Political and social discussions shouldn't be segregated

[butters]

Up to a point, you are bang on with your analysis - certain self appointed 'power' groups do seem to have the 'right' to get stuff they dont like deleted.

BUT the almost non stop targeting of one long term British poster was getting to sinister depths - posting photos of graves - WTF was that about? the constant reinvention of a couple of posters who got banned - then returned posting similar stuff, did get repetitive. BUT again the board is supposed to be about free speech - as some people say ''use the iggy function'?

i don't know where you get this idea that there are any 'power groups', let alone anyone here who can get another person banned other than through the exact same feature available to all: the report button.
laurel's the only one who makes the decision about banning others and, let's face it, that's a pretty soft ban since they do, indeed, generally return asap to resume their nastiness. no mod can ban someone, and anyone's free to pm laurel with any complaints or concerns directly--no special treatment involved, just the equally available-to-all tools of the site

using the ignore button is DEFINITELY the only way to access this forum

who was posting graves and to which poster? i guess i missed all that, since it would seem i have that kind of person on ignore, just like i have no idea what sparked the move of political posts to the other forum. normally, i rarely go there as i prefer the hotch-potch nature of the gb... but since a lot of the posts there now directly involve issues i'm interested in, and a lot more are posting in them there, i'm over here less.

 

[HisArpy]

i don't know where you get this idea that there are any 'power groups', let alone anyone here who can get another person banned other than through the exact same feature available to all: the report button.
laurel's the only one who makes the decision about banning others and, let's face it, that's a pretty soft ban since they do, indeed, generally return asap to resume their nastiness. no mod can ban someone, and anyone's free to pm laurel with any complaints or concerns directly--no special treatment involved, just the equally available-to-all tools of the site

using the ignore button is DEFINITELY the only way to access this forum

who was posting graves and to which poster? i guess i missed all that, since it would seem i have that kind of person on ignore, just like i have no idea what sparked the move of political posts to the other forum. normally, i rarely go there as i prefer the hotch-potch nature of the gb... but since a lot of the posts there now directly involve issues i'm interested in, and a lot more are posting in them there, i'm over here less.

No one mentioned you.

And yet here you are; bitching and complaining about the rest of us while protesting your innocence at the purge and spending the bulk of your time snarking and flinging poo in the political threads you were bitching and complaining about when they were here on the GB.

That you're totally fucked in the head is what I think.

 

[butters]

No one mentioned you.

And yet here you are; bitching and complaining about the rest of us while protesting your innocence at the purge and spending the bulk of your time snarking and flinging poo in the political threads you were bitching and complaining about when they were here on the GB.

That you're totally fucked in the head is what I think.

ok, i viewed this post just because i could, and after i've replied you go back in your lickle box:

no, they did not, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to respond to a fellow brit poster with whom i converse often enough, particularly given the content of his post. to try and make something other out of it is just your skewed perception.

where am i bitching and complaining here about others? i am not. so you're lying. again.

i'm posting in the political forum. that's as far as the truth goes in your assertions.

i wasn't complaining about the political threads on the gb. I was one of the few who voted for them to remain here instead of there being a mandate that any must go into a new political board. i prefer to post more or less in the one place instead of needing to hop all over, but since it's now the rules they have to be there and that happens to interact with current political interests of mine i'll post over there. so... any more lies you want to spread?

think what you like, it's of no consequence to me. it has no bearing on reality

 

[Conager]

Everyone knows you read every single post. No need to explain why you (as per usual) responded to yet another person you claim to be ignoring. (Which is every single person you have ever ineffectually quarrelled with on any subject.)

You can't even do ignorance right!

 

[Saint_Ann]

ok, i viewed this post just because i could, and after i've replied you go back in your lickle box:

no, they did not, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to respond to a fellow brit poster with whom i converse often enough, particularly given the content of his post. to try and make something other out of it is just your skewed perception.

where am i bitching and complaining here about others? i am not. so you're lying. again.

i'm posting in the political forum. that's as far as the truth goes in your assertions.

i wasn't complaining about the political threads on the gb. I was one of the few who voted for them to remain here instead of there being a mandate that any must go into a new political board. i prefer to post more or less in the one place instead of needing to hop all over, but since it's now the rules they have to be there and that happens to interact with current political interests of mine i'll post over there. so... any more lies you want to spread?

think what you like, it's of no consequence to me. it has no bearing on reality

Interpretation: Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Awwww look below at who is posting and complaining....Larry, Moe and Curly Joe, the reincarnated three stooge's....of Lit...*chuckles*

No one mentioned you.

And yet here you are; bitching and complaining about the rest of us while protesting your innocence at the purge and spending the bulk of your time snarking and flinging poo in the political threads you were bitching and complaining about when they were here on the GB.

That you're totally fucked in the head is what I think.

Everyone knows you read every single post. No need to explain why you (as per usual) responded to yet another person you claim to be ignoring. (Which is every single person you have ever ineffectually quarrelled with on any subject.)

You can't even do ignorance right!

Interpretation: Your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Fucking intellectually dishonest cowards.

The GB obviously got purged due to a few right wing trolls spamming it with shit pisting threads.

Deny it all you want. It's what you punks do best.

SAD!!!

 

[Saint_Ann]

Awwww look below at who is posting and complaining....Larry, Moe and Curly Joe, the reincarnated three stooge's....of Lit...*chuckles*

Who are the three stooges? Are you like 80?

 

[Liar]

In priniple I agree with renard. (retch)

But in practice they made this place an unbearable cesspool.

Sometimes a bit of unfair utilitarianism is in order.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Up to a point, you are bang on with your analysis - certain self appointed 'power' groups do seem to have the 'right' to get stuff they dont like deleted.

BUT the almost non stop targeting of one long term British poster was getting to sinister depths - posting photos of graves - WTF was that about? the constant reinvention of a couple of posters who got banned - then returned posting similar stuff, did get repetitive. BUT again the board is supposed to be about free speech - as some people say ''use the iggy function'?

When people openly advocate for and sypmathize with armed domestic terrorist groups plotting to kidnap and assassinate elected officials, that is free speech taken too far.

Yes, freedom of speech should exist but there should be consequences for that freedom. When you take it too far, those consequences should be: Loss of posting priveleges, de-platforming of inflammatory and extremist views that threaten the greater good, and- in the interest of free speech" I would argue turning over the personal info of those hiding behind screen names (or in some cases, e.g. "BusyBody" and "Rightguide/Renard Ruse/Vetteman," behind multiple screen names) to authorities for prosecution. For example, If I were to advocate for pedophilia and post such pictures on this site- what do you think should happen to my account?

I think cleaning this forum was a step, but I would prefer to see some of these people removed from the site altogether. Let them post their drivel on Stormfront.org or some such space.

 

[Saint_Ann]

When people openly advocate for and sypmathize with armed domestic terrorist groups plotting to kidnap and assassinate elected officials, that is free speech taken too far.

Yes, freedom of speech should exist but there should be consequences for that freedom. When you take it too far, those consequences should be: Loss of posting priveleges, de-platforming of inflammatory and extremist views that threaten the greater good, and- in the interest of free speech" I would argue turning over the personal info of those hiding behind screen names (or in some cases, e.g. "BusyBody" and "Rightguide/Renard Ruse/Vetteman," behind multiple screen names) to authorities for prosecution. For example, If I were to advocate for pedophilia and post such pictures on this site- what do you think should happen to my account?

I think cleaning this forum was a step, but I would prefer to see some of these people removed from the site altogether. Let them post their drivel on Stormfront.org or some such space.

Nothing the left hasnt done to Trump or Bush. Double standards.

 

[Wrong Element]

In priniple I agree with renard. (retch)

But in practice they made this place an unbearable cesspool.

Sometimes a bit of unfair utilitarianism is in order.

Me too. I also think some topics are being classified as "political" that actually aren't.

It's also true that the political topics began to take on more prominence here as the GB got less busy. 10 years ago there was still a lot of politics, but it wasn't as noticeable because the first page would turn over every 90 minutes or so.

But six threads a day from the busybody of the moment and six more from Vette about whatever pissant topic is getting Gateway Pundit excited at any given time was making the GB look like the Pissed Off White Guy capital of the Web.

 

[PaxNurgle]

"Pissed off White Guy capital of the Web" is an apt description. So is "Stormfront.org-lite."

Either way, it sucked- and good riddance to bad apples.

 

[HisArpy]

ok, i viewed this post just because i could, and after i've replied you go back in your lickle box:

no, they did not, but it's perfectly reasonable for me to respond to a fellow brit poster with whom i converse often enough, particularly given the content of his post. to try and make something other out of it is just your skewed perception.

where am i bitching and complaining here about others? i am not. so you're lying. again.

i'm posting in the political forum. that's as far as the truth goes in your assertions.

i wasn't complaining about the political threads on the gb. I was one of the few who voted for them to remain here instead of there being a mandate that any must go into a new political board. i prefer to post more or less in the one place instead of needing to hop all over, but since it's now the rules they have to be there and that happens to interact with current political interests of mine i'll post over there. so... any more lies you want to spread?

think what you like, it's of no consequence to me. it has no bearing on reality

Apparently it has a great big bearing on reality if you have to come off of pretend iggy to reply.


I repeat - NO ONE mentioned you. Yet somehow you've managed to make an excuse for showing up and doing that bitching and complaining thing about how you're now being oppressed because you decided to talk to a "fellow brit" about something that wasn't even being discussed in your direction.

Amazing how you managed to make a statement which is NOT about you into something all about you while asserting that you're not involved at all. And doing if from your lofty down-the-nose-looking perch from the corner of the room in iggy land.


WTF is a "lickle box" anyway? Did you manage to misspell "tackle box"? Or "tickle box"? Or do you not have any linguistic skill beyond toddler-speak?

 

[Aglaopheme]

i don't know where you get this idea that there are any 'power groups', let alone anyone here who can get another person banned other than through the exact same feature available to all: the report button.
laurel's the only one who makes the decision about banning others and, let's face it, that's a pretty soft ban since they do, indeed, generally return asap to resume their nastiness. no mod can ban someone, and anyone's free to pm laurel with any complaints or concerns directly--no special treatment involved, just the equally available-to-all tools of the site

using the ignore button is DEFINITELY the only way to access this forum

who was posting graves and to which poster? i guess i missed all that, since it would seem i have that kind of person on ignore, just like i have no idea what sparked the move of political posts to the other forum. normally, i rarely go there as i prefer the hotch-potch nature of the gb... but since a lot of the posts there now directly involve issues i'm interested in, and a lot more are posting in them there, i'm over here less.

I haven’t heard about the graves posting either.

Funny how Harpy inserted himself into this convo only to complain about you. That is some serious projecting going on.

 

[hobbit.]

I haven’t heard about the graves posting either.

it was up for about an hour (maybe less) around the time of VE Day (in England, i dont know when USA mark VE Day) that would be around 8th May 2020, so it was probably 07 May 2020. it had photos of a grave of a first world war soldier who had the same name as someone on here , it was poor taste, could be conceived as threatening, and breached a few data laws over here and could have been used to trace (via name, date of death, location of grave as search starting points) living relatives of the person named on the grave stone - it was a genuine grave - not a photshop.

The thread it was in was deleted and from memory the poster also seemed to get booted so presumably either the thread got the poster booted, or something else got the poster booted and the thread was removed in that process.

 

[HisArpy]

I haven’t heard about the graves posting either.

Funny how Harpy inserted himself into this convo only to complain about you. That is some serious projecting going on.

So, "inserting oneself" into a conversation is verbotten in the "new and improved overly-well-buttered version" of the GB?

"Free speech" has certainly changed if that's the case.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You’re the height of hypocrisy, harpy.

 

[Aglaopheme]

it was up for about an hour (maybe less) around the time of VE Day (in England, i dont know when USA mark VE Day) that would be around 8th May 2020, so it was probably 07 May 2020. it had photos of a grave of a first world war soldier who had the same name as someone on here , it was poor taste, could be conceived as threatening, and breached a few data laws over here and could have been used to trace (via name, date of death, location of grave as search starting points) living relatives of the person named on the grave stone - it was a genuine grave - not a photshop.

The thread it was in was deleted and from memory the poster also seemed to get booted so presumably either the thread got the poster booted, or something else got the poster booted and the thread was removed in that process.

I’m glad it was taken down quickly. It must have been one of those revolving alt posters that have nothing better to do. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. We can only hope it’ll be the last.

One thing the moving of political threads to the PB has shown is who the real trolls are. I didn’t ask for it, wasn’t around when it was up for a vote, but I was posting on the political board before I knew the GB even existed, and I’m good with the move. For the above stated reason and others.

 

[HisArpy]

You’re the height of hypocrisy, harpy.

Hypocrisy is 198 centimeters?

Who knew...

 

[Wings]

Hypocrisy is 198 centimeters?

Who knew...

Your AV is sideways and she’s right.

 

[HisArpy]

Your AV is sideways and she’s right.

1. Lean and squint. You'll get used to doing that as you get older.

2. Are you saying that me and hypocrisy can wear the same length pants? Whodathunk.

 

[Wings]

1. Lean and squint. You'll get used to doing that as you get older.

2. Are you saying that me and hypocrisy can wear the same length pants? Whodathunk.

Kilts.

 

[SpeareChucker]

While I don't know what precipitated the apparent recent decision to ban most "political" or "socio-political' threads from the General Board and force them onto a segregated and ghettoized "Politics" sub-board, I would like to say I think this was/is a bad decision.

A General Board is supposed to be a place where any general topic can be discussed. The GB on Literotica was oddly enough one of the most truly free speech places on the entire internet. The idea that anyone could post about pretty much anything (other than illegal subject matter) is what made it worth coming to. That included posting on subjects that might also have their own dedicated boards elsewhere on Lit.

Why is that latter point important you ask? Because some people want to see discussion of random subjects rather than seek out specific subject matter. They are curious about a wide range of subjects and like to be both intellectually challenged and surprised at the same time. Having a board that is truly "about everything" provides this sort of unique experience. To say that can't include politics or vigorous and even obnoxious or offensive discussion of socio-political issues, or any other subject "elsewhere covered" on a separate board defeats that purpose entirely.

Having discussion of the "issues of the day" on a general interest board also allows for a wider range of views, including input from people who are less strident or less partisan, or who don't care enough to go to a segregated "politics board." A segregated "politics board" will only attract people who already have strongly formed views who just end up arguing and bickering with each other. Even if a less partisan individual on a general interest forum never joins a political or socio-political discssion he or she will still benefit from seeing freewheeling discussions of such subject matter, which they would not be exposed to on a separate board.

If people don't want to see political discussion, they can simply not click on those threads or even block posters who talk about those subjects. The reality is we are bombarded by "politics" in the "news" and media everyday so why is it taboo on so many internet discussion forums, sadly now including the once freewheeling General Board? Again, why can't people just skip those titles that don't interest them?

True unrestricted free speech is dying in today's world. This General Board had been an amazing oasis of freedom. That is worth preserving.

I agree. Bad decision. Life is politics.

 

[HisArpy]

Kilts.

Snow. Brrrr....