I didn't see the threads from earlier to which Eric was referring in his pinned post.
However I was surprised that the Master List of Offensive Items thread survived last week. Granted, that one didn't turn into a complete mess the way these threads tend to go.
Talking about whether or not the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol now, and what is happening at the border was ok.
And I assume anything about specific political persons, or parties is off limits.
That leads me to my question posed in the title.
Where exactly is the line drawn?
You're right. I was "grieviously" offended. That's what happened.
Quote:
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I basically follow the Party of FatMan....
I think I am right there with you FMiC except when the social/liberal side negatively impacts fiscal responsibility.
Examples..
Gay marriage? Sure, marry your goat if you want.
Free healthcare for all including illegals? No chance in hell.
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
Lol. Fatman on the other was not offended at all. The entire was not predicated on Fatman's delicate sensibilities.
Quote:
I think part of the problem is that
adamg : 5:17 pm : link : reply
Fatman and others don't even realize that what they're posting is political. True believers don't realize that they're ideologues.
I posted about things that are deemed offensive in today's society. I talked about Kaepernick. Unless I'm mistaken and he's a political figure, how is discussing his references to a Colonial flag political?
It was a discussion on society's hair-trigger faux outrage to non-offensive symbols.
Now others on that thread made it political, but the thread started itself had no political references. No discussion of political figures or parties.
Please don't get me wrong, I thought the thread was interesting and was glad to read it.
That said, Kaepernick has not been a football player for several years. At the same time he is a public figure, and has most certainly taken a public political stances, and represented a specific political ideology. It could easily be argued that at this point he is more a political figure than a football figure.
The "faux-outrage" is an interesting comment in and of itself. Outrage seems to be largely endemic to a particular political ideology. Expressing it as "faux-outrage" seems to be endemic to the opposite ideology. Thus raising the issue of outrage can be argued is raising a political topic, and calling it "faux" can be construed as taking a political stance opposing it.
I will grant that the exercise I just went through, is largely the same exercise that the specific political ideology goes through when they express outrage. I only do it to point out that, while I understand that you and possibly many others do not think that you were being political, those subjects can be a lightening rod for others. Which brings me full circle to the point of this thread. I am still not 100% clear on where the political line is drawn. I am perfectly happy to say that the Master List of Offensive Items thread is OK, but it pushes up against that line. As I said, I found it to be an interesting thread. I did not see the Rapinoe thread...
He is not calling for political action - he called for Nike to stop production of the footwear. Just like I wouldn't call wearing pig socks a political protest - but a social protest and a horrendous fashion choice.
There were others on that thread who took the political route. I will rarely get drawn into those discussions.
So the ban is better, I'd rather be ignorant and enjoy the posts of people who I might otherwise find pretty repugnant. Ignorance is bliss.
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
He is not calling for political action - he called for Nike to stop production of the footwear. Just like I wouldn't call wearing pig socks a political protest - but a social protest and a horrendous fashion choice.
There were others on that thread who took the political route. I will rarely get drawn into those discussions.
You're fighting an uphill battle... even Kaepernick doesn't know what he's protesting. Cops, racism, economic balkanization, America... take your pick.
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
"Recognizing it" has no fiscal impact. I never said they should oversee anything.
Politics like anything else should be a negotiation where both sides get walk away with something. Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable. You have to completely win in politics and your opponent is not allowed to also be happy with the end result.
My planned parenthood proposal would appeal to both sides.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
Look, I get it, I am not arguing one side or the other.
And adamg is exactly right, and I wasn't exactly stumbling onto it, it was my main point, even if I didn't state it succinctly. What is deemed political is likely to be in the eye of the beholder.
Quote:
In comment 14497408 adamg said:
Quote:
I won't deny that I have a different POV and to one of you that might be construed as "ideological". But, I've never initiated a political discussion on this site. So, the analogy doesn't hold.
The Constanza theory - "Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it"
Great, you've never started a thread, you've only injected political opinions into other people's threads. Bravo.
I injected politics in a thread about a political protest. Ok. Keep on keeping on Greg. That UVA education certainly paid off.
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Quote:
If you are a fiscal conservative, you should realize the state should not recognize or oversee a non productive social arrangement like gay marriage. It's a sentimental issue appeal to emotionalism used buy our scum aggrandizing politicians and media.
"Recognizing it" has no fiscal impact. I never said they should oversee anything.
Politics like anything else should be a negotiation where both sides get walk away with something. Unfortunately, that is no longer acceptable. You have to completely win in politics and your opponent is not allowed to also be happy with the end result.
