

Which is what I suggest many of you start doing.  Being a member of NT does not carry a requirement to comment on every article.  Which means you are not required to make comments about how stupid an article is, or it's source, or how this member or that member's contributions to the site are lowering the overall IQ.  Honestly, many of you who do this should carry around a potted plant to replace the oxygen you are wasting.  Because you do the site no good with comments like that.  You don't add to the discussion, and you are not contributing to the fight against ignorance.

As for Perrie and her moderation.  She is not biased.  She does exactly as she says.  She looks at a comment, compares it to the simple matrix of our CoC, and responds accordingly.  Very few times has she gotten it wrong in my opinion.

Just recently I made a comment where I called a member a Jackoff, Needledicked Bug Fucker, Shithead Liberal Dickcheese.  Was that a CoC violation?  You bet your sweet ass it was.  I knew it when I posted it.  I just wish she had left it up long enough for the other member to see it.  The point is, I KNEW it was a violation.  And I'm pretty sure that every other swinging dick and split tail on this site knows when they have posted a CoC violation.

So lay off of Perrie, and how she moderates.  If you have a problem with how it's done, then volunteer to be a moderator.  If you think the standard you're held to now is high, be a moderator for a while. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Nowhere Man
link 12/17/16 01:44:12AM @nowhere-man:

Excellent advice Bruce. Everyone knows it when they do it.

 "If you think the standard you're held to now is high, be a moderator for a while."

Been there done that, not high enough for me..

Flagging unavailable
 
Kavika
link 12/17/16 02:08:45AM @kavika:

Bruce, I agree with you on the moderation by Perrie. IMO, that isn't what this article is really about. It's more of, ''I don't like the other side'' article.

Human nature what it is, will rarely allow, in a political debate, a civil conversation. Each side has their POV, and rarely will that change.

Attacking the source or the author is done on a regular basis. In some case the source is really the problem, other times it's seeder/author. There are members that simply don't like other members and they can't but help but attack the source/seeder/author no matter what is posted. And they get attacked back by the seeder/author.

I don't believe that is going to change no matter what. It is what it is. The unending number of articles that are political on the FP dominate it, which leads to what this article is all about.

If a person doesn't like the article posted, don't read the damn thing or comment on it.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:40:50AM @1stwarrior:

Kavika - where do you get the impression that this thread is saying "I don't like the other side"??

NV rejects/banned members have gotten a foothold on the Front Page and you can just friggin' forget about "a nice friendly place to visit, talk and discuss."  Their goal is to rag everybody who doesn't side with them to death.  They call names, they ALWAYS derail a discussion so they can control the flow of the thread, they have been reported to the ONE moderator and, actually, occasionally, they receive a slap on the wrist or maybe even a two day suspension (Whoopdeeeeedooooooo).

Nothing in that text says "other side" - it says rude, crude and socially unacceptable badgering and bullying by some folks who need to be taken under control.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 07:59:52AM @hal-a-lujah:

"We're supposed to be fighting ignorance." 

"I've seen excellent debate devolve into personal attacks designed to belittle a person and his or her party."

"Just recently I made a comment where I called a member a Jackoff, Needledicked Bug Fucker, Shithead Liberal Dickcheese."

So, what exactly is your point?

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 09:59:33AM @johnrussell:

His point is that he is above it all, lol. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:30:23AM @1stwarrior:

So it's easier to attempt to ridicule someone in lieu of discussing their point John?

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 11:38:21AM @johnrussell:

I'm not going to "discuss" the merits of a piece of disinformation. Never gonna happen. I guess you are going to have to keep campaigning to get me banned like you have been doing for two years now. 

Flagging unavailable
 
#MAGA!
link 12/17/16 12:25:59PM @therealbruce:

I'm not going to "discuss" the merits of a piece of disinformation.

And nobody expects you to, D*****s.  But just because you don't want to discuss it, doesn't mean you have to go into the article and start your fucking bullshit.  And that's exactly what it is John.  YOU are the main one in here that does that.  You have 3 classifications of posts.  Debating a point, Denigrating an article/source/author, denigrating a seeder/commentator.

Anytime you see a comment from Gunny, Sean, 1st Warrior, or a few others, you immediately attack and dismiss  anything they say.  You are prime number one asshole when it comes to dealing with half the people on this site.

And for the record, I've never asked Perrie to ban you.  But I'm about to ask Perrie to declare open season on you if you make fucking bullshit comments towards people as you have a habit of doing.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:43:09AM @1stwarrior:

Never have tried to get you banned.  BUT, I have asked numerous times why you weren't suspended for longer periods of time because of your occasional outbursts of nastiness towards others.

Flagging unavailable
 
#MAGA!
link 12/17/16 12:18:33PM @therealbruce:

STFU D***cheese.  My point is I KNOW when I'm making a CoC violation.  I don't hide behind it, feign ignorance, or try to fight out of it.  I can carry on a debate, or I can trade insults with you all day.  And lately, I've chosen to just skip an article rather than add to the uglyness.  Which is something YOUR D*****S should really learn how to do.  Just skip the article.  YOU are by no means the Intelligence Whisperer, so calling someone out for an article that you think is a waste of time is bullshit, and doesn't help the site.  Get over yourself.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 12:21:52PM @johnrussell:

I don't care how many times you try and normalize far right disinformation. It's not going to happen. 

