Trump

[Cassandra LeMay]

... He’s also opened a dialogue on prison reform whose current system he suggests adversely impacts African-Americans.  ...

I must have missed that among all of Jeff Sessions attempts to torpedo attempts at sentencing reform and all the other policies of the AG to be "tough on crime" that will disproportianally hit minorities and especially black Americans.

Aside from the fact that Trump undermines the norms of civil society - and the fabric of the constitution - by dog-whistling to white supremacists, belitteling judges doing their job, stirring up racial animus, and a list of other things that is longer than my arm, he just isn't a good leader.

Trump has displayed a tendency to act from his gutt and then not take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. He rescinded DACA and kicked it over to Congress, but then just didn't seem to care. He did something and with that action it all became someone else's problem. The GOP in the House is deeply divided on immigration matters and when he gets together with the House Republicans, Trump just brags about his own achievements but does not take the lead, does not try to get the GOP act together, and doesn't even seem to think he has some responsibility there.

I may not agree with the policy goals of the GOP, but right now they have both chambers of Congress and the White House. They could get stuff done. That they don't is part ideological (new laws require government action and the GOP is for less, rather than more, government), part of it is the split between "moderates" and "radicals", but one important part is also a lack of leadership by the President.

Or look at his latest plan: Space Force. Does he actually believe he can create a new branch of the military by Presidential fiat? It looks that way to me, but that completely ignores the Constitution. He needs Congress for this. But that would be tedious work and require a lot more than signing an executive order. Maybe he could actually convince Congress to do this, but either he is too lazy to put in the hard work, or he doesn't even realize how the process should work - neither of which is a sign of a good leader.

[Luzette]

Thank you Quick Ben for your measured reactions to my posts; perhaps you can PM me sometime.  I am new and thought that this was a forum for political discussion but it appears not and I will cease to ‘trigger’ you folks any longer.

I grew up and remain an ardent, left wing citizen. In my recent Word of the Day essay, I advocated for eliminating all immigration quotas as being a throwback to the imperial repressions of an earlier age.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat but his campaign was sabotaged and not by the Republicans.

I could go on but to no impact I’m sure.  I applaud President Trump for his activism in addressing serious issues to be resolved.  I think to date that he’s as good a president as Bill Clinton and less touchy-feely with the ladies too. ;)

Adieu my friends: Luzette has left the building.  ;D

[MiraMirror]

Thank you Quick Ben for your measured reactions to my posts; perhaps you can PM me sometime.  I am new and thought that this was a forum for political discussion but it appears not and I will cease to ‘trigger’ you folks any longer.

I grew up and remain an ardent, left wing citizen. In my recent Word of the Day essay, I advocated for eliminating all immigration quotas as being a throwback to the imperial repressions of an earlier age.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat but his campaign was sabotaged and not by the Republicans.

I could go on but to no impact I’m sure.  I applaud President Trump for his activism in addressing serious issues to be resolved.  I think to date that he’s as good a president as Bill Clinton and less touchy-feely with the ladies too. ;)

Adieu my friends: Luzette has left the building.  ;D

"Despite having several people provide links and calm examples of why they dislike Trump and what he's done to the U.S., they disagree with me,  so I will throw an overused insult at them all, tell the one person who agrees with me to throw me a message,  and duck out without responding to a single point made in the past few posts so I look like I have the moral high ground. Because obviously,  anyone who disagrees with me must just be 'triggered ', right?"

[Deamonbane]

  I think to date that he’s as good a president as Bill Clinton and less touchy-feely with the ladies too. ;)

bahahahahahahah...

[Deamonbane]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/393568-trump-administration-tightens-media-access-to-federal-scientists-report

This is clearly the stance of an administration that fosters independent and critical scientific thought.

[Vekseid]

Thank you Quick Ben for your measured reactions to my posts; perhaps you can PM me sometime.  I am new and thought that this was a forum for political discussion but it appears not and I will cease to ‘trigger’ you folks any longer.

I grew up and remain an ardent, left wing citizen. In my recent Word of the Day essay, I advocated for eliminating all immigration quotas as being a throwback to the imperial repressions of an earlier age.  I would have voted for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat but his campaign was sabotaged and not by the Republicans.

I could go on but to no impact I’m sure.  I applaud President Trump for his activism in addressing serious issues to be resolved.  I think to date that he’s as good a president as Bill Clinton and less touchy-feely with the ladies too. ;)

Adieu my friends: Luzette has left the building.  ;D

Yeah this is pure troll.

Go away.

[persephone325]

I think to date that he’s as good a president as Bill Clinton and less touchy-feely with the ladies too. ;)

bahahahahahahah...

^My exact reaction. lol Oh my goodness...

[Angie Kitty]

I have known Luzette at LIL for years  and I can stand with her even though I do not agree with her particular view point.

If this is a forum for political discourse and opinions that only is tolerant of same thoughts and ideas and not the free discussion of others views and bans people for having them, well you all can in the politest way that I can say this get bent, buggered and kiss off. You will not need to DENY me I freaking quit! 

Between the mods jumping in and acting on what they assume I or a friend might say or do and now the ban of someone for having an opinion. I find that I can not nor will not participate. Censorship is a dangerous thing that once it is loose it is hard to control!

[Skynet]

I have known Luzette at LIL for years  and I can stand with her even though I do not agree with her particular view point.

If this is a forum for political discourse and opinions that only is tolerant of same thoughts and ideas and not the free discussion of others views and bans people for having them, well you all can in the politest way that I can say this get bent, buggered and kiss off. You will not need to DENY me I freaking quit! 

Between the mods jumping in and acting on what they assume I or a friend might say or do and now the ban of someone for having an opinion. I find that I can not nor will not participate. Censorship is a dangerous thing that once it is loose it is hard to control!

Virtually every forum, including "free speech zones," has some type of line not to cross. As an extreme example, Nazism and genocide denial (from the Holocaust to Holodomir) would get a person banned from most forums on account of a "no racism/hate speech/etc" rule.

Also cannot speak to the mods, but the thing with Luzette was less her political views and more that she was posting in a trolling fashion and did not seem interest in ideas or debating. Her comments on Trump being "less touchy-feely with the ladies" comes off as willfully blind when you see former comments and links showing how he grabs womens' genitals without asking ahead of time.

[The Dark Raven]

Please, everyone, remember to keep level heads and keep it civil.  <3

[RedPhoenix]

I have known Luzette at LIL for years  and I can stand with her even though I do not agree with her particular view point.

If this is a forum for political discourse and opinions that only is tolerant of same thoughts and ideas and not the free discussion of others views and bans people for having them, well you all can in the politest way that I can say this get bent, buggered and kiss off. You will not need to DENY me I freaking quit! 

Between the mods jumping in and acting on what they assume I or a friend might say or do and now the ban of someone for having an opinion. I find that I can not nor will not participate. Censorship is a dangerous thing that once it is loose it is hard to control!

You're a good friend. And you're completely right. What happened to her was an embarrassment for anyone who even pretends to believe in freedom of thought or political debate.

I'm hoping staff come to their senses and reverse it and apologize to her. She didn't say or do anything even remotely close to ban-worthy.  I'm trying to maintain faith that there's some amount of reason or decency that can prevail.

Treating people who think differently than the mob with the old "Otherize, Ostracize, Isolate, Silence" approach is unacceptable, especially when it happens to those we disagree with. Because that's where it always starts. You have to put your foot down and say something. The irony of nobody doing that in the Trump thread, well, I'm sorry to let you and your friend down. We're not all so closed minded.

[Quick Ben]

You're a good friend. And you're completely right. What happened to her was an embarrassment for anyone who even pretends to believe in freedom of thought or political debate.

I'm hoping staff come to their senses and reverse it and apologize to her. She didn't say or do anything even remotely close to ban-worthy.  I'm trying to maintain faith that there's some amount of reason or decency that can prevail.

