Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Donate through PayPal
"Off-Topic" previously "Off Limits"... now "back in service".
Thank you, David.
Fingers crossed this sends enough of a message!
I can okay hope that a bit of time to breathe might help us all. We'll see.
I would add this troll data-dump strategy is commonplace in the corporate world. If any individual tries to sue a company, instead of withholding information companies often will send over a hundred boxes of nonsense info to weed through or try to tie the case up in court through appeals, knowing plaintiffs don't have the resources to continue fighting. It is a way of silencing any opposition.
To me silence is not apolitical. If you see a man bleeding on the street and you do nothing, you are suffering from depraved indifference. Issues like climate change, taxation, Fed policy and government regulation have a direct impact on investing yet are also political ones. Saying we're not going to discuss those and only focus on making money in the markets is tacit approval of whatever the status quo is. That status quo is a libertarian "I wanna make money any way I can and I don't care about the consequences" one.
However, the very fact that cigarette companies can hire people shows that many people either don't think about it or don't care. Many of my relatives believe climate change is a "plot" by scientists to increase th9eir grant funding.
Nothing I can do or ask them to read will change their mind, so their are a couple of choices: Either don't see them ( the one I usually try to use), or if you have to see them don't talk politics or if you see them continue a haranguing argument that convinces no one but makes everyone upset.
The problem here is most of us don't know each other and can't see that we are upsetting people we care about. ( Although with my relatives, seeing they are upsetting me doesn't seem to stop them)
I am not sure closing down "off topic" will do much, unless David or another moderator also follows though and deletes any post deemed "too political" in the other forums.
I am not sure how that will be determined, and if we will still be able to discuss policy and fact based statements about the economy and the pandemic etc, and not get too political.
Maybe we can just use the tone and the overall content to be a guide.
Think that there are currently 7 categories:
Mirroring the current splintering of shared media/video, could registered users have the option of setting up preferences that would show them only posts in the topics that they had selected or checked?
So, for example, if I did not check OT or OT Bullpen, would it be possible for the site to deliver me page(s) in which OT or OT Bullpen posts could not be seen?
>> important to remember Old_Skeet's and then FD1000's goal was to silence political discussions by trolling the site with ones from dubious rightwing sources. So effectively they've won
Absolutely. I concur in this fully and was a little surprised that David S, who rightly appears to have a strong peacekeeping if not peacemaking streak, acted as he did. Part of being an academic expert in propaganda analyses would entail (I would think, he said, not being one) letting fiery discussion run free up to a heated point rather past where we had got it. In other words nothing had gotten to the exchange level that would warrant censoring or blockage. Imo.
Then no one who did not deliberately choose that category would ever need to see it.
Sounds simple enough, but I have no idea with respect to the technical difficulties of that scheme.
davidmoran:"important to remember Old_Skeet's and then FD1000's goal was to silence political discussions by trolling the site with ones from dubious rightwing sources. So effectively they've won".
So as long as the direction of the topic meets your approval it is OK? There have never been dubious left-wing sources? So I think you have won by keeping the right-wing comments quieted. I do far more reading here than posting. But FD1000 and Old-Skeet added worthwhile content. Calling them trolls is only because you didn't want to hear what they had to say.
I csll someone who intentionally throws up a bunch of clearly inflammatory partisan posts with the stated purpose of disrupting the MFO community a troll, yes. And I say that while meaning no disrespect to the real trolls that live under bridges or in various nooks and crannies in the icy barren northern parts of our globe.
There are lots of sketchy leftwing sources, sure, of course, but you know that, and seem to be just trolling again. You do know, this is not leftwing vs rightwing --- try and stay on content and on target and on substance. FD1k had some content, a little, occasionally, and OS too, when he was not throwing up ZH stuff to see what stuck to the wall. The definition of trolling others have made is accurate here. If you have something substantive to say, with solid sources, go for it. I love to read other takes. Probably even yours. But it better be good. You know, not trivially easy to refute.
\\\ I missed it. Did he tell the truth about the fake dossier?
which is sheer trolling. (Also, bullshit, also a lie, also misleading, also lots of other rightwingnut things.) Go away unless you got better than such automatic laziness.
This latest post from you above has the guise of seriosity and earnestness. Give it a try. No cheap shit. Go watch the Strzok episode. Or not, I don't care. That guy is a worthier and more patriotic career lawman with more integrity than any of us know.
Crash, who/what do you think is extreme left if not Stalin etc? Scandinavia is moderate left, wouldn't you say?