Flagging unavailable
 
#MAGA!
link 12/17/16 12:26:53PM @therealbruce:

THEN FUCKING GET OUT OF THE FUCKING ARTICLE!!  JUST LEAVE!!  SCROLL THE FUCK ON!!

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:43:58AM @1stwarrior:

John - STAY ON TOPIC or get off the thread!!!!!!!!

Flagging unavailable
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
link 12/17/16 11:16:07AM @sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom:

Just recently I made a comment where I called a member a Jackoff, Needledicked Bug Fucker, Shithead Liberal Dickcheese. 

I'm giddy at the thought of working that into a conversation.  Would you mind?

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/17/16 11:29:28AM @1stwarrior:

I wanna see how you do it Sister thumbs up

Flagging unavailable
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
link 12/17/16 12:04:04PM @sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom:

I wanna see how you do it Sister

Is that because you don't think I will, or because you know I'm already teetering on the brink of suspension?

And I'll have you know that I've used every one of those words right here on NT.  Not at the same time, of course.

Flagging unavailable
 
#MAGA!
link 12/17/16 12:30:45PM @therealbruce:

It was, a thing of beauty.  The Submarine Sailor was on full display.

If I may:

 

Hey ****, blow it out your fucking ass you ignorant Jackhole.

I didn't berate the article or its author, you fucking Needledicked bug fucker.

Read my fucking comment.

Fucking shitbag liberal dickcheese.

Names have been withheld to protect the guilty.

Flagging unavailable
 
Randy
link 12/17/16 03:34:14AM @randy:

So - no, NT ain't like it was when we started because a couple of "boys" are dominating the entire Front Page with pure bullshit and bullying - and people are leaving and will continue to leave until it stops.

I stop in once in awhile to look at the front page to see if there is any change, but there is not. Once upon a time, in the very beginning, this really was a place for honest discussion, where ideas and points could be put forth and minds could be changed by indisputable truth. Those days are gone. Now the front page is nothing more then a bunch of ideologues, from all directions, constantly screaming the same positions over and over again with no intention of trying to get anyone else to change their mind through rational discussion.

No one is talking to each other, but rather are talking (screaming) past each other and not really hearing what the other says and the reason for that is the people posting are not posting posts that are worth listening to! They are the most extreme positions of whatever direction the poster is coming from. They are so extreme that no one except people who agree with the poster 100% can agree with them or try to open a dialogue with them. The people who may possibly agree with the poster on some levels or some positions are driven to reacting in the extreme themselves, instead of trying to reach out and nothing gets accomplished. No discussion takes place!

This is not a discussion site any longer and has not been for a long, long time. It is nothing more then an echo chamber for several points of view and nothing more. Cliques that agree with each other and constantly agreeing with each other and with each camp having staked out their position, no one is willing to reach out to see if there is anything that can be agreed upon. To see if there is any common ground.

Fuck ya'll. Most of the regular posters make this a site not worth more of an effort of just checking in every month or two.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 09:54:16AM @johnrussell:

People come on these sites to give their opinions. 

Some opinions are worth more, in terms of what sources they use, how they express themselves, and how actually informative they are, than others. Some people provide links, quotes, attributions, 'expert testimony', analysis, --- and some opinions are pranks, three or four word dismissals, incomprehensible , or just plain ignorant. 

We hear a lot these days about "participation trophies" and how much it upsets conservatives and other anti-pc types (I don't much care for them myself). But some of the same people who abhor participation trophies in other venues want participation trophies for themselves and their "friends" when it comes to Newstalkers. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 12/19/16 09:40:29AM @spikegary:

I try to post articles about Veterans and other newsworthy (in my opinion) things, but they disappear off the FP in a matter of minutes as people are generally too busy (and admittedly me too at times) shouting their ideologies across the aisle and insulting each other.

I believe that Perrie is the most balanced of all Admins on any newsblog site I've been on.  Newsvine descended into chaos (by design, I believe, because all the newest owners were interested in was 'click-counting' to sell advertising).  The other admins, as far as I can see are at best, non-existent and many times jump right in and act as everyone else rolling around the pigpen.  I believe Moderators should hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct, even when they aren't moderating, but that isn't really happening.

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 10:25:40AM @bob-nelson:

Spikegary,

I try to post articles about Veterans and other newsworthy (in my opinion) things, but they disappear off the FP in a matter of minutes

This is probably NT's worst defect.

Allowing five seeds per day is an engraved invitation to carpet-bomb the FP. Far be it from me to name any names... angel ... but there's a member who simply slaps together five copy/paste seeds every day -- doesn't even bother to eliminate the advertising that gets swept up in the copy/paste. Obviously, this flood of seeds pushes everyone else off  the FP.

This is not rocket science! The phenomenon is obvious to all of us.

All that is needed is a simple rule change. Instead of "five per day", we should have "three at any one time". 

If an author already has three articles up, then either they wait... or they remove one. This would OBVIOUSLY promote both variety and quality.

It's a no-brainer... and has been a no-brainer for several years already. 

 

 patience        patience        patience        patience        patience        patience

Flagging unavailable
 
Dean Moriarty
link 12/19/16 10:33:10AM @dean-moriarty:

There is no five seed a day limit. I called JR out on seeding seven in one day a couple weeks ago and nothing happened.

Flagging unavailable
 
Kavika
link 12/19/16 10:46:56AM @kavika:

Dean, there is a 5 article per day limit. There can be 7 at one time, or more, if some of them are from the previous day.

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 10:50:01AM @bob-nelson:

I remember a day when I counted twelve seeds from a single member...

Far be it from me to name names...   laughing dude

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 10:48:08AM @bob-nelson:

Ummm, Dean... ???

Are you agreeing with me, by any chance? 

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 12/17/16 07:28:19AM @pj:

This is like a joke, right?  Are we being punked?  I woke up this morning and saw this thread and couldn't help but laugh. 

So, the members of NT are upset for creating a site full of hate, animosity, intolerance, and personal attacks?  Is this the reset button that happens every couple of months or so to make the assholes on this site feel better for a couple of days until it reverts back to the same old program?  Is this where we all decide we're going to lose weight in the New Year?

I came here because NV was too liberal and I could see the patterns of cliques.  I watched how participants couldn't disagree with their own clique else they would be ostracized until eventually they became bitter.  

In one of the threads someone mentioned NT and I came over here to see whether I would fit into this site better.  I liked that it had a healthy number of conservatives.  

Anyone who tries to be civil or tries to see another perspective is viewed as weak and they become targets.  I tried to post funny quirky things to soften the hate driven posts but I was criticized for that so I stopped writing and posting personal pieces.    I've been told no one likes me, I've been asked to leave, I've had a member create a whole other universe about my writings to suit his personal attack against me.  I've been called an adulterer and a twit, a victim that needs to get over it.  When I've tried to be nice to members I've had other members tell me not to waste my time and I've had members make snide remarks to imply that I'm flirting.  I am nothing more than the product of this environment now.  This is what this site understands.  Hostility, hate, snark, and pigeon holing people.  

 

What I find the most ironic when I read the posts on this thread is that those who are the most egregious are the one's posting the kumbaya shit. 

Yeah, let's hit reset for a day or two to cleanse your souls and then you can get back to treating your fellow members like shit.  Merry Christmas

Flagging unavailable
 
Sean Treacy
link 12/17/16 10:01:33AM @s:

Very good. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Dean Moriarty
link 12/17/16 09:46:50AM @dean-moriarty:

I don't see the problem. If someone wants to discuss something what's stopping them? People posting an article claiming libertarians are stupid doesn't hurt me.Toughen up buttercups. 

Obama has turned the country to mush. After a couple years of Trump we will get our balls back. Quit pretending you're all a bunch of victims. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 09:58:49AM @hal-a-lujah:

After a couple years of Trump we'll probably be speaking Russian.

Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 11:04:10AM @cerenkov:

Better than Arabic...

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 11:31:33AM @hal-a-lujah:
وهذا هو ما الجاسوس الروسي أن أقول
Flagging unavailable
 
Cerenkov
link 12/17/16 12:04:31PM @cerenkov:

I am not familiar with what Russian spies say. Are you?

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:47:26AM @1stwarrior:

Get on topic Hal.  This thread has nothing to do with politics.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 12:27:31PM @hal-a-lujah:

"After a couple years of Trump we will get our balls back."

You realize that you're talking about a guy who 'negotiated' for a company to minimize offshoring by giving them taxpayer's money, right?  That sure as hell doesn't sound like something you (of all people) would appreciate.

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 12/17/16 09:25:40PM @ttga:

You realize that you're talking about a guy who 'negotiated' for a company to minimize offshoring by giving them taxpayer's money, right? 

Hal, what you saw in relation to the Carrier deal was an example of the "carrot and stick" method of obtaining desired results.  Whether through ignorance of the method or (more likely) for political reasons, you are emphasizing the carrot while ignoring the stick.  If you ignore the 35% penalty for offshoring and talk only about the tax write off, you can then find what looks like legitimate grounds for bashing Trump for "giving away the taxpayers' money".  Did you think that we're so stupid that we don't recognize the various methods of propaganda when they are used? 

By using that method (remarking on only part of a topic) you have shown that you have no interest in actually discussing the issue.  You simply wish to use it as a political hammer and figure that we aren't nearly smart enough to figure it out, certainly not as smart as you are.  This is the same attitude that Hillary had toward us and was a big part of the reason she lost the election; because we're a lot smarter than she or you think.  In Hillary's case we didn't really bother to answer her, we just voted her worthless ass out.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/17/16 09:47:46PM @hal-a-lujah:

Lol - are you even serious about the 35% tariff?  That is as likely as walling off Mexico.  You're a good candidate for Scientology if these are things you have faith in.

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 12/17/16 11:09:14PM @ttga:

Lol - are you even serious about the 35% tariff?

Now, you see?  That's typical.  You don't take it seriously when someone tells you something.  You think it's a big joke because everyone but you is stupid.

The 35% (possibly higher) tariff WILL be used, and probably will be effective.  If Trump bails on it, he WILL be primaried in 2020.  He gets to stay in the White House only as long as he keeps his promises. 

That tariff should have been imposed back in 1999, when Roger Smith first started moving GM operations to Mexico and China.  That would have put a fast stop to globalization.  Better late than never though. 

Start a trade war, you say (yes, you're that predictable)?  We've been in a trade war since the turn of the century.  Only real difference between pre Trump and post Trump is that pre Trump we were losing the trade war because the top people in Washington were just too too smart (or purchased) and didn't want to recognize it as such.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 10:29:15AM @hal-a-lujah:

Find an economist that thinks a 35% tariff would be good for our economy.  Your armchair economist opinion isn't worth the screen space it's printed on.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 10:48:31AM @1stwarrior:

Gentlemen - get back on topic.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:03:19PM @hal-a-lujah:

I'll get back on topic when you grow a pair and tell Ollie to do the same.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 12:37:41PM @1stwarrior:

Hal - you don't wanna push me.  Get back on topic or leave the thread.

