BS: The political leanings of Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 11:22 AM

I know this may be controversial but can those of a conservative (with a c of either case) nature accept that if their views are likely to clash with the general demeanour of the majority, then they are likely to create a conflict? I am not asking anyone not to do it, just to accept that their views may be at odds with most and that they are not likely to change anyone's minds. "
Neither are those on the left likely to change anyones minds, these stupid threads[ like this one] achieve nothing other than bringing mudcat into disrepute.
I happen to be on the left , i have no problem with right wing opinions being stated, i watch in dismay as people who i share political views with behave in a puerile and childish manner, it tends [imo] to discredit their arguments, people on this forum who indulge in this childish behaviour about politics need to exrcise slf discipline ,the moderators are volunteers, i am surprised the re is anyone who still wants to VOLUNTEER to be a moderator on this forum,

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Acorn4
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 12:09 PM

Apparently out of nine major armaments producers in the US eight supported Hilary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 12:35 PM

The truly frustrating thing about it is you can say Trump lied about something, and some here will say it's biased. You can provide evidence, and those people will say it's "fake news" because you are/it is biased. The only fake shit they'll accept is what people on their side create.

It won't turn around until people decide they'd rather be skeptical and smart than "loyal" and stupid.

...AND they quit basing whether they trust the truth of a thing based on who's saying it.

It's so frustrating, but I realize I can't change anything, and these idiots live on my planet. I think it will eventually work itself out, unless we manage to kill the planet by stupidity first.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Mossback
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 12:53 PM

It is well to remember that there are opinions based on fact, and opinions based on lies and bullshit.
The latter are not entitled to notice, never mind respect.

I suppose that one has a "right" to be an utter asshole- but asshole he/she remains.


I am surprised there is anyone who still wants to VOLUNTEER to be a moderator on this forum

Are you as surprised that there are evidently so-called "moderators" protecting and enabling individuals who post only lies, bullshit & conspiracy theories?

centrist Republican Platform

Last one of those was Teddy Roosevelt's as a candidate for the Bull Moose Party.

There are no longer any such things as moderate Republicans - they're a' deid!

And extinction is forever.

out of nine major armaments producers in the US eight supported Hilary Clinton.

Source? Verification? Facts? Context? or just more Trumpist Cult bullshit?

And WTF has that to do with this thread?




You can provide evidence, and those people will say it's "fake news"

PS: So Ms. Jeri, in that case why do you defend and support Bobad, Bearded Bruce, et. al in posting and disbursing bullshit??

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 02:38 PM

these stupid threads[ like this one] achieve nothing other than bringing mudcat into disrepute.

Dick, that poses the question of why you chose to add to it? You may consider it stupid but 200+ posts say it is of interest to some.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 02:51 PM

"Are you as surprised that there are evidently so-called "moderators""
A little unfair, I think
There are a lot of posts to this forum and we can all be pains in the arseums when we (don't) put our minds to it - I'd rather feed the chimps at Phoenix Park
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Mossback
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 05:42 PM

A little unfair, I think

Hullo, Jim - please read the entire sentence.

With my admittedly limited experience here, it seems that most of the moderators do an excellent job. There are also apparently one or two who persist in giving lying morons cover - which I simply do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 06:22 PM

I support the moderators on this forum. It's a lively and active forum with a feisty below-the-line section. And, as far as I can see, there are just three active mods (I'm up for being disabused on that). Broad-brush attacks on mods are unacceptable and I don't blame them for shutting down threads if that happens. But I'd just add this: when the Gaughan Forum was in its heyday, sadly passed, Molly the mod (and the only mod) was a woman you did NOT bloody argue with. Yes she'd let things ride for a bit, but once the bit was between her teeth you did NOT answer back. A bollocking from Molly was a BOLLOCKING, end of, and I've been on the receiving end more than once. But if Molly was posting as a mod she would always say "this is Molly with her mod hat on..." Otherwise she was an ordinary member of the forum, like everybody else, a damned spiky and funny one at that. We could do with a bit more of that here. It's great to see Jeri (despite her serial negativity) and Joe posting as ordinary forum members, and Maggie does a brilliant job, mostly under the radar. But there's that uneasy feeling, especially with Joe, that he can kind of say daft things just as much as the rest of us can, yet be rather manipulative apropos of "what's allowed" here. Address that, Joe!

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 06:37 PM

When the thread drifts into discussing Mudcat moderation and moderators you know what happens. Just sayin'.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 06:44 PM

I know. But on this occasion, surely you can allow yourself for a minute to wallow quietly in unalloyed praise, Maggie? :-)

Joking, of course!

