My time here has come to an end (1 Viewer)

[BoltNlava]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

Just use the blue liquid . NOT the red. It's all we are asking.

 

[General Malaise]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

See you in the Bears' thread.

 

[General Malaise]

2. I think the main reason things have been better with the closing of the PSF is that the bad actors that were constantly stirring things up packed up and left. I think they were given way too big a leash when it was clear to almost everyone who was doing what, especially when it spilled over here. We still get it occasionally but not nearly as often. And for some reason, those bad actors would skate the line and not get the consequences they should have.

I think this is spot on, and on the bolded there's a certain type of person that is absolutely masterful at staying just inside the lines of any sort of written rule, and they are really difficult for any fair-minded, rules-oriented individuals to deal with. People can see what they're doing, but everything has plausible deniability, and any particular infraction will be rules-lawyered to death, accompanied by all sorts of arguably similar statements from good-faith posters being drug out and used to create a morass of back and forth. I've actually seen a board try to deal with this problem by just giving one dude they trusted non-vetoable banishment power to get rid of this small group that brings outsized trouble. It's a tough problem for sure.

Yes. Some things are easy. But after a while, those are rare.

In most cases, it was people who knew just how far they could push. And always have able to do the "Who Me?" . When most everyone knew what they meant.

I'm pretty good at seeing it, unfortunately, because I'm good at doing it myself.

But it's a difficult task to moderate.

That's why the "just don't be uncivil" is a lot easier to say than it is to enforce in reality.

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

I think things are just more widely publicized now. And we had some period of time where both sides seemed to have to lean center to get elected. Now not so much. The more things skew towards the fringes, the more stark the differences of opinion are going to get imo.

There's always been animosity between opposing ideologies, though. Nothing new there. Even within parties...

"An open letter to the fat, arrogant, anti-charismatic national embarrassment known as President John Adams..."

I mean....it's why we're not the United States of England.

 

[The Gator]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

See you in the Bears' thread.

Jinx?

 

[JohnnyU]

I thought this was I'm dying thread.

 

[FairWarning]

2. I think the main reason things have been better with the closing of the PSF is that the bad actors that were constantly stirring things up packed up and left. I think they were given way too big a leash when it was clear to almost everyone who was doing what, especially when it spilled over here. We still get it occasionally but not nearly as often. And for some reason, those bad actors would skate the line and not get the consequences they should have.

I think this is spot on, and on the bolded there's a certain type of person that is absolutely masterful at staying just inside the lines of any sort of written rule, and they are really difficult for any fair-minded, rules-oriented individuals to deal with. People can see what they're doing, but everything has plausible deniability, and any particular infraction will be rules-lawyered to death, accompanied by all sorts of arguably similar statements from good-faith posters being drug out and used to create a morass of back and forth. I've actually seen a board try to deal with this problem by just giving one dude they trusted non-vetoable banishment power to get rid of this small group that brings outsized trouble. It's a tough problem for sure.

Yes. Some things are easy. But after a while, those are rare.

In most cases, it was people who knew just how far they could push. And always have able to do the "Who Me?" . When most everyone knew what they meant.

I'm pretty good at seeing it, unfortunately, because I'm good at doing it myself.

But it's a difficult task to moderate.

That's why the "just don't be uncivil" is a lot easier to say than it is to enforce in reality.

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Agree, it seems like it’s in everything now. It must be a “win”. It’s not just political talk either. There is trash talk, but there are far more personal put-downs .

 

[Doug B]

I think the “being cool” with each other part is what should be moderated. I avoided the political threads not because of the actual point of views and content—but because a lot of it resulted in name calling, clowning people for having different points of views..etc. That’s just my two cents—I would prefer that topics don’t be moderated—but that bad attitudes and bad behavior that doesn’t invite peopel to participate in the forums should be moderated. In any case—Thank you.

but they come down like a ton of bricks on uncivil language.

Sure. We do a ton of that here. That's the majority of our moderation.

Yes, but here the response is more commonly to cull threads, rather than cull posters. In the other places I was thinking of, threads don't get locked or removed very often.

That said, I saw your comment about lack of manpower. The other places do have a lot of volunteer moderation.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Only thing I miss are threads about major news events that can tilt political. I thought the politics forum was a clown show but I did like having an occasional thread if something major was happening. Like the upcoming November election. It will be like it’s not even happening around here. Would be nice to chat about the votes coming in that night.

And yoga pants... don't forget the yoga pants.

I'm actually surprised that yoga still makes it past the language filter.

 

[rockaction]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Whoa. I know people are chiming in saying it's always been bad, but I worked in D.C. at a political think tank from '97-'01 and I can tell you that I've never seen this level of dysfunction or anger in my lifetime. The legislative branch is so full of political fighting between the parties and even at an intra-party level that absolutely nothing is getting done that normally would be. They're using and abusing arcane parliamentary rules to achieve substantive ends that are often crazy and out-of-touch with even the already out-of-touch representatives.

The national discourse is framed in hostility and incorporates words that implicate violence into the political language constantly. It rewards untruths, forces upon us an Overton window that is beyond the pale, and sanctions outright misrepresentations and falsehoods on the regular.

It's so much worse than twenty years ago that I could barely begin to describe it.

So I hate to be contradictory to everyone that's chimed in, but I'm not nearly as sanguine that we will even come through this without remarkable change to our institutions and structures, and I think it's for the worse. I'm surprised there's not a consensus on this, but I know people don't pay attention to politics and hate it anyway, so maybe I'm not that surprised that some think this is a normal atmosphere. It's not.

 

[Gr00vus]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Whoa. I know people are chiming in saying it's always been bad, but I worked in D.C. at a political think tank from '97-'01 and I can tell you that I've never seen this level of dysfunction or anger in my lifetime. The legislative branch is so full of political fighting between the parties and even at an intra-party level that absolutely nothing is getting done that normally would be. They're using and abusing arcane parliamentary rules to achieve substantive ends that are often crazy and out-of-touch with even the already out-of-touch representatives.

The national discourse is framed in hostility, incorporates words that implicate violence into the political language constantly, and rewards untruths, an Overton window that is beyond the pale, and rewards outright misrepresentations and falsehoods on the regular.

It's so much worse than twenty years ago that I could barely begin to describe it.

So I hate to be contradictory to everyone that's chimed in, but I'm not nearly as sanguine that we will even come through this without remarkable change to our institutions and structures, and I think it's for the worse. I'm surprised there's not a consensus on this, but I know people don't pay attention to politics and hate it anyway, so maybe I'm not that surprised that some think this is a normal atmosphere. It's not.

I think things really started a sharp downward trend in the 90's somewhere, during Clinton's Presidency. Probably linked to the proliferation of 24 hour news as entertainment and the influence that opened up to people who had interest in manipulating constituencies for power and profit. Things just got worse from there with increased internet access, mobile phone adoption, and the platforms built on top - so many ways to keep people agitated, fragmented and distracted from what really matters.

 

[UncleZen]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Whoa. I know people are chiming in saying it's always been bad, but I worked in D.C. at a political think tank from '97-'01 and I can tell you that I've never seen this level of dysfunction or anger in my lifetime. The legislative branch is so full of political fighting between the parties and even at an intra-party level that absolutely nothing is getting done that normally would be. They're using and abusing arcane parliamentary rules to achieve substantive ends that are often crazy and out-of-touch with even the already out-of-touch representatives.

The national discourse is framed in hostility, incorporates words that implicate violence into the political language constantly, and rewards untruths, an Overton window that is beyond the pale, and rewards outright misrepresentations and falsehoods on the regular.

It's so much worse than twenty years ago that I could barely begin to describe it.

So I hate to be contradictory to everyone that's chimed in, but I'm not nearly as sanguine that we will even come through this without remarkable change to our institutions and structures, and I think it's for the worse. I'm surprised there's not a consensus on this, but I know people don't pay attention to politics and hate it anyway, so maybe I'm not that surprised that some think this is a normal atmosphere. It's not.

I think things really started a sharp downward trend in the 90's somewhere, during Clinton's Presidency. Probably linked to the proliferation of 24 hour news as entertainment and the influence that opened up to people who had interest in manipulating constituencies for power and profit. Things just got worse from there with increased internet access, mobile phone adoption, and the platforms built on top - so many ways to keep people agitated, fragmented and distracted from what really matters.

I completely agree. To me, it all started with Clinton's and his dingaling. It drove the red guys crazy that nothing stuck to him so it got worse and worse. Then when Bush got into office, it was time for payback. From there, it just got worse every presidency since. It honestly drives me crazy to the point, I don't typically discuss politics with anyone anymore, regardless of what side they lean towards.

 

[rockaction]

I think things really started a sharp downward trend in the 90's somewhere, during Clinton's Presidency.

I think you're right that those years are when the uneasy feeling came into the country's consciousness, and there was a term coined to describe the seemingly new atmosphere—but that will lead to a political discussion we can't have, because it was a top-down coinage and assessment, and I'm not sure how much of that uneasy feeling you got wasn't the product of a cynically manufactured political maneuvering by a certain faction of the political class.

So what I'm saying is limited to this: I'm comparing what I knew intimately back then with what is going on today. I would incorporate American history and use that to inform the conclusion that I just drew, but I'm not an expert regarding American domestic tensions since our founding, and I can't provide an objective analysis. The scope is too broad and my knowledge limited. Therefore, I'm limiting my conclusion to my own personal, subjective experience from the particular time period I was intimately aware of what was going on to what I see going on now. It's a fallible, subjective statement I'm making, and everyone's mileage may vary on the conclusion I've reached.

I'm just pretty damn sure it's a whole metric ton worse.

eta* And as I suspected, even your mentioning Clinton has brought about a political discussion that immediately draws on typical partisan assessments that are arguable to the nth, so I'll leave all of this alone now.

 

[Ilov80s]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[DocHolliday]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

See you in the Bears' thread.

The Bears are going to have an interesting offseason. It would have been fun to read Flaps views, both the positive and negative.

 

[rockaction]

I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Holy cow. Indeed. I watch old footage from back then and think about the viscerally felt opinions and demonstrable activity that was a result of the split and fracturing that happened to the ideological underpinnings of America during the later '60s. I think often about the tumult from that period, and regardless of what side or offshoot's philosophy one is on or prefers, I'm amazed everybody isn't dead. I reassured my brother back around 2017-18 one night at dinner with stories about the '60s and the first Federalist/Anti-Federalist transfer of power when everybody looked at a young nation with really hopeful and uncertain eyes.

Perhaps we will make it through and be a beacon of light again like we were in 1800 and then again after the '60s. That would bring me joy.

 

[rockaction]

I'd just like to also say that flap is a funny dude and should hop right back in should he ever feel the desire. Him in the Bears thread is a beautiful stream of negativity on an otherwise way-too-optimistic board.

 

[mr. furley]

And my how this thread has wandered. I wonder if Flap knew what he was getting us into.

Was just thinking, when he comes back on Monday and sees 5 pages thinking, "ah, they love me, they really love me!!!"

His profile says “last seen today”.

C’mon flap, at least login to your @mr. furley alias to browse.

See you in the Bears thread

sadly my @McJose alias got clipped

 

[opensourcebeer]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Whoa. I know people are chiming in saying it's always been bad, but I worked in D.C. at a political think tank from '97-'01 and I can tell you that I've never seen this level of dysfunction or anger in my lifetime. The legislative branch is so full of political fighting between the parties and even at an intra-party level that absolutely nothing is getting done that normally would be. They're using and abusing arcane parliamentary rules to achieve substantive ends that are often crazy and out-of-touch with even the already out-of-touch representatives.

The national discourse is framed in hostility, incorporates words that implicate violence into the political language constantly, and rewards untruths, an Overton window that is beyond the pale, and rewards outright misrepresentations and falsehoods on the regular.

It's so much worse than twenty years ago that I could barely begin to describe it.

So I hate to be contradictory to everyone that's chimed in, but I'm not nearly as sanguine that we will even come through this without remarkable change to our institutions and structures, and I think it's for the worse. I'm surprised there's not a consensus on this, but I know people don't pay attention to politics and hate it anyway, so maybe I'm not that surprised that some think this is a normal atmosphere. It's not.

I think things really started a sharp downward trend in the 90's somewhere, during Clinton's Presidency. Probably linked to the proliferation of 24 hour news as entertainment and the influence that opened up to people who had interest in manipulating constituencies for power and profit. Things just got worse from there with increased internet access, mobile phone adoption, and the platforms built on top - so many ways to keep people agitated, fragmented and distracted from what really matters.

I completely agree. To me, it all started with Clinton's and his dingaling. It drove the red guys crazy that nothing stuck to him so it got worse and worse. Then when Bush got into office, it was time for payback. From there, it just got worse every presidency since. It honestly drives me crazy to the point, I don't typically discuss politics with anyone anymore, regardless of what side they lean towards.

But the real ignition point in this era was all the AM talk radio shoveling the same vitriol in people's ears day after day.

 

[FarFromHome]

I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Holy cow. Indeed. I watch old footage from back then and think about the viscerally felt opinions and demonstrable activity that was a result of the split and fracturing that happened to the ideological underpinnings of America during the later '60s. I think often about the tumult from that period, and regardless of what side or offshoot's philosophy one is on or prefers, I'm amazed everybody isn't dead. I reassured my brother back around 2017-18 one night at dinner with stories about the '60s and the first Federalist/Anti-Federalist transfer of power when everybody looked at a young nation with really hopeful and uncertain eyes.

Perhaps we will make it through and be a beacon of light again like we were in 1800 and then again after the '60s. That would bring me joy.

Whenever the idea comes up implying we are at the most divisive point in our young history from a social aspect Ill always mention the Vietnam War era. That was bad. Imagine if social media was a thing back then? The big difference is back then our country was divided into two basic categories. You either loved war or you loved to love. Today, it's just so complicated with so many personal issues being pushed and tested.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

I heard a radio commercial on the car ride home from work today, it was for women's deodorant and they said several times it was even for "down there"

 

[northern exposure]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Well in 1856 Senator Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane in the Senate by another Senator. That was pretty hostile.

Of course they didn't have Facebook and Twitter and Tiktok back then so it really didn't spill over into the FFA at the time.

It's a good question. The conventional wisdom is that yes, it's become much more contentious in the last 15 years. But @kupcho1 is right of course, it used to be violently contentious.

So not really sure.

Legend has it Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would argue like enemies during the day then kick back with a cigar over dinner at night. That's probably romanticizing.

Social media has obviously had a huge impact. As have cameras on phones where so much more is seen.

One thing that I have personally noticed is the hesitancy to accept other points of views valid.

It used to be one could have an opinion on an issue that was different than another person's and it was seen as a legitimate debate.

Now it seems it too quickly goes into the other person doesn't just have a different opinion. But that they are a legitimately actual evil person. That feels different.

I was going to reply to your post with my opinion about what (or who) really fueled the downward spiral. But, realized I could be accused of taking sides and the result would be exactly what is trying to be avoided here.

 

[krista4]

I think the “being cool” with each other part is what should be moderated. I avoided the political threads not because of the actual point of views and content—but because a lot of it resulted in name calling, clowning people for having different points of views..etc. That’s just my two cents—I would prefer that topics don’t be moderated—but that bad attitudes and bad behavior that doesn’t invite peopel to participate in the forums should be moderated. In any case—Thank you.

but they come down like a ton of bricks on uncivil language.

Sure. We do a ton of that here. That's the majority of our moderation.

Yes, but here the response is more commonly to cull threads, rather than cull posters. In the other places I was thinking of, threads don't get locked or removed very often.

That said, I saw your comment about lack of manpower. The other places do have a lot of volunteer moderation.

This is an interesting point. I wonder why this site has to have paid moderators when many others go with volunteers? I can say that I volunteered years ago to be a "pro bono" moderator here and never received a response. I'm not saying that I would have been a good one, but at the time I'd been a mod on another site and thought I could help. And I'm not volunteering to do it now.

Perhaps at this point we all know each other well enough that people would not see anyone as "neutral," though I do think there are some who could reasonably be seen that way, such as bigbottom, gianmarco, or you (Doug B). I also don't think anyone I've named would want to do it. Maybe that opportunity has passed.

On a separate note, I'm on another site where "post about the issue, not another poster" is strictly enforced. (It's not a FF site, so I'm not cheating!) On that forum, adhering simply to that one rule takes away about a squillion percent of the "bad" posts and makes it an incredibly civil place.

 

[Doug B]

I'm on another site where "post about the issue, not another poster" is strictly enforced.

Yep. This is an important moderation ethic. It’s not about “they didn’t post the magic word, so no harm”. It’s about jumping in quick when exchanges hint at getting personal.

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

I'm on another site where "post about the issue, not another poster" is strictly enforced.

Yep. This is an important moderation ethic. It’s not about “they didn’t post the magic word, so no harm”. It’s about jumping in quick when exchanges hint at getting personal.

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

This would be groovy.

 

[krista4]

I'm on another site where "post about the issue, not another poster" is strictly enforced.

Yep. This is an important moderation ethic. It’s not about “they didn’t post the magic word, so no harm”. It’s about jumping in quick when exchanges hint at getting personal.

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

The in-thread moderator notes would be excellent, too. I do think those help. I wonder if we're in the same "other" forum.

ETA: In case people don't know what we're referring to, it is something like reminding people of a specific rule they signed up for when accessing the site. It doesn't target a particular poster but is dropped semi-randomly, and is very specifically tied to a rule instead of just saying "be more cool."

 

[dickey moe]

Flapgreen, your Bears takes always make me laugh. Hope you stick around.

 

[dickey moe]

Funny the different interpretations of that. My reference to the Russian bride draft was simply to invoke a thread that was long and epic.

A 14 page thread that lasts a couple of weeks can be a positive, even if it ends poorly.

I can't even remember what ultimately ended it.

 

[fatness]

This has become a very friendly topic.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Perhaps we will make it through and be a beacon of light again like we were in 1800 and then again after the '60s

It didn't get better after the 1960s, rock. It's just that everyone was exhausted and needed a nap.

 

[rockaction]

It didn't get better after the 1960s, rock. It's just that everyone was exhausted and needed a nap.

I would say that the war was fought in different ways and that the war is still going and was never completed by either side, but I'm exercising caution and restraint. What I typed put a nicer bow on the tumult that happened. It was a hopeful and optimistic summary and didn't get substantively political. Believe me, if I were allowed to speak the unvarnished truth and didn't want to simply stop this from turning into a substantively political thread, I'd have tons to say about the possibility that the ideological battles of the sixties merely migrated into private spheres and into other avenues, and I could probably identify how and where they had been fought and continued to be fought today.

But even if it were something I was allowed to do here and I wanted to bring it up and discuss it, I'm not even totally sure about my own powers of observation and historical knowledge. They might be inadequate for that task. Therefore, I'm going to defer to the historical narrative of the sixties as it is commonly understood at present and gently suggest others do the same.

And this hopefully ends the substantive element of what I commented upon.

 

[Zeppelin]

It didn't get better after the 1960s, rock. It's just that everyone was exhausted stoned and needed a nap.

Fixed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yes, but here the response is more commonly to cull threads, rather than cull posters.

I'm not sure I understand. We do way more moderating of posters than we do threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

On a separate note, I'm on another site where "post about the issue, not another poster" is strictly enforced

That's a regular phrase used especially in the Shark Pool where posters are often told to keep it 100% on the NFL and not about other posters.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

Again, we do that here. People are asked to be more cool regularly here.

As well as people are sent private warnings often.

Not going to lie, it is discouraging that we already do all these things that apparently aren't noticed. But it's also good to hear and understand how people see what we're doing. That's the bottom line and we need to work accordingly.

 

[Da Guru]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

As an outside observer it seems that political discussions in the USA have become nastier in the last 12-15 years.
I don't remember this level of hostility between the sides in the past. I live in Canada, so am I correct or has it always been this bad?

Well in 1856 Senator Charles Sumner was beaten with a cane in the Senate by another Senator. That was pretty hostile.

Of course they didn't have Facebook and Twitter and Tiktok back then so it really didn't spill over into the FFA at the time.

It's a good question. The conventional wisdom is that yes, it's become much more contentious in the last 15 years. But @kupcho1 is right of course, it used to be violently contentious.

So not really sure.

Legend has it Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would argue like enemies during the day then kick back with a cigar over dinner at night. That's probably romanticizing.

Social media has obviously had a huge impact. As have cameras on phones where so much more is seen.

One thing that I have personally noticed is the hesitancy to accept other points of views valid.

It used to be one could have an opinion on an issue that was different than another person's and it was seen as a legitimate debate.

Now it seems it too quickly goes into the other person doesn't just have a different opinion. But that they are a legitimately actual evil person. That feels different.

I was going to reply to your post with my opinion about what (or who) really fueled the downward spiral. But, realized I could be accused of taking sides and the result would be exactly what is trying to be avoided here.

Zero Sum is not good for national harmony.

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

There are also the concepts of in-thread moderator notes and formal public warnings, which aren’t applied here.

Again, we do that here. People are asked to be more cool regularly here.

As well as people are sent private warnings often.

Not going to like, a little discouraging that we already do all these things that apparently aren't noticed.

I guess it's because I don't hang out in those places. I don't hang out in dark alleys, either.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

If I can't talk about tampons, it's over.

I heard a radio commercial on the car ride home from work today, it was for women's deodorant and they said several times it was even for "down there"

Their feet?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

 

[shuke]

I do miss the ability to discuss anything female related in here. It's like we're in Sunday school again and you get scolded for the slightest of infractions.

I realize and accept not everyone agrees with our position on not having the threads that invariably lead to ogling women. But I don't think anyone is "scolded". We just don't have those threads here any longer.

There are some benefits of posters being anonymous.

But a bunch of old guys using anonymous screen names salivating over women half their age is not something I want us to have here.

Can I use my real name and only include women over 50?

 

[shuke]

To add to @jvdesigns2002 's point - it's REALLY difficult to talk about politics. Some of my closest friends have different political ideas than I do and even with guys I've known for 20 years and love, we regularly have semi serious problems and hurt feelings in talking about things. It's possible, and we'll keep at it, but it's tough.

If it's that tough with your best and closest real-life friends, it sadly seems like making it work in a public forum is nearly impossible.

People have lost all ability to discuss politics in a civil manner, it seems. Even when talking with someone who maybe I'm 80% aligned with politically, when the conversation veers to the 20% things either get tense or awkward. I just don't talk about it any more.

 

[Mitchie]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

 

[DA RAIDERS]

@flapgreen you back yet?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

 

[Mitchie]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

 

[Mitchie]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

Fair point, and that I don't know. I guess my point would be even if we 4-5x that number, it's still not making up the numbers from people getting info from X, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc..

 

[FairWarning]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

Fair point, and that I don't know. I guess my point would be even if we 4-5x that number, it's still not making up the numbers from people getting info from X, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc..

I do get a lot of my news from X.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I agree with Rock that it’s really bad and I don’t see room for a happy ending. I’ve unfortunately been saying that for several years now. I’ve 75% checked out because it’s too depressing and disgusting. I just try to do what I can for my little corner of the world now. Is it the worst ever though? I don’t know the 60s were tumultuous and we did have a Civil War so I do suppose there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

I have not watched any cable news station or show in over 5 years now. Much happier and lower blood pressure. i watch my local news and they cover national for a few minutes and that is enough for me.

I would argue that cable news isn't even the big issue now. They set the stage with 24/7 "news", but now the vast majority get their info from social media. That is a huge issue that is not only never going away, it's getting worse with tech advances like AI.

For younger people yes but for people over a certain age, it's still cable news

I hear you, but that's still combined about 4-5M for the main channels. I think 150M+ came out to vote last time.

where is the 4-5M # coming from?

I just quick looked at ratings/viewings of the popular cable channels. Granted, it was 1am, but I thought combined the main 3 were around 5M. I think they listed Fox, CNN, and msnbc.

is that just one night though? people can turn in for one or two nights a week

Fair point, and that I don't know. I guess my point would be even if we 4-5x that number, it's still not making up the numbers from people getting info from X, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc..

I do get a lot of my news from X.

I'd guess that's the most common spot now. My impulse is to say it's bad, but it can be curated well. It just takes a surprising amount of effort and it's not the default settings for those sites. Definitely not X's job to deliver good, accurate news to us.