Oliver - same to you.  Quit derailing.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 01:49:52PM @hal-a-lujah:

#cyberthuglivesmatter

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 12/19/16 10:02:10AM @spikegary:

Once again, where are the moderators?  1st was very clear right from the beginning what was and wasn't permitted on HIS article.  This is the problem.

Maybe some type of device to notify moderators (instead of Private Messaging) of items that need to be reviewed needs to be added top the site.  There would also have to be a 'boy who cried wolf' penalty for abusing that feature.

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 10:43:50AM @bob-nelson:

Spikegary,

This is the second-worst NT defect, after "five articles per day".

Perrie considers that the author has no more authority over an article than the visitors. As a result, there is effectively no such critter as "off-topic". The Vandals have their method perfectly tuned: a slightly off-topic post gets a slightly-more-off-topic reply, which draws a yet-more-off-topic reply... and so on until there's a thread that has nothing at all to do with the author's article.

Basically, current NT rules give the Vandals total power to destroy any article they do not like.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 10:51:28AM @dowser:

Dear Gary, we can't moderate if we have commented.  That's a rule for moderators...  I've commented, I can't moderate.  Nor can Larry.  Randy is easing back into moderation duties, A. Mac is on vacation, and Perrie has a LOT to do-- besides babysitting this article.  96 has commented.  Peter Faden is around only in dire circumstances.

There's your moderation team.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 11:00:52AM @bob-nelson:

Hi, Dowser,

anger          anger          anger  

 

These are SIMPLE problems!

 

Give authors Mod authority over their articles


 

If the author abuses that authority, then there will be no traffic in their articles. No author wants that, so the system would be auto-stabilized.

Only the Vandals -- the people whose intent is destruction rather than construction -- would be unhappy.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 11:08:29AM @dowser:

That may be a solution, but I don't know how much programming it would take to do it-- and then we would have those that would abuse the privilege, too, and just delete all comments from people they don't like.  Like what happened on NV.  

I honestly don't know an answer to this one... 

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 11:16:13AM @bob-nelson:

Dowser,

we would have those that would abuse the privilege, too, and just delete all comments from people they don't like

I don't think this would be a problem. If an author catches a reputation for abusing their authority, then no one would visit. No author wants that, so...

Obviously, the Vandals present this argument, too... but in their case, I believe it is just a sham to ensure that they will continue to have the power to destroy any article they dislike.

The subject is binary, Dowser. Either/Or.

Either we find an effective way to stop the Vandals, or NT dies. The current path is not in the right direction.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 11:27:13AM @dowser:

Either/or

I certainly agree there!  I honestly don't know how much coding it would take, and we'll have to ask Perrie if it is even possible...  It may not be possible, due to our host servers, etc.  Perrie has already spent a wad of $$ on getting the site up and running as it is.

And while I certainly agree that it should make members not want to comment on the wholesale deleters, it didn't seem to have that much effect on NV.  Even the most innocuous comment was often deleted, just because of who had made the comment.

So yes, we agree, but I don't know if we can do it!  thumbs up

NOTE:  I'm not trying to put a damper on your idea, just trying to face the realities of the site...  Perrie can answer this question much better than I!

Flagging unavailable
 
Spikegary
link 12/19/16 11:27:14AM @spikegary:

Thanks for the explanation, Dowser.  I thought that once they moderated they could no longer comment on the article.  I may have misunderstood, I remember an article a year or 2 ago about it.  If that is true, then a moderator needs to be the adult, stop commenting and put on the purple hat and pen.  If a mod can't act after commenting an article, it seems that would be a huge problem for the system.  I don't know what the answer would be either.

BTW, Merry Christmas to you and yours!

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 11:36:30AM @dowser:

Here's what the CoC says--

4.Members on a rotating basis will also act as moderators on an appointed or volunteer basis. Moderators will be comprised of two permanent members, Perrie Halpern and A. Mac and three group members. All members with at least 3 months on NewsTalkers and no major infractions, can qualify to be a moderator. Moderator comments will be made in purple. Moderators must recuse themselves in articles where they have been actively commenting. When an moderator deletes an offensive comment, all comments that pertain to the offensive posting will also be deleted. If you disagree with the actions of a moderator, you may appeal such action to the Resident Adviser Perrie Halpern or A. Mac in her absence, at which point all decisions are final.

So, you see, we were just following the rules...  Merry Christmas to you and yours, too!  MUCH love to you!

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/19/16 12:54:30PM @1stwarrior:

Gary - If a mod can't act after commenting an article, it seems that would be a huge problem for the system.

The solution to that is to simply contact another moderator, let them know what's up, and go from there.

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/19/16 02:01:41PM @xxjefferson51:

Can I join the team?  

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 02:37:56PM @dowser:

Send Perrie an email stating your desire...  

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/19/16 03:10:49PM @xxjefferson51:

I worry that working 45+ hours per week plus family needs would make me available to moderate only part time.  But then again multiple part time moderators could work too.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/19/16 03:17:06PM @dowser:

Most of us work, XX.  I don't anymore, but everyone else does, I think...  I took a break from moderating when my mother was so ill.  I couldn't work here, keep her house, (2 hours from home), my house, be a band mom, and get anything done, anywhere.  We all do the best we can, for sure.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/17/16 10:37:44AM @johnrussell:

Newstalkers, and most forums like this are in a somewhat hopeless state, which reflects the political and social state of the nation. 

