But I occasionally out perform a broken clock, so I'm not a true contrarian.

Maybe outperforming the clock is your way of being EXTRA contrary.

the "unique contrarian space in the universe".

you never know . . .

...as well as how it fits within DU rules. Sometimes I'm just like you. I know what the outcome will most likely be, but just like at the polls, I always click out of jury service feeling like I made the right decision. At the end of the day, that's all that anyone can ask.

It just makes me doubt myself (a bit) I guess.

You make the best decision you can. No one can ask more.

... I've been in dozens of DU juries, and don't vote in the minority often. But this could be because I almost invariably vote "Leave it be," and in my experience more posts are passed than are hidden. I find usually when a post is hidden it is because there is some additional reason other than the merits itself, e.g. that the poster is a "known troll," or that an article cited may come from some "unacceptable" source. I'm not hooked into any of those loops, so I just look at what the thing says and go from there.

-- Mal

of being the only one to vote "leave it." It frankly was a clear case of name calling (not bigoted in any way -- just debate that had degraded to ad hominem), but I have given up on voting hide to hide name calling. Generally nobody else votes to hide those type of posts, and I got tired of trying to vote to enforce the rule when everyone else was always voting to leave it alone. I frankly don't like the jury system and feel like the rules should be enforced fairly and consistently or not at all, so despite the community stds, unless a post is truly offensive to our values, my inclination is leave alone. Thus, I gave up on trying to hide simple name calling, and now that's being enforced again. Ah well.

My usual response is "sticks and stones." If it was good enough for Luther and Erasmus, then invective should be good enough for us. The only exception would be a clearly libelous attack on another poster. That should not stand.

But I've always thought that if somebody calls me an asshole, he has already demonstrated his level of credibility.

-- Mal

I became a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs in 1970, the year they played (and won!) their last Super Bowl. They haven't gotten close to it since. Pretty much the same with any other team/person I pick to root for. Royals--cellar-dwellers since the late 80s; Kansas Jayhawks BB team (perennial contenders for NCAA championship, always seem to lose to some no-name that's never heard of before or since). My alma mater went to national championship in football or at least into playoffs for three years before I got there; couldn't break .500 the four years I was there, then went to playoffs (one year to the championship) in the next four years.

Couldn't count the number of times I was a finalist for a job, but didn't get it, competitions I was favored to win but didn't.....

I give up.

Avoid the mainstream at all costs!

The title is followed your the name so it reads as though it could mean:

"My participation in juries on DU has confirmed one thing to me: Orwell was right."

.
.
.

"My participation in juries on DU has confirmed one thing to me: Orwell was right."

I'm on the other side of the pond.

I quit the Jury system a while back - I think most of the alerts are frivolous, and the "jury" system sucks because there is no "trial".

The offender has no opportunity to defend themselves, or even to retract their post.

The whole jury thing is done behind the poster's back.

Not democratic at all methinks,

so I quit.

CC

I agree with your criticisms of it.

I'm usually on the losing side of a jury, although the last two or three times I was in the majority. What really annoys me is when another juror comments that the post breaks the rules, but he/she doesn't care enough to vote to hide it. I just don't get that.

but I've been on a jury before where when I read the post I thought "Oh, this is ban-worthy." and gone on to be the sole dissenter on a 1-5 "Leave It" jury. Twice.

Sometimes it seems to me that everyone else is in on the "group-think" except me. I try to give newbies the benefit of the doubt and don't jump to the conclusion that they are all trolls. I do vote to hide name-calling as it adds nothing to the discussion.

IRL, I am a total contrarian. Always was. I never go with the crowd or jump on the bandwagon, whatever. I don't even like "Breaking Bad"!

And I never watched the West Wing!

We need your point of view.

I have never ignored anyone and used the alert function exactly once. On that occasion, I saw a post so offensive, and by an obvious right wing troll, that I reported it. I was basically told to shut up, grow a thicker skin and not waste a jury's precious time. In the space of a few hours, there must have been numerous complaints about the troll, because he was banned and his posts removed before the day was out. Obviously there were more "thin-skinned" DU members than just me. But it soured me on the whole jury process here. I have never reported anyone since and will not be serving on any juries, either. I once saw someone has me on ignore. I neither know nor care who. There is, after all, a real world out there when I'm away from the computer, which is most of the time.

If any team deserves that, it's the Packers. I think it's the only team that's publicly owned.

I've never seen a share of that stock hit the market, so maybe it's a myth.

Anyway, I know that contrarian feeling. I'm a Lions fan.

for exactly the reason you name. I think all pro teams should be locally owned by the people who support them.

a contrarian when it comes to expressing an opinion on DU, only because I'm cursed with the problem of seeing things from more than one viewpoint, most of the time.

When it comes to the jury, I've been on all sides of the outcomes. The lone dissenter who votes to leave...or to hide. Sometimes part of a 3-3 jury. All the possible combinations.

I used to hide name calling based only on the one alerted post, even if it was in response to another name calling post, figuring that the other name calling post would be alerted on and adjudicated by a different jury. I've changed that opinion now, checking to see how much actual name calling is going on between two people. If it's a general shit-fest, I'll just vote to leave it.

One thing I won't vote to hide on is when someone expresses an opinion that annoys someone else who wants it hidden in order to shut the person down.

Oh, and I won't hide a relatively innocuous post based on someone's insistence that the person is a troll. If the post itself looks OK, that's all I vote on.

Sometimes I'm with the majority. Sometimes I'm not.

That's life...


PS...just wanted to add that I always try to be respectful to alerters, even if I think the alert is lame.

I see what you did there

1976 Winter Olympics and Obama was the first president for whom you voted who won, how many and which Republican presidential candidates did you vote for?

I voted for Ross Perot in '92 and Ralph Nader in '96, bookended by Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Wouldn't change any of it. Clinton sold out America's working class and we are still paying the price for his triangulation.

Therefore, on speech, I err on the side of liberty

by Hugo Black's daughter, Josephine Black Pesaresi, about carrying out his instructions following his death.

http://www.funerals.org/affiliates/tampabay/mstb-21.htm

Most people report things because it hurts their feelings to be shown as a moron... and if its a sentiment that is shared by a majority of DU'ers, they know they'll get their way.... so why not try to remove it?

I had a post removed for 'being insensitive' simply because I pointed out people were outraged and upset over one child victim in a shooting but when it came to the hundreds dead in Syria they remained cold and snarky...

yes, because calling someone a war monger and blood thirsty for wanting to help children is a completely civilized and sensitive thing to say.

which one I should choose?

Just so you can pick the other one!

One option is if you get called for jury duty and it looks like something that you think you don't want to deal with is to just go down and ask yourself to be dismissed. It doesn't count against you and someone else will fill the spot. Most of the time serving on a jury isn't worth the time. Then again I don't spend as much time on DU as others so I've served less than 50 times.

Last edited Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Ad hominem attacks might be satisfying but not really good debate, imho. YMMV.

eta:

I was the only one who voted to hide as well. Some deep-seated biases were at work in what was alerted, which of course were allowed to stand. But I'm comfortable with my decision and rationale for it. One man's slur is another man's civil discourse, I guess.

That's just my opinion, but the majority of the posts that I see alerted on are just not that bad.

I want DU to remain a place where we honestly do have the opportunity for free speech, so it takes something pretty ugly for me to vote to hide.

where someone got their panties in a wad (IOW not groupthink enough) I just turned
off my willingness to participate in jurys.
I usually get on the losing end too...guess I just feel EVERYONES opinion is valid here.

Guess I'm okay with that.