Morning spidergoat. We’ve been invaded lol
CNN Refugees
- Thread starter MalcomR
- Start date
- Status
The New JT
Registered Member
I know a mod locked it but I am wondering if it’s Chuckles posts that caused the mod to take this action. If so, I hope he is banned soon or he could have that impact on any thread we create.
If so, then it's not worth it. If they deem our simple conversations unacceptable, they can stick it.
Did you get a notification?
We have an immune system.
So a troll invades a thread and we kill the host? Bullshit.
Seems unfair
The New JT
Registered Member
BC Chick, I did not receive an alert. I saw that the thread was locked while on the thread.
Gotcha.
It is unfair. And stupid.
Threads are a dime a dozen. Sometimes you have to chop off an arm to save the body. Like a snakebite or something.
Mod Hat — On definitions
I am obliged to disagree insofar as in order to make the phrase "rational, generally respectful discussions", we need to revisit definitions of the words "rational" and "respectful".
You might have witnessed some particularly combative discussions in recent months in the Politics thread. The only real comment we have from the Administration on that is that the worst of it is not problematic under the rules; that is to say, we've known for a while the rules aren't necessarily in effect, but the Administration won't come right out and say so.
As near as I can tell, the point over the last decade-plus has been to raise a mean-spirited, stupid menace. Of course, the problem with that thesis is a matter of hindsight; for most of the period the proposition was beyond belief. But we've gone from saying this sort of thing (we used to describe it as FB-style or Twitter-style) with short, nonsensical posts counting as traffic being prohibited to wondering if it's actually the point.
At any rate, good faith: Within the same dimensions of "everyone" agreeing on "rational, generally respectful discussions", those folks will need to call out bad faith when they encounter it; that is, there is a point at which someone posting something grotesque does, really believe what they're saying, and then there are those who rely on pretenses of naïveté in order to disrupt. I have a bit in my inbox I haven't figured out what to do: Put the example in front of someone, so they send you three posts asking for examples.
There is also something else going on, here, but it's a larger question that goes beyond Sciforums or the tech-shell that owns it.
And this latest invasion is actually part of it. I'm not certain what to do, yet, but think of it this way: The site is actually a breeding lab or proving ground for alt-right trolls. At some point, Ockham insists.
But they've moved on to reporting each other's posts.
I recommend longtime and regular users avoid this crew for high collateral potential.
I am obliged to disagree insofar as in order to make the phrase "rational, generally respectful discussions", we need to revisit definitions of the words "rational" and "respectful".
You might have witnessed some particularly combative discussions in recent months in the Politics thread. The only real comment we have from the Administration on that is that the worst of it is not problematic under the rules; that is to say, we've known for a while the rules aren't necessarily in effect, but the Administration won't come right out and say so.
As near as I can tell, the point over the last decade-plus has been to raise a mean-spirited, stupid menace. Of course, the problem with that thesis is a matter of hindsight; for most of the period the proposition was beyond belief. But we've gone from saying this sort of thing (we used to describe it as FB-style or Twitter-style) with short, nonsensical posts counting as traffic being prohibited to wondering if it's actually the point.
At any rate, good faith: Within the same dimensions of "everyone" agreeing on "rational, generally respectful discussions", those folks will need to call out bad faith when they encounter it; that is, there is a point at which someone posting something grotesque does, really believe what they're saying, and then there are those who rely on pretenses of naïveté in order to disrupt. I have a bit in my inbox I haven't figured out what to do: Put the example in front of someone, so they send you three posts asking for examples.
There is also something else going on, here, but it's a larger question that goes beyond Sciforums or the tech-shell that owns it.
And this latest invasion is actually part of it. I'm not certain what to do, yet, but think of it this way: The site is actually a breeding lab or proving ground for alt-right trolls. At some point, Ockham insists.
But they've moved on to reporting each other's posts.
I recommend longtime and regular users avoid this crew for high collateral potential.
Or if you get bit my a zombie.
Yeah, I know. So I'll start some more.
As a black man, I trust a white Sheriff in Cobb County, Georgia in a MAGA hat chewing Red Man and wearing reflective sunglasses stopping me at 2 a.m. on a dark, desolate, rural road in my new, shiny, NY-plated Cadillac Escalade with dark tinted windows and 40” spinners while I blast “Cop Killer” and reach under my seat for my license, registration, and insurance, much more than I trust Robert Mueller. Or Barack Obama.
We’re still a bit shell-shocked, but we really are good people. We’re here to avoid the battlefield. We should have the kinks worked out quite soon.
You don't trust Republicans? Me either.
I am obliged to disagree insofar as in order to make the phrase "rational, generally respectful discussions", we need to revisit definitions of the words "rational" and "respectful".
You might have witnessed some particularly combative discussions in recent months in the Politics thread. The only real comment we have from the Administration on that is that the worst of it is not problematic under the rules; that is to say, we've known for a while the rules aren't necessarily in effect, but the Administration won't come right out and say so.
As near as I can tell, the point over the last decade-plus has been to raise a mean-spirited, stupid menace. Of course, the problem with that thesis is a matter of hindsight; for most of the period the proposition was beyond belief. But we've gone from saying this sort of thing (we used to describe it as FB-style or Twitter-style) with short, nonsensical posts counting as traffic being prohibited to wondering if it's actually the point.
At any rate, good faith: Within the same dimensions of "everyone" agreeing on "rational, generally respectful discussions", those folks will need to call out bad faith when they encounter it; that is, there is a point at which someone posting something grotesque does, really believe what they're saying, and then there are those who rely on pretenses of naïveté in order to disrupt. I have a bit in my inbox I haven't figured out what to do: Put the example in front of someone, so they send you three posts asking for examples.
There is also something else going on, here, but it's a larger question that goes beyond Sciforums or the tech-shell that owns it.
And this latest invasion is actually part of it. I'm not certain what to do, yet, but think of it this way: The site is actually a breeding lab or proving ground for alt-right trolls. At some point, Ockham insists.
But they've moved on to reporting each other's posts.
I recommend longtime and regular users avoid this crew for high collateral potential.[/QUOTE]
Well, a group of us have migrated from the CNN boards for the very reason of escaping the alt-right monsters. Hopefully threads will not get locked willy-nilly when one or others invade. If we report individuals, and the mods or the higher powers-that-be still want to close it, a reason would be appreciated.
Dixie
Registered Member
I just did.... hmmmmmmmm.
- Status