We live in the age of disinformation. Disinformers like Alex Jones claim to themselves be victims of disinformation, thus they can deflect all criticism of themselves, at least in the eyes of their true believers. Because it is so easy online to make disinformation carry the sheen of "truthiness' the search for accuracy becomes 'he said she said'. 

Infowars has an article today that purports to show the most 'freedom loving' news sites in one corner of the graphic and the most tyranny loving sites in the opposite corner of the graph. Naturally Infowars wins, and mainstream sites are pronounced as tyranny loving. Infowars readers will see this graph, produced by Infowars, as proof that Infowars is the best. It is insanity, but an insanity that has found an audience. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/20/16 10:39:32AM @1stwarrior:

John - AGAIN - this thread is not about misinformation.  It's about dominant negative people usurping other member's through negative, nasty, stupid comments - such as this one you have just posted.

Keep off the misinformation track - that is not what this is about.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/17/16 12:07:28PM @dowser:

Good article that asks all of us some hard questions...

Can we tamp down our animosity for each other, to be able to discuss the issues civilly?  Can we personally curb our own biases and listen to each other?  

Yes, moderation is a thankless task.  Between doing the best you can do, and having everyone scream about it, call you names, etc., and maintaining unbiased moderation is a very difficult job.  No matter who you moderate, you are accused of bias.  I do what I can to help Perrie, but there are things I can't do.  And believe me, rarely do I want to have to moderate a post!

Yet, I don't see anyone here, stepping up to the plate, willing to help Perrie...  Many of you here on this article just want to derail the discussion, or make snide remarks.  

First and foremost, not everything is political.  Yet, even the most innocuous article become awash in a sea of political bias, or political viewpoint.  One person starts off with a dig towards a political party, and the race begins...  How on earth can a volcano, erupting on Hawaii become political?  That's happened to me, time and time again...

Long-standing feuds, long-standing animosities, long-standing arguments, linger, for months.  We all, me included, need to forgive and move on.  Better yet, if you can't say something nice, while disagreeing with a viewpoint, don't say anything.  As the police say, "move on, there's nothing to see here"...

That being said, the Moderate and Balanced Group will soon be an open group.  You are welcome to join, if you can follow the rules, otherwise, you will be booted off the group.  Everyone is welcome, BUT, you have to follow the rules of the group-- no personal insults, no ad hominem attacks, no criticizing the source, NO FAKE NEWS, no trolling, no inflammatory titles designed to hurt others, no single negative emoji replies, etc.  If you can't abide by the rules, don't ask to join!

We're trying to create a nicer zone.  Maybe it will work, and maybe it won't.  But it is worth a try!

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/19/16 04:40:46AM @xxjefferson51:

I volunteered to help....

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/19/16 04:41:20AM @xxjefferson51:

I volunteered to help....

Flagging unavailable
 
jwc2blue
link 12/17/16 02:06:29PM @jwc2blue:

I steer clear of parties like this, and for good reason.

Almost everyone claims to know what is "wrong" with the site.

Almost everyone points fingers at other members or political ideologies.

Almost everyone says that the solution is better behavior.

And that's why I don't generally comment on these. It's for the same reason I quit going to church years ago.

Almost everyone who is preaching goes right back to what they always do, which is invariably what they are complaining about.

If you want to be treated nicely, do the same to others. If you start in on others, quit complaining when they give it back.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:07:35PM @df:

Sticking to the theme of this article:

1. Observation of comments.

    A. The name calling was started by who every one knows as the name calling expert on this site.

    B. Retaliation  soon began.

    C. The followers of this person soon joined in and contributed nothing but name calling and denigration.

2.  Some went off topic on to politics that had nothing to do with this article.

3.  Nothing has been accomplished.

     A. Name calling will continue,

     B. Denigrating of people and sources will continue.

4.  Punishment will continue to be a slap on the hand.

     A. Those who name call and denigrate others will continue to play the game with the punishments and laugh.

5.  The front page will continue to be garbage.

     A. Liberals putting up garbage and lies and anything to try and discredit Trump.

     B.  Conservatives will put up article to counter the liberals.

6. Summary:

    Until Perrie can take control over this disparaging conduct, no article will be able to be discussed civilly. Punishment must be harder on those that continue to violate the CoC.  Perrie cannot be the only unbiased moderator.  She cannot do it all by herself.  However as I have stated before What is a violation of the CoC to some is not a violation to the moderators. This also must be addressed.  So until people take articles like this serious and with a purpose to please EVERYONE, this is a useless tragically useless endeavor.

But this is my observation of the comments here and of what the meaning of this article is about.  MY OPINION.

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:11:44PM @hal-a-lujah:

"5.  The front page will continue to be garbage.

     A. Liberals putting up garbage and lies and anything to try and discredit Trump.

     B.  Conservatives will put up article to counter the liberals."

Lol - gee, that's not biased at all.  NT needs your opinion like it needs herpes.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:23:47PM @df:

I didn't expect much from you as your are the main instigator of the hate here on NT. so just FO.

