POTWR: Inaugural Address 2019

What types of threads are you most interested in?


  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting early litmus test for you President @Cubo de Sangre, does this guy (whose name implies troll) seem like an obvious troll (or complete idiot) to you and the represent type of thing that needs to be cleaned up? He sure seems like that to me.

I've always been cool with you Cubo and I'm not trying to bust your balls here but looks like a duck, etc. and I am interested in your reaction here.

He's a smart dude who likes to antagonize the other side. You might have seen he got one of these in this thread for the anti-left suggestions.


<Deported1>


I feel like he responded appropriately to the warning and that it's other posters confronting him on it that keeps the whole thing going. So basically, I made it clear those ideas aren't welcome and nobody should feel the need to add anything after that. :cool:

This is the first thread and we're all feeling things out. No need for me to get too heavy-handed right out of the gate.

As a courtesy, I'm tagging you in @JamesRussler since I'm talking about you.


Bein' President gonna be tough dawg.;)

You ain't lyin'. Feels like being back in management. You can't please all the people all the time. But I'm up for the challenge. Can't promise perfect consistency, but my style is basically firm but fair.
 
Look Mr. Yellow Card, you're the obvious troll here. You cut and paste trite nonsense from your Tumblr all day, but I never complain about it. Now here you go with the personal insults because you've got thin skin. Same reason you got carded twice recently. I get my opinion, you get yours. Deal with it.

@Cubo de Sangre This is a test for you, because you're gonna have individuals like the one above begging you to curate the discussion in their favor all day. The solution is to ignore them.
Huh? I post all day off Tumblr? You obviously have no clue who I am, I couldn't tell you WTF Tumblr is.

You say "ban the left" and I'm the one trying to curate the discussion in my favor. You can't write this stuff folks.
 
@Cubo de Sangre I'd like some clarification on the rule about postings meant to be humorous. Now I have been carded twice recently (my only infractions in my seven or so years here how about that?) for admittedly poor attempts at humor so I think I've got a good handle on what is clearly out of bounds.

However, I think a humorous retort can often be a stronger rebuttal than a more serious reply. Could we say that as long as a post intended to be humorous is related to the subject matter and at least attempts to make a point it's allowed?

Of course I understand that if the joke ends with something like "so there you stupid cocksucker" it's over the line but I just wanted to be clear on that rule.

As far as the Presidential stickies go, if you're making a point that applies to the discussion and doing so with humor then that's cool. If you're making a tangential joke just to make it then that's probably not gonna be cool. There will be some gray area, but I think most of us can see the difference most of the time. Well...hopefully. :D

Just to be clear, this sticky will not abstain anyone from the normal rules/ guidelines of the WR. Cubo is given discretion in order to direct the discussion and use of the thread which will sometimes lead to deleted posts or reply bans, not to make it a WR rule free zone. For the specific example of your current infractions, that would still have been given even in this thread so please do not do it in this sticky or anywhere in the WR.
 
Just to be clear, this sticky will not abstain anyone from the normal rules/ guidelines of the WR. Cubo is given discretion in order to direct the discussion and use of the thread which will sometimes lead to deleted posts or reply bans, not to make it a WR rule free zone. For the specific example of your current infractions, that would still have been given even in this thread so please do not do it in this sticky or anywhere in the WR.
I thought I made it clear that I understand the nature of my infractions and the enforcement of the rules. I find it all a bit odd and arbitrary, but that doesn't mean I don't get it and I won't repeat.

@Final Rehab & @JamesRussler

Can we please try to keep it productive, gentlemen? There's the lounge thread for bickering. :)
My apologies.

LMAO how did I end up being the troublemaker?
 
Last edited:
Nice list. That's plenty to work with. Let's see if we can get something set up.




What I'm hearing is that you're already right about everything. :D

Seriously though, is there anything you're on the fence with? I waffle on the death penalty. But these days I like it in cases of murder. Maybe I've thought it through too much to actually change my mind. So a good topic might be one you have little exposure to?




Now we're talkin'!




As far as the Presidential stickies go, if you're making a point that applies to the discussion and doing so with humor then that's cool. If you're making a tangential joke just to make it then that's probably not gonna be cool. There will be some gray area, but I think most of us can see the difference most of the time. Well...hopefully. :D
Talking about waffling, I have mixed feelings about Israel. I read this article, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-emovement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate, and found it to be very informative, but it was just about all negative as far as Israel's actions are concerned. There was no rebuttal to suggest there was anything to justify about their behaviour. That seems a little too simplistic. At the same time, I can't disagree with the idea that Israel the political entity is a much different thing than the Jewish people but apparently the Israeli and American governments disagree, having adopted a definition of anti-semitism that includes any criticism of Israel,
Perhaps Israel’s most powerful tool in the campaign against delegitimisation has been to accuse the country’s critics of antisemitism. Doing so required changing official definitions of the term. This effort began during the final years of the second intifada, in 2003 and 2004, as pre-BDS calls to boycott and divest from Israel were gaining steam. At that time, a group of institutes and experts, including Dina Porat – a Tel Aviv University scholar who had a been a member of the Israeli foreign ministry’s delegation to the 2001 UN world conference against racism in Durban, South Africa – proposed creating a new definition of antisemitism that would equate criticisms of Israel with hatred of Jews.

These experts and institutions, working with the American Jewish Committee and other Israel advocacy groups, formulated a new “working definition” of antisemitism, including a list of examples, that was published in 2005 (and later discarded) by an EU body for combating racism. This working definition was adapted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and has been used, endorsed or recommended, with some small modifications, by a number of other organisations – including the US Department of State, which, since 2008, has defined antisemitism to include any of three categories of criticism of Israel, known as the “three Ds”: delegitimisation of Israel, demonisation of Israel and double standards for Israel. (More recently, the IHRA working definition has been at the centre of the antisemitism controversy in the Labour party, which adopted a modified version of the examples accompanying the definition.)

By the state department’s definition, delegitimisation includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. Thus anti-Zionism – including the view that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for Jews and non-Jews – is a form of delegitimisation and therefore antisemitic. According to this definition, virtually all Palestinians (and a large proportion of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, who oppose Zionism for religious reasons) are guilty of antisemitism because they want Jews and Palestinians to continue living in Palestine but not within a Jewish state. Kuperwasser, for one, stands by the charge: “Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same lady in a different cloak.”
I would be very interested in a discussion about everything in that very long article, truthfully, but I'll settle for more on this from people more in the know. The legislation being passed in the US to bar boycotts of Israel is clearly anti-free speech, but it seems to me there's a lot more to this that has not heretofore been discussed in the WR.
 
My apologies.

LMAO how did I end up being the troublemaker?

No worries. We're old dogs trying to learn a few new tricks here. :D


Talking about waffling, I have mixed feelings about Israel. I read this article, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/14/bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-emovement-transformed-israeli-palestinian-debate, and found it to be very informative, but it was just about all negative as far as Israel's actions are concerned. There was no rebuttal to suggest there was anything to justify about their behaviour. That seems a little too simplistic. At the same time, I can't disagree with the idea that Israel the political entity is a much different thing than the Jewish people but apparently the Israeli and American governments disagree, having adopted a definition of anti-semitism that includes any criticism of Israel,

I would be very interested in a discussion about everything in that very long article, truthfully, but I'll settle for more on this from people more in the know. The legislation being passed in the US to bar boycotts of Israel is clearly anti-free speech, but it seems to me there's a lot more to this that has not heretofore been discussed in the WR.

Are you saying you're interested in being someone who's open to have their mind changed on matters pertaining to Israel? If so, we should be able to set that up easily. Unlike a debate, we don't need a designated 2nd person. You state the topic and what evidence/factors you've considered that helped you arrive at your current stance. Then we all have a chance to sway you or even convince you your current stance is correct. If your current stance is truly undecided then both sides have the opportunity to sway you.
 
I'm actually doing the opposite by adding rules.


<13>

Exactly. I just don't want people thinking this becomes bare knuckles rules if it's proposed cause it doesn't work that way.
 
I thought I made it clear that I understand the nature of my infractions and the enforcement of the rules. I find it all a bit odd and arbitrary, but that doesn't mean I don't get it and I won't repeat.


My apologies.

LMAO how did I end up being the troublemaker?

Just making sure. I just didn't want you to get confused and repeat it thinking it was fair game.
 
@Final Rehab & @JamesRussler

Can we please try to keep it productive, gentlemen? There's the lounge thread for bickering. :)

I voted in your poll. I'd like to see some "change my mind" type of threads, but I'd prefer if they revolve around genuinely controversial issues. Stuff that people get angry about. Stuff that pushes the boundaries, maybe makes weak people uncomfortable. You know what I mean? Push that Overton window open a few inches wider...

If it's just the usual sanitized Reddit-tier discussion, with the usual selection of acceptable / allowable opinions (i.e., the majority of threads here), I don't really have any use for that.
 
Just to be clear, this sticky will not abstain anyone from the normal rules/ guidelines of the WR. Cubo is given discretion in order to direct the discussion and use of the thread which will sometimes lead to deleted posts or reply bans, not to make it a WR rule free zone. For the specific example of your current infractions, that would still have been given even in this thread so please do not do it in this sticky or anywhere in the WR.
Does @Cubo de Sangre have these powers only in his sticky threads or throughout the WR?
 
I voted in your poll. I'd like to see some "change my mind" type of threads, but I'd prefer if they revolve around genuinely controversial issues. Stuff that people get angry about. Stuff that pushes the boundaries, maybe makes weak people uncomfortable. You know what I mean? Push that Overton window open a few inches wider...

If it's just the usual sanitized Reddit-tier discussion, with the usual selection of acceptable / allowable opinions (i.e., the majority of threads here), I don't really have any use for that.

I know. I appreciate your input.

I agree that controversial topics that get people all worked up are best. If @Hunter Simpson does one on Israel that should fit the bill. Everything about Israel and Jewish folks turns into an uncomfortable discussion. :eek:

It's not opinions I'm looking to squelch. It's the manner in which they are expressed that concerns me.


Erased to avoid a <Deported1>. Damn @Cubo de Sangre you got me looking over my shoulder already. <6>


lol.


barris.png
 
I know. I appreciate your input.

I agree that controversial topics that get people all worked up are best. If @Hunter Simpson does one on Israel that should fit the bill. Everything about Israel and Jewish folks turns into an uncomfortable discussion. :eek:

It's not opinions I'm looking to squelch. It's the manner in which they are expressed that concerns me.





lol.


barris.png
Yeah, sounds good. I'll send you a PM tomorrow with something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top