I thought about this thread and added an edit to what I posted last night. I kept the original post unedited.
What I don’t get is the bias/animosity against ALL people who migrated here from Hannity. What is the reason for this? I get personality conflicts but does having a conflict with one mean you have a conflict with all?
I don’t think it’s animosity towards your entire group. I think a few from your group exert themselves in a way that is not consistent with the culture of the community you all joined. I seem to recall all of you being completely overrun by aggressive liberals and being happy to have found a place where that wouldn’t happen to you. Now some of your group are exhibiting the same behavior that your entire group was trying to escape. Obviously, those of us who have been through ALL of the migrations and site moves have little patience for that.
I stay here because there are very few places left that offer free speech. That means I have to accept the good with the bad as do all of you. I am happy to disagree and have others disagree with me. I really have no patience for someone sperging about and calling me a liar simply because I hold a different view from them.
I am also quite tired of people throwing around the word “fact” and asserting that they are the authority on a particular matter. No one is. All opinions and viewpoints are equal here. We all are seated at a giant round table. There is not a single person here that can say with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow…which means there isn’t a single person here that is the authority on any particular fact or matter. We are simply posting our beliefs and opinions to a large global bulletin board for others to see and interact with.
I am thankful that’s such a place exists because there aren’t many left.
I have NEVER claimed I am right - in fact quite the opposite and have said on a number of occasions that I am happy for the adults in the room to come to their own conclusions.
And when I have posted the quote below I did so bc I meant it - I’m only asking questions.
Maybe I am just a bit different. I run a business and I welcome input. I got challenged yesterday by an employee on a decision I’d made.
Why did you not allow “X” but in this situation you are allowing “X”.
When I explained the nuances between the two which on the surface appeared to be the same, yet under the surface were not the same at all…there was a much better understanding. And, as an added benefit, the employee saw the logic, the reasoning and was completely on board.
The thing is. We had a respectful conversation as equals. Not my power over yours or yours over mine. A respectful of each other back and forth. I don’t think there can be any common ground found for anyone when either party feels defensive.
I think the takeaway is to have the goal to have something of a meeting of the minds. I agree that respect should be shown to the moderators. Blatant disrespect should be dealt with accordingly. As I would have had my employee shown me disrespect.
However, I can be wrong and I appreciate a respectful dialogue so I can be open to understanding why. Maybe that is where the PM’s come into play? IDK…? I am rarely one to PM someone. I like to gather multiple sources and evaluate.
I’m about head out to fish but I think what you are talking about from a business perspective makes sense. Thing is, this isn’t a business. We are all voluntarily here, the staff are all volunteers, and @Patriot voluntarily provides this space as a public service - his reasoning why is actually kind of impressive. I won’t steal his thunder but he ain’t the bragging type. I know @Patriot personally and know he has never made a dime off this and spends a good amount of his own time and money to keep the lights on, provide upgrades, and fight those who try to get the site taken down. He’s been at this for years.
Point is, with so many different opinions and views you can’t keep everyone happy all the time. Try to please one group and you piss off another. The balance is everybody respecting the fact that they have a right to post their views and not be personally attacked for them. How much simpler does it need to get?
The triumph of ultimate evil is the New World Order.
It sometimes amazes me that some members (of sites which discuss social issues) are not familiar with this concept.
This day and age (meaning, from the 19th century on, and especially after 911), “evil” has a definite NWO tone, be it Epstein (I never said he was ■■■■■■■ but Epstein certainly is a ■■■■■■ name), Mossad, or destruction of Europe.
It has 850+ posts because management won’t put an end to it. But there is absolutely no doubt that it is a shit thread.
As has been explained to you guys many times, if the blaitant anti Semitic filth being posted in this Forum goes unchallenged, it would be seen by any casual observer as evidence that this site is nothing more than another racist hate site on par with sites like Storm Front. Is that what you want?
The anti-Semitic hatred is interjected into almost every consequential thread of a political nature. It is virtually impossible to avoid if you are an active member of this Forum. And, it seems, that when anyone flags those posts for derailing a thread, the flagger is the one who gets in trouble. What conclusion should one draw from that?
That’s rich, dude. Here we are a few of us defending a people who are not even here to defend themselves, a people for whose freedom from nazis our soldiers fought and died. And we do so, powerless, as a minority here knowing that the great body of members here as well as the moderators are ■■■ haters, long time birds of a feather bound even by personal friendship. And you call us bullies.