Should STeVE be allowed to tweet?

Do you believe that rules should apply to everyone or do some people have the right enforce standards upon others that they don't adhere to themselves?

I'm sure you are all aware of the strict no politics rule here at the Steve Hoffman Forum, yet if you go to the home page you will find our host Steve Hoffman has chosen post his Twitter feed which is rife with divisive political commentary. Now, if Mr. Hoffman wants to engage with his fans couldn't he just say, "follow me on Twitter", why does his partisan political opinions need to be part of a music forum where political commentary will get any one else banned?

Is he who makes the rule free to break them? Does might make right? Surely, he has the legal right to set up a website, implement a code of conduct and then personally violate it, but is that ethical?

Tell me what you think, if you dare.

Is the home page on part of the website? Is the cover not a part of the book?

No worries, just discussions.

She's probably busy reporting me.

Oh, I forgot you can't articulate your point.

Yes, I made that point too, but is it ethical?

I know what it is but does it need to be there? Everyone here know who Mr. Hoffman is and how to find him on Twitter. The man's career is well established, he doesn't need to advertise for business purposes. If the no politics rule is so important why not just leave it off?

You find it logical to make a rule then break it?

I can't figure out how to PM.

But if they posted their Twitter feed on this forum and it contained political content as Mr. Hoffman's does they would be banned.

"STFU"? Maybe you could teach me manors?

Again, is the home page not part of the forum? Is the tail not a part of the dog?

Sounds like a threat and we are from the same home town. Now I'm scared and sad.

No, you don't have to go no Twitter they are plastered right on the home page and the fact that you cannot interact makes it all a bit more dictatorial, wouldn't you say?

How so? I think it's been very productive. I'm mean your here, aren't you?

Who did I troll Chris? I have been polite to everyone.

His email is down, but something tells me the little birdies will do that for me.

Please point out where I told anyone how to do anything. I merely put forth an ethical question.

Nessessity is the mother of invention.

"Nothing to see here" says Chris. Yet Chris remains.

When did I do that? Please point it out to me.

Perhaps you should provide a brief summary of the fundamentals of the internet, because it looks to me you have done nothing but prepare us up a lovely word salad.

"different platforms mean different ways things are". Hmm, very insightful. I think you should educate me.

Define trolling and then apply that definition to anything I have done. (and make it hold up)

Please point out to me where and when I lectured anyone. I simply put forth a question and by the way I sent my original post to Mr. Hoffman directly. If this was pure trolling why has this thread been reopened?

I always like to see someone politely stand up to the mob! To answer your question, like all social media sites, this one also is controlled and dominated by one side political spectrum. They love all opinions as long as they agree with it. If not, they swarm & attack like hornets until you shut your mouth!

Careful where you point that flashlight. Illumination is not taken kindly to in these here parts.

The dog and tail thing was a spur of the moment analogy yet you have chosen to latch onto it and disregard the rest of my argument, but I guess that would be appropriate since your only splitting hairs.

Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own citizens, maybe you should care.

Do you have the capacity to demonstrate my error or do you just demand my compliance?

"Can you give me sanctuary, I must find a place to hide, A place for me to hide"

I get your point but maybe it's not so good to bury our heads so deeply in the sand.

I never said i didn't like the policies. To be honest, I have been here 15 years and I never saw or heard Steve's political opinion until recently when someone pointed it out. I enjoy it here and I have always enjoyed a good back and forth of ideas on any subjest of interest to me. I simply pointed out a fact that is true about dominence and control!

"Few here agree with your view and rightly so"

Your presumption that popularity equals validity is why I believe you could benefit from some illumination.

Actually, I have not made a single political comment. I want to argue principals.

"a subject that actually matters" There you go again with your logical fallacies.

"Please don’t deflect from this exchange. Here you admit that the two sites
are different, and I ask you which one the Forum Policies would apply to."

I was merely trying to inject a bit of levity into the conversation and you do realize I am responding to a handful of people at once off the top of my head.

What is obvious to me is that A) this topic has deemed valid by the powers that be. And B) A lot of people here are interested in discussing it.

Well done, we could use a man like you down at the Ministry of Truth.

You want me read the forum policies and then reaffirm my argument, correct? Very well you will have my response by days end.

Look, anyway you want to slice it the home page is part of the forum. If you Google the SHF and then click on the link you are taken to the home page where Mr. Hoffman has chosen to include his Twitter feed which contains far more divisive commentary than I have made here. The fact that your argument relies on this stonewall arbitrary distinction between home page and forum is why I say you are spitting hairs.

Who have I trolled and why are you here if it is so sad?

Oh yes, we wouldn't want to think too deeply. You might end up on the wrong side of the mob.

Is see your violent imagery and raise you a reasoned argument.

What about whole LGBT+ threads? Those are against the rