posted
"I will have the last word on this thread and then lock it. I get to do that. I’m only allowing it to stay at all because I hate the kind of attitude that this perpetuates and the truth should be known. Out of context lies are so unfair and inappropriate."
Does this mean that you will be posting corrections and then locking any thread which contains "out of context lies," regardless of the political affiliation of the victim? If so, should we report threads that contain such lies as soon as we see them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I happen to be an out of context lie. Does that mean that I'm unfair and inappropriate?
I didn't realize that there were any standards of discourse on this forum at all. Maybe I should find somewhere else to live out my term of existance, even though the madness that created me hasn't yet come to an end.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine it will fall off the bottom of the page soon. Hey, isn't this thread in question a spoof of a thread comparing Al Gore to the Unabomber? Does anyone remember if it got locked?
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom -- what I expect is that you and others on this forum will do their homework and be fair. If you can't support your statements with truth, why are you making them?
You are all right that "out of context lies" was a poor choice of words. It now says "out of context and unsubstantiated quotes" -- a better expression of what I meant. Thanks for ridiculing me for it
posted
Oh, I agree that it was out of line. You'll notice I didn't post on the thread, mainly because I think this kind of comparison is largely unfair -- especially when taken out of context -- and counterproductive. Me, I BELIEVE in Godwin's Law.
But there have been discussions, even recently, where some serious slander's been laid down on the "other" party, and I haven't seen you step in. Now, I wouldn't be concerned if you merely didn't POST in those threads; I understand entirely how someone feels most keenly a slander when it's applied to something they hold dear, and understand why one might simply overlook equivalent examples when applied to the other guys. You've got as much right to a political opinion as anybody else here, and even MORE of a right to voice it, and no one's going to demand that you post in defense of the Democratic Party on a regular basis just because some Republicans get carried away.
But you didn't just defend Bush -- even though I think you did an excellent job of doing that, and IMO buried Rabbit's post under the weight of accuracy. You defended Bush and then locked the thread, making it impossible for anyone to reply, on the grounds that you were just so angry about all the malicious lying going on.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this malicious lying is not and has not been unique to any particular political party, but that the locking of threads -- with a sample size of one, mind you -- HAS been. So I need to know if you intend to lock ALL threads which contain "out of context lies," or if this is a policy that's only going to apply to lies, distortions, and speculations that target the man you're supporting for president.
posted
How about the out-of-context lying being used to compare to Hitler? What's the sample size on those posts?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, Kristine, I think it's great that you're paying more attention to some of the political threads we've had here, especially if your posts are going to combine accuracy and righteous wrath that way; we need more of that. But I think suppressing the extremists on a single side of the debate -- and let's not pretend that's not what just happened -- isn't going to help, except that it might win you a few points with unicornwhisperer.
Locking a thread is a sign of official disapproval; it presents the possibility that continuing to post items in that vein will result in sanctions or banning. The thought that anyone wishing to argue against a Bush presidency must be held to a higher standard of proof and/or accuracy to avoid potential banning is not a pleasant one.
Ergo, I just want to know that you intend to prosecute the same vigorous defense of truth against ALL partisans, regardless of stripe.
---
Dag, would being compared to Stalin count? I mean, really, is THAT the measure of excess: inaccurate, out of context quotes used to compare politicians to evil dictators will get a thread locked? That seems like an unusual standard, but I'd certainly be glad to see it consistently enforced.
posted
I'm with Tom. You've just created a lot more work for yourself if you intend to lock every thread that has potentially offensive comments about one political party or another. And let's not pretend that this is a) the first or b) the worst thread of its type that Hatrack has ever seen. I suppose you could bypass that by saying, "This site is firmly in favor of the Bush presidency and attacks on his character will not be tolerated" or words to that effect in the terms of service.
