Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (24305)	7/22/2012 11:54:46 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Where were you during history class?? During history class I was a naive kid. I did not yet know how the world works. There were only a few that spoke out about what was happening in Germany before the second world war C'mon. Banning someone on SI is hardly comparable either in kind or in consequence.. The point I was trying to make is that somethings are clearly wrong. What happened in Germany was clearly wrong. I share your revulsion that so many remained silent. OTOH, the issues hereabouts are about bias and perspective. Banning is a judgment call on the part of the moderator. Moderators are rarely if ever unbiased. Such is the nature of this place. It's a shouting contest. Take a look at the recommendations on posts. Some of the dumbest posts get recommendations. The recommendation doesn't mean that it's a quality post, worthy of everyone's attention. It just means "yeah, I'm on his side." I spent a chunk of my career responding to management issues where unfairness was a complaint. If you can get an outside party to study the record, you might be able to get an assessment that the weight of offense was more on one side than on the other. Mostly you find that there are just different perspectives and it truth does not clearly fall one way or the other. Even if there is clearly a one-sided bias, you will never get those on the biased side to see it. The cases I worked were in an office environment where I could report my findings and there was a boss who could impose my recommendations on the offending side--make them behave. But minds are almost never changed. Hereabouts, there is no such authority so minds never get changed so speaking out is a waste of time. Recognizing that it's a waste of time, I haven't bother to review the record here so I can make no judgment. Given that the parties are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, I would not be the least bit surprised if the banning judgment in question was unevenly applied. So, were I to spend the hours necessary to make my own determination and speak up about it, do you really think it would accomplish anything? If you do, you are as naive as that kid in history class. Why do we need lawyers and the supreme court? That's a joke, right? Or maybe a question for O.J. Simpson... We can't even get objectivity in science and in hard numbers anymore. How in the world can you expect objective fairness? Sheesh!