QAnon Connection to "Company of Men"

[nynakedtop]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

And now that site has banned any political discussion whatsoever. I guess I'll be spending more time here. I guess their moderators don't know how to function?

Thanks for sharing that....Wonder what happened that finally pushed them over the edge?

I guess anything that deprives the QAnon pond scum a forum is a good thing though.

[TotallyOz]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

And now that site has banned any political discussion whatsoever. I guess I'll be spending more time here. I guess their moderators don't know how to function?

Happy to have you more. First political discussion: rainbows or fairies?

[unicorn]

5 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Happy to have you more. First political discussion: rainbows or fairies?

Unicorns! 

[nynakedtop]

Does anyone know.... was it planned and announced in advance? Or did it just go **poof** and vanish into thin air? (I mean the politics forum, not the unicorns....)

[Marc in Calif]

Who knows what the mods or the Fab Four Fanatics had in mind on the day they closed it?

I suspect that they'd had enough of the endless threads that were driving everyone crazy. 

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, nynakedtop said:

Does anyone know.... was it planned and announced in advance? Or did it just go **poof** and vanish into thin air? (I mean the politics forum, not the unicorns....)

Well, I know that a number of moderators from that website had a meeting last week in Florida. I suspect it was decided at that meeting. Although I enjoyed that politics forum, I don't even know the scope of the problem. The owner said they were spending "hours" each week with moderating duties in the political forum. Given that they have at least 6 moderators, that time commitment doesn't seem unreasonable, in order to keep the forum alive. Of course, as other of their members pointed out, there were probably some smarter ways to go about the problem, such as at first temporarily, then permanently barring particularly troublesome members from the politics forum. 

Another issue with that website has been an obsessive compulsion to weed out any posting which was considered "off-topic." Until about a year ago, going "off-topic" was only forbidden if the original poster specifically asked that only on-topic discussions occurred, and that had to be in the poster's original (first) post. This obsession, which was applied to some but not all posters, became weaponized, as any tangent would lead to complaints from people who were losing arguments. I suspect that most of the time spent was in dealing with complaints and weeding out of postings which drifted from the original subject. 

In my opinion, it is the sign of an interesting string when subjects drift. Also, if the posts drifted too much, they could have just removed them without applying "points" to members, which can quickly add up and leading to the person being banned. I have a feeling that this heavy-handed moderation is going to lead to people drifting away from that website. There was actually a whole string discussing interesting posters who'd been chased away. Any hint of criticism of moderators' actions on that string ended up being dealt with severely. Well, a website should exist for the benefit of the members, not just the moderators. There may be few left there after some time, and the moderators can then rejoice at not having to do any work, since they'll be the only ones left. 

[nynakedtop]

2 hours ago, Marc in Calif said:

Who knows what the mods or the Fab Four Fanatics had in mind on the day they closed it?

I suspect that they'd had enough of the endless threads that were driving everyone crazy. 

what has always amazed me... and what actually prompted me starting this thread here... was the staying power of the evil sisters - everyone else seems to get banned, but they just stay on and on and on.

maybe they can collaborate on finding another website to infect.

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Happy to have you more. First political discussion: rainbows or fairies?

Silly Oz!  That's a trick question.  The answer is both, of course.

Rainbows are the symbol of Gay freedom and fun.  How could we possibly live without them?

And we have to be fairies in order to win our freedom and fun.  Sometimes even nasty ones.  Which is maybe what that thing at the other website is about.  But love Trumps all, so to speak.  😉

So I'm for both, and ...............

Speaking of which, I was wandering around here last night to see who is posting here, and about what.  I think the last time I posted here this place may have been Boy Toy.  And I saw the thread on your budding romance.  I remember having a very nice discussion with you and Bill at one of Oliver's parties a long time ago, in which you educated me a bit about Thailand. 

Congratulations on your new relationship.  Hope love wins.

[stevenkesslar]

50 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Well, I know that a number of moderators from that website had a meeting last week in Florida. I suspect it was decided at that meeting. Although I enjoyed that politics forum, I don't even know the scope of the problem. The owner said they were spending "hours" each week with moderating duties in the political forum. Given that they have at least 6 moderators, that time commitment doesn't seem unreasonable, in order to keep the forum alive. Of course, as other of their members pointed out, there were probably some smarter ways to go about the problem, such as at first temporarily, then permanently barring particularly troublesome members from the politics forum. 