It's not that you replied that is bad, it was a great reply and would have opened a wonderful discussion. It's that you *locked* it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Rabbit said in the opening post to the locked thread, Al Gore and the Unabomber was okay four years ago.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right -- locking a thread is a sign of official disapproval. How well you caught on to that! We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair. Usually we just delete them if they are over the line offensive. Usually nobody notices or cares. And sometimes they pass under the radar. This time I gave the thread a little slower death. This time, I wanted to make a point about what was appropriate and I wanted a chance to show what level of truth is expected here. This kind of thing is all over the internet, I think our standards should be higher. I hope you will accept the challenge and do a little research next time you see something you think might be pushing the envelope. I didn't threaten anyone with being banned -- I asked everyone to do what we always have asked here. Be civilized. Continue the conversation all you like - link to the thread if you like - but at some point the offensive material will be gone from Hatrack and not perpetuated.
posted
The anti-Bush campaign in America today is full of lies, hatred, and unsubstantiated speculation on motive. But so many people are doing it that it begins to sound almost normal, doesn't it?
Those of you who are complaining that our decision to lock that thread was one-sided, think again. How many posts, here and on our other websites, have attacked me, argued vehemently against my ideas, or negatively commented on my writings? Have we EVER barred people or locked threads because they disagreed with me? You know we have not.
So when we say that we're locking a thread because it crosses the line into vicious, lying slander, then it is yet another vicious, lying slander to ASSUME that our motive is to shut down opposition. Our track record on permitting sane and honest opposition is, in a word, perfect.
But the anti-Bush rhetoric that this post exemplifies is so obviously over the line that I'm ashamed of any of you for having the face to defend it or to attack us for locking it.
You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility. George W. Bush is a real human being who has never committed any acts comparable to the crimes for which we despise Adolf Hitler. It is barbaric to say such things about him.
Of course, comparisons to Hitler on such specious grounds rub me raw anyway, since I was once accused of basing Ender Wiggin on Hitler because both of them were third children. But maybe you think that argument makes sense, too.
As for those of you who ridiculed my wife for an error in writing no worse than those we all commit all the time - you have my contempt for life.
posted
"This time, I wanted to make a point about what was appropriate and I wanted a chance to show what level of truth is expected here."
Again, I ask whether this level of truth will be expected regardless of political affiliation. This site has not previously been policed for distortions of truth; if that's going to be a new policy, I'd like your reassurance that you intend to apply it evenly.
posted
The thread in question didn't just compare Bush to Hitler-- it presented false information to make that comparison more plausible. So, kacard's reaction is not partisan, IMO. It was in defense of the standards of this community, rather than in the defense of a candidate.
As far as I have seen (I don't frequent EVERY thread, however-- just the ones about me ), no one has done something similar to the 'other side.'
Locking the thread-- it occurs to me that I have about as much say in enforcement on this forum as I do in my best friend's home, when he sends his daughter to her room for misbehaving. I follow the standards that the mods have established, and leave the enforcement of those standards up to them. If ever I feel the enforcements unduly harsh, or too lenient, I need to weigh whether my continued participation in the community is valuable enough to me to offset my discomfort.
I do not believe that it was kacard's intent (even unconsciously) to be biased in this subject. If it were OSC, maybe-- -- but I honestly think that if kacard knew of ANY thing like what happened in Rabbit's thread, she'd react the same way.
Of course, I do not really know OSC or kacard-- but my impression from my time in the forum has been that.
posted
If you were at a friend's house and in their living room, would you ask the same question, so abruptly?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility.
I totally agree with this-the immature, hate filled vitriol out there stands to tip people on the fence over to the Bush side and win him the election.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? You're in someone's living room, someone starts shouting about Hitler and political leaders and filled with lies, the host says knock it off and have some dip, and you'd demand that if they are going to stop that conversation, they need to micropolice every conversation?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I do not believe that it was kacard's intent (even unconsciously) to be biased in this subject."
Nor do I. I suspect, however, that the Cards are more inclined to defend others than they are to defend themselves -- an entirely meritorious approach, mind you -- and, as Bush supporters, are more likely to notice when offensive posts criticizing Bush appear.
