posted November 15, 2020 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
From my observations, this is the left's definition of conspiracy theory:

Anything that does not agree with or questions its narrative which it cannot directly rebuke ==> conspiracy theory!

If moderators in this forum want to have any kind of legitimacy, they need to rein in their partisan whims.

---

Hear, hear!

posted November 15, 2020 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
Eh?

Perhaps as the webmaster, Randall could define "conspiracy theory". Problem solved.

---

I think if we honestly search our hearts for bias, we can tell when something is a conspiracy theory and when it is something we just don't want to have discussed.

Most people think Epstein did not commit suicide. Though there is no proof he was murdered. Yet, no mods has banisned people's statements about his death to the conspiracy theory forum.

There are repeated statements and allegations here that DT is engineering a coup in order to stay in power. Though there is no proof to these statements, they have not been banisned to the conspiracy forum.

Again, we, especially the mods need to search their hearts and their sense of fairness before declaring something they don't agree with "conspiracy theory!" This silencing and banishing label has become the new censorship tool.

posted November 16, 2020 01:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
From my observations, this is the left's definition of conspiracy theory:

Anything that does not agree with or questions its narrative which it cannot directly rebuke ==> conspiracy theory!

If moderators in this forum want to have any kind of legitimacy, they need to rein in their partisan whims.

---

What about a conservatives definition of a conspiracy theory?

posted November 16, 2020 06:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
I think if we honestly search our hearts for bias, we can tell when something is a conspiracy theory and when it is something we just don't want to have discussed.

Most people think Epstein did not commit suicide. Though there is no proof he was murdered. Yet, no mods has banisned people's statements about his death to the conspiracy theory forum.

There are repeated statements and allegations here that DT is engineering a coup in order to stay in power. Though there is no proof to these statements, they have not been banisned to the conspiracy forum.

Again, we, especially the mods need to search their hearts and their sense of fairness before declaring something they don't agree with "conspiracy theory!" This silencing and banishing label has become the new censorship tool.

---

That may be true, but when a forum is so divided like GU 2.0 is, each side (as we can see) will not agree on what constitutes a conspiracy theory.

Hence, the only option is to pass the problem higher to Randall to decide the definition, and members use this as their reference to select the appropriate forum for their posts, and moderators use this definition to move posts if needed.

I don't think it is all about fairness. Both sides think they are fair. People have different opinions on what a conspiracy theory is, every single person is biased, which is natural. You can't remove bias from anyone, bias changes in-line with people accepting information which changes that bias.

posted November 16, 2020 06:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Unless Epstein is a swerve. He could be alive.

---

Randall,
Spider Line is described as the forum for conspiracy theories, including that of Linda's missing daughter. That indicates to me that you at least have a loose definition in mind of what constitutes a conspiracy theory.

posted November 16, 2020 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
No known basis in fact.

---

Thank you.

posted November 16, 2020 06:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
I think if we honestly search our hearts for bias, we can tell when something is a conspiracy theory and when it is something we just don't want to have discussed.

Most people think Epstein did not commit suicide. Though there is no proof he was murdered. Yet, no mods has banisned people's statements about his death to the conspiracy theory forum.

There are repeated statements and allegations here that DT is engineering a coup in order to stay in power. Though there is no proof to these statements, they have not been banisned to the conspiracy forum.

Again, we, especially the mods need to search their hearts and their sense of fairness before declaring something they don't agree with "conspiracy theory!" This silencing and banishing label has become the new censorship tool.

---

Nobody is being censored, but I'd like to ask: did most of you take the talk of Trump being a Russian asset seriously? No, you struck it down as being ridiculous, and just added it to the list of symptoms of "trump derangement syndrome." Despite the fact that several people affiliated with Trump, were arrested and charged, ended up in prison. Although I think Belage is the only one of his supporters who might think about such things.

posted November 16, 2020 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Unless Epstein is a swerve. He could be alive.

---

posted November 16, 2020 07:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Those were prosecutions for process crimes that had nothing to do with Russia.

---

posted November 16, 2020 09:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsSaturnDelight:
What about a conservatives definition of a conspiracy theory?

I’m interested, you seem to have the answers.

---

posted November 16, 2020 09:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
Nobody is being censored, but I'd like to ask: did most of you take the talk of Trump being a Russian asset seriously? No, you struck it down as being ridiculous, and just added it to the list of symptoms of "trump derangement syndrome." Despite the fact that several people affiliated with Trump, were arrested and charged, ended up in prison. Although I think Belage is the only one of his supporters who might think about such things.

Epstein was also a friend of Donald's, and none of you thought that Barr, or anyone involved with Trump, would have murdered him, it had to be the Clintons - and that is also called bias.

---

All I asked is that "we" that means you, me, the mods, search our heart for bias.

If you cannot do that or if you feel this is an impossible endeavor, like Voix_de_la_Mer said, say so. I happen to believe it is possible, not easy, but possible. I happen to believe one should strive for it, especially if one is wearing a moderator's hat.

posted November 17, 2020 02:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
If this was an honest question, I would bother answering it.

---

Of course it’s an honest question.

But, I suppose it’s easier to cop out with excuses when you can’t answer it.

posted November 17, 2020 05:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
All I asked is that "we" that means you, me, the mods, search our heart for bias.

If you cannot do that or if you feel this is an impossible endeavor, like Voix_de_la_Mer said, say so. I happen to believe it is possible, not easy, but possible. I happen to believe one should strive for it, especially if one is wearing a moderator's hat.

This is my opinion. And I perfectly understand that others do not agree with me.

---

I think it is impossible to remove all bias, yes. I think moderators can try to be as impartial as they can, but they are human beings too.

Are you holding the webmaster to the same standard? I think Randall's political position is clear.

Whether something is a conspiracy theory or not should not have anything to do with one's political leanings IF we have a clear definition of what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' and what constitutes 'fact'. However Randall has stated that what constitutes fact is 'a wide latitude'.

posted November 17, 2020 07:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Epstein’s offshore bank account was cleaned out after his death. He could have been put in witness protection. Or he could have planned the whole thing himself. Did you see the picture of his “autopsy“? And I’m not saying he’s alive. I’m saying that arguing murder over suicide would be a nice diversion. Either way, he would be believed to be dead, and people would question the suicide and not the death altogether.

---

.
"I’m saying that arguing murder over suicide would be a nice diversion. Either way, he would be believed to be dead, and people would question the suicide and not the death altogether."
.

This right here is a single PERFECT example of how the parameters of a discussion are controlled, while the real issue is removed from focus, thereby preventing its discussion.

.
There's always a diversion in trickery...always. There's always two sides & there's always a discussion, but the real issue is never discussed. The real issue somehow disappears like sleight of hand...out of mind, out of sight.

posted November 17, 2020 09:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
I think it is impossible to remove all bias, yes. I think moderators can try to be as impartial as they can, but they are human beings too.

Are you holding the webmaster to the same standard? I think Randall's political position is clear.

Whether something is a conspiracy theory or not should not have anything to do with one's political leanings IF we have a clear definition of what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' and what constitutes 'fact'. However Randall has stated that what constitutes fact is 'a wide latitude'.

So, we are in a place where 'conspiracy theory' is still open to interpretation because sources of 'facts' cannot in Randall's opinion be reduced to definitions due to their scope. That's the decision of the webmaster. Moderators can only do their best within the parameters set (or not set) by the webmaster.

---

That is why moderators should not be quick to qualify subjects or posts they do not like or approve of due to their inherant bias as "conspiracy theory."

"Wide latitude" means exactly that. Give people wide latitude and do not exercise the moderator gavel with biased eagerness.

We are currently living in times when "facts" get suppressed or distorted. You seem to trust NY Times, WaPo, CNN. I don't. You trusted the polls that gave Biden 10-20 points lead. I didn't.

posted November 17, 2020 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
That is why moderators should not be quick to qualify subjects or posts they do not like or approve of due to their inherant bias as "conspiracy theory."

"Wide latitude" means exactly that. Give people wide latitude and do not exercise the moderator gavel with biased eagerness.

We are currently living in times when "facts" get suppressed or distorted. You seem to trust NY Times, WaPo, CNN. I don't. You trusted the polls that gave Biden 10-20 points lead. I didn't.

That being said, your original post for this thread was about "discussing matters intelligently in a Light perspective", remember? It was not about conspiracy theory, though now it seems to have devolved on this murky topic. For this reason, I will just stay on topic with the original post which I approved of, and get off the rest.

---

The moderator of this forum highlighted that conspiracy theories should be in the appropriate forum. This should not be dismissed. However, in order for moderator to moderate, they have to be following an agreed definition of the categories they are to arrange threads into.

The whole reason I asked Randall for a definition was to clarify as impartially as possible what a 'conspiracy theory' is to be, in terms of the LL rules. This helps to avoid bias.

Who dropped a gavel? Juniper simply reminded the forum that conspiracy theories should go in the appropriate forum, she never pointed a 'biased' finger at any one person or thread.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I regularly read ANY US newspapers. In fact, if you scroll a little down the forum you will see that I have been asking for advice on where I could find the most impartial news. I'm under no illusions that the media manipulates and is manipulated.

In terms of polls, the BBC continue to report that Biden is ahead because based on the numbers reported - he is. And until the investigation is complete neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can say for certain what the outcome is. If there has been foul-play, it will be found and numbers rectified as appropriate, I'm sure.

posted November 17, 2020 10:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
The moderator of this forum highlighted that conspiracy theories should be in the appropriate forum. This should not be dismissed. However, in order for moderator to moderate, they have to be following an agreed definition of the categories they are to arrange threads into.

The whole reason I asked Randall for a definition was to clarify as impartially as possible what a 'conspiracy theory' is to be, in terms of the LL rules. This helps to avoid bias.

Who dropped a gavel? Juniper simply reminded the forum that conspiracy theories should go in the appropriate forum, she never pointed a 'biased' finger at any one person or thread.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I regularly read ANY US newspapers. In fact, if you scroll a little down the forum you will see that I have been asking for advice on where I could find the most impartial news. I'm under no illusions that the media manipulates and is manipulated.

In terms of polls, the BBC continue to report that Biden is ahead because based on the numbers reported - he is. And until the investigation is complete neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can say for certain what the outcome is. If there has been foul-play, it will be found and numbers rectified as appropriate, I'm sure.

Although I'm not even sure if you were correctly referencing me with that comment. I've said little on the polls and absolutely nothing (that I can recall) about those news outlets

---

You know what? I may have overreacted to Juniper's statement about conspiracy theories, based on my own experience with the left here and on other forums, dismissing any diverging opinion about Covid, medical treatments, political parties, election results as conspiracy theories.
I can own up to that and apologize for assuming this is where Juniper was coming from.

Maybe she comes from a genuine place, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

In terms of the polls, what I was alluding to was that the polls consistently gave Biden a huge lead over Trump, when the actual results show that if Biden wins, it will be razor thin. Questioning polls does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Questioning what the media is presenting us as TRUE and REAL does not make one a conspiracy theorist. This is my fear that anyone who objects to what is officially presented as real will be deemed a tin foil hat thinker and relagated to the goulag of conspiracy theory forum.

posted November 18, 2020 05:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
You know what? I may have overreacted to Juniper's statement about conspiracy theories, based on my own experience with the left here and on other forums, dismissing any diverging opinion about Covid, medical treatments, political parties, election results as conspiracy theories.
I can own up to that and apologize for assuming this is where Juniper was coming from.

Maybe she comes from a genuine place, I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

In terms of the polls, what I was alluding to was that the polls consistently gave Biden a huge lead over Trump, when the actual results show that if Biden wins, it will be razor thin. Questioning polls does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Questioning what the media is presenting us as TRUE and REAL does not make one a conspiracy theorist. This is my fear that anyone who objects to what is officially presented as real will be deemed a tin foil hat thinker and relagated to the goulag of conspiracy theory forum.

---

That's understandable. And yes that is one of the difficulties with identifying conspiracy theories - what constitutes 'fact' and what is 'opinion' and what is 'speculation'. Another difficulty is that speculations can vary widely before there is a conclusion, and none of them can be proved to be 'wrong' until there is a conclusion.

Randall has made it clear that this forum is a little different from the rest and the moderators are aware of being cautious. I don't know the last time I even seen a thread being closed in GU. So while I understand your concern, I don't think moderators are suddenly going to go gung-ho with moving threads from GU. However, as there are almost always two sides to every story (sometimes more), when an executive decision is made, it often upsets at least one party. That's just the way it is.

posted November 18, 2020 09:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voix_de_la_Mer:
That's understandable. And yes that is one of the difficulties with identifying conspiracy theories - what constitutes 'fact' and what is 'opinion' and what is 'speculation'. Another difficulty is that speculations can vary widely before there is a conclusion, and none of them can be proved to be 'wrong' until there is a conclusion.

Randall has made it clear that this forum is a little different from the rest and the moderators are aware of being cautious. I don't know the last time I even seen a thread being closed in GU. So while I understand your concern, I don't think moderators are suddenly going to go gung-ho with moving threads from GU. However, as there are almost always two sides to every story (sometimes more), when an executive decision is made, it often upsets at least one party. That's just the way it is.

There is an actual investigation into election fraud, so I don't think we could reasonably label that a conspiracy. There will be an outcome to this which will settle the argument, if people wish to accept the outcome.

---