Moderators - Can we move snickers, etc. to a "Shiny Object of the Day" forum?

[arendt]

READERS: Please feel free to chime in. Indicate your support or opposition. The more comments,
the more seriously the moderators will take this proposal.

----

I, and others, have noticed how the General Discussion board page views are dominated by the
manufactured media nonsense topics of the day. The Snickers commercial, Prince's penis, Joe
Biden and "clean, articulate...", etc. ad nauseam.

Yes, there are posts about Iraq or Iran or Libby. But, look at the page view numbers. The fluff
gets a disproportionate number of views, and one line comments.

And, unfortunately, the GD boards are the only ones with very large viewership. So, the flood of fluff
in GD/GD-P is sort of a Denial of Service attack on serious content. Same as in the corporate
media. It really gripes me to see the same distractions/wedge issues as in the corporate media
being re-fought on a supposedly intelligent board like DU.

Several people suggested that we should move this worthless distraction / scripted fluff to a
separate forum:

See posts in thread:

........ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=134761&mesg_id=134761

that mention: the psuedo-event forum, the shiny object of the day forum, the worthless fluff forum, etc.

------------------------

There are two ways to do this:

1. People who want serious topics are a minority, so give them there own forum(s). Call them
General Discussion - Serious or something.

The moderators of this forum would have to eject frivolous topics when requested, and if warranted.

This approach, however, might merely ghettoize people who want to have serious discussions while the
fluff gets all the page views.

----

2. (favored proposal) We create a "Shiny Object of the Day" forum (SOOTD).

Moderators of General Discussion and General Discussion - Politics, when requested and if warranted,
would move posts from GD and GD-P to SOOTD. This is the same procedure as you have today in
LBN.

Just as with LBN, you are making an editorial judgement of WHERE to post. You are not censoring.
But you are EDUCATING people about the incessant barrage of Worthless Media Distraction (WMD)
and how it is hijacking the limited time of DU members.

I simply do not have time to wade through nineteen threads about Snickers Bars or 200 threads about
the way-premature, horse race issues of Campaign 2008.

-----

So, please tell me what you think. Can we make some high visibility space for those of us who want
to have a serious discussion? Or is this board just going to become some version of People Magazine
crossed with dueling chefs?

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

arendt

[donco6]

1. Yeah, there was nothing significant about the Snickers issue.

And on a board called Democratic Underground, we really shouldn't discuss presidential candidates . . . at least not until you decide it's time.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

20. arendt honey . . .

Look, you know as well as I do that "creating another forum" is a euphemism for "shuttle them off to nowhereland." GD and LBN are the only forums that generate any responses on a topic. To suggest that we somehow sort out the topics you like from those you deem "insignificant" will - as other posters have already said - create a bunch of "me too" topics that no one's going to care about. Just take a look at the other forums and you can see what I mean. (Well, I wouldn't venture into Israel/Palestine, but you get the idea).

And to think that we cannot discuss political issues because it's the "death knell" of government is just silly. Here is where I get the inside scoop on the real issue surrounding the sound bite. If we don't discuss the sound bites, I'm MORE likely to be fooled by them.

And yes, there *were* some real deep-seated issues surrounding the Snickers thing - not the least of which was the sheer magnitude of the disagreement over people's interpretation of the ad. Yes it had too many threads which rehashed the arguments over and over - but we've got a lot of people on the board - some who cannot post during the day or vice versa. Often people don't want to join a 300-post thread because the conversation is already galloping down the track, so they start a new one with a twist of some kind. I just don't see anything wrong with that.

I suggest you learn to use "ignore thread". It really works well.

[fishwax]

46. yeah, racism and homophobia are merely shiny media creations

they don't affect real people :eyes:

[Lerkfish]

63. (sarcasm) they only affect black and gay people, who aren't real people (/sarcasm)

I believe that's the message here.

[fishwax]

74. yes, exactly

it's really a corrolary of what is always said in the threads themselves: you're overreacting, you're too sensitive, this isn't a real issue, you don't understand the "real" intent, etc.

[jobycom]

2. So, make the topics that people want to discuss more hidden

so they may be forced to talk more about things they want to talk about less?

If Hillary Clinton or the DNC proposed this, people would be screaming CENSORSHIP!

It seems to me that the volume of hits and responses demonstrates what more people think worth discussing. I'm sure there are many reasons. For one thing, there's not as much reason to discuss topics we all agree on. "Me too!" posts are boring to read and write. And some people find issues like public commercial homophobia important, and thus want to talk about their interpretation of the incident.

There is a hide function. You can hide all the threads you don't want to muddle up your viewing pleasure.

[arendt]

10. Again, I'm not "hiding", I'm naming it what it is: distraction.

I refuse to buy into this censorship CANARD.

Read my OP. We do the same thing in LBN and no one complains.

How can it be hidden if its a co-equal forum?

Besides, you don't need to advertise titilation. People can find it real easy.

arendt

[jobycom]

19. You're not hiding, your labeling.

There are plenty of topic forums you can go to if you want a more "serious" discussion than homophobia and racism. GD is the forum you are describing as the "Shiny Things Of The Day" forum. If more people wanted to talk about what you think is more important, that's what they'd be talking about. If you want fewer "Shiny Things" topics, hide the threads you don't like or go to a topic forum. GD is "General Discussion," meaning general topics people want to talk about. We are Democrats and liberals here--homophobia and racism are important topics to us. If you have some pet topic, propose a forum for it, and only people who think that topic is important will bother you with their ideas. You can weed out all the inferior beings you despise.

[Occulus]

102. S sorry my desire to have people not want to beat me up or be revulsed

by me is such a distraction to you.

I'll just keep my desire to be treated like any other human being to myself from now on, just to ensure I don't do damage to your tender sensibilities...

[Lerkfish]

113. FWIW, I completely support you.

as a hetersexual. I think its too easy for some people to forget we're all human beings.

[terrya]

3. Well now, "fluff" is in the eye of the beholder.

It's "General Discussion". That is, all sorts of topics can be discussed here.

I believe that the Snickers ads were all about homophobia. Of course, as we've seen here, some others thought that take was "silly" and that myself, plus the other people who thought those ads were offensive, should "lighten up" about them. I happen to think that homophobia in this society IS a big deal. It certainly isn't "fluff"

No one has any right to dictate what should be discussed in GD. As long as the posts adhere to the rules, anything can be discussed. And to suggest that some topics, that is "fluff", should be shunted off of this forum is ridiculous.

[IDemo]

5. Or back to my idea

A "hide threads by keyword" option

snickers, smoking, house,,,

[arendt]

12. But, that's DIY - it wastes everyone's time. Let moderators do it n/t

[JNelson6563]

6. Send it to the lounge

When I first joined DU well thought out posts and replies with insightful commentary and additional factual information were the norm, not the exception. Not so anymore.

Julie

[Bluebear]

39. When I first joined DU people didn't call gay issues "shiny things"

People actually listened to us and stood with us when something hurt us. Not any more.

[ContraBass Black]

45. The lounge doesn't want it.

[tuvor]

7. "unfortunately, the GD boards are the only ones with very large viewership"

Are you looking for quantity or for quality? And what's wrong with frequenting GD: P?

[arendt]

16. I said "GD boards (plural - including GD-P) I want quality, and..

the curent level of SOOTD on the GD boards is, IMHO, a Denial of
Service attack on anyone who has a limited amount of time and
a dial-up connection.

arendt

[tuvor]

18. What "SOOTDS" are cropping up in GD:P?

I'd be very surprised if any "SOOTDS" are being tolerated over there. People there seem to stick strictly to politics.

