|
On August 28 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:
That post is shit by a brand new account.
It's clearly heated (so many accounts show up with "0 posts" I don't presume it's new (or bother to check).
But maybe one of his family members was burned alive by napalm in Vietnam, or blown apart in one of the many military endeavors McCain advocated and they didn't take kindly to the whole glorifying him and demanding there be no criticism for an unclear amount of time.
It is an international forum and despite it's tendency toward affluence, it's quite probable there are some people who lost family/friends to bombs McCain dropped, helped sell, or called to be dropped and it's kinda messed up to force them (or people that empathize with them) to just shut up and take the heroization of the man responsible for such suffering.
Maybe they don't post in the politics thread, or speak great English and I can't control the outcome of all this or something else, but to act like the praise is neutral and civil as if it can't possibly be harmful to anyone is simply wrong.
|
On August 28 2018 01:19 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 00:15 Seeker wrote:
I'm confused... Why are we still discussing this? What else do you guys need clarified exactly? Thank you for clarifying that the ban on McCain criticism was temporary. When Ayatolla Khomeni dies are you planning on enforcing 3 days of RIP? This is not theoretical, it's quite likely to happen soonish. If not where is the line, and what is the rule that is used to justify what several of us see as hypocritical enforcement of respect for the recently deceased only in select instances?
He’ll probably even put a warning not to do so within the thread if he’s online.
I think most of us are eye rolling at “only in select instances.” I was unaware so many people had hard feelings about an entirely different thread dragging Chavez back in 2013. The quality of live-report current events threads were universally so trashy back then, including moderation standards on the US Pol one.
|
I'm getting a bit weary of people repeating that any poster critical of McCain's legacy will be modactioned when the only test case could quite easily be a model "What not to do" in the OP:
+ Show Spoiler +2. No arguments in absentia.
In other words, do not argue using language that presumes conclusions that not everyone might share. If you think McCain is a war criminal so his death is good riddance, then intelligently and deliberately point out how you have come to this conclusion. Do not simply say “good riddance to war criminals”, for it makes you look like a presumptuous fool and it degrades the entire conversation. If every poster attempted to be less unequivocal and more expository, the world of TL would be a better place.
Please stop repeating this?
|
On August 28 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:
That post is shit by a brand new account. It's clearly heated (so many accounts show up with "0 posts" I don't presume it's new (or bother to check). But maybe one of his family members was burned alive by napalm in Vietnam, or blown apart in one of the many military endeavors McCain advocated and they didn't take kindly to the whole glorifying him and demanding there be no criticism for an unclear amount of time.
It’s a previously banned user or someone’s alt account, not a + 50 year old Vietnam National who happened to stumble across seeker’s post while name searching John McCain.
|
On August 28 2018 01:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Seeker wrote:
I'm confused... Why are we still discussing this? What else do you guys need clarified exactly? Thank you for clarifying that the ban on McCain criticism was temporary. When Ayatolla Khomeni dies are you planning on enforcing 3 days of RIP? This is not theoretical, it's quite likely to happen soonish. If not where is the line, and what is the rule that is used to justify what several of us see as hypocritical enforcement of respect for the recently deceased only in select instances? He’ll probably even put a warning not to do so within the thread if he’s online. I think most of us are eye rolling at “only in select instances.” I was unaware so many people had hard feelings about an entirely different thread dragging Chavez back in 2013. The quality of live-report current events threads were universally so trashy back then, including moderation standards on the US Pol one.
I dont have hard feelings about the Chavez thing, I have hard feelings about the McCain thing.
As for rolling your eyes, do you have an example of someone being warned or banned for posting substantiated criticism of a recently deceased controversial political who is not American or British, ever in the history of tl.net?
|
|
|
On August 28 2018 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:
That post is shit by a brand new account. It's clearly heated (so many accounts show up with "0 posts" I don't presume it's new (or bother to check). But maybe one of his family members was burned alive by napalm in Vietnam, or blown apart in one of the many military endeavors McCain advocated and they didn't take kindly to the whole glorifying him and demanding there be no criticism for an unclear amount of time. It’s a previously banned user or someone’s alt account, not a + 50 year old Vietnam National who happened to stumble across seeker’s post while name searching John McCain.
It is an international forum and despite it's tendency toward affluence, it's quite probable there are some people who lost family/friends to bombs McCain dropped, helped sell, or called to be dropped and it's kinda messed up to force them (or people that empathize with them) to just shut up for an unclear amount of time and take the heroization of the man responsible for such suffering.
Maybe they don't post in the politics thread, or speak great English or something else, and I can't control the outcome of all this , but to act like the praise is neutral and civil as if it can't possibly be harmful to anyone is simply wrong.
I don't think my point actually hinges on them not being a PBU or Vietnam national (of any age?), was that not clear?
That's to say from reasonable perspectives there's nothing more offensive in the post in question than calling John McCain a hero or telling people they have to wait an indefinite amount of time to disagree.
|
On August 28 2018 01:50 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:42 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2018 01:19 KlaCkoN wrote:On August 28 2018 00:15 Seeker wrote:
I'm confused... Why are we still discussing this? What else do you guys need clarified exactly? Thank you for clarifying that the ban on McCain criticism was temporary. When Ayatolla Khomeni dies are you planning on enforcing 3 days of RIP? This is not theoretical, it's quite likely to happen soonish. If not where is the line, and what is the rule that is used to justify what several of us see as hypocritical enforcement of respect for the recently deceased only in select instances? He’ll probably even put a warning not to do so within the thread if he’s online. I think most of us are eye rolling at “only in select instances.” I was unaware so many people had hard feelings about an entirely different thread dragging Chavez back in 2013. The quality of live-report current events threads were universally so trashy back then, including moderation standards on the US Pol one. I dont have hard feelings about the Chavez thing, I have hard feelings about the McCain thing. As for rolling your eyes, do you have an example of someone being warned or banned for posting substantiated criticism of a recently deceased controversial political who is not American or British, ever in the history of tl.net?
You claimed
hypocritical enforcement of respect for the recently deceased only in select instances
When the only thing approximating proof of this I can find is Chavez from (1) a different thread (2) five years ago. No other proof has been brought up. So what to conclude besides disliking the popular opinion poll on Chavez which is the live-report-style thread on him?
You made the positive statement that the mods were guilty of this, but I’ve seen nothing recent (if you recall, the mods declared they would start moderating the new thread more harshly for quality standards rather recently) and nobody’s offered more than vague accusations and arguments against the rule in general.
|
On August 27 2018 23:14 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2018 22:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Did someone report grumbels? I got the impression that no one did. Every now and them a dictator dies and no one cares for calling it good riddance, most notably Castro. Heck no one cared for Thatcher. But even if someone did, what I take offence to is this: On August 26 2018 11:33 Seeker wrote:
A reminder to everyone that John McCain passing does not mean that you get a free pass to insult him and say whatever you want. If you have nothing good to say, then please just don't say anything at all. This did not appear to be afforded to other political figures who caused as much death and destruction. Do we normally can insult him if he was alive? Do we normally can write phrases with nothing good to say about a public political figure? Normally yes, because he is a public political figure, just as much as we insult Bush, Obama, Clinton and Trump. So why is there only one sided praise allowed? Under such a mod note, even to write that he would have a controversial legacy would run foul of such a rule. I think this is a clearer statement of what is moderator policy and what is merely good taste: Show nested quote +On August 26 2018 11:51 micronesia wrote:On August 26 2018 11:34 Grumbels wrote:
prefer to be critical. There is a difference between being critical in response to an obituary, and responding to it with a one liner that says 'good riddance.' Nothing wrong with helping people realize there's more to the story than simply a perfect American hero, but your fist post was very questionable. edit: I should clarify that I too personally think people should stick to saying positive things (or nothing) immediately after someone dies like this, but that's etiquette and decency, not policy and rules. If it was merely a question of what you think is good taste, and of etiquette and decency,that it is not policy and rules, then I would feel free to criticise McCain without mod action. But I do and am not; the mod actions and Seeker's statement has made it rather clear that we are not to criticise McCain at all. At least not for an indeterminate amount of time.
