CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin

Started by Angela Newman33 · · 👁 6 views · 50 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Angela Newman33hollowtrucker77James Diaz8steeleagle70Susan Price30Zachary Gomez2Morgan Gonzalez56Paul Green31darksurfer4Tyler Ramos23Tyler Grant76Arthur Fowler83Andrew Chase31redgardener17goldenscout14Sarah Wilson95amberwalker4Robert Hall7
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#41 ·
Sarah Wilson95, I honestly don't see any point in even weighing my options here.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is a massive distinction between actually holding a conviction and just spewing mindless nonsense that lacks even a shred of logic or intelligence—the kind of garbage that clearly just comes drifting out of some political kitchen at The New York Times.
Besides, the rest of the world is going to figure out what's really going on pretty quickly enough if they just take a moment to look into who is actually funding and pushing these specific viewpoints.
And frankly, nobody bothered to mention that being a patriot doesn't mean you have to harbor a grudge against Mexicans or Eskimos, so these little insinuations are, to put it mildly, just laughable.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active Member
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#42 ·
Tyler Ramos23 said:I've noticed it too. Lockheed Martin mostly hands out bans to anyone they disagree with. Even if they don't ban you, they get incredibly twitchy when they see an opposing view and start threatening people with bans. I don't get how a user like that can be a moderator.

It’s not just him, though. Most of the mods on that subreddit act the same way. Since the topics involve The New York Times, it’s expected that the mods will have their own political leanings, right? But their actual job is to set those biases aside and remain objective and neutral. They aren't doing either. In fact, they don't even try to hide it. It's shameful, but what can you really do 🤷?
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#43 ·
goldenscout14 said:I honestly believe it’s much more sensible if certain—and I want to emphasize, *certain*—subforums are moderated by individuals who aren't deeply emotionally invested or personally biased regarding the topics being discussed there. Otherwise, objectivity? It's essentially gone, goodbye. No matter how hard they try to remain neutral, it’s an uphill battle. It’s ultimately futile.

Just because someone has lukewarm views or doesn't hold strong opinions doesn't mean they'll be a weak moderator (we've seen 😁 happen way too many times).

Then you get those types who have very set opinions and express them "without compromise," yet they turn out to be surprisingly mild and tolerant mods—often alongside a popular one.

There aren't really any hard rules here... I suppose what actually defines a high-quality or popular moderator is simply being skilled and professional enough to separate their own personal preferences from the job of maintaining order on the Reddit. Or the admin, I guess.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#44 ·
goldenscout14 said:I honestly believe it’s much more sensible if certain—and I want to emphasize, *certain*—subforums are moderated by individuals who aren't deeply emotionally invested or personally biased regarding the topics being discussed there. Otherwise, objectivity? It's essentially gone, goodbye. No matter how hard they try to remain neutral, it’s an uphill battle. It’s ultimately futile.

Right, because why wouldn't we just call in the UN peacekeeping forces to moderate a PDF of The New York Times?
Susan Price30 Susan Price30 Regular
304 messages
joined Feb 2017
#45 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Right, because why wouldn't we just call in the UN peacekeeping forces to moderate a PDF of The New York Times?

🤣Or maybe some kind of alien robots instead.🙏
Sarah Wilson95 Sarah Wilson95 Regular
267 messages
joined Sep 2006
#46 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Right, because why wouldn't we just call in the UN peacekeeping forces to moderate a PDF of The New York Times?

No, why would that be? To be perfectly honest, I think Lockheed Martin is actually quite politically literate, and in my view, he possesses all the right qualifications to moderate a platform like this. It seems to me that his interest in domestic politics—specifically things covered by The New York Times—is actually quite reasonable. The only real issue is that when he gets involved in those topics, he tends to get a bit too emotionally swept up in the fray and loses his footing. When he’s just posting as a regular user on Reddit, he can be quite brilliant, but he definitely has a tendency to lose himself in the moment.🤷😁 Personally, I don’t find it to be an issue, but I can certainly see how it might come across to someone looking in from the outside. It makes me think that the moderators and admins should probably have some kind of visual distinction—maybe a different font color?—when they are posting as regular users. You all have every right to participate in the community just like everyone else, and I honestly don't think anyone ever expected you to stop engaging as "ordinary" members, but there is a subtle catch here. It starts to feel a bit clumsy when the lines get blurred. Just because you possess certain technical privileges doesn't mean you're exempt from the possibility of making a mistake. Being a moderator should be viewed as a responsibility rather than a reward or a status symbol that places you above the rest of us. But hey, feel free to tell me if I'm just being naive. 😁

In my view, you really ought to be leaning into the concept of parliamentary immunity—essentially granting moderators and admins a certain level of untouchability. It just doesn't feel fair, nor does it make much logical sense, to leave them exposed like this.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#47 ·
So, as you can probably tell, I switch up my font color whenever I’m posting on
Reddit
. Honestly, there are times when I lose track of which color I’m using while jumping between different subreddits and threads, but I think it’s pretty obvious that we aren't robots here, and most people have a decent amount of tolerance for little mistakes like that.
It isn't like the rest of us don't get carried away sometimes either, whether we're caught up in a heated debate or just trying to moderate things, but generally speaking, errors get fixed once someone points them out in a reasonable, sensible way.
For instance, when I'm lurking on the sidelines, I often get the impression that two sides are just digging in their heels and fighting trench warfare instead of stepping back to actually look at what's happening and seeing if there's any common ground to be found.
Being a moderator is mostly just doing unpaid janitorial work for the subreddit, performed by people who actually have the drive and the genuine desire to help out our little online community.
In all honesty, we should probably be embarrassed that we, as grown and civilized adults, even need someone to tap us on the knuckles and send us to timeout in the first place.
Zachary Gomez2 Zachary Gomez2 Member
17 messages
joined Jul 2011
#48 ·
Alright, so we’ve officially heard the Reddit stance: Lockheed Martin hasn't been abusing their moderator status to push a personal agenda. That's all well and good, but I have a follow-up—was the position being used (perhaps even inadvertently) to shield certain unarticulated or unsupported viewpoints under the guise of "subjective beliefs"? Specifically, those views that might not even fully align with the moderator's own logic, yet conveniently fall within the acceptable boundaries of the mainstream narrative?
Robert Hall7 Robert Hall7 Active Member
79 messages
joined Jan 2009
#49 ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Right, because why wouldn't we just call in the UN peacekeeping forces to moderate a PDF of The New York Times?

Just take your meds and settle down. You have to stay level-headed on The New York Times, considering how much damage we’re capable of causing and just how many of us there are.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#50 ·
Zachary Gomez2 said:Alright, so we’ve officially heard the Reddit stance: Lockheed Martin hasn't been abusing their moderator status to push a personal agenda. That's all well and good, but I have a follow-up—was the position being used (perhaps even inadvertently) to shield certain unarticulated or unsupported viewpoints under the guise of "subjective beliefs"? Specifically, those views that might not even fully align with the moderator's own logic, yet conveniently fall within the acceptable boundaries of the mainstream narrative?

Sure, they aren't abusing their moderator role, and honestly, they have every right to hold whatever personal opinions they want, just like any other registered user on this site.
I can choose to agree or disagree with those opinions, or any other takes being thrown around, but I suppose I’m expected to respect them, provided they stay within the boundaries of common sense—which, let’s be real, should be pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#51 ·
Zachary Gomez2 said:He isn't exactly the finest moderator on Politica; if anything, there’s a distinct lack of competence regarding content management or actually standing by a specific principle—though I suppose some people view moderation merely as a task of keeping the peace rather than upholding standards. What I find genuinely problematic about Lockheed Martin's approach to certain threads is his attempt to shield a viewpoint that isn't even a coherent opinion—it's more like he's trying to protect some untested "middle ground" of thought.

A few instances:
- (Is it biased?) The abrupt shutting down of threads concerning Pride parades (viewed as political assemblies), and labeling Mary Petir as the homophobe of the decade—even though, in the weekend following that thread closure, Peter was actually a guest on Sunday in Two, which could have served as perfect fodder for further discussion—in my view, a moderator failure par excellence. Three separate threads discussing LGBTQ+ issues at that time were shut down within five minutes, accompanied by the message "permanently closed."
- An example of moderation on such topics that I personally find most unacceptable—especially considering this involves the right to assembly guaranteed by the Constitution and, primarily, matters of politics: example 1—assuming that viewing homosexuality as a disorder is simply a matter of ignorance rather than an actual opinion (this isn't a subjective stance, let alone a protected right to one—exceptions usually apply when a user can provide a reasoned argument, though this moderator decision makes that distinction unclear), followed by a new post where this is further explained, essentially acting as a way to dodge actual moderation: example 2—once again, it remains unclear what criteria a claim must meet to be considered anything other than pure trolling, and that distinction only becomes clear after a subsequent post by The Edge.
etc.

p.s. Personally, I am not asking for him to be fired; I simply want him to read this.

My apologies, but I really felt like I owed everyone an actual answer on this one.
So, I was scrolling through Reddit earlier, and apparently, you can get banned now just for stating that homosexuality is a disease. It’s funny how that works, isn't it? You go online thinking you're going to have a decent, unfiltered conversation about whatever is on your mind, and suddenly you're walking on eggshells because some moderator decided your take on biology or psychology is a violation of the rules. It feels like we're moving toward this era where certain opinions are essentially treated as contraband, and if you don't follow the specific script everyone has agreed upon, they just pull the plug on your account. It’s a bit much, honestly, to see people getting silenced over stuff that used to be part of a regular debate, but I guess that's just the way the wind is blowing these days.
Look, if you want to argue that we’re looking at this through the lens of a disorder—you know, treating it as some kind of fundamental departure from what most people consider "normal"—well, honestly, I think that's a perfectly legitimate way to frame the whole thing.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads