Inequality on treatment of forum members.

[stimpy]

I did a quick search.
This was my 15th post in R&P. As far as I can see, the previous 14 posts didnt offend anyone.
Then this in the "Primaries Round 5: South Carolina for the Democrats" thread from 2005.....

Me:
Obama gives great speeches, but each time he talks I cant help but think that it's The Rock from WWE. They sound exactly alike, especially when Obama gets going.
I'm just waiting for him to slip this in one of those speeches:
Shut your mouth and know your role.
Can you smellelelelel what Obama's cooking?

ChrisGrenard:
Yeah, they're both darkies, so I could see how you could confuse the two.

Me:
Wow...that was uncalled for, as usual.
I believe I said they SOUND alike.
Jump right to race much, Chris?
Some of us try to be a bit more evolved in our discussions.

CSL:
You got no sense of humour or something? (To Me)

I mean....cmon...... them thinking I had no sense of humor is hilarious.

So please explain why these kinds of comments to my posts should paint me as the bad guy when I defend myself against them?

[Isgrimnur]

This was the initial post that set everyone off in the Juneteenth thread..... "It's hip and trendy to be a woke white person these days, so there's that......"

Is that really offensive? To me it's just my observation of the times we live in. I certainly didnt single anyone out or disparage the holiday itself.
So did it really warrant the comments that came after?

It comes across (to me) as disparaging anyone who is white that has demonstrated any increased education or cognizance of the racial disparities on which our society has benefitted from and we may have, usually unknowingly, perpetuated.

The term, "woke," has become politically charged and is not used in a complimentary manner. And calling those who may feel targeted by it as hip and trendy certainly doesn't lend itself to thinking that your usage is complimentary, either.

Whether or not it was targeted, it reads as insulting.

[Blackhawk]

Exactly that. As I said before, it's your tone, not always the message (although I'm not sure what the message was supposed to be in this case.) It comes across as if you're suggesting that people who have developed a strong moral position based on all the evidence that's been seen lately are just being 'trendy.' Calling something trendy is a pretty common way of dismissing it as shallow and fleeting.

Can you see why people would respond angrily or defensively?

[Sudy]

I don't necessarily find it offensive, but it's definitely cynical and the sentiment, as phrased, doesn't foster earnest discussion.

Mind you, I don't usually venture into R&P so I'm not as familiar with stimpy's reputation. I recognize him from elsewhere on the board and don't recall any specific negative exchanges, but my memory often clouds unless we've had specific ongoing interations, they're a megaposter, or they have a memorable avatar.

[stimpy]

Exactly that. As I said before, it's your tone, not always the message (although I'm not sure what the message was supposed to be in this case.) It comes across as if you're suggesting that people who have developed a strong moral position based on all the evidence that's been seen lately are just being 'trendy.' Calling something trendy is a pretty common way of dismissing it as shallow and fleeting.

Can you see why people would respond angrily or defensively?

I guess, although again to me I was making a general statement on society as a whole these days, and certainly not geared towards anyone specific.

[wonderpug]

Exactly that. As I said before, it's your tone, not always the message (although I'm not sure what the message was supposed to be in this case.) It comes across as if you're suggesting that people who have developed a strong moral position based on all the evidence that's been seen lately are just being 'trendy.' Calling something trendy is a pretty common way of dismissing it as shallow and fleeting.

Can you see why people would respond angrily or defensively?

I guess, although again to me I was making a general statement on society as a whole these days, and certainly not geared towards anyone specific.

If people identify with the “as a whole” population you’re mocking, they’re included in the insult.

[Zarathud]

You don’t post to be funny, stimpy. You post to be an asshole, thinking it’s funny. My brother has the same problem. There’s a big difference, especially when you can’t take a counterpunch after hitting someone else.

[Holman]

Speaking of how we treat forum members, can we get this "WhitePride" character (see R&P this evening) banned immediately?

[Kraken]

Speaking of how we treat forum members, can we get this "WhitePride" character (see R&P this evening) banned immediately?

We haven't drawn a real new troll in ages, but this one's not U2K th' Greatest.

[Sudy]

Not even a good troll... good trolls are less obvious. Good trolls are insidious.

[Pyperkub]

Speaking of how we treat forum members, can we get this "WhitePride" character (see R&P this evening) banned immediately?

We haven't drawn a real new troll in ages, but this one's not U2K th' Greatest.

Well, LawBoy did just cancel "whitepride"...

[Combustible Lemur]

I did a quick search.
This was my 15th post in R&P. As far as I can see, the previous 14 posts didnt offend anyone.
Then this in the "Primaries Round 5: South Carolina for the Democrats" thread from 2005.....

Me:
Obama gives great speeches, but each time he talks I cant help but think that it's The Rock from WWE. They sound exactly alike, especially when Obama gets going.
I'm just waiting for him to slip this in one of those speeches:
Shut your mouth and know your role.
Can you smellelelelel what Obama's cooking?

ChrisGrenard:
Yeah, they're both darkies, so I could see how you could confuse the two.

Me:
Wow...that was uncalled for, as usual.
I believe I said they SOUND alike.
Jump right to race much, Chris?
Some of us try to be a bit more evolved in our discussions.

CSL:
You got no sense of humour or something? (To Me)

I mean....cmon...... them thinking I had no sense of humor is hilarious.

So please explain why these kinds of comments to my posts should paint me as the bad guy when I defend myself against them?

I'll give my crack at this one. In the larger context Grenards response is not un-called (with the exception of his vocabulary being questionably crass as to be self defeating) for a couple reasons.

1. In a political context Barack Obama's blackness is ubiquitous. It doesnt matter that he's an Ivy League constitutional scholar, moderately socially conservative, church going, nuclear family having boyscout. To his political enemies (whether they actually cared or not. He was a black Muslim out to deatroy the country. Those who pretend like this wasnt the political reality were either ignorant of politics or gaslighting. Grenard presumed you were the latter. A reasonable inference based on your your engagement in the topic.

2. You said they sound alike because of 1 their SNL SKIT in which they are side by side satirizising the frustration of code switching and social roleplaying also pressing into muddy issues of angry black man. And 2 because of the nature of american dialect and code switching the rythms and tones associated with college educated public speaker in this case two mixed race men who do have have similar sonorous yet halting rythms. Possibly from black church evangelical backgrounds. Preacher voice is a thing.

You dont even need to be aware of any of this at the concious level for it to influence how people respond to you. I don't approve of the troll hunters on this forum that actively stalk posters they don't like, in this case targeting you. I think trolling someone you think is a troll just makes you a troll. BUT I do think there is either a gaping lack of self awareness, or indignation on your part. Your comebacks reek of gaslight fumes. You often come across as Colbert Report trying to convince everyone he's not a fictional character. Okay but he's not then he is an ignorant troll. If he is, then that brand is not for me. A few forum members have sucessfully participated as alts of themselves, but generally it seems to me the forum wants absurd alts that clearly delineate reality from parody, or disclaimers when the satire is close to the truth.

Anyway, thats my two cents. I agree with alot of what blackhawk said too.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[stimpy]

I did a quick search.
This was my 15th post in R&P. As far as I can see, the previous 14 posts didnt offend anyone.
Then this in the "Primaries Round 5: South Carolina for the Democrats" thread from 2005.....

Me:
Obama gives great speeches, but each time he talks I cant help but think that it's The Rock from WWE. They sound exactly alike, especially when Obama gets going.
I'm just waiting for him to slip this in one of those speeches:
Shut your mouth and know your role.
Can you smellelelelel what Obama's cooking?

ChrisGrenard:
Yeah, they're both darkies, so I could see how you could confuse the two.

Me:
Wow...that was uncalled for, as usual.
I believe I said they SOUND alike.
Jump right to race much, Chris?
Some of us try to be a bit more evolved in our discussions.

CSL:
You got no sense of humour or something? (To Me)

I mean....cmon...... them thinking I had no sense of humor is hilarious.

So please explain why these kinds of comments to my posts should paint me as the bad guy when I defend myself against them?

I'll give my crack at this one. In the larger context Grenards response is not un-called (with the exception of his vocabulary being questionably crass as to be self defeating) for a couple reasons.

1.To his political enemies (whether they actually cared or not. He was a black Muslim out to deatroy the country. Those who pretend like this wasnt the political reality were either ignorant of politics or gaslighting. Grenard presumed you were the latter. A reasonable inference based on your your engagement in the topic.

Great, but in THIS case I had no prior engagement in the topic other than this post. How anyone can gleem that I in any way shape or form was a "political enemy" of Obamas based off of my 1 post is absurd.
I was making a comparison to his speech pattern. Not anything but that.
The conclusions others think they can draw from that says way more about them than it does about me.

And again...I know this comes off as me trying to defend myself, but I'm really just trying to understand whether my reputation is based off of the things I actually intially post or if it's based off of my responses to the attacks that come afterwards and whether those attacks were actually warranted or not..

[Combustible Lemur]

I did a quick search.
This was my 15th post in R&P. As far as I can see, the previous 14 posts didnt offend anyone.
Then this in the "Primaries Round 5: South Carolina for the Democrats" thread from 2005.....

Me:
Obama gives great speeches, but each time he talks I cant help but think that it's The Rock from WWE. They sound exactly alike, especially when Obama gets going.
I'm just waiting for him to slip this in one of those speeches:
Shut your mouth and know your role.
Can you smellelelelel what Obama's cooking?

ChrisGrenard:
Yeah, they're both darkies, so I could see how you could confuse the two.

Me:
Wow...that was uncalled for, as usual.
I believe I said they SOUND alike.
Jump right to race much, Chris?
Some of us try to be a bit more evolved in our discussions.

CSL:
You got no sense of humour or something? (To Me)

I mean....cmon...... them thinking I had no sense of humor is hilarious.

So please explain why these kinds of comments to my posts should paint me as the bad guy when I defend myself against them?

I'll give my crack at this one. In the larger context Grenards response is not un-called (with the exception of his vocabulary being questionably crass as to be self defeating) for a couple reasons.

1.To his political enemies (whether they actually cared or not. He was a black Muslim out to deatroy the country. Those who pretend like this wasnt the political reality were either ignorant of politics or gaslighting. Grenard presumed you were the latter. A reasonable inference based on your your engagement in the topic.

Great, but in THIS case I had no prior engagement in the topic other than this post. How anyone can gleem that I in any way shape or form was a "political enemy" of Obamas based off of my 1 post is absurd.
I was making a comparison to his speech pattern. Not anything but that.
The conclusions others think they can draw from that says way more about them than it does about me.

And again...I know this comes off as me trying to defend myself, but I'm really just trying to understand whether my reputation is based off of the things I actually intially post or if it's based off of my responses to the attacks that come afterwards and whether those attacks were actually warranted or not..

People glean it because you position yourself as a "conservative" voice in "liberal" echo chamber. You position yourself as the opposing voice. You position yourself as an Obama politcal enemy by aligning your argumentative base parallel with the groups that are. Though this is irrelevent, Grenard's assumption was that the flippant observation was a superficial disregard for Presidential respect. Which it was. Rather than noting that the two men had similar speech pattern, you declared that you couldnt help but see Obama as anything but a cartoonish sports entertainer. The most electrifying maybe, but still the leader of the free world as a buffoon. Again, parallel to the real world degredation of the man and office. Whether you intended it or not. It has a cultural whiff of "well if they can say it I can too". Even if you at that time didnt have much of a board history, my memory of chrisGrenard is such that his joke was akin to a verbal body check. You said something that could theoretically be innocent.
Your response could EASILY have been" touche', i was referring to their vocal patterns. The halting cadence. I can't think of a time when Obama leaned into agression and arrogance for a speech. Except you know, SNL WHICH LITERALLY played the angry black man parody."

But you didn't. You played the how could you possibly associate me associating an academic inspirational black man with a super entertaining angry black man character as a some kind of politically racial dig in a religion and politics forum.

And you didnt mention speech pattern, or oratory style, or cadence.

You claim you're working at a high level of analysis but never apply that level of critical thinking to your own posts. That gets to the core of what this is about. And its why you remind us of other OO trolls of the past. People who claim they are being incisive, or satirical, or earnest, but then refuse to turn any of that mental rigor towards themselves.

One of the biggest reasons I post less these days is because I like to drive-by post but tear up 90% of my own posts. I know I type in a disjointed stream of conciousness style and either I wont be adding much to the thread or I dont have time to parse the jumble if I'm misinterpreted . I even, when i do want to say something, sometimes have someone else read it before i post (I often do this with work emails.). Even in the best circumstances, written word comes with interpretation.

