Page 7 of 12

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 10:19 am
by MDlaxfan76
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:08 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:57 amIMO, this Trump cult social media thing has had rather devastating effects.
It's a focus group of one but that says worlds to me. I'm not suggesting anything in what i'm about to say, I'm just saying a thought, and... if, literally and metaphorically, we didn't have a Politics Forum, if people avoided political discussions, maybe, Lady Laker and you would still be friends. Maybe some of the people we've grown apart from and have grown apart from us would still be closer, literally and metaphorically, would still be at FanLax. Again, I'm not suggesting anything. Personally, I like knowing where people stand with more divisive issues, especially Trump-like stuff. With this said...
In a broader sense, certainly the social media world has greatly exacerbated the polarization. But didn't most of us use to be able to talk politics and social issues without going nuclear in our desires to play active warriors on behalf of a single leader?

Sure, an issue like abortion could generate a lot of heat at a dinner party (so generally avoided) but this is full on, all the time, all issues, attack mode. And flat out disinformation campaigns, toleration of flat out lying in the service of one's partisan interests.

For my part, I've avoided those other social media platforms that amplify, algorithmically, the most divisive such, the most outrageous such...LP and FL have offered a non algorithmic haven for discourse between people who may not agree, sometimes passionately, but in which some basic good conduct could be expected of one another...perhaps because of the other bond we share, our love of our sport held in common, but also because the forum is constructed differently and has some moderation as well as some self policing.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 10:20 am
by MDlaxfan76
wgdsr wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:11 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:06 am
wgdsr wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:51 am
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:59 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:51 amYou probably weren't referring to me on the last comment; agreed.
I assume he's referring to TypicalLD's comment that using a film clip where the town's people are prodding the mayor to keep the black sheriff out of their town may not be the best clip for pro-Trumpers to use when pleading their case for being treated unfairly within the forum. Something like this. Of course Blazing Saddles isn't racist. It's satire. It's making fun of racism. But taken put of context, not a great look for a Trumper or Conservative or whatever.
tld would not post that.

and yeah, you'd have to take it out of context to push that beyond a jab.
You're right, TLD wouldn't have used that clip to make the intended point.

TLD simply pointed out to the poster who did, certainly conservative leaning, that in the clip "the is town is going to sh-t" to emphasize a point, to be funny I'm sure, the alignment of the parties was wrong, ironically.

The poster swiftly said that he hadn't intended the additional implication, as I think TLD already knew. It was of no moment.

I don't think anyone on here (sure hope not!) misunderstands the point of Blazing Saddles overall.
no. tld would not have commented on the clip that way. imo. could be wrong.

but he wasn't involved at all.
You were correct, FFG not TLD!

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 10:56 am
by Matnum PI
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:19 amIn a broader sense, certainly the social media world has greatly exacerbated the polarization. But didn't most of us use to be able to talk politics and social issues without going nuclear in our desires to play active warriors on behalf of a single leader?

Sure, an issue like abortion could generate a lot of heat at a dinner party (so generally avoided) but this is full on, all the time, all issues, attack mode. And flat out disinformation campaigns, toleration of flat out lying in the service of one's partisan interests.

For my part, I've avoided those other social media platforms that amplify, algorithmically, the most divisive such, the most outrageous such...LP and FL have offered a non algorithmic haven for discourse between people who may not agree, sometimes passionately, but in which some basic good conduct could be expected of one another...perhaps because of the other bond we share, our love of our sport held in common, but also because the forum is constructed differently and has some moderation as well as some self policing.
Agreed. Whole heartedly. There are issues that i feel relatively strongly about and, somehow, Trump is different. Not voting for him. There are umpteen legitimate reasons to vote for him. But standing by him. Respecting him. Being like him. That, I dunno. It's different...

This is the "whole heartedly" part. LP was different. FL is different. 100% because of the people. Maybe because the lacrosse world is a small world or because LP was social media before social media or... I don't know. But i remember being on LP and seeing people go after each other, legitimately get angry (myself included) and then... Apologize. i thought it was amazing. The people of LP/FL is why this forum is the way it is. again, I don't know why. maybe because we had social media before there was social media. maybe our love of the sport. i dunno. but LP was and FL is different. And... trump has brought something out from some people. it was always there but... dormant, i guess. some people have changed, relationships have changed. but certainly not all. thankfully.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 10:57 am
by kramerica.inc
I'd be all for getting rid of the Politics section in Fanlax, or moving it all to Hamsterdam.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:07 am
by Matnum PI
Moving it to Hamsterdam would essentially be saying, No holds barred. and i don't think that's what people want. You can find No Holds Barred all over the internet and... It's terrible. One or two people can ruin it for all. which, basically, is what we've been experiencing...

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:21 am
by JoeMauer89
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:09 am
Tommy No wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:02 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:57 am
kramerica.inc wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:45 am Why ever happened to LadyLaker?
Very close friend of mine, married to one of my oldest and best friends. Very, very funny gal, acerbic wit, and extremely knowledgeable about refereeing the women's game. Pretty darn knowledgeable about local MIAA boys schools as well, given long stint at BL. Good person. Two great daughters.

Terrific contributor on LP, especially on lax topics.

However...her other social media world became full on deep Trumpist...way, way down the rathole of Trumpism. Angry stuff as well as humor. I tried to engage respectfully early days...no possibility of return, so now avoid.

IMO, this Trump cult social media thing has had rather devastating effects.
Wow. That's awful. Just awful. I'm sorry...
I still consider her a good person and a good friend, who'd be there in a crisis...not sure she'd say the same about me these days...this stuff is so toxic.
It's ONLY toxic if you CHOOSE to let it be. Judge one on their character, not their political views. Think past the wall you have in front of you. :roll: :roll: :roll:

JoeMauer89!

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:33 am
by kramerica.inc
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:07 am Moving it to Hamsterdam would essentially be saying, No holds barred. and i don't think that's what people want. You can find No Holds Barred all over the internet and... It's terrible. One or two people can ruin it for all. which, basically, is what we've been experiencing...
Hamsterdam currently gets no hits because there are no topics over there worth talking about.
The politics side has a bunch of interestingf topics but is currently being overrun with trolls. And its not being moderated to anyone's liking on either side. That's making people even more likely to leave.
I say push the easy button and move it all to Hamsterdam. The lax side is moderated, everything else is free reign.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:39 am
by Matnum PI
JoeMauer89 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:21 am It's ONLY toxic if you CHOOSE to let it be. Judge one on their character, not their political views. Think past the wall you have in front of you. :roll: :roll: :roll:
i disagree, Joe. It's toxic because it's toxic. I'm not a young man and I've never been bothered by someone's political view... until Trump. Because this moves away from a political view and explicitly into character. And, yes, I can create a wall to shield me from these people. And, when necessary, i do. but I prefer to just create distance. I feel no reason to protect myself from toxic people. I prefer to create distance.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:44 am
by PizzaSnake
kramerica.inc wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:33 am
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:07 am Moving it to Hamsterdam would essentially be saying, No holds barred. and i don't think that's what people want. You can find No Holds Barred all over the internet and... It's terrible. One or two people can ruin it for all. which, basically, is what we've been experiencing...
Hamsterdam currently gets no hits because there are no topics over there worth talking about.
The politics side has a bunch of interestingf topics but is currently being overrun with trolls. And its not being moderated to anyone's liking on either side. That's making people even more likely to leave.
I say push the easy button and move it all to Hamsterdam. The lax side is moderated, everything else is free reign.
Start some topics in Hamsterdam then. To me everything involving human interaction is political.

Maybe that would be a good first trial balloon in Hamsterdam, “what are/is politics”?

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 11:50 am
by PizzaSnake
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:39 am
JoeMauer89 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:21 am It's ONLY toxic if you CHOOSE to let it be. Judge one on their character, not their political views. Think past the wall you have in front of you. :roll: :roll: :roll:
i disagree, Joe. It's toxic because it's toxic. I'm not a young man and I've never been bothered by someone's political view... until Trump. Because this moves away from a political view and explicitly into character. And, yes, I can create a wall to shield me from these people. And, when necessary, i do. but I prefer to just create distance. I feel no reason to protect myself from toxic people. I prefer to create distance.
It’s the dishonesty and disingenuousness. “Don’t piddle on my leg and tell me it’s raining”. Honestly held convictions are one thing, bald-faced lying is another. As I used to tell my children, “don’t tell the stupid lie; it’s insulting to both of us.”

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:14 pm
by Farfromgeneva
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:51 am
old salt wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:26 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 amRight now, we have posters dropping out, whether already or recently giving notice that they intend to do so...most of those have been active, long time contributors, typically both from LP days and FL, and they include both left and right leaning posters, from ggait and kismet to Salty. Others dropped earlier. These folks have contributed heavily to the lax side of the forum as well as the politics side, so IMO it'd be a darn shame to lose them and instead devolve into juvenile trolling posts and angry retorts.
FTR -- I haven't dropped out. Just not posting or responding as much. I'm grateful for this forum & support those who provide it, no matter how they choose to administer or moderate it. I also heard from P33 & Trinity recently. They are doing well. I told them they are missed here.

...& if you think Blazing Saddles is racist, you really don't get it.
You probably weren't referring to me on the last comment; agreed.

Good to hear that you're sticking; there was certainly a concern that you might not.

Hopefully ggait and kismet will as well, and hopefully if the forum can get to be less rancorous and more respectful (which doesn't mean not challenging), some of those who have left will rejoin the back and forth.
I never said blazing saddles is racist. That would be someone not reading properly. When Dmac used the “Town going to ‘ish” church scene to refer to the politics boards in the context of the discussion of regulation here I asked if he felt that was the clip he wanted to use because the people of the town are racist. That’s the whole frigging point of the joke of the movie that the gov wants to run the people out of town so they send a salty black guy to be the sheriff To piss then off.

Apparently people can’t read or just comment without thinking because that should’ve been obvious to anyone who went to college. I’m annoyed and so yeah even in this thread I’m going to go there because that was a dumb thoughtless brian Dead comment made. And I’ve used blazing saddles clips in the past, along a History of the world and Young Frankenstein. So that comment was idiotic or lacked any critical reading which is part of the reason this thread exists now. Dumb.

I think anyone who blindly makes that comment doesn’t bother to put I the world to have a real conversation.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:16 pm
by Farfromgeneva
dislaxxic wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:54 am Apropos of Matnum's post above... LP icon One L Hilary was a guy...i corresponded with him directly a few times...a resident grammarian we have missed here in the New World of FL...

..
He would’ve hated me

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:18 pm
by Farfromgeneva
Tommy No wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:58 am
wgdsr wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:51 amtld would not post that.
Yes. It was farfromGeneva. viewtopic.php?p=260063#p260063
Right did I say the movie is racist or did someone not bother to critically read before posting something suggesting I don’t get it? F that if that’s what passes as legitimate discussion.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:19 pm
by Matnum PI
PizzaSnake wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:50 am It’s the dishonesty and disingenuousness...
you're right. It's true. And... It's also the changing of what's OK (which is also a lie but a different type). Bullying, making fun of people (in a non-funny way), denigrating swaths of people, etc. was and is not OK. This has always existed but not nearly in the way that we saw and see with trump. stepping over a line is OK. making mistakes is OK. Lacking empathy is not OK. But for those who lack empathy, the trait that for their entire life was a liability (socially), all of a sudden became a point of pride. "I'm not an a-hole! you're just too sensitive!" and these people became emboldened. People like Trump wanted to share their Trump-ness with the world. That, to me, is maybe the worst part. Toxic doesn't begin to describe what people imitating and pandering to someone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder is like.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:20 pm
by Matnum PI
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:18 pmRight did I say the movie is racist or did someone not bother to critically read before posting something suggesting I don’t get it? F that if that’s what passes as legitimate discussion.
the discussion strayed from the originally and then someone was confused and the confusion was clarified and... no one thought or thinks you thought the movie was racist.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:28 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:14 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:51 am
old salt wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:26 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 amRight now, we have posters dropping out, whether already or recently giving notice that they intend to do so...most of those have been active, long time contributors, typically both from LP days and FL, and they include both left and right leaning posters, from ggait and kismet to Salty. Others dropped earlier. These folks have contributed heavily to the lax side of the forum as well as the politics side, so IMO it'd be a darn shame to lose them and instead devolve into juvenile trolling posts and angry retorts.
FTR -- I haven't dropped out. Just not posting or responding as much. I'm grateful for this forum & support those who provide it, no matter how they choose to administer or moderate it. I also heard from P33 & Trinity recently. They are doing well. I told them they are missed here.

...& if you think Blazing Saddles is racist, you really don't get it.
You probably weren't referring to me on the last comment; agreed.

Good to hear that you're sticking; there was certainly a concern that you might not.

Hopefully ggait and kismet will as well, and hopefully if the forum can get to be less rancorous and more respectful (which doesn't mean not challenging), some of those who have left will rejoin the back and forth.
I never said blazing saddles is racist. That would be someone not reading properly. When Dmac used the “Town going to ‘ish” church scene to refer to the politics boards in the context of the discussion of regulation here I asked if he felt that was the clip he wanted to use because the people of the town are racist. That’s the whole frigging point of the joke of the movie that the gov wants to run the people out of town so they send a salty black guy to be the sheriff To tick then off.

Apparently people can’t read or just comment without thinking because that should’ve been obvious to anyone who went to college. I’m annoyed and so yeah even in this thread I’m going to go there because that was a dumb thoughtless brian Dead comment made. And I’ve used blazing saddles clips in the past, along a History of the world and Young Frankenstein. So that comment was idiotic or lacked any critical reading which is part of the reason this thread exists now. Dumb.

I think anyone who blindly makes that comment doesn’t bother to put I the world to have a real conversation.
I don't want to speak for Salty, but I doubt anyone else actually thought you didn't understand the point of Blazing Saddles...DMac too. You were right that the analogy was misplaced, albeit not DMac's intent. It was ironic/funny, not a fight, I thought.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:30 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:16 pm
dislaxxic wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:54 am Apropos of Matnum's post above... LP icon One L Hilary was a guy...i corresponded with him directly a few times...a resident grammarian we have missed here in the New World of FL...

..
He would’ve hated me
well, let's just say that you would have kept him busy... ;)

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:34 pm
by Farfromgeneva
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:19 am
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 10:08 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:57 amIMO, this Trump cult social media thing has had rather devastating effects.
It's a focus group of one but that says worlds to me. I'm not suggesting anything in what i'm about to say, I'm just saying a thought, and... if, literally and metaphorically, we didn't have a Politics Forum, if people avoided political discussions, maybe, Lady Laker and you would still be friends. Maybe some of the people we've grown apart from and have grown apart from us would still be closer, literally and metaphorically, would still be at FanLax. Again, I'm not suggesting anything. Personally, I like knowing where people stand with more divisive issues, especially Trump-like stuff. With this said...
In a broader sense, certainly the social media world has greatly exacerbated the polarization. But didn't most of us use to be able to talk politics and social issues without going nuclear in our desires to play active warriors on behalf of a single leader?

Sure, an issue like abortion could generate a lot of heat at a dinner party (so generally avoided) but this is full on, all the time, all issues, attack mode. And flat out disinformation campaigns, toleration of flat out lying in the service of one's partisan interests.

For my part, I've avoided those other social media platforms that amplify, algorithmically, the most divisive such, the most outrageous such...LP and FL have offered a non algorithmic haven for discourse between people who may not agree, sometimes passionately, but in which some basic good conduct could be expected of one another...perhaps because of the other bond we share, our love of our sport held in common, but also because the forum is constructed differently and has some moderation as well as some self policing.
Not everyone was prepared or capable of the relative freedom and velocity of information transmission that came with the advent of the internet.

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:40 pm
by Farfromgeneva
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:28 pm
Farfromgeneva wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:14 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 7:51 am
old salt wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:26 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:58 amRight now, we have posters dropping out, whether already or recently giving notice that they intend to do so...most of those have been active, long time contributors, typically both from LP days and FL, and they include both left and right leaning posters, from ggait and kismet to Salty. Others dropped earlier. These folks have contributed heavily to the lax side of the forum as well as the politics side, so IMO it'd be a darn shame to lose them and instead devolve into juvenile trolling posts and angry retorts.
FTR -- I haven't dropped out. Just not posting or responding as much. I'm grateful for this forum & support those who provide it, no matter how they choose to administer or moderate it. I also heard from P33 & Trinity recently. They are doing well. I told them they are missed here.

...& if you think Blazing Saddles is racist, you really don't get it.
You probably weren't referring to me on the last comment; agreed.

Good to hear that you're sticking; there was certainly a concern that you might not.

Hopefully ggait and kismet will as well, and hopefully if the forum can get to be less rancorous and more respectful (which doesn't mean not challenging), some of those who have left will rejoin the back and forth.
I never said blazing saddles is racist. That would be someone not reading properly. When Dmac used the “Town going to ‘ish” church scene to refer to the politics boards in the context of the discussion of regulation here I asked if he felt that was the clip he wanted to use because the people of the town are racist. That’s the whole frigging point of the joke of the movie that the gov wants to run the people out of town so they send a salty black guy to be the sheriff To tick then off.

Apparently people can’t read or just comment without thinking because that should’ve been obvious to anyone who went to college. I’m annoyed and so yeah even in this thread I’m going to go there because that was a dumb thoughtless brian Dead comment made. And I’ve used blazing saddles clips in the past, along a History of the world and Young Frankenstein. So that comment was idiotic or lacked any critical reading which is part of the reason this thread exists now. Dumb.

I think anyone who blindly makes that comment doesn’t bother to put I the world to have a real conversation.
I don't want to speak for Salty, but I doubt anyone else actually thought you didn't understand the point of Blazing Saddles...DMac too. You were right that the analogy was misplaced, albeit not DMac's intent. It was ironic/funny, not a fight, I thought.
I actually also thought it was well placed but didn’t know if he intended the context within the movie or just high level which he clarified.

But what’s got me annoyed is OS dropping an accusatory bomb and criticism while coming on like a little doe who’s been abused by us and then drops that on the way back out the door which is thoughtless or disingenuous and then we can carry on as to how beautiful his honestly brokered and considerate discourse was.

It’s not like folks haven’t asked for clarification of comments around here before moving forward with their case...

Re: Would clearer rules regarding “trollish” behavior on the Politics sub-forum be conducive to productive discourse?

Posted: Fri May 14, 2021 12:43 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Matnum PI wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:39 am
JoeMauer89 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 11:21 am It's ONLY toxic if you CHOOSE to let it be. Judge one on their character, not their political views. Think past the wall you have in front of you. :roll: :roll: :roll:
i disagree, Joe. It's toxic because it's toxic. I'm not a young man and I've never been bothered by someone's political view... until Trump. Because this moves away from a political view and explicitly into character. And, yes, I can create a wall to shield me from these people. And, when necessary, i do. but I prefer to just create distance. I feel no reason to protect myself from toxic people. I prefer to create distance.
not for nuthin', but all caps is read as yelling. Multiple yells in a sentence or paragraph expresses anger. And repeated emoji's, whether eyeballing or laughing comes across as a hand or slap in the face.

On the politics, frankly I don't mind reading the posts of someone who supports Trump, including continuing to support Trump (which does seem bonkers to me post insurrection and the Big Lie), posting about their rationale for such support...as long as it isn't this angry, in your face, attacking, taunting and trolling mode that so many seem to have adopted. Goes the other way as well.

Humor, eg political cartoons etc is another matter.

I think it's actually possible to strenuously disagree on a topic, without going ballistic...and strenuous disagreement is just fine. But please present the facts and logic that support your view and be willing to have those facts and logic challenged in return. If you're unwilling to engage in a fact-based discussion, you're just trolling. And if you're outright lying...get outta here...