And yu need a new life some where not on NT. but then again we do need a good laugh at a failure.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:51:23PM @hal-a-lujah:

I don't take advice from trolls.  By definition, there is only one troll on this site - and it's you.  Sadly, I'm not even sure you realize what you are, but your MO here neatly fits the bill.  We've all seen multiple examples of you insisting that black is white and right is left, despite mounds of proof that black is black and right is right. That is the basic definition of trolling.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 01:02:42PM @df:

Yup, thank you I appreciate that. being named after you. it's such and honor.  You are the father of stalking and trolling. so I am honored that you put me on a level with you.

Sweet dreams sweetie pie.

laughing dude

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 01:09:39PM @sixpick:

the simpsons pride proud ego aplomb

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 03:16:28PM @1stwarrior:

No Hal - this is the "basic definition" of trolling - 

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtrl//ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

Something that you are quite frequent with.

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/18/16 12:15:50PM @johnrussell:

What coc violations Gunny? Having your feelings hurt by someone telling the truth about your political beliefs is not an insult. You are a birther, so when I say you are delusional it is a statement of fact, not an insult. If Perrie wants to sanction me for stating that far right people who believe in conspiracies are delusional than let her go ahead and do it. 

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:22:55PM @df:

I didn't expect much from you as your are the main instigator of the hate here on NT. so just FO.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:45:59PM @hal-a-lujah:

Lol, didn't you just give me that title?  

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:53:39PM @df:

I gave it to both of your, Kings of hatred.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 03:18:17PM @1stwarrior:

Why can't you stick to the topic John????  This is NOT your thread so quit trying to direct it.

Flagging unavailable
 
PJ
link 12/18/16 12:19:57PM @pj:

   A. Liberals putting up garbage and lies and anything to try and discredit Trump.

   B.  Conservatives will put up article to counter the liberals.

Here is an example of what the problem is.  Until criticism can be unbiased it will continue to be the source of division.

Another reason why civility is hard to muster up is the simple fact that some things cannot be unsaid.  When someone says something to me I place value on it.  Whether it's positive or negative makes no difference, it still has an impact.    

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:28:06PM @df:

That is so true PJ.  It would be nice if people could put up articles without the biasness and hatred and in most cases lies. Then discussion could be civil.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:43:30PM @hal-a-lujah:

Ummm ... you do realize that she quoted you, right?

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 12:56:45PM @df:

What's it to you. you just proved my point above.

thanks for the proof.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 12:59:04PM @hal-a-lujah:

There you go trolling again.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 01:07:20PM @df:

There you go stalking again.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 01:55:53PM @hal-a-lujah:

You just proved my assertion.  You see, old man, when you are having a dialogue with someone, that person cannot be considered as a stalker, by definition.  Your response is the very definition of trolling.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 06:14:44PM @df:

We don't have dialogue. you troll and stalk and I come back at ya. so you are wrong again.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
Hal A. Lujah
link 12/18/16 07:15:07PM @hal-a-lujah:

In other words, you can write something directed to me, but if I respond then I'm stalking you.  Troll.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 07:29:17PM @df:

Not gonna play your piss ant, baby games of tit for tat. you can't determine that you troll some one denigrate them and then they come back at ya, then you are too dense for discussion.  So  have a nice day sweet heart.  and go play your games with some one who gives a shit.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 07:31:16PM @1stwarrior:

PJ - criticism can never be unbiased - that is the purpose of criticism.

We cannot escape our taste parameters though we can revise and expand them.  Critics like to think that their bias is informed or principled, thus valid. It helps to state one’s bias up front when one writes. We should all exercise caution when we enter what we know is difficult knee-jerk territory. Some do and some don’t. But bias is unavoidable and it is what makes criticism one of the least objective forms of writing or attempting to respond in kind.

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 01:03:59PM @sixpick:

But this is my observation of the comments here and of what the meaning of this article is about.  MY OPINION.

I think that is a pretty good observation Gunny. 

I personally like a little joke here and there as long as it isn't too personal or have a mean spirited objective.

Flagging unavailable
 
DF
link 12/18/16 01:08:46PM @df:

Yeah I merely made and observation and you can see who responded and had hurt feelings to it.  I shall rest my case on their hurt feelings comments.

 

Flagging unavailable
 
sixpick
link 12/18/16 01:26:51PM @sixpick:

I can't imagine a time when criticism will be unbiased.  We are all biased to our own beliefs and each of us can easily find information to back it up.

It's the mean spirited comments, the personal attacks, not the biased criticism of the articles, but of the mean spirited criticism of the other members that makes for a discouraging experience on the articles themselves. 

I think it is fine to criticize the article or even the belief of those who oppose you from your biased position, but not in such a mean spirited manner.

Flagging unavailable
 
Dowser
link 12/18/16 02:30:25PM @dowser:

This is why I love and respect you, six.  thumbs up

There is no need to be nasty to one another...

Flagging unavailable
 
Nona62
link 12/18/16 03:26:25PM @nona62:

Maybe this will help!

aab56fbd838f771c3919b8615b8245ec.jpg

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/18/16 05:17:08PM @bob-nelson:

Since I only stop by NT about once a week, nowadays, while waiting for Perrie's upcoming "groups", I've only just now come across this article.

Because I "went fishin' " a while back, I haven't followed the "war" that's mentioned here. But I can imagine. 

I'll give my two cents worth...

There's a few simple truths that apply here:

- Most of our opinions are emotion-based, with no foundation in facts. Sometimes we backfill facts to support them, but we almost never start with a blank page, collect pertinent facts, and draw conclusions. We start with "gut-feelings".

