So, who watches the watchers?
I have a bone to pick with the moderator staff regarding banning policies associated with conduct within the forums.
I first have to say, I appreciate the role you play in keeping the debating environment civil and within bounds for us all.
However, I had recently been banned and when I inquired as to why, I am directed to refer to rules of conduct regarding personal attacks and “bickering”. Well, your guidelines are just that such that you could drive a freight train through the levels of ambiguity and uncertainty as to how those guidelines are to be applied and under what circumstances. There can be a fine line between spirited debate and argumentative bickering, the problem is that only you know what that is and are reluctant to share that with the forum participants.
I have been associated with these sorts of forums for 30 years, since the “Prodigy” days. If I can remember, real moderators were interjecting within threads with posts in the debate that focused the debate and warned participants of untoward behavior, prior to taking action. Speaking with those that have been banned for excessive periods, there is a distinct message that bannings were arbitrary, excessively severe and not impartial. You use to provide offenders with excerpts of their offending posts, when you were asked for explanations. What happened to that? I don’t know, is this all done by computer program or algorithm?
This is a small enough forum topic so that such information could be made available. It is my nature to dislike operating under circumstances of uncertainly and ambiguity as to what is in fact, offensive whenever I communicate.
I am a strident and relentless debater that will get “the message” out regardless of the medium that I use. But, I always prefer to use this one.
Weak minded people unfit for the rigors of debate and feigning personal assault on a daily basis use their fear of contrary and opposing ideas to justify their “shooting the messenger”. We are now witnessing such troubling trends in American politics and culture, that should not be the spirit behind the forums and the exchange of ideas. For many, the concept of “free speech” works as long as it solely applies to their speech.
While I consider this to be my manifesto, it may well be my epitaph depending upon how it received, but I stand by it in any case.
All in my humble opinion, of course.And I will stand with you. I also remember the moderator days you described.
As for bickering in a political discussion forum . . . what else would be the purpose of a forum? They are not just bulletin boards for posting information. They are not personal journals for recording thoughts, and they are not intended to be choir rooms.
This would be a good place for a moderator to jump in and offer some explanation for this "bickering" thing. It's nuts. I can imagine your anger.
GAAs I understand it, someone has to complain about you in order to be banned. So it is not so much the moderator as thin-skinned people on the left and right that disagree with your views. (I had this happen to me a few months ago, and I was angry because I enjoy the bickering and hearing from those people I do not agree with.)
Anyway, I too think that those banning rules need to be changed or at the least relaxed.It's probably true that someone has to complain first, but Cred's point is still valid—it is the moderators that determine the action, not the complaint.
GAI have been on very rarely myself this past year.
But in those rare visits I recall Credence's posts have taken on a more conflamationary and dismissive tone.
You are either on his side of the aisle or you are the enemy and must be villified and labeled as such...
First by codifying that Republican is synonymous with racism, sexism, evil, etc.
Then to summarize and dismiss others and their arguments by labeling them Republican, whether they be of that party or not.
I used to enjoy the give and take 'debates' we used to have many years ago.
There is little of that these days, to much talking at one another in its place.I remember the forum days you are talking about. We used to have dozens of voices, now we are down to just a handful. I also enjoyed those exchanges. I still do, when I can find the opportunity, but those are rarer than they used to be.
As for Cred . . . your description is a fair one. He has pledged to his side's varsity team, and I do poke at him a lot for his zeal, but . . . his zeal is partisan, not idiocy. He is, when properly prodded, reasonable in the discussion of his points. Can't pick on a buddy without giving him his due. Too many conservative voices warrant his zeal.
Since "debates' now seem to be 'bickering' in the moderators' minds it's no surprise that the debates we enjoyed have become harder to have. Some folks are just too damned thin-skinned.
GAA reflection of the direction, society and the internet have taken on the whole.
A woman I know was out with her husband the other day, at a store, the short of it is that he was terse with her as they argued about whether to buy a bag of shrimp or not.
Another woman, came over and asked her if she needed help, and when asked "what do you mean?" she was told: "He looked at you like he wanted to hit you, do you want me to call someone for you."
Welcome to the new America. Where no one wants to mind their own business, and they want to tell you how you have to live your life.Nah, it's still America, we just have more ways to gripe now.
GAI came across this Bill Maher clip and immediately thought of your comment.
Triggered by Trigger Warnings.
"I’m triggered every time I see a "Trigger Warning" because I’m reminded of how weak my country has become."
I like Maher and I like this clip.
GAI know I'm courting trouble, but I just had to come back with this 'related' chuckle from 2013.
A tweet from Endwokeness (a clue?)
GALOL Yep - that is what we have become. That link is spot on!
If I may quote Larry the Cable Guy, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"
Sometimes we just need to lighten up and laugh.Yes, it is funny, but it is an exaggeration of what "woke" truly means, at least in Florida.
I laughed...
Sadly that isn't really comedy, it is a reflection of America today.
So nice to see you jump in here. I agree with your view. Some here, again in my view, appear to feel their personal view are above and beyond all other views. Offering matter-a-fact statements --- "my way or the highway".
This kind of behavior can somewhat be overlooked or placated. Personal insults are where I draw the line... I slap back.
I have witnessed persons being banned. As a rule for labeling and becoming personally insulting. I have no problem with this.
I have had to learn (through being banned) to keep personal insults out of the conversations.
I find the debates here different than other political chats. It seems the conversations, no matter what the thread's political subject, revert to beating one another over the head with personal ideologies. Ignoring the core subject, and using diversion to troll a heated go-around.
I also have found many here are not interested in posting threads to keep a chat community active and current. The forum is stagnant, even though we are living in a time where it's hard to even keep up with all the breaking news.
On a more personal note, I hope you are sharing your thoughts somewhere out there. I have always enjoyed your input and the efforts you put into your comments.
."So nice to see you jump in here. I agree with your view. Some here, again in my view, appear to feel their personal view are above and beyond all other views. Offering matter-a-fact statements --- "my way or the highway".
-----
But wouldn't that be true of you or anybody else, it is just that you bring "yours" in from a different angle?
How we view the core topic is naturally going to be filtered through our respective ideological values and points of view. There certainly isn't any question as to where your sympathies lie most of the time.
I have not seen anyone on this forum that can truly claim neutrality in fact, if such were the case there would be no incentive for them to participate.
Yes, Doc.
Someone has to complain about you before you are banned. I do blame the moderators for so easily accommodating the eternal whiners and giving them satisfaction, without, obviously, evaluating the merit of their complaint. Both parties need to be made aware of the offense and its specific nature.
Regardless of our political affiliations, there is no room for cowardice from either side. I will never whine about your right to express your opinion.
Half the fun is mixing it up with people you disagree with, otherwise I would better spend my time outside watching the grass grow.
If Hubpages central don't want to change or relax rules, the courtesy of making them more transparent and understood by participants prior to taking punitive actions would help.
It is good to know that my sentiments about this matter is shared by others.
Thanks, Doc
"Weak minded people unfit for the rigors of debate and feigning personal assault on a daily basis use their fear of contrary and opposing ideas to justify their “shooting the messenger”.
I agree with you 100%. I've been banned several times. I've never understood why, or do I care. When you speak a truth that makes people uncomfortable, it will cause a strong response.
I expect I'll be banned again some day in the future.
Remember "Those who fear the truth will do whatever is necessary to protect their lies."While we disagree on virtually everything, you are still a sharp cookie and you deserve better.
Thanks for weighing in....."we disagree on virtually everything"
I think that is only in the realm of politics.
I have been banned many times. Each time for becoming too personal with and insulting someone personally in conversations that became very overheated. I have also reported users for becoming too personal with insults. I am upfront when I report a user, and offer the reason I am reporting the comment.
I appreciate debate, and I try to add a caveat when disagreeing with someone else's viewpoint while sticking up for my own.
I actually find this forum a good place to share a view and find the moderators pretty fair.
Personal insults are another thing, in my view... I appreciate a moderator being present. Could not imagine the hell that could break loose on any chat without a moderator.
I mean would it even be worth stopping in if anything goes?Sharlee, YOU banned? I could not have imagined it.
I am aware of what personal insults involve and entail, but bickering, how is that objectively defined in a debate environment?
It is appreciated that when one becomes intimidated that they could provide a "shot across the bow", as a notice to the wise to back off.
The user likes the upfront approach as well.
Yes, I am grateful for the moderators, I just want areas that are ambiguous regarding conduct rules made more clear and explicit so that we all know what to say and not say before hand. You can go too far in one direction or the other. While they keep the nasty uncivil types out, too many subjective judgements on their part keeps everyone on the edge and constantly unaware and unprepared. The balance against one extreme is equally important as the controlling extremes from the opposite direction
Thanks for your input.
I am just surprised that so many have experienced this.
Many features that made HP more user-friendly in the beginning have gone by the wayside in the name of profits.
If you are back to me again, you gave as good as you got girl! From what I recall, we understood each other and our political differences and could walk away…until the next time.
I would rather there not be banishments, I’d rather the three articles that I put so much work and time into weren’t banned with the threat of banishment if I attempt to broach those particular subjects again. Guess we aren’t as free to think, as we think we might be. I hope you find a way back in. Take care Faye.
If you want to visit the forum and debate, so be it. If you wish to file a complaint with HP, so be it. Banning is part of the playing field; it's the rules. You have a right to complain about being banned, too.
"Making up your own rules is the trick to success." Chuck YeagerI have come to the conclusion based on programmed and scripted responses between myself and the moderators, that the "man behind the curtain" is actually a computer.
As remarkable as advances in computer sciences have been, the ability to make fine discernment and employ judgement still primarily lie with old fashioned human evaluation of information.
That does not bode well for forum or its participants.I've been banned 3 times. The first two times, I didnt know why (didnt care) and didnt know where to ask anyway. The third time, someone who was also banned, contacted me, gave me the contact of a moderator, and encouraged me to ask. So I contacted him and asked why. It turns out that it was a mistake so they removed the ban.
Thanks, IB, I would think that the "computer" malfunctioned and that a human repair entity had to come in make repairs. But for the vast majority, most human moderators would not bother to take the effort that was made in your case.
Deus ex machina
Nailed it Ken.
It has gotten much more difficult to have a discussion/debate here. But then how could that not be the case, when a handful here, see you as the devil or hitler, any time you enter in to add your two cents worth?
These forum 'discussions' are a small glimpse of a much broader view of our future and it isn't a pretty view. Far from it!
I apologize if I give anyone the impression of being dismissive and turning a blind eye to their points of view.
I would not say that I was partisan more than I am ideological. This reflecting a set of values and ideals that I cannot help but to use as a filter for what is being discussed. The Democrats come closer to my ideals over the Republicans. You all have your own filters, whether you acknowledge them or not and they draw you toward Republicans and "conservative" points of view.
Our perceptions of reality are different for any number of reasons. No need to be afraid and intimidated. The fact that you remain to banter over ideas IS the ideal. Yes, I am strident about my points of view, but that it what it takes to put them to paper.
I beseech you to Challenge Me. I promise not to run to Mama every time I skin my knee and I ask the same of you. If not then we deserve to have some cloud like machine censor our ideas and thoughts. These are challenging times and what were once minor differences between opposing poles have now become a chasm.Hey, you can get preachy, and drive me personally crazy at times. However, I must say, you take a good sermon right back at you without losing your cool.
I actually think you budge at times, in my book that makes for a good conversation.OMG My wife's father worked for the gas company his whole life. That was his favorite saying!
It could well be Wilderness,that your father and law and my late Aunty V were contemporaries. As the last member of the family born in the 19th century, these old saying come from a specific era, common before we were. Aunty said "that" all of the time as well.
A feisty old lady, full of stories and tales accumulated over a 94 year lifetime. I had the honor of hanging out with her providing senior care for her for a couple years during the 1980s.
One time she talked to me about the Teabot Dome Scandal of the early 1920's involving then, President Warren Harding. She said, back then they stole thousands, now its millions. Quickly correcting her, I told her, no, Aunty, its billions now!
I died laughing on one occasion when she asked me to roll her to the front door of the house to meet the paperboy who was collecting for the Denver Post. She was wheel chair bound at the time. This kid had been throwing the papers into her rose garden instead of on to the front porch, that me and my neighbors meticulously maintained to soften the blow of her infirmity. She wanted to deal with this fellow personally. The kid asked for the money, she took her good right arm and did a Mickey Mantle throwing most of the change as far as she could, telling the kid, "now you go get it, how many times have you been told to put the paper on the front porch?" The paperboy stared at me incredulously, yet all I could do was shrug my shoulders and raise my eyebrows.
I have also been banned, twice I think in 13 years, I don't think because I was personally insulting to an individual but because I tend to make my comments a little too pointed for some folk's sensibilities. The result is that they do take it personally. I'd say at that point a reasonable person might reconsider their opinions. But some folks would rather complain than consider altering their views.
Personally, I took it as a badge of honor for making my point.
Like everything else on HubPages it comes down to the prerogative of the powers that be, and don't get me started on evaluating those guys.It is reassuring to realize that I am not the "only" one.....
". . . a little too pointed for some folk's sensibilities. The result is that they do take it personally. '
I certainly agree with that thought. And in that vein, the old adage about getting out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat sums it up for me.
Over the same many years you noted, I have seen very few insulting responses that should rate a ban*. Many responses are rudely strident and can easily be seen as insulting if one is easily insulted. So what? The scroll wheel takes care of that. There is no rule that says every comment must be read and responded to.
I used to think the most applicable 'old adage' was universal, that every kid heard it throughout their childhood, but judging by the new 'bickering' standards (in a political forum to boot), maybe it isn't universal anymore.
Surely you have heard: 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'?
GA
Jumping in on the dialogue. I have not been banned in the forums, but I have been banned three times in the old Question and Answers (Q&A) forum. All three times they said it was because of the length of my answer and was considered bullying. Oh well.
I was permanently banned at Wizzley for writing an article that they took down and protesting that by contacting them. It appears they didn't like criticism. That tempered me. I have friends from the old days at HP that received permanent bans that I am in contact with on Facebook. So, I got first-hand knowledge of what went down with their dialogue with HP.I support banning because I have observed as an outsider and insider that some posts are rude, hurtful and lack dignity. Banning can give that person time to, hopefully, reflect and come to terms with how to be nicer.
Banning for rude, untoward attacks on a forum participant is understandable, but "bickering" is highly subjective and may not always be fairly evaluated or applied.
My ideas or your ideas expressed fervently do not have to be personal attacks.
Have you written the moderator and asked the reason you were banned permanently? This does not happen often. It is clear conversations get heated here, as on other chats, ideologies can clash. What I have found, IMO, women are more apt to want the last word. I am not an exception. I don't feel the men here are as confrontational. Yes, there are a few...
I think when one is banned they do deserve to know what precipitated the ban. As a rule, our personal ideologies clashed, but I found you laid out your points without becoming overly confrontational as a rule.I have never reported one person in my 11+ years with HP, but I have gone to battle for a few folks who were intentionally provoked and then ultimately, banned.
If I have an issue with you or with anyone else, I will call you on it.
If you have something you wish to say to me, say it! Beyond the fact that I am opinionated!?! Okay! Guilty. Isn't everyone in the forums opinionated?
I don't appreciate, in the least, my name getting drug into this.I would hope the moderators would have resolved this issue. It seems we could or should all be able to get along. I have reported users, but they can offer, I actually told them I would be reporting them for personal insults. I can argue with the best of them, but only report a conversation when someone gets personal, name calling is just out of bounds with me. You might want to consider no one here reported you, but the moderator picked up on a conversation that was becoming very much destructive and was going to become personal.
I think all the women here or maybe I should say most of the women here have really cemented ideologies, and views, and will argue to prove a point. I must say you do come back at times ignoring the other person's input altogether. That can be frustrating when one does not address another well-made point. So the conversation then can turn confrontational. Deflection away from a subject can be irritating after a user put thought into their comment.
Hidden deep in male DNA is a sequence that says it is always a mistake to tell an upset female to calm down. My reply about the 'rails' was a dangerous step in that direction, so I tried to make it as non-specific as I could. Hoping the implied message might be heard.
This is my perception of your truth train.
The thread was generic, concerning methods and guidelines, gripes, and opinions. Some comments do 'throw some shade', with a poke here and there, but generally, it was an amiable discussion.
Then you entered with personally directed condemnations. Your contribution appeared to me as a rant, not participation.
I know that can only be taken personally, but it is not intended as a personal attack. It is my perception of your truth train.
GA
So, I come to a conclusion that no one is home?
So, whoever the Gods that be are do not see fit to address our questions and concerns, or go so much as to even acknowledge our existence.
You make your entreaties in vain because perhaps there is no one there to hear. This is very much akin to a system that by and large is totally automated, with infrequent and reluctant human intervention.
I need the ability to spread my vitriol far and wide, are there similar forum sites that any you can recommend? Just in case, as I don't like all of my eggs in one basket, I prefer to keep a Plan B on hand.That is an interesting story, but this one is not about minding your own business. It's about point of view.
I could not help to note that GA brought up a similar thread about 2 years ago.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/349167/forum-bans
When I look at the comments, it seemed that we, on either side, were a more cohesive bunch.
It is true that in this pursuit 2 years just as well be 20. The poles have become ever more polarized in the last 2 years for both sides.
As the Right, in my opinion, has doubled down on everything that I took issue with, I may be coming on a bit stronger. I have less patience for the Rightwing message, yet still try to keep it cordial. I am sure that the Right side of the ideological divide have similar thoughts.That was a great find. I was on page 3 before I realized what I was doing—rereading a 2-year-old thread. All those old names brought instant recollections of past thread discussions. It would be great to have some of them back.
I sounded awful whiny, but as I remember, there was a succession of bannings and most were folks that never crossed the line, like PrettyPanther.
GASad to read actually, though I feel fully supportive and in agreement with every statement I made in that thread, over two years ago... It also proves the point I made in this one, in particular, that you, Credence, have hardened your positions and beliefs, while increasing your propensity for assigning labels.
I must say, even I sorely underestimated how much of a shill Biden was for the very worst elements in the establishment and how willing he was to drag the world to the edge of Armageddon with his machinations in Ukraine.
Its really a testament to how far things have gone in under 3 years.
The looming possibility of WWIII or Nuclear War is now considered normal. The focus of social strife has shifted to, of all things, sex changes for children. Yeah, makes the troubles of three years ago seem downright quaint.Yes, Ken, my beliefs have been hardened. You say that I demonize Republicans, well, they deserve it. This abortion thing last year, the censorship issues directed against Black writers of fiction and non-fiction. You live in Florida and know of the political temerity we have seen with DeSantis lately. I disapprove of it all and I blame Republicans as accessories.
I did not say that you are dismissed, I have heard all that you proposed. I simply disagree with your perspective on many things, yet agree on a few. My prerogative, yes?
Your view of Biden and that of most other issues are no different than than that of most of the other rightwing forum members here. I don't need a "label" to identify vinegar, its odor and taste Identifies the contents accurately enough, for example.
I have considered your viewpoints and they are too far from my points of view to agree on many of them. Such is the nature of things....Right, as I stated, you assign labels.
That doesn't make myself, or GA, or anyone else here a Republican, or a Right-winger... however it does define to a great degree, your own extremism.
I labeled Biden for what he was, long before he was handed the nomination, let alone the Presidency.
That I could foresee what he would bring, that my trepidations were proven right, does not make me a Trumpster or a Republican or any other label.
It just means I could see more clearly who he really represented and where he would take our country, and the rest of the world.
The big difference between you and I, is that I believe the worst possible elements of humanity and our government have co-opted your beliefs, your goals and ideals, for their own agendas.
They are wolves of the worst sort, that have adorned themselves in sheeps clothing.
You think they are championing and advocating for the sheep. I see them as the vampiric wolves that they are.
Therein lies the true gulf, the differences between you and I.
One cannot accept that Biden and those that surround him are absolutely corrupt and criminal in their actions, and at the same time see them as the advocates for good, be it the good of the Party or the good of Intentions and beliefs.
Evil is evil, corrupt is corrupt. Stalin was either evil, atrocious, and the murderer of millions, or he was not. Hitler was either evil, atrocious and the murderer of millions or he was not. You cannot select the good that these men did and parse it from the bad.
Biden is either evil, atrocious, and the murderer of millions, or he is not. Currently he is, as much as any human alive, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. He has adamantly ensured the war in Ukraine continues. He has ensured every option and effort for peace or armistice has failed. And he vanguarded this effort not one or two years ago, but going back to 2014, if not earlier.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … yanukovych
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … ister-arse
These of course are the official statements from the Obama Administration, with little effort, one can find much more in regard to U.S. involvement in the ongoings in Ukraine at that time.
One of many of Biden's commitments, from the past, that have to do with why he is President today.And those labels have been accurate in defining what is in fact in the bottle.
"That doesn't make myself, or GA, or anyone else here a Republican, or a Right-winger."
Then what are you? It is tough to make a distinction between an alligator and a crocodile. The positions we take on the issues sort of does the sifting for us, doesn't it?
Why are your points of view fail safe, while all of the rest of us live in fantasy? "We" are all misled while you see everything clearly?
I consider myself and ESO as reasonably intelligent people. What label do you assign for us?
The overwhelming majority of "conservatives" support Republicans, is that just a coincidence or is a pattern?
The current wolves are wolves without the need to disguise themselves. There is no mistaking who and what they are.
While, I have supported some of your ideas in a general sense, you are hardly this infallible oracle.
The rightwing, conservatism, authoritarianism, censorship are the worst elements of humanity and our government. I am under no delusion on that point.
You do the "Biden Bash" with the best of them. You told me in our earliest conversations that from your perspective Trump was a hero and a breath of fresh air? I don't have to strain credulity to question that assessment. Was it based on what you consider an oracle level of knowledge? I have to say, that I am not impressed.
I said that Trump was a problem long before he became a candidate, while you say the he was what America needed. So, how did that turn out? So, you have knowledge that I was to accept as Gospel? That does not work with me.
I recall in our earliest conversations, that you dare to equate the history of indentured servitude in America with its history of race based chattel slavery, as comparable. Who did you think that you were talking to? To ameriorate the truth about these matters remain the fundamental goal of the American Right, you don't think that I know that?
Then it is the little things. That there is this propaganda machine that influence women to shun marriage, bearing children and being satisfied with a life as a homemaker. That revealed a great deal about you and your values. It never occurs to you that we each want to live life to the fullest on our own terms. I would not want women to submit to paternalistic attitudes assuming a role any more than I would "stay in my place" from an ethnic standpoint.
Youre blanket statements about Biden is just your opinion. Why are you trying to raise that opinion to something beyond that?
I am not qualified to speak much about military matters in the Ukraine. In that area, you may possess superior knowledge about what is going on, but with your own biases that you deny and conceal, I have to question that as well.
But, it is natural that I am not going to acknowledge such knowledge on every matter under the sun.I consider you both to be highly intelligent.
I have always engaged you in the past because you offered sound counters, at times. The point of discussing things, for me, is twofold. Either I firm up my beliefs and understanding of a position, or, I shift based on new information.
I may be very stern or harsh at times, but I am not entrenched... as I will show.
Esoteric on the other hand has always been closed minded in my opinion, has my opinion of him shifted over the years, or yours?
Actually, you said you would wait and see, but stated your distrust.
And I shifted my position over the years, from that of support, to wanting to see him replaced.
However, I did realize that Biden was an even worse direction for the nation/world to go in, and I feel his actions have proven that soundly.
I did and still do.
A shit life of servitude and punishment is a shit life, whether you label it indentured servant or serf or slave. A short life spent living in squalor and fear. Your argument that only Africans suffered or that it was a purely an American institution is not close to reality.
My last name translated means "Free Man" which means at some point, in my own ancestral past, there were those that weren't free. They became free. They were slaves or serfs or indentured servants that had a shit life. The difference being I am several generations removed from that reality, where there are those living today only a couple generations removed. And I nor my ancestors own them a damned thing. Just like I'm not owed a damned thing.
There are those living in slavery today, millions.
https://www.dw.com/en/uighur-exploitati … a-55953464
https://legacy.globalslaveryindex.org/country/somalia/
As for the last.
Yeah, I think American women today get a raw deal, the general messaging they receive is a lie. They cannot have their careers and then have the family, that is the messaging presented in the past to men, work hard build your business or career, then find a wife.
When that is taken up by women, they find themselves in their 30s or 40s, many, no longer capable of having children, it is a biological reality that cannot be reasoned with or a law made to change.
That was my argument for that issue. That women are sold a lie, and for many of them, when they get to that point where they want children and a family, its too late.
Scientific consensus is that fertility peaks in the early 20s and begins to significantly decline by age 32, in women, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). After age 36, many women have a much harder time becoming pregnant.
Around that age, 32-36 the average man who has created for himself a career or business is looking to settle down, with a twenty something woman. Not pushing a "conservative" position... just presenting facts.You were wrong in your assessment of Trump, the point that I make is that neither you nor anyone else is infallible. Wasn't it you that said that the Trump Presidency would be ranked as great as that of Abraham Lincoln?
So, do I believe the vast majority of historical scholars that easily put Trump on the bottom of every list as to Presidential effectiveness, or do I believe you?
Here is something else for you to chew on, Ken.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac … 198590001/
So, do I believe the majority of historical scholars regarding comparisons of indentured servitude with race based slavery in America, or do I believe you and the white supremists, Nazi's etc? What do you think?
Why do we say women are brainwashed, you give yourself credit for independent thinking, do not they deserve the same? Why do you think that you are more aware of their biological clocks they they, the ones who actually carry them?
The facts as to fertility is not argued, what is in contention is that women are not capable of being aware of these facts and acting accordingly.
ESO is consistent in his views as all of those in contention with him over them. We are on the same page more often than not, as we agree on basic premises, although he is a bit more conservative than II'm sorry, but as I have often said, I give no credibility to anything presented or produced by MSM news sources, especially as generic a propaganda machine as the USATODAY.
I will present a one page over simplified counter:
https://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp
And a far more detailed review, which requires some time to read:
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Haygoo … Thesis.pdf
I was concerned, but I knew the alternative was Clinton, war in Ukraine, ultimately leading to direct war with Russia.
I don't believe I ever put Trump on par with Lincoln, that does not sound like an argument or position I would take.
I do know, I felt, and stated, his term was merely a delay in what was set in motion.... Open Borders agreed to in the Global Migration Compact, War in Ukraine, dissolution of national authority in favor of international law, etc. ... things that had been sidelined by Trump's winning the election that were brought right back on course by Biden.
The key is the age, we are all far more susceptible to programming (and outright lies) when we are young.
The difference is very real, a man can be a father in his forties or fifties with no difficulty, for a woman, that is almost impossible.
There is no messaging to women that equates to: If you want to have children, especially more than one, you had better make sure you do it in your twenties and postpone having a career until later in life.
But I would get a chuckle if you could find a USAToday article that proves me wrong and does just that.Ken, I have a very strong contention regarding the so-called fertility/career argument. Women do & can have children as long as they are in their cycle. The 20s are FAR TOO young to have children. Women & men are getting their education, experiencing lifestyle options, & having careers. A SMART woman builds her career & have children after she is established.
What you are presenting is 1950s logic. I don't care what the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology states. People should be socioeconomically not to mention psychologically established when they start families. Flash alert, because of more education & better career options, more women are having children in their 30s & into their 40s. They are happier because they explored their options, not to mention obtained educations & established careers. In other words, they grew up & knew who they were before having children. Again, the 20s are FAR FAR TOO YOUNG to have children. In one's twenties, one is exploring all types of options. Ken, this isn't the 1950s when options & mores are more limited. Also women are taking better care of themselves & can have HEALTHY pregnancies in their 30s & beyond.
My mother had me in her 30s. She was a far happier mother than her counterparts who had children in their 20s. With more advanced medical treatments, women, if they choose to, can have children in their early 40s. C'mon Ken. When a woman establishes herself & finds out who she is, she is a FAR happier person-------> mother than a woman who decides to have children in her 20s, such women are frustrated because she didn't live life first & know who she is.I have lived the experience with my wife, and friends as well.
Women having healthy, normal, pregnancies in their 40s is more of a Unicorn than a Horse. Its generally a lie, there are of course exceptions.
I won't argue the matter, it is irrelevant, Western civilization is doomed and to a large degree it is because they have put women in the workforce first and foremost, and having children, having family has become almost frowned upon.
In the EU and in America, we are not producing enough children to replace the current population, those who are educated... supposedly the best and brightest, are not even reproducing at a rate of one for every two.
Europe’s population is forecast by the UN to start shrinking.
By 2035, about one in four people is set to be aged 65 or over in Europe, up from one in 13 in 1950.
America is only going to avoid this calamity due to its open southern border and the changing demographic to a mostly Hispanic population by 2030.There is an upside to this. The world is still grossly overpopulated. With lower populations, there is a higher quality of life. Also with increased computerization, we don't need so many people as machines will do the jobs that people used to do.
Educated people tend to have smaller families. They have the knowledge of planning families so that their children will have a better quality of life. It is the less educated who opt for very large families in which their children will have a dire life in terms of opportunities that their parents had.
Furthermore, educated people are more responsible in that regard. The less educated could care less in having children. Oftentimes, such children are had willy nilly by such parents not caring about the socioeconomic ramifications on the family unit. People are having children but they are having small families where the quality of family life in terms of educational, socioeconomic, & cultural opportunities are high.
People are progressing in this area which is good. Women & men are equal family partners in small families whereas in large families, women are clearly in the subordinate position & men bear the onus of supporting families. Thank God the options we have today regarding family planning which make for equal relationships between men & women. With small families, women are free to develop themselves & can contribute equally to the household.
Your first link is just a definition of indentured servitude, we all know what that was. This Ms. Haygood has written one book that focused on the plight of indentured servants in 18th century North America. I read much of it and she does not compare race based slavery with indentured servitude, so you still have a red herring here, as far as I am concerned.
You dismiss the USA Today article and its numerous supporting data. Where the comparison between the two systems were not really made clear in Haywood's publications. But again, that is my opinion and you do not present enough evidence to overturn the preponderance of historical evaluation and subsequent opinion comparing the two systems. So, my idea on this subject remain diametrically opposed to yours.
More commonly spread lies from the slavery apologists and excuse manufacturers...
https://www.virginiamercury.com/2019/05 … civil-war/The link didn't go to an article, but a general page, based on 2019 articles.
Which I do appreciate, as it had one on Dominion energy, which I read, as I have a small amount of money invested in that stock.
Dominion is being crucified for investing in renewable energy while having sold off a significant natural gas component to Berkshire Hathaway, its leadership is taking a lot of flack for those decisions.
Many don't realize State laws and Federal regulations required they transition to more renewable energy sources, Duke, NextEra, etc. are moving in this direction as well.
To the discussion regarding Servitude and Slavery, the resources I provide prove the point of how miserable their lives were.
"To prevent rebellion they were kept below. Five perished during their journey of either malnourishment or disease. Their bodies were tossed overboard “into the Ocean wide.” For “seven Weeks and more,” they endured the vile stench of the vessel, an odious combination of urine, sweat, feces, and vomit, made worse by the lack of clean clothing and the closeness of the quarters in which they lived.
After arriving in Virginia, James’s ordeal continued. Once on shore, he and his crewmates were refreshed; in other words, they were prepared for sale.
The disgraced women were separated from the men. Those who were found sickly, despite being given slightly better rations shortly after
arriving, were prepared for sale by using a thick mixture of water and oats or ground corn as a salve to conceal the horrors of many trans-Atlantic voyages: dysentery."
"Despite their lowly place in the minds of their social betters, Smith contended that “one in ten was a sound and solid individual, who would if fortunate to survive his ‘seasoning,’ work out his time, take up land, and wax decently prosperous
One in ten, if being lucky enough to survive... to see something better.
The nation was first and foremost built on indentured servitude, which was shifted more and more to slaves from Africa and elsewhere in the 1700s until its end.
America is uncomfortable with the reality of White Europeans as anything other than dominators of this historical era.
The current narratives of early American history, built on the
foundation of colonialism and the enslavement of Blacks by Whites, has little or no place for White Europeans as victims.
None-the-less, the first hundred years or more of America's colonization was done almost exclusively with indentured servants, sold or subjected to the same form of existence later proffered to slaves brought in as the newer source of cheap and controllable labor.
An unpopular truth that many are trying to bury and rewrite today.
There are likely times when we all realize when a ban is warranted on something said, but it's the phantom bickering bans that are perplexing and frustrating. And those are happening all too often at this site. Let alone the permanent bans seem to be very partisan in nature.
Meanwhile, there are a few that get very triggered when the far-right alternate realities they are bombarded with get fact-checked and they resort to reporting when they've been shown to be posting outright lies. When the site takes the side of liars, it loses all credibility. There's a fine line between partisan extremism and posting outright falsehoods. It used to be entertaining to attempt to deprogram the other side, but the site has turned those efforts into a a risk/reward with the risk being a permanent ban and loss of any future income that just isn't worth the debate any longer.
As an interesting aside to go along with that last sentence, my weekly earnings were about 66% higher from the week when I was just observing the forums two weeks ago to when I began posting again in them last week.
Related Discussions
- 21
I see few people who had answered my questions or my followers, having been bann
by Savio Koman 11 years ago
I see few people who had answered my questions or my followers, having been banned. Why?What are the infractions that lead to being banned by hubpages?
- 118
Forum Bans
by ga anderson 3 years ago
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:...
- 265
Hello Hello has been banned
by IzzyM 12 years ago
As one of the many hubbers who offered to help, we are too late, Hello, Hello has been banned.http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/90429We have lost a wonderful hubber
- 34
Been Banned From The HP Forum?
by Mark Knowles 11 years ago
Have you been banned from the HP forums? If so - please drop me a line with the reasons (usually insulting some one) and I plan a hub with a list of my favorite names called.
- 97
Banned for Personal Attack?
by Emile R 12 years ago
I was banned recently and I may get in trouble with Hub Pages for asking this question, but I am very confused and hope someone can help me understand policy. When I asked the moderators for an explanation, this is the response I received. You have been banned from the forums for three days...
- 29
How come a Hubber that's been banned can still harrass my Hub?
by Escobana 10 years ago
<link snipped>While enjoying my tribute to ImKarn23, I've been dealing with a somewhat awkward sitituation. Someone who calls herself Diva43, left a hateful and horrible comment on my Hub about Imkarn23. This is a purely personal issue but after the many comments left afterwards, I decided to...