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

Forum Index » Website Feedback

◄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ► Go

Go to page...

09/03/2019 12:15

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

Anonymous

jsteele wrote:

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.

The initial post quoted the article from the Daily Mail. There are sites that consider Daily Mail a site more sensational than news-oriented. But it is not the Daily News (where you initially said I posted from, or the Daily Caller, which you are now claiming, and if you looked you'd see you're completely wrong about.) Your vent about the Daily Caller is lovely and all, but has absolutely nothing to do with my post now, or my post then.

I changed to quoting the article from the Washington Post because I generously assumed you were thinking the Daily Mail reference was sensationalized, and you would consider the Washington Post a less sensational site. But you've apparently decided it's perfectly reasonable to make up out of whole cloth where I quoted from and what the study is about, without even reading it. And that's supposed to make us think you AREN'T predisposed to be biased against any non-liberal viewpoint and delete them out of hand?

The title of the post was a direct quote of the title of the article - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/ . The study had quite a lot to do with politics. I suggest you read the article and the study, and then decide if the Washington Post was "misrepresenting the conclusions of a study that had nothing to do with politics." Given the number of other locations that have discussed this study, and the lack of retractions, I think we're seeing you knee jerk here.

I don't need to show you treating conservatives unfairly. You did a bang up job in your post right here, lying about where the initial article link came from, going off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my post (and I even linked to the original thread so you could have checked to make sure you were accurate), misrepresenting the study and making it seem like I conjured up a title to be insulting, and then deciding to rant about "Trumpsters" which had nothing to do with anything (not in my post, not in the study).

You've made it spectacularly clear that you have no interest in treating those on any other side fairly, and that my sentence you reacted to "He also removes posts that his core group might find challenging." was so correct it sent you off on a tailspin of fantasy against an imagined enemy.

You certainly haven't treated me fairly here, and the facts are in front of you if you'd care to actually realize how wrong you are.