Thanks Moderators

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Interesting question:

Would a civil but ardent Trump supporter be treated civilly in this forum? 

Taking bets....

Well, this is exactly it, @Matthew Koch is on a ban, and its less well behaved, if anything those who he argued with seem emboldened. We have seen disabled people used in a joke, and a meme giving the finger in the last hours from self identified Democrats. Exactly who are the moral ones here? 
 

[Benjamin Cole]

43 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, this is exactly it, @Matthew Koch is on a ban, and its less well behaved, if anything those who he argued with seem emboldened. We have seen disabled people used in a joke, and a meme giving the finger in the last hours from self identified Democrats. Exactly who are the moral ones here? 
 

Well, one way to make sure EF remains the smallest nook in the Internet is to exclude half the potential audience....

 

 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Interesting question:

Would a civil but ardent Trump supporter be treated civilly in this forum? 

Taking bets....

The root cause of the lack of civility in the forum (as in society generally) is authoritarianism.

The most useful definition of authoritarianism is the presumed infallibility of those in authority. This applies to those in authority and to those who kowtow to authority, and as demonstrated in the Milgram obedience experiment, most people are authoritarians.

That being the case, the political views of these people are not based on logic but on mindless subservience to those in power. Since, by definition, these people are unable to defend their positions logically, they generally attack the person who exposes their illogicality.

As I said previously, the classic example of that toxic dynamic is that of Socrates, who was condemned to death for exposing the illogicality of authoritarianism.

And it’s for precisely that same reason – the illogicality of authoritarianism being exposed – that the “56 years” thread and Matthew Koch were “cancelled”.

Edited March 15, 2023 by John Cotter

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Cotter writes:

Quote

Is it any wonder you and your fellow idealogues [sic] want the “56 years” thread deleted?

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

Quote

The co opting of assassination research,  first by the coalescent troof movement post 9/11, and the influx of all manner of fringe zanies,  touting all manner of far out [naughty word], and finally by the alt right manosphere hate merchants, ... has been nothing less than calamitous.

He continues:

Quote

I suspect the upcoming 60th anniversary will be transformed,  or at least certain individuals will try their damndest to transform it into a grotesque tabloid feeding frenzy/ bastard zombie reboot of the QAnon circus.

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Cotter writes:

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

He continues:

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

In many ways, I agree with you.

But...lately what have been called "debunked far-right crank theories" have turned out to be right, such as the lab source of the C19, or the truth about Hunter Biden laptop.

Even long-time liberals are referring to the Russiagate hoax as "a farrago of lies." (see the Columbia Journalism Review four-part series).

I am skeptical of the Jan. 6 M$M narrative. 

Presently, I am hard put to assert my traditional home, in left-wing America, is any longer a tenable place to be, or is interested in the truth---they seek to project narratives, much like the right wing. 

My view: If right-wingers want the JFK Records released, then I embrace right-wingers. 

IMHO, the JFKA community should be a big tent, where we treat each other civilly. 

Perhaps you are a far-left winger---does that make you reprehensible? 

 

 

[Paul Rigby]

“We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkvoiceofamerica.htm

Address on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America, delivered 26 February 1962, Health, Education, and Welfare Building, Washington, D.C.

Education Forum Mods: Get real. This only applies to Biden supporters.

The forum’s BPPT (Bidenescu’s Plunge Protection Team): Anyone who criticizes Biden is a Trumpo-Putinoid fascistic communist. Censorship of these people is a right and an obligation.

“What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/50-years-later-jfk-peace-speech-still-inspires-and-has-been-scientifically-validated/

The forum’s BPPT (Bidenescu’s Plunge Protection Team): Slava Ukrayini! More arms! More woar!

Education Forum Mods: We’re studiously neutral, of course, but if anyone disagrees with the BPPT, we’ll close the thread concerned and banish it to the outer darkness. Need anything else, BPPT?