[bettyellen]

67. at this point the OP is seems deeply confused. first amendment rights? entertainment threads in GDP

calling this place journalism?
this is an embarrassing an largely inaccurate attack on DU.

[Divernan]

8. I quite agree.

I think this might also encourage readers to engage in more mature, thoughtful, adult, non-snarky responses/debates. It is obvious that many, many people responding to an OP have not taken the time, i.e., lack a real interest in the topic, and also lack the mental discipline, to click on the provided link and read an entire article cited in the OP, before firing off a shoot-from-the-lip comment.

[Bonobo]

9. If 9/11 is worthy of being sent to a dungeon, so is the topic du jour.

The poster is correct. People like candy. People like car wrecks. This site is best when it encourages action and thinking, not following the most recently trumped up "News Event".

The problem is what is considered the "News candy du jour"?

What if we had something like the opposite of a "RECOMMEND" button? Like a "Trash" Button?

[durrrty libby]

11. People really need to learn the great art of scrolling on by

threads that don't interest them.

19 Snickers threads?

I didn't notice that many, but thanks for spending your precious time that you supposedly

don't have, to count them

[Bonobo]

22. Or maybe a "Snark" Button?

[porphyrian]

13. The "shiny object" phenomenon is irritating, but easily resolved by ignoring threads.

It's certainly an easier solution than creating more forums and more rules.

[arendt]

21. Right, no rules, no standards for journalism...

this board purports to have First Ammendment rights.

I am calling upon it to have perform some First Ammendment duties.

How many times does the nonsense in the fluff threads get played
back to embarrass us?

How hard is it to say "is repeating the corporate rumor of the day
in my best interest"? Of course, said rumors are titillating and polarizing.

But, democracy is just about dead in this country. Can't we at least
acknowledge that a thread about Prince's penis is worhtless distraction?

Or maybe you like to watch "The Real Housewives of Orange County"?

arendt

[arendt]

23. SORRY. GOT TO GO TO WORK. Back in the Evening. N/t

[bettyellen]

114. *crickets*

[Bluebear]

116. ..

:spray:

[Bluebear]

125. .

[tuvor]

115. Then again, maybe not.

[porphyrian]

25. Exaggerate much?

Give me a fucking break. This is General Discussion, not Arendt's Vision of Journalistic Purity. If you don't want to read a thread, click the fucking x and quit whining.

[tuvor]

27. "this board purports to have First Ammendment rights."

Where have you heard that? We're given a lot of leeway here, but I don't believe I've ever seen any such thing purported.

[donco6]

29. If we start worrying what's getting "played back to embarrass . . .

. . . us" - well, it's time to just quit. Who gives a shit what the Freeps snip off this board? It's not like they're intelligent enough to even understand the underlying issues, anyway. They think supporting gay rights in itself is "embarrassing." Pfft.

And the thread about Prince's penis was at the least interesting, if not revealing in its illustration of how the RW obsesses over sex - to the point of seeing devils in the shadows.

Sorry, still disagree.

[mondo joe]

30. This isn't journalism, and who the fuck told you the board has 1st Amendment rights?

[Bluebear]

43. Re: Ammendment, I propose insisting on better spelling, if you want to go there

You know, so we can be taken seriously.

[MuseRider]

66. *snort*

and :spray:

Bluebear, you make me smile a lot.

[salin]

79. I have no solution - but during 'thehouse' shiny object

I started trying to hide the threads - because almost every new thread on GD was another 'Edwards House' thread - those were multiplying like rabbits. But hiding a thread can take a little time - and when I was on thread 54 of hiding (after only a couple of hours - frickin 54 distinct 'house' threads) I gave up. I don't know the solution - but when the # of threads on a single topic get to the point of pushing almost all other threads off the GD front pages - it is a problem. Used to happen once in awhile - but now it seems to be a nearly daily (or every couple of days) new phenomenon. And it is frustrating.

