MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Guest]

JFK encouraged public discourse / free speech

Apparently our moderators do not. 

Another thread has just been locked, censored without proper explanation or questions answered. This is just getting more and more authoritarian.

Do we need a new panel of moderators?  What kind is of forum do we want this to be? 
 

Are we allowed to ask questions? Or does the Wizards of Oz forbid that? 
 

You’re better than this, ladies and gents. 
 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Paul Brancato]

Chris - your feathers have clearly been ruffled, and you would like me to acknowledge that I was no less insulting than the forum member who was kicked out. But I don’t agree. I backpedaled a few times, which was hard considering how he was articulating his views. I found it repugnant when he threw Soros and Antifa together, as if there is any reality to that. And Soros is an anti-Semitic dog whistle. So I could have been kinder about that, and even said so. But the video he posted that got me to use the word racist was taken down by someone, not this forum. It was clearly bad enough for me to lose my cool. I’m generally pretty even handed and I try hard not to go too far in my comments. But this particular member did in fact stalk me after that. And when I posted something which explained where I was coming from regarding racism, and using my mother as an example, he insulted her with a fact that turned out not to be a fact. Unfortunately the conversation ended there. But it wouldn’t have taken much digging for him to see that he actually proved my mother right. The families of the women who were used as the face of Aunt Jemima did not benefit. Aunt Jemima was not a real person, she was a corporate logo, possibly the first. The image is easily seen now as racist, even if it wasn’t seen that way in the 1890’s. I’d didn’t fool my mom in the 1950’s. The Mullins company which owned the brand at first wrote a script for the real person they hired to play the part at the world’s fair I think in Chicago, that talked about the good times black paper and whites had together during slavery times. I can’t imagine this woman enjoyed that. The whole history of Aunt Jemima is most certainly racist. But this forum member was intent on proving my mother to be a feckless white privileged liberal. Chris - I would not behave that way, and I’m surprised you find me equally guilty of bad forum etiquette.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - your feathers have clearly been ruffled, and you would like me to acknowledge that I was no less insulting than the forum member who was kicked out. But I don’t agree. I backpedaled a few times, which was hard considering how he was articulating his views. I found it repugnant when he threw Soros and Antifa together, as if there is any reality to that. And Soros is an anti-Semitic dog whistle. So I could have been kinder about that, and even said so. But the video he posted that got me to use the word racist was taken down by someone, not this forum. It was clearly bad enough for me to lose my cool. I’m generally pretty even handed and I try hard not to go too far in my comments. But this particular member did in fact stalk me after that. And when I posted something which explained where I was coming from regarding racism, and using my mother as an example, he insulted her with a fact that turned out not to be a fact. Unfortunately the conversation ended there. But it wouldn’t have taken much digging for him to see that he actually proved my mother right. The families of the women who were used as the face of Aunt Jemima did not benefit. Aunt Jemima was not a real person, she was a corporate logo, possibly the first. The image is easily seen now as racist, even if it wasn’t seen that way in the 1890’s. I’d didn’t fool my mom in the 1950’s. The Mullins company which owned the brand at first wrote a script for the real person they hired to play the part at the world’s fair I think in Chicago, that talked about the good times black paper and whites had together during slavery times. I can’t imagine this woman enjoyed that. The whole history of Aunt Jemima is most certainly racist. But this forum member was intent on proving my mother to be a feckless white privileged liberal. Chris - I would not behave that way, and I’m surprised you find me equally guilty of bad forum etiquette.

 

Actually, Paul. There is nothing personal or specifically aimed at you, or anyone who behaved badly (friend or foe). Many of us have said things that we probably shouldn’t have at times. I don’t desire anyone banned. I am questioning the decision making process of the moderators and the lack of equality being displayed by them IMO.
 

- Matthew has been suspended without any direct communication. Days on and zero messages or emails have been sent. That’s very shabby indeed, particularly for someone who pays into the pot.

- He has supposedly been banned for stalking (defined as using publicly available data about a forum member and posting it here on the forum). This is exactly what Jim D did with Lance. One person is banned and another isn’t. Is that because one person is a conservative and another is a liberal? 
 

- There was no rule in the lost of forum rules stating this was an infringement.

This isn’t a level playing field. And now we have Kathy locking threads publicly questioning the process. As a libertarian, I am naturally predisposed to dislike authoritarianism. 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - your feathers have clearly been ruffled, and you would like me to acknowledge that I was no less insulting than the forum member who was kicked out. But I don’t agree. I backpedaled a few times, which was hard considering how he was articulating his views. I found it repugnant when he threw Soros and Antifa together, as if there is any reality to that. And Soros is an anti-Semitic dog whistle. So I could have been kinder about that, and even said so. But the video he posted that got me to use the word racist was taken down by someone, not this forum. It was clearly bad enough for me to lose my cool. I’m generally pretty even handed and I try hard not to go too far in my comments. But this particular member did in fact stalk me after that. And when I posted something which explained where I was coming from regarding racism, and using my mother as an example, he insulted her with a fact that turned out not to be a fact. Unfortunately the conversation ended there. But it wouldn’t have taken much digging for him to see that he actually proved my mother right. The families of the women who were used as the face of Aunt Jemima did not benefit. Aunt Jemima was not a real person, she was a corporate logo, possibly the first. The image is easily seen now as racist, even if it wasn’t seen that way in the 1890’s. I’d didn’t fool my mom in the 1950’s. The Mullins company which owned the brand at first wrote a script for the real person they hired to play the part at the world’s fair I think in Chicago, that talked about the good times black paper and whites had together during slavery times. I can’t imagine this woman enjoyed that. The whole history of Aunt Jemima is most certainly racist. But this forum member was intent on proving my mother to be a feckless white privileged liberal. Chris - I would not behave that way, and I’m surprised you find me equally guilty of bad forum etiquette.

 

I think changing the name of the syrup and removing Aunt Jemima's picture was ridiculous and reactionary. I think it is another sad example of the "woke" crowd's draconian overreaction and twisted interpretation of perfectly innocent images and names. 

[John Cotter]

7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Actually, Paul. There is nothing personal or specifically aimed at you, or anyone who behaved badly (friend or foe). Many of us have said things that we probably shouldn’t have at times. I don’t desire anyone banned. I am questioning the decision making process of the moderators and the lack of equality being displayed by them IMO.
 

- Matthew has been suspended without any direct communication. Days on and zero messages or emails have been sent. That’s very shabby indeed, particularly for someone who pays into the pot.

- He has supposedly been banned for stalking (defined as using publicly available data about a forum member and posting it here on the forum). This is exactly what Jim D did with Lance. One person is banned and another isn’t. Is that because one person is a conservative and another is a liberal? 
 

- There was no rule in the lost of forum rules stating this was an infringement.

This isn’t a level playing field. And now we have Kathy locking threads publicly questioning the process. As a libertarian, I am naturally predisposed to dislike authoritarianism. 

 

 

I second everything Chris has said for reasons I’ve already explained ad nauseam.

That there is an ideological aspect to the banning of Matthew Koch is confirmed by the fact that none of MK’s ideological opponents have objected to it and indeed some have applauded it.

I challenge anyone who agrees with the banning of MK and the binning of the 56 Years thread to watch the video of Christopher Hitchens’s brilliant defence of free speech and identify any flaw(s) in Hitchens’s reasoning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

[Matt Allison]

I don't believe arson is a form of free speech. Sorry.

[John Cotter]

17 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I don't believe arson is a form of free speech. Sorry.

This is a non sequitur or, more specifically, a straw man argument. In other words, it's nonsense.

It's the kind of gibberish that destroys internet forums.

Edited March 17, 2023 by John Cotter

[Benjamin Cole]

Man, I wish I could force each post to begin with the words, 

"I respect your point of view and contribution. I have different point of view. Here's mine: "

 

 

[John Cotter]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Man, I wish I could force each post to begin with the words, 

"I respect your point of view and contribution. I have different point of view. Here's mine: "

 

 

What exactly do you mean, Benjamin?

In this case, someone has responded to a post with a straw man argument. In other words, he has mischaracterised – or, to call a spade a spade, lied about – the contents of the post.

He has also thus polluted the thread with irrelevant verbiage, a red herring if you like, which has the effect of confusing and/or derailing the “critical path” of the discussion.

I’m belabouring this point because it’s so typical of internet forum discussions and not least discussions about the JFKA. It’s far more destructive than anything Matthew Koch, for example, is alleged to have done.

Do you mean we should respect that kind of destructive behaviour?

[Matt Allison]

Trying to give untruths the same weight as facts by referring to them as opinion, is generally considered a cheap propaganda technique.

Example:

Person 1 "My point of view is that the earth is flat."

Person 2 "That's not true. The earth is round."

Person 1 "Well, it's just my point of view, so it's valid."

Person 2. "No, it's really not. Sorry."

 

[John Cotter]

13 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Trying to give untruths the same weight as facts by referring to them as opinion, is generally considered a cheap propaganda technique.

Example:

Person 1 "My point of view is that the earth is flat."

Person 2 "That's not true. The earth is round."

Person 1 "Well, it's just my point of view, so it's valid."

Person 2. "No, it's really not. Sorry."

 

Please stop compounding your destructive behaviour by spamming the thread with more nonsense (another straw man).

Go back and address my reply to your first post.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

What exactly do you mean, Benjamin?

In this case, someone has responded to a post with a straw man argument. In other words, he has mischaracterised – or, to call a spade a spade, lied about – the contents of the post.

He has also thus polluted the thread with irrelevant verbiage, a red herring if you like, which has the effect of confusing and/or derailing the “critical path” of the discussion.