- "Gut-feelings" are expressions of deep-seated, learned-in-the-cradle behavior patterns. For example, America nowadays is divided in two, the "we" people and the "me" people. The first automatically favor social-solidarity policies, while the second automatically favor individual-advancement policies. These are knee-jerk reflexes, having nothing to do with thoughtful analysis.

- Being deep-seated, our gut-based opinions are indistinguishable from who we are. If someone insults my opinion, they are insulting me. The current CoC is downright silly to allow insults to opinions but not to people. There is no difference.

- Because our opinions are deep-seated, they almost never change.

- Because opinions never change, it is nonsense to "have a conversation with the intent of changing the other person's mind".

- So... the reasons for a conversation may be

-- an attempt to understand the deep-seated sources of our opinions,

-- an emotionally satisfying feedback loop among like-minded people.

There are also lots of reasons for posting that have nothing to do with "conversation". But I sure don't want to try to dig into the psychological motivation of you-know-who...

 

If a member does not want to converse, there is no formulation of the CoC that will constrain them to do so. If I wish to vandalize this article with a series of not-quite-on-topic posts, complete with big illustrations, the CoC (as currently interpreted) will not stop me.

At the same time, outright "banning" from the site is a very, very bad idea. We already have a problem with specialists of "skirting" the rules, and it would only get worse as the stakes got higher. 

Maybe banning from a particular seed/article would be playable... depending on who decides the banning. There are a few members who would be "one and done" in my articles!  winking

 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/18/16 07:21:43PM @1stwarrior:

Bob - good to hear from you.

Interesting points you bring up.  Like to comment on two of them.

Most of our opinions are emotion-based, with no foundation in facts. Sometimes we backfill facts to support them, but we almost never start with a blank page, collect pertinent facts, and draw conclusions. We start with "gut-feelings".

Concur that opinions are emotion-based, but they are all based a basic foundation of fact that we have been faced with which caused/allowed us to form our opinions.  An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let a reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your particular opinion.

Because our opinions are deep-seated, they almost never change.  (But, they do change based on information received.)

There are, typically, three types of opinions - verifiable opinions, expert opinion and personal opinion.  Verifiable, obviously, are opinions that can be verified through fact-checking or conducting background reviews of the sources/basis for the opinion.  

Expert opinions are from experts who can give their opinion on an issue, based on their special knowledge of the facts. A pathologist gives an expert opinion when she tells an inquest that she believes a person was killed before being thrown in a river. She has examined the body and found very little water in the lungs. Unless there is proof of what happened, this must remain an opinion and be attributed to the pathologist. The opinion may later be verified when the killer confesses and describes what happened.

The best kind of expert opinion is one in which the expert keeps their own personal feelings out of their conclusions. They look at the facts as they see them, and draw a conclusion based only on those facts. 

And, personal opinions are the conclusions someone reaches based partly on facts and partly on what they already believe.

Personal opinions can be given by people just because they are asked. If you conduct a vox pop with people on the street, asking what they think about capital punishment, they will give you their personal opinion.

Personal opinions which are based on beliefs or values which a person already has are called value judgments.

These are opinions of what is good or bad and advice on what other people should do about something. For example, a socialist might give the opinion that a new tax on the rich is a good thing; a rich person might give the opinion that it is a bad thing. To understand value judgments, your reader/listener needs to know who is making them and why. Such opinions must be attributed.

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 09:58:26AM @bob-nelson:

Hi, 1st,

I think we agree more than we disagree, here. We're separated only by questions of timing and semantics.

Concur that opinions are emotion-based, but they are all based a basic foundation of fact that we have been faced with which caused/allowed us to form our opinions.

This is a chicken-or-egg situation. We all interpret the "facts we are faced with", as you remark later in your post. Faced with exactly the same events, two persons are quite likely to perceive them differently. IMNAAHO, such differences are due to moral filters which each person has developed previously... much, much earlier, in childhood. I contend that we acquire these filters so early that for most of our lives they cherry-pick "the facts" without our usually realizing it. 

"Abortion" is an easy example. The "facts" are not all that voluminous or complicated... and yet people hold vehemently differing opinions.

 

An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted.

Yes... kinda. If we plug this back into my previous paragraphs, then we agree, and the essential point is our understanding of the words "how the evidence is interpreted".

As I said in my previous post, the reason that our opinions almost never change is that they are founded on deep-seated, unconscious value-judgments. Our values do not change. Never. So... the only way an opinion on policy can change is if "new facts" change the way we apply our values... change our interpretation.

An example: a few decades ago, gay people were abhorred by most straight people, because they were perceived as contravening the "loving couple" that is central to most of us. Of course, back them, very few straight people actually knew any gay people, so their (our, because I was in the pack) opinion was based on hearsay. Then lots and lots of gays came out, and many of us got to actually know real-world gay couples. Long-term, loving, stable couples who have careers and houses just like straight couples. I don't know what they do in the bedroom... but neither do I know that about my straight neighbors, and that was never actually the point of contention for most of us.

We "changed our opinion" on gay marriage because we realized that sexual orientation has nothing to do with forming the kind of long-term, stable couples that are helpful to a stable society. We changed our opinion because our interpretation of the facts changed, as you say. The facts themselves did not change.

In my previous post, I said

So... the reasons for a conversation may be

-- an attempt to understand the deep-seated sources of our opinions,

I did not add "because re-interpreting those deep-seated sources is the only way to 'change an opinion' "... but that is the case.

