How about a one-hour "censorship" free period?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. Posts that are couched in reality stay up.

That's not true at all.

Indeed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, this is a free country. Start your own forum.

Use your big brain to do that.

This. I lean conservative and I think Jeff is too quick to censor some posts, but that's fine with me. It's his forum and his rules. He's not even charging us to use it.

You can set up your own forum, and the costs are minimal -- easily less than $100/month for a starter package. It's not like Jeff has a monopoly on setting up forums. It's so easy and cheap now that anyone can do it.

That's why I take issue with conservatives who want to regulate Google, Twitter, etc because they "censor" convervative search results or posters. If those companies are doing such a bad job, and the market wants better, then it's relatively easy to set up a competing service. That's the nice thing about cheap computing power -- there's basically no financial barrier to entry to competing even with big tech giants. You just need a few tech people and a relatively low investment in computing infrastructure. It's not like trying to take on Ford and having to spends hundreds of millions to set up factories.

[Anonymous]

Not even $100/month.
https://www.phpbb.com/hosting/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, this is a free country. Start your own forum.

Use your big brain to do that.

This. I lean conservative and I think Jeff is too quick to censor some posts, but that's fine with me. It's his forum and his rules. He's not even charging us to use it.

You can set up your own forum, and the costs are minimal -- easily less than $100/month for a starter package. It's not like Jeff has a monopoly on setting up forums. It's so easy and cheap now that anyone can do it.

That's why I take issue with conservatives who want to regulate Google, Twitter, etc because they "censor" convervative search results or posters. If those companies are doing such a bad job, and the market wants better, then it's relatively easy to set up a competing service. That's the nice thing about cheap computing power -- there's basically no financial barrier to entry to competing even with big tech giants. You just need a few tech people and a relatively low investment in computing infrastructure. It's not like trying to take on Ford and having to spends hundreds of millions to set up factories.

They don't even have to invest in setting up a forum. There already are forums out there, like 8Chan or Gab, where conservatives are free to post whatever claptrap they want.

[jsteele]

Don’t forget about FFU. It’s even local.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. Posts that are couched in reality stay up.

No. They don't, not if they're critical of liberals.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/780248.page

Jeff did not think a discussion of a study (https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/) discussed in the media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/) about the language used when speaking to minority groups would generate an "in-depth, nuanced discussion of the article" but instead only involve "flinging insults."

He's possibly correct, but he also seems perfectly content to allow the flinging of insults towards people who-aren't-in-his-protected-groups - e.g. "Ah, Trump trash. You must be blown away that FUPA Donald knows he has two daughters - the one he has “sex” in common with, and the fat one who looks love like him in a long blonde wig." (From https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/825232.page , which is the first thread in the politics forum when I just went and looked) That's apparently not flinging insults, but instead something approaching in-depth, nuanced discussion.

In all fairness, I don't think Jeff thinks insulting the President's daughter is "in-depth" or "nuanced" and he would possibly agree it's just "flinging insults." But not enough for him to remove even though a reasonable person might think that on this forum, that thread is unlikely to involve in-depth or nuanced discussion, and very likely to involve flinging insults. While he quickly removes a post titled with the headline from the newspaper articles discussing it, and which Jeff found troubling because of the results of the study. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing we should be able to discuss? Not here. Not if it's critical to liberals. Even when it's being discussed in the media and is based on an apparently fairly well done study (as discussed on reddit, where I found forums where these things could be discussed). Heck, talk about white fragility.

If you aren't in the group being censored, you often don't see it. But you should be aware that Jeff's not just removing posts that insult people or use offensive explicit language. He also removes posts that his core group might find challenging. I understand why he does it, this is his livelihood. And plenty of people enjoy playing in a walled garden, especially when they can pretend it's not (it's anonymous! We can say anything!).

[Anonymous]

You want to discuss implicit bias on a forum with known racists? How did you think that conversation would go? Seems like trolling to me.