I’m belabouring this point because it’s so typical of internet forum discussions and not least discussions about the JFKA. It’s far more destructive than anything Matthew Koch, for example, is alleged to have done.

Do you mean we should respect that kind of destructive behaviour?

No, I meant that we should be civil to views we do not regard as accurate. 

I am not criticizing you. 

I meant that you should be able to post your views, and be treated civilly. 

If someone disagrees with your views, let them post their views, without ad hominem or denigrating commentary. 

Personally, I look forward to your contributions to EF, even if I disagree with your views. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Trying to give untruths the same weight as facts by referring to them as opinion, is generally considered a cheap propaganda technique.

Example:

Person 1 "My point of view is that the earth is flat."

Person 2 "That's not true. The earth is round."

Person 1 "Well, it's just my point of view, so it's valid."

Person 2. "No, it's really not. Sorry."

 

Matt:

Well, you might be unfair with this attitude.

Many of the issues we discuss are inherently complex and murky, and open to interpretation--as indeed is the JFKA itself. 

Take Russiagate: Some veteran and smart observers are skeptical of the "Russiagate Hoax." 

Other observers, equal in measure, contend Russiagate shows Trump was a Russian stooge. 

I think we should be civil to both points of view. 

Denigrating points of view not your own is not civil. 

[Guest]

I think the forum has been a great thing in the past and it can be in the future again. This applies to many who post regularly, we simply have to abandon the partisanship and temptation for ad hominem. We also need to treat members with equality, regardless of whether they are conservative, the dominant liberals or another persuasion. At present there isn’t a level playing field, there is prejudice, we are not an ‘inclusive’ forum, we are not presently a forum that welcomes diversity of opinion. The tenets of JFK’s legacy are a value on free speech, freedom of choice, democratic ideals (independent of party). JFK was appalled by the prejudices in society because he was a descendant of immigrants, a people who were stigmatised, marginalised and discriminated against. Right now, in this moment, we have moderators who are apathetic about such values and are happy to discriminate against a conservative catholic member who contributes to this forum. The moderators are willing to ban based on a rule that doesn’t exist, they made it up. The double standard is that people who identify as liberals have broken exactly the same (imaginary rule) that Matthew Koch has. Apparently, he deserves indefinite punishment and others deserve clemency or not even a reprimand. This wizard of oz style moderation, which involves making it up as you go and censoring, or radio silence when a decision is questioned, isn’t good for the forum and it isn’t proper moderation. We should consider the trajectory it takes us on. 

 

As per usual, I would like detente, rapprochement, and things to return to normal. The rules of the forum are essential as they allow anyone, regardless of faith, skin colour, social background or political persuasion to know what is and isn’t permitted. Its quite frankly a nonsense to just make things up. Or to have a standard for one person which you like and another that you don’t. I would request that Matthew is reinstated and that rules are clearly defined going forward, and that there is greater balance and equality in terms of moderation. 

 

We also should consider, that by acting unfairly it may fester grudges, resentment and a bad feeling. People can accept rules which are defined and applied to all, they can’t swallow being scapegoated or discriminated against. If we do this, we put the whole forum at risk and its future. Are there multiple grounds for law suits within these pages? Things that have been allowed to fester? Who is responsible; the individual, the moderators, the account holder or Invision Conmunity? I do wonder how many lawsuits it would take for Invision to receive for this whole forum to be deleted? I certainly don’t want that. There is too much hard work and valuable content to lose. 

 

Please think carefully. That’s all I ask. This place can be great, or on a course to its own destruction. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

You know, after the JFKA, the only group (in general) that cared what happened on 11/22 was the left-wing. They were ridiculed as commie-sympathizers, nuts and so on. 

The rotten idea is that someone should care if a President is deposed by non-democratic forces---but only if that president is from your party. 

Then, Nixon was deposed (remember, he was never impeached. He resigned). As a leftie college student, I celebrated.

Now, with partisan sentiments cooling, people are beginning to wonder: What really happened to Nixon? Why are the fingerprints of the CIA all over everything, and consider that Woodward was an ONI guy--whose first j-job was at the nation's premier political newspaper?  Really? Even the guy who revealed the WH had a taping system was former CIA. 

But back in 1970s, there was not a leftie in nation who wondered at all about the Nixon true story. People who wondered about Nixon's exit were ridiculed, scorned, obviously right-wing nuts. 

Today we have the odd, evolving tale of a true non-establishment figure Trump, the Russiagate Hoax, the alliance of the intel state-media and the rival political party, the Twittergate files, and the mysterious events of 1/6. 

Right-wingers are open to alternative narratives regarding Trump, and what looks like regime-change ops during his presidency, while left-wingers ridicule the MAGA-nuts, or even extol the virtues of censorship regarding those events. 

Nothing ever changes. 

I do not know what happened to JFK, Nixon or Trump. 

I am open to alternative conjectures. 

I respect other people's opinions. No one (at least us commoners) knows all the facts.