I have no solution to offer. Maybe make the hide thread feature easier (so one doesn't have to load each thread in order to ignore it) so that one can quickly rid the view of the gazillion threads on the topic of the day and more easily see other current topics/threads that people have started on other topics.

[porphyrian]

85. I've complained about something like it myself before. It is irritating.

Maybe there should be check boxes instead of the x's, with a "Hide All Checked" button, to make things a little easier, so you don't have to hide each thread individually.

We're bigger than ever now, and still growing. So, like any population, problems get magnified. At least this one is ONLY irritating.

[Jacobin]

14. But but but what about Natalie?

The culture wars, imho, are not as pressing as the foreign policy issues. If we can't get the foreign policy issues fixed, our survival as a nation is problematic which makes all the culture issues somewhat irrelevant.

I'm with you. Or maybe some self-restraint on the pop news crap will develop.

[Felinity]

15. I'm with you, and I want to move

All Presidential Campaign threads to a "Horse-races are fun" forum for at least 6 months. Mental masturbation as far as I am concerned. We should be challenging Presidential candidates to see how much they can accomplish this year, then we can evaluate their candidacy.

Edit to add: (On closer read of OP)

OOPS and you already nailed the 2008 Race and fluff! We agree twice!

[Mist]

17. Well, I'll speak up for a "Shiny Objects" forum! Love the name! nt

[WilliamPitt]

24. My advice?

Use the hide-thread feature.

Take a little time to peruse GD. There are several threads based on that ad, and they are not "shiny object" posts (whatever that may mean). That ad cut several DUers deeply, and raised a number of important issues regarding GLBT rights and position in this culture. It caused pain and anger, and the threads on the topic are not hot air.

It may not be a topic that affects you, and I'm not judging. But if you look around, you'll see that it has affected others, not as a "distraction," but as a legitimate outrage worthy of discussion.

One person's "shiny object" is another person's attacked dignity.

[MuseRider]

32. Thank you Will.

I was getting ready to post something like that but since you already did I will just say thanks and move on. Shiny object my ass.

[terrya]

33. Thank you, Will.

I appreciate your comments. I didn't think the Snickers ad campaign and the uproar over it was a "shiny object" to be hidden away somewhere. I was furious when I saw them and that whole campaign. And obviously, I wasn't the only one.

[Bluebear]

35. Thank you WP

[Midlodemocrat]

42. Thanks, Will.

Very well put, as always.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. thanks

[byronius]

64. The Superbowl ad is the pulse of mainstream America.

And jeez, were they hard to watch. Frightening as hell. Mean and Stupid Nation. Hunter S. Thompson would have commented vociferously. What a window into the American soul. Yeah, we won the election, but look at the subtext. Echh.

I'm not gay, and I was offended, and I thought the threads were appropriate.

[salin]

81. I tried that with the 'house' threads... but

there were so many of them (54 in a couple of hours) - and I had to load up each thread in order to hide it - and my puter was taking a long time. I just wanted to be able to read other topics. I wish the hide function was easier (or maybe it is and this lack of tech-savvy poster hasn't figured it out).

On the current threads - one - I have cringed all over the place at the dismisiveness and indeed intentional in-your-face let-me-be-as-offensive-as-I-wanna-be - by some in the forum. I don't think the answer is to shut off conversation in the face of that.

But the 'use the hide thread function' - isn't quite as easy as it sounds. In the one time I tried it (described above) as soon as a opened up a thread to hide it and got back to the front page of GD - there were three more to hide. Rabbits those 'house' threads were multiplying like rabbits. Wish there was a quick click (from the GD front page) feature that allowed a 'hide' without opening the thread.

