Another Warning

I was never very tolerant and am less so now.  Some of you both Left and Right think you can crowd the limits of my toleration of incivility.  You are wrong.  In particular Tyler, herb and Pacifica Advocate are at the top of my list for expulsion or suspension.  pl

Comments

[Degringolade]

“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

― Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

[kgw]

hip, hip, hooray!!!

[BraveNewWorld]

It's your site. Do what ya gotta do.

[herb]

I apologize and will be more civil in the future should I post.

I've read this blog and posted occasionally for... 9 years? I appreciate the opportunity you afford readers to converse and regret abusing the privilege by responding to and furthering provocation.

No excuse, I was wrong. I wish I had the ability to remove my offending comments.

[Earthrise]

Mate, your moderation is one of the reasons we stay here. Thanks for your time.

[LeaNder]

Sorry, won't be short. After all, we've been here before:

tyler has been my central political adversary for longer now, but he has a core ability to put things "short and sharp". Meaning he doesn't hide were he stands. It no doubt might make some of us uncomfortable along the lines of "whose company you keep ..."

Concerning both tyler and Fred:
Louis Scarcella - Teresa Gomez - Shabaka Shakur

Meaning: I surely think that this should be continued:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/

... if done well.

******
Pacifica Advocate only caught my attention more recently. I don't have an idea about him, other then the two got into a struggle recently. No surprise. He seems to mainly rehash, which we all necessarily do somewhat... As someone that has given up the idea of converting others on the web long ago, I have a basic sympathy for him, not least since we live in election times.

Personal note: Looks like being poor in the US might be a lot better then being poor elsewhere. And since that was your top argument, I did not read the rest:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/09/2016-election-forecast-19-september-.html#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb0938d854970d

******
Beyond that: Moderation, and I surely appreciate Pat's and support it within my means for longer now.

My core question would be how a more streamlined information channels is or could be related to "the Borg".

[turcopolier]

LeaNder

"Looks like being poor in the US might be a lot better then being poor elsewhere" Yes. I had that discussion many years ago with a group of third world people, all of whom were rich. One of them, a Wharton School Ph.D. and lawyer was brandishing some statistics about poverty in the US asked why we have people living below the poverty line in the US. Sooo, we discussed the fact that the poverty line is an abstraction created by the US Government and then compared what poverty is like in the Wharton Man's country. End of discussion. pl

[John Minnerath]

I have been reading these pages for a long time.
The lack of civility and one-upmanship gets hard to take.

[Robert]

Not sure I'm voting for her, but this was funny and she was a good sport.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b2fc974d1d/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-hillary-clinton?_cc=__d___&_ccid=dfb9e827-121c-49bf-a9c0-f183814750f8

[turcopolier]

John Minnerath

I agree. Perhaps we should get rid of 10%, something like decimating a Roman legion. pl

[jld]

I am only bothered by too much "noise" and Leander inane blabber take up more space than ad hominems.
Not that I would tolerate more of this but it's somehow acceptable for the "Intertubes" and I wouldn't want to lose Tyler even if I am at some distance of his views.

[Fred]

LeaNder,

Thanks to the link to my fellow democrat's (Hilary) website. Here's my view:
“Implicit bias” i.e. “wrong thought”. Some political commissars would be a great idea, think of the jobs to be created. Now those new college grads can finally earn enough to pay off their student loans.

“applying this change retroactively” ex-post facto changes to sentences are unconstitutional; She should know this however Hilary means to lower the punishment for a particular crimes one is convicted of not increase it but lacks the courage to say so.

“school-to-prison pipeline” I agree, as a nation we should review just which sexes and races and ideologies make up the teaching professions and change it so that there is actual ideological diversity instead of just racial and sexual profiling diversity. Maybe we could do like the NFL, where black athletes on the field are ~60% of all players, and impose actual standards based qualification and performance requirements. If black Americans can excel in that (NFL performance) environment I’m sure Americans of all races can do the same as teachers - and students. No work, no success. But then the one thing she leaves out is “individual responsibility”. That implies individuals have to "do the time" to get results.

[John Minnerath]

The threat that such punishment could be and had been meted out was often enough to restore order in the ranks of the Legions.
So, will our Committee of Correspondents now behave more correctly at the mention of Decimation?

