Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[Vlad n U 2]

That is a smaller sample size though, it's way easier to have a productive discussion when there are only half a dozen regular contributors.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by AEON

Another thought is to allow/recruit some centrist and conservative leaning mods...

I've always thought of Diemen as being pretty centrist. I really don't think there's any need to get another mod especially given the scale of this board.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Axver

You're smarter than that. I don't mean to be blunt, but if you can't tell when somebody is posting their personal opinion and when they are moderating a thread, I would suggest working on your reading comprehension.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. It is his personal opinion and status as a mod - and the lack of other, perhaps more neutral mods - that makes the forum less enjoyable. He should either be quiet about his opinions, or add other mods with different views.

Originally Posted by Axver

Let's not drag into this discussion all the stupid shit I said a whole decade ago during my weird religious phase or we'll be here all night. All week if it comes complete with the Axver Liked U2 Too Much Archives.

Hey, we both did. And that's okay. In fact, because of the debates with Melon in THIS FORUM back in 2004, that I changed my mind (somewhat - I'm still a confessed homophobe) on the matter. And that is my point - unless you allow a healthy (even if heated) debate to occur, nothing will change.

Originally Posted by Axver

And let's be honest, "I got lots of PMs!" is never a good defence, no matter how true it sometimes is. I'm not suggesting I doubt you; it's just a poor Internet debating technique.

Fair enough, and thank you for not denying that you did send it - which should help others understand that back then - there was an "undergound" Conservative support system because of the bullying going on by the Liberals in the public forum.

Originally Posted by Axver

I don't want to drag this too far off-topic, but I don't think the problem is the lack of far-right nutters (I didn't think you were one, though your behaviour in this thread is making me wonder - partly because of the positions you are arguing and partly because of how you are doing so).

I agree I've been more caustic in this thread than usual. I guess I just wanted to point out that the incident is not so clear-cut. But I also think I made numerous valid points that went unaddressed - but I'm used to that. Only non-Liberals get hounded to answer EVERY SINGLE post without being accused of evading the question. That being said - I'm willing to check-fire and make adjustments.

Originally Posted by Axver

I think the problem is that this forum is really, really, really Americentric, and US political debate seems to only function at present if it is hyper-polarised. It's not really much of a global politics forum, is it? Even when threads start for events outside the US, there is a habit of it coming back to some US dispute because most posters are from the US. I seem to recall there was a bit more on the global politics front some years ago but they tended to get lost amidst all the US threads and many international posters drifted away - and now that things are a bit quieter, their absence is really obvious.

Perhaps. But the forum has always been pretty "Americentric"...

[Axver]

Originally Posted by AEON

Perhaps I'm not being clear. It is his personal opinion and status as a mod - and the lack of other, perhaps more neutral mods - that makes the forum less enjoyable. He should either be quiet about his opinions, or add other mods with different views.

I completely disagree and I'm not sure we're going to meet any kind of understanding here. My attitude on any forum - and believe me I've posted a lot - is that unless mods are clearly moderating, they should be free to post their own thoughts without that in any way being linked to their moderating (unless they are breaking the rules).

Hey, we both did. And that's okay. In fact, because of the debates with Melon in THIS FORUM back in 2004, that I changed my mind (somewhat - I'm still a confessed homophobe) on the matter. And that is my point - unless you allow a healthy (even if heated) debate to occur, nothing will change.

Fair enough, and thank you for not denying that you did send it - which should help others understand that back then - there was an "undergound" Conservative support system because of the bullying going on by the Liberals in the public forum.

I too would certainly credit melon, et al. with showing me that some of the people and ideologies I'd dabbled in with were very, very misguided and unpleasant. So I agree about the importance of healthy debate, it's just that I don't think that's been provided by certain individuals (I don't know if I can or should name names, but think of a policeman riding a steam train to get to a major car race).

Also, I would never deny that we had exchanged PMs, though the truth is that I'd forgotten what we discussed.

I agree I've been more caustic in this thread than usual. I guess I just wanted to point out that the incident is not so clear-cut. But I also think I made numerous valid points that went unaddressed - but I'm used to that. Only non-Liberals get hounded to answer EVERY SINGLE post without being accused of evading the question. That being said - I'm willing to check-fire and make adjustments.

I would like to think of myself as somewhat of a detached observer despite my obvious political biases, in that I'm looking in from far away with a sense of bafflement and don't pretend to understand the nuances of US race relations. I feel that on the few occasions when a point you have made has gone unaddressed, it has usually not been one central to the discussion or to the validity of opinions you are contesting (though feel free to give examples otherwise), while you seem to have failed to acknowledge very persuasive replies or to respond to points that go to the heart of your argument. But I have little more to add in that regard, and I'll let the main participants in this thread pick up from here.

Perhaps. But the forum has always been pretty "Americentric"...

Pretty much my point. I do recall more UK politics back in the day though, and more than just a little bit of European stuff. And I definitely remember that and the occasional Aussie thread getting lost in the mix of heated US threads. I can see why that would drive away international posters.

(Also, in general I think this forum has slowed down. Compare EYKIW today with EYKIW from ten years ago. It's not just an FYM phenomenon. I remember when I would have a whole page of threads in EYKIW with new posts to check if I didn't visit for a day. Now I'm lucky if there are more than two or three threads with new posts.)

[mikal]

I don't see the big deal. It's not like Diemen is abusing his power in these debates. If he was handing out warnings and banning people that he disagreed with, then yes he would be abusing his power. But I haven't seen that happen once.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[iron yuppie]

To the assertion that conservatives are less represented on this forum now than they were say ten years ago: I think that is a reflection of US politics as a whole. Over the past decade, the American right has gone out of its way in efforts to dissolve those things the USA purports itself most to stand for: equality of rights and opportunity. This is apparent everywhere from attacks on unions to efforts to curtail minority rights, from uncompromising stances on women's reproductive rights to insistence that LGBT people should not be allowed marriage rights. Then when asked to justify these stances, there is little more than appeals to logical fallacies, as when Indy when pressed on gay marriage just kept insisting that it would lead to people marrying dogs and goats or whatever.

The intransigence the Right has shown is conspicuously apparent in the last presidential election, where Romney received little to no support from women and minorities. Conservative politics are increasingly untenable for a majority of the US population. This doesn't mean that an individual conservative has nothing of value to say or that he or she should be discounted just for identifying as a conservative, but rather that the movement as a whole is painting itself into a pretty tight corner. I think voting statistics bear this out.

[IWasBored]

As a mod, he's the one who comes in and tells people to calm down/cut the shit when they jump on people and start turning things personal. He's not resorting to name calling in his own disagreements, so I really fail to see what the issue is...other than that he has an opinion (and one that differs from your own) on the subject--something as a poster, he's absolutely allowed to express.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

You know - it may serve this forum better to have a more politically neutral mod. Unless the intention is for this forum to be a backslapping Liberal circle-jerk. If that IS the intention, you are succeeding quite well. That is also why it is dying a slow (but accelerating) death.

A few years back in FYM - debate across the political spectrum was encouraged (yet, it was never exactly equal - but this is a U2 website - so Left-leaning is expected). Now, it seems you've bullied/bored away any dissenting (i.e. - non-Liberal) opinions.

I can't make the link work on my phone, what was particularly liberal and political about this link?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

I have no way of knowing that.

Then you're speaking without knowing the facts, and it seems like you're just trying pick a fight.

Diemen and I are probably pretty closely aligned in our thinking, yet he's put me in my place several times. If you can't see that then you're not paying attention to the facts.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

Diemen is awesome and much more rational and composed than he has any right to be all things considered.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we need to balance this forum's moderation to make it even on the scale of American partisanship, because that would imply that both sides automatically have valid viewpoints. I don't want to use the old line that reality has a liberal bias, but just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean it has to be respected. Only your right to an opinion has to be respected.