And maybe those "insults" are actually just accurate descriptors.

[Anonymous]

I see plenty of republican posts left up. But there’s a big difference between republican and the new tea party trump right wing. You’re being quite misleading when you try to redefine what “Republican” or “conservative” is to this very narrow view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. Posts that are couched in reality stay up.

No. They don't, not if they're critical of liberals.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/780248.page

Jeff did not think a discussion of a study (https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/) discussed in the media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/) about the language used when speaking to minority groups would generate an "in-depth, nuanced discussion of the article" but instead only involve "flinging insults."

He's possibly correct, but he also seems perfectly content to allow the flinging of insults towards people who-aren't-in-his-protected-groups - e.g. "Ah, Trump trash. You must be blown away that FUPA Donald knows he has two daughters - the one he has “sex” in common with, and the fat one who looks love like him in a long blonde wig." (From https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/825232.page , which is the first thread in the politics forum when I just went and looked) That's apparently not flinging insults, but instead something approaching in-depth, nuanced discussion.

In all fairness, I don't think Jeff thinks insulting the President's daughter is "in-depth" or "nuanced" and he would possibly agree it's just "flinging insults." But not enough for him to remove even though a reasonable person might think that on this forum, that thread is unlikely to involve in-depth or nuanced discussion, and very likely to involve flinging insults. While he quickly removes a post titled with the headline from the newspaper articles discussing it, and which Jeff found troubling because of the results of the study. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing we should be able to discuss? Not here. Not if it's critical to liberals. Even when it's being discussed in the media and is based on an apparently fairly well done study (as discussed on reddit, where I found forums where these things could be discussed). Heck, talk about white fragility.

If you aren't in the group being censored, you often don't see it. But you should be aware that Jeff's not just removing posts that insult people or use offensive explicit language. He also removes posts that his core group might find challenging. I understand why he does it, this is his livelihood. And plenty of people enjoy playing in a walled garden, especially when they can pretend it's not (it's anonymous! We can say anything!).

+1

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. Posts that are couched in reality stay up.

No. They don't, not if they're critical of liberals.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/780248.page

Jeff did not think a discussion of a study (https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/) discussed in the media (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/) about the language used when speaking to minority groups would generate an "in-depth, nuanced discussion of the article" but instead only involve "flinging insults."

He's possibly correct, but he also seems perfectly content to allow the flinging of insults towards people who-aren't-in-his-protected-groups - e.g. "Ah, Trump trash. You must be blown away that FUPA Donald knows he has two daughters - the one he has “sex” in common with, and the fat one who looks love like him in a long blonde wig." (From https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/825232.page , which is the first thread in the politics forum when I just went and looked) That's apparently not flinging insults, but instead something approaching in-depth, nuanced discussion.

In all fairness, I don't think Jeff thinks insulting the President's daughter is "in-depth" or "nuanced" and he would possibly agree it's just "flinging insults." But not enough for him to remove even though a reasonable person might think that on this forum, that thread is unlikely to involve in-depth or nuanced discussion, and very likely to involve flinging insults. While he quickly removes a post titled with the headline from the newspaper articles discussing it, and which Jeff found troubling because of the results of the study. Isn't that exactly the sort of thing we should be able to discuss? Not here. Not if it's critical to liberals. Even when it's being discussed in the media and is based on an apparently fairly well done study (as discussed on reddit, where I found forums where these things could be discussed). Heck, talk about white fragility.

If you aren't in the group being censored, you often don't see it. But you should be aware that Jeff's not just removing posts that insult people or use offensive explicit language. He also removes posts that his core group might find challenging. I understand why he does it, this is his livelihood. And plenty of people enjoy playing in a walled garden, especially when they can pretend it's not (it's anonymous! We can say anything!).

I'm going to dispute the bolded. I know that Trumpsters think that they ware geniuses who repeatedly post arguments of such intellectual strength that liberals will simply crumble in front of them were the posts not removed. Let me be clear. That is not the case. Let's use your example. You posted about implicit bias in language, initially linking to a post in the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller is an extreme right-wing publication owned by Tucker Carlson (a man who recently said white supremacism is not a problem) which has had to repeatedly fire actual Nazis who had found their way on the the Daily Caller payroll. This is not a publication whose views on race are really worth considering. Needless to say, the Daily Caller's interpretation of this study and your description of it were inflammatory. Hence, I deleted it. You then reposted and attempted to make the exact same argument, but linking to the Washington Post instead. However, the Post article did not support your argument. On top of that, your subject line was about "white liberals". As I said 7 months ago (never let it be said that Trumpsters don't carry grudges), you appeared more interested in bashing liberals that actually discussing the topic of implicit bias. Why would I allow a thread that misrepresents a study, was inspired by a racist publication, and whose goal is to insult the bulk of our users? Obviously, I wouldn't and I didn't.

Does that demonstrate bias against racist Trumpsters? You are damn right it does and I proudly own that bias.

Does it demonstrate a solid intellectual argument that would simply challenge our users. No, not in the least.

Your post was simply an attempt to bash liberals by misrepresenting the conclusions of a study that had nothing to do with politics.

As for the insults that many Trumpsters seem to be bothered by, I have a question. Are you aware of who your president is? If so, you are a really strange group to be bothered by name-calling. Moreover, for the bazillionth time, I don't read every post. You guys refuse to report anything. So, how do you expect me to know about those posts? This has become an infuriating routine. You repeatedly refuse to report anything but then complain that I haven't removed it.

Finally, I am really, really tired of the constant complaints that conservatives aren't being treated fairly. At this point, I don't even care if I am treating you unfairly. If you don't like it, please leave. If you are going to continue using DCUM, stop complaining. At this point, I am not only deaf to your complaints, they make me want to treat you worse.

[Anonymous]

I long for the days when ignorant individuals were reluctant to speak out loud their thoughts and beliefs because they were at least smart enough to know how dumb they are.

Trump changed all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I long for the days when ignorant individuals were reluctant to speak out loud their thoughts and beliefs because they were at least smart enough to know how dumb they are.

Trump changed all that.

And your definition of ignorant individuals are those who disagree with your politics. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I long for the days when ignorant individuals were reluctant to speak out loud their thoughts and beliefs because they were at least smart enough to know how dumb they are.

Trump changed all that.

And your definition of ignorant individuals are those who disagree with your politics. Got it.

Nope, they are people who believe and say stupid things. Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I long for the days when ignorant individuals were reluctant to speak out loud their thoughts and beliefs because they were at least smart enough to know how dumb they are.

Trump changed all that.

And your definition of ignorant individuals are those who disagree with your politics. Got it.

Nope, they are people who believe and say stupid things. Got it?

And YOU, in your superior wisdom, decide what is stupid. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I long for the days when ignorant individuals were reluctant to speak out loud their thoughts and beliefs because they were at least smart enough to know how dumb they are.

Trump changed all that.

And your definition of ignorant individuals are those who disagree with your politics. Got it.

Nope, they are people who believe and say stupid things. Got it?

And YOU, in your superior wisdom, decide what is stupid. Got it.

Look man - if the Trump supporters in the politics forum are representative of Trump supporters overall, then I'm afraid it is an objective fact that you are a stupid group of people.

You are petty, mean, cruel, racist, stupid, incapable of making a logical argument. You are also irritating AF because your posts are 100% disruptive rather than furthering any substantive conversation.

Sorry that you feel those of us with ears, eyes, brains, and hearts aren't able to call it for what it is.

If you're trying to get normal people to abandon DCUM entirely then a one-hour MAGA MAGA MAGA free for all is a great idea. I can't wait to hear how many hats people have been persecuted over in that time.