You say theres no way they aren't jumping to conclusions. I'm suggesting the fact that this thread is where we've ended up suggests that may not be the case.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[stimpy]

You know, no matter how much I try to explain my side of things, some will just choose to believe what they believe.
The fact that my posts get scrutinized so deeply leads me to believe some of you may be wasting your time slumming on an internet forum when you could be using those analytical skills to make the world a better place.

The fact is that my intentions would be questioned and picked apart whether it was a political opinion or a fart joke.
Some people just think they know it all.

[Combustible Lemur]

You know, no matter how much I try to explain my side of things, some will just choose to believe what they believe.
The fact that my posts get scrutinized so deeply leads me to believe some of you may be wasting your time slumming on an internet forum when you could be using those analytical skills to make the world a better place.

The fact is that my intentions would be questioned and picked apart whether it was a political opinion or a fart joke.
Some people just think they know it all.

Indeed. Have fun with that.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Zarathud]

If you can’t stand the heat, don’t light fires.

At least your obsessive “just being funny” posts aren’t as blatantly offensive as WhitePride. So you aren’t instantly permabanned.

When I met you in person, you didn’t seem to be the angry “touched in a Nono place by a Democrat” reactionary you’ve become. What happened, stimpy?

[stimpy]

If you can’t stand the heat, don’t light fires.

At least your obsessive “just being funny” posts aren’t as blatantly offensive as WhitePride. So you aren’t instantly permabanned.

When I met you in person, you didn’t seem to be the angry “touched in a Nono place by a Democrat” reactionary you’ve become. What happened, stimpy?

I dont know.
I think getting caught up in Trump running for President, because I really thought government needed to be shook up, just set something off in me when it became apparent he was pretty much the lunatic that alot of people thought he would be.
But as far as what he did and didnt do to harm the country, I just couldnt help but think it was not much different than alot of other politicians do. He was just far more brazen about it.
Thats' why I didnt vote for him for a second term,
4 more years of him would have been a disaster.
But no matter how much I tried to convey that here, it seems like I am forever a Trump loving racist.
And that bothers me. Because it isnt true.
But I do get caught up in trying to defend myself, not Trump, against it these days.
But I'm am realizing it's futile and I just need to try and let it go and let folks have their opinions, right or wrong.
In time, they may see I'm trying and be able to move past it.

[hepcat]

But no matter how much I tried to convey that here, it seems like I am forever a Trump loving racist.
And that bothers me. Because it isnt true.

Simple solution via a couple of examples: whenever someone brings up Trump in a negative manner, don't immediately jump in to decry the post as being unfair and insult the OP if you feel this way. And whenever someone brings up something about the fight against racism, don't decry the post as just an example of someone being "woke".

If you truly don't like Trump, then I don't understand why you apparently take offense whenever someone says basically what you believe

I think getting caught up in Trump running for President, because I really thought government needed to be shook up, just set something off in me when it became apparent he was pretty much the lunatic that alot of people thought he would be.

Constructive criticism. Take it as you will.

[Madmarcus]

I'm mentioned upthread so I guess I'll say something. Like most of my comments it is probably overthinking things.

For my part I found your response to me somewhat offensive. You did seem to imply that I was pulling some sort of hipster card by knowing about Juneteenth ages ago. On the other hand I can see that my statement might have sounded like I was attempting to show my own hipster woke cred so I dropped the topic.

I haven't seen the SNL skit. But I have (recently) seen Trevor Noah's bit on accents and dialect that really points out all of Obama's mannerisms. It great because it's clear he respects Obama and he is juxtaposing him with Mandela. Another figure of respect. If you flipped things around am pointed out that The Rock was talking like a preacher or like Obama it would be a slightly interesting observation. Comparing Obama to The Rock would work but you'd have to be with friends who already knew you respected Obama and even then it would only work as a comment on something happening in the moment. As soon as you make it asynchronous with people reading it later or without the same context it gets too close to "can't tell them apart" to fly.

[Kurth]

What are we all going to do about this thread when The Rock actually runs for president?

[stimpy]

I guess I'll put this here concerning Lorini and her issue with lawbeef.
Couldnt she have put him on ignore or something?
Was she made aware that here were ways to block him from responding to her posts?

Not sure what the history is between them.
The post that lawbeef pointed to seems relatively harmless, but I know the feeling when it seems someone is kind of following your posts and trying to get a rise out of you. It gets old. But as I said, I dont know the history or if she was aware there are ways to deal with an individual other than leaving.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm not sure if the forum software allows you to ignore a moderator.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Yes. I wasn't going public with it, but she asked me to prohibit LawBeefaroni from responding to her based on that discussion (and I believe what she perceived as a pattern from him). I told her that I would pass along her wishes if she desired, but that I wasn't going to enforcing a "no responding to Lorini for one poster" rule, particularly given that the posts in question were not actionable from my viewpoint. She was not satisfied with that, and decided to leave. While I miss her presence and her perspective, I don't believe what she asked me to do was appropriate for the forum. I'm hopeful that she'll come back after a break.

Further discussion should move to the Meta forum so that we can leave this for baseball discussion.

I regret to learn Lorini has chosen to leave the forum. But FWIW, I appreciate ImLawBoy's decision as moderator here. Because, to quote a legal decision I am sure he is familiar with…

[LordMortis]

I'm not sure if the forum software allows you to ignore a moderator.

Dunno about the software but the implementation says!:

Information

You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list.

Also Lorini, sorry to see you go. Hope to have you back. I don't have an inkling toward resolution so I got nuthin'. I didn't see the problem with the exchange but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

[Isgrimnur]

<not relevant>

[LawBeefaroni]

Yes. I wasn't going public with it, but she asked me to prohibit LawBeefaroni from responding to her based on that discussion (and I believe what she perceived as a pattern from him). I told her that I would pass along her wishes if she desired, but that I wasn't going to enforcing a "no responding to Lorini for one poster" rule, particularly given that the posts in question were not actionable from my viewpoint. She was not satisfied with that, and decided to leave. While I miss her presence and her perspective, I don't believe what she asked me to do was appropriate for the forum. I'm hopeful that she'll come back after a break.

Further discussion should move to the Meta forum so that we can leave this for baseball discussion.

I regret to learn Lorini has chosen to leave the forum. But FWIW, I appreciate ImLawBoy's decision as moderator here. Because, to quote a legal decision I am sure he is familiar with…

I'll yield to forum opinion but I generally respond to posts, not posters. I don't soften or harden my responses based on who I'm responding to. I may change the tone based on where the thread is going or opt to stay silent but almost never do I tailor a response to the poster on a non-personal or non-humorous thread. Just the posts.

I post a lot and am active in opinionated threads so if I'm on the opposite side of an issue with someone on two or three issues we will probably exchange several posts. It's not based on who is talking but rather what they say.

However I did bail on the MLB thread because I got the feeling it was becoming less about baseball.

[stimpy]

<not relevant>

Actually I found your post to be quite relevant.
I agree that forum mods should not be exempt from being able to be put on ignore when they are posting in a non-mod capacity.
I guess that cant be done as things are currently, but giving mods a separate account for doing mod things seems like a pretty easy fix.
Having the mod title doesnt mean they cant be a dick or confrontational or argumentative or trollish or whatever.
In that regard, they should be held to the same standards as the rest of the unwashed masses.

[LordMortis]

I guess that cant be done as things are currently, but giving mods a separate account for doing mod things seems like a pretty easy fix.

I had thought about that but then I thought this is an all volunteer gig. If you started asking much from those that keep the house clean then the house doesn't stay as clean.

This instance is hard. I've always felt the PTB here govern in a way I appreciate and I honestly can't see the problem Lorini had but I also know that I am myopic and shouldn't trust my own judgement in such matters.

[Blackhawk]

It was always challenging being a mod, when what you say has to be balanced between what you want to say and the extra weight your statement carry. Like Stimpy said, sometimes you just want to be an argumentative dick. And sometimes you want to tell people "Hey, can we please stop using the PC gaming randomness threads for discussion of every single game?" As me, it's a request. But if I was still a mod, was that a ruling? It's kind of a pain.

I'd have actually enjoyed having an alternate account (with the condition that the names should be standardized and mostly stay the same, IE, "Blackhawk" vs "[Staff] Blackhawk.") It would have eased the pressure of normal posting. And these days the moderation seems to have a significantly reduced workload compared to ten or fifteen years ago, so the account switching would be lessened. Even moreso if a way to give the ability to edit spam posts could be given to the staff's normal accounts.

Speaking of the old days...

[noxiousdog]

However I did bail on the MLB thread because I got the feeling it was becoming less about baseball.

You didn't say anything wrong or offensive.