 

The upshot of all this is that serious conversation is possible only about "why do you believe" rather than "what do you believe". Serious conversation on "why" must dig into intimately-held beliefs, close to the participants' cores, requiring very careful good manners to avoid injury and the rapid end of the conversation.

Serious conversation  of "what would be good policy" is only possible if the participants are willing to first discuss who they are. That takes time, patience, and good will. (And no perturbation from Vandals  who me?)

 

I agree about your three types of opinion. I wonder if many people realize how deeply they depend on "expert opinion". I have never seen an atom, and never will. Yet I know that atoms exist. Every day, I watch the Sun orbit the Earth... and yet I know that it is actually the opposite.

The interesting thing about expert opinion is the ease with which some people reject it in favor of their gut-feelings. The origins of popular refusal of expertise is an important topic today... probably critical to the survival of America... and no one talks about it. I find this silence profoundly shocking.

 

It's all a fascinating topic, and an important one, far beyond the narrow limits of NewsTalkers. 

 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/19/16 01:04:18PM @1stwarrior:

And everyone should always remember - opinions are like noses - everybody has one Wink

Flagging unavailable
 
JohnRussell
link 12/19/16 01:14:17PM @johnrussell:

Bob, 1st Warrior copied and pasted his opinion from another site without giving a link. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 01:51:55PM @bob-nelson:

John, 

It would be better to cite the source of a multi-paragraph copy/paste... but that's not the topic. 

1st's article is coherent. The fact that he assembled bits and pieces from diverse origins only shows that he gave the article some thought. NT would be a lot better off if everyone did as much. 

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/20/16 10:45:06AM @1stwarrior:

Thank you Bob - appreciate the compliment.peace

Flagging unavailable
 
Buzz of the Orient
link 12/19/16 05:13:06AM @buzz-of-the-orient:

In order to cure the cancer on this site I think that a group called American Politics should be created and at least until after the election any articles authored or seeded on that topic that are posted on the Home page should be automatically shunted over to the American Politcs group. It should be an open group, not a private one. That might make the Home Page a little more attractive to potential members, and help to retain those who are so disgusted with the Home Page that they are deleting their membership.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/19/16 01:08:38PM @1stwarrior:

Great idea Buzz.  Kinda agree with BF though in that we should only name it "Politics" because American politics aren't the only ones we discuss.

Flagging unavailable
 
TTGA
link 12/19/16 09:49:27PM @ttga:

American politics aren't the only ones we discuss.

But is the most remembered because of the level of nasty snarky stuff.  Not the nastiest ever, though.  What was said about Rachel Jackson makes the snarky types around here look like babies in a playpen, and she was actually dead before her husband ever took office.  Most people don't know about it because it's not something that is usually taught in high school American History classes.  Just the stuff that got printed in posters and the newspapers of the time was nastier than anything published today.  At least one of the people making such statements (varied from simple adultery to explicitly calling her a whore to accusations of prostitution) was challenged by General Jackson.  The accuser backed down and apologized, thus becoming publicly known as a coward (bad back then, nobody would do business with you).  He was lucky; Jackson was well known as an expert swordsman and pistol shot.

Flagging unavailable
 
XXJefferson#51
link 12/19/16 02:18:33PM @xxjefferson51:

The problem Buzz is that what you and others refer to as "the front page" in reality is the news and politics page.  So political seeds do in fact belong exactly there.  If one has a seed on world news or business/finance or religion, sports, or climate change or art etc.  there are applicable pages to seed those.  On this page though anything other than American News or politics would really be off topic for this page.  A true "front page" would have a random sampling of seeds from all the other pages on NT.  to ask people to refrain from seeding about politics on the politics page is not the right solution.  

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 02:30:54PM @bob-nelson:

C4P, 

NT has a true Front Page. Its composition is important because newcomers will often transit there, and we'd like them to stay. 

For veterans of the site, the "Newest Discussions" and "Newest Comments" pages are the operational equivalent of an FP. IMNAAHO, no one should have more than three (or maybe only two) articles in "Newest Discussions". This would encourage members to be selective, whereas the current rules encourage carpet-bombing. 

Flagging unavailable
 
Buzz of the Orient
link 12/19/16 06:25:41PM @buzz-of-the-orient:

My only concern about the "Home Page" (a/k/a "Front Page") is that the nastiness and insults that appear on it are enough to chase away members and prevent us from getting new ones save for those who LIKE using nastiness and insults, which will most likely eventually destroy NT. I guess the next best solution would be to be more strict about CoC enforcement in its application and using increasing penalties if repeat offences in order to tame or chase away the few who like to use ad hominem insulting comments.

Flagging unavailable
 
1stwarrior
link 12/20/16 10:52:27AM @1stwarrior:

I guess the next best solution would be to be more strict about CoC enforcement in its application and using increasing penalties if repeat offences in order to tame or chase away the few who like to use ad hominem insulting comments.

Pretty much what I've been advocating Buzz.  Some folks continue to receive slaps on their wrists for each occurrence.  Were they to be given a two day for the first occasion, a four day for the second occurrence, and a thirty day for the third occurrence, folks would be amazed at the amount of traffic that would quit being published.

A graduated program for penalties for violations of the CoC seem to be a safe action.

Flagging unavailable
 
Bob Nelson
link 12/19/16 06:57:14PM @bob-nelson:

Buzz,

... the nastiness and insults that appear on it are enough to chase away members and prevent us from getting new ones save for those who LIKE using nastiness and insults...

Exactly.

Flagging unavailable
 

Share This

Who is online










Visitors: 44