[Longhorn]

93. You don't have to open a thread in order to hide it.

Just click on the X in the little box next to the thread title (assuming you can tell from the title that you wish to hide it.) :hi:

[salin]

95. Yikes! I could have saved on hour.

I did mention that I am a bit tech-challenged, didn't I? :blush: Thank you - that is THE solution in the future. I feel a wee bit silly - but am glad I posted this so that you could solve my problem. :hi: And for not rubbing it in :yourock:

[Longhorn]

96. No problem!

We all have to learn these little tips sometime! :)

[dogday]

26. I ignored 11 threads yesterday all about the same thing

I like the ignore feature, first time I used it....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. whats fluff to you is bigotry to me.

[mondo joe]

31. In a DEMOCRATIC model the people decide what is valuable to discuss, not little elites who think

they know better than the common rabble.

[meegbear]

34. If they create a "Shiny Object of the Day" forum, can your post be the first one?

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

36. Or, we can create an arendt forum, where you get to decide what's "shiny" in your kingdom.

What a colossal nerve.

[Taxloss]

37. I once suggested this myself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2538469&mesg_id=2538486

Now more than ever.

[johnnie]

38. I think GD-Politics is under-used

General Discussion is, well general discussion. I understand what you are saying about multiple posts on the same issue. Sometimes people want to make a point and instead of making it in a thread, they start their own. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does cause the forum to get a bit overloaded with 20 discussions going on about the same topic.

I don't think any change is necessary except maybe using GD-Politics for more of the "political" discussion. I wouldn't consider the "snickers debate" fluff, but I have to admit, some of the threads concerning that issue were just rehash of the same arguments. Of course, no one is making anyone read them, so there is no real harm done. That issue upset many people and many people wanted to have their say. That is what this site is really all about.

Not every issue is going to affect everyone the same way. Sometimes I don't feel as passionate about an issue as others so I feel sort of "put off" by scrolling through the "issue of the week" so to speak, but I also realize that whatever issue it is, it is important to someone else.

[Apollo11]

40. "General Discussion - Politics" is used plenty!

It pretty much serves the purpose of the "General Discussion - serious" proposed by the OP.

You will always find me over at GD-P. I almost never visit GD, because there are too many people starting new threads on the same topics, instead of contributing to a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Those of us over at GD-P are happy with things the way they are now.

We would be grateful if "GD" people would stay over here and leave us alone! ;)

[Bluebear]

41. Fine we will, now off with you.

:)

[johnnie]

48. Lol, I understand

I was just suggesting that if people have a beef with GD, they should maybe try GD-Politics. It might be more to their liking. Just as you say "It pretty much serves the purpose of the "General Discussion - serious" proposed by the OP."

[msongs]

44. kill all the gays so arendt's pretty mind will no longer be annoyed by fluffy gay bashing ads ?

or people could just ignore or not read things of no interest to them.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[Bluebear]

49. And those blacks who took offense to Obama being called clean & articulate

This poster doesn't want them bothering his beautiful mind either.

[JackRiddler]

55. You know this is really uncalled for...

What's with the rhetorical overkill? Or are you being serious in equating arendt's perhaps mistaken idea for adjusting the level of discourse with mass murder?

[Darkhawk32]

47. My only problem is when someone posts a topic but demands that only

a certain group of people are allowed to express an opinion. If that's what they want, they need to move it to another more appropriate forum.

[mondo joe]

52. I agree.

Bigotry is a real thing with real impact. But its very reality means it is open for discussion, and attempts to silence disagreement based soley on whether you belong to a group or not is only tribal warfare.

[sweetheart]

51. whatever works

When threads are moved, the links in 'my posts' all break, and its hard to navigate.
I would appreciate, if we're getting in to a tizzy about moving threads, that the broken
links bugs get fixed first.

[Lerkfish]

62. I agree with this: its a real pain to track down moved threads.

[mopinko]

53. hide the threads that bother you.

you sound like a crybaby.

[raggedcompany]

54. how about we hide threads that amount to suggesting hiding...r.uh, roh...slippery slope...ah!!!.

How about no.

How about you make use of the "ignore" feature which came standard issue with your brain?

