Good LORD, they're out in force.

[BainsBane]

103. wrong

I was a juror on his post mentioned above and the only one of 6 who didn't vote to hide it. When I saw this current thread, I alerted. I don't vote to hide or leave a post based on whether I agree with the content of post because that is not the appropriate role for a juror. It's about whether it violates community standards or TOS. I did not believe the first post did because it was expressed in a clear, non-inflammatory manner. When I then saw this thread, I alerted because I think shit stirring just to sow discord among DUers is ugly and makes DU suck. I like to see ideas discussed rather than petty gossip. When a juror votes based on who they like or whether they agree with a view expressed in a post, they aren't capable of being a fair juror and should recuse themselves. It's not supposed to be a popularity contest. When I alerted on this OP I made no calculation about who might be on the jury or not. I saw mud slinging and I alerted. Evidently some jurors like a mud fight rather than a discussion of ideas and policy. So that is what you have.

The idea that what people post on these boards is so dangerous it needs to be "censored" is absurd. It matters to exactly no one expect the people who post here. Hides should be based on whether posts adhere to community standards and terms of service. I find it sad people think there is something revolutionary about attacking other anonymous strangers online, but I suppose that explains as well as anything why there is so little actual challenge to power and privilege in this country.