Dave Andelman Resigns From The Phantom Gourmet Food Show (school, restaurants)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Works for me, they are free to unfriend me any time they want.

Same here. I'm neither unfriending the dissenting views (I really don't want an echo chamber), nor adding to the choir of political views that align with my own. If anyone has an issue with me not posting politics, they can unfriend me. Facebook is not where any type of meaningful change is going to take place. I don't know a single person who has had their mind changed on a hot topic because of a Facebook post. It's generally just an exercise in self-gratification - it feels good to vent on FB, trash someone with opposing views, or shout into the echo chamber when you agree with someone. Not for me. I've actually found this forum (and a few others) to be better places for moderately civil political discussion than my own social media. Maybe it's just me, but that's been my experience.

[Bridge781]

I don’t really understand why people feel the need to let everyone know their political beliefs online. They really aren’t helping anything and I often cringe when I see people being so vocal about such sensitive issues.

I cannot stand the people who everyday feel the need to trash anyone on Facebook. There always people who think they are better than other people and that therefore what they believe is the answer.

[Shrewsburried]

The fact that posters on both sides of the political bell curve equally loath political social media posts ... is the very reason the board had Andelman step down from his public-facing positions. It's very simple.

For those of you still making this be a free speech or censorship issue, I think we've beat this dead horse enough. If you complain of political social media posts, you should be able to wrap your Fox-addled mind around the idea that many people like you ... all consumers ... let out a massive "GUH" when reading his posts. It's bad for business. Horse is dead.

[mdovell]

Some people vent and I get that. If someone asks me about a given policy or issue I'll give it to them but I'm not marching or jumping in some parade on the basis of anything. Besides once you are linked with some group then it gets worse.

One annoying thing I find is people read headlines without reading the whole article. A city councilor I know posted an article that florida bars were closing again. Now it didn't say ALL florida bars. One guy rambled it was fake because he knows people in Jacksonville. The only problem with the claim is the article said Jacksonville *BEACH* which is about 12 miles away. Heck New Braintree Mass is nowhere near Braintree, Bedford Ma is no where near New Bedford etc.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

I don’t really understand why people feel the need to let everyone know their political beliefs online. They really aren’t helping anything and I often cringe when I see people being so vocal about such sensitive issues.

I cannot stand the people who everyday feel the need to trash anyone on Facebook. There always people who think they are better than other people and that therefore what they believe is the answer.

People feel the need to argue on FB simple for the hell of it. They don't need a reason. I'm a member on a number of FB groups and asking a question often leads to a smart-ass comment from someone who needless needs to put a jab in there. Usually it's someone with a generic profile and no picture. Personal courtesy is thrown out the window. Polite disagreement doesn't exist. If someone doesn't agree with what you said, they insult you.

In my local community page, I happened to scroll through just browsing and saw a 75+ post thread where people were name-calling each other on the topic of "do you return your shopping cart to the carriage lot".

I'd leave FB in general, but the marketplace, and some of the FB groups have been very helpful to me when I need to know a technical answer right away (like doing a brake job on an unfamiliar car and needing to know something).

Anything someone puts out there on the internet is pretty much there for good and can be found. I had to sue someone a few years back. They were posting actively on FB, on a public page, and let it all hang out. I was able to easily get the evidence I needed for the case simply from FB. A few screen grabs given to my lawyer and it was a slam dunk case. Settled before even going to a judge.

Like I said before. Stick to cat pics.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

The fact that posters on both sides of the political bell curve equally loath political social media posts ... is the very reason the board had Andelman step down from his public-facing positions. It's very simple.

For those of you still making this be a free speech or censorship issue, I think we've beat this dead horse enough. If you complain of political social media posts, you should be able to wrap your Fox-addled mind around the idea that many people like you ... all consumers ... let out a massive "GUH" when reading his posts. It's bad for business. Horse is dead.

I don't think people have questioned the legality of what's happened since the first post. I think most people are aware that, unless you are a failed real estate developer running for President, it's better for business to keep your mouth shut.

A much tougher question is "is this a good thing?" and "what are the right limits?". If you've had the misfortune to listen to much of the Andelman's radio show when it was on the air, I'm pretty sure none of what I could find of his archived Facebook posts was particularly surprising. This particular rant is exactly on brand for Dave, who is both a lot conservative and seemingly a terrible person. The more surprising thing is that this is what forced him to quit.

The internet police are capricious and notoriously difficult to control and things that would have been simply frowned at three months ago are getting people (effectively) fired. Of course the best idea is to stay completely off their radar, and that's true if you're a quasi-public figure like Dave Andelman or just some random person walking around a park. Maybe this particular case doesn't make you think "woah, maybe we should pump the brakes on instant internet justice", but you should at least consider locating brakes for use in the future.

Is any public opposition to any BLM-initiative at this point enough to get the wrong public-facing person fired? How much further than simply opposing something does one have to go? I say this as someone who agrees with many of the proposals I've seen floated from that movement. It's generally worrisome when dissent is so severely punished.

As for Facebook and other social media, my issue isn't that people have political views, it's that they feel compelled to become so binary with them. Open debate is actively discouraged. People either purge their friend lists of dissenters or just keep their mouths shut. I have some friends from my college baseball team who span the political spectrum from pretty far left to pretty far right and they somehow have managed to still actively debate each other without falling into the "you're evil/stupid" trap.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Same here. I'm neither unfriending the dissenting views (I really don't want an echo chamber), nor adding to the choir of political views that align with my own. If anyone has an issue with me not posting politics, they can unfriend me. Facebook is not where any type of meaningful change is going to take place. I don't know a single person who has had their mind changed on a hot topic because of a Facebook post. It's generally just an exercise in self-gratification - it feels good to vent on FB, trash someone with opposing views, or shout into the echo chamber when you agree with someone. Not for me. I've actually found this forum (and a few others) to be better places for moderately civil political discussion than my own social media. Maybe it's just me, but that's been my experience.

This specific forum, yes, I'd agree. The CD Politics forum, on the other hand, is a toxic cesspool.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by bohemka

This specific forum, yes, I'd agree. The CD Politics forum, on the other hand, is a toxic cesspool.

I should have been clear. Absolutely. I avoid that like forum like the plague.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I don't think people have questioned the legality of what's happened since the first post. I think most people are aware that, unless you are a failed real estate developer running for President, it's better for business to keep your mouth shut.

A much tougher question is "is this a good thing?" and "what are the right limits?". If you've had the misfortune to listen to much of the Andelman's radio show when it was on the air, I'm pretty sure none of what I could find of his archived Facebook posts was particularly surprising. This particular rant is exactly on brand for Dave, who is both a lot conservative and seemingly a terrible person. The more surprising thing is that this is what forced him to quit.

The internet police are capricious and notoriously difficult to control and things that would have been simply frowned at three months ago are getting people (effectively) fired. Of course the best idea is to stay completely off their radar, and that's true if you're a quasi-public figure like Dave Andelman or just some random person walking around a park. Maybe this particular case doesn't make you think "woah, maybe we should pump the brakes on instant internet justice", but you should at least consider locating brakes for use in the future.

Is any public opposition to any BLM-initiative at this point enough to get the wrong public-facing person fired? How much further than simply opposing something does one have to go? I say this as someone who agrees with many of the proposals I've seen floated from that movement. It's generally worrisome when dissent is so severely punished.

As for Facebook and other social media, my issue isn't that people have political views, it's that they feel compelled to become so binary with them. Open debate is actively discouraged. People either purge their friend lists of dissenters or just keep their mouths shut. I have some friends from my college baseball team who span the political spectrum from pretty far left to pretty far right and they somehow have managed to still actively debate each other without falling into the "you're evil/stupid" trap.

IMO, this is a very rational position to take and I generally agree.

I think what we saw play out with Adelman was not dissent suppression, rather, I think it was his passive and broad viewing audience finally catching up to reality of who and what he is. I can't imagine the listening audience of their rather dismal radio show was nearly as big as their broader PG fan base, and on the PG show efforts were clearly taken to mange his "likability". I could easily see a significant percentage of the viewing audience being surprised by this if their consumption was limited to casual viewing on WBZ.

What also is unknown to public is whether his brothers and other PG stakeholders were increasingly becoming agitated by his handling of his semi-public persona or the company as a whole. We really don't know, but this very well could have been an internal breaking point.

[ben young]

Folks on the internet arent your friends.Will tje come to your 4th of July bbq,,No.do they send greating cards to you,, No .You know they wont go to your funeral.
There just bit and and key strokes on a screen.