[Nancy K]

I think most of us enjoy differing opinions, but some people just cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Col Lang you can disagree with anyone you want because it is your site, and of course you know more than most of us.

[Dubhaltach]

As John Minnerath, with whom I have have had some civilised and courteous disagreements here, say

"The lack of civility and one-upmanship gets hard to take."

That constant lack of civility and one-upmanship is a tactic knowingly and cynically engaged upon by people who have repeatedly demostrated they are uttterly uninterested in civility or reasoned debate. I've encountered people like that before and based on the identical tactics and use of language employed I'm certain that they want to dominate this place and that that is all they want to do. If they can't dominate it they will be quite happy to see readers leave and our host shut the place down in exasperation.

[Jack]

Fred

Individual responsibility is something very alien in our society right now. The pols and the apparatchiks are never accountable. It's always "everyone does it". And for the SJWs it is always some historical artifact that condones their behavior. And if Little Johnnie and Susie are below par we should still give them the prize or their esteem will suffer. This PCness has been taken to the extreme.

Yeah! Should we now have quotas for the NFL and the NBA and promote mediocrity?

[Dubhaltach]

In reply to jld 22 September 2016 at 11:32 AM

Yes she's often meandering and self-indulgent there's nothing to stop you scrolling past. If I can recognise after scanning the first sentence that it's another one of her TLDR screeds and scroll quickly past then surely you can too.

I don't agee with you that "it's somehow acceptable for the "Intertubes" " it's just being effing rude as a deliberate tactic and is equally reprehensible irrespective of who does it.

[ISL]

Dear Colonel,

I always feel that SST is an invitation to a lively discussion in your living room. Politeness is simply proper.

[optimax]

Fred

Diversity to Hillary and her fellow ideologues is a society where everybody looks different and thinks alike. She pushes preschool to get all the kiddies into the centralized propaganda pipeline early, creating compliant adults for the future utopia.

[kao_hsien_chih]

Dubahaltach,

I'd like to think that there's something more than just a desire to dominate the forum (even though, I suspect, that is a significant part of their motivation.)

The accusations of "virtue signalling" by Tyler reminded me of my experience researching how people communicate about "creationism" (and politics in general), as well as the frustration I've had trying to teach students politics without "politics." For all the accusations by the self-claimed intellectuals about the alleged ignorance of the creationists, I've found that many creationists are surprisingly well-informed about science, while equally many evolutionists are very badly informed. The real significance of professing creationism or evolutionism is indicative of which side of the political/social debate one is on, not necessarily a serious evaluation of "the truth," since, let's face it, nobody really needs to know about the nitty gritty of how evolution works, except for professional scientists who are few.

But, at the same time, this "public profession of faith" gets in the way of analysis: if someone speaks favorably of Glasgow Rangers, that indicates a sectarian/partisan/social/political allegiance far deeper than just liking a football (sic) team, especially if the other team should happen to be the Celtic. Honest analysis invariably gets thrown out the window if the people you are talking to are fans of either--and God forbid what should happen if you have to talk to both of them simultaneously. Simply saying one has advantage over the other would elicit accusations of taking sides and signalling your favoritism of one or the other--sometimes from both sides at the same time. Even if you are not "professing faith," if you will, you will be accused of such. In order to be believed at all, you practically have to be dishonest, unless you have such credibility that the audience will believe you, and a semi-anonymous poster on a blog certainly has no claim to such credibility. So there is nothing to keep the "fans" from sincerely believing that you are merely trashtalking and trying to shout you down.

There is, of course, another problem: the accusations are sometimes right, not necessarily because of your existing "political" bias, but the deeper worldview. Many posters here are disdainful of "social sciences," which, given my profession, I find somewhat unfair. But the disdain does have a legitimate basis: social sciences make assumptions about the universe that may not be accurate at all, sometimes extremely far off base, and take the implications from those assumptions as axiomatic truths. It is rare to find social scientists who are willing to challenge those assumptions honestly, not least because taking those assumptions seriously is part of the "public profession of faith" for most social scientists. It takes someone with extreme credibility to challenge them--but many with such credibility have spent so much time building up those assumptions that they rarely have an interest in challenging them, assuming that they even suspect that they might be wrong. This is not just an academic question: these folks do influence policy, after all, sometimes with enormous consequences. A culture of reasoned skepticism would do wonders--but policymakers who want answers to bolster their own arguments don't care for advice laden with nuances and caveats--so social sciences in service of policymaking invariably becomes even more faith-based.

I don't think I can change how people think and I don't especially care to. Understanding what people think and how they came to their views, however, is always invaluable. If people do refrain from posting--even Tyler and Edward Amame--that would be most unfortunate. But, by the same token, we should do all we can to ensure that everyone stays sufficiently civil that as many voices stay around. (I do wonder if I am able to keep myself within bounds of acceptable civility myself sometimes.)

[shepherd]

Colonel Lang,

By World Bank measures, almost no one in the United States lives in poverty.

[Lars]

There are many worthwhile contributors here and some that are easily and eventually increasingly ignored. Gratefully, my computer has a variable speed scrolling function that I frequently use. Creating a new email address and user name makes banning somewhat redundant. Of course, it would not take long to see who it is. The thing about the leopard changing his spots.

[The Twisted Genius]

I looked for an old post I did on this subject and was surprised to see that it was three years ago. Certainly is a persistent condition. I stand by what i wrote back then.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/06/the-nicest-sense-of-personal-honor-ttg.html

[Bobo]

I too would not want to see Tyler lost to this site as I believe he brings value. Yes, he gets himself well out line at times and his constant replies to others comments at times are rude. I also think he has grown here and certainly has enlightened us on a number of points.
Now when my dog runs to me for a pat on the back or his incessant attempts to lick me I ignore him when I have had enough and he eventually understands. Thus if one does not reply then a message is sent. If one does not take a hint then the Good Shepherd will tend his flock.

[Former 11B]

What I deplore is the destruction of the language to the point civil discourse is almost impossible. Frank Luntz is a master of this and he would be the first one I would put up against the wall. I once argued for two days with my brother when I said the word victim. We were never able to even complete the train of thought as it was impossible for him to get past the fact that some people fake being victims. Well duh, but it was not Germain. The dictionary definition was sufficient for the discussion. And he is a center-ist with true liberal tendencies. But he also believes it wouldn't be on TV if it wasn't true so there is much bad programing to overcome.
There are certain words that are deadly to our overlords and much time and effort has been put in to make those words toxic. They are trigger words and the masses have been conditioned to immediately resist the common English usage and kill the conversation.
An example of that is a conversation I had on a previous thread with Tyler. After the Col.'s warning I started feeling bad. I actually like Tyler and value his opinion when he is not in Ditto-head mode so I went back and looked at that thread to make sure I wasn't goading him in any way. When I wrote what I wrote I thought Tyler would take some pleasure in my statements in how much I hated the current Dem establishment and how I was for Trump to go to Washington and fire them all.
But apparently within the first sentence he hit some trigger words and launched into the classic sermon on the mount about what a stupid bunch of gits we "leebrals" are without reading any of the rest of it.I postulate that its almost impossible to resist this as the conditioning has been applied relentlessly over a long period of time. My dad is the same way. I love the man dearly but he is impossible to have a conversation with.He watches nothing but Fox news and listens to and reads nothing but far right propaganda He is super happy I am for Trump but we DAMN sure don't go int the reasons why. I hope the HRC consultants are proud of how many "leebtards" they are driving into making common cause with tea party types.Nice work!

So I would ask my fellow travelers here who despair over some of their fellow citizens inability to learn from conversation to consider for a lot of them it may no longer be possible to think in a critical way. Kind of like acquiring terminal cancer from long term exposure to low level radiation.

Off topic- I have been downsized from my oilfield job and now work at a low wage part time job. I had to give up my truck and now only ride a bicycle. I have never been happier on a personal level but I am starting to see a lot of respectable people including families in real jeopardy as the initial waves of lays off-ees reach the end of unemployment benefits and there ain't no jobs.But the good news is they will drop off the rolls and employment figures will go up making the regime look good. Falsely of course.
Don't the idiots in charge realize that you get enough families living in cars there will be strange "fruit" decorating the lamppost on K street in short order?