I hate when threads get deleted and I hate the forums, so moving a thread is basically killing it.  This thread was a great discussion and very civil.  I showed up today and couldn’t find it.

I get how this cannot be priority over a server migration and I think it’s only fair to give Jim the benefit of the doubt.  He said that he’d investigate after the migration, so he’s not just ignoring the issue.

Is there any point in talking among ourselves about what we feel is and isn’t appropriate censorship?

I understand we don’t own the site, but it can be a meaningful discussion nonetheless.

Wrt the Castro thread, if Dan’s concern is his reputation, why not simply delete his own posts or replace their content with a blank space and leave the rest as they were? It’s hardly an ideal solution, but it had turned into a thread I was going to refer back to for several things, including a number of links, so the current state of affairs is a royal pain in the butt.

The issue between Dan and veer bender notwithstanding, I thought the discussion on education was getting very interesting, I was interested in responses to my calculation of finances for home schooling for groups of around 200 children, and I’d like it to continue.

Something Other - 18 February 2012 10:35 PM

Is there any point in talking among ourselves about what we feel is and isn’t appropriate censorship?

Blowing off steam does accomplish something, I think. Otherwise, no, there is no point because the admins have consistently expressed their views on this subject over the last ten-plus years: It’s their site, and they will moderate it as they please.

What’s the relation between blowing off steam, and censorship? I’m not following…

This whole incident really has me done with Dan.  The well has been poisoned.  Dan poisoned it.  And the editorial response to this, which has been silence, even serves to fan the fires more.  Dan needs to own his actions, but instead he is running from them. 

I think the bigger issue here is that Dan got called out for using a sock puppet on this board. That’s bush-league stuff, but it looks like that’s the real fire with all of this smoke.

Test?

(Note: I know this is bad form, but I’m posting this bit I wrote earlier without first reading the rest of this thread because I don’t want to let anything else said here influence my tone.)

I’m really upset by the thread being disappeared, not just because such a good discussion was lost, but more because of my role in causing it. I still don’t really believe that I said anything especially outrageous, and I vehemently deny threatening anyone (something I consider a serious accusation), but I do have to accept my responsibility in this, and that it led to harm to a lot of people. I don’t really know what else to say, other than I feel like crap, and I apologize, and this time I won’t try to follow the apology with even a careful clarification of my position in the argument.

To Dan: I strongly believe that if there is any way you could keep the thread while cutting out every single post of mine, that would do so much less harm to the community. If you need to delete all my posts from the site, or even kill the account (not that I want that to happen), I’d gladly accept that tradeoff. And that’s not me trying to be a martyr—if you think about it, you’d see almost anyone in my position would prefer that. The way this has gone down is like the military discipline model where everyone else in the unit has to clean the latrines because one guy messed up.

Also: All this has happened before and all of it will happen again.*

While I personally will never challenge you again, even regarding the arm strength of a AA outfielder, if you keep participating in political threads and make caustic comments there, someone else inevitably will. Someone new, most likely, or even someone who just hasn’t been paying enough attention to the history of thread disappearances, is going to screw over the whole community, maybe even accidentally.

*Just wanted to prove that I’m not completely oblivious to all things internet geeky. I learned from another poster that, apparently, my being one of 12 adult males to have still never seen Fight Club may have contributed to my taking Dan’s unpleasant statement more seriously than I should have.

I did not see the original VB-Dan exchange, so I really can’t comment on the nature of those posts.  All I read was the post-exchange discussion and then a few hours later it was down.

I am disappointed the Castro thread is essentially gone forever.  I don’t engage much in political threads, but the combination of primaries horse race commentary with semi-detailed discussion of relevant issues and social/economic theory was very lively and entertaining. 

After everything cools down, I would like to see another thread opened up for discussion relating to super Tuesday, the rest of the primaries, and then the GE.

I am disappointed the Castro thread is essentially gone forever.  I don’t engage much in political threads, but the combination of primaries horse race commentary with semi-detailed discussion of relevant issues and social/economic theory was very lively and entertaining.

Likewise. I thought it was one of our better efforts.

After everything cools down, I would like to see another thread opened up for discussion relating to super Tuesday, the rest of the primaries, and then the GE.

Same here, but I think some sort of action is in order. In the absence of a different standard for censorship I don’t think I’m likely to post in a distinctly political thread or, if I do, I’ll simply copy each page of 100 posts as it’s completed.

Having read the thread now, I’d just like to say that formerly dp in comment #5 gets my vote for the best recap. But then, that one does favor me, so I’m biased.

I don’t have the original post that set off Dan in the first place, but I did keep my (unfortunately long) response that I posted the night the thread died. To be fair, the first one was less measured than this follow-up. So, with the disclaimer that if you’ve seen this before, don’t waste your time, here it is. (I also feel pretty dumb while looking back on it; in hindsight it’s obvious that I should have just said nothing)
_________________________________________________________________
1. Sincere apologies to everyone involved in the thread for causing any risk, however small, of it being shut down. It’s a great thread. In general, I don’t post much, but I’ve probably learned more about politics here over the past decade than everywhere else combined, and I tremendously value the contributions of everyone.

2. Morty: thanks (a lot). I’m glad that at least one person saw the reaction to my post as a bunch of people fanning themselves after their monocles popped off. Not to undermine the apology above – I defer to the majority opinion that what I said could somehow be read as going beyond the pale. Even though I don’t see it, it still means I’m guilty of miscommunication. So . . .

3. Threats: I’m honestly unsure where you think I’m threatening you, Dan. Did you really think I was saying I would have my wife beat you up? If so, I hope you mocked me mercilessly for that. I’m not sure exactly how she’d respond if you “said it to her face,” but it would probably involve a look of surprise followed by some kind of hurt, and then an attempt to politely find someone less unpleasant to talk to. I shouldn’t have said “I’d like to see you do it,” though, because I don’t literally mean it; I don’t wish that harm on her, or (presumably) you. It was a dumb rhetorical attempt to get you to see that you never would, being too decent of a person.

4. Stifling your speech: I was at most trying to redirect your proposed self-stifling. You yourself suggested that you should perhaps refrain from political commentary beyond the occasional sarcastic comment for professional reasons. I suggest that, IMHO only, you might have more to worry about professionally from sarcastic comments than from expressing more sophisticated political speech. I doubt that ESPN, for example, cares at all whether a writer is a Libertarian, Communitarian, or Rastafarian, but they may be concerned if someone posts ad hominem diatribes on a public website about a (very large) group of potential viewers.

5. Playing fair: To save the thread from certain annihilation*, I see that you’ve removed my post and your response(s?) but have left portions of yours as quoted by others, and the follow-up messages from others scoring the blows landed. I’m kind of happy about that, since I’ve been at work and would never have been able to see it otherwise, but it does seem like you’ve selectively cut things to make it look like I’m a deranged loon who threatens people, and you’re a poor victim of speech repression. But since you left it behind, I can respond to this:

I’ll happily say this anybody who asks. Your wife may or may not be an effective teacher, but she’s part of a special interest group that wishes to prevent accountability and choice.

I don’t find anything offensive about that; in fact, I completely agree, and I think she probably would too. Do you not see, though, how that is a completely different statement than what I quoted in the threadkiller post? Truly, measured on the insultometer, they bear almost no similarity at all. I won’t re-quote it, but I will refer you back to post 6972 to compare and contrast.

*You probably won’t believe me, Dan, but I had no intention of continuing a flame war. I said my piece.

vb,

Thanks for posting that. I’m still baffled by events leading up to the Castro Fiasco, but I appreciate your bringing a relentless civility to its aftermath

One thing:

I’ll happily say this anybody who asks. Your wife may or may not be an effective teacher, but she’s part of a special interest group that wishes to prevent accountability and choice.

Dan and a few others hereabouts fling this kind of thing at teachers as though it made them monsters in a class all their own; as somehow distinct in this regard from lawyers, CEOs, welders, brokers, salon stylists, and bond traders.

The only reply that can lead the conversation in a useful direction from that point is, okay, so what? That’s what people do—they band together and protect themselves and their kind. What is it about teachers that distinguishes them from any other group in this regard?  Is the protection given teachers something that, without, we’d be vastly better off? If you (not you, vb) believe that, what constitutes “vastly better off”? While getting rid of one percent of the worst teachers is an excellent aim, and worth doing for its own sake, what do you see as the result in classrooms—will the quality of education soar, or are we talking only very small increments?

In the absence of that kind of followup, which is often lacking from our political threads wrt education, all we’re left with is teacher bashing. Everyone here agrees, I assume, with starting by getting rid of teachers convicted of violent felonies, or crimes involving child endangerment.

Now what?

There is still a live Google cache of P6900, and in post 6972 DS had a pretty intense sarcastic diatribe against public school teachers. Neither Veer nor “He’s bought a bat like Prince Fielder” appears on that page.

Interestingly, when Google crawled P4000 on February 14, one of HBABLPF’s posts had already been hidden. But one attacking ray james for being kevin and calling for his banning was still there.

I’m not finding it, HCO. Do you have a link?

Something Other - 19 February 2012 05:38 PM

I’m not finding it, HCO. Do you have a link?

This works for now but it probably won’t for too much longer.

Oh yeah, and the attack on “Captain Kevin” is still cached here.