This is not a character flaw, and neither is it uncommon among moderators. People have previously observed that criticism of other religions will not arouse anger nor provoke deletion as fast as criticism of the LDS church will; this is a perfectly valid and true observation, but all it means is that the mods are sensitive to their own interests.
I don't know whether someone reported Rabbit's thread to Kristine or whether she stumbled across it herself, but I'm not at all surprised that she found it offensive. However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center, there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention. Whether this was because no one reported the post, no mods happened to read the post, or the mods who read the post did not recognize the offensive untruths in the post in question, the simple fact is that this is the FIRST time I've seen a political post locked for inaccuracy.
All I want, then, is the assurance that posts of equivalent inaccuracy will be treated the same way regardless of their subject.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have finally found and scanned the thread, and I feel confident that a "Kerry or Hitler" thread would also be disposed of. If you are talking of strict proportionality.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention.
Tom, I challenge you to provide a link to a recent thread that has an equal level of malice, dishonesty, and plain bad taste in the other direction that did not prompt moderator intervention.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I want, then, is the assurance that posts of equivalent inaccuracy will be treated the same way regardless of their subject.
See, and I think that if they decided that only attacks on Bush would be cause to lock a thread and only attacks on the LDS church would be deleted, it's still their decision.
In other words, we aren't in any position to demand assurances.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know whether someone reported Rabbit's thread to Kristine or whether she stumbled across it herself, but I'm not at all surprised that she found it offensive. However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center, there have been many similar posts over the last few years coming from the other side of the aisle which did not prompt moderator intervention.
posted
"I think that if they decided that only attacks on Bush would be cause to lock a thread and only attacks on the LDS church would be deleted, it's still their decision."
Oh, absolutely. But I'd like to hear that from them, if that's the case, rather than discovering it de facto.
"I think, from their posts, that you've got that assurance."
I wish. So far, they both appear to have gone to some lengths to NOT say anything of the kind.
----
BTW, let me just stick up for Rabbit for a second: I don't believe for a moment that she would have reprinted those quotes from whatever source she'd received them if she had known that their provenance was questionable. It's simply not her style.
posted
Please produce the threads, and I'll whistle them for you if you are above such priggishness.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't just innaccuracy, it was inaccuracy comparing the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler, not simply a man whose existence resulted in the death of tens of millions, but someone whose intended purpose it was to exterminate entire religious groups and to enslave an entire ethnic group, the Slavs. This comparison isn't just wrong, its offensive to those who either reasonably support Bush or are members of those religious or ethnic groups.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The anti-Bush campaign in America today is full of lies, hatred, and unsubstantiated speculation on motive."
So is the anti-kerry campaign.
"Those of you who are complaining that our decision to lock that thread was one-sided, think again. How many posts, here and on our other websites, have attacked me, argued vehemently against my ideas, or negatively commented on my writings? Have we EVER barred people or locked threads because they disagreed with me? You know we have not."
But that wasn't the question, was it? The question is, will the policy demonstrated by the locking of this thread be carried out in instances where people from the right are attacking, for example, Kerry, in a similar vein. The precedent established by this thread needs to be understood, and the question Tom asks is fair, because OTHER threads where vile comparisons have been made, going in the other political direction, have not been locked. Will they, in the future, be locked? Is it up to us to establish whether something is true or false, and if a similar comparison is made as in the locked thread, do we then email the moderators... or will the moderators lock the thread with righteous wratch without one of us going through the process of myth debunking first?
"Our track record on permitting sane and honest opposition is, in a word, perfect."
Again, though, the question is whether insane, dishonest, support of your political leanings will be accepted. After all, this was a dishonest attack... but there HAVE been dishonest supporting positions that have not gotten locked.
"But the anti-Bush rhetoric that this post exemplifies is so obviously over the line that I'm ashamed of any of you for having the face to defend it or to attack us for locking it."
At least as far as I can tell, Tom isn't attacking Kristine, nor is he defending the post. In fact, the opposite. He's supported her decision, and attacking the post in question... but he's concerned about how the policy will be carried out in the future. TO be honest, so am I. The swiftvet stuff has mostly been debunked... yet those threads haven't been attacked, despite slanders that are extremely serious. (Obviously not to the extent of calling KErry hitler, but he HAS been compared to stalin and other mass murderers).
"You who oppose President Bush: Get a grip on yourselves. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to use. When you resort to trash like this, it's a confession of your inability to put forth reasoned opposition and of your utter lack of fairness or civility. George W. Bush is a real human being who has never committed any acts comparable to the crimes for which we despise Adolf Hitler. It is barbaric to say such things about him."
Is it barbaric to compare Kerry to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or other leftist barbarians? If so, will the policy of locking threads extend to threads in which people make that comparison?
"As for those of you who ridiculed my wife for an error in writing no worse than those we all commit all the time - you have my contempt for life."
Interesting. I don't see Tom's post as ridiculing at all. Perhaps there were emails sent to Kristine that ridiculed her.
Tom's basic question here is an extremely important one. This is your house, and your rules... but those of us who think Bush is a bad president, need to know whether the attacks on Kerry or others from the left, are going to be treated in the same way that attacks on Bush and others on the right are treated. If not, we should probably just pick up and leave now.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen threads of the type Tom is talking about, but it's been quite some time--not since the last election, if I recall. Unfortunately for our purposes here, that means that they were probably deleted from the forum long ago.
I wholly support the Card's right to close or delete any threads they choose--this is their place, after all--and would agree that the thread deleted crossed a line. I suspect that the moderator's *not* deleting those threads, back when they were occurring, has much more to do with their being less active in the forum at that point, as well as the fact that the "whistle" button wasn't a feature of the board back then. Tom is right that unconscious bias can easily occur, but I don't think that that is probably what was happening in this case.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, produce the threads. If they are below the Cards radar, that is what the whistle is for. You people who think the whistle is immoral mystify me. No, I don't use it all the time. I'm just saying it could be a remedy to all this unfairness.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kerry supporters (And I'm guessing here) would consider the Swift boat vet ads to be an equivalent level of slander.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me ask this: did someone "blow the whistle" on Rabbit's thread, or did Kristine just stumble across it? If the former, that's probably the distinguishing factor; I can't think of any liberal on this site who'd ever report a thread for its political content, even when inaccurate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Paul, pooka, but if it's me, I'll reiterate that the threads I'm dimly remembering were from long enough ago that they've undoubtedly been deleted from the forum by now due to periodic housecleaning.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Lalo hasn't been banned. I think you're safe, Paul."
I'm not concerned about being banned. In fact, not once did I mention banning in my post. I'm concerned that certain standards of behavior are going to be applied differently.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
So. . . pooka. Right. Um. . . how do you work this whistle thing again? Not that I'm going to use it; I'm not a stool pigeon. Nope. I don't even sing. I'm the anti-tattler, yeah.
When I say the word, anti-disestablishmentarinism, what do you think of?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm saying that Lalo has said just about everything except for Hitler comparisons, and he hasn't been penalized for it. What are you worried about?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't "We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair" a good enough answer for you Tom? I apply that reasoning across the board. Fairness is a big deal with me. I think that's why this one got my dander up so high
I don't remember every thread I've deleted -- in fact I really try to forget them. Yes, I've deleted some anti-LDS threads but I also remember deleting some that were anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-Islamic and even a really dorky anti-Bahi one. I've deleted lots of porno links and some really terrible pro-child-abuse stuff. You really don't want my job.
Most of the others I've deleted were when they got way too personal and offensive about hatrack members. I know I've missed some of those. We try, we can't read 'em all.
posted
I think my post addresses that fairly clearly, and I think Tom's do as well... that certain political orientations will be censored or restricted, while others will not.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, speaking as a Democrat who's mildly left of center
If this weren't such a serious thread, I would think that you were joking about this, Tom. I almost went all snarky on you, but then decided that would be less than productive.
How is it that you think that you are only mildy left of center? Where would you say this center you speak of is?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), no one has done something similar to the 'other side.' ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
