Random thoughts/comments

[Leigha]

LOL!! ^^ Well, see. There’s that.

He may decline, never know.

[Leigha]

Well, James replied that he's too busy to spend time on more than one forum, and since he's a mod at sci forums, that likely will be where he spends his time. He doesn't post all that much there, either. He mentioned that he's aware of sci village, so I'm wondering if he has already created a username. He shared that it's been a while since he's lurked here.

[stryder]

Well, James replied that he's too busy to spend time on more than one forum, and since he's a mod at sci forums, that likely will be where he spends his time. He doesn't post all that much there, either. He mentioned that he's aware of sci village, so I'm wondering if he has already created a username. He shared that it's been a while since he's lurked here.

As you might know, I use to moderate on sciforums. I never had any direct falling out with any of the sciforums volunteer staff, however I did leave abruptly and created this forum which they might of seen as an "abolition". Which means it might well be me that causes them to shun it :/

At the time Moderation had taken a huge toll on me from the constants of arguement and people constantly attempting to manipulate moderation to their own ends. (members arguing and attempting to push the button on each other using moderators as the tool to do it.) I rationalised that perhaps having a forum with a more casual science flare would appeal to those that didn't want to be rigorously strongarmed by armchair science enthusiasts that even scientists avoid.

So I created this forum with the intension of being more about the open discourse, less about banning anyone for minor infractions (since most of the time it just created an ever increasing cycle of bad behaviour from members trying to get even by attacking the site, threatening the moderators, or just spamming it up with sockpuppets.)

Members and Moderators from Sciforums are always welcome on this forum however it might well be a culture shock considering the only blocked accounts here are spammers. (Which is why the membership number is kept looking low compared to older forums that allow those "zombie" accounts to remain.)

(There is also the quirks with my site design not being necessarily the most accessible :/)

[Leigha]

Well, James replied that he's too busy to spend time on more than one forum, and since he's a mod at sci forums, that likely will be where he spends his time. He doesn't post all that much there, either. He mentioned that he's aware of sci village, so I'm wondering if he has already created a username. He shared that it's been a while since he's lurked here.

As you might know, I use to moderate on sciforums.  I never had any direct falling out with any of the sciforums volunteer staff, however I did leave abruptly and created this forum which they might of seen as an "abolition".  Which means it might well be me that causes them to shun it :/

At the time Moderation had taken a huge toll on me from the constants of arguement and people constantly attempting to manipulate moderation to their own ends.  (members arguing and attempting to push the button on each other using moderators as the tool to do it.)  I rationalised that perhaps having a forum with a more casual science flare would appeal to those that didn't want to be rigorously strongarmed by armchair science enthusiasts that even scientists avoid.

So I created this forum with the intension of being more about the open discourse, less about banning anyone for minor infractions (since most of the time it just created an ever increasing cycle of bad behaviour from members trying to get even by attacking the site, threatening the moderators, or just spamming it up with sockpuppets.)

Members and Moderators from Sciforums are always welcome on this forum however it might well be a culture shock considering the only blocked accounts here are spammers.  (Which is why the membership number is kept looking low compared to older forums that allow those "zombie" accounts to remain.)

(There is also the quirks with my site design not being necessarily the most accessible :/)

Yea, I had been inactive for a while on sciforums, and upon returning, noticed that many of the regulars (you and others) had left. Then, I was invited here, and I like what you've done with this site. The unfortunate thing about sciforums, is that they've driven away theists, creative thinkers, Republicans, etc. There are some regulars there who create meaningful content, but it has become more often than not, a giant echo chamber. It's almost as though you could remove the usernames, and it would feel like you're reading the same posts from one individual. lol

The irony with sites that become echo chambers is that they turn boring over time, and those members that remain, start 'feeding' off one another. Mods fighting with other mods out in the open forum, radical lefists fighting with other radical leftists claiming that they're not radical enough, mods flaming/goading regular members then banning or infracting them if regular members rail back (which is wrong imo), etc  I visit, occasionally post, but don't want to jump into anymore word wars. Forum-ing should be fun, not stressful.

It's nice to see that this site has remained true to what you originally intended it to be.

[Leigha]

Watching CNN and the topic is about accountability. Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters? I think people are responsible for reacting however they wish, but Trump shouldn’t be impeached over this.

CNN anchors are putting forth that Trump has been positing conspiracy theories since November and that is what “drove” the riots so even if he hasn’t specifically urged people to riot on his behalf, they feel he caused the Capitol chaos.

[Syne]

Watching CNN and the topic is about accountability. Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters? I think people are responsible for reacting however they wish, but Trump shouldn’t be impeached over this.

CNN anchors are putting forth that Trump has been positing conspiracy theories since November and that is what “drove” the riots so even if he hasn’t specifically urged people to riot on his behalf, they feel he caused the Capitol chaos.

That's CNN for you. They didn't say the same about a Bernie supporter shooting up a congressional baseball game, nor about Democrats egging on rioting and looting for months on end. Partisan, hypocrite hacks.

[Magical Realist]

Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters?

Yes...he bears some responsibility for the unrest of his devoted masses. He gives them something to be outraged about and to fight over--the lie that the election was rigged. It's not like all his rightwing fanatics aren't already pissed at the government for various reasons. Drain the swamp! Remember? He just adds one more reason for revolt, and that's enough to push them over the edge from protest to riot.

[Leigha]

Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters?

Yes...he bears some responsibility for the unrest of his devoted masses. He gives them something to be outraged about and to fight over--the lie that the election was rigged. It's not like all his rightwing fanatics aren't already pissed at the government for various reasons. Drain the swamp! Remember? He just adds one more reason for revolt, and that's enough to push them over the edge from protest to riot.

I think that Trump is reaping a bit of what he's sown, but the trouble I'm having with all of this MR, is why was it ''okay'' for violent protests to go on after the death of George Floyd, but it's not okay when riots fall under another social justice/political reason? My point being - violent riots should never be what anyone turns to in hopes of bringing about change. But, Democrats wouldn't help the innocent business owners when their shops were being burned down, and looted. Violence and chaos went on for months, but the Democrats didn't condemn that behavior. It just seems suspicious when the very same behavior that they're condemning now, they didn't condemn last year. I'm not saying ''all'' Democrats didn't condemn it, but the media portrayed all of the rioting as mainly peaceful protests. It was anything but.

[C C]

Watching CNN and the topic is about accountability. Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters? I think people are responsible for reacting however they wish, but Trump shouldn’t be impeached over this.

CNN anchors are putting forth that Trump has been positing conspiracy theories since November and that is what “drove” the riots so even if he hasn’t specifically urged people to riot on his behalf, they feel he caused the Capitol chaos.

As far as that day itself goes, more an issue of neglect in his not discouraging a riot beforehand, other than the "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.".

But he's being charged with incitement, not neglect. Taking into account that DC police and authorities themeselves weren't expecting or prepared for the magnitude of such to happen, Trump's obligation in going any extra mile to prevent the unanticipated (or poorly anticipated) is potentially unclear as well.

The weeks or months prior of setting up prospective outrage in the streets is another matter. That will boil down to what's determined about constantly repeating "false accusations of election fraud". Experts who testify about that will be on the same side of the fence as most academic scholars and social scientists (throw in a few moderates and conservative specialists who pre-conditionally hate Trump, too).

Even if an _X_ did truly get screwed-over with regard to something, there's an institutionalized momentum even in the sports world of usually not reversing a win due to bad referee calls or covert shenanigans. And a victimized contestant or team that keeps grumbling about it long after the fact can receive public and league ire similar to those exhibiting legit bad sportsmanship behavior. "Get over it. That's the game, it has some warts."

Pointing out double standards is similarly ignored or rolled over by the formalized momentum of all, most, or many competitive venues. The SEC garnering more money from lucrative media contracts than the other conferences isn't going to trigger creation of a separate division and championship for its super-teams, to allow the rest to regularly have a decent shot at a top title.

[Zinjanthropos]

With Trump gone what are news agencies going to report on? His departure may mark the beginning of the news depression era. Who for one will stand up to the left? What'll it be when you turn on the news at 6 o'clock? A pro football player gets a sex change or people lobby for convicted murderer day passes? Along those lines.