Trumplestiltskin

Am I the only one here wondering why noone has presented a concrete justification of why they think the sheriff is doing a good job?
I don't think that's because there isn't one - but rather because his fans are in love with what sheriff Joe represents - the image of a strong, uncompromising law enforcement figure who takes no prisoners, and less in his record of success.
The two people quoted in that article I posted seem to reflect that view - that because Joe is seen to be taking strong, decisive action it must follow that he is being successful in what he is doing. From what I've read, that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Look at who they put up for election. They are nearly all extremists.

I think it's simpler than that - it's about personalities. Different people are held to different standards based on the personal biases of individual moderators.
There's no consistency in how the TOS is applied - it's driven entirely by reports by people in the off topic forums, most of whom are trolls playing a game. When you point that out and show the inconsistencies in moderation decisions and how you are more likely to get away with being racist (which is covered by the TOS) than with trying to get around the word filter (which isn't) you don't get a human response - you get an imperious self important decree.

This week, for the first time in 11 years on this site, I am of the firm opinion that a lot of mod decisions here are the result of vain and self important people bent on a power trip.

The false assumption is that people enjoy wealth and power simply because *they* themselves earned it. That's a fallacy.

There is something very rotten going on here. The idea of community management has taken second place to an onerous TOS and an arbitrary list of rules that is applied arbitrarily and behind closed doors. Not only has it given the site moderation an inflated idea of their own importance but of their own relevance as well.
They are simply out of step with the users of the forums. You get a sense that even the mods are bored of this and some seem to be actively courting the controversy that they claim to be trying to avoid - we have one who has made dubious comments about Hispanics on several occasions, another who posted a party political meme featuring an ISIS murder victim and another who failed to recognise it for what it was.

Well I don't know what situation you were referring to but the situation I'm talking about involved calling Jim Morrison (the late Jim Morrison) a three letter word with an @ symbol instead of an 'a'.
There was no personal attack involved, unless we're worried about the feelings of Mr Morrison, and somehow I doubt he would have much to say about it.
The moderation arose because several posters were poking fun at VJ moderation - in a collective sense (not singling out any individual) because a moderator removed a post because they felt it was 'interpretable as a personal attack'. The conversation went along the lines that a personal attack on a celebrity or even a fictional character would be enough for someone to wheel out the nuclear option. Which is exactly what happened.
The irony is breathtaking.
Of course no doubt there is a caveat somewhere in the bowels of the VJ law library of rules in the mod forums that even relating this story is itself a TOS violation. Personally I think it's hilarious.
We've arrived at a situation where the site moderation is actually using the TOS and arbitrary unwritten rules to browbeat people that it sees as being troublemakers - either to get them of the site or force them to capitulate. Hence one poster gets penalised for evading the word filter, yet others who do the same do not.

I think it's simpler than that - it's about personalities. Different people are held to different standards based on the personal biases of individual moderators.
There's no consistency in how the TOS is applied - it's driven entirely by reports by people in the off topic forums, most of whom are trolls playing a game. When you point that out and show the inconsistencies in moderation decisions and how you are more likely to get away with being racist (which is covered by the TOS) than with trying to get around the word filter (which isn't) you don't get a human response - you get an imperious self important decree.

This week, for the first time in 11 years on this site, I am of the firm opinion that a lot of mod decisions here are the result of vain and self important people bent on a power trip.

Gary, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it's probably not a good idea to invite you and yours into a comparison as to who is aesthetically pleasing

Wow they've even got the hair right.

The stuff about nudity and profanity is for no other reason than Google search rankings. It's sold to the members on the basis of the need to be 'family friendly', but how that is translated by the moderators into practical policy leaves something to be desire.
I certainly think there are biases in the mod team, much as they might suggest otherwise.
If you are on their radar, things become TOS violations that wouldn't be for other posters.

If only the state made it that difficult for people to get guns. Tells you where their priorities are. Screw democracy so long as you can lock and load.

Alternatively you could participate in a dialogue, instead of these vague monologues with no real point.

I think the trouble is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of a person not feeling a need to carry a gun to go about daily life. And perhaps thinking that more people carrying leads to a society that is less safe overall. A society where, fpr example, people have a hero fetish and take it upon themselves to randomly start blasting at a shoplifter in a Walmart car park.Personally, I don't think you (you personally) should be allowed to carry as I think your decision making is heavily influenced by paranoid hysteria. I totally accept that you may well be very different in real life, but I'd rather not have people carry guns around purely out of fear of what they see on the evening news.

Dogma exists to fill that void where thought and reason once existed. The gun lobby does dogma as well as anyone. Reason doesn't work in places where reason doesn't exist.

To follow the parent analogy, as a responsible parent, I wouldn't give my children up for adoption because other parents were abusing their children. I would support laws that keep children safer. I would support laws that punish child abusers. I wouldn't hold on to some delusional notion that making laws tougher for child abusers would somehow make the government come and take my kids away.
A responsible gun owner giving up their gun misses the bigger picture IMO. It's a purely symbolic and unnecessary gesture. There are too many guns in the hands of criminals because there are too many guns period. As long as we continue with this cultural idiosyncratic belief that guns need to be freely and easily obtainable by everyone, the delusion will continue.

There are a lot of people who have had an abortion and also have actual children. And yes, abortion can be a responsible option for many due to a wide range of very personal reasons.

No doubt. It's amazing that whenever there's an incident like this - people's priorities are never where they should be.
A lot of families have been devastated by gun violence. Clearly the solution is to go out and buy a gun. Oh and feel proud of it.
What a crock.

Yes the first thing that any good parent is concerned about after their child is murdered in yet another random act of gun violence should be' how much will it effect my right to own a gun?'
Somehow I just don't think so though.

No doubt. It's amazing that whenever there's an incident like this - people's priorities are never where they should be.
A lot of families have been devastated by gun violence. Clearly the solution is to go out and buy a gun. Oh and feel proud of it.
What a crock.

Record gun sales fueled by mass hysteria. What could possibly go wrong?

Alternatively you could participate in a dialogue, instead of these vague monologues with no real point.

Huh?
Sorry, just this answer is perplexing. You said that you can't cure the need to feel superior to each other. Which kind of reads like there's inherent desire to be bigoted towards people who don't look or live like you. On a website in which almost everyone here is married to foreigners, yourself included.
So how about this. Instead of quoting some random person who just made it more confusing, just say in plain words what's your feelings about the current topic. I assure you, that would clear a lot of this up.

It's why we don't have crazy gun massacres every week.Here, unless you live in the inner city the worst that is likely to happen to you is a punch in the mouth in the pub and that really only happens if you're drunk and can't control your temper.
In 5 years, you want to know how many times that has happened to me? Zero.
Read my lips: I am not afraid.