And Iron Yuppie's post is terrific. The reason this forum is so liberal is not because the mods and members chased out the right wingers. It's because the right wingers simply aren't represented in the demographics of this forum. There are not a ton of older white southern men on this forum, which is where most of the conservative movement exists these days.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The reason this forum is so liberal is not because the mods and members chased out the right wingers.

I bet those Right Wingers are very pleased they have you to speak for them.

The point that young people are mostly Liberal is as old as politics. The fact is - U2 is old, and so is the fan base (meaning - old and crusty over 30 geezers).

As a former Republican and as a current Independent (and as an online friend to many former posters) the behavior/attitude of the mods and members of FYM have certainly played a part in their departure, and are the primary cause for the current boredom of the forum (there's more one-sided circle-jerking here than on a baseball team's subreddit).

[AEON]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

To the assertion that conservatives are less represented on this forum now than they were say ten years ago: I think that is a reflection of US politics as a whole. Over the past decade, the American right has gone out of its way in efforts to dissolve those things the USA purports itself most to stand for: equality of rights and opportunity. This is apparent everywhere from attacks on unions to efforts to curtail minority rights, from uncompromising stances on women's reproductive rights to insistence that LGBT people should not be allowed marriage rights. Then when asked to justify these stances, there is little more than appeals to logical fallacies, as when Indy when pressed on gay marriage just kept insisting that it would lead to people marrying dogs and goats or whatever.

The intransigence the Right has shown is conspicuously apparent in the last presidential election, where Romney received little to no support from women and minorities. Conservative politics are increasingly untenable for a majority of the US population. This doesn't mean that an individual conservative has nothing of value to say or that he or she should be discounted just for identifying as a conservative, but rather that the movement as a whole is painting itself into a pretty tight corner. I think voting statistics bear this out.

Just read the anonymous comments in any major news story on the sites that still permit them. There are more people that disagree with the Left than you've estimated.

[cobl04]

I find the comments sections on news websites to be about 90% full of unhinged morons who don't seem to be able to spell or use grammar correctly. But maybe that's just Australia.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I find the comments sections on news websites to be about 90% full of unhinged morons who don't seem to be able to spell or use grammar correctly. But maybe that's just Australia.

There's that - and a lot of extremism (which is concerning). My point is that the comments vary wildly.

I don't think we need that much craziness here, but a little more variety would probably be more thought provoking. Believe it or not - there are intelligent conservative/centrists out there...

Of course - if the Liberals here love things the way they are, why would they change anything? They will (already have) argue there's no need to change anything. However, if you want to hear some different points of view and genuinely engage with people with a different world view than your own - then changing the role of the mods or adding a conservative and centrist mod might be a good way to get that going.

[cobl04]

I don't agree about adding another mod, simply because it's completely impracticable, this site has way less visitors than it used to, and it seems quite arbitrary. But I wish there were more voices, for sure. And more threads not about America. You guys all think you're so goddamn good.

[Diemen]

Well, it certainly was a pleasant surprise to see my suitability as a mod being publicly debated this morning.

Aeon, mods have always actively participated in FYM. I will be the first to freely admit that I have plenty of room for improvement, however, moderators are allowed to have a point of view. I will also say that I'm surprised that you find it hard to make the distinction between things I post as a member of this forum and things I post as a moderator of this forum. I will agree that I sometimes become too active in hot topics, and I'll try to temper my participation a bit, especially if the community at large is already responding to what I would respond to.

As far as my comments in this thread, yes it is true that I've pushed back against your point of view fairly firmly. I apologize if you took that as me trying to silence you - that certainly wasn't my intention. My intention was to get you to explain your position more thoroughly. In my view, trying to get members to explain their positions better is a perfectly acceptable role for a moderator. And you have gone on to explain your position more thoroughly, which I think improves the quality of the debate, and makes it less soundbitey and more substantive.

For example, when you started describing Mike Brown as a "thug," a term that I think we can all agree is racially tinged and inflammatory, and then doubled down on it when I voiced my concern for your usage of it, my view is you deserved push back for that, and should be expected to explain yourself. Which you did, and I think you stated pretty eloquently that what people put out there as a representation of themselves should be accessible to form an opinion of their character - which is a perfectly valid position. BUT, and I hope you appreciate this distinction - while I might not agree with your interpretation of Mike Brown's character, your more in depth explanation is a lot more useful to this debate, and a lot less inflammatory than just going around calling him a thug. So I feel that my pushback (and the pushback of others) is useful in moving the debate to a more considered space, and honestly, I would feel lax in my duty as a moderator if I didn't push back against that. Clearly that is where you and I differ.

As for the other conservative voices that no longer feel welcome, that is unfortunate. It's true that FYM isn't as active as it used to be. Some of that can be attributed to my moderation, for sure. I'm aware that I'm not perfectly neutral. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that a lot of the topics in FYM have been debated so much that they've kind of become settled in this community, or at least people are less eager to rehash the same old points over and over. Some of that can be attributed to it being a lull in between election cycles. Some of it can be attributed to people being in a different place in their lives and not spending as much time here. Certainly the case for me - in the 14 years (yikes!) I've been here I've gone from being a college student living in the dorms with plenty of time to kill to a small business owner with a wife and a home and wishes to start a family. And some of it can be attributed to the fact that some of the conservative voices that are no longer with us chose to go down a route that put them at odds with the rules of this forum. I certainly don't think it all comes down to me.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by AEON

There's that - and a lot of extremism (which is concerning). My point is that the comments vary wildly.



I don't think we need that much craziness here, but a little more variety would probably be more thought provoking. Believe it or not - there are intelligent conservative/centrists out there...



Of course - if the Liberals here love things the way they are, why would they change anything? They will (already have) argue there's no need to change anything. However, if you want to hear some different points of view and genuinely engage with people with a different world view than your own - then changing the role of the mods or adding a conservative and centrist mod might be a good way to get that going.

I would definitely welcome different views. But the problem is not the mods.

The issues this forum has had in the past are

1. We've had many that are very passionate about their views but cannot articulate their reasoning beyond; it's icky, guns are fun, or because Glenn Beck said

2. Then we've had a lot of extremist or ideologues, it's hard to have a discussion with someone when they start with Ayers, you don't believe in American Exceptionalism, or scientist are socialists.

3. And then there are those that are fairly reasonable until they feel outnumbered and result to playing victim and calling names. Now I understand this one is a grey area, I realize sometimes being outnumbered can feel like "ganging up", and I do know there were times when those concerns were legitimate.

4. And then we have those special folks who keep coming in under new alters every few months, pretending like it's not them but then eventually saying the same things almost verbatim.

We've definitely had some strong very well liked conservative posters that honestly I'd like to see back, but some were short lived and others life got in the way.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

I guess I am a bit confused by the string of replies here.

Unless you (AEON or anyone else) feel like the current moderator actively stifles discussion, warns or bans people who don't share his views or otherwise imposes repercussions on them, what would be the purpose of a second moderator?

I also partly feel like there is no real moderator needed, we are all adults and can settle matters like adults but I know that is likely a minority view.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

My intention was to get you to explain your position more thoroughly. In my view, trying to get members to explain their positions better is a perfectly acceptable role for a moderator.

Agreed - that is a valid moderator role. And I also think liberal points should be equally scrutinized/flushed out as well. It's as if liberalism is inherently true in FYM, while conservative/centrist posts need hyper-defending (while also withstanding the usual charge of "trolling" and "bigotry"). It seems to you - and most here - that the people who do not agree with the liberals simply have not "seen the light" quite yet.

Originally Posted by Diemen

And you have gone on to explain your position more thoroughly, which I think improves the quality of the debate, and makes it less soundbitey and more substantive.

Perhaps then it would be helpful if you acknowledged that more often when it occurs.

Originally Posted by Diemen

For example, when you started describing Mike Brown as a "thug," a term that I think we can all agree is racially tinged and inflammatory, and then doubled down on it when I voiced my concern for your usage of it, my view is you deserved push back for that, and should be expected to explain yourself. Which you did, and I think you stated pretty eloquently that what people put out there as a representation of themselves should be accessible to form an opinion of their character - which is a perfectly valid position.

Again, unless I missed it - acknowledging that more often and in close proximity to the post would be very helpful. I am not looking for agreement, but a little acknowledgement for taking a perfect valid position would go a long way toward inviting opposing views.

Originally Posted by Diemen

BUT, and I hope you appreciate this distinction - while I might not agree with your interpretation of Mike Brown's character, your more in depth explanation is a lot more useful to this debate, and a lot less inflammatory than just going around calling him a thug.

That's fine. I thought the term "thug" was a more specific term (like "gangsta"). However, pointing out his own music page, tweets, fb posts, photos - is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I am not a racist for doing so. Nor would it be racist for someone to point to the same type of information by Darren Wilson. It was/is relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Diemen

So I feel that my pushback (and the pushback of others) is useful in moving the debate to a more considered space, and honestly, I would feel lax in my duty as a moderator if I didn't push back against that. Clearly that is where you and I differ.

No - we differ in that you seem to have a different requirement for "moving the debate" for liberals than for non-liberals and assert your own politics too often (my opinion). If you were a user, I'm all for it. But when you wear both hats interchangeably - I feel like I'm a playing an away baseball game against the opposing team AND the umpires. Does that make sense? That's why I think that adding conservative/centrist mods may be a solution if we allow mods to join the debate.

Originally Posted by Diemen

As for the other conservative voices that no longer feel welcome, that is unfortunate. It's true that FYM isn't as active as it used to be. Some of that can be attributed to my moderation, for sure. I'm aware that I'm not perfectly neutral. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that a lot of the topics in FYM have been debated so much that they've kind of become settled in this community, or at least people are less eager to rehash the same old points over and over. Some of that can be attributed to it being a lull in between election cycles. Some of it can be attributed to people being in a different place in their lives and not spending as much time here. Certainly the case for me - in the 14 years (yikes!) I've been here I've gone from being a college student living in the dorms with plenty of time to kill to a small business owner with a wife and a home and wishes to start a family. And some of it can be attributed to the fact that some of the conservative voices that are no longer with us chose to go down a route that put them at odds with the rules of this forum. I certainly don't think it all comes down to me.

I agree - and it was not my intent to put the entire blame of the withering away of FYM on you, only part of it Yes, you have come to my defense more than a few times - and I do appreciate that. But we non-liberals would also like a little credit from time to time when we have fully answered a challenging question (even if the conclusion is not agreed upon) and made a valid/challenging point. Also, a little love would be nice when we do in fact change our position during the course of a thread (as it would be a total shock to see a liberal here change their mind on something mid-thread).

I would also like to see this notion that liberalism is automatically "right" attitude challenged by the mods/you more often. There is no way on this earth that one side of a controversial topic is ALWAYS right on every point. Take this shooting as an example - if it turns out the forensics and numerous eyewitnesses PROVE Darren Wilson's innocence (hypothetical at this point)- there would still be a prevailing attitude that Darren Wilson murdered an innocent black teen. And there will be no call from the mods for the facts to justify such a position. Yet - I've conceded, that if the forensics prove that Darren Wilson overreacted/murdered Michael Johnson, he should be punished accordingly.

Diemen, all that being said - I do appreciate you and the volunteer work you do here. Thank you. These are just some of my opinions - take them for what they are worth. I think I've proven myself to be a man that can change his mind - and if I am completely off-base here, I can probably be convinced as such.

[AEON]

The problem is this: you're wrong and you've always been wrong. American liberals DEFINITIVELY have a more realistic view of race relations in this country than moderates or conservatives. Period. End of fucking story. This isn't liberals co-opting a tragedy. This is liberals being proven right about institutionalized racism in this country.

Diemen, if a non-liberal had posted something such as this, I imagine you would have challenged it (and rightly so).

Perhaps I missed your challenge in the thread, I could not find it (sorry in advance if I am mistaken).