Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Liberal Double Standards Week at Legal Insurrection

Liberal Double Standards Week at Legal Insurrection

All the news you may have missed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTfvx4XvtO4#action=share

The events of the last week proved once and for all that there are two sets of rules. Roseanne is cancelled.

But these women still have their shows…

This is what winning looks like.

This is what losing looks like.

OOPS!

World news.

Branco cartoons!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Please its not a double standard. These people have no standards. They will stop at nothing to win

    practicalconservative in reply to dystopia. | June 3, 2018 at 9:32 am

    Outrage (selective that it is) is a merely a blunt cudgel of the left. The word conversation: means: “shut up and do what I tell you.”

      That’s only true to some extent. Various conservatives have converted various Collectivists to at least open-mindedness.

      Close-mindedness is also a thing among rightists.

        “Close-mindedness is also a thing among rightists.”

        Just ask them how to make Prohibition work. “Double government spending on it”

        Or “Kill” – the universal leftist answer when things aren’t working.

    Whitewall in reply to dystopia. | June 3, 2018 at 10:42 am

    Exactly! Attack using anything at hand no matter how absurd. We on the right will congratulate ourselves for pointing out liberal double standards and it makes no difference. Soon, double standards become normal among the public. The advertisers for many of these shows are in agreement with the liberal offenders.

On the subject of double standards, an LI editor has been busy pulling down various posts of mine the last few days.

No explanation, no email, just bald, blunt force censorship.

I remember this site being for free speech.

    Kemberlee Kaye in reply to Ragspierre. | June 3, 2018 at 10:27 am

    You received an email about this. Comments that personally attack other commenters or call commenters names will be removed. There is nothing nefarious or underhanded happening here.

      Ragspierre in reply to Kemberlee Kaye. | June 3, 2018 at 10:58 am

      I asked a series of civil, if hard, questions.

      Why did you censor them? Again.

        Kemberlee Kaye in reply to Ragspierre. | June 3, 2018 at 11:06 am

        Because somewhere in those questions you also insulted other readers by calling them names. If you’d like me to send you examples of the comments that were removed, please email me and I’ll gladly do so.

          Ragspierre in reply to Kemberlee Kaye. | June 3, 2018 at 11:10 am

          No, I did not. Read my post again more carefully. I was quoting other posts as examples to illustrate my confusion.

          Rags, if you believe you are being unfairly moderated, take your complaint to private email. Don’t hijack another thread in an attempt to publicly shame tbe staff.

          You take too much for granted. Any other site would have punished you for publicly challenging their ruling, anywhere from removing this chain of posts also to outright banning.

          I went through Professor Jacobson”s wiki profile last night – I hadn’t realized what a big deal he is. This site is not Althouse, and so I’m even a little emarassed now at some of the juvenile posts *I* have made here over the years. It’s like he’s holding a legal seminar with a handful of 5 year olds running rampant through the aisle. I doubt he appreciates that.

          I’m semi-retired now. I have moderator experience. It would be a simple thing for me to volunteer to moderate this site 24/7 for free. You wouldn’t last a week, nor would your alt-accounts.

          So take it to private email. And maybe thank Fuzzy (and the Prof) for being so patient.

          Ragspierre in reply to Kemberlee Kaye. | June 4, 2018 at 8:04 am

          So, to be clear, when Fen lies about me having “alt-accounts” I cannot identify that as a lie? Which you know it is?

          Still trying to understand all this “moderaion” stuff…

          Ragspierre in reply to Kemberlee Kaye. | June 4, 2018 at 8:17 am

          Since someone took down another of my posts, I’d sure appreciate SOME email explication as to WHY. The confusion here is deepening, and not being dispelled by a long shot.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Kemberlee Kaye. | June 3, 2018 at 12:03 pm

      Um, I can think of at least a half dozen posts personally attacking me in just the past week or two. As for me, I could care less about them, but if it’s all of a sudden the LI plan to remove such posts, it will look very bad if it isn’t consistently applied.

        At least one of those posts you attacked me first, unprovoked. I still remember it because I was stunned you would make such a vitriolic attack out of nowhere and couldn’t understand why. I wasn’t even talking to you or about you.

        So, be carefull ahout righteously calling for Justice, she’s blind not stupid.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 3:39 pm

          That’s my whole point, you bull’s-pizzle, stock-fish poltroon. I get attacked. I make attacks. You get attacked. You make attacks. You regularly attack Rags in threads he’s not even posted in. So what? Half the commenters here have make personal attacks, many on a regular basis, being their go to manner of ‘discussion’ and ‘debate’. This place is rife with ugliness and personal attacks on a daily basis, with many commenters openly complaining about it.

          All I’m saying is that if the stated reason for censoring Rags’ posts is because of personal attacks then what about the other six million personal attacks made by dozens of different commenters? Why is only one commenter being selected out of such a large pool, with myself included, for post removals, when you, me, and so any others have made personal attacks?

          This is not about Rags per se in my concern. I’d be saying the same if they’d singled you out, or that Anchovy guy, or whomever, excepting obvious trolls, of course.

          I’ve got no problem with LI removing posts or banning commenters. I consider frequenting here as if I were visiting WAJ’s home. His house, his rules, as expressed thru the various LI writers/editors. But to state they are removing personal attack posts – but then only do it with one commenter does not look good, not good at all. The reason doesn’t match the action.

          LI’s comment section has always been governed with a very, very light hand, a decision with which I fully agree. Since 2011 I can only remember one, maybe two bannings, and maybe 4-5 times when the Professor stepped in asked someone to cool it.

          I’ve owned a website that had a huge comment section and it was wild and woolly 24/7. Moderating is no easy task, or I should say, deciding how one will moderate, where the lines will be drawn, is the battle. Dealing with humans tends to hold little that is black and white and almost all is a shade of gray, and only the most egregiously foul behavior makes for an easy decision. There aren’t a lot of viable choices for how to handle moderation. Because of gray zones and situational judgments, it basically boils down to you either take a heavy hand – and we’ve many nice and friendly posters here who report they’ve been banned for next to nothing at other sites – or you go light, even knowing it’ll turn into the Wild Wild West.

          No, I’m not complaining about a blog I’ve been reading and posting on since 2011. I’m voicing a concern about a place I love and don’t want to see go south in any of its many functions and services.

          Henry, what makes you think that Rags is the only one whose comments containing personal attacks and name-calling are being removed or that he’s the only one who received an email in recent days? He’s the only one complaining about it publicly, but that doesn’t mean anything at all.

          Yes, I see your first sentence and recognize it as being tongue-in-cheek and as a starting point for your point . . . your point, however, is based on limited information from one commenter and is not the full picture.

          In short, calm down. No one is singling anyone out.

          If you want to test it, go ahead and launch a genuine personal attack with unhilarious name-calling. It’ll be gone as soon as it’s spotted.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 5:15 pm

          Henry: “That’s my whole point. I get attacked. I make attacks”

          Except that’s not what happened. I didn’t attack you. And you attacked me anyway. I’m still not clear why.

          All I’m saying is don’t call on Odin to invoke the lightning when you’re standing in a puddle holding a metal rod. It’s hypocritical.

          If OTOH, you admit (I as have) that you may have crossed the line a few times but still would prefer stronger moderation, that’s a different “bull’s-pizzle, stock-fish” as you call it.

          Just don’t pretend to be one of the victims in the same week you bully me unprovoked.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 5:21 pm

          Milhouse: “what about the other six million personal attacks”

          That doesn’t follow, it’s inconsistent. You’ve explained several times over your opinion that trade wars are horrible for both sides. If so, then you should already know how Troll Wars always play out. They ruin the site and 3 months later no one remembers who “won” nor do they care.

          Think of it as Prime Minister Kememberlee imposing a Troll Tarrif on product Rags, and President Millhouse declining to respond in kind.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 5:24 pm

          Correction, Henry. I confused you with Milhouse. Maybe because you are becoming synonymous in my mind. Not a good look for you.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm

          Fen, you’ve attacked me many times. You tell other posters to ignore me, because yada yada yada. Jeebus.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 5:52 pm

          To Fuzzy – Emails have been sent, but if other recipients are like me, they did not get or see the email until long after the removal of posts of one commenter. What am I supposed to think?

          What constitutes a personal attack? You got pretty personal in your dust-up with Rags the other day. Just saying… not a mind reader here. Talk to us. Why must communication be done by email? Was every single commenter emailed?

          And as for email with LI, this is a minor thing to me, but the email deal here has gone one way. The last 3-4 emails I’ve sent to [email protected] have gone ignored, unanswered. I don’t email much, maybe 10? emails to LI since 2011, but the most recent one was just several days ago. Used to get thank you emails for donations, too. Not any more.

          Harrumph!

          Henry, I’ve already told you that the posts of more than one commenter were removed. Repeating that it’s only one commenter doesn’t change the fact that it is more than one. The commenters who are involved are aware of what is happening, and they are doing as they’ve been asked without causing even more turmoil and disruption. Had everyone done so, you wouldn’t need to concern yourself with it at all, and we’d all be happily enjoying lively debates, fun banter, and thoughtful discussions. But it didn’t work out that way.

          The bottom line: No personal attacks and no name-calling in comments. It’s not hard. And we’re not going to play: “hey, what if I call you ‘Lovely Lady’? Or ‘Green Eyes’? Is that name-calling?” You keep talking about six million comments predating this decision to attempt to tone down comments without resorting to banning anyone, but it’s just not relevant. This isn’t retroactive (i.e. we aren’t going back through every comment on this blog and weeding them out); it’s as we move forward, think of it as starting now.

          There really is no need to keep going over this; it is what it is. No personal attacks and no name-calling moving forward. The end.

          As to your emails to the prof: I’m sure you are aware that the prof has important family things going on at this time; he’s blogged about it to keep readers updated. This might mean that he’s not answering every email. You know the prof values LI readers a great deal, so a little patience and understanding in this regard would be greatly appreciated. As a related aside: I was forwarded your email to me a few days ago, and thank you for it. I didn’t respond because I didn’t really have anything to add in that I agreed with your assessment (the one in the email, that is). I certainly didn’t intend to have you think that I was ignoring you or anything, so perhaps I should have responded. My bad.

          Barry in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 6:58 pm

          “…until long after the removal of posts of one commenter. What am I supposed to think? ”

          First of all, Henry, Rags posts were not the only ones removed. I had posts removed. I did not complain. I believe there were others removed.

          I received an email from Kemberlee, very nicely written, to which I responded. And she returned that email.

          So, what are you supposed to think? How about knowing the facts prior to commenting. It might help.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 8:33 pm

          To Fuzzy – I swear I’m gonna flounce! I’ll do it! I’m just that crazy! I mean, a big flaming messy flounce, the kind y’all will be laughing at and showing others for years!

          At the point of time when I expressed concern in that first post about what appeared to be highly surgical censoring – one commenter – I had not received any explanatory email. That came much later. That is the place I was at the time and I don’t know how else I was supposed to think. You and others at LI knew emails had gone out. Others who had received them knew, obviously. I did not, nor was there any reason to expect an email from LI. Inded, I have reason to not expect any emails from LI, lol. Of course, it will be no secret to anyone that many folks can’t or don’t open their emails immediately upon receipt, while many do, of course.

          Here’s a suggestion, and it’s one that’s really hard to not sound sarcastic, but I swear this is sincere….

          In the case where LI staff are about to initiate an action that constitutes a major change or is likely to be considered controversial or concerning by a number of readers/commenters, and especially when LI staff have prepared explanation for that action, it is best to present the explanation before taking the action, which, I realize, y’all attempted to do, and perhaps assumed everyone immediately opens email on receipt. It might have been better to send out the emails, wait a day or three so that it is reasonable to assume all received and read it, and then commence with the action. I would also suggest it would have been better to post an article explaining the new action, mentioning that certain commenters have received emails on the subject.

          BTW, I recently learned that ‘Fuzzy Slippers’ is a damn pseudonym. !!!. So, what’s your real name, huh? Natasha? Katerina? SERGEI? You one of them Ruyssian colluders, arncha?

          BUSTED.

          Henry, I don’t follow you on this. Rags explicitly stated he received no email, so it’s not a huge leap to imagine that he checked his email before writing that. You jumped to conclusions based on what Rags said, and this has been painstakingly explained to you by myself and others (thanks Barry!).

          There was and is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. The majority of LI’s commenters aren’t affected by this at all, so what would be the point of some big, dramatic announcement? That’s a rhetorical question because this was handled in exactly the correct way given that we aren’t talking about anything earth shattering here or even, at the end of the day, all that interesting. Let’s just move on, shall we?

          Fen in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 10:24 pm

          Fuzzy & Kemberlee,

          Is this a bad time to mention that I haven’t had access to the Comcast email associated with this profile for several uhm.. years.

          I’m only bringing it up so you know not to bother emailing me explanations. If I get deleted or banned I’ll just assume I crossed a line and had it coming.

          Heh, just update your email address as Barry noted. And after you do that, sign up for Morning Insurrection on our main page; it’s fantastic!

          Barry in reply to Fen. | June 4, 2018 at 12:46 am

          Fen
          Edit your profile with a current email address.
          On the right, where it shows you as “Logged in as”, you will see a link “Site Admin”. Click it.

          On your left you will see a label “Profile”, click it.

          You can now update your email address.

          Click “Update Profile” at the bottom (scroll down to see it)

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | June 4, 2018 at 12:22 pm

          No prob, Fuzzy. You know I like you and that’s because, at base, of your eminent humanity and niceness. Your sense of humor and willingness to jump into the commenter swamp are just bonuses.

          Let me take a minute to say I’ve decided to leave the LI comment section. It has little to do with anything except one thing – I don’t comment on moderated forums, never have. I post regularly on three conservative sites, all three of which do not moderate except in rare and obvious cases. Now it’s down to two. I will continue to read LI daily and I’ll continue my monthly donation pledge, but I’ll leave the comment section and won’t be lurking there, just the articles.

          I found LI in 2011 when things were amping up for the 2012 cycle and with so many conservatives desperate to oust Obama. (Mitt Romney. THANKS GOPe). I’d followed a link to LI, read my first article by WAJ, was pleasingly gobsmacked by his writing style, so clear and concise and always on point, and added it to my favorites list. Back then WAJ did almost all the writing, while the comment section was a bit intimidating for a newbie because of the quality of discussion and debate, although there was a certain level of fighting as well. LI’s success was my loss in that WAJ, being a family man who already had a full time job, had to farm out more and more of the articles to others. WAJ’s writing sets a very high bar, and although many of the contributors were and are very good writers, over all the quality could not help but dip a little. Whenever the subject has come up I’ve posted that I appreciated and agreed with WAJ’s policy of using a very light hand when it came to monitoring the comment section. That is a prerequisite for me. Since posting on three sites has seemed to be one too many for me at times, and since LI has decided to moderate, down to two I go. I swear to you it is nothing personal and I hope it goes well for y’all. I’ve already posted any cautions I have about the difficulty of successful moderation.

          Heh. I really was going to conjure up a fake hateful ‘flounce’ post, remembering fondly a few years ago when you (I think it was you) engaged a particularly nasty commenter lady, a name-dropping, self-adoring, holier-than-God piece of work who’d managed to piss all sides off. Her flounce post was pure schadenfreudal hilarity. Alas, the main ingredient to a flounce is that the flouncer be a thoroughly irritating poster hated by all, which, despite my flaws, I am not. It wouldn’t have worked.

          So, have a ball, y’all, and thanks for the fish!

        Anonamom in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 4, 2018 at 11:03 am

        Mr. Hawkins: Respectfully, you were gone for quite a while. The tenor of things may have shifted quite a bit during that time. In my opinion, it is pretty clear who is primarily responsible for the degradation of the comments section of this blog. Unfortunately, again in my opinion, because his was the opinion initially shared by the majority of the blog’s authors, his baiting and name-calling was tolerated while those (with contrary opinions) who retaliated were temporarily banned. It seems to me that this just fueled the fire, and the baiting, name-calling, and vulgarity is CONSTANT and spreading. I think that point of this is to focus on the source of the problem, and personally I am glad to see it is being done. (Although I agree with Fen on this; I am at a loss as to why this was introduced here.)

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Anonamom. | June 4, 2018 at 11:46 am

          I was gone for six months after the death of my wife, Mom. During that time I lurked but did not comment. Both LI’s articles and comment section have been in constant flux since I joined in 2011. It’s ostensibly a law blog, but more accurately it’s a political blog with emphasis on legal issues. Since politics is always in constant flux, such flux is the norm for any blog or website paying attention, which LI certainly does.

          My only objection is to your sense that animosities in the comment section derive primarily from one commenter. You’re a mom – ever tell your squabbling kids it takes two to tango? My point being that trolling and ugliness in comment sections cannot survive without constant feeding amd watering, often by the very commenters who profess to object to it. It takes two. To your great credit, you don’t feed and water any of it. I wish I knew you and hubby in real life.

          Anonamom in reply to Anonamom. | June 4, 2018 at 12:35 pm

          “You’re a mom – ever tell your squabbling kids it takes two to tango? My point being that trolling and ugliness in comment sections cannot survive without constant feeding amd watering, often by the very commenters who profess to object to it. It takes two.”

          I absolutely agree with you, Mr. Hawkins. Unfortunately, only one of the little darlings was disciplined initially. And, is often the case with spoiled children, he became a monster. There are also certain personalities, however, who are instigators. And sometimes they get their bottoms smacked separately for instigating. (And I am a whole-hearted fan of well-targeted bottom-smacking. 😉 )

          I understand your point about not commenting on moderated blogs, I only wish I knew of a way for a quality blog to prevent a few ill-mannered children from causing the whole thing to descend into…well, childishness. Sadly, I think we are simply becoming a very coarse society and only behave decently when there is a policeman watching, so to speak.

          I am truly sorry to see you go. I enjoy your comments and your wit. Again, my deepest condolences on the loss of your wife and my best wishes for you in the future. –Mom 🙂

          Barry in reply to Anonamom. | June 4, 2018 at 1:01 pm

          Henry,
          I’m truly sorry to hear about your loss. I knew you were missing-in-action for awhile, but that happens on blogs, people come and go.

          It would be a loss to the LI blog to lose you as a commenter so I hope you’ll reconsider.

          Best wishes either way.

          Fen in reply to Anonamom. | June 4, 2018 at 1:23 pm

          Henry,

          If you enjoy good writing and analysis, add Pointman to your list:
          https://thepointman.wordpress.com

          As for moderation, it’s very light here, just the basics, much like AceofSpades: Play nice, don’t run with scissors, don’t pull ettes hair.

          As for Trolls, the “two to tango” is a common misconception. The bully picks and picks and picks on the kid and their teacher ignores it until the kid punches back (one of the reasons Trump won).

          I’ve been posting since Usenet, and I’ve yet to see “don’t feed the troll” ever work. Asking 30+ people to maintain discipline instead of kicking the Troll out? They try for a week and some new guy walks in who didn’t get the memo and all hell breaks lose again.

          Unfortunately, the only way to stop the madness is to escalate it to a head. Once people know their are basic rules of decency and those rules will be enforced, they stop counter-trolling and let staff deal with the perp.

          Like with you. I don’t want to go 10 rounds with you everyday, I just wanted you to see that if you poke I will bite so that you are more civil and respectful in the future. Let’s agree to be polite to the other and move on.

    Relax Ragspierre, I’m sure you’ll replace those pulled down posts with a fresh new batch of “Rags Rants”!

    One thing you are is…prolific…

    By the way…”Blunt Force Censorship” would be a good name for a hardcore band…

      Henry Hawkins in reply to tgrondo. | June 3, 2018 at 3:43 pm

      LOL. I occasionally play steel guitar with a bluegrass band called Blunt Farce Trauma.

      Ragspierre in reply to tgrondo. | June 4, 2018 at 6:37 am

      I regard that as an egregious, unprovoked personal attack.

      You’ll address me as Ragspierre, or not at all. Not at all would be wise.

        Hey…I addressed you as Ragspierre in the first part of my post, Ragspierre…

        But “Rags Rants” has a zippy kind of ring to it….
        In fact…it’s a Brand that could take you Straight to the Top!
        Usually, I charge for my genius ideas…but I’m giving you the rights to “Rags Rants” for free!!! (cause I like ya)

        I predict this could make you a big time reality TV star…
        (You’re Welcome)

          Ragspierre in reply to tgrondo. | June 4, 2018 at 8:40 am

          Well, what’s funny is that, if anything, my posts are too abbreviated.

          I burst type (accounting for typos) short posts that you have to have some logical ability to follow, and leave some readers behind as a result.

          It’s a critique I admit is true. But the idea that I “rant” is simply false. There are some ranters here. But I rarely post anything that’s longer than a few lines, and when I do, to typify them as “rants” is just cheap falsehood.

          But it’s what you’ve got.

          Ragspierre, Why do you think the term “Rants” has a negative connotation?
          I certainly don’t mean it that way…(no offense meant)

          I always post in the spirit of fun. Obnoxious, snarky, sarcastic? Yes….but I’m not making fun.

          I think a rant can be short and to the point…besides, people have such short attention spans now-days 🙂

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2018 at 6:29 am

    Some air-clearing in demanded. I’ve been off-line due to a series of voltage transients that caused my computer to shut down (I have a UPS that doesn’t seem to be working, so I’m pretty defensive about my main computer).

    First, I did get Kemberlee’s nice email a few days back, generally chiding me and everyone else it was sent to to cut down on the rhetoric.

    I didn’t get any email since regarding any of my posts. That would have been helpful.

    As a result of Kemberliee’s email, on the thread (mostly) in question, I let a lot of personal attacks go completely unanswered. I haven’t been back to check, and some of them may have been removed.

    I don’t generally email anyone at LI except to report a problem, such as “comments” being disabled and the like.

    Since posting the above comment, I’ve been in contact with Kemberlee via email, and I’m satisfied with her response.

    I’ll go further and issue a general apology to LI and to SOME of the posters here. Full stop.

    I love word-play, BUT I’ll drop some of my nicknames for Barry and Fuzzy and others. Others will henceforth only address me as Ragspierre. We’ll see how that works out.

    To Fen: I’ve never hijacked any thread on LI. You have.

    I’ll try and see how all this “moderation” works out. It will be an interesting test.

Rosanne nailed the coffin shut on the idea that the left cares about money. She is a money making machine literally turn the crank and hundreds of millions if not billions pump out. She provides a solid lead-in for shows following her. They could have dominated for a decade. Same with the Mouse and Star Wars you’d have to literally spit in the face of the audience and tell them you’re doing it before they’d give up on the franchise. But that’s exactly what they are doing. Corporate America is at the saturation point for liberal convergence.

What’s good for the Barr is good for the Bee…

https://goo.gl/GCYc68

Samantha Bee is feckled.

Roseanne did her crass comment on her own time and by herself.
Samantha had a team of writers, editors, director, and producer who all approved of her crass comments while on air. The CEO of TBS owes the public an apology for having the entire staff supporting such a tasteless broadcast.

Whitewail: “We on the right will congratulate ourselves for pointing out liberal double standards and it makes no difference. Soon, double standards become normal among the public.”

Agreed. I often have the same complaint – we’re often just fighting a holding action or orderly retreat, and then congratulating ourselves that we kept it from turning into a route.

OTOH, I remember “ignoring the iceberg” during last election season, full of despair. There was so much bad happening on the ice surface that I forgot to take in everything going on underwater. Everyday folk weren’t ignoring the culture attacks, they just had other interests during each particular moment of defeat. But when it came time, they turned out to the polls. And gave the biggest political upset in our history.

Not that I think we should stop pushing and fighting. Just that we should respond to the other side’s “war crimes” with war crimes of our own. Because alot more normals than we thought are paying attention and will remember who was wearing the White Hats

    Fen in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 2:14 pm

    Edit – Just that we should NOT respond to the other side’s “war crimes” with war crimes of our own

    Sorry, trying decaf for fisrt time. (throws mug in trash)

    Whitewall in reply to Fen. | June 3, 2018 at 3:43 pm

    Good points all. This ‘cold civil war’ we are in is also a matter of spheres: to the Left, the only sphere is political and all other matters fall within. To the Right, politics is but one sphere with other matters such as work and family, church, etc being separate spheres.

    PS…avoid decaf like the plague!!

Rout not route.

Henry: “Fen, you’ve attacked me many times.”

When? Can you provide examples?

Because all I remember is your unprovoked personal attack about Fentynal or some such.

Joy Reid – Those old blog posts were the work of hackers!
Joy Reid – Uh, I don’t remember writing those posts, if I wrote them. Which I didn’t!
Joy Reid – I’m sorry for those blog posts.
MSNBC – Well, that’s good enough for us, how about you guys?

OK, so far not working out at all.

Very strange, subjective “moderation” in my test.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2018 at 11:54 am

    Hesitate to blame the moderators. It is a difficult job because so much is gray zone, very little black and white, sarcasm doesn’t always translate to print well, a post with humorous intent can be misread, etc., etc. Where there are multiple moderators, it happens often that moderators use differing standards, confusing commenters. Since the ‘police’ and the ‘bad guys’ (or bad posts) are all human, mistakes will be made, which often causes more upset, and on it goes. I’m certain many commenters have seen the dynamic play out at other sites. I know I have.

    Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    You can’t let yourself get wrapped around the axle over each moderation, the frequency and precision. Mods are human, not perfect, and this is a chore for them.

    Think of it like an NFL games. The refs always make bad calls, some in your favor some against. The coaches roll with and save their powder for the most egregious.

    I’ve been on sites where every mod ruling gets picked to death. Invariably, they throw up their hands and day “we have better things to do. From here on out – cross a lune, banned. Complain in public, banned. We are no longer running a KinderCare”.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend