I am sitting in my dining room looking out the window at the snow coming down. I remember a time when I had gone to church with a man I was interested in. As we were speaking to the priest on our way out the door opened to a day somewhat like this one. I yelled “Holy (not)Moly! Look at it snow! Lets get out of here!”
I suppose it’s not really necessary to say that relationship withered on the vine.
Could not agree more. Those who don’t like the rules could open their own media outlet and spout to their hearts content. Curb Your Enthusiasm did an entire season on that sort of thing, the “spite store.” Rich said once to go scream in a park if we feel rabid. Can envision a Monty Python type bit where someone actually does it and starts ranting in a park. They used to do that at Bughouse Square in Chicago, and audiences used to watch.
A great many ideas since “alternative facts” became a thing and folks decided that their alternative facts need sunshine, be it here on your blog, Rich, or other outlets, or social media in of itself as as an outlet, there’s this feeling that “censorship” exists because “my facts aren’t being seen”, and I’m not discussing this blog, or Rich, but when others are angered by any platform that has no time for ridiculousness.
I’m grateful for a well-run ,moderated place, and this blog is for sure one, and it moves the discussions.
Right. The other excuse is that they’re “questioning authority.” If that’s true, it’s clearly an adolescent mindset, arrested development. An adult should be able to distinguish legitimate authority.
Speaking of grass bowls, I just finished reading about the Calumet City mayor’s unveiling of his $35,000 forensic audit against the city clerk (Ted Slowinski’s column). It brought to mind the old saying about when you put a clown in the palace, the clown doesn’t become king, but rather the palace becomes a circus.
Read an article about an Iowa physician (I’m using that term very loosely) who is doing COVID treatments on what could be termed a “subscription” basis and staging “jailbreaks” from hospitals for COVID patients. She touts herself and others like her as “critical thinkers” and everyone else as basically sheep… although she used other tropes that I will not repeat. From the article- “‘What they’re doing is eliminating all critical thinkers from the hospitals, from the police force and from the military,’ she said. ‘And so what you are going to be left with is people who just follow the rules or follow policy.’”
So… pseudo-anarchy is now equated to critical thinking???
- Bruce( no not him) - Friday, Jan 28, 22 @ 9:27 am:
This blog is essentially Rich’s building. Maybe it’s not his living room or something, but it’s his property, and (outside of protected classes) he can set whatever rules he wants for us to hang out here.
Same goes for Twitter, FB, etc. They’re not “the public square”, they’re private businesses (and, btw, *We are the product* in those businesses). They don’t owe us carte blanche free speech.
We’ve reached a point in our society where someone can make many thousands of dollars a month posting videos of them advancing and discussing conspiracy theories and all manner of nonsense, like the “flat earth movement.”
I think it has always been the case that a person can make money by spreading false information, but platforms like YouTube have made the monetization of that process incredibly easy. At some point I think we need to create a process that holds the platform accountable for the content it monetizes and the content that it promotes through algorithms because those are intentional choices by the platform to reward and spread misinformation. Though part of the problem is there are dozens of members of congress whose brand is this misinformation and they rely on it and support it and use it to help bolster their own support.
If we rely on the better angles of our nature, we should ask ourselves what if they never come?
Certainly is a noble goal but sometimes the toxic, ad hominem attacks (because they choose not to address the substance of the post) against the few commenters who dare challenge the establishment gets by the moderator.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Friday, Jan 28, 22 @ 9:56 am:
Cue the Pittsburgh bridge collapse conspiracy theorists in 3…2…1…
I tune out most news, except this site, which I think is a reliable source. And I just read a few posts here. Makes my life less stressful to tune out most news. I scan headlines so I am not caught off guard, though.
Agreed. I think we all understand that ultimately this is Rich’s site to moderate and keep out “dangerous” positions as he sees fit, but there is definitely a different standard applied for what type of personal attack gets you in trouble.
Accusing those of us who oppose mask or vaccine mandates that we are selfish or we “don’t care about our community” when there are many reasons to oppose mandates has been permitted, but hypothetically categorizing (I do not believe this) that those who support the masking of 2-year olds “do not care about children” would be immediate grounds for removal.
Not trying to rehash those arguments but pointing out that there sometimes appears to be a different standard being applied for what is crossing the line as far as personal attacks and assigning motives to people.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Friday, Jan 28, 22 @ 10:16 am:
==Just saw a picture of the West Virginia governor addressing the state legislature while holding up his dog’s butt and telling his critics to kiss it.
Wonder why Rod never thought of that.==
I’m actually surprised Rod didn’t stoop low enough to pull a “Forrest Gump meets LBJ” moment during a press conference and tell the reporters to kiss his you-know-what, with his back turned to the audience. Unless that was bound to happen had he been not been removed from office, considering how crazier he was getting at the time of his arrest and afterwards?
=== the few commenters who dare challenge the establishment===
Not all of us are being compensated to post propaganda and talking points here. I resent the people who come here to that regularly. If you can’t handle the blow back, find another place to comment or find a better job.
The correct term is “intensive probation supervision”, and is used in both adult and juvenile probation departments. It involves more restrictions and supervision than regular probation, additional counseling, drug testing, etc.
==but sometimes the toxic, ad hominem attacks (because they choose not to address the substance of the post) against the few commenters who dare challenge the establishment gets by the moderator==
And sometimes the people who insist that they’re nothing more than brave truth-tellers are actually making toxic ad hominem attacks and engaging in bad faith arguments. So, before you insinuate that there’s a double standard, make absolutely sure you know who is who.
This blog’s moderation queue must be a spectacle. Thank you, Rich.
To the post: We are parents concerned today about what might come out of a Sangamon County courtroom. We are anxious for our family to return to as much normal as possible, but these Parler games and resistance to simple, pragmatic safety measures that keep our kids out of the hospital and away from long-term illness make that increasingly less likely. Our eldest had a breakdown this week. They are vaccinated, but their younger sibling is not yet eligible. What do you tell a child who has been so patient and so willing to consider her family and classmates safety when that is not reciprocated?
“It is highly cool seeing bald eagles soar around downtown Elgin”
Ditto for St. Charles. There is a pair hanging out in Pottawatomie Park.
- Bruce( no not him) - Friday, Jan 28, 22 @ 1:10 pm:
==24 hours and nobody has opined on the new Bears coach.==
Allow me to be first.
Got to admit, I’ve never heard of him. Maybe that’s good? Or maybe not?
I’ll withhold judgement till at least after the first game. Maybe.
Bears: It’s difficult to get excited knowing how many coaches have come and gone with the same basic results.
Social media: Youtube comments are bad enough; I reported people who threatened me for daring to prove false their conspiracy theories. The person or company running said sites/blogs have every legal right to remove or review content, but if they hold themselves as conduits of the exchange of ideas, they need to keep their personal and corporate positions on a short leash, lest they ban or remove “objectionable content” that turns out to be totally legal and factual. (Rich, I am not saying anything bad about you or CFB on this issue, and think you do a good job on moderating)
YT has gone this way, once suspending me and sending such a vague notice that I had no idea what I was actually accused of doing. I appealed and pointed out that if they can’t tell me what I did wrong or how I violated the TOS, the appeal was actually a useless formality. A few days later I was reinstated with no explanation. Hate to think what would happen if I actually broke the rules…