MODERATORS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CENTRISTS & CONSERVATIVES

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Hear, hear!

It can't be said any better.

As for Ben Cole's utterly ludicrous claim that the 56 Years thread was an "anti-Trump sewer," I would encourage interested parties to peruse that excellent, erudite thread from the beginning.

The 56 Years thread only became a "sewer" after Ben Cole joined the forum and started spamming the thread with his redundant, fact-free denials of Trump's unprecedented misconduct.

And the thread was completely ruined after Mathew Koch started spamming it with multiple Fox News videos every day.

W--

Sandy Larsen has created a water coolers section, to house commentary on current political views. 

In addition, there are the Biden and Trump threads, and the still-going 56 years thread. 

You are not being censored.

But you should honor JFK-EF rules. 

Views on current political scene should be placed in those threads. 

I encourage your participation in the EF and JFK-EF forums. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Rigby said:

A quite splendidly ludicrous analogy: Matthew Koch as General Walker? The Mods as JFK? Education Forum contributors as serving members of the US military? Who knew?

Hilarious, and as cynically irrelevant as just about everything else you post.

Accidental comedy is often the most comical. 🙂 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It looks as though he was booted for being an incorrigible, obnoxious [insert a pejorative of your choice]. If that's the case, the question of freedom of speech doesn't arise here. Whether the decision-makers approved or disapproved of Koch's opinions is of no relevance.

If that were the case, you'd have been booted, too, so we can rule that out, Jeremy. Sorry to point out the obvious. You were happy to share 'ad hominem.' from another forum. You're also keen to skip to pejorative terms and 'ad hominem' whenever you become frustrated, and your reasoning skills fail you. You have proven this time and time again. 


 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Hear, hear!

It can't be said any better.

As for Ben Cole's utterly ludicrous claim that the 56 Years thread was an "anti-Trump sewer," I would encourage interested parties to peruse that excellent, erudite thread from the beginning.

The 56 Years thread only became a "sewer" after Ben Cole joined the forum and started spamming the thread with his redundant, fact-free denials of Trump's unprecedented misconduct.

And the thread was completely ruined after Mathew Koch started spamming it with multiple Fox News videos every day.

Although, @Jeremy Bojczuk would not tolerate your 9/11 conspiracy theory, William. He would regard you as someone polluting the forum with 'conspiracy nonsense'. 
:-) 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Mark,

Notwithstanding the apparent forum sliding, I think you need to reply to the several issues @Chris Barnard has raised. The fact that you haven’t seems to suggest some things are not as they should be.

What exactly is the position with @Matthew Koch? You say information in that regard is provided in his profile. I’ve looked there and I can’t see it. Have I missed something?

 

 

 

It's proving increasingly difficult to get candour from @Mark Knight and other silent moderators. I don't think it's much to ask for some honest answers, transparency, equality, and a fair approach to moderation. If the answer is that "we don't like Catholic Conservatives here", then come out and say it. As far as I am aware @Matthew Koch still has had zero communication from the moderators. That's very shabby, indeed IMHO. What happened to the initial warning outlined in the rules? Come on guys, please put your egos and biases aside here. 

"An error doesn't become a mistake unless you refuse to correct it." 
This is one that JFK liked. 

[Guest]

“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.” 

John F. Kennedy 

[Leslie Sharp]

I believe he's speaking to the decisiveness of party politics — considering the threat the John Birch Society posed to the stability of our democracy at the time —  not the dark side of US history which reared its head during the Trump regime.

June 19, 1963 
I warned of "a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety" in many parts of the country. I emphasized that "the events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them." "It is a time to act," I said, "in the Congress, in State and local legislative bodies and, above all, in all of our daily lives."

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

It's proving increasingly difficult to get candour from @Mark Knight and other silent moderators. I don't think it's much to ask for some honest answers, transparency, equality, and a fair approach to moderation. If the answer is that "we don't like Catholic Conservatives here", then come out and say it. As far as I am aware @Matthew Koch still has had zero communication from the moderators. That's very shabby, indeed IMHO. What happened to the initial warning outlined in the rules? Come on guys, please put your egos and biases aside here. 

"An error doesn't become a mistake unless you refuse to correct it." 
This is one that JFK liked. 

Chris, the salient word is "error."  How do you think JFK, a Catholic himself, might have responded to Matthew Koch?  I suspect he would have initially brushed him off with sardonic humor. Were Koch to persist, Kennedy would have him for breakfast, and chances are he would rescind Koch's invitation. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Chris, the salient word is "error."  How do you think JFK, a Catholic himself, might have responded to Matthew Koch?  I suspect he would have initially brushed him off with sardonic humor. Were Koch to persist, Kennedy would have him for breakfast, and chances are he would rescind Koch's invitation. 

It’s a highly speculative question, Leslie. Any answer from anyone would be strictly an ‘opinion’, which some here often confuse with ‘facts’. 
 

My own analysis and opinion would suggest that JFK would insist on equality. There cannot be one rule for the goose and another for the gander. JFK believed in public discourse, criticism and even dissent being vital components of any functioning democracy. He has a very good insight when it came to the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century and knew the pitfalls of censorship, authoritarianism and religious discrimination.
However, if it was the North Korean leader making the decisions from his dictatorial platform then, this is exactly what I’d have expected. 

Everything that @Matthew Koch is alleged to have done has been done by other members who have not received an equivalent punishment. Nor has the forum’s own process been followed, as outlined earlier in the thread. 
 

It just looks very bad. I see the latest step is segregation of views. Where have we seen that before? Do we need to protect diversity of views on the forum? Or, is it simply “follow the party line” ? 
 

 

[W. Niederhut]

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s a highly speculative question, Leslie. Any answer from anyone would be strictly an ‘opinion’, which some here often confuse with ‘facts’. 
 

My own analysis and opinion would suggest that JFK would insist on equality. There cannot be one rule for the goose and another for the gander. JFK believed in public discourse, criticism and even dissent being vital components of any functioning democracy. He has a very good insight when it came to the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century and knew the pitfalls of censorship, authoritarianism and religious discrimination.
However, if it was the North Korean leader making the decisions from his dictatorial platform then, this is exactly what I’d have expected. 

Everything that @Matthew Koch is alleged to have done has been done by other members who have not received an equivalent punishment. Nor has the forum’s own process been followed, as outlined earlier in the thread. 
 

It just looks very bad. I see the latest step is segregation of views. Where have we seen that before? Do we need to protect diversity of views on the forum? Or, is it simply “follow the party line” ? 
 

 

You're stating opinion when you allege that an error occurred related to Matthew Koch.

Kennedy knew Nut Country when he arrived in it. It is my informed opinion that had Koch been in a Texas crowd at the time and shouted his vitriol, Kennedy would have recognized him as representative of that nut country.  Would he have him arrested? NO. Would he have challenged him? Maybe. Would he have indulged him? Not likely.

Would he endorse Koch being banned from the gathering if he posed a physical threat? Yes.

Apparently some on the thread felt that Koch posed a danger.  Having been there, I respect the concern, and I think the moderators would feel responsible if they allowed the behavior to continue on this forum.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

What a great post. Thanks for the historical context that echoes deeply in me.

 

 

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

Hear, Hear!

[Paul Brancato]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're stating opinion when you allege that an error occurred related to Matthew Koch.

Kennedy knew Nut Country when he arrived in it. It is my informed opinion that had Koch been in a Teas crowd at the time, and shouted his vitriol, Kennedy would have recognized him. Would he have him arrested him? NO. Would he have challenged him? Maybe. Would he have indulged him? Not likely.

Would he endorse Koch being banned from the gathering if he posed a physical threat? Yes.

Apparently some on the thread felt that Koch posed a danger.  Having been there, I respect the concern, and I think the moderators would feel responsible if they allowed the behavior to continue on this forum.

Koch was a repeat offender Chris. I’m not with you on this argument. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

Just a reminder for you of how party and policy, as well as values are often a fluid thing. We should all question ours periodically. As opposed to blindly following confirmation bias materials. 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/fact-check-more-republicans-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act-as-a-percentage-than-democrats-did/amp/