Another issue with that website has been an obsessive compulsion to weed out any posting which was considered "off-topic." Until about a year ago, going "off-topic" was only forbidden if the original poster specifically asked that only on-topic discussions occurred, and that had to be in the poster's original (first) post. This obsession, which was applied to some but not all posters, became weaponized, as any tangent would lead to complaints from people who were losing arguments. I suspect that most of the time spent was in dealing with complaints and weeding out of postings which drifted from the original subject. 

In my opinion, it is the sign of an interesting string when subjects drift. Also, if the posts drifted too much, they could have just removed them without applying "points" to members, which can quickly add up and leading to the person being banned. I have a feeling that this heavy-handed moderation is going to lead to people drifting away from that website. There was actually a whole string discussing interesting posters who'd been chased away. Any hint of criticism of moderators' actions on that string ended up being dealt with severely. Well, a website should exist for the benefit of the members, not just the moderators. There may be few left there after some time, and the moderators can then rejoice at not having to do any work, since they'll be the only ones left. 

Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it, @unicorn.   As a specific example, you and I have gotten into it, over things that matter.  Like how to protect people form COVID.  But I think grown ups can disagree, sometimes strongly, over things that matter.  And still be respectful.

I said it over at Company Of Men, but I'll repeat here.  Temperament has a lot to do with it.  I did say to Bill, like when he timed me out several times, "Your website.  Your rules."  So there was an underlying respect.  But you could also say, "Your website.  Your temperament."  Bill had his own idiosyncrasies, which is an understatement.  I was a moderator there for a while, which he give me as a reward I never wanted for raising money for him to run his website.  I argued privately against his rule that you can't post pictures of children, and lost.  But that dumb rule died when Bill did, basically.  Bill came of age at a time when Gay men and children meant "predator."  He was being cautious, and reactive.  Thanks to The Gays being pro-active, Gay men and children now means Secretary Pete changing his kid's diapers. 😊  I absolutely love it that I got to live in a period when The Gays became a model for how to do politics in America and the world.  Compassionately. And with intelligence.

I have never met any of the moderators there in person, like I met Bill many times.  Or Oz, once.  My guess is they never particularly enjoyed that forum, anyway.  I think Bill did.  He'd post there sometimes, and let it all hang out.  Like his posts on Black Lives Matter.  Which did not go down well. When Trump first won he posted that he was cautiously optimistic. He would pin up that silly Miss Manners-type logo, and talk about how we all needed to post with decorum.  I found it amusing.  My own view is that we'd somehow managed to set up a massive fan where shit was being splattered all over the place, every day, for four years. In order to divide and conquer.  The Gays were, and are, being singled out in a massive culture war.  So how was that NOT supposed to splatter all over his website?  

I will always wonder whether he lived to regret his cautious optimism.  I'm guessing the moderators who kept the site alive after Bill died, thankfully, just viewed that forum as the diaper that needed to be changed regularly.  And it got to be a big pain in the ass for them.  I can't blame them.  I'm grateful that they kept the place alive when Bill died.  Like I said over there, which some of the people I respect there the most like @lookin and Charlie agreed with, now they get a well deserved break.

The seeming obsession with staying "on topic" personally annoyed me.  Because I am guilty as charged for loving to wander off on tangents, like I am right now.  I think that was in part Cooper's temperament.  If there is an Internet Fairy God Mother, he would probably argue Cooper is correct.  I recall reading some example of hijacking a thread that says if the title is how to groom your dog, it is impolite to bring up how you groom your cat.  There'd be a post on some racist act in Kentucky, and I'd compare it to some racist act in LA.  I think that would annoy the moderators.  Mostly, I don't think there is much evidence that the key moderators ever really enjoyed posting on the politics forum, anyway.  One person summed it all up with, "Good riddance!" 

It does make me sad.  IMHO 20 years of interesting and diverse Gay political opinion just got flushed down the toilet.

 

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

... But I think grown ups can disagree, sometimes strongly, over things that matter.  And still be respectful...

...Bill had his own idiosyncrasies, which is an understatement.... I argued privately against his rule that you can't post pictures of children...

On your first statement, I think the key is to attack the statement, not the poster. We've had mild disagreements, but never anything serious. There are some posters, such as L2P and E2G, who often posted stuff which was stupid, but I would always say "What you're saying is stupid," not "You're stupid." I didn't even think they were stupid people, just that they posted a lot of dumb things, especially out of their fields of knowledge. I could respect them, even if they made dumb statements in areas such as science or medicine. Yet when they attacked me, it was often personal, with their calling me names such as "Dr. Seuss" (instead of trying to refute data I provided with alternative data or alternative explanations for the data). 

And you're also correct that Bill was quite obsessive and neurotic when it came to children. I once posted a photo of a model from the model's Facebook page, and didn't even notice that one of his clothed children was in the background. I think I was banned for 3 months, and told I'd be banned permanently if there were any photo of any children in anything I posted. This was super-neurotic and nonsensical. Absolutely no one except a nut would have interpreted that in a childhood sensual way. I also remember how he pitched a fit just when someone mentioned one of his childhood experiences. One had to scan every photo to make sure there were no children in the background, and go over every post to make sure there wasn't even a tangential mention of childhood. At least that got better quickly with the new management, but the "off-topic" obsession replaced it. This latest obsession may result in the website losing its relevance. 

[Latbear4blk]

I am unsure about the predictions on the website losing relevance. I think most of the issues pointed out in the last previous posts were limited to the Politics forum. I understand that the overwhelming majority of the posters were not participating in the P forums, they would even avoid the place. Those arguing politics (we) were a tiny minority.

[nynakedtop]

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

I am unsure about the predictions on the website losing relevance. I think most of the issues pointed out in the last previous posts were limited to the Politics forum. I understand that the overwhelming majority of the posters were not participating in the P forums, they would even avoid the place. Those arguing politics (we) were a tiny minority.

Agreed.

We are/were a self-selecting group of people who gravitated to the politics forum at first because besides having an interest in the commercial sex marketplace also carried with us an interest in and commitment to issues that affect our communities in the social realm.

little did we know what was awaiting us there!

as someone who was purged early on for my overly passionate responses to vicious personal attacks by the clown, i saw that the politics forum existed as an outlier - all of us encounter extreme right wing ideas as we move through our lives but it was the sheer viciousness, meanness, rabid anti-intellectualism, race and gender baiting that made the politics forum a true embarrassment. 

may it never rise again...

[Marc in Calif]

6 hours ago, nynakedtop said:

i saw that the politics forum existed as an outlier - all of us encounter extreme right wing ideas as we move through our lives but it was the sheer viciousness, meanness, rabid anti-intellectualism, race and gender baiting that made the politics forum a true embarrassment. 

may it never rise again...

The P forum was the prime outlet for a pitifully small number of 🤡s — whose sole mission every day is to "own the Libs." They would lie, cheat, scold, and mock to try to own those who disagreed with them.

But the only thing they really accomplished was to shut down the forum that they patrolled 24 X 7 X 365. Their lives must now be pretty miserable. 🤓

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, nynakedtop said:

....as someone who was purged early on for my overly passionate responses to vicious personal attacks by the clown...

But somehow he's still there (though may not choose to participate much longer), and you're not. In my experience, what pissed off the moderators, and what was reasonable to get pissed off about, was calling the poster names, rather than ridiculing what they said. I always tried to ridicule the post, not the poster. Did you repeatedly engage in name-calling? BTC did post some stupid stuff, but I think the difference was that he was careful to ridicule the post, not the poster. 

[caeron]

 

I think if you don't pull weeds, the garden gets overrun and crowds out everything else.

I don't think you can announce weeds are no longer permitted to be weeds and expect the garden to miraculously recover.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

BTC did post some stupid stuff, but I think the difference was that he was careful to ridicule the post, not the poster. 

I think that's true, with a caveat.  My warm-hearted BTC 😉 learned that from getting timed out often enough.  And in some ways it created the worst of both worlds. 

There was a period after the 2016 election where at least it was often funny, in a darkly comic way.  Bozo and Kenny in particular would get into it attacking each other.  And it was just vicious.  They are both creative writers that are very good with cutting one line quips.  And that kind of viciousness didn't even have to be about politics.  Because there have been plenty of vicious catfights on that website about ................ well, just about anything. 

So the time-out system created some perverse incentives.  A recent example was what I viewed as BTC's wildly anti-LGBTQ rant about how The Gays in Florida are "Frankensteining" transgender kids.  The article he posted about the recent decision in Florida was full of testimony by transgender kids and their parents, supporting the medical treatments.  Which BTC called "barbaric."  It's a great example of where we should actually want an informed debate.  Because there's some evidence that some of the care providers have gone too far - in the words of some of the thoughtful care providers.  But that's not what any of that was about.  I viewed it as full-throated and relentless anti-LGBTQ propaganda.  So the de facto rule was that as long as you don't personally attack the poster, you can spread any totally uninformed and hateful propaganda you want.

