Maybe you should stop feeding the trolls. Getting into name calling matches is pointless
It’s getting to the point where almost everyone is breaking rules everyday. Go to the menu, they are in FAQ. Here’s a good chunk of them
The CFI Forum is operated by the Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit educational and advocacy organization. The Forum supports the interests of CFI by creating an online community of supporters and interested inquirers into CFI’s areas of concern, which can be generally described as advancing the enlightenment project, fostering an evidence-based, scientific outlook and humanist values.
CFI Forum Rules
Preamble: There are rules to participating on this Forum, and there are volunteer and/or CFI-employed Moderators and Administrators whose task it is to enforce these rules, aid in conversation, and otherwise support Forum functioning, as they see fit. Moderators have the sole authority to make such decisions. Their decisions regarding Forum policy are not open for a vote among Forum members, nor open to protracted debate. Those looking for unmoderated discussions should look to unmoderated forums elsewhere on the Web. In the opinion of CFI and its Forum Moderators, however, the most congenial and fruitful places for internet discussion and inquiry, especially concerning the topics CFI focuses on, are those which are capably moderated.
5.e. “Trolling”* is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.
6.f.* Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission. Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility. Abuse of forum members will not be permitted. In particular, abuse of Moderators for performing their responsibilities will not be permitted. What constitutes abuse will be determined by Moderators on a case-by-case basis, however in general it amounts to any racist, sexist, homo-sexist, threatening, harassing, or other personally offensive, vulgar or derogatory comments. Abuse would include so-called hate speech and fighting words.
Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.
7.g.* Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.
8.h.* Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.
4. Problem members are subject to silencing, banning, or deletion. The decision to allow any member to post is entirely at the discretion of Forum Moderators, in their capacity as responsible stewards of Forum functioning. What constitutes a problem member is up to Moderator discretion. Some examples of problem members follow in (a)-(e):
1.a.* Members who regularly engage in problem posting.
2.b.* Members who regularly engage in abusive, nasty or disruptive behavior; or who display a pattern of hostile, antagonistic and uncooperative behavior with Moderators and/or membership.
1 Like
You really underestimate the sad state of affairs here. Now you’ve labeled a brand new poster here a troll. This is like a site for elderly aspergers patients. You could at least advertise it as such. It is no wonder that your participation rate is so low here.
Now, getting back to Political Optics, from my position I can now see supporting Biden for another four years. That should be enough. FAFA
1 Like
I included others Tim. I’m trying to descalate the current fueding. It benefits no one
OK, I get it. I believe that my position is correct. Consider if you will a foreign reader who comes to this site and reviews a few of these threads. To witness moderators trolling authentic posters is exactly what they will see. As I requested write4u be done away with, so now I must admit the same is true of cc4. He portrays a kingly level on a forum? Egality is a thing now. Elitism doesn’t float; it sinks, and it stinks. Wear your crown heavy cc4, and maybe put on the chin strap, too.
Who would insult a fresh poster like that? Yet here I feel empowered to take on a moderator? Is this how bad I am, or is this how bad that moderator is? No: as I see it things are lined up here too well. The lack of authenticity is really what proves it. I’ll keep mine intact and go elsewhere in time, I am sure. In the meanwhile I rather enjoy confronting trolling controllers. You can try to reign them in, I suppose. But the fact that you are one of them is problematic. It is perhaps a sad state of human affairs; one of those psychological experiments that takes place in the basement of the psychology building on campus. Crooked cops is a thing, you know. As to how to decorrupt a corrupted system: well, if you can do it I do reccommend it, but as I review your rules you have handed your moderators quite a lot of power. Free speech played up to a line in the sand that gets edited midway is a bit like arresting Donald Trump during an election cycle. Then too, in every sport the limit of the rules gets pushed to the point of bending.
Here on this forum we see the regular burial of threads by long series of links by cc4; a supposed moderator. This is his style of moderation. Certainly it is effective. Clearly he is entitled. Let’s weigh his crown down a little more. Offended? Oh, you might say; just a wee bit. And I am not even the one who was attacked, which somewhat is a defense of what might otherwise appear to be a personal feud. I’ll be keeping my distance from cc4 and write4u on this medium, thank you very much. These are very unlikeable characters who have no support or ability to discuss actual issues. They ring hollow virtually every time. They may well be deep state actors imposed here to take this medium down. Please consider this possibility.
Your lengthy posts have the same effect, don’t they? I’m asking both of you to take a break, cool it, just post opinions, your data, whatever, and let it go at that.
BOTH OF YOU. AND WHOMEVER ELSE.
CC has no bite. He can’t influence me and can’t delete a member like moderators can.
This will require one or more people biting their lip and not taking the bait. It means saying, “sticks and stones…” and not responding.
1 Like
Well, yeah there is that, though, don’t call me a one trick pony, the bitch slapping will begin.
Don’t pretend a moral and intellectually superiority when it’s obvious from one’s own words they don’t really understand their topic.
It’s shame there isn’t more interesting discussion to be had.
It’s also a shame these trolls always turn out to be pure troll, rather than surprising us with something insightful and meaningful. The way I see it, I was trying to offer bridges for communication, but the troll was simply trolling. How was I to know without giving him/her the benefit of the doubt? 
If it’s obvious we don’t need members piling on.
Could it be that people lurk here, read the banter, and decide not to participate?
They read like challenges to me. A good way elicit an emtional response.
1 Like
I did not realize that cc4 does not have moderation rights here. Somehow I got the gist that he did.
I’m a newb. So that’s how far you let people go… possibly you are special, cc4. Sort of like Lebed…
"JERSEY CITY, N.J. — A prominent
leader of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN) living in Yonkers,
N.Y., has been accused by The Village
Voice of being a Nazi collaborator.
The naming of Mykola Lebed, 75, as
a Nazi collaborator, arose with the
release of a 1985 GAO report in which
the former OUN leader, identified only
as “Subject D, " is described as “a certain
high-ranking Nazi collaborator, an
alleged war criminal,” The Voice reported.
The newspaper alleges that Mr.
Lebed, who is now retired, was let into
t h e Unite d State s because he was
considered “an extremely valuable
intelligence asset” by the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA)”
https://www.ukrweekly.com/archive/1986/The_Ukrainian_Weekly_1986-06.pdf
This is the sort of thing that you can really get behind, right? Or bend over for?
I am amazed at the level of information availability that we have which confronts the programmed positions. As I struggle with the problem of the programmable human; the propagandized versus the propagandist; the one crux that has to be clung to is a pledge to seek the truth, and I do believe that in that pledge there is a corollary which positions wee humans as merely having beliefs, which means that our certainty on matters will always deserve an open stance. Of course, that open stance is a defensive one rather than a receptive one. As they say in prison: keep your soap on a rope. The proof is in the pudding. Ooh, this is getting messy… Really, CC4, it might be time to stand up again. Certainly, I do anticipate censorship on this one, and I can’t wait to see how it feels. Give it to me… Thanks CC4 for all that you take.
That tells me you are not reading some of my short and to-the-point posts. I said that moderators have a shield next to their name. Have you read the rules?
He’s not, and neither are you. I often use the term “pattern” when making decisions about members. You have lately been making many comments are name-calling and emotional. Your sources are not great, but that’s a more difficult one to discuss. CC, has been making posts with scientific backing, starting threads on topics other the Russians, and, yes, sometimes he gets a little personal in his responses.
This is a long paragraph, messy as you say, about nothing but the opinion of who believes propaganda. I’m not going to go into detail about why I don’t accept your sources, because it’s not my fight, and I don’t have time, and I’m not trying to change your nmind. It’s not my responsibility to determine what’s true. Mainly, I just keep the squabbles from turning into outright flame wars.
Censor what?
A challenge is still a simple challenge. Sure, my patience is running low and I get suckered into emotional response tit for tat - but you’ll not fine me stoop this low
Lausten
I’m trying to be nicer, did you see … 
This is a common practice, on the internet, in politics, everywhere. People claim they are being censored because someone doesn’t agree with, or because someone presents a counter-opinion. It doesn’t matter who has the facts, the data, the logic, the consensus, the common sense, the high ground, the bigger bullhorn, none of that matters, at the individual level. But, it does matter on the species level of knowledge, which is where you and I also do our things.
In many cases, there is nothing CFI or me, or anyone can do to change this. People will go to their graves believing what they believe. Pointing it out on a forum with 5 active members is one of the least effective methods. I’ve posted until my fingers have turned into little stumps about the science of listening in a way that builds relationships and then you can have a reasonable discussion, so, google that, or not, I can’t make you.
1 Like
There is that. I do strive to keep it clean, but hey, I get triggered.
I know playing nice is the superior way to go, but . . . 
That sounds entirely reasonable. Can you elaborate on what you believe Biden is doing right that warrants your confidence?
What am I to takeaway from a moderator who name calls {troll} and then advises others not to do so.?
What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "
None . Both trump and biden we lead us to a nuclear and climate abyss.
The public majority dont want either to run
What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "
You should take away that the moderators job is to identify trolling behavior, and there is a complaint section if you disagree, and you get warned, and your feednack is heard, apologies are made and and accepted, and we all move on. It’s all quite fair and keeps this a safe forum for all.
2 Likes
We know Trump is a criminal, but what does anyone have against Biden?
Where has Biden shown to be incapable of meeting the rigors of presidential responsibilities?
Personally, I think he has done an outstanding job for the US in spite of the chaotic world situation.
From the NY Post link
“A Yahoo News/YouGov survey found 55% of US adults believe Biden is unfit for the presidency, and 53% say the same of Trump.”
When asked their reasoning, 20% of Americans say Biden, 80, is “incompetent,” 12% say he is “too old,” 10% say he is “corrupt,” 9% say he is “doing a bad job,” and 3% say he is “dangerous.”
Biden scores even worse amongst the polling of youths
What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "
From NBCNews
"Young voter enthusiasm for Biden is limited: Just 9% of voters under 35 said they “strongly approve” of Biden’s performance. Among those who disapprove, 28% said they “strongly disapprove,” while 16% said they “somewhat disapprove.”11 July 2023
[
Biden faces young voters who may be decisive in 2024 election
](Biden faces young voters who may be decisive in 2024 election)
What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "