Banning cbyeranvil from the Inter/National Politics category

[podfish]

As I read so many of you putting down the threatened-with-banishment-from-Wacco non-lefties for snarkyness, I just urge you to look over all the posts putting down Ray and Cyber and notice how much disrespect and hostility is exhibited there. We liberals aren't always so sweet and lovely either! Even to each other!

I had always thought one of the finest and most defining aspect of liberals was respect for others with a different point of view and an interest in understanding them as human beings......

Ray and Cyber dared to venture into lefty Wacco land with an obvious desire to communicate, and got whacked! ...
To resolve the issue by establishing a separate category for right-leaning posters on Wacco would be like saying "Go to your room and shut the door and scream all you like, little guy!"

well, I don't see it that way. I'm sorry they took their toys and went home, and maybe am part of the reason why, but I think it's more a case where they didn't like to reap what they sowed.
There were often cases where a real position was being put forth, but it was rarely defended if 'attacked' (rebutted) -- that's where everything else flows from. That's why there was another category proposed, it seems to me, one where squabbling could take place without overwhelming threads where the OnT stuff would be a real discussion. Squabbling can be fun, but why expose everyone to it?
and I way don't agree with your characterizations of liberals as respectful, or, really (though you didn't say it) of being rational and analytical. Both sides of many arguments show a lot of symmetry there. For every pro-gun nut on the right, there's an anti-vaxxer on the left. Liberals may be more interested in why someone wants their guns, but really aren't going to accept their rationale as legitimate. That's fine, it's just how we all are. Personally, I think Jonathan Haidt had the right idea -- you're liberal because of the things you intrinsically value, or conservative. Do you respect authority more than you care about fairness? Evangelicals are conservative for that reason, for example. That's as simple and fairly accurate dividing line as any I know of.

[rossmen]

Glad to have finally pissed you off man star. A label is just a label. On wacco I chose my label to be a short version of my given name. I also label myself anarchist, animist, ect. You call me adolescent and conservative. I am extremely proud of my increasingly childlike mind. The truth is the cyberanvil of sherpas amused me, and im sorry to see him banned.

Now you have pissed me off. Diversity does NOT give you the right to call Wisewomn a fool. Calling her a name perfectly illustrates the virulent emptiness of the so-called conservatives. You are all merely oppositional defiant adolescents no matter what your age. You haven't grown up. What you call diversity is really just name calling. The truth of my words is revealed in the data. Barry started a special thread for you and last I looked only 25 comments had been posted. What a feckless movement! Star Man

[rossmen]

Always, I love to breath and still smell and taste too. So what part of my reply was so off topic? The info that yes berry threatens and bans people who he no longer wants to be part of the party? Despite their progressive politics? Look, I'm walking the edge. Not only do i deliberatly misspell his name, he finally stopped correcting this, i call him out every chance i get on his own hypocracy. So when he starts a thread looking for community support to ban a poster and you trumpet it why not play with your name? Yeah left of you.

I was referring to the people in question on this thread: cyber and ray.

Your diatribe is yet another example of the Right's inability to stay on topic and to project their own flaws onto others.

Sit down and take a few deep breaths, Rossmen.

[rossmen]

Diversity has a quotient? And that quotient is determined by the constitution? Because the constitution does not allow change? The constitution allows a little bit of dissent, just for fun? Am I getting any of your intended meaning right?

Diversity has a quotient. As in the US the presumption is that there is a body of citizens who operate in the knowledge and reverence of the advanced hope of what the Constitution was designed for. In that number is the quotient where incoming never overwhelms the existing. It's intended as flavoring, not for changing the course.

[Thad]

Birds of a feather fly together

Glad to have finally pissed you off man star. A label is just a label. On wacco I chose my label to be a short version of my given name. I also label myself anarchist, animist, ect. You call me adolescent and conservative. I am extremely proud of my increasingly childlike mind. The truth is the cyberanvil of sherpas amused me, and im sorry to see him banned.

[Thad]

Would you go into someones house and start moving their furniture round and wonder why they got upset?

Always, I love to breath and still smell and taste too. So what part of my reply was so off topic? The info that yes berry threatens and bans people who he no longer wants to be part of the party? Despite their progressive politics? Look, I'm walking the edge. Not only do i deliberatly misspell his name, he finally stopped correcting this, i call him out every chance i get on his own hypocracy. So when he starts a thread looking for community support to ban a poster and you trumpet it why not play with your name? Yeah left of you.

[Thad]

Intentional obfuscation, not even a question on what might the rate of diversity be compared to capacity to assimilate and stay on course?

Diversity has a quotient? And that quotient is determined by the constitution? Because the constitution does not allow change? The constitution allows a little bit of dissent, just for fun? Am I getting any of your intended meaning right?

[occihoff]

Point taken about "liberals," Maybe I should have said "liberalism." Although it is my impression that in general liberals do tend to support kinder positions than conservatives. Otherwise they should not be regarded as "liberals."

If you didn't like how a poster failed to defend a rebuttal, all you had to do is ignore their post and move on. Maybe someone else thought their post was interesting. To simply expunge them because Barry or you found their responses unsatisfactory would simply amount to censorship--an extremely unliberal position. If you don't like to be exposed to "squabbling," don't join the squabbling. Frankly, there's plenty of squabbling already among leftists on this site--just as we are doing right now!

And I have to tell you all once again that when I avoided taking a battle stance with Ray and showed a genuine interest in understanding his point of view, he turned out to be a nice guy who expressed humility about his opinions and sent me some videos that showed me more where he was coming from. They seemed quite odd to me, and they certainly didn't sway me to his point of view, but I feel richer from being exposed to a point of view that is so different from mine and the basically liberal people in my daily life.

I think that the more we can avoid putting each other down and instead evince a basic respect and even actual interest in the world view of others--even views that seem alien or even repugnant to us--the better the world will be. At the very least our understanding will get deeper.

I also think that we will be better off if we can look more deeply into our own anger and defensiveness, the feelings that often get provoked even in basically "liberal" discussion groups such as this!

well, I don't see it that way. I'm sorry they took their toys and went home, and maybe am part of the reason why, but I think it's more a case where they didn't like to reap what they sowed.
There were often cases where a real position was being put forth, but it was rarely defended if 'attacked' (rebutted) -- that's where everything else flows from. That's why there was another category proposed, it seems to me, one where squabbling could take place without overwhelming threads where the OnT stuff would be a real discussion. Squabbling can be fun, but why expose everyone to it?
and I way don't agree with your characterizations of liberals as respectful, or, really (though you didn't say it) of being rational and analytical. Both sides of many arguments show a lot of symmetry there. For every pro-gun nut on the right, there's an anti-vaxxer on the left. Liberals may be more interested in why someone wants their guns, but really aren't going to accept their rationale as legitimate. That's fine, it's just how we all are. Personally, I think Jonathan Haidt had the right idea -- you're liberal because of the things you intrinsically value, or conservative. Do you respect authority more than you care about fairness? Evangelicals are conservative for that reason, for example. That's as simple and fairly accurate dividing line as any I know of.

[geomancer]

Bless your heart, but "Lefty" WACCO is nowhere near homogeneous, it's got a large cadre of anti-science Energizer bunnies spewing buttloads of conspiratorial nonsense about the corona virus, vaccines, Bill Gates, Fauci, WHO, etc., etc. Thanks to Barry for putting these bozos in their own "special" playpen where they can rant and share deranged & deluded YouTube videos to their heart's content. Consensus reality is one hell of a drug, try it, you'll like it!

Back on Wacco after a 5 day vacation from the computer. Wow!

As I read so many of you putting down the threatened-with-banishment-from-Wacco non-lefties for snarkyness, I just urge you to look over all the posts putting down Ray and Cyber and notice how much disrespect and hostility is exhibited there. We liberals aren't always so sweet and lovely either! Even to each other!

I had always thought one of the finest and most defining aspect of liberals was respect for others with a different point of view and an interest in understanding them as human beings. It doesn't mean having to agree with them. Aren't you curious about how even intelligent people can sometimes see things in such a different way than you and your friends? And whatever your complaints about Ray and Cyber, they are clearly intelligent. And in my email contacts with Ray I found him to be quite kind and even self-effacing in his attitude about his opinions.

Ray and Cyber dared to venture into lefty Wacco land with an obvious desire to communicate, and got whacked! Is this your vision of liberalism? Whack and ye shall get whacked! Reach out your arms and you just might get communication.

Glia here says that most of their commentary was "just plain ignorant and/or wrong around 90% of the time." Well that's your opinion, Glia, and a blanket rejection that seems to leave no more room for discussion. What would happen if you and the rest of us Wacko liberals--instead of saying "you're wrong!"--said instead, "why do you see it that way?"

To resolve the issue by establishing a separate category for right-leaning posters on Wacco would be like saying "Go to your room and shut the door and scream all you like, little guy!" That would be so pseudo-liberal I am stunned.

[rossmen]

Ok so our discussion is relegated off digest. This is how censorship works. I'll be bach.

Intentional obfuscation, not even a question on what might the rate of diversity be compared to capacity to assimilate and stay on course?

[rossmen]

I love consensus reality, and I will debate it with you any day. Stay on topic. While you might dispute recently banned contributors, don't spew for berry.

Bless your heart, but "Lefty" WACCO is nowhere near homogeneous, it's got a large cadre of anti-science Energizer bunnies spewing buttloads of conspiratorial nonsense about the corona virus, vaccines, Bill Gates, Fauci, WHO, etc., etc. Thanks to Barry for putting these bozos in their own "special" playpen where they can rant and share deranged & deluded YouTube videos to their heart's content. Consensus reality is one hell of a drug, try it, you'll like it!

[rossmen]

Are you berry?

Would you go into someones house and start moving their furniture round and wonder why they got upset?

[rossmen]

Thanks for comparing me to starman, I love him.

Birds of a feather fly together

[rossmen]

Am I one of the three? Should I be banned? A good host of a public, social media forum who stole the name should recognise social responsibility and ban me. No, I am not asking for for it! And if you chose to keep me, I hope you know I will not always be pleasant.

However it happened, I am very glad to see all three of these people leave!

A few years ago a guy using the handle of Ms. Terry was making problems. The observation was made that this forum is basically a party and Barry is the host. As a good host, it is his job to create a pleasant environment where a good time can be had by all. If someone is being a bad guest, Barry has every right to move them out to the back yard or ask them to leave if it really gets out of hand. It's his party, and he can ban if he wants to.

The problem was not necessarily the political views or support of Trump and right-wing notions. It was the snide, sneering, snarky and generally obnoxious nature of the commentary. Another observation: most of their commentary, especially on the part of Cyberanvil, was just plain ignorant and/or wrong around 90% of the time!

[rossmen]

Let's be clear, berry is a neoliberal, not a progressive. You can divide people up all you want. But more interesting is what they really think. So If I dispute you about vaccine efficacy, citing the the legal structure which absolves manufacturers of responsibility and surpressesses accurate reporting, who is right? We both are. Is this the kind of squabbling you want to save others from? Go ahead, support autocratic power who just wants the views for the money.

well, I don't see it that way. I'm sorry they took their toys and went home, and maybe am part of the reason why, but I think it's more a case where they didn't like to reap what they sowed.
There were often cases where a real position was being put forth, but it was rarely defended if 'attacked' (rebutted) -- that's where everything else flows from. That's why there was another category proposed, it seems to me, one where squabbling could take place without overwhelming threads where the OnT stuff would be a real discussion. Squabbling can be fun, but why expose everyone to it?
and I way don't agree with your characterizations of liberals as respectful, or, really (though you didn't say it) of being rational and analytical. Both sides of many arguments show a lot of symmetry there. For every pro-gun nut on the right, there's an anti-vaxxer on the left. Liberals may be more interested in why someone wants their guns, but really aren't going to accept their rationale as legitimate. That's fine, it's just how we all are. Personally, I think Jonathan Haidt had the right idea -- you're liberal because of the things you intrinsically value, or conservative. Do you respect authority more than you care about fairness? Evangelicals are conservative for that reason, for example. That's as simple and fairly accurate dividing line as any I know of.

[podfish]

.....So If I dispute you about vaccine efficacy, citing the the legal structure which absolves manufacturers of responsibility and surpressesses accurate reporting, who is right? We both are. Is this the kind of squabbling you want to save others from? Go ahead, support autocratic power who just wants the views for the money.

that seems to me to be OnT, so not likely to be called pointless squabbling. Now, I would say it's a bit of a non sequitur, but you can dispute that bit too. I don't see as strong a connection between the scientific question of the vaccine's effectiveness, and the political one of the legal structure that surrounds it it as you do, but of course I do see it exists. And I certainly agree that the systems are biased in favor of the powerful. You're more an absolutist than I am - I would never say they're only in it for the money. (that's an old Zappa album, isn't it?) but I know they're no altruists either!