Most days I scan Politico and Real Clear Politics.  I'd call Politico Establishment centrism.  RCP I like because it intentionally posts both lefty and righty articles.  Including sometimes what read as full-blown MAGA screeds.  So there were days when I'd read some right wing articles on RCP and then go read posts in the forum.  It was as if some of the gang had been given their day's talking points.  And then went over to the forum to disseminate them.  And at least in my eyes they always tended to be the least well informed and most propagandistic talking points.  Like about how The Gays are "Frankensteining" our kids.  

Last Summer a private conversation was started by someone and directed to twenty of "the most reasonable voices on the politics forum."  Maybe.  But they also happened to be the most liberal ones, including me.  One line this poster wrote I think goes to the heart of the problem:

Quote

I think you will (I hope) agree that the forum has become nothing more than a means by which the right wing fringe that has somehow found its way to this community can flood the site with hateful and harmful comments

The proposed cure was a one week boycott by the "reasonable" posters.  You can look at that two ways.  One, that was last June.  And it didn't work.  Two, it was wildly successful.  Now the forum is permanently boycotted.  My highly intellectual BTC 😉 can't flood the site with hateful and harmful comments, including about The Gays,  anymore.

I don't view the moderators as QAnon types or hard right wingers.  It's hard to tell because they mostly stayed out of it.  My read is that it shows that people in the middle are just getting sick of it.  At least I hope that is the case.  It would be a positive development that bodes well for Biden, since he has spent his life seeking compromise and unity.  Albeit from the liberal side.  

Several smart posters have said that part of the problem is that people like me engaged people like the clown.  When it should have been obvious no one was going to change their minds.  It's a good point.  Speaking for myself, my goal was never to change their minds.  It was to call them and their toxic lies out.  It seemed clear they were perfectly willing to engage each other and spread as much propaganda as they wanted 24/7 on their own.  And my read from their comments is that they are the ones who regret the closure of the politics forum the most.  It takes away one place they can do their thing.  I hope it means we're moving out of a phase where toxicity and lies flow like manna from the sky.  Or Trump.  Or Twitter.

The good news is the kind of political debate I've loved my whole life is alive and well.  Recently I've been watching Bill Kristol's one hour interviews, mostly with right-of center thinkers or Republican politicos, but also some left-of-center ones, about how 2024 is shaping up.  It's great stuff.  And the mutual respect and thoughtfulness of people who have been doing this for decades, because they want a better America and a better world, shines through.  😊

[nynakedtop]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

But somehow he's still there (though may not choose to participate much longer), and you're not. In my experience, what pissed off the moderators, and what was reasonable to get pissed off about, was calling the poster names, rather than ridiculing what they said. I always tried to ridicule the post, not the poster. Did you repeatedly engage in name-calling? BTC did post some stupid stuff, but I think the difference was that he was careful to ridicule the post, not the poster. 

Bozo had decided that I was lying about my profession (I am a school teacher) and in a very stalker-Ish manner launched a series of personal attacks on my questioning my honesty about my job, my credentials, my character. It got to the point where he wa tracking my time on the site, posting it to the world, and telling everyone I could not be a teacher (he is obviously ignorant of so, so many things, haha)

I never called him a moron, a bigot, a Nazi-lover, a racist.... although I probably did call him a fascist. That is not a personal attack - it is an accurate description of his political philosophy.

[Latbear4blk]

One strategy not applied so far is opening a politics-oriented club. The creator of a club is the owner and can accept/kick out members at will, becoming, in fact, the moderator. 

[nynakedtop]

Why be so agitated about the voices of some clearly deranged people interjecting their hate into our community?

It is because the coded language they speak is an instrument of violence.  The leaders of organized political or social movements tell their followers that specific groups of people (the "others") is plotting to destroy civilized society. History tells us that  if this message is repeated enough, loudly enough, often enough, and long enough it is only a matter of time before the bodies from the named scapegoated groups start to turn up .

This is what the mods should have been concerned with. Not some superficial policing that does nothing at all except validate the power dynamic already in place.

[njf]

On 2/16/2023 at 5:07 AM, Latbear4blk said:

I am unsure about the predictions on the website losing relevance. I think most of the issues pointed out in the last previous posts were limited to the Politics forum. I understand that the overwhelming majority of the posters were not participating in the P forums, they would even avoid the place. Those arguing politics (we) were a tiny minority.

You maybe overly optimistic. As I have posted on the other site, those people used to spewing venoms in the Politics section there now have lost their outlets and it is bound to spill over into other parts of that site. 
 

My suspicion is money may be at the root of the differential treatment for certain posters at the other site. If you are a major donor, the site owner probably will be more tolerant toward infractions of rules.  

[nynakedtop]

24 minutes ago, njf said:

You maybe overly optimistic. As I have posted on the other site, those people used to spewing venoms in the Politics section there now have lost their outlets and it is bound to spill over into other parts of that site. 
 

My suspicion is money may be at the root of the differential treatment for certain posters at the other site. If you are a major donor, the site owner probably will be more tolerant toward infractions of rules.  

I noticed that rabid racist augustus went all nutsy (nazi?) cookoo on a thread announcing the shut down of the P-Forum in another forum.... they locked the discussion pretty quickly but you know these worms will try to slither their way into any opening they can find.

the attention they get on the site is probably the only attention they get in their lives. just a suspicious.

[njf]

28 minutes ago, nynakedtop said:

I noticed that rabid racist augustus went all nutsy (nazi?) cookoo on a thread announcing the shut down of the P-Forum in another forum.... they locked the discussion pretty quickly but you know these worms will try to slither their way into any opening they can find.

the attention they get on the site is probably the only attention they get in their lives. just a suspicious.

Oh dear August, the first one on my ignore list at the other site.

[nynakedtop]

45 minutes ago, njf said:

Oh dear August, the first one on my ignore list at the other site.

a smart smart move my friend!!!

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, njf said:

My suspicion is money may be at the root of the differential treatment for certain posters at the other site. If you are a major donor, the site owner probably will be more tolerant toward infractions of rules.  

My guess is it's more that they just don't like the noise and conflict. I know that as a fact for several of the most prominent posters on the website overall.  The ethos is:  "We're gentlemen.  And we don't like all this noise."

When Bill died a member of the forum stepped forward and said he could fund the operations of the site.  I'm not sure how that played out.  If that in fact happened, it was a very nice gesture on the part of that member.  And it's the kind of thing that is best left in the background.  So they may accept donations, which is always a wise things to do.  But I don't know that they need them.  If my read is correct that transition very much reinforced the vibe that this is a bunch of guys who have this particular hobby.  And that is what the website is primarily about.  Like, maybe let's go hang out at a strip club together.   Or compare notes on our Fidelity accounts.  Other than that, we are not particularly political.  We just like our hobby.  We want to be left alone.  And we will keep our heads down. 

That certainly was a big part of the reaction when Rentboy was busted.  The vibe among the core people who hire a lot and are friends or acquaintances off the Web was we just want to keep our heads down.  And hope we are left alone.  Mostly, these are NOT the folks who are going to be on the LGBTQ political cutting edge.  As an escort that interacted with them a lot, I just accepted it for what it was.

I've always wondered how that website would survive without the companion review website that Bill ran on his own.  And that I think always got much more traffic than the forum.  The other ticking time bomb, though, is age.  It's a group of mostly older or middle-aged men who came of age before The Gays won the culture wars.  So I'm not sure most younger Gays, even ones who hire escorts, would buy the notion that we don't talk about politics here.  One poster said it very well when the forum was shut down:  "As Gay men, our very existence is political."  I sure feel that way.  But many people there don't. 

Funny, or not so funny, story.  In early 2017 I took one of the most prominent posters there out to dinner.  It was the first time I'd seen him since Trump won.  I knew he'd voted for Trump.  His main reason being the all purpose, "Of course, I couldn't vote for Hillary."  So on the car drive there he started ranting a bit about how he just didn't even like opening up his Yahoo webpage.  Because since the election there was all this noise and conflict.  I asked him if he was upset at all the anti-Trump people bitching and moaning.  And he said, No, it's not that.  Okay.  Is it that you think Trump is being divisive, and creating conflict?  No, it's not that.  Okay.  Well, then what is it?  I think he may have just blurted out, "I just don't like all the noise!"  I'm not sure, but I think I may have asked him, "So what exactly did you expect when you voted for Trump?"  Or maybe I just thought that, and politely kept my mouth shut.  We changed the subject, and had a nice dinner.  Since many of them were clients, and friends, I am pretty sure he speaks for a bunch of people.  They just want to be gentlemen left to their hobby.

That said, for a niche market, they may be doing - and continue to do - just fine.  I hope so.  It's a great place to meet up and share information and experiences about the core interest that brings them together.

[Latbear4blk]

21 hours ago, njf said:

those people used to spewing venoms in the Politics section there now have lost their outlets and it is bound to spill over into other parts of that site. 

Yes. The mods locked a thread where the debate around trans issues got hot.