My planned parenthood proposal would appeal to both sides.
I would appreciate no personal political ideologies, or policies in this thread. This is *NOT* a political thread, let's keep it that way.
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Bright guy. Obviously, any statement can be construed as a POV. The question is whether it's political or not. Dope.
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
Quote:
Posting in a thread is injecting a pov into the thread. A much less expensive degree than one from UVA would be needed to learn that.
Bright guy. Obviously, any statement can be construed as a POV. The question is whether it's political or not. Dope.
You have injected your political pov into threads. You seem to simultaneously not recognize those posts as being political (and they are) while at the same time trying to believe that only posting within a conversation but not starting the conversation immunizes you from being political (it doesn't).
Quote:
Pho outrage?
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
It is good, but I couldn't think of a meat I didn't like. lol. scrapple?
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Quote:
outrage isn't political nor does it lean to a certain political ideology.
For most purposes, it refers to Social Media Warriors, of which I assume span the spectrum of beliefs.
But for arguments sake, I like pj's take better....
Look, I get it, I am not arguing one side or the other.
And adamg is exactly right, and I wasn't exactly stumbling onto it, it was my main point, even if I didn't state it succinctly. What is deemed political is likely to be in the eye of the beholder.
And there are plenty who believe Kaepernick is a political figure... Here is just one of 100s of articles you can find if you google "kaepernick politics".
https://theundefeated.com/features/how-colin-kaepernick-became-a-cause-for-activists-civil-rights-groups/
Frankly, saying that he is making just a "social protest", is hiding your head in the sand. There is most definitely a political movement around him.
Quote:
In comment 14497478 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
Pho outrage?
Is that political?
That's me when I find out the meat in my pho is tripe.
stupid menus with pictures only.
you're a philistine. In Asian dishes tripe is delectable.
It is good, but I couldn't think of a meat I didn't like. lol. scrapple?
I like scrapple. How about liver.
My favorite chinese noodle soup is chock full of stewed beef tendons. It's a collagenny masterpiece. But tripe is also good in soup too. And there's a spicy tripe they always serve in dim sum houses that is great.
And if you google "Kaepernick dickhead", you'll get 100's of articles and some really interesting pictures.
It doesn't really matter if people "believe" he's a political figure. That alone doesn't make him one. He protests shit - sometimes stuff he doesn't even himself know what the fuck it is. Police. Treatment of minorities. Symbols. National Anthems. The game of football.
He is not a political figure. Are you really insinuating that because articles exist on the Internet that he is? You can find an article about almost anything!
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
😳
😳
It's called machine learning. google can see in your pants.
Quote:
And there are plenty who believe Kaepernick is a political figure... Here is just one of 100s of articles you can find if you google "kaepernick politics".
And if you google "Kaepernick dickhead", you'll get 100's of articles and some really interesting pictures.
It doesn't really matter if people "believe" he's a political figure. That alone doesn't make him one. He protests shit - sometimes stuff he doesn't even himself know what the fuck it is. Police. Treatment of minorities. Symbols. National Anthems. The game of football.
He is not a political figure. Are you really insinuating that because articles exist on the Internet that he is? You can find an article about almost anything!
As usual, you are so wrapped up in your personal point of view that you completely missed the point. In this thread, I could not care less about what your personal opinion of Kaepernick is. Nor do I particularly care about the opinion of the article I posted. The point is, and you have perfectly illustrated it, is that there are opposing views of this.
The fact that some, in fact a large number of people, do believe he is a political figure gets to the very heart of this thread. As I said, what is political vs. apolitical is in the eye of the beholder.
And yes I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I am not expressing a particular political opinion, nor an opinion of Kaepernick. I am not arguing with your specific POV of him.
The point I am driving at is this:
Does a thread about a protest started by a figure such as Kaepernick, who some view as political and others couldn't give 2 shits about him and so they don't view him as political, count as a political thread or not. As I said, I am perfectly happy to say that it doesn't. I am just looking for clarity.
Though I loathe the way you behave on this site, this thread is not an attack on you or your POV of Kaepernick.
It makes me wonder the point of asking it in the first place.
Quote:
As I said, what is political vs. apolitical is in the eye of the beholder.
It makes me wonder the point of asking it in the first place.
Well if people are going to get banned, and there is a gray area, I think its important to explore it.
Perhaps, the gray area threads are simply monitored to make sure they don't get out of control. If they do, then they are deleted and the out of control individuals are warned but not banned. I don't have the answers, but I felt it was worth exploring.
Maybe someday we will live in the Utopian world of a BBI with clear rules applied equally (which in the efforts of not having this post deleted I will say is incredibly hard to do) and a Giants management structure not intent on being behind the times.
Yes, which is why I was surprised the thread I have been discussing survived.
Either the rule is very clear and says anything even remotely political is off limits, which is what I thought it was. Or we have some gray area where slightly different rules apply. I am happy with either. I just think it should be clear, for the benefit of everybody.
Quote:
In comment 14497493 Tesla said:
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
Because the key word in his first sentence is "now," as if we were all in agreement about everything until recently, which is simply not true. There have always been regional and cultural variations among our people that have been reflected in our politics. About 150 years ago, one was so great it almost tore us completely apart. Some people say we're on the verge of a second Civil War. I say, man, we're not even close.
What Tesla sees as things that divide us, I see as things that have always been there in one form or another, but are largely irrelevant. Where we may live, what food we may enjoy, what books we read, what TV shows and movies we watch, or what values we hold dear don't define us as a nation. What does is the adherence to the rule of law, to the precepts set forth in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and our governing document, the Constitution. That's what keeps this country together.
Tesla used a couple in a bad marriage as an analogy. Well, anyone who's been married knows that it's not all rainbows and sunshine. Every marriage has it's ups and downs, it's good times and bad times. America has certainly had it's share of both. But it's not staying together out of spite. It might be staying together "for the sake of the children," but I prefer to think that it's staying together because it believes that in the final analysis it's simply better off that way. I reject any notion that this country is broken beyond repair.
I also reject any notion that the problems we face today are any more insurmountable than those we've faced in the past. Sure, sometimes it might seem that way, but even a cursory examination of our history would dispel that notion. As I said above, we're still playing the same game.
I would appreciate no personal political ideologies, or policies in this thread. This is *NOT* a political thread, let's keep it that way.
Go find a safe space...
greatest nation in history.
In BBI's past we have had "Banning without explanation".
Is this really a thing of the past?
Or is the Pronunciamento considered to be a pre-explanation
of banning?
By the way, is the use of the old nickname "Lefty" a
bannable offense?
Quote:
In comment 14497550 Klaatu said:
Quote:
In comment 14497493 Tesla said:
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
Why is what Tesla said a crock... And you are right we have been fighting since before we were a country. I don't see the 2 points as mutually exclusive. In fact, many of the central themes of the fight, have been roughly the same for over 250 years.
Because the key word in his first sentence is "now," as if we were all in agreement about everything until recently, which is simply not true. There have always been regional and cultural variations among our people that have been reflected in our politics. About 150 years ago, one was so great it almost tore us completely apart. Some people say we're on the verge of a second Civil War. I say, man, we're not even close.
What Tesla sees as things that divide us, I see as things that have always been there in one form or another, but are largely irrelevant. Where we may live, what food we may enjoy, what books we read, what TV shows and movies we watch, or what values we hold dear don't define us as a nation. What does is the adherence to the rule of law, to the precepts set forth in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and our governing document, the Constitution. That's what keeps this country together.
Tesla used a couple in a bad marriage as an analogy. Well, anyone who's been married knows that it's not all rainbows and sunshine. Every marriage has it's ups and downs, it's good times and bad times. America has certainly had it's share of both. But it's not staying together out of spite. It might be staying together "for the sake of the children," but I prefer to think that it's staying together because it believes that in the final analysis it's simply better off that way. I reject any notion that this country is broken beyond repair.
I also reject any notion that the problems we face today are any more insurmountable than those we've faced in the past. Sure, sometimes it might seem that way, but even a cursory examination of our history would dispel that notion. As I said above, we're still playing the same game.
Excellent points.
I agree with you that many of the things that Tesla mentioned are superficial and don't matter.
Unfortunately, I think that when the 2 sides read the declaration of independence and the constitution it seems that they come away with very different POVs, and very different values. To keep with the bad marriage analogy, call it irreconcilable differences. Given enough time, perhaps a generation or 2, those difference can probably be resolved. I don't think the current generation can resolve it. Unfortunately, the problems we have today are more and more global in nature, many of them existential, and the pace of everything is speeding up. I'm not so sure we have the luxury of time to resolve our differences anymore. Certainly dividing us into 2 separate nations is not the answer. But it certainly feels like a bad marriage.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
the last time we went the divorce route 750,000 people died.
You are hereby banned from the cooking threads
😳
because the word has gotten out about you?
What the fuck does the Giants management structure have to do here?
Excellent points.
I agree with you that many of the things that Tesla mentioned are superficial and don't matter.
Unfortunately, I think that when the 2 sides read the declaration of independence and the constitution it seems that they come away with very different POVs, and very different values. To keep with the bad marriage analogy, call it irreconcilable differences. Given enough time, perhaps a generation or 2, those difference can probably be resolved. I don't think the current generation can resolve it. Unfortunately, the problems we have today are more and more global in nature, many of them existential, and the pace of everything is speeding up. I'm not so sure we have the luxury of time to resolve our differences anymore. Certainly dividing us into 2 separate nations is not the answer. But it certainly feels like a bad marriage.
Those different POV's and values have been around for 100+ years, ever since the birth of the modern Progressive movement and the idea of a "living" Constitution (championed most notably by Woodrow Wilson). Before that, the Populist movement pitted farmers against "Eastern moneyed interests," and for a time seemed to wield considerable political power, but fizzled out rather quickly for a variety of reasons.
The struggle was just as real then as it is now, and we've always had groups like the Mugwumps, switching party allegiance for one reason or another. Are those Obama voters who might have supported Bernie Sanders, but voted for Trump instead of Hillary Clinton any different than the Republicans who refused to support James G. Blaine and voted for Grover Cleveland instead? I really don't think so.
Throughout our history, many of our problems have been global in nature. Foreign intervention has been hotly debated for more than a century, as one "crisis" after another - manufactured or otherwise - has reared its ugly head. But the next time you hear any talking head on any network beating the war drums, think about the artist Frederic Remington being sent to Cuba by William Randolph Hearst prior to the Spanish-American War. Remington cabled Hearst telling him that all was quiet there, and that "there will be no war." Hearst cabled back, "You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war." Some things never change.
I think a faster pace in terms of the flow of information is a net positive, even though the information can be misused or perverted at times. I like the way the "town square" has expanded. I like the immediacy. I like the new breed of "citizen journalists" inhabiting all points on the political spectrum. Do biases exist? Of course. They always have. But the rise of major networks and the consolidation of local and regional newspapers under increasingly large corporate umbrellas tended to enforce conformity, especially the conformity of ideas. The Internet changed all that. September 2004 was a seminal moment. A blogger took on CBS and Dan Rather and won.
Regarding the luxury of time. We still have it, in my view. The perception may be that it's running out, but I think that's fueled by a false sense of urgency promoted by a small, but very vocal cadre of demagogues who prefer sloganeering to sober debate. The Founders purposely set up a system that moved slowly, that diffused power, that encouraged debate and pushed for consensus. It isn't perfect, but it's still "more perfect" than anything that came before or has come since, and it certainly shouldn't be dismissed in the name of expediency.
Finally, other than nuclear annihilation, I think the only real existential thread we face is straying too far from the path laid out by the Founders. By that I mean we're in danger of having the Federal Republic they created morph into a judicial oligarchy. I think that's been trending for the past 40+ years or so, and I find it very worrisome. The consolidation of power by what was supposed to be the weakest branch of government, the one least accountable to the people, should give everyone pause. Unchecked, it may not lead to "divorce," but it will most likely bring about an end to whatever harmony still exists among all members of the family.
I would add as existential threats the very poorly controlled global and US financial system, the lower and lower efficacy of the traditional levers to pull out of a financial crisis ( other than print which is socially destabilizing) and income inequality when the next downturn comes ( which is socially destabilizing).
To me the judicial swings occur every 30 to 40 years since the beginning so I don't see that one as destabilizing as the ones above.
This period is like the others in our history when there was not a significant multi decade source of real growth from productivity gains from an energy, transport, or communication or CS source.
( canals linking water sources in the 1820's, railroads from 1830 to 1880, steam/coal to gas, electrical miniturization, etc.
Quote:
not really one country any more....we are two divided nations being forced to live together. What the hell does some professional in NYC have in common with someone who lives in rural Mississippi? Forget belonging to the same political party, we don't read the same news, watch the same shows, enjoy the same actives or share any common values. The NYC person has far more in common with someone who lives in London than Alabama.
America is basically like a couple in a bad marriage who refuses to get divorced because neither wants to give the house to the other one.
That's a crock. We've been fighting with one another since before we were even a country. The game hasn't changed, only the players and the equipment have.
.