To put things into perspective, I was just watching the BBC, and there is currently an eulogy on McCain, where "he is a beacon of light in a troubled world of darkness". I am not kidding. I can only imagine it is so much worse in USA. If Tony Blair dies tomorrow, and anybody else who dragged UK into the Iraqi disaster on false pretences, I want to be able to write how much of a shitbag he is, even if all the world's media will put him out to be a paragon of virtue.
|
Folks might also need to come to grips with the reality that the opinion of TL might not reflect the general public in the US or the opinions of reporters for news organizations that covered McCain. I know a lot of left leaning people in the US that don’t actively dislike McCain.
|
It's kind of hard to not be aware that the general public and the opinions of reporters for news organizations that covered McCain is different from my own, seeing as they are the ones that dominate the media and indeed on TL. What is unusual is the insistence that I should conform to societal pressure and not speak out against it.
No one ever says that I should just shut up when I argue an unpopular opinion on TL in the politics threads, except when a certain politician dies.
|
I get that and people should voice their opinion, even unpopular ones. I understand folks frustration with what they feel is an arbitrary time frame when harsh criticism can not be used. But I think it is good to discuss how the wider public views someone like McCain and how that differs wildly from what is going on in the thread. We can become our own echo chamber.
|
On August 28 2018 00:15 Seeker wrote:
I'm confused... Why are we still discussing this? What else do you guys need clarified exactly?
I think people are just coming to terms about societal norms regarding speaking ill of the recently deceased. The man hasn’t even had his first memorial service.
I wasn’t really aware that so many thought the complete opposite of what I took to be common sense.
|
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that.
|
On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that.
I feel like I posted a very good write up about why it's completely inappropriate to apply the John Smith treatment to John McCain and it wasn't rebutted at all. So I don't really know how it moves forward from here? I'll just post a shorter version and see if people want to address it or not.
when it comes to private individuals -- it's entirely appropriate to emphasize the positives of someone's life and avoid criticisms upon their death: it comforts their grieving loved ones and honors their memory. In that context, there's just no reason, no benefit, to highlight their flaws.
But that is completely inapplicable to the death of a public person, especially one who is political. When someone dies who is a public figure by virtue of their political acts -- like Ronald Reagan -- discussions of them upon death will be inherently politicized. How they are remembered is not strictly a matter of the sensitivities of their loved ones, but has substantial impact on the culture which discusses their lives. To allow significant political figures to be heralded with purely one-sided requiems -- enforced by misguided (even if well-intentioned) notions of private etiquette that bar discussions of their bad acts -- is not a matter of politeness; it's deceitful and propagandistic. To exploit the sentiments of sympathy produced by death to enshrine a political figure as Great and Noble is to sanction, or at best minimize, their sins. Misapplying private death etiquette to public figures creates false history and glorifies the ignoble.
Then there's the whole it being very offensive to victims of McCain's actions or US foreign policy he supported (or those empathetic with them). It would make sense if there had been a moratorium on commenting at all on his death, or let both sides say their piece, but I'm with the several other posters that have concluded that allowing praise and sanctioning criticism (regardless of how it's handled now) was the wrong way to go.
|
On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that.
Yeah, but let’s not oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution to the discussion. Criticism is fine when people can avoid being hyperbolic about it.
|
On August 28 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that. Yeah, but let’s not oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution to the discussion.
Did someone do that?
|
On August 28 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that. Yeah, but let’s not oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution to the discussion. Did someone do that?
Thats what grumbels did to get the sanctions in the thread. Its the basis for the entire conversation.
|
On August 28 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that. Yeah, but let’s not oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution to the discussion. Did someone do that?
That is the fourth post that spawned this discussion. Are you not paying attention?
|
On August 28 2018 08:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2018 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
He's a public political figure, not John Smith from the pub down the street. We aren't mainstream journalists or at his funeral asked to deliver an eulogy. You didn't care to push for such societal norms when Castro died, who if anything was an even more influential politician. What's the difference here?
@ Plansix, the first three comments were basically positive. It's fair to say that the picture being pushed on the wider public view and in TL is that just that. Yeah, but let’s not oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution to the discussion. Did someone do that? That is the fourth post that spawned this discussion. Are you not paying attention?
I thought I had been, but somehow I missed anyone, including grumbles
oversell the war criminal post as some form of constructive contribution
Could you or serm post where he did that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