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 06:58 PM

When it wanders into discussing other members, period, it's a problem, and a precursor to you-know-what. But we can get back to the subject, because we're nice people who have a lot of interesting things to say. (Just trying not to be serially negative.)

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 07:12 PM

I love you, Jeri, and you know it... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 07:51 PM

Steve, I thought it was our secret.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 08:36 PM

From "In Fact," an American Marxist newsletter (June 14, 1943, p.1):

"He is a very dangerous sort of soldier—a 'premature anti-Fascist,' as one official of the [U.S.] War Dep't recently stated. It wasn't enough that Anthony DeMaio, who was confined to a labor unit because he had been a fighter against Fascism in Spain, was lugging beef in a cold storage warehouse here at Camp Grant...."

The phrase seems to have become relatively common only after the war (i.e., in the McCarthy Era).

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 09:21 PM

Steve Shaw says: But there's that uneasy feeling, especially with Joe, that he can kind of say daft things just as much as the rest of us can, yet be rather manipulative apropos of "what's allowed" here. Address that, Joe!

I do very little in the way of editing for moderation in the non-music (BS) forum, and that's intentional. I usually restrict myself to "no-brainer" editing in the BS forum, things like deleting Spam and duplicate messages, and correcting typos like one Steve pointed out in one of his posts today. I don't really believe in deleting posts for "disciplinary" reasons - I feel that once the damage is done, it's done; although there some situations where I do believe a post should be deleted. I deleted a bunch of political posts from the "Best Moments" thread last week because they were posted after I posted notice that I wasn't going to allow any more political posts in that thread because they weren't getting us anywhere - and that was in the music forum.

I do believe in fairness, and that everybody should be free to express his/her opinion. I think that there are certain Mudcatters who have bullied their way into control of the BS Forum, and that they do their best to bully right-wing posters into silence. And rather than respond to those right-wing posters with facts and logic, they go on endlessly with their accusations and name-calling and other combative tactics. And I hate that, and I actively participate in the BS forum discussions in my attempt to challenge that sort of mean, bullying conduct. I speak my opposition to that conduct very forcefully - but I use my voice, not my edit button, to make my point. Steve Shaw calls that "manipulative," and I can't quite see how he can defend that accusation. In fact, I think he should be ashamed of having made such an implication without giving any facts to back it up.

I get it that the bullies don't like my opposition to their control of the forum, and they make airheaded accusations about my "overstepping authority" or being "manipulative." But I don't use authority or manipulation to express or enforce my opposition. I use facts and logic, and language. You bullying folks should try that sometime. It's a novel concept.

For 21 years, it has been my practice to explain any action I have taken that has any sort of "disciplinary" implication. If I close a thread, I close it with an explanatory note. Some moderators and Mudcatters haven't liked my explanatory notes, but that's what I believe in doing. If I delete a message, I generally tell the poster privately why I've done it. But I rarely delete messages or close threads, other than for technical reasons. I just don't believe in it, and I'd rather try logic instead of power.

So, Mr. Shaw, I think you owe me an apology or a factual defense of your accusations.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 09:37 PM

Now, Joe, I've declared my undying love for Jeri and SRS, yet you say I'm a bully because I go for the jugular of right-wingers! Would it help if I told you that I love you too, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 09:39 PM

Mossback says: Are you as surprised that there are evidently so-called "moderators" protecting and enabling individuals who post only lies, bullshit & conspiracy theories?

It is my opinion that the function of moderators here is to keep the peace, not to censor objectionable content. I've been attacked for that philosophy many times over the years, but I still contend that my philosophy is correct. I have sometimes accused other moderators of deleting messages because of their political content, and they have sometimes disagreed with me on that. Still and all, I think that people should be allowed to say what they think - and then others should be free to attempt to refute those opinions with facts and logic. Yes, we have people on both the left and the right who post only "Lies, bullshit & conspiracy theories" - and I have often posted facts and logic to oppose them. But I object to opposing them with any more coercive tactics, like censorship and bullying.

Other opinions are possible, but that's the opinion I've stuck with for 21 years. If you think there's something wrong with my holding that opinion, Mossback, then I'd have to say that would cause me to have a negative opinion of you. Or that you're full of shit, one of the two....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 09:40 PM

Don't tell them about our bromance, Steve. They'd never believe it...

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 09:49 PM

You got a bit defensive there, Joe. I meant what I said about supporting the mods. We are all human beings and every one of us is capable of getting things wrong. But bully I am not. Wrong-headed on many occasions I may well be. But I'm always up for a good hearty squabble, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 10:05 PM

But Steve, you seem to think there's something immoral about my opposing you.....

The bullying takes place. After a BS thread hits 100 posts, there's rarely anyone left but the Usual Suspects. Ever wonder why that happens?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 18 - 11:08 PM

It appears I took Joe's bears ears treatise backwards because I thought he was opposing what I wrote. Joe sometimes writes more voluminously than Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 03:18 AM

I did not intend this thread to be a platform to bash the mods. I do not do it and request that others refrain from doing so. They are doing a tough job and give up their time for free. If you have any gripes with them, take it up on a PM.

This thread, as I keep repeating, should be a discussion on why it is no surprise that right wing views so often cause such controversy here. I do not think it is surprising. Maybe others do.

On a sub topic that seems to have arisen, I do not think there is any bullying occurring either. The best definition I have seen, from the National Centre Against Bullying in Australia, is

The definition of bullying is when an individual or a group of people with more power, repeatedly and intentionally cause hurt or harm to another person or group of people who feel helpless to respond. Bullying can continue over time, is often hidden from adults, and will probably continue if no action is taken.

There is no group of people with more power here (apart from the mods and they do not bully anyone!) and everyone is given the opportunity to respond from a completely safe place.

I think the term 'bullying' is overused, just as is the term 'troll'. Argument, no matter how robust, is neither bullying nor trolling. To apply those terms when they are not relevant lessens the effect of anti-bullying everywhere. In my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 03:44 AM

It really is time people defined what they mean by "bullying"
As far as I'm concerned, it means permanent personal insulting and attempting to talk down those you disagree with - that only happens with a few people
Nott so long ago, the worst of them disappeared (presumably banned and not taken for a long drive into the woods) - his protége remains.
It is the bullies who complain the loudest about being bullied - isn't that always the case?
There's nothing wrong with being 'opposed' - even vehemently at times - you learn nothing from watching nodding dogs

Joe hasn't 'defined' what he mans by 'bullying' and he has yet to respond to those of us who have
He hasn't specified what he means by "a whole passel of rabid liberals who are neither tolerant nor pacifist"
I see no evidence of this here

I consider the term "rabid liberal" an oxymoron - a contradiction in terms - it has become very much an American habit to deliberately re-invent the language to excuse the inexcusable - £friendly fire" for killing anybody who happens to be there; collateral damage for slaughtering the innocent; extraordinary rendition fo illegal abduction and torture; waterboarding, near drowning as torture.
I love our language and have been appalled to hear it regularly it, unconsciously 'Estuaryised' in Britain      
To see it deliberately used as a political weapon out Orwells Orwell's "Newspeak"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 03:46 AM

Cross posted there Dave
Sorry
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:00 AM

No probs, Jim. I would disagree with your definition of bullying as well though. The key is bullying is inevitably by those who have, or want, power over others. We do not have any power over anyone here, nor do they over us.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:44 AM

What's that supposed to mean, I seem to think there's something immoral? Flippin 'eck!

Agreed, Dave. The mods have a job to do, they don't get paid and they can't be expected to be here 24/7. My latest ploy is to tell them I love them. They like it so much that it keeps threads open so that there'll be a chance I'll say it again... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 04:47 AM

I seem to think there is something immortal...

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 05:32 AM

"The key is bullying is inevitably by those who have, or want, power over others"
Want - yes
It's the inability to get it that causes the problem
It's like talking down to people - seldom if ever done by those who are intelligent enough not to need to - a sign of insecurity rather than self-confidence
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 05:33 AM

Meant to add - as we well know from Mudcat displays
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 06:22 AM

" nor do they over us."
They have no power over us, true, but they have other powers - to get threads closed when things are not going their way is a favourite
One individual regularly adopts the 'stonewalling" technique - make a statement; ignore all arguments; wait a bit; make the same statement; ignore all argument; claim nobody has challenged what he said; asks for it to be repeated; ignore repeats..... and so ad-infinitum
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 06:55 AM

It doesn't matter, Jim. Honestly. If two arguments are put forward, people will decide which has more merit. Most people have sense enough to recognise the type of tactic you describe and have an aversion to the type of insults and abuse you have mentioned previously. These tactics do not work and responding to them only encourages more of the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 07:27 AM

The best President deal maker: James Monroe Louisiana Purchase
The best Stable genius President: Thomas Jefferson
The best Builder President: FDR
The best economy president: Reagan
The best showman president: Kennedy
The best self claimed President: Trump
The biggest liar: ???

Push back on historic lies for own sake

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 08:27 AM

No reaction at all is best, Jim, and will help to keep the thread alive. To misquote US currency, In Mod We Trust :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 08:33 AM

You're correct, Dave. I started a thread yesterday, which was deleted overnight, in which I said exactly the same thing, and specifically addressed that to Jim. If people refuse to be provoked, and don't respond to provocation, it will very quickly become apparent who the problem posters are.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 09:06 AM

Not only don't respond, don't read the bloody thing in the first place is my policy these days. There aren't enough hours in the day to read twaddle. Just see who's posted it and scroll forward to the next sensible chap or chapess in the list...

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 09:38 AM

Who would you prefer posting, Bruce or Kanye West?
'They' sometimes say the devil you have is better than the devil you may get.
You guys get down in the weeds so deep you are arguing about the rhizomes in the roots. Oh, I do that too? nevermind.

Imagine how different the rhetoric would be if you had to wait 24 hours before posting to a new subject. Mo more snap judgments no more automatic knee jerk anger. Reading more and posting less just doesn't give you that instant gratification.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 09:46 AM

Who would you prefer posting, Bruce or Kanye West?

I read Batman into there somewhere and it took me a few minutes to work out why. See if you can do it. No prizes I'm afraid but kudos to who gets it right first :-D

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 09:53 AM

You want to know why threads get closed?

What is this thread about (based on the posts of people other than Donuel)?

If you didn't read the title, what would you think?

End of off-topic stuff from me.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 09:56 AM

Not sure if that was for me, Jeri. Apologies if it was my off topic post that caused it but I thought it was time for a little light relief.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 10:08 AM

Its a quantum universe Jeri and I'm goin with the flow.
I think my blood sugar is making everything look a bit too ridiculous lately.

BS is the home of the 'complisult' and insulpliments ;^/

Happy October surprise, whatever it is.

10-4

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 10:18 AM

All this is fed by the low state to which our mainstream media has sunk.


After the end of the Great War people discovered that the stories about atrocities committed by German soldiers were either untrue or grossly exaggerated.

When stories started coming out of Germany in the 1930s about people being murdered and herded into camps people started saying "we've heard all this before".

I don't just refer to the obvious culprits like "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail" - all the national dailies distort the truth or are selective in their stories. They all have agendas of some kind usually defined by the people who own them- "The Guardian" is one of the worst culprits - and as for BBC News - an oxymoron.

Hence people are given a wide choice in what to believe and can choose their own "facts".

I refuse to read any of the national dailies on the grounds that if someone had consistently lied to me or tried to manipulate over a number of years I wouldn't want to know them.

Couple of lighthearted looks at intolerance:-

Jeremy Taylor:"Liberal Man"

and a bit of a caution against the "handbags at 50 paces" here:-


Jonathan Pie

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Iains
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 10:35 AM

"Imagine how different the rhetoric would be if you had to wait 24 hours before posting to a new subject. Mo more snap judgments no more automatic knee jerk anger. Reading more and posting less just doesn't give you that instant gratification."

24 hours would kill the forum, but a couple of hours before a post becoming active probably has a lot going for it. A chance to reflect,censor, or delete can only be a positive.
But would those guilty of knee jerks avail themselves of such a facility?

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 11:00 AM

I think you could well be right Acorn4. I stopped reading the papers years ago and now got to various sources for my news. I must disagree about the Guardian and the Beeb though. I find them less biased than most and they do present a broader picture. But, yes, always check the sources!

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Acorn4
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 11:07 AM

Channnel 4 seems to be better than the main news.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 11:32 AM

I'm more inclineded to trust Channel 4, but I believe the BBC is the official propaganda mouthpiece of the Conservative & Unionist Party. (Sorry Dave!).

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 11:38 AM

I would consider one of the basic problems here on Mudcat is that while the some American posters consider themselves to be quite "liberal" when by UK standards they are quite "right wing".

Conversely some UK posters who consider themselves to be quite "liberal" are perceived to be quite "left wing" by American standards.

How this disparity in perception is overcome I know not.

Having said that I'll get me coat ..........

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 12:34 PM

And therefore, the proper response should be to present ideas, with facts to back them up, and then to defend or refute those ideas with logic.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 12:36 PM

No apology needed, BWM. Most people can disagree without rancour or bearing grudges.

Raggy, you could well be right. I dunno what to do about it either. Anyone got any ideas?

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 12:44 PM

I would agree wholeheartedly, Joe, if this were a debating forum with formal rules. Yes, put up the idea. Back it up. Other people can refute it and then you get one chance to argue against them. That doesn't happen here though does it. People argue ad infinitum until someone gets sick of it. That is where your proposal fails. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The political leanings of Mudcat
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Oct 18 - 12:58 PM

The normal rules of debate don't apply here. We have one poster whose main tactic is to insult and abuse, and another who sets traps, constantly asking others to state their position but never stating his own. No debating society worth the name would allow them to behave in that way - provocation, pure and simple. Shameful.