I recently received communications that several of the voices missing from our forum are gone because they have been banned.
I am speaking of the Politics and Social issues forum, not a place you would expect choir room conversations.
One example should tell the story for regulars of this forum: PrettyPanther.
Is the writing on the wall? Should we all be looking for another forum venue? Are our visits and clicks totally unimportant to HP? Would our absence, both in the forums and articles section of the site be a non-issue for HP?
I view my HP article income as a passive income. It will be there—until it isn't, regardless of my forum participation. But, without this forum, I have one less reason to visit and contribute to this site. Am I that unimportant to Hubpages?
Damn it, I miss Panther. The forum is my life blood. I missed so many of the progressives that had my back.
I think the exchanges have been educational and to have you folks around weighing in with your opinions has been crucial.
I hate to have to go the course that you suggest, but if everyone is going to be so touchy.....
Yeah, I feel the same. Apparently we may have worn out our welcome.
I am contemplating adding a forum function to one of my sites just so we can have a place to continue our discussions.
I have been on these forums for over 10 years and have built up some valued relationships. Yours included. I would hate to lose the venue.
I also received communications from a user that was ban permanently. This made me really think about my own place here on HP. Not sure why this gentleman was banned, but I can honestly say I miss him... We had heated back and forths, but I respected his view, and in the long run, even though we had different political opinions, as a rule, we had many other things in common. I would hope HP would lighten up on some of the forum rules. In the end, I think we all can handle heated political discussions. I can see many have decided to just stop participating in the political forum, this is unfortunate. I believe in free speech, even if it gets a bit rough. Let's face it we all have unique personalities, but that's what kept this forum interesting.
Are we unimportant to Hubpages? I would think we are, due to the income we provide with our articles. However, they make the rules, and with these latest bans, they have sent a very clear message of just that.
Some have been temporarily banned from the forums while there are others who are permanently banned entirely from Hubpages. Randy Godwin has been permanently banned entirely from Hubpages.
What!!! Randy has been banned entirely. What did he do? Shoot a fellow Hubber? That's sad news as well.
Here's more to add to the 'conspiracy'.
According to a source, he was just a few days from finishing his last ban when he was permanently banned, and in that same time frame, PrettyPanther and a couple of other voices were also banned. Hmm . . .
Could HP be part of the Deep State?"(*he says in a whisper) ;-)
Do you know if they were all in a heated dispute on the forum or were they just banned without a reason?
It is odd, I am here most days, and I never witnessed any conversation that would have resulted in a mass banning.
It's unfortunate, the forum has become very quiet. Hopefully, some will return. However, if they choose to stay away by choice, that's their prerogative. The forum itself may have become tiresome to some. The back and forth bickering was getting toxic.
Hi Sharlee, I don't have any information about the bans beyond what I have shared.
I agree that this forum has become more tame. Even to the point that I might be a bit more contrarian just to keep it from turning into a choir room. ;-)
I have been communicating with Randy but was uncomfortable about aking him what the final straw was. It has me very curious. I did not see any conversation that would get numerous banned. I thought many have just stayed away from the forum by choice. Yes, it has become a tamer place.
I myself was looking forward to election banter, after all this is a political forum. Perhaps it telling, the fact that many may have lost they're interested in the election. Has politics become too boring or does it just takes to much effort to provide political views?
Sadly, Randy has been banned from HubPages entirely. I was deeply shocked when I saw that he was banned. Randy was an exhilarating influence on Hubpages. Also fpherj48 was permanent banned.
Many people haven't been banned. They have given up in disgust.
And the ones who have given up in disgust aren't just progressives. It's all of the people who aren't far right like the handful that remains.
I miss your voice of sanity, Promisem. It is nice to see you again, for however briefly.
Rest assured that I will remain here to cover the "left flank".
No, Sharlee, I need you guys on the conservative side, I have to keep my claws sharpened. I can't do that in an environment where everyone agrees with me in a mutual admiration society. I am not the sort to want to speak just with my ideological kindred, where is the fun in that?
Yes, i have been banned twice. I have learned to get my points across without making my manner insulting, so as people take it personally.
We all get to learn a little something along the way about how the other side thinks and reasons, it is priceless. It is my preferred manner of entertainment.
Cred, you speak the truth.
The goal of such forums as this is for people to attack the topic and not one another. Attack a group but not an individual. When this has happened to me, I've concluded it happened because I was right on the issue and the other side couldn't controvert what I said, so they attacked me on a personal level. I've always considered it a debating victory.
Everyone brings a unique perspective as well as unique life experience.
"We all get to learn a little something along the way about how the other side thinks and reasons, it is priceless. It is my preferred manner of entertainment."
I agree with your statement 100 percent!
And it is stimulating entertainment and does keep one aware of other opinions. However, some prefer to stay away, as promisem claimes due to becoming disgusted with far-right users. I felt my suggestion would work well, and be a good option for some that just are not open to right/left debate.
In my view, over the past few years many on the left only hope to hear what they hope to hear, factual or not. It becomes disturbing to some to have their beliefs or opinions scrutinized.
It well appears you are open to debate and have not been bitten by the bug --- "I only want to hear what I want to hear".
I enjoy debate, and I certainly have crossed the line, I am working on that. However, I am a straight shooter with my comments, and try to back up how I came to my opinion. I have noted you and the others that remain do the same. We all have our unique way of conversing, and I think this provides us all with a comfortable political forum. This forum is unique when comparing it to others. The moderators are keeping the debate free of discord, conflict, contention, and dissension. Is it fair? I think it fair to keep the conversation open to public disagreement, but keep the "shouting down".
I agree with you in regard to the need for both sides to be heard, and this certainly proves to provide one an opportunity to keep "claws sharpened".
And we do learn to accept that others have varying views. What is obvious here at HP political forum many of us have learned to attempt to respect other's opinions without penalizing them for their opinions.
The name-calling is gone, and only vigorous debate is left. I prefer this to the battling. I have the scars, and I have lashed out, but I have learned to put down battle tools.
My suggestion was meant to be a problem solver for some that are apparently "disgusted" with right/left debate. A safe space, a place that they could share their views without disgust. Now do I hope you continue to converse and have back and forth with some here that lean right, you bet I do... You set a great example of how to keep your cool and truly get your views across. You hold your own attacking a topic and not the person that chooses to debate the topic. And you do it while keeping it all civil. This is an atmosphere one stands to learn in, and garner respect for other's opinions.
Thanks, Credence. I have the greatest respect for your perseverance.
Huh. Are you sure about that ("It's all of the people who aren't far right like the handful that remains")? I would never have described MyEsoteric, Credence2 or you as "far right" yet here you all are, remaining on the forums.
I'm down to coming here once every few months to read a few posts and remind myself that fascism in America is alive and well. I don't consider my first appearance in months as "remaining".
Maybe I'll post again sometime or maybe not. HP is now a much lower priority in my life.
That said, you misrepresent my comment. Again, the people who have left aren't all progressives. Esoteric rarely posts anymore. I grant that Credence is the lone exception. So, OK, the posts are merely 98% from the far right instead of 100%.
I'm in a similar place to Promisem. I find the forums both frightening and depressing. QAnon conspiracies fly by unchallenged. There's little discussion of ideas, just pro-Trump or anti-Trump regurgitations. I find myself addicted to responding and am embarrassed about wasting the time. My inclination is to attack individuals, which is not something I should do. However, there's such a paucity of ideas. Ultimately, I have better things to do.
In my real life, I'm quite fiscally conservative, personally. I actually don't like the government spending tons of money. However, my politics leads with empathy even though personally, I'm not very empathetic. I think, as a society, we should be empathetic. Seems like we're the opposite of that now.
There's not even agreement on basic scientific facts. When that becomes the case, what's the use of arguing politics?
Instead of participate in the forums, I decided to improve the SEO on my existing articles. Seemed more productive to me. My changes have increased my traffic by 30%+. I feel that's a good use of my time.
If some people prefer this to be an echo chamber, fine by me.
"I think, as a society, we should be empathetic. Seems like we're the opposite of that now."
I would disagree with this; there is plenty of empathy on both sides of the fence. The problem is that one side will fix problems with an endless supply of money while the other wants a more permanent fix of teaching all to be self sufficient.
But neither side is listening to the other; it is either a socialistic country with "each according to their needs" or "work for what you get or do without" and no middle ground.
"The problem is that one side will fix problems with an endless supply of money while the other wants a more permanent fix of teaching all to be self sufficient."
"But neither side is listening to the other; it is either a socialistic country with "each according to their needs" or "work for what you get or do without" and no middle ground."
Well said, for this is exactly where we are, finding the middle ground is a noteworthy objective. Just where that will be is the source of contention between the alternate ideological views. How do you teach self sufficiency among those that have nothing to start with? Much like pulling yourself up by bootstraps when you have no boots? Even as a radical lefty, I recognize the need to seek a middle ground.
Martin Luther King has an interesting quote. To paraphrase, state protection is for the rich. The free market is for the poor.
This is what I mean by empathy. We have empathy for Donald Trump and his bankruptcies but no empathy for the single mother struggling to get by.
I do agree though. All government aid should be with an objective toward self-sufficiency.
"This is what I mean by empathy. We have empathy for Donald Trump and his bankruptcies but no empathy for the single mother struggling to get by."
Empathy --- the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
You are comparing two problems that might draw out an empathic response. Not sure why one could not be empathic to both?
Both would cause distress to the person experiencing the problems at hand. Bankruptcy would cause a business person a loss, and the distress of a loss. A mother struggling to get by could certainly cause her to feel a loss of control over being unable to or have the ability to support her family, as well as great distress.
So, why do you feel if put in the situation of wanting to show empathy to both, for obviously different reasons would be inappropriate? It would appear may be insinuating those that would be empathic to Trump would not have empathy for others.
Why do you feel that if someone shows Trump empathy for a business loss, that they are incapable of showing a struggling mom empathy? This makes no sense to me? It appears you are saying very clearly if one shows Trump empathy they are somewhat incapable to show others empathy.
Please explain what your statement meant, perhaps I am not understanding the meaning.
Part of my point concerns empathy.
My other point concerns the basic idea here. I hear Republicans, all the time, vilifying those on welfare. They are failures. They need to be self-sufficient. The government should not give them things.
However, I never hear Republicans complain about how the government protects the rich. If a person goes bankrupt, the federal government protects them. A person can lose tens of millions of dollars and the taxpayer is left to pick up the bill. A person can do this many times and the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab.
Why is it fine for the government to be the safety net for the rich, but not the poor? And why is it the poor who so often are the target of free market vitriol and not the rich who receive a much more robust protection?
Basically, a company faces bankruptcy when it has more debt than it can pay. When they file Chapter 11 bankruptcy they gain protection from creditors in order to get out of the debt or set up a repayment plan to stay in business (the same as an individual choosing either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy). This is a fairly well working system for small to medium-sized businesses that are either able to liquidate the company’s assets and close up shop or work out a deal with their creditors through the courts and work towards becoming profitable again. Are you referring to the Obama administration TARP bailout, yes the taxpayer's money was on the line but every cent was paid back.
Someone committing bankruptcy is responsible for certain fees, and court costs. Bankruptcy courts are a part of the judicial system of our government. In fact, bankruptcy cases are supervised by the united states department of justice. So taxes go towards funding that part of the bankruptcy system. In addition, bankruptcy judges. So, if the person can not pay fees and court costs it can end up coming from tax dollars.
Bankruptcy laws are for all, not just the very wealthy. The very wealthy are well expected to pay court fees, and costs. These laws are in a way a safety net, but a safety net for all, not just the rich.
"My other point concerns the basic idea here. I hear Republicans, all the time, vilifying those on welfare. They are failures. They need to be self-sufficient. The government should not give them things."
I noted the comment you were responding to from Wilderness wrote---
"I would disagree with this; there is plenty of empathy on both sides of the fence. The problem is that one side will fix problems with an endless supply of money while the other wants a more permanent fix of teaching all to be self-sufficient."
I think he was just offering a view, two ways that one could look at a problem, and the two ways presently being used by our Government to handle the problem of poverty.
I was just very confused by your empathy analogy. I see the problem goes deeper. Please believe Republicans as Democrats have empathy for those that need help or are in need of kindness. A political leaning does not dictate one's ability to show empathy.
Can we agree that if the free market were truly free, we never would have heard of Donald Trump.
Why do we accept Socialism for the Donald Trumps of the world but revile it for the poor and freak out when it is mentioned.
Aren’t the lower classes merely asking for the same Socialist advantages Trump benefitted from? I believe his companies declared bankruptcy six different times. Why should the state step in to subsidize failure?
"Why should the state step in to subsidize failure?"
I can answer that question very simply --- our laws. If you hope to place bale lay it at the feet of Congress. Congress created bankruptcy laws. I am in agreement with you, I don't think taxpayers should have the burden of paying any fees or court cost for anyone that commits bankruptcy.
Anyone can claim bankruptcy rich or poor...Many did under Bush when we had a resection. Many had such debt they had no choice but to commit bankruptcy. In the 12-year span from October 1, 2005, to September 30, 2017, about 12.8 million consumer bankruptcy petitions were filed in the federal courts. As you can see many citizens take advantage and use our bankruptcy laws.
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2018/03/0 … -2006-2017
Not sure I understand what you getting at in regard to Donald Trump and the free market? The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand, unfiltered by Government regulations and is meant to set a fair competition in setting prices. I have not followed all his business ventures, so it would be hard for me to comment. I could assume his bankrupts may indicate he was defeated by competition. Survival of the fittest under a free market. He has many solvent businesses at this point so it leads me to believe he is in some respects keeping up in our free market system.
I don't feel Trump in any respect has taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws, I would think he has paid his own attornies and court costs for all six of his bankruptcies.
I guess I must ask what "socialist advantages" has Trump received? Just unsure of what you are saying. You have piqued my interest.
Donald Trump, like many business people, benefitted greatly from the fact that we accept that the State should step in and subsidize failure. The bankruptcy laws protected him from having to spend the rest of his life paying off his creditors.
If we simply allowed the free market to determine the winners and losers, as many true conservatives believe, then there would be no Donald Trump. After his first or second bankruptcy, never mind his sixth, there would be no place for him. His businesses failed miserably. Without the help of the state, he would be nothing.
Shouldn't the business world reward success, not failure? If you declare bankruptcy because you failed at business, because you failed to pay your debts, shouldn't that be it for you in the business world? Why should the state and the taxpayers be responsible for giving you more chances?
This isn't about Donald Trump, although he provides a good example. This is about the government protecting the wealthy from being obligated to pay their debts. Why do we allow that? We do we give all this money to those who have declared bankruptcy?
And conversely, why is it that so often poor people are vilified for receiving welfare, assuming that the point of welfare is to help them to achieve success and get on their feet and contribute to society?
If the goal of welfare is to create contributing members of society and transition them into the professional world, isn't that as valuable as being in the business of helping those who go bankrupt, either personally or professionally?
"And conversely, why is it that so often poor people are vilified for receiving welfare, assuming that the point of welfare is to help them to achieve success and get on their feet and contribute to society?
If the goal of welfare is to create contributing members of society and transition them into the professional world, isn't that as valuable as being in the business of helping those who go bankrupt, either personally or professionally?"
What in the world would make you assume that the goal of welfare is to create successful businesses or even people? When the system is designed to make it nearly impossible to get out of welfare, when half our nation is receiving welfare of one form or another, when that same half pays no net contribution to the needs of the nation, it is not possible that such a goal is desirable.
Welfare is designed to chain people to it and keep them there. It did not start that way (IMO) but that is what it has become.
]If the goal of welfare is to create contributing members of society and transition them into the professional world, isn't that as valuable as being in the business of helping those who go bankrupt, either personally or professionally?'
As I see it the free market gives all businesses the right to compete. strongest survive the other close, and yes sometimes commit bankruptcy. One need not be penalized for one business venture failing, and another thriving. Welfare money has to come from somewhere does it not? It is from our taxes. Many would not be in agreement to just set people up in business when they themselves had to earn and work for their funds needed to set up their own business. Socialism may sound good to some but to those that choose to strive to make their own money, their own decisions it is a foreign concept.
It has been proven time and time again socialism does not work well, especially in a large society. Taking from the rich to support the poor just causes the rich to relocate. Take their cash with them, and leave for better grounds. Then the poor are not only poor but poorer...
I don't object to welfare, it is a wonderful net for many that need it. I object that all should be in that line. In my view, there are too many citizens that would be adverse to putting their hand out... American's, in general, how I see it are proud people with an abundance of ingenuity. We have lived under capitalism for a very long time, it has done us well. Yes, we need to help others with a foot up, but socialism may not be a good thing. Education would suit the problem better. Making sure all have the right to a good education, giving all skills to thrive would help even out the playing field.
However, our Governments locals, and the Federal just do not consider education a high priority. And that's a shame.
If I may add a point.
...We have lived under capitalism for a very long time, it has done us well....
I think the capitalism of 50 years ago is not the same as today. And capitalism should not be seen as an untouchable ideology.
I think the capitalism of today is not a good thing. It used to promote freedom of products and choicess in the market. It isn't anymore.
If you look at a company like Uber, that is making millions of losses a year and has never made any profit in it's life. But is build to first get rid of all the competition and if it has a monopoly it's starting to make money. That's in my view terrible capitalism. It get's rid of the freedom of choice.
The same with Amazon and Facebook, they hardly pay any taxes. Where is the fairness in that?
There is a lot of things wrong with the capitalism of today. And the alternative does not have to be pure capitalism or socialism. But I think a rethink about capitalism is not a bad idea.
" It used to promote freedom of products and choicess in the market. It isn't anymore."
I agree with you, a free market was meant to keep healthy competition. It is clear that is eroding In regards to Uber, it is still a baby, and hard to say if it will be really profitable or if they will receive any other companies that give them competition. A better company to make your point is Google. They have no real competition to speak of.
I am a capitalist, I was brought up to strive to obtain a comfortable life, and pay my own way. I thought my children the same. I can honestly say working hard to achieve and see my children achieve had added to my well being and happiness.
I think capitalism offers a sense of self, one may not get from socialism. At this point, I agree it is off the track, and many big companies need to be looked at as not paying enough in Federal taxes.
Relative to your thought about a changed capitalism, and the reasons you mentioned, I would simply point you to Standard Oil.
Without taking this thought further down the off-topic tangent trail think I will start a thread with your post as the lead.
Relative to your thought about a changed capitalism, and the reasons you mentioned, I would simply point you to Standard Oil.
Without taking this thought further down the off-topic tangent trail think I will start a thread with your post as the lead.
Here you go: Is Today's Capitalism Different From Our Grandfather's Capitalism
I'm interested to participating in discussing that thread. Thanks.
I don't feel that you're addressing the core of my question.
Why should a billionaire be given welfare? Why should they be protected by the state against failure? Why should the taxpayers subsidize the failures of billionaires and their businesses? Is that the appropriate role of government? (I can answer this whole thing if need be)
And we need not focus on Trump. I think Mark Cuban is a Democrat. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for football stadiums and basketball arenas while the people who own the team can afford to fund those ventures themselves and end up making billions as a result?
I think the two questions have similar answers.
Wouldn't we be better off if those who bankrupt companies and stick the taxpayers and their creditors with the bills be left to the trash heap of failure as opposed to being given chance after change to repeat their mistakes thereby proving they are poor at business? Instead, shouldn't we provide incentive to those who have proven their value?
How many times should somebody be able to declare bankruptcy?
The problem occurs with our bankruptcy laws. Between me and you, I think the laws need overhauling. I don't feel it fair to let anyone a citizen or big business to commit bankruptcy numerous times. Right now, I don't think there is a limit to how many times someone can commit bankruptcy. I think there are laws in regards to how often one can commit bankruptcy.
It does not appear we are t odds in regards to bankruptcy. It's a complicated question But morally I am with you...
The poor paying for the misdeeds of the millioners and billioners? Beats my mind. And, it's always the mind set of politicians to create laws that favor them and rich friends. Do they specially consider the impoverish poor in the scheme? Shame!
I think Trump has considered the poor in his administration, and he has had an uphill fight trying to do so. He created opportunity zones to give citizens the opportunities to work to better themselves. He also has supported a school of choice, which can offer children a chance at a better education. His economy also provides a real boost to every citizen being able to get jobs and the first wage increase in many years.
Most politicians in the end let the poor slip through the cracks. Trump has unmasked Washington for what they are, and what they have been. And the faces under these masks are now twisted in anger, lashing out... And what amazes me is many are not in the least willing to have a look at this bunch for what they are. I would admit it is hugely and makes one feel foolish for buying into it for so long.
It would seem that you're a little out of date asking why lower classes don't get the "advantage" of going bankrupt.
"The vast majority of bankruptcies are now filed by consumers and not by businesses. In 1980, businesses accounted for 13 percent of bankruptcies. Today, they account for about 3 percent."
At the very bottom of the income scale there probably [ii]aren't[/i] many bankruptcies, but then no one will loan money to them to file bankruptcy on!
You are very much avoiding answering my question. I'm not at all interested in why lower classes file or don't file for bankruptcy (probably they can't afford it). My question is this:
Why is it okay for the state to subsidize failed businesses and make the taxpayers eat their losses? Why is that form of welfare okay?
In other words, why should somebody who is worth a billion dollars be protected by the state against failure? Why do we accept that kind of socialism? (that "we" includes me)
In a hardcore capitalistic society, there is no place for empathy. Empathy is to close to helping each other for free. And you can not have things for free in a capitalistic society. That's why empathy should be fought and crippled on all levels. Even in hospitals and schools empathy is thrown away and replaced by money. You buy help. You do not give help, you ask money for it. Money and empathy are a difficult combination.
There is still empathy in social gatherings like sports clubs, church choirs, book clubs, arts and crafts, cooking clubs etc. But in politics and business empathy is an enemy.
Still, I think empathy is the glue of society. Helping each other and taking care of each other. This is done in small villages and neighbourhoods. But in the cities, it disappeared.
When talking about forums. It's good to remember that you talk to somebody. In the heat of a discussion, this can disappear. (I sometimes catch myself on doing just that)
In the end, there are more important things than the colour of a tie.
What I see in Europe is that the common ground is found by the Greens. I've talked with people who voted red or blue, both see that things have to change and are voting Green. The discussion is still about how, but the theme is the environment and resources.
promisem ---Suggestion, perhaps you could from this day on when posting a thread request that only liberals join in the conversation. I certainly would respect that request. Problem solved. Hopefully, others would be willing to respect your wishes too, or better yet why not skip over comments you find argumentive or against your views.
I must add for the past few weeks we that are left are getting on fine. This really should tell you something. At any rate, give my suggestion a try. It will be a comfortable space or should I say a solution to the problem.
I have been ban, and I knew i deserve it... And I would imagine you have been ban and well deserved it. You give out as well as you have received. We can all get along, buck up.
I must say Cred represents the left very well, and he continues to be well respected for how he gets his view across. I for one like the new comradery here on the Political forum. It has become a comfortable place to converse. This should be telling to those that question how the "rightwingers" handle their conversations. The forum has been peaceful, a nice place to visit.
When you feel that anyone/everyone that does not see your political views as "far right" the problem may not lie with them.
I find it interesting that I can find fault with so much that Trump does.
And find even more fault in what the Democrats are now doing.
And because of that, I am "far right", or am I reading your post incorrectly?
I think regulating is childish. We are all grown-ups here. And if somebody is deeply offensive on regular bases or constantly disrupting conversations people will tell them.and they will be ignored by the people of the forum. It regulates itself.
PrettyPanther is here for a long time and respected. You may not always agree with her opinion. But she was not bullying, calling people by names on regular bases or using vulgar language. Not that I remember.
The forum is interesting because there are different opinions
And if moderators interfere you can question the freedom of speech on this forum.
I can understand that Hubpages take some action against trolls and people who suddenly appear in election time with a new account. And even then I think Hubpages should be very reserved when taking action.
Have a little faith in the people writing on the forum Hubpages!!!
That is also my perspective Peterstreep. Two things seem so obvious that trolls and insultors shouldn't upset anyone: 1) is that old childhood adage about "sticks and stones." Surely Europeans have it too, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Of course, I would add "unless you let them."
And #2 is the most obvious, no one is forced to read any comments. We are all capable of scrolling right past comments that we don't want to read or posters that we don't like.
I enjoy these forums for several reasons. I enjoy the sincere verbal sparring of different perspectives, I enjoy detailed discussions of topics that interest me, and I think I have grown and benefitted personally from having a perspective challenged when it deserved to be challenged.
You don't get those from choir room conversations.
Exactly Gus. Again we now live in a politically correct culture to the EXTREME. This is the aftereffect of the self-esteem movement in which EVERYONE is a winner whether they earned it or not. Also there is the phenomena of overprotective/intenstive parents in which children are shielded from all types of negativity & opposition least it hurts their feelings. Many of these children are now adults & they are quite averse to any sort of opposition-in fact, they discombobulate at any thought of difficulty or opposition.
I enjoy the conversations here too. The different perspectives etc. An inside in American society. Even if it makes me cringe and my eyebrows rise to the moon. But I guess people will do the same sometimes with my point of view.
I'm not here to win a discussion or to convert. If the topic goes in circles or not moving forward I leave. Plenty of other things to do.
I think most of us do. And in this way, I think the Forum regulates itself. If a topic bleeds death, there is always somebody with a new question.
Personal insults are childish too and tells you more something about the anger of the insulter than the insulted.
I think though that words can be stronger than stones. But you have to be a bloody good orator to do so. I, for example, learned at school that the Vietnam war was lost because of the changing of the public opinion, created by photos and the media.--- But maybe this is a different topic alltogether.
If only that were true.
Here in America, we used to have insane asylums, they did away with those in the 70s.
Today those many millions of people who need medications to regulate their ability to function normally in society without being a threat to themselves or others are just as free to do as they please in the world as you or I... medicated or not.
Just food for thought.
Not to mention children also have access to the internet, and could easily create a fake identity and create an account.
More food for thought.
In general, it is not the best idea to assume that everyone you interact with on the internet is a rational well intentioned adult.
You are right Ken. But I was referring to the hubpage forum. The internet as a whole is a weird place.
But children are rather spending there time on Snapchat than with boring grumpy adults talking about politics.
Perhaps once in a while somebody comes around who lost him/her self but this passes.
I think moderators shouldn’t be to be to busy overhere. Most “cases” will moderate themselves in time.
This is an "adult" format, where we are expected to maintain a certain level of civility.
I don't know the reasons, but I can suspect. When you insult, label, demean people for their views and opinions... that may be acceptable in much of the world today, but I am glad that it is not acceptable here.
You don't have to respond to anyone, you don't have to read their posts, and you can choose to ignore threads or the forums all together.
It is a choice to respond, to wantonly go out of your way to label, insult, and post derogatory comments directed at others who do not believe as you do, and if you choose to do that, I have no problems with you being banned for it. ... If it is something repeatedly done over and over again.
Attack an idea, or a political group, or a media outlet, but don't attack and insult the individual.
Attack an idea, or a political group, or a media outlet, but don't attack and insult the individual.
I agree with that.
You should always keep in mind that on the other end of the cable is a person. But this can be forgotten sometimes in the heat of the argument.
But it's a shady one. Some people feel offended personally when attacking an idea they believe in.
I'm surprised she was banned honestly. What was she banned for though? Did she say why? Honestly I don't see how she was banned considering I don't believe I ever seen a thread with her saying anything inappropriate.
Sure I may not always agree with everything she says but I didn't see anything that she may have said that would warrant a ban but that's just my opinion.
If anything I'm more surprised I haven't been banned from forums over her because I know I sometimes cuss a lot in these threads saying shit, fuck, ass and etc for grins. I remember in the past I would open up all these forums related to sex stuff like asking about sex toys, fetishes and etc. Yet the only time I ever got banned was when they banned my king Larry account I used to have because they claimed that users here can only use one account in the forums but that was it.
Either way I hope she's ok along with anyone else that was banned.
really? you think i should've been banned instead too? thanks. Just kidding, but seriously though, I do hope she's okay. Honestly, I think if hubpages isn't careful they're going to lose a lot of their talented writers here.
Your closing point has been discussed before. Maybe before HP joined Maven the better writers, like PrettyPanther and Randy, were more important, but now I think it is just a numbers game and this forum could soon be a ghost town by choice.
I don't like banning either, but it is worse when some of those banned are the last ones any forum regular would expect it to happen to. When logic fails us we will always suspect the worst.
Yes, PrettyPanther has been banned(temporarily I hope). Also Ewent has been banned(temporarily I hope).
I do not know what caused it, so it is hard for me to judge.
There are those who have been banned, that I have noted missing, but in honesty those that were did not offer debate, they offered derision towards those who had opposing views.
They were articulate, they were savvy, they would try and push people's buttons... and then when someone over-stepped in their response, they would be the first ones to report the comment and try and get them banned.
I do not miss that type of interaction.
I would miss those who have very differing views to my own, who truly debate with me on the issues, that take the time to try and express their perspective and why they hold the opinions they do.
Credence is a prime example, we have had ongoing dialogue for half a decade at least, and it helped shift my views, my perceptions of certain matters, my overall comprehension.
That takes effort and willingness to try and put yourself in another's shoes. I think this is what at times our dialogue has achieved.
I have enjoyed your contributions as well, but often our views are more aligned, its more your witticism and less about your opposing views.
I also know these are more perilous times than many of us want to believe is possible.
But I have been in countries where things explode, where people are killed and revolution takes hold.
And the commentary coming from the "leaders" of the Democratic Party, and their actions these past years, have put the country closer to the tipping point than anyone alive has seen... including the 60s.
We have had a President almost sacked over false Russian conspiracy charges that the Democrats and their supporting media said they had absolute irrefutable proof of.
Then when they had control of the House, they Impeached him for having the audacity to inquire into the corrupt activities of Joe and Hunter Biden.
Trump is a blowhard, is less than moral and upstanding symbol of virtue, but if what the Democrats had to offer to the American people was worth anything... they could have let him act like an idiot for his term and then put up someone worth listening to, to defeat him in 2020.
That is not what is going on now... what is occurring now is much more dangerous, and the depths of what is going on, and how severe it is, is largely being hidden by the "political nature" of it being near to election time, and the ongoing reaction to the pandemic.
This is from a year ago:
Looking back at that time, it seems sane compared to what is going on today.
"Credence is a prime example, we have had ongoing dialogue for half a decade at least, and it helped shift my views, my perceptions of certain matters, my overall comprehension."
The experience has been mutual. This has been an ideal medium to bring ideas and opinions, with the opportunity to delve into the controversial without fear, animosity nor disrespect of persons.
I thank you, for having a thick enough skin to endure my sometimes "heavy handed" opinions and ideas.
An example of your impact, I doubt I would have paid near as much attention, or depth of consideration, the trials Sammy Davis Jr. went through in his lifetime, when I was watching a documentary about the Rat Pack not so long ago.
I don't believe many of the ideas of "restitution" being bantered around today is how you fix it, I don't think demeaning or derogatory treatment of whites is how you achieve fairness and justice.
I believe a civil respectful effort, where opportunity is given, through grants, through scholarships, through enforced EO, is and has been the right direction, one that helps raise people up without forcing others down.
I think we need a society that places less emphasis on our racial differences, and more effort on our understanding of one another.
I truly wish we had an option, an alternative to the choices and paths laid out before us now...
Too many people believe the worst about Trump (he has himself to blame for plenty of it, due to his own words and callousness) the Left's MSM has done too good of a job villianizing him.
The alternative is reversing course, gaining nothing, and any good that came out of Trump disrupting the status quo of corruption in DC will be lost. Biden is nothing if not an Establishment stooge.
You keep repeating this lie:
"We have had a President almost sacked over false Russian conspiracy charges that the Democrats and their supporting media said they had absolute irrefutable proof of.
Then when they had control of the House, they Impeached him for having the audacity to inquire into the corrupt activities of Joe and Hunter Biden."
The recent bi-partisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee shows that the Russian investigation was legitimate. Further, Trump's "interest" in Hunter Biden and the resulting charge was part of Russia's disinformation campaign. It was propaganda. And Trump continues to repeat it. And you repeat it.
To me, this negates a lot of other points you are making. If you don't accept facts, then how can you draw accurate conclusions?
For God's sake, even The Washington Examiner said the report was legit and people, especially Trump supporters, need to accept it.
Neither I, nor anyone else, needs to accept anything we do not believe.
I have my experiences, and my ability to do my own research, I'll trust that before I trust anything from any Senate or House committee, or any news media source.
Any rational, experienced person with the intelligence and interest in finding the facts for themselves will think the exact same way as I do.
Now... if you would you like to expose yourself to opposing thoughts on this matter, go ahead:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/13/ob … -our-time/
https://nypost.com/2020/05/10/obama-mee … ynn-probe/
https://saraacarter.com/new-docs-reveal … he-nation/
Have you been banned, GA? I don't think so.
I think Maven has chosen to adopt the rules they've had all along. I say, GOOD for them and it is about time! And so, I am the odd woman out, which is fine by me.
The hate & bait crowd are always free to visit substandard sites like Reddit, where they belong.
As for your friends who are gone, I am sure they appreciate your loyalty. I assume the problem had to do with multiple infractions & personal attacks as opposed to indirect attacks (of a policy or institution).
My thanks to Credence, by the way, for his even handed debate.
They don't call you "Savvy" for nothing..... thank you
In addition to being savvy, she is also classy.
Thank you. How kind. I've always viewed you as a kindred spirit here on HP, even as I argue rather vehemently (sometimes) against some of your societal views. Yet, that is the great thing about forming relationships here on HP. We still like each other after the debate because the respect was there all along.... and it has always been there, in my case, for you, GM.
Have a great evening!
You too Savvy. You were always a woman of class. You are one of the classiest people on HubPages.
Oh gawwwddd, Not another love fest . . . Get a room . . . ;-)
Oftentimes when someone is banned it's because they launched (personal attacks) on those who disagreed with them.
Some people actually love to bait, fight/argue, and insult others.
Oftentimes they're just "angry" or want to vent. Some even bully others. I suspect HP and other forums want to maintain a certain level of decorum.
Personally I miss the old Q & A section on this site.
However at times it also got quite nasty and answers were voted up or down based upon whether or not people agreed/disagreed with a comment. Having voting and "likes" are usually a recipe for disaster.
I agreed to some extend, like for instance, the ban on 'Das.' That aside, what else can get one banned? Talk porno?
Of course, you are right. There have been participants that were abusive, obnoxious, and just plain degenerates that didn't deserve a platform for their bile.
I think that most of the time the line between those folks and the other participants should be obvious. Even though I don't advocate banning, I can accept, and support it being apllied to the worst of the worst.
But I think the folks that prompted this thread are good examples of why I don't support banning. I have a long history with most of the names that have been mentioned, and of the lot, there is only one that I would say comes close to that line. And as bad as that one was, (in my opinion), I don't think it was bad enough for a permanent ban, (no, I'm not talking about Randy)
Of all the other names mentioned, I would not consider any to meet the bar of behavior that needed to be permanently banned.
I disagree with you. 3 weeks ago, I realize I was banned from the forum. I realize this when my posts to forum seems to be put on hold. I can't take it easy because abusing the other person is not my nature. I do no wrong. It happen like this. A fellow writer post a thread asking about writing 'general articles or topics.' My response seems like this: "Why General topics? Why not write on niche topics? General topics are idiot topics." It is this that earns me a ban! Folks, those I merit it? I mail firstname.lastname@example.org to find out why. After 24 hours in my inbox was this explaination of "personal attack." I argued agaist it and my profile restored within the next few hours. So, if ever you were ban on flimsy grounds find out from email@example.com/ not the editor(at large) lol!
They have rules. They seem arbitrary, at times, but I've been in forums with no rules and I prefer rules.
I've been banned before. It would be nice if they tell you the exact place where you mis-stepped but I can say I usually know when I got personally insulting.
I'm sure pp will be back at some point. I'd be curious what got her banned. She can be personally insulting but I've never seen her disappear when I though she crossed the line. Must have been a doozie.
From what I have seen from the people who have been banned, it takes some really tactless and petty remarks to actually be permanently banned from this site. I'm talking about repeat offenses, and ugly things you'd never say to anyone in the presence of favorable company. However, is the writing on the wall for those who frequent the forums?
No, but it is on the wall for anyone who can't keep it, at the very least, tactful and coherent. Most of the politics and social issues topics can be equated to a bunch of boomers angrily wheezing at one another, and seeing as that is reality, it is no wonder HubPages is being petitioned to remove the topical forums completely. Personally, I don't see any need for them outside of the HubPages-specific forums.
Most of the conversation here is the kind of stuff I used to witness on sites like Reddit, 4chan, Tumblr, and other imageboards where degeneracy is the norm. The less congregation of this type, the less chance there is to devalue the site if you ask me.
Then again, I don't care any further than wanting to see all the angry keyboard warriors lose their outlet. It's fun, though, to sit here and laugh at all the decadence and debauchery when I get a spare few minutes to indulge.
I have also seen the type of conversations you mention on those other sites. My impression is that HP's Politics and Social issues forum is a kid's petting zoo compared to those sites, (and others I have checked out), you mentioned.
Relatively, yes, these forums are pretty laid back and the disgusting sentiments and behavior tend to be more low-key than the forums I mentioned. However, the use of this site and its forums is a privilege and not a right, a privilege abused by many for the sole purpose of hurting others. You may not take performative cruelty seriously, but HubPages does.
When they finally cave to Maven's standards and community expectations to make this site strictly professional by removing the forums, comments on articles, and other riffraff, it will be a breath of fresh air for many. In the face of someone's willful cruelty, they are worth less than the ongoing maintenance the staff performs on this site and its community.
I watched someone who harassed me, with over 300 articles, get banned near-immediately for such harassment. It was an invaluable action taken by HubPages, and it sends a message rippling across the site as we see manifesting here.
Well, personal attacks are no fun. Also no fun, are criticisms of a person's writing style.
To Gus, we are now in an extreme political correct culture. Free flowing discourse is dead or on its death bed. The name of the game is treading softly, not hurting other's feelings. Everything is a consciousness of being politically or verbally correct. This is an outgrowth of the self-esteem movement which is words shouldn't be used to "hurt" whether it is a disagreement or a stronger retort. Discussions used to be strong-people were psychologically stronger then.
Remember childhood Gus when children sparred & sometimes strong words were used. Children fought & forgot about it later. We are living in a softer culture. Children are taught to be very politically correct & that sparring isn't the normative behavior it was in the past. Then there is the phenomena of intensive parenting which makes such children even more sensitive to difficulties & adversities. These are the individuals who fall when things aren't in sync. Many of these children are adults & are in leadership positions where they put their rearing practices into effect. 20 years ago, people can be less politically correct & nothing would happen; however, we are now living in a very extreme politically correct society.
Oh hell, just lost another reply due to the infamous "log in" screen.
In short, we must be dinosaurs Grace. I was raised on that old "Sticks and stones . . ." adage. Apparently words are more harmful than physical assault now.
I say if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen. If your, (generic you of course), feelings are hurt then that is your problem. Deal with it.
I won't be rude or hurtful on purpose, but . . .
When that infamous screen comes up when pressing the "submit" button, log in and then use the "back button" several times until your post comes into view. Hit the "submit" again.
Works for me.
Mike and Sharlee
Thanks to you both.
There is another reason for the variety of opinions that I welcome here, is that it requires one to truly reflect on ones own views, a little soul searching could well be in order to carefully evaluate your own points and reflect upon them as seen from another angle.
Could they have a point that deserves a closer look?
Very valid point. I think reflection is needed to understand another view. In my view, human beings form opinions that suit their individual beliefs, what has suited us best through our lives. And we all come about our beliefs due to life experience, how we were raised, who we have befriended as peers. Very complicated to step back and reflect on opposing views. But, it is a wise tip and one we all should consider.
Perhaps HP sees themselves as parents of unruly, cruel children, trying to teach them how to behave. "Keep a civil tongue when you speak!".
Or perhaps they just don't want to see the forum degenerate into little but name calling in an effort to hurt the feelings of others.
I recall a few years ago when one hubber got nasty enough on the forums to send another away, reportedly in tears, from participating at all. According to her, done in the name of "research" to discover what it took to be banned, that hubber was banned and shortly thereafter took her hubs off the site and moved on. No loss, IMO, as anyone intentionally hurting another like that isn't needed.
Agree... I have really been trying to practice what I preach. It's hard at times, I have a short fuse when it comes to politics. And I have been banned for it.
Me, too. When addressed with rudeness or name calling I tend to respond the same. Should just walk away.
I think most of us get caught up in the quest for the prize; "The Last Word."
Paste this Twain quote to your monitor and put a rubber band around your wrist to snap every time you forget it. ;-)
" Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Likewise, me too. But I've learnt to respond smart, after a ban. And, if an idiot start attacking me, or my comment/post/thread/article, I play smart againt them, walk away and come back.
Parenting is spanking the children, and not hurting even the idiots among them! Does HP like the idiots here in the forum? Do your research. Parenting is even more about instiling discipline into the child that make them go forward or go up. Seriously, how about giving a sop to the child? It boost moral!
Has anybody ever communicated with the people behind the curtain? As forum participants, do we have any say or are rigid rules just applied and enforced from on high without any recourse?
Is it all impartial?
Being here for almost 10 years, the powers that be seem unforgiving. Does anyone really deserved to be banned permanently, even the worse of the trolls?
In my off-HP communications with Randy, (he seems to be the ban record holder ;-) ), he indicates that communications with the moderator(s), are not helpful. And that his pleas for "recourse" haven't been successful *shrug*
As a side note; it seems surprising because we don't usually think of it, but many of us "regulars" have a 10-year history of conversations together. Damn!
Very few have links with the editors on and off line.
I think the preferred contact method is one address: firstname.lastname@example.org
As a side note; it seems surprising because we don't usually think of it, but many of us "regulars" have a 10-year history of conversations together.
Yes, that makes it all a bit strange.
Perhaps the moderator team is new and has no clue about the long term conversations we have over here. And only had a look at the last 5 posts or so.
Well hell, Ken you have done it again—added to my reading list. I had not heard of Matt Taibbi before, and now I have several more tabs open with some of his writings. I think there were several points of substance in your link. Enough to make me check him out because I agree with those points.
A thought occurred . . . imagine if we resurrected some of those old Steele Dossier threads and discussed them in light of the new information we have now? Hmm . . .
As for your thoughts about the forums bans, there will always be yahoos and idiots in any group of people and our small community here is no exception. I don't mind, because as they say; "Ain't no skin off my nose." My scroll finger works fine and I am usually lucid enough to pick the exchanges I want to join. ;-)
Personally, I applaud HubPages for the bans; but they shouldn't stop there. There are a few more on this forum that should be banned. I rarely comment on here because of the people on here.
Lol! Its a lot different than it was when I first joined HubPages. The forums are sometimes out of control with no real discussion; just insults. Its sad, but I guess this is the world we now live in.
I would not disagreed with you. And I hope some a thing or two here, including you, from Plato! Lol
by ga anderson 7 weeks ago
Someone should say a few words before the grave is covered For more than a decade the jousts were lively and the points were sharp. The roster of champions was a steady core of 'regulars' that constantly pulsed with new entrants and spasms of 'one-nighters' taking their turn at the rail.Idiots were...
by ahorseback 5 years ago
Why are liberals the most childishly cherished political entity only here ? Kind of like a cheap soap opera -------Ummm like the Oprah show ?
by Oliver Whitham 13 years ago
I can't help but notice that after a few bannings of prolific forum participants, the forum participation has dropped dramatically.Gone are the days when I had around 3 pages of Hubbers Hangout topics to peruse, nowadays I just check the main forum page where there seems to be around three threads...
by Hugh Williamson 6 years ago
Paid forum posting is a business that's growing rapidly because of the glut of money in politics and the desire of commercial interests to promote their products and to blunt criticism.Should paid forum posters be forced to acknowledge that they are being paid? Should they be banned from posting...
by Rachel Koski Nielsen 10 years ago
How do Hubbers get banned from forums?I've noticed people on Hubpages mentioning that they've been, or are being, banned from the forums. How does this happen? What rules do you have to break to get banned?
by DIYweddingplanner 12 years ago
What is the point of people being banned from the HP forums if they can come back under another name?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|