Falsebook is finally being legally confronted regarding their lies about their earnings, and their bias against conservative opinions in this first legal action. This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of their prominence in social (justice warrior) media.
We can ALL see that there is NO mention in the article of the bias against conservative opinion in Falsebook. I stated such because we ALL know that is the root cause of their rapid decline. Perhaps Falsebook somehow edited the article before it reached Insurance Journal?
I can see the normal anti Polar folks are downvoting you again for expressing the truth about Falsebook. Between them, Google, Twitter, they are bad news characters and have had way too much power. Hope Zuckerberg gets run off and Falsebook gets cut way down to size.
So Rosenblatt, new story out that Zuckerberg ( who is still there) is asking several large banks to release customers personal financial bank account records to him so he can provide a service to the Falsebook crowd and people can stay up with their finances easier. What a colossal disaster that would be when the hackers get hold of the info. Afraid he doesn’t have the clout he used to and no wonder his stock has fallen $100 Billion and Falsebook is having people desert for other mediums. I am sure you won’t have a problem with it though. Safe and secure, right?
You know, it’s funny…..you could likely leave your political pity party (see what I did there) at home and just comment how you are happy to finally see Facebook be confronted about their earnings and many people would probably agree with you.
Questions, if Facebook is so anti-Repub, how did Donald win the election? Why do Repubs control both the house and senate?
Per usual, the Repubs make things political when they need not. Hence, the negative votes.
Ah yes, Nebraska is the home of Uncle Warren, one of the biggest supporters of the infamous Barack Obama, the worst President in US History. Got special deals to haul oil on his trains and block the pipeline construction. Great that we have a President who made that happen as one of his promises.
APRIL 5, 2018 AT 11:36 AM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Boring, we have already wised up. Time for you to do so.
Reply
August 3, 2018 at 9:05 am
??? says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Yea? William Henry Harrison really left his mark on the country..
August 1, 2018 at 4:29 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
from http s://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/07/31/496464.htm?comments
PolarBeaRepeal says:
If you are the EO of IJ you have the right to suspend someone’s privilege to debate the issues in the articles. If not, stop making demands/ claims about who can and cannot debate issues.
Well, we know where Andrew is coming from leaving your ugly post up and taking mine down. Sure hope you limit your posting to once a year which is about your average.
MARCH 8, 2018 AT 12:42 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
I see that you have been puffing a little too much weed and you are Scromiting all over this site.
“Questions, if Facebook is so anti-Repub, how did Donald win the election? ”
I think you miss the point of this. Just because the left failed to shut down Trump by the way, does not mean they didn’t use questionable means. I would argue they only lost to the Donald because of what they did, and the public revulsed at it.
“Per usual, the Repubs make things political when they need not. Hence, the negative votes.”
Flip it to democrats. Republicans tend to just be what they are. They don’t tend to play political games. Democrats however do, they take phrases, leave out key parts, and claim the person was talking about all Mexicans and is racist. I might be talking about a real event there. I can name countless others of the liberal media doing this. Just because they lost doesn’t mean they didn’t do it, and again, it’s because they did this that they lost.
And this is coming from someone who said that if I’m wrong about markets fixing the health issue, and we actually pass a republican plan and it doesn’t work (to date republican plans have been blocked) then I will flip the other way.
I will actually flip to single payer.
The fact that I have become an extreme republican in the current political climate, is insane.
Facebook has a lot to do with that. They shut down discourse, and now we just have a bunch of echo chambers, with the left getting more and more radical.
Bob, a few days ago, Falsebook refused to allow an Asian Ameican Republican lady to run campaign ad. It is all about Falsebook algorithms slanted to the left.
The tilt is clearly there, to me what is disturbing is removing what is considered offensive. It’s that simple. Everyone gets offended. We are going to basically have everyone taking down everyone else’s posts, and considering the left has a much more active group of doxing shut down hate speech crowd, a lot of people will be shut down, and a lot of debate in general.
Shutting down people like that ruins social growth. These guys have no clue what they are teaching the youth. I am not exaggerating when I have called the youth 30 and under possibly the most indoctrinated and extreme generation in the modern era. I say it for a reason. The level of ego combined with social media combined with policing speech, policing morality, policing virtue (what pro nouns are just and what speech isn’t, what behavior should be ok to everyone and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a bigot and should be fired and cast out, etc) it is at a level I cannot believe. One of my daughters is 6. I told her recently because this has already started in her: “You don’t ever shut down what someone says unless they are doing a blatant direct attack. At this age if mommy or someone tells you some piece of information you should consider it, look into it, and figure it out. You should not get easily offended and tell them to stop talking”. She has a habit when someone says something she feels is either pointless, or makes her uncomfortable (so for example when I talk about things she doesn’t know about, which is all the time) of telling them to stop it. I finally shut that down, and gave upwards of 20 examples of what is ok to tell someone to stop taking in a panic and what isn’t, and that she will become completely unable to grow if she keeps up what she is doing. It likely partly comes from my mother being in the house. My mother basically goes crazy on all topics, is angry half the time, is furious when anyone disagrees with her, etc, so my daughter always thinks that when someone talks about issues it’s anger or domination. Of course I suspect it’s also school.
I would never encourage her to go further down that path, but idiot like those here might.
Let’s just tell our kids to shut everyone up. Maybe I should tell her to get people banned from facebook, youtube, or twitter, when they talk about the wall eh? It’s not hard to do it. Such progressive times!
It won’t cause any problems in them. Our kids are perfect the way they are. It’s not like we have to train issues out of them well after they are even 18 (though in different ways).
August 2, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
“disgrace to the industry and the human race” “dumba$$” “You are gross.” ‘said goodbye to integrity a long time ago”.
Yep. Insurance Journal has standards. Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.
Streams of insults from lefties? All good. But conservatives complaining about bias? Nah. Just a “pity party”.
“Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” ONLY? No way. Those are some alternative facts right there. My posts get deleted too, even ones on-topic and with no insults/attacks. Stop playing the martyr card – posts get deleted from this site all willy-nilly with no regard to political affiliations.
So, what is the standard, Rosenblatt? Let me know.
If i attacked you with the stream of insults contained in just one post, like the post above
from Nebraskan, I can guarantee you it would be gone.
Nearly all posts of mine that have been deleted were deleted for one reason: factual criticism of Barack Obama. These posts included well-established facts, included no demeaning language or insults to Obama or others and yet . . . gone! Thou may not criticize the Great One!
Now, you tell me. Would you delete Nebraskan’s post? And why isn’t it deleted?
You’re barking up the wrong tree here buddy. What I think should and should not be “allowed” to be posted is irrelevant. I don’t run the site nor do I make or enforce the rules. Ask Andrew and IJ about their standard for removing posts if you’ve really got a problem with what they’re doing.
PS – when I said “posts get deleted from this site all willy-nilly”, that should’ve been the only thing you needed to comprehend to realize I do not know what the ‘remove-post’ standard is around here.
If I was trying to run a professional site and had the band with, I would (1) require people to actually log-in to post, (2) remove any off-topic comment where someone insulted someone else and send them a warning, then (3) ban the repeat offenders.
If I was solely trying to make money, I would let all posts through since it seems like more people visit this site (increased ad revenue) when things get nasty.
I answered you. Your turn… do you REALLY think ONLY conservative posts get removed or would you agree that (albeit it at possibly unequal levels), BOTH liberal and conservative posts get removed?
I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.
I never meet conservatives who believe in limiting free speech, even vile free speech. It is the cost of freedom. But I often meet leftists who strongly believe in limits to free speech, and polls back that up.
Not to mention the dozens of stories of conservatives being suppressed on Facebook, Twitter and Google. Nothing like it at all for liberals on those sites.
August 3, 2018 at 3:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Craig is correct. You will find much more conservatives who believe even vile speech shouldn’t be limited. You will find much more liberals who argue that speech should have limitations if it offends, etc.
Also, Andrew did indeed make it clear recently that he has to police these boards so we can get along. He actually believes if he stops certain posts, it will be for the good of relationships.
No third party stopping the voice of people who argue will end arguments. Sometimes things need to be said.
This poll has some flaws, but there are some disturbing trends, actually, on both sides, but context is needed.
In most areas that the conservatives hold an opinion of being fired, it is a business choice, and the most extreme one they think should merit it, is burning a U.S. Flag, which I think most people should be against doing. I don’t think this is nearly as bad as the democrat numbers here.
Over half of democrats approve of punching Nazis, this is a serious problem.
A third think you should be fired for believing gay marriage is a sin. This is policing thoughts.
Half think you should be fired for considering transgenderism a disorder, and, well, it is, which makes this about the most dangerous one on there, to TRANS PEOPLE as they need help and research about their condition.
A full 80% of liberals believe saying illegal people should be deported is offensive, and when you add that to the following it’s a real problem:
51% believe they should be able to regulate speech and pro nouns for trans people.
58% believe employees should be punished for what they put on facebook .
So if they get the government to punish people who don’t refer to groups as they see fit, where is the line going to be drawn? 80% of them don’t like the term illegal, and deporting illegals. Should we do away with border laws because they sound offensive? Put anyone in jail who talks about them or illegal immigrants? We are moving toward how silicon valley operates, and it’s not cool.
August 3, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Great. So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false (emphasis added). Thanks guys. Have a great weekend.
August 3, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Prior post was submitted before bob’s 2nd comment
August 3, 2018 at 3:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“Great. So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false (emphasis added). Thanks guys. Have a great weekend.”
Don’t speak for me. I made very clear points on the issues I wanted to address.
No one said ONLY conservatives are policed here, we said they are uniquely policed here.
I went over primarily the differences liberal to conservative regarding policing of speech in general, and when one believes it needs to be policed.
If 80% of liberals believe referencing illegal immigrants is offensive, and let’s say Andrew believes in policing offensive speech, you might find that illegal immigration and petty issues are deleted.
While Andrew might delete a liberal who mentions something similar to burning flags, or hot items on the right, there are a lot less of those hot items. For example: If someone said gay behavior was not a sin. Do conservatives who disagree with that statement, and find it deeply sinful, want to limit gay speech? Would a conservative monitor delete gay comments?
I don’t think so. However, you will probably find Andrew delete comments from Agent if he said homosexual folks were sinful, and I think most here, including you, who were liberals would applaud it.
For removing hate speech.
August 3, 2018 at 3:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Craig: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.”
Rosenblatt: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” ONLY? No way.
Rosenblatt: “Do you REALLY think ONLY conservative posts get removed or would you agree that…BOTH liberal and conservative posts get removed?”
Craig: “I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts.”
Bob: “Craig is correct”
Rosenblatt: “So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false”
Bob: “Don’t speak for me. No one said ONLY conservatives are policed here”
This is why I keep saying “reading comprehension buddy.”
Craig CLEARLY said ONLY conservative posts are removed. I TWICE asked him to clarify that BOTH conservative & liberal posts get removed.
He agreed. You then agreed with him. THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF THIS THREAD! Now you claim he didn’t actually say “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” in the first place. Geez.
August 3, 2018 at 4:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Hyperbole. Learn to understand it.
He then corrected for what he meant by that statement, which was clearly an exaggeration, and you know darn well that it was, you’re just being facetious.
“I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.”
I replied to that post with Craig is correct.
How dare you try to link my comment of Craig is correct to hyperbole, and or to one statement of many that Craig made.
I don’t think you foolishly did it. I think you saw an opening and went in for it.
Don’t play games with me.
You’ve seen me debate. I rarely make comments that ignorant as you just suggested. When you see me call you wrong about what I said, you probably have lost track of the conversation, not vice versa.
August 3, 2018 at 4:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Even read my original post, I said SPECIFICALLY what part of what I was agreeing with:
“Craig is correct. You will find MUCH MORE conservatives who believe even vile speech shouldn’t be limited. You will find MUCH MORE liberals who argue that speech should have limitations if it offends, etc.”
“I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.”
And then I went over Andrew here:
“Also, Andrew did indeed make it clear recently that he has to police these boards so we can get along. He actually believes if he stops certain posts, it will be for the good of relationships.”
I will speak for myself. When you bold some part of a statement I never made, and link me to someone else’s hyperbolic statement he since clarified on, it just makes you look like you’re seeing what you want to.
As the left often does with Trump.
Is this conservative derangement syndrome with you?
August 3, 2018 at 4:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
My reply line item goes over that post I replied to.
And you tried to pull it to make a statement I never made.
How dare you. I will speak for myself.
August 8, 2018 at 11:25 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig, it is now and only took 9 days to do it. My post to Nebraskan was deleted minutes after I made it.
Rage on Rosenblatt. Couldn’t care less. Craig and Bob are both correct. Good thing Nebraskan only comments once or twice a year. That is too many, by the way and IJ still has his ugly insulting comment up. I rest my case.
Regarding removal of comments, several people have mischaracterized my past statement about getting people to agree and my explanation of what comments are removed. The key point is that off-topic, offensive and self-promotional comments will be removed. Yes, we miss some. Yes, we make mistakes. I also tried to make the point once that commenters who actually discuss insurance over politics are more likely to agree. That observation has been twisted somehow into a belief that my goal is to get everyone to get along. I have also privately called out individuals who seem to regularly berate or ridicule those with whom they disagree. We want this to be a forum of many and diverse opinions that are respectfully expressed.
By the way, those who claim they know of a bias in comment removals have no way of knowing the numbers, authors or content of the many comments and spam that get removed before they ever get published due to a delay built in into the system.
Below are two prior comments that may help explain:
I make no claim that all off-topic or offensive comments are deleted. We do not monitor them most of the time. It’s an imperfect system. I’m sorry if I made a mistake with one of yours. I have probably made other mistakes as well. This is not the place to start or perpetuate feuds with other readers or with me. Thank you for your viewpoint on how to handle comments.
The motive is simply to keep comments on topic and civil. It’s not a perfect or complete process. We do not have the time to monitor every minute and I have better things to do than read them all and surely miss many. As I have said before, just because one person travels down a side alley does not mean you have to follow. It would help if y’all tried to bring the discussion back to the topic. This is not a forum for personal political confessions or diatribes. So, if your comment falls along these lines, chances are good it will be deleted. I suspect one of the reasons we are all drawn to the insurance industry is because insurance is so intrinsic to our economic, social and, yes, political lives. Please share your insurance perspectives, insights, experiences and opinions. My hunch is you’ll discover y’all agree more than you disagree. Imagine how great that will feel. Thanks.
Not that I had any issues on the subject, I do thank you for taking the time to reply. I’d say more, but that’d be off-topic and I don’t want to go there :)
Andrew, please explain to the forum why Nebraskan’s very insulting and ugly post is still up. Inquiring minds want to know. Don’t give me that excuse that you can’t monitor all the posts. My reply to him was down within 15 minutes of the post. Hello!
Andrew, try July 30,2018 at 5:43 PM under Nebraskan. One of the nastiest posts I have seen in many years. You apparently saw my reply since it was gone very fast. I am not allowed to reply, but his stays up in perpetuity, right?
Thank you Andrew for doing the right thing. It should be routine to remove posts like his. Conservatives get removed routinely and we don’t use that kind of language or insults.
Falsebook is finally being legally confronted regarding their lies about their earnings, and their bias against conservative opinions in this first legal action. This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of their prominence in social (justice warrior) media.
We can ALL see that there is NO mention in the article of the bias against conservative opinion in Falsebook. I stated such because we ALL know that is the root cause of their rapid decline. Perhaps Falsebook somehow edited the article before it reached Insurance Journal?
I can see the normal anti Polar folks are downvoting you again for expressing the truth about Falsebook. Between them, Google, Twitter, they are bad news characters and have had way too much power. Hope Zuckerberg gets run off and Falsebook gets cut way down to size.
Hey everybody,
It’s EXACTLY what Rush has been saying. Yogi and Agent are wonderful parrots!
“Hope Zuckerberg gets run off” Congratulations! You got your wish! It happened 3 months ago.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying. Go back to Media Matters.
So Rosenblatt, new story out that Zuckerberg ( who is still there) is asking several large banks to release customers personal financial bank account records to him so he can provide a service to the Falsebook crowd and people can stay up with their finances easier. What a colossal disaster that would be when the hackers get hold of the info. Afraid he doesn’t have the clout he used to and no wonder his stock has fallen $100 Billion and Falsebook is having people desert for other mediums. I am sure you won’t have a problem with it though. Safe and secure, right?
You know, it’s funny…..you could likely leave your political pity party (see what I did there) at home and just comment how you are happy to finally see Facebook be confronted about their earnings and many people would probably agree with you.
Questions, if Facebook is so anti-Repub, how did Donald win the election? Why do Repubs control both the house and senate?
Per usual, the Repubs make things political when they need not. Hence, the negative votes.
Yeah, HENCE!!
Ah yes, Nebraska is the home of Uncle Warren, one of the biggest supporters of the infamous Barack Obama, the worst President in US History. Got special deals to haul oil on his trains and block the pipeline construction. Great that we have a President who made that happen as one of his promises.
Sorry for my user error above. That shouldn’t have posted as Agent, and I didn’t mean to post twice. But I maintain the opinions of both posts.
Obama was the worst president in US history? Really? In history? you love throwing credibility out the window.
Some of us on this forum know right from wrong. You aren’t one of them.
APRIL 5, 2018 AT 11:36 AM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Boring, we have already wised up. Time for you to do so.
Reply
Yea? William Henry Harrison really left his mark on the country..
from http s://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/07/31/496464.htm?comments
PolarBeaRepeal says:
If you are the EO of IJ you have the right to suspend someone’s privilege to debate the issues in the articles. If not, stop making demands/ claims about who can and cannot debate issues.
Well, we know where Andrew is coming from leaving your ugly post up and taking mine down. Sure hope you limit your posting to once a year which is about your average.
MARCH 8, 2018 AT 12:42 PM
Agent says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
I see that you have been puffing a little too much weed and you are Scromiting all over this site.
“Questions, if Facebook is so anti-Repub, how did Donald win the election? ”
I think you miss the point of this. Just because the left failed to shut down Trump by the way, does not mean they didn’t use questionable means. I would argue they only lost to the Donald because of what they did, and the public revulsed at it.
“Per usual, the Repubs make things political when they need not. Hence, the negative votes.”
Flip it to democrats. Republicans tend to just be what they are. They don’t tend to play political games. Democrats however do, they take phrases, leave out key parts, and claim the person was talking about all Mexicans and is racist. I might be talking about a real event there. I can name countless others of the liberal media doing this. Just because they lost doesn’t mean they didn’t do it, and again, it’s because they did this that they lost.
And this is coming from someone who said that if I’m wrong about markets fixing the health issue, and we actually pass a republican plan and it doesn’t work (to date republican plans have been blocked) then I will flip the other way.
I will actually flip to single payer.
The fact that I have become an extreme republican in the current political climate, is insane.
Facebook has a lot to do with that. They shut down discourse, and now we just have a bunch of echo chambers, with the left getting more and more radical.
Bob, a few days ago, Falsebook refused to allow an Asian Ameican Republican lady to run campaign ad. It is all about Falsebook algorithms slanted to the left.
The tilt is clearly there, to me what is disturbing is removing what is considered offensive. It’s that simple. Everyone gets offended. We are going to basically have everyone taking down everyone else’s posts, and considering the left has a much more active group of doxing shut down hate speech crowd, a lot of people will be shut down, and a lot of debate in general.
Shutting down people like that ruins social growth. These guys have no clue what they are teaching the youth. I am not exaggerating when I have called the youth 30 and under possibly the most indoctrinated and extreme generation in the modern era. I say it for a reason. The level of ego combined with social media combined with policing speech, policing morality, policing virtue (what pro nouns are just and what speech isn’t, what behavior should be ok to everyone and anyone who doesn’t accept it is a bigot and should be fired and cast out, etc) it is at a level I cannot believe. One of my daughters is 6. I told her recently because this has already started in her: “You don’t ever shut down what someone says unless they are doing a blatant direct attack. At this age if mommy or someone tells you some piece of information you should consider it, look into it, and figure it out. You should not get easily offended and tell them to stop talking”. She has a habit when someone says something she feels is either pointless, or makes her uncomfortable (so for example when I talk about things she doesn’t know about, which is all the time) of telling them to stop it. I finally shut that down, and gave upwards of 20 examples of what is ok to tell someone to stop taking in a panic and what isn’t, and that she will become completely unable to grow if she keeps up what she is doing. It likely partly comes from my mother being in the house. My mother basically goes crazy on all topics, is angry half the time, is furious when anyone disagrees with her, etc, so my daughter always thinks that when someone talks about issues it’s anger or domination. Of course I suspect it’s also school.
I would never encourage her to go further down that path, but idiot like those here might.
Let’s just tell our kids to shut everyone up. Maybe I should tell her to get people banned from facebook, youtube, or twitter, when they talk about the wall eh? It’s not hard to do it. Such progressive times!
It won’t cause any problems in them. Our kids are perfect the way they are. It’s not like we have to train issues out of them well after they are even 18 (though in different ways).
“disgrace to the industry and the human race” “dumba$$” “You are gross.” ‘said goodbye to integrity a long time ago”.
Yep. Insurance Journal has standards. Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.
Streams of insults from lefties? All good. But conservatives complaining about bias? Nah. Just a “pity party”.
“Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” ONLY? No way. Those are some alternative facts right there. My posts get deleted too, even ones on-topic and with no insults/attacks. Stop playing the martyr card – posts get deleted from this site all willy-nilly with no regard to political affiliations.
Wrong again Rosenblatt. Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong on so many issues?
So, what is the standard, Rosenblatt? Let me know.
If i attacked you with the stream of insults contained in just one post, like the post above
from Nebraskan, I can guarantee you it would be gone.
Nearly all posts of mine that have been deleted were deleted for one reason: factual criticism of Barack Obama. These posts included well-established facts, included no demeaning language or insults to Obama or others and yet . . . gone! Thou may not criticize the Great One!
Now, you tell me. Would you delete Nebraskan’s post? And why isn’t it deleted?
You’re barking up the wrong tree here buddy. What I think should and should not be “allowed” to be posted is irrelevant. I don’t run the site nor do I make or enforce the rules. Ask Andrew and IJ about their standard for removing posts if you’ve really got a problem with what they’re doing.
PS – when I said “posts get deleted from this site all willy-nilly”, that should’ve been the only thing you needed to comprehend to realize I do not know what the ‘remove-post’ standard is around here.
Man, do you go out of your way to avoid taking a stand.
Simple question: delete Nebraskan’s post or not? And if not, why should anything ever be deleted?
If I was trying to run a professional site and had the band with, I would (1) require people to actually log-in to post, (2) remove any off-topic comment where someone insulted someone else and send them a warning, then (3) ban the repeat offenders.
If I was solely trying to make money, I would let all posts through since it seems like more people visit this site (increased ad revenue) when things get nasty.
I answered you. Your turn… do you REALLY think ONLY conservative posts get removed or would you agree that (albeit it at possibly unequal levels), BOTH liberal and conservative posts get removed?
I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.
I never meet conservatives who believe in limiting free speech, even vile free speech. It is the cost of freedom. But I often meet leftists who strongly believe in limits to free speech, and polls back that up.
Not to mention the dozens of stories of conservatives being suppressed on Facebook, Twitter and Google. Nothing like it at all for liberals on those sites.
Craig is correct. You will find much more conservatives who believe even vile speech shouldn’t be limited. You will find much more liberals who argue that speech should have limitations if it offends, etc.
Also, Andrew did indeed make it clear recently that he has to police these boards so we can get along. He actually believes if he stops certain posts, it will be for the good of relationships.
No third party stopping the voice of people who argue will end arguments. Sometimes things need to be said.
http://www.alreporter.com/2017/12/06/surprise-survey-finds-conservatives-liberals-differ-free-speech/
This poll has some flaws, but there are some disturbing trends, actually, on both sides, but context is needed.
In most areas that the conservatives hold an opinion of being fired, it is a business choice, and the most extreme one they think should merit it, is burning a U.S. Flag, which I think most people should be against doing. I don’t think this is nearly as bad as the democrat numbers here.
Over half of democrats approve of punching Nazis, this is a serious problem.
A third think you should be fired for believing gay marriage is a sin. This is policing thoughts.
Half think you should be fired for considering transgenderism a disorder, and, well, it is, which makes this about the most dangerous one on there, to TRANS PEOPLE as they need help and research about their condition.
A full 80% of liberals believe saying illegal people should be deported is offensive, and when you add that to the following it’s a real problem:
51% believe they should be able to regulate speech and pro nouns for trans people.
58% believe employees should be punished for what they put on facebook .
So if they get the government to punish people who don’t refer to groups as they see fit, where is the line going to be drawn? 80% of them don’t like the term illegal, and deporting illegals. Should we do away with border laws because they sound offensive? Put anyone in jail who talks about them or illegal immigrants? We are moving toward how silicon valley operates, and it’s not cool.
Great. So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false (emphasis added). Thanks guys. Have a great weekend.
Prior post was submitted before bob’s 2nd comment
“Great. So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false (emphasis added). Thanks guys. Have a great weekend.”
Don’t speak for me. I made very clear points on the issues I wanted to address.
No one said ONLY conservatives are policed here, we said they are uniquely policed here.
I went over primarily the differences liberal to conservative regarding policing of speech in general, and when one believes it needs to be policed.
If 80% of liberals believe referencing illegal immigrants is offensive, and let’s say Andrew believes in policing offensive speech, you might find that illegal immigration and petty issues are deleted.
While Andrew might delete a liberal who mentions something similar to burning flags, or hot items on the right, there are a lot less of those hot items. For example: If someone said gay behavior was not a sin. Do conservatives who disagree with that statement, and find it deeply sinful, want to limit gay speech? Would a conservative monitor delete gay comments?
I don’t think so. However, you will probably find Andrew delete comments from Agent if he said homosexual folks were sinful, and I think most here, including you, who were liberals would applaud it.
For removing hate speech.
Craig: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.”
Rosenblatt: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” ONLY? No way.
Rosenblatt: “Do you REALLY think ONLY conservative posts get removed or would you agree that…BOTH liberal and conservative posts get removed?”
Craig: “I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts.”
Bob: “Craig is correct”
Rosenblatt: “So Craig, bob and I all agree: “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” = false”
Bob: “Don’t speak for me. No one said ONLY conservatives are policed here”
This is why I keep saying “reading comprehension buddy.”
Craig CLEARLY said ONLY conservative posts are removed. I TWICE asked him to clarify that BOTH conservative & liberal posts get removed.
He agreed. You then agreed with him. THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF THIS THREAD! Now you claim he didn’t actually say “Deleting inappropriate posts is only for conservatives.” in the first place. Geez.
Hyperbole. Learn to understand it.
He then corrected for what he meant by that statement, which was clearly an exaggeration, and you know darn well that it was, you’re just being facetious.
“I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.”
I replied to that post with Craig is correct.
How dare you try to link my comment of Craig is correct to hyperbole, and or to one statement of many that Craig made.
I don’t think you foolishly did it. I think you saw an opening and went in for it.
Don’t play games with me.
You’ve seen me debate. I rarely make comments that ignorant as you just suggested. When you see me call you wrong about what I said, you probably have lost track of the conversation, not vice versa.
Even read my original post, I said SPECIFICALLY what part of what I was agreeing with:
“Craig is correct. You will find MUCH MORE conservatives who believe even vile speech shouldn’t be limited. You will find MUCH MORE liberals who argue that speech should have limitations if it offends, etc.”
“I have no doubt that conservative posts get removed at a far higher rate than do liberal posts. I have no doubt Andrew is a liberal who believes free speech needs limits, especially conservative speech.”
And then I went over Andrew here:
“Also, Andrew did indeed make it clear recently that he has to police these boards so we can get along. He actually believes if he stops certain posts, it will be for the good of relationships.”
I will speak for myself. When you bold some part of a statement I never made, and link me to someone else’s hyperbolic statement he since clarified on, it just makes you look like you’re seeing what you want to.
As the left often does with Trump.
Is this conservative derangement syndrome with you?
My reply line item goes over that post I replied to.
And you tried to pull it to make a statement I never made.
How dare you. I will speak for myself.
Craig, it is now and only took 9 days to do it. My post to Nebraskan was deleted minutes after I made it.
Rage on Rosenblatt. Couldn’t care less. Craig and Bob are both correct. Good thing Nebraskan only comments once or twice a year. That is too many, by the way and IJ still has his ugly insulting comment up. I rest my case.
I agree with you Agent – Bob and Craig were correct to agree with me. Who-hoo consensus!
If you read the thread, we all agree IJ removes comments from both sides of the political spectrum. That’s all I was talking about.
There was no doubt in my mind that Facebook was all in for Hillary and Obama.
Regarding removal of comments, several people have mischaracterized my past statement about getting people to agree and my explanation of what comments are removed. The key point is that off-topic, offensive and self-promotional comments will be removed. Yes, we miss some. Yes, we make mistakes. I also tried to make the point once that commenters who actually discuss insurance over politics are more likely to agree. That observation has been twisted somehow into a belief that my goal is to get everyone to get along. I have also privately called out individuals who seem to regularly berate or ridicule those with whom they disagree. We want this to be a forum of many and diverse opinions that are respectfully expressed.
By the way, those who claim they know of a bias in comment removals have no way of knowing the numbers, authors or content of the many comments and spam that get removed before they ever get published due to a delay built in into the system.
Below are two prior comments that may help explain:
I make no claim that all off-topic or offensive comments are deleted. We do not monitor them most of the time. It’s an imperfect system. I’m sorry if I made a mistake with one of yours. I have probably made other mistakes as well. This is not the place to start or perpetuate feuds with other readers or with me. Thank you for your viewpoint on how to handle comments.
The motive is simply to keep comments on topic and civil. It’s not a perfect or complete process. We do not have the time to monitor every minute and I have better things to do than read them all and surely miss many. As I have said before, just because one person travels down a side alley does not mean you have to follow. It would help if y’all tried to bring the discussion back to the topic. This is not a forum for personal political confessions or diatribes. So, if your comment falls along these lines, chances are good it will be deleted. I suspect one of the reasons we are all drawn to the insurance industry is because insurance is so intrinsic to our economic, social and, yes, political lives. Please share your insurance perspectives, insights, experiences and opinions. My hunch is you’ll discover y’all agree more than you disagree. Imagine how great that will feel. Thanks.
Not that I had any issues on the subject, I do thank you for taking the time to reply. I’d say more, but that’d be off-topic and I don’t want to go there :)
Andrew, please explain to the forum why Nebraskan’s very insulting and ugly post is still up. Inquiring minds want to know. Don’t give me that excuse that you can’t monitor all the posts. My reply to him was down within 15 minutes of the post. Hello!
I have no idea what post you are talking about.
Andrew, try July 30,2018 at 5:43 PM under Nebraskan. One of the nastiest posts I have seen in many years. You apparently saw my reply since it was gone very fast. I am not allowed to reply, but his stays up in perpetuity, right?
The comment that offended you has been removed.
Thank you Andrew for doing the right thing. It should be routine to remove posts like his. Conservatives get removed routinely and we don’t use that kind of language or insults.
The solution to wrongfully removed conservative posts shouldn’t be to get back at the liberals and get parity.
If that happens all posts will be deleted.
Let’s not send Andrew at people to delete their posts. Let’s tell Andrew we don’t need posts deleted…
Or we are doing the same thing.
Bob, my reply to you has already been removed. Andrew and I don’t get along.