Treating people who think differently than the mob with the old "Otherize, Ostracize, Isolate, Silence" approach is unacceptable, especially when it happens to those we disagree with. Because that's where it always starts. You have to put your foot down and say something. The irony of nobody doing that in the Trump thread, well, I'm sorry to let you and your friend down. We're not all so closed minded.

Thirded.

[Eikichi]

If this is a forum for political discourse and opinions that only is tolerant of same thoughts and ideas and not the free discussion of others views and bans people for having them, well you all can in the politest way that I can say this get bent, buggered and kiss off. You will not need to DENY me I freaking quit!

You're a good friend. And you're completely right. What happened to her was an embarrassment for anyone who even pretends to believe in freedom of thought or political debate.

Thirded.

I'm not sure if you guys have blinders on, but the very first sentence of her entrance into this forum was

Why is this whole forum so violently anti-Trump?  You all sound simplistic and narrow minded to me.

Generally speaking, I agree that all political discourse should be allowed. There's not a lot Trump has done that I can say I like, but none of it directly affects me so I tend to listen more than preach. However, demonizing a bunch of people, at the very start of your entrance into a forum, isn't in anyway civil or respectful. Had the sentence been "Why is this whole forum anti-Trump?" It was not going to rub anyone the wrong way, in which case a discourse would be started. Started any form of discourse between individuals with an insulting rhetoric simply means that the individual has already made their opinion about you and has zero interest in listening or discussing, just preaching.

For instance. I would like to point out Quick Ben. While he has opinions the majority in this forum would disagree with, there has never been a point where his opinions have gotten him suspended or banned. He doesn't insult people, mindlessly or without purpose.

I'd also like to state, that trying to defend it as saying that she said the people in this thread 'sound simplistic' and wasn't attacking anyone is a rather poor argument. If you say someone sounds like an ass, it's still an insult to them. Even if you didn't call them an ass.

[RedPhoenix]

you guys have blinders on,

By your own rationale you should be banned for this.

[Roleplay Frog]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
People are free to express their opinion. They are not free to have extreme opinions without consequences, not that I claim Trump is #1 is all that extreme.

It seems to be the belief that people have been silenced or censored. You do realize that you can still read their posts. That is not censoring.

Far be it from me to make assumptions about why and what actions the Staff chose to take, but I believe that if you have a criticism of it, you should ask for an explanation before you accuse.

..overall, we should perhaps lay low on the calls for anyone or anything to face (or not have to face) reprecussions of any form.

[Eikichi]

Having blinders on is not an insult. It's an idiom referencing how one is being oblivious to something that exists or is happening right around them.

[RedPhoenix]

Having blinders on is not an insult. It's an idiom referencing how one is being oblivious to something that exists or is happening right around them.

If having blinders on is not an insult neither is being simplistic or narrow minded. They all mean almost exactly the same thing, and they're used to imply someone isn't looking at the full picture.

The real difference is you said one of them and someone you disagree with said the other.

If it's okay for you to attack people that way, it's okay for other people to. If it's not okay for them, it's not okay for you.

[Eikichi]

If having blinders on is not an insult neither is being simplistic or narrow minded. They all mean almost exactly the same thing, and they're used to imply someone isn't looking at the full picture.

While they do have a similar feeling, they are to an extent different. The most important note is that I quoted the entire first few sentences. Stating that someone is simplistic or narrow minded, in itself is generally not that great having blinders on would be similar. However, Luz referenced them being simplistic and narrow minded for being anti-Trump. In which case that means the only way to not be either is in-fact to not be anti-trump. It paints everyone who disagrees with Trump as simplistic even if they have a logical reason for disagreeing. Insulting their intelligence as narrow minded for having a completely acceptable reason for disagreeing, even if persay, they were republicans that were only anti-trump because of his stance on Russia, or trans, or Roe.

I referenced the there, not as an insult but rather stating that your arguments that the person was unfairly targeted are ignoring the fact that Luz did in fact attack, everyone, first without even starting a discourse. Yet the three of you are willing to ignore that, for some reason, and instead focus solely on the idea the ban was unfair.

[RedPhoenix]

Let's look at the words used in context separated from this thread in these examples.

a) Saying that the election of Donald Trump was good for the working class is simplistic.

b) Saying that the election of Donald Trump was good for the working class is narrow-minded.

c) Saying that the election of Donald Trump was good for the working class is simplistic and narrow-minded.

d) You have blinders on if you think that the election of Donald Trump was good for the working class.

Note that the sentence had to be rephrased to accommodate your expression. Because your expression requires a direct attack on the person who has the belief, whereas Luzette's words attack the state of mind that leads to the belief, or the belief itself.

Your phrase is, if anything, much more insulting than the one she used because it is a direct attack. Moreso it is an attack on the willingness of a person to see the full picture, not the ability or thoroughness of the process which is what Luzette's words implicate. But despite being so casually aggressive yourself, you use her phrases to justify her ban, and want me to believe that yours is totally innocuous. Yours is actually much more harmful from my perspective - both as the person directly attacked by it and through this process of looking at the word itself.

Almost all of the justification for the way Luzette was treating is perpetrated on this complete misrepresentation that she strolled in here and attacked everyone. Nonsense. I just got attacked far worse than she attacked any of you. I recall at least one very stark example of her being spoken to in a way that actually is a violation of E's civility rules.

But none of that seems to matter, because she questioned the popular beliefs of everyone here.

So please, put aside the victim-blaming and the justification and the minimizing of what happened to her. You'll see that it is indefensible once you do that.

[Skynet]

I can understand that Luzette was a friend to some people here. I can understand that namecalling in response is wrong. But what Luzette did is not without criticism, and she did say some things worse than just calling people simple and narrow-minded.

Thank you Quick Ben for your measured reactions to my posts; perhaps you can PM me sometime.  I am new and thought that this was a forum for political discussion but it appears not and I will cease to ‘trigger’ you folks any longer.

"Trigger" is a term making light of "trigger warning," a phrase which grew up in regards to people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. When said word began to be misused by people on the left, many among the right did the same and soon what was a legitimate medical term was mangled and entered the popular context of "thing that annoys me."

Still, the term is commonly used for people suffering from legitimate mental illness, and to misuse the term is making light of people suffering from this. It is wrong for people to water down its meaning and turn it into a phrase of mockery.

[Eikichi]

Alright then. Moving from the attack I'll do what should have occurred when someone pointed out that her words could be construed as an insult.

While I personally don't considering having blinders on to be an insult, seeing as you do, I sincerely apologize for it having been taken in that manner.

That's it. If someone still has a problem being insulted, then they have the full right to block me. I did not mean for it to be misconstrued in that way, and have apologized for it being taken in that manner. In no way did Luz decide to apologize, if she did not mean it to be taken as an insult.  No whether you believe her words, or mine, were harmful or not. When they are pointed out as being harmful the correct thing to do in a public space is apologize if you did not mean for your words to be taken in such a manner and then correct yourself.

But I'd like to point out again that you're solely basing her denial on her political beliefs. When there is no evidence that that, in fact, could be the reason. As pointed out before, Quick shares beliefs that counter the majority. He has not been banned for it.

[RedPhoenix]

I agree with you Skynet. That parting shot was rude. I just don't think it was ban worthy.

I just think it should be taken into account that she was responding back to rather vicious attacks on her integrity and her status to have opinions. And that she was new here and a time out and a talking to would be preferable to a ban. Now her friends who she has joined with see how she was mistreated and don't want to be here, and we've shot ourselves in the foot and cost ourselves new members.

If we're going to start banning people every time someone says something we don't like, especially on a political forum where people regularly dehumanize and vilify political figures they don't likes, we're going to have an empty forum.

[Mithlomwen]

Staff is listening to you. We wanted to make a more 'official' post here so everyone posting here knows that.

We know tempers are running high. We know people are afraid. We know people are upset. We know people are unhappy. All of those feelings are understandable. Staff doesn't condemn those feelings.

Things are being discussed backstage. Appeals regarding action the site owner takes are rather rare. Not unheard of, though. There's a process the rest of moderation has to go through about this sort of thing. But it takes a while.

If you have questions, concerns, or worries, please direct them to someone with a Goddess tag. Goddesses are the ones who handle appeals regarding Vekseid's actions (like regarding Luzette).We'd generally prefer the PM route rather than this thread because it both lets you speak your mind fully to us and avoids any undue escalation between folks among the general membership.

We generally do not update people on a member's disciplinary status, but we will issue an update in this case.

Vekseid is no longer handling matters pertaining to Luzette. As per our Chain of Command policy, Luzette requested another admin to speak to. It took a bit longer than it should have for us to get to that request, but a non-biased admin took over communicating privately with Luzette regarding matters.

We cannot promise any particular outcome, because we are waiting on communication from Luzette before we can proceed further.

Again, if you have concerns, worries, or commentary, please PM a Goddess. Thank you.

[Quick Ben]

Staff is listening to you. We wanted to make a more 'official' post here so everyone posting here knows that.

We know tempers are running high. We know people are afraid. We know people are upset. We know people are unhappy. All of those feelings are understandable. Staff doesn't condemn those feelings.

Things are being discussed backstage. Appeals regarding action the site owner takes are rather rare. Not unheard of, though. There's a process the rest of moderation has to go through about this sort of thing. But it takes a while.

If you have questions, concerns, or worries, please direct them to someone with a Goddess tag. Goddesses are the ones who handle appeals regarding Vekseid's actions (like regarding Luzette).We'd generally prefer the PM route rather than this thread because it both lets you speak your mind fully to us and avoids any undue escalation between folks among the general membership.

We generally do not update people on a member's disciplinary status, but we will issue an update in this case.

Vekseid is no longer handling matters pertaining to Luzette. As per our Chain of Command policy, Luzette requested another admin to speak to. It took a bit longer than it should have for us to get to that request, but a non-biased admin took over communicating privately with Luzette regarding matters.

We cannot promise any particular outcome, because we are waiting on communication from Luzette before we can proceed further.

Again, if you have concerns, worries, or commentary, please PM a Goddess. Thank you.

Thank you, Mithlomwen. Thank you admins for taking a look at this.

[RedPhoenix]

I engaged with Vekseid directly about this when it happened. I assume that was passed on to whoever is handling it now.

Alright then. Moving from the attack I'll do what should have occurred when someone pointed out that her words could be construed as an insult.

While I personally don't considering having blinders on to be an insult, seeing as you do, I sincerely apologize for it having been taken in that manner.

That's it. If someone still has a problem being insulted, then they have the full right to block me. I did not mean for it to be misconstrued in that way, and have apologized for it being taken in that manner.

Emphasis added.

This is the opposite of an apology. "Misconstrued" and "being taken" show very clearly that you put blame on me for what happened, not yourself. An apology require a showing of contrition, which you have not done.

Compare:

"I'm sorry I called you stupid, I should have thought about your feelings first."

"I'm sorry I called you stupid and that you have misconstrued my intentions for doing so and have taken it as an insult."

One is an apology, the other is not.

You have not apologized. In fact, you've blamed me for making you say words that sound like an apology but aren't.

In no way did Luz decide to apologize, if she did not mean it to be taken as an insult.  No whether you believe her words, or mine, were harmful or not. When they are pointed out as being harmful the correct thing to do in a public space is apologize if you did not mean for your words to be taken in such a manner and then correct yourself.

But I'd like to point out again that you're solely basing her denial on her political beliefs. When there is no evidence that that, in fact, could be the reason. As pointed out before, Quick shares beliefs that counter the majority. He has not been banned for it.

But as we've just seen - you didn't apologize either. This invalidates the rest of your post. It remains the case that by your own logic you should be banned. The double standard you want this forum run by is thrown wide open at this point.

You continue to attack people, blame the people you've wronged, and your argument that other people haven't been banned who hold similar views is far too similar to the argument that, ironically enough, conservatives often use when their darlings get attacked.  "Look at all these black people the police haven't shot" they cry, as if that justifies it happening to one of them. It's a very unpersuasive argument.