PDA

View Full Version : General Politics What I've learned with the Palin Pregnancy story.


irishjayhawk
09-01-2008, 09:40 AM
The thread has some very interesting points that have been raised now.

1) Children should not be subjected to political attacks.
I agree. However, this has not been the case for many years. To say this is something new is to deny history. Should people stop? Yes. Will it? History says no.

2) Slandering candidates is bad unless they're not YOUR candidate.
I think this point came across in over half the posts in the thread. It is, in fact, hilarious. It's hilarious in a sad way because if you look at the history of this election cycle, Obama has had many more slanderous attacks. Yet, any attempt to falsify the claim was ignored or needed repeating several hundred times.

3) Passing on a story is the same as claiming its 100% true or fact.
Not only is this laughable, its maddening. If this is true, then many of the threads in the DC are just as bad. Relaying a story is, IN NO WAY, claiming it is true.

4) Topics that are untrue must be edited accordingly.
alnorth was calling for me to edit the post. I denied simply because nothing had been conclusive to the point. Besides, I didn't make the story, I just relayed it. And if they aren't going to edit their story, why should I this thread?

However, I woke up today to see that it had, in fact, been edited. This begs some questions. Why do threads need to be edited? When do threads need to be edited? Are all threads that are false in need of editing? Does everyone need to make a disclaimer in the headline?

This is problematic because of the implications it has. Moreover, it's problematic because it's not happening to all threads of slander classification. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with saying things are untrue in the thread title or OP. What I have a problem with is the shady - if not hypocritical - way things are done with respect to it. How many Obama threads needed a tag like that?

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:44 AM
Agreed.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:45 AM
What amazes me is you feel a need to explain yourself. The entire set of threads on this are amazing if only because its all untrue yet you people seem compelled to believe it and see it as true. Even people who are educated and productive people have chimed in on those threads that although I have disagreements with on issues, I can at least say I had some respect for them. Now I question that as well.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 09:50 AM
FTR I really didn't give much creedence or even read the article. It was too long and I didn't really see the relevance.
However, so your thread was edited although it was a published story? That ain't right, that's someone with mod powers injecting their politics. The question is will they do the same when someone elses candidate is getting a potential untruth.

wazu
09-01-2008, 09:51 AM
However, I woke up today to see that it had, in fact, been edited. This begs some questions. Why do threads need to be edited? When do threads need to be edited? Are all threads that are false in need of editing? Does everyone need to make a disclaimer in the headline?

I don't think editing a thread title should be mandatory unless the intent was clearly to mislead. (Such as a completely made up thread saying "Dwayne Bowe breaks leg!") In your case, as you stated, you just used the title of the ridiculous and slanderous article to which you were linking. Fair enough.

I guess I would kind of wonder why you wouldn't want to have an admin fix the thread title on your behalf, though, after the lies are debunked. This was a pretty nasty and outrageous attack. As somebody who helped propogate it, I would think you would have some desire to blunt the attack a little on your own after finding it to be clearly false.

irishjayhawk
09-01-2008, 09:52 AM
What amazes me is you feel a need to explain yourself. The entire set of threads on this are amazing if only because its all untrue yet you people seem compelled to believe it and see it as true. Even people who are educated and productive people have chimed in on those threads that although I have disagreements with on issues, I can at least say I had some respect for them. Now I question that as well.

What's new? HCF doesn't read either thread.

irishjayhawk
09-01-2008, 09:54 AM
I don't think editing a thread title should be mandatory unless the intent was clearly to mislead. (Such as a completely made up thread saying "Dwayne Bowe breaks leg!") In your case, as you stated, you just used the title of the ridiculous and slanderous article to which you were linking. Fair enough.

I guess I would kind of wonder why you wouldn't want to have an admin fix the thread title on your behalf, though, after the lies are debunked. This was a pretty nasty and outrageous attack. As somebody who helped propogate it, I would think you would have some desire to blunt the attack a little on your own after finding it to be clearly false.

As I said, I have no problem with the editing itself. It's the randomness that it happens.

How many threads that have been completely slanderous on either candidate (specifically Obama) have been edited to something similar? It's not that it was edited, it's the unevenness that it happens.

And I found out why it happened anyway, so that at least explains part of it. (Jaz requested, in light of his evidence, that it be locked and/or edited.) Still, many other threads have the same kind of slander and evidence against it that remain unedited....

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:54 AM
What amazes me is you feel a need to explain yourself. The entire set of threads on this are amazing if only because its all untrue yet you people seem compelled to believe it and see it as true. Even people who are educated and productive people have chimed in on those threads that although I have disagreements with on issues, I can at least say I had some respect for them. Now I question that as well.

If you didn't read the thread, than you have no right to comment on it unless you are a moron. It's pretty obvious, you are a biased hypocrite, STFU now.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:57 AM
Oh?

Mr. Laz
09-01-2008, 10:07 AM
However, I woke up today to see that it had, in fact, been edited.the moderator bias towards the conservative side goes waaaaay back around here.

there have many unsubstantiated stories about liberals that were never force edited.

:shake:


i think you should change it back

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 10:09 AM
Moderators should stay out of it, if they are going to interject their own bias.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:10 AM
the moderator bias towards the conservative side goes waaaaay back around here.

there have many unsubstantiated stories about liberals that were never force edited.

:shake:


i think you should change it back


You are kidding, right?

BigCatDaddy
09-01-2008, 10:11 AM
I think we've also learned that providing a link to a story does not mean that it's true.

Mr. Laz
09-01-2008, 10:17 AM
I think we've also learned that providing a link to a story does not mean that it's true.
absolutely

there are many threads posted around here with links to stories that nobody knows where they are true or not.

but this the 1st thread that i've remember EVER being edited in the Washington DC forum.

hell .... it used to says "not moderated" under the name of this forum on the front page.


all the sudden a moderator shows up?


how convenience


i look forward to this moderator edited ALL the unsubstantiated thread titles.

RINGLEADER
09-01-2008, 10:19 AM
OH SNAP!

She IS pregnant!

ROFL

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 10:19 AM
Where is the moderating of all the horseshit threads started by Dishonest Chieffan? Shitbreath? Densey, etc?

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:24 AM
i look forward to this moderator edited ALL the unsubstantiated thread titles.



No kidding. Otherwise DC doesn't work.

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:27 AM
I think that's completly improper for a moderator to have edited the thread title. Basically that's going to be too subjective as to what should be edited and what shouldn't.

"9-11 was an inside job" Does that need (completely unproven accusation) written next to it?

How about the bazilion "Obama is a Muslim radical threads"?

This moderator needs to step up, reverse their error and admit the mistake.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:28 AM
Much ado about nothing. Mr Molehill, meet Mr Mountain

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:29 AM
Much ado about nothing. Mr Molehill, meet Mr Mountain

Your threads usually are, yes.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:31 AM
Much ado about nothing. Mr Molehill, meet Mr Mountain


If this happened to any of your threads you would be outraged. Don't even lie about it.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:32 AM
I am amazed...you guys really feel that some wrong was committed? Is this real?

Reaper16
09-01-2008, 10:34 AM
I've got to join in with my disappointment at the modding. Selective, biased modding is completely bullshit. Completely false information gets a thread created about it every other day. Hell, baseless speculation makes up a good 25% of the D.C. subforum.

The mods need to either edit every single thread that posts verifiably false information, or (preferably) they need to edit none of them. Anything else is a disservice the community.

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:35 AM
I am amazed...you guys really feel that some wrong was committed? Is this real?

Yes, I am opposed to censorship in this forum. IMO the only things that should be subject to censoring would be personal or private info about a poster that was not voluntarily disclosed.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:36 AM
can you state exactly what was supposedly "edited"? What was removed? What was changed?

Mr. Kotter
09-01-2008, 10:37 AM
can you state exactly what was supposedly "edited"? What was removed? What was changed?

The thread title was made more accurate.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:38 AM
Just trying to gain understanding of what caused this outrage suddenly

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:39 AM
The thread title was made more accurate.

A slippery slope. imo

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:41 AM
Just trying to gain understanding of what caused this outrage suddenly

a perceived injustice

if your gonna edit/alter one thread because of inaccuracy/unproven statements you should be ready to do all threads the same way regardless of political affiliation

Reaper16
09-01-2008, 10:41 AM
A slippery slope. imo
qft

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:41 AM
Can someone show what this supposed edit was?

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:42 AM
Can someone show what this supposed edit was?

thread title in the original palin pregnancy thing

dirk digler
09-01-2008, 10:43 AM
Can someone show what this supposed edit was?

Look down the page genius

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:44 AM
Jesus I have tried to find the words and the edit is it so hard to answer the question

Reaper16
09-01-2008, 10:50 AM
Jesus I have tried to find the words and the edit is it so hard to answer the question
The "(unproven accusation)" in the thread title was added by a moderator.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:52 AM
My god in heaven. Is that what all this is about?

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:53 AM
My god in heaven. Is that what all this is about?

You want people editing your ridiculous thread titles?

Reaper16
09-01-2008, 10:57 AM
My god in heaven. Is that what all this is about?
Yes, that is what this is all about. Whoever made the decision to edit the thread title needs to do the same with every single thread title containing an unproven accusation or, better yet, don't edit the titles of any threads.

Otherwise, it's horseshit.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:57 AM
They have been and no Its no big deal to me to have some moron who can chage something do so if he gets his happytimes from it.

Now, try to be serious and civil for a moment....is this even remotely a real issue...be real for goodness sake. The addition of unconfirmed....did that substantially change anything? You have to admit, I think anyway, that the overall tone and the tenor of the posts since Palin was announced have reached all time lows...not that I advocate censorship...in fact I oppose it, but i dont see adding that one thing had any substantial impact on the original post.

Thig Lyfe
09-01-2008, 10:57 AM
I would hope that everybody will have learned that this is just more proof that ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION DOES NOT WORK.

Reaper16
09-01-2008, 11:02 AM
They have been and no Its no big deal to me to have some moron who can chage something do so if he gets his happytimes from it.

Now, try to be serious and civil for a moment....is this even remotely a real issue...be real for goodness sake. The addition of unconfirmed....did that substantially change anything? You have to admit, I think anyway, that the overall tone and the tenor of the posts since Palin was announced have reached all time lows...not that I advocate censorship...in fact I oppose it, but i dont see adding that one thing had any substantial impact on the original post.
I'm fine with it as long as it's done fairly. You don't see mods adding "unproven accusation" to the numerous bullshit threads about Barack Obama. I just don't like the feeling of biased, selective moderation. I feel that it's a great disservice to the community.

irishjayhawk
09-01-2008, 09:07 PM
Thoughts on how to improve the DC in light of the events that have gone down?

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 09:09 PM
Thoughts on how to improve the DC in light of the events that have gone down?


Split the board into 3 sections

Republican
Democrat
other

if everyone stays in there own section there won't be any problems