A moderator's message to Joseph Mcbride and Michael Griffith.

[Sandy Larsen]

Your exchange is taking place in two unrelated threads, so I am bringing it here.

Michael, while it is true that Joseph's post wasn't precisely on topic, it was indeed about the Vietnam War and the Kennedy assassination. In addition, posts typically do stray off topic a little, and Joseph may have been influenced by such a stray post.

Having said that, it is entirely within your rights to ask a person to stay on topic. But I would suggest that you not begin your request with inflammatory remarks. Because doing so is almost an invitation for the person to dig in their heals.

Now, if you two want to discuss this matter further, please do so here in this thread. Or create a new topic specifically for your discussion, or to discuss forum etiquette.

 

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Having said that, it is entirely within your rights to ask a person to stay on topic. But I would suggest that you not begin your request with inflammatory remarks. Because doing so is almost an invitation for the person to dig in their heals.

Now, if you two want to continue your argument, please do so here in this thread. Or create a new topic specifically for your argument, or to discuss forum etiquette.

Oh, I didn't think I was being inflammatory to note that he was expressing far-left views about the Vietnam War. I thought I was just accurately describing his views. I wasn't trying to agitate him.

I wasn't aware that I was having an argument with Joseph McBride, and I didn't know anything about his complaint until I stumbled across it in a different thread.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, I didn't think I was being inflammatory to note that he was expressing far-left views about the Vietnam War. I thought I was just accurately describing his views. I wasn't trying to agitate him.

 

 You used of the loaded phrase "far left," which is another way of saying "extreme left." (Look up "far-left politics" in Wikipedia.) I'm sure Joseph doesn't see himself as an extremist. Plus, didn't you refer to Noam Chomsky as a total loon, or something like that? Knowing that Joseph has respect for the man?

 

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I wasn't aware that I was having an argument with Joseph McBride, and I didn't know anything about his complaint until I stumbled across it in a different thread.

 

It felt like an argument to me because of the words you used and because of his negative response. But you are right and I have corrected my post.

 

[Joseph McBride]

Sandy, Michael is being deliberately disingenuous.

This is what he wrote and what I considered an attempt to stifle

free speech on this site. Also, he indulges in ad hominem insults. Griffith: "If you want to share your far-left views about the Vietnam War, this is not the thread to do so. Chomsky is an abject loon. Anyway, we're talking about the point that if the plotters viewed the Vietnam War as a major motive to kill JFK, it is very hard to understand why they let LBJ so horribly mismanage the war effort."

As I noted to you, I was writing my views on the Vietnam

War and the JFK assassination.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 You used of the loaded phrase "far left," which is another way of saying "extreme left." (Look up "far-left politics" in Wikipedia.) I'm sure Joseph doesn't see himself as an extremist. Plus, didn't you refer to Noam Chomsky as a total loon, or something like that? Knowing that Joseph has respect for the man?

 

 

It felt like an argument to me because of the words you used and because of his negative response. But you are right and I have corrected my post.

 

Actually, Sandy, straying off this topic, would it be advantageous or better etiquette to have an amnesty or prohibition of the following terms:

 

- far left

- far right

- extreme left

- extreme right

- radical left

- radical right

ie we should not imply a fellow forum member is one of those things without concrete evidence. 

The terms are just used to diminish an opponents views. They don’t enhance any conversation. I haven’t seen anyone here who deserves to be characterised in those terms. We don’t have any antifa lunatics or racist clansman, we don’t have any communists or fascists. Every time anyone is called those terms or similar, it deteriorates the conversation. 
 

I might add the racial gaslighting is also a factor that creates problems. To imply that anyone is pro border security is a white supremacist, is again a surefire way to turn a thread into a war. 
 

I hold my hands up for any part I have played in the above but, I am just thinking how we can improve. 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Actually, Sandy, straying off this topic, would it be advantageous or better etiquette to have an amnesty or prohibition of the following terms:

 

- far left

- far right

- extreme left

- extreme right

- radical left

- radical right

ie we should not imply a fellow forum member is one of those things without concrete evidence. 

The terms are just used to diminish an opponents views. They don’t enhance any conversation. I haven’t seen anyone here who deserves to be characterised in those terms. We don’t have any antifa lunatics or racist clansman, we don’t have any communists or fascists. Every time anyone is called those terms or similar, it deteriorates the conversation. 
 

I might add the racial gaslighting is also a factor that creates problems. To imply that anyone is pro border security is a white supremacist, is again a surefire way to turn a thread into a war. 
 

I hold my hands up for any part I have played in the above but, I am just thinking how we can improve. 

One could even go so far as to say that the terms “left” and “right”, never mind “far-left” and “far-right” and so on, are probably best avoided:

“Left, and right, its obvious opponent, are frequently used, but ultimately empty, slogan-words in modern politics”

(Penguin Dictionary of Politics, David Robertson. 1993)

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Actually, Sandy, straying off this topic, would it be advantageous or better etiquette to have an amnesty or prohibition of the following terms:

 

- far left

- far right

- extreme left

- extreme right

- radical left

- radical right

ie we should not imply a fellow forum member is one of those things without concrete evidence. 

The terms are just used to diminish an opponents views. They don’t enhance any conversation. I haven’t seen anyone here who deserves to be characterised in those terms. We don’t have any antifa lunatics or racist clansman, we don’t have any communists or fascists. Every time anyone is called those terms or similar, it deteriorates the conversation. 
 

I might add the racial gaslighting is also a factor that creates problems. To imply that anyone is pro border security is a white supremacist, is again a surefire way to turn a thread into a war. 
 

I hold my hands up for any part I have played in the above but, I am just thinking how we can improve. 

 

Chris,

To be honest, I had to do some research to do my job as moderator above. I didn't know that a person might be offended by the phrase "far-left." Maybe because I've long thought that I'm pretty far to the left myself. And to me, before studying the terms, I would have thought that "extreme-left" was farther to the left than "far-left," and that "radical-left" was even more so, maybe bordering on dangerous! Also, I think I have thick skin. I wouldn't have been offended by what Michael said. Just a little surprised by the less-than-friendly reception.

But I am a moderator and I had a job to do.

 

[Joseph McBride]

Sandy, I appreciate your point, but it's not the glib political labeling that's the real problem,

it's the blatant attempt of a poster to shut down speech someone

disagrees with. Naturally I would never comply with such an edict,

but in our censorious society today, people are trying to shut down

opposing views of one kind or another. As JFK said, "Let us not

be afraid of debate or dissent -- let us encourage it."

Edited November 4, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Sandy, Michael is being deliberately disingenuous.

This is what he wrote and what I considered an attempt to stifle

free speech on this site. Also, he indulges in ad hominem insults. Griffith: "If you want to share your far-left views about the Vietnam War, this is not the thread to do so. Chomsky is an abject loon. Anyway, we're talking about the point that if the plotters viewed the Vietnam War as a major motive to kill JFK, it is very hard to understand why they let LBJ so horribly mismanage the war effort."

As I noted to you, I was writing my views on the Vietnam

War and the JFK assassination.

 

Joseph,

You certainly have the right to post on any thread in the forum. So I suggest you go ahead and do so, as long as it's on topic. If anybody misbehaves, there's an easy way to report it to the moderators. See the three dots in the upper-right corner of this (my) post? If you wanted to report this post, you would click that. Upon doing so a little menu pops up, and you click Report. That's it! There also a box where you can optionally leave a message for the moderators. No need to copy and paste anything. Plus it makes it easier for the moderators to handle it.

 

[Joseph McBride]

Thank you, Sandy.

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

To be honest, I had to do some research to do my job as moderator above. I didn't know that a person might be offended by the phrase "far-left." Maybe because I've long thought that I'm pretty far to the left myself. And to me, before studying the terms, I would have thought that "extreme-left" was farther to the left than "far-left," and that "radical-left" was even more so, maybe bordering on dangerous! Also, I think I have thick skin. I wouldn't have been offended by what Michael said. Just a little surprised by the less-than-friendly reception.

But I am a moderator and I had a job to do.

 

Thanks, Sandy. I understand. People are using their real identities, the site has good SEO, I can see how either side being called an extremist of it being suggested they are similar to those folk could get people upset. I am a bit thick skinned like you, also.

[Joseph McBride]

Chris, see my previous post, please. 

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Naturally I would never comply with such an edict,

but in our censorious society today, people are trying to shut down

opposing views of one kind or another. As JFK said, "Let us not

be afraid of debate or dissent -- let us encourage it."

bump

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Sandy, I appreciate your point, but it's not the glib political labeling that's the real problem,

it's the blatant attempt of a poster to shut down speech someone

disagrees with. Naturally I would never comply with such an edict,

but in our censorious society today, people are trying to shut down

opposing views of one kind or another. As JFK said, "Let us not

be afraid of debate or dissent -- let us encourage it."

If its this one you mean - In a JFK or George Orwell sense - I am against censorship. However, do you see what I am getting at here? In the interest of public discourse, people shouldn’t be just calling their opponent Hitler, Stalin, or a white supremacist, or a antifa hooligan (just because they don’t agree, nobody here is those things). The misrepresentation of peoples positions has become rife. I am at the point where you almost need to misrepresent your opponents position to make them aware how unsavoury and unkind what they are doing is. ie put the shoe on the other foot. This is all tantamount to reputation destruction. Its a tactic to make people look bad. We can argue that someone saying something ridiculous shouldn’t matter but, in todays world where there is a digital record of it, it can impact people. In a form you are a victim of such a tactic here.
 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Chris Barnard

[Joseph McBride]

Chris, you're still missing my point about what concerns me in this instance. Please read my

message again, including the quote from JFK:  "Let us not

be afraid of debate or dissent -- let us encourage it."