[meow mix]

70. lol

you funny =) i like the idea too, use of passive ignore.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

56. The hide thread feature looks like this:

Use it. That way, you don't censor anyone and you get to choose what you want to view, as your original post desires.
Why should the moderators do all the work to make your experience at DU so special? Why should the moderators do all the work to make DU look the way you
want it to?

This issue is, as Will Pitt stated above, very important to a number of members on this board and merits actual discussion, not some shunting off to the "GD: Topics I think are frivolous" forum.

Remember, it looks like this:

:thumbsdown: on both of your proposals

[sweetheart]

80. its very painful to use

There have been days, where i've wanted to 'hide thread' a whole genre of fluff, like
say "hairdo's of the 70's", and each time i click, i get dumped out of GD in to a screen
where i don't want to be, and i have to go back to GD, get my bearings again, and repeat
this painful process... something that turns out to be too much of a hastle.

If 'hide thread' could just make them disappear without dumping me off GD, i might use it.

I think that arendt is on to a software feature we need, a complex indexing system, where
threads are indexed by subject, like the dewey decimal system applied to GD, a sort of
subject code, that could be used in the sql select statement that refreshes the dialog
to exclude or include subject matters.

Then maybe a post would gain a subject code rating by other posters who bother to fill out
the rating screen available like the 'recommend', a voluntary feature to inform us further
about the post. Then perhaps, for persons who don't like swear words, a masque could
block them out XXXX, so people use misspellings to get around like fukc... just if we apply
software engineering to the problem, DU has really primitive rating and indexing as the
sofware potential goes.

Every time your screen is painted, an sql statement is executed like 'select <data> from
DU-database' The query can be modified to select based on inclusive or exclusive criteria
that would allow people to program GD as either and SQL view, or a modified query.

Elad is probably very busy, its too bad they took down the bugs features and recommendations
area of DU.... after years of using the software, surely 'the users' could be a bounty
of positive suggestions for features that add depth to discrimination, allowing us to
rather than censor, be able to 'see' the discussions in more dimensions.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

88. Well, I'm sorry that clicking on that button is too much of a hassle for you.

:eyes:

And Arendt is not really suggesting software features, but is suggesting to "move the stuff I don't think is important to another forum." <-- (paraphrase)

Just click the button. It's there for a reason.

[Dastard Stepchild]

57. I've considered your proposal...

And I don't support it. There is an ignore function that is meant to allow you to simply ignore anything you find invaluable or irritating.

I am also wondering if this is a true call for change, or a rather, thinly veiled insult on those not up to your perceived standards of intelligence and rigor. My guess is the latter.

Use the ignore function. It's like the ultimate virtual sceptre to wave away the offensive plebs.

[Lerkfish]

58. and who gets to decide which topics are "shiny objects" and which are not?

I'm guessing you feel qualified to make that decision.

I certainly would not like an issue that concerns who I am as a person to be considered a "shiny object".
I am not african american, but I felt the "articulate" issue was an important one, and highlighted an important subtext of instutional racism.
I am not gay, but I felt the snickers commercial was an important issue, and highlighted an important subtext of institutional homophobia.

If either of these topics were relegated to the "shiny object" forum, I would have missed them.
If either of these topics were relegated to the "shiny object" forum, the "institutional" part would have been perpetuated.


And, do *I* get to decide which topics are "shiny objects"? I would pick any DLC-mongering thread. But would that be fair to those who support the DLC? no.

[terrya]

61. arendt is, apparently, the new adminstrator of Democratic Underground

OMG...there's been a coup! :scared:

[Bluebear]

107. Pretty good for not spending a plug nickel to hold court. nt

[bettyellen]

59. oh crap! another whiney self centered rant i need to put on my hide thread list

[Lerkfish]

60. LOL! good point, maybe all whines about "shiny objects" should be put in the

"shiny objects" forum.

:toast:

[bettyellen]

69. and we could get ardent to moderate there.....

can you imagine!

:drink:

[Bluebear]

97. Especially from someone who doesn't pay a dime for participating!

:hide:

[bettyellen]

109. what's hilarious is that the OP is trying to find an audience for their tedious blatherings

and this is a desperate attempt to clean house and create a safe space for them to post, i dunno... say a ten page thesis they are so desperate to share with us. LOL.
i clicked on that link and decided, there ought to be a rule about self kicking your own threads every 1/2 hour. Jeeze, the OP is just an attention whore. Figures.

[DrunkenMaster]

65. Let's Try a Thought Experiment

If the Snickers ad showed a white woman accidentally kissing a black man and then reeling back in repulsion and disgust, would you think it only a "distraction"?

Just curious.

[terrya]

68. We know the answer to that one, I think.

There would be a massive hue and cry over an ad like that here.

It's sad to think that some people don't see homophobia as big of a deal.

[Dastard Stepchild]

72. No.. that's a REAL issue...

Perpetuating a tired and offensive notion that two men kissing is just the grossest of the gross is just comedy.

:eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. brilliant. thanks.

:thumbsup:

[fishwax]

77. perhaps so, since African American issues are merely "shiny objects" as well

the OP cites the Biden dustup specifically, as well as the Snickers issue.

Even so, you've made a great point :thumbsup:

[ContraBass Black]

82. Just wait till another Latino rights shiny object comes up.

[Bethany Rockafella]

99. Or how about the other way around....

the Snickers ad showing a black man accidentally kissing a white woman and then reeling back in repulsion and disgust

[ScreamingMeemie]

71. I will take "shiny objects of the day" as you have described them

over pompous, ego boosting BS any day. Your nonsense is my motivation to stay involved and keep moving...and yes, keep posting more shiny object threads.

"Let the moderators do it" was a comment that you made up thread. I think with that statement there you defined your entire presence here.

[leftofthedial]

75. that would be unamerican, homophobic, racist, elitist

and other rabid, "spittle-flecked" perjorative characterizations of anyone who does not believe that "my" pet issue of the day, feigned outrage and all, is the most important thing in the world.

At least until the next pet issue comes along.


And I have no sense of humor, so don't try any of that irony crap or sarcasm, because that will just piss me off and I'll get your fucking thread locked.

[ScreamingMeemie]

76. "my 'pet' issue of the day"...

Again, just who is deciding these things?

[DrunkenMaster]

78. leftofthedial is the "decider"

...obviously

[leftofthedial]

84. Are you kidding?

I can't even decide which dirty T-shirt to wear today.

[DrunkenMaster]

112. heh heh

"I can't even decide which dirty T-shirt to wear today. "

Which puts you three steps ahead BOTH Bushes AND Ronnie Ray-gun!

[leftofthedial]

83. that's what I want to know

who is the decider?

today, my pet issue is pet issues.

[ScreamingMeemie]

86. My pet issue is getting a dog park in my city.

My real issue is ending discrimination and equal rights for all. :hi:

[leftofthedial]

87. I'm working on getting rights back for any of us

any who aren't multi-billionaires at any rate.

:hi:

[ScreamingMeemie]

104. Once we get us all up to speed, I'll buy that.

:D

[Blue-Jay]

89. Hide the threads you don't like, you egotistical baby.

I'm not even going to go into 1st Amendment rights and journalism on a fucking message board...

[treestar]

90. SOTD are part of the GD

That's what general means.

I admit I don't know - what is the difference between the GD and the GD-Politics? Maybe you are happier with GD-Politics.

May you articulately express your opinion in a very large house not bothered by stalking astronauts or homophobic Snickers bars and never offend anyone.

[FredStembottom]

91. This will be the 89th time I have recommended this technique.....

1) skim topics quickly

2) skip a big, huge bunch of them

3) read what's left


You're welcome!
:hi:

[FredStembottom]

92. P.S.... what's up with Prince's penis?

Is there a forum where I can find out?

:crazy:

[Longhorn]

94. I haven't read them but I believe the threads have to do with this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/07/prince.superbowl.ap/

[FredStembottom]

100. Thanks......... I think..........

And the wife and I spent his performance discussing how conservative (small c) and restrained his shows are these days!

:crazy:

[Bethany Rockafella]

98. General discussion is general discussion.

You may want to try some of the other boards such as General Discussion-Politics, LBN etc if you don't want to be distracted. General discussion is the most popular board so this is where you will find most popular topics.

[redqueen]

101. "ghettoize"?

What the hell?

[Lerkfish]

105. yup. interesting word choice.

[terrya]

108. We homos don't deserve to talk about things on GD.

I guess GD is a "heteros only" forum, according to arendt. I didn't see anything like that in the posting rules. Silly me.

[redqueen]

110. It's sure not a "compassionless heteros only" forum.

That's what would be necessary for someone to try to dismiss valid concerns without fully understanding them.

This hetero gets it and hopes you're doing well these days.

:hug:

[bettyellen]

111. and god forbid you say something is homophobic, you just slandered that straight man!!

who disagrees with you.
maybe Arendt will become a mod, and delete everything that's not a florid, sleep inducing 10 yr old thesis...
oh joy!

[Bluebear]

124. .

[redqueen]

103. And regarding this idea... no... it's a bad one. n/t

[HuffleClaw]

106. hear hear

there could be a 'campaign 2008' forum easily i bet.

as for other stories, snickers, loony astronauts, dead race horses... ya got me. i think coralling the collections of threads about such things is a good idea.

[terrya]

117. Overall, it seems the consensus is that your proposal sucks a big one.

Well, your question seems to have been answered.

[bettyellen]

118. looks like they do not share the same values or taste level as this community

i hope their happy at let'sdiscussmythesis.com

[Bluebear]

119. ...

I like you :)

[jonnyblitz]

126. she makes good brownies, too

:9

[SoCalDem]

120. All we have ever needed is a "hide by keyword in subject line" option

Type in "whatever bugs you" and bam! they are all hidden.:)

[TheBaldyMan]

121. why not hide the posts you find a distraction?

It can be done with a click of your mouse.

I know that a lot of these topics are distractions from real issues but I feel that a thread should only be moved if it should properly be placed somewhere else.

I'm thinking of politics and Israel/Palestine threads in particular.

GD is renowned as a bear pit of insensitivity and closed thinking, having a pop at irrelevant or nonsense threads in GD is pushing against an open door.

Sorry but I think that the mods have enough to do, this idea if implemented would just give them extra hassle.

[sandnsea]

122. Or consider why the media covers it

If DU doesn't pay attention to Iraq, Iran or Libby - then maybe that's why the MSM doesn't either.

[GoneOffShore]

123. Here's a suggestion:

Instead of moving threads to SOOTD or a similar forum, why not do what is done on to multiple threads on the same topic on Egullet?

On the "Country Forums" you will often find a topic labled - Restaurants - NYC 2006 - Combined. That way instead of proliferating multiple topics on any subject, there is one topic line.

It might also mean that meaningful postings about the many important issues facing us, do not drop like stones off the first screen.

This might encourage more thoughtful discussion, and fewer threads on the same topic.

[meldroc]

127. I'm all for this.

It's bad enough to see the MSM news dominated by Anna Nicole Smith, pampered astronauts, the American Idol Freak Show and other fluff stories instead of impeachable offenses. I'd rather not see these stories here, though I can understand that other can't resist, so I'm all for throwing them into the Shiny Objects forum or the Fluff Stories forum. I am willing to trust the moderators to come up with reasonable decisions as to what topics are fluffy enough or shiny enough to be moved.

[Bluebear]

128. Fluffy, shiny... I know, some of us are SO unsophisticated here.

:eyes:

[steve2470]

129. I agree. You have my vote nt