The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To relate to the Brady/Manning debate. While Kissinger might be similar to Tom Brady (most effective), Kerry's no Manning (best).

Throw in something about guns and we can have all our flame wars in the same place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For instance, should we be able to ban people who openly wish for more socialism or even communism?

Are you seriously suggesting that socialism or even communism are equivalent to the worldview Jon espouses?

And before you quote deaths attributed to Stalin to me note that he was an Authoritarian, not a Communist.

[Toddzilla]

Credit where credit is due....

Ben has completely ignored how disgustingly racist Jon has been for years and has been basically his biggest enabler. To finally (1) notice it and (2) do something about it is a revelation.

It sucks there's collateral damage - i.e. banning people for SAYING BEING RACIST IS NOT GOOD - but it's a step somewhat in the right direction.

I'd say being racist isn't good either and maybe we'd want to clean some of that stuff up, but I'd probably get boxed too.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are you seriously suggesting that socialism or even communism are equivalent to the worldview Jon espouses?

And before you quote deaths attributed to Stalin to me note that he was an Authoritarian, not a Communist.

Sure seems to opens the door for it. But basically the absolute misery it entails when you dont know when to say when.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Jon is giving up liberal sensibilities for math. If accidentally capturing 10 innocents...and then letting those 10 rot with the 300 terrorists....then we are better off than if we let all 310 go...because each terrorist is going to kill 10 innocents a piece. The lesson? Dont ever hang out with terrorists because the US Army might just confuse your dumbass with um...being a terrorist.

Except the numbers weren't that way. What we did was more equivalent to quarantining the city of Tampa because the Bucs had MRSA (or whatever it was).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sure seems to opens the door for it. But basically the absolute misery it entails when you dont know when to say when.

So you are saying there's equivalence between someone "wishing for more Socialism" and Jon saying it's ok to kill all Muslims (and liberals, and socialists, and probably everyone north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and...)?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So you are saying there's equivalence between someone "wishing for more Socialism" and Jon saying it's ok to kill all Muslims (and liberals, and socialists, and probably everyone north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and...)?

I think we have a better chance of seeing more socialism than we bargained for than Jon actually offing some innocent Muslim.

[Dutch]

But to be clear, speak your mind, I like to know where people are coming from.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Throw in something about guns and we can have all our flame wars in the same place.

I'm in!

[nol]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

And if you wonder why online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads? It's because people are upfront about their racism, bigotry and whackaloon-ness very loudly and publicly, and you have to spend hours trying to tell people that no, vaccines don't cause Autism, that Obama isn't a secret Muslim sent to destroy America, etcetera etcetera.

Boxing the people calling him on his bigoted bullshit the same amount reminds me of the "two sides to every argument thing... so the truth has to be in the middle". And it's not. So you have two options in such situations.

A) Leave political threads and let the crazies on both sides have at it.
B) Comment and risk getting boxed because "there's two sides"

Yeah, and it gets to be hidden through some veil of "Aw shucks, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em" when what's coming from one side is all obviously stuff that one wouldn't say face-to-face to a member of whichever group is being disparaged; through a combination of demographics and moderation this place has become a safe outlet for that kind of behavior.

[Schmidty]

We really over-complicate things. I love everyone, but if you try to blow-up, burn, mutilate, etc., I'm just not down with your existence. I still love you, and think that you are redeemable, but your actions make you dangerous and deserving of eradication. I do not, on the hand, think that everyone who follows your culture and religion, but do nothing wrong, deserve to be hurt or singled-out. That's just lazy.

I think I've gotten more simple as I've gotten older. I don't know if that's bad or good, but it's how I feel in my heart.

[lungs]

Are we fighting for the moral high ground or is this conflict simply tribalism on a massive scale?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The huge majority of people, be they right or wrong in their personal political belief system, truly believe that their ideas, if implemented, are for the best. Yet more and more, online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads way more than actual discussion. And this particular flare-up is a classic example of that.

I agree 100% with this assessment. And I think a lot of it comes from what passes for news networks on television. The most popular programs are just people who disagree screaming at each other. Debate isn't espousing your own views, it's restating your opponent's views in the most biased and inflammatory manner.

I used to love political discussion and I would get into this stuff with relish. Now I just think, in hindsight, I was often an asshole who enjoyed talking too much and listening too little. Good debate is like dating. You win when you're really in tune with who you're with. You listen as much as, or more than, you talk. You pick up on subtle cues when you're talking and refine your discussion.

My opinion of Jon... he's consistent in his viewpoint. He's reached a place where he knows, especially here, that people who enjoy political argument really disagree with him. He doesn't name-call, but he's aware of what pieces of his belief system rub people the wrong way. I don't think he trolls, but I don't think he listens, either. Not that many here give him a reason to listen.

I've said this before, but as I get older, I become more and more convinced that I know very little about the world. We're only experts about ourselves, and even that takes a lot of personal development and introspection.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

My opinion of Jon... he's consistent in his viewpoint. He's reached a place where he knows, especially here, that people who enjoy political argument really disagree with him. He doesn't name-call, but he's aware of what pieces of his belief system rub people the wrong way. I don't think he trolls, but I don't think he listens, either. Not that many here give him a reason to listen.

So that's how you excuse racism? He's "consistent." Really?

Does he have to use a "name-call" when he wishes all Muslins to die in order for that to be racist or trolling?, or does his consistency give him a free pass?

What does this guy have on you and Ben to excuse his bigotry again and again and again? Openly wishing genocide not extreme enough for you?

To that end, just what *does* cross the line with you two - besides complaining about the mods?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

SirFozzie, I think you are treading into problematic waters. If, in a political forum, you, from the left can demand someone from the right be banned, then the opposite will be true too. For instance, should we be able to ban people who openly wish for more socialism or even communism?

There's a huge difference between I'd like to see the government fund free college by taxing the top 1% and I'd like to see all Muslims killed in a fiery holocaust.

It's been touched on above, but what constitutes a personal attack? If I told a Muslim board member that I hoped they were hunted and killed in the most painful way possible, I'd be shocked if I wasn't permabanned, but saying that same thing about all Muslims, obviously including the ones on this board, is not an offense.

[Solecismic]

I think that's an excellent example of modern political discourse - your argument that 1) I'm a mod (or have any say in suspensions), and 2) that complaining about Ben or I is the only certain way to receive a suspension. Are those fair or reasonable accusations? Is moving the argument to that level and putting us on the defensive (when we deny the accusations) helpful?

I don't want to say too much about Jon when he can't respond. Nor do I read every one of his responses. I think his position is very black-and-white when it comes to the law - he believes that the world is better off if anyone who violates the law is severely punished. Ben responded to the "innocent" argument, which is religious in nature. Jon is open about being very religious. I don't agree with them, but I don't see his posts as intentionally trolling (though I see Ben's argument about the last post being a form of trolling, though that would be a difficult standard to be consistent with). Guantanamo is a tricky argument - there's a lot of anger that those released may well be important cogs in future attacks, but also anger that a fair trial for someone accused of terrorism isn't always possible and we shouldn't imprison people for unpopular beliefs or association with those who are violent.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lungs

Are we fighting for the moral high ground or is this conflict simply tribalism on a massive scale?

Are we talking about the world or just FOFC here?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The story author is playing fast-and-loose with words, Edward. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

The article was consistent in using "effectiveness" and it was just the title of the article that said "worst". It impossible (or everyone would be bored to tears and/or disagree) if I was to try reconcile every discrepancy.

Take the article for what its worth, it was defining Kerry as the worst SoS because he was the least effective. It would be better to understand how the article defined effective.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Does he have to use a "name-call" when he wishes all Muslins to die in order for that to be racist or trolling?

Well.... Muslim is not a race so racism doesn't really fit here...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Well.... Muslim is not a race so racism doesn't really fit here...

True, but in that case you can make sound argument back on why that is wrong-headed as well.

[rowech]

It simply boils down to an argument as to if FOFC is going to allow hate speech in the name of free speech. What Jon says, time and again, is wrong on so many levels but he does have the right to say what he says. Now as to whether FOFC wants to allow it to continue, so as to allow free speech here at the expense of losing others from the message board who cannot, and/or will not, participate if such things are allowed, is the decision that has to be made.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by rowech

Now as to whether FOFC wants to allow it to continue, so as to allow free speech here at the expense of losing others from the message board who cannot, and/or will not, participate if such things are allowed, is the decision that has to be made.

I think if a person can't simply hit the ignore button, or deal with an opinion they dislike (repugnant or not), I don't have a problem with them leaving. If someone thinks they have the moral high ground, why would they put their tail between their legs, take their ball and go home? I mean, I've seen many things that were worse on here over the years (remember bragggggggadocious), and I've never run away.

Now, if a person wants to leave because they think the board is moderated very, very poorly, that's another thing.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I think if a person can't simply hit the ignore button, or deal with an opinion they dislike (repugnant or not), I don't have a problem with them leaving. If someone thinks they have the moral high ground, why would they put their tail between their legs, take their ball and go home? I mean, I've seen many things that were worse on here over the years (remember bragggggggadocious), and I've never run away.

Now, if a person wants to leave because they think the board is moderated very, very poorly, that's another thing.

I tend to agree. I don't have anybody on ignore but in many cases it just doesn't do any good to respond.

[Buccaneer]

To me, the rancor, inflammatory and extremist opinions have always been around and not a 21st century thing. What makes today different is there are now very easy and very public ways express those opinions that hundreds, thousands and millions can see all of the time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I think if a person can't simply hit the ignore button, or deal with an opinion they dislike (repugnant or not), I don't have a problem with them leaving. If someone thinks they have the moral high ground, why would they put their tail between their legs, take their ball and go home? I mean, I've seen many things that were worse on here over the years (remember bragggggggadocious), and I've never run away.

Now, if a person wants to leave because they think the board is moderated very, very poorly, that's another thing.

Wow, now there's a blast from the past. But yes, ignore is as good as a life time ban.

[miked]

I mean, if I'm Jim I'm not sure I want people like Jon spouting off the way he does. This board (even though it's OT) has Front Office Football name on it. Do you want his rantings associated with your game? I would imagine not, but free speech is free speech. But at some point, the KKK is also free speech as well.

[RainMaker]

Just ignore people you don't like or don't want to read opinions of. I don't get this insistence these days on trying to get other people silences. Like children tattling to their parents because someone said something they didn't like.

Jon has extreme political views. Who cares?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

I mean, if I'm Jim I'm not sure I want people like Jon spouting off the way he does. This board (even though it's OT) has Front Office Football name on it. Do you want his rantings associated with your game? I would imagine not, but free speech is free speech. But at some point, the KKK is also free speech as well.

It's a message board. Just a platform for people to communicate.

[PilotMan]

We can have and say we have free speech, but we can't have free speech that is free from consequences if it's wildly extremist and hate filled. Calling it like you see it or simply speaking your mind doesn't cut the argument. Everyone has an opinion. Jon has his opinion on things and the rest of us have an opinion of Jon as a result. This is why it always feels like it gets personal. Because it is. Some people (me included) call Jon out, because his views on things are completely fucked up and aren't acceptable in modern US society. It's not a discourse on middle ground or compromise, because with Jon there is none. I am shocked that he still doesn't get more time off for simply trolling. Half the shit he says is simply to get a rise, but the sad part is he believes every single thing he posts and I think that's what actually saves him.

This entire situation is much more mild than some we've had in the past. Ben can do as sees best, and while I may not agree with how it's handled I can always go back to some other medium if I'm not being served here.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Some people (me included) call Jon out, because his views on things are completely fucked up and aren't acceptable in modern US society.

I think this requires a further explanation. Who exactly determines what views people are allowed to have in society?

[JPhillips]

I would hope we could agree that the call for the extermination of a billion humans is out of line.

Although in this instance, my problem is the lack of consistency. As has been said, this isn't anywhere close to the hottest this thread has been. Seemingly arbitrary punishment makes it difficult to know what can and can't be discussed.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would hope we could agree that the call for the extermination of a billion humans is out of line.

Although in this instance, my problem is the lack of consistency. As has been said, this isn't anywhere close to the hottest this thread has been. Seemingly arbitrary punishment makes it difficult to know what can and can't be discussed.

Is that what Jon was calling for? I'm rarely in this thread, so I'm honestly wondering. I read something about interment camps, which I don't agree with, but I would like to see anything about extermination of billions.

[JPhillips]

He's made it clear that he'd like to see all Muslims killed. Hell, it reiterated that position today on the FOFC Facebook page.

[PilotMan]

He has stated the the solution to illegal immigration by children or otherwise would be solved by simply killing them at the border.

[Schmidty]

I like Jon a lot, so I don't understand that. I'm also spending a ton of time on FOF7, so can you guys give me quotes? I can't condemn a friend without some kind of proof.

[Coffee Warlord]

Did Todd seriously get IP blocked?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Did Todd seriously get IP blocked?

It could be a problem with the board. On my phone I get told my IP is banned fairly frequently even though it's not.

[Izulde]

I was thinking about this earlier and for those wondering why Jon has gone this long without being boxed, there's a few different reasons I've surmised.

1. The Kindness Factor
Might as well get the most controversial one out of the way. Yes, as odd as it sounds, I would put Jon on the list of Top 10 Kindest Posters at FOFC. Those who haven't had the chance to get to know him personally probably aren't aware of this fact, but it's true.

2. The Lack of Hysteria Element
This one I realized when I was thinking of others of my politically invested friends, on both ends of the spectrum. There's a lot of people, who when they start on politics, have a shrill, emotional tenor to their posts/shares. They remind me of yapping dogs in that regard. Obviously that's an indication of how passionate these things are for them (Admittedly, I tend to fall into this trap re: Scott Walker and adjunctification of the American university), but with Jon, there's no hysteria/emotion there. It's just blunt, calm statement of his views, unlike others who are so eager, they become flamingly argumentative (again, this is both sides).

3. The Well-Roundedness
Unlike some political folks who seem to have the culture wars in this country as their biggest, if not sole, purpose in life, (I would say the current political firestorm *is* cultural as much as anything else), Jon's a very well-rounded individual with a lot of interests. He also has genuine intellectual curiosity, which I think a lot of people with extremist views are missing in their makeup.

In fact, my own opinion is that he's very much a product of his environment and personal experiences. It's not hard at all for me to envision a Jon so liberal that he makes DT look like a Tea Partier - all it would take would be being born and raised in another part of the country.

Taken altogether, I think more than a few people recognize that everyone has massive blind spots that seem entirely out of keeping with the rest of what we know about them. In Jon's case, it's a deep-seated authoritarianism. This doesn't mean I'd trust him to run the country, anymore than he'd trust me to run it.

But I do think the whole picture demonstrates there's a lot more to this than what some folks here may realize.

[Schmidty]

That was great Tim.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd imagine the Kindness Factor only applies if you were the right race, for one.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd imagine the Kindness Factor only applies if you were the right race, for one.

Race? Again, please show me something about race that was said. I'm just lazy and am curious.

[Neuqua]

Schmidty,
It was said, and several here have read it. If it matters, then look for it, some of it was just a couple pages ago. If it doesn't matter, then stop asking others to do the work for you.

<3 you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd imagine the Kindness Factor only applies if you were the right race, for one.

You must be a mod favorite or something to still be here after this kind of post.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Did Todd seriously get IP blocked?

Just got word of this rumor and thought I'd jump back in here for a moment to clarify. I did not IP ban him, nor do I know of anyone else doing it. (I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure only two others here have that level of access, and I seriously doubt either one of them did it.) To my knowledge, no one has been IP blocked/banned/anything in months, and probably years. The last one I can recall happened (I just checked) in 2012. If he's accessing from a different IP, it's possible that it's just an overlap with a previously-banned one. There are also some oddities that show up with Google Accelerator from time to time, but that's very rare.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

You must be a mod favorite or something to still be here after this kind of post.

I get minority privilege maybe .

Also maybe they realize that Jon basically was advocating for the mass incarceration and deportation, at best, and genocide, at worst, for my parents, my brother & sister-in-law, my nephew, my uncles, aunts, and cousins (I am the only Christian in my extended family; they are all practicing Muslims).

[JPhillips]

It must be awesome to be a minority with all those perks and things.

[ISiddiqui]

It's why everyone wants to be gay, right?

[JPhillips]

Gay and Muslim must be the best ever.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

The last one I can recall happened (I just checked) in 2012

Just checked. Actually, the last IP in the banned list was from 2011, not 2012. Apparently I never IP banned the guy from 2012. (His account *is* banned, though, just not his IP.) At any rate, I'm now comfortable expanding my earlier statement: not only did *I* not ban that IP yesterday, but I'm confident that no one else did it either--be it by accident, or on purpose for any reason. I have checked the CP logs. There are several reasons that someone might need to access the section where IPs can be banned without actually banning an IP, and any time it's even accessed with no action, there's a log entry for it. Prior to a few minutes ago when I opened up the IP banning section to check, no one had even accessed that area in several months.

[Coffee Warlord]

Whew.