The forum does indeed have a problem, but it isn’t Matthew Koch, who should be reinstated immediately, if not sooner, not least so I can exchange opinions with him on a lunatic claim by Kristi Noem*. The real problem is twofold: the presence of a claque of Bidenescu regime propagandists for whom each and every issue is judged not on the basis of merit or evidence, but rather its threat or utility to the Bidenescu regime; and by a Deep State Dem mindset, sadly shared by its moderators, that fears debate and suppresses it whenever it receives an appeal from the whiners of the claque.

We need, in short, a new set of mods, one which more accurately reflect the diversity of contributors’ political opinions; and enforces, preferably as lightly as possible, its rules equitably.

* Noem went bonkers and claimed that China had spent the last 2,000 years plotting America's demise.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In many ways, I agree with you.

But...lately what have been called "debunked far-right crank theories" have turned out to be right, such as the lab source of the C19, or the truth about Hunter Biden laptop.

Even long-time liberals are referring to the Russiagate hoax as "a farrago of lies." (see the Columbia Journalism Review four-part series).

I am skeptical of the Jan. 6 M$M narrative. 

Presently, I am hard put to assert my traditional home, in left-wing America, is any longer a tenable place to be, or is interested in the truth---they seek to project narratives, much like the right wing. 

My view: If right-wingers want the JFK Records released, then I embrace right-wingers. 

IMHO, the JFKA community should be a big tent, where we treat each other civilly. 

Perhaps you are a far-left winger---does that make you reprehensible? 

 

 

Unfortunately, Ben, we have a vast swathe of the citizenry who are so conditioned and politically illiterate that they just repeat the term “far right” to stigmatise anyone that they don’t agree with. In 2023 they’ll call libertarians far-right. Centrists are being called it. It’s like they just moved the Overton Window as far left as they could and now centrists are the “far right”. It’s just weaponising language to suit a purpose. I’ve talked ‘divide and rule’ enough here. 
 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Guest]

@Mark Knight @Sandy Larsen @Kathy Beckett @James Gordon. 
 

Can we have a free and open dialogue with you guys over the reinstatement of @Matthew Koch ? You all would identify as being pro-equality, and pro-adherence to rules here on the forum. IMO you’re permitting something to happen that isn’t just, nor equal. 
 

How can we have people identifying as the blue tribe, making jokes that include disabled people and posting ‘the finger’ toward their opposition? 
 

What kind of forum do you want this to be? Do we want new members? Do we want ‘diversity’ in terms of opinions? Do we want to continue ad hominem? Its been a couple of days and its as bad as ever. 
 

Thoughts? 
 

[Benjamin Cole]

If Koch puts into the EF fund...and tries to be civil...then we need a big tent to hold him. 

Do members and moderators really want EF to boil down to a half-dozen aging liberals who rudely dismiss newcomers if they have alternative views? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If Koch puts into the EF fund...and tries to be civil...then we need a big tent to hold him. 

Do members and moderators really want EF to boil down to a half-dozen aging liberals who rudely dismiss newcomers if they have alternative views? 

He has contributed, yes. 

[Paul Rigby]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Cotter writes:

That's the second time you've claimed, wrongly, that I wanted the '56 Years' thread deleted. I didn't want the thread to be deleted, and never said so.

The point I made was that several threads were being used to spread ill-informed talking points that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. If Trump fans, anti-vaxxers, and the rest want to spout the sort of views that even most right-wingers find extreme, there must be plenty of more suitable locations than a forum dedicated to the JFK assassination. Do it somewhere else.

In his ROKC thread, Alex Wilson makes a good point:

He continues:

I don't know if there's a deliberate attempt by the far-right to claim ownership of the JFK assassination for their cause. If there is, let's hope they don't succeed.

To get the JFK assassination properly investigated and resolved, the support of the general public is essential. It's bad enough that the public is encouraged by the media to equate critics of the lone-nut theory with moon-landings deniers and the like. With the 60th anniversary coming up, the last thing we need is to be lumped together with the far-right crowd.

Jeremy is invariably a welcome breath of fresh nonsense, and this Antipodean-sourced contribution is no exception. By far the biggest threat to the reputation of JFK research is an association with, well, lawyers (the sainted Larry Schnapf excluded), as this heart-rending piece by Staci Zaretsky, referencing a seminal 2014 Princeton Uni study by Friske & Dupree, leaves no doubt:

Scientific Study Concludes No One Trusts Lawyers

Lawyers are ranked on par with prostitutes when it comes to trust. Lovely.

https://abovethelaw.com/2014/09/scientific-study-concludes-no-one-trusts-lawyers/

From Friske and Dupree:

“The [rightmost] corner lists the ambivalently perceived high-competence, low-warmth, “envied” professions: lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. They earn respect but not trust. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise (competence) but also trustworthiness (warmth). People report envy and jealousy toward groups in this space. These are mixed emotions that include both admiration and resentment.”

As Zaretsky concludes: “What’s the lesson to be learned here? The next time someone asks you what the difference between a lawyer and a hooker is, it’s not just that the hooker will stop trying to screw you when you’re dead.”

There are four additional obvious lessons to be drawn from this compelling study:

1) On no account should JFK research become tainted by association with the legal profession;

2) Friske and Dupree are masters of the obvious;

3) Reputable professionals – garbage collectors and the like – should be excluded from all future comparison studies and replaced with similarly malign occupations such as traffic wardens, grave robbers and politicians;

4) Prostitutes should lawyer up and sue the hell out of whoever compares them to members of the legal profession.

[Benjamin Cole]

32 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

He has contributed, yes. 

If Koch paid his dues, then he is a pole in the tent. 

Banning him seems unfair, unless his dues are returned to him. 

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

“We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkvoiceofamerica.htm

Address on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America, delivered 26 February 1962, Health, Education, and Welfare Building, Washington, D.C.

Education Forum Mods: Get real. This only applies to Biden supporters.

The forum’s BPPT (Bidenescu’s Plunge Protection Team): Anyone who criticizes Biden is a Trumpo-Putinoid fascistic communist. Censorship of these people is a right and an obligation.

“What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/50-years-later-jfk-peace-speech-still-inspires-and-has-been-scientifically-validated/

The forum’s BPPT (Bidenescu’s Plunge Protection Team): Slava Ukrayini! More arms! More woar!

Education Forum Mods: We’re studiously neutral, of course, but if anyone disagrees with the BPPT, we’ll close the thread concerned and banish it to the outer darkness. Need anything else, BPPT?

The forum does indeed have a problem, but it isn’t Matthew Koch, who should be reinstated immediately, if not sooner, not least so I can exchange opinions with him on a lunatic claim by Kristi Noem*. The real problem is twofold: the presence of a claque of Bidenescu regime propagandists for whom each and every issue is judged not on the basis of merit or evidence, but rather its threat or utility to the Bidenescu regime; and by a Deep State Dem mindset, sadly shared by its moderators, that fears debate and suppresses it whenever it receives an appeal from the whiners of the claque.

We need, in short, a new set of mods, one which more accurately reflect the diversity of contributors’ political opinions; and enforces, preferably as lightly as possible, its rules equitably.

* Noem went bonkers and claimed that China had spent the last 2,000 years plotting America's demise.

This isn't a Biden forum. It's a JFK assassination forum. Take it somewhere else, please.

[Robert Burrows]

14 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

You should retract this IMO; as its another egregious mis-characterisation. The person is not here to defend themselves, either. 
Not only that, let me ask you a question; do you desire that this thread and others go the same way as other threads that have turned septic? My continuing in the same vain you’ll almost certainly achieve the same outcome or potentially worse. 

I think this definition of madness originally comes from the bible; “People doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results.” 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

The quote about insanity is usually attributed to Albert Einstein. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Robert Burrows said:

The quote about insanity is usually attributed to Albert Einstein. 

Hi Robert, I think its origins are in the ‘Matthew Effect’. And it’s often misattributed to Einstein. Its a bit like some of the ones that stick with George Orwell and Mark Twain. I also think that Napoleon used something along those lines. I can be wrong, its one I like but, it’s true, but, perhaps overused. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Chris Barnard