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?
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
unless your pot is also blue.
Requesting More love, less hate
Any variety of gender
Any daytime talk show that is women lead.
Any cable news topic
Religion
Unemployed Actors with too much time in there hands
Feel free to add
Sometimes people just can't help themselves and it's possible that a thread about "Best Toasters" becomes a political warzone but that's not on the OP.
Anything racist. Warning:Could be anything
Anything woke. Warning: not sure what that means
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
On that site - you name the topic, in 5 posts you will more often than not end up in a political bitchfest. Most recently, one for fireworks and another asking for recommendations for a company to repair a fence (I shit you not).
So although I am fine with a ban on politics, I think it's time for some next gen analytics to find the people who twist all conversations in that direction and have them meet the banhammer.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
bw, want an intelligent political discussion?
Go here - ( New Window )
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Edited for truth.
That's kind of a cop out. Works in some cases - I would expect even reasonable people to end up in hot water discussing things like abortion.
But dude - a guy asking for recommendations on who can come fix his fence went political in literally 20 minutes. Some people can't help themselves, and those folks need their keyboards revoked permanently.
In a nutshell, most current events are off limits unless they are apolitical. But BBI posters have a way of making even apolitical current events political.
I get the sense some are testing the moderators again. The ban hammer is coming. It would be a shame to lose someone for a year or more just two weeks from camp.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
The internets is made out of overly sensitive souls easily triggered by words on a screen. Pathetic hysteric souls.
sure, if you're emotionally immature.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Quote:
Not for stuff to get political. It's the world we live in, for better or worse.
That's kind of a cop out. Works in some cases - I would expect even reasonable people to end up in hot water discussing things like abortion.
But dude - a guy asking for recommendations on who can come fix his fence went political in literally 20 minutes. Some people can't help themselves, and those folks need their keyboards revoked permanently.
I didn't see that thread. That is weak.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
When you say “Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.” You are really talking about society as a whole, not BBI, which needs to go with the flow to survive.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Generally speaking, I am not one to talk about politics on here. I come here for football... Politics is in fact a topic I generally avoid unless I know the other party very very well.
I was surprised that the List of Offensive Items survived and didn't result in bans. Admittedly, after it survived for a couple of days, I posted on there, just some statistics from the gov't, I didn't really engage. But given the warning today, it has me wondering...
This is getting silly.
Maybe he should be fined extra for the hassles created for the mods?
Nobody learns anything. Nobody changes his mind on anything. Most aren't nearly as informed as they fancy themselves to be. Many just regurgitate what they read/heard elsewhere, without even changing the easily detectable buzzwords.
What's there to miss?
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.
I've always provided refunds upon request.
Thank you for your reply, Eric.
BBI was at its best in the late 90s when it was anything goes. It was very bloody and dirty around here...just the way I liked it. It was very raw and unplugged. You really needed a spine and tough skin.
Alas, the spineless, thin-skinned, overly-sensitive crowd won.
Those are the posters who should be banned.
Discussion is one thing. People foaming at the mouth saying awful things to one another isn't discussion in my view. I don't understand the need for a topic to be bloody.
Take the Rapinoe thread. For the most part, I thought it was a great back and forth. My view point was different than UConns and Christians and a few others I can’t remmeber. It never got personal and it never got ugly. Just a back and forth that I actually enjoyed because even if I don’t agree with the opposite viewpoint, I enjoy learning from it.
But it takes a few posters to make it unbearable and that’s why Eric or another mod deletes than bans.
Free-for-all discussions are no longer allowed without economic punishment.
There is absolutely no incentive anymore to allow discussions that many big tech and media companies consider hate speech. And I have everything to lose.
And as I've stated over and over, the wear-and-tear on the moderators dealing with that mess simply is not worth it either.
You want to discuss politics? There are thousands of sites out there.
Fair enough. But here’s the problem for those “big tech and media companies” - they aren’t neutral. Many of them have declared which side of the aisle they roll with. So when they start regulating content, it’s abundantly clear - to me - they tend to eliminate content that doesn’t fit their view much more often that not...
A private 1-1 conversation between adults is still possible. For example, last election cycle, Eric and I had a few Private conversations. We are friends on polar opposite sides of the fence. Because we are adults, we are still friends.
I support his decision to keep it off the site. Sadly it’s necessary.
And BW is right, the late 90s WERE more interesting. There was still a measure of civility however.
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
And I think the onus is on the thread starter or the person who introduces the political topic (if it's not the thread starter). How can you ban someone for responding to a post that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
These are grown men.
If you run over somebody in your car ahould you not be responsible because they shouldn't have been in the road the first place?
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
That's an excellent summation.
we have to stop equating all discussions as being political, even when they don't venture into that territory
I don't particularly care what other people's politics are nor do I care about their religion and things like that.
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....
Quote:
It's absolutely possible to discuss current events without it being political.
As Dep and Fatman mentioned above, those two threads were about current events around patriotism and speech.
Fatman and I were getting at it, Dep and I were challenging each other. And even with a little heat, those exchanges stayed topical and not political. Hand to my heart I don't know Dep or FMiC's political views, and I guarantee they don't know mine.
There was no reason for them to *have* to get political. It's not impossible for adults to talk about current events without it getting political.
Same as it's possible to inject politics into nearly anything, it's possible not to.
That's an excellent summation.
we have to stop equating all discussions as being political, even when they don't venture into that territory
I don't particularly care what other people's politics are nor do I care about their religion and things like that.
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'm contacting the mods!
Hell, I don't think I even align with any political party these days. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.
That might make you a libertarian. Lot's of people take the same stance as you, including me. But on a practical basis, in this country, in these times, it's really an impossible position. The governmental costs of supporting social liberalism is so enormous that it can't co-exist with fiscal conservatism. Would you ever tell your representatives to vote against a program for the children, for women, for the poor or minorities because it's too expensive?
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.
I would fully fund planned parenthood. Will pay for your birth control pills and also your abortion.
You are an adult making an adult decision to have sex, an adult decision whether to use birth control AND a decision as to whether to have the baby if you get pregnant.
So, if you decide NOT to take advantage of the planned parenthood benefits, then you are raising the child on your own without government support. The gravy train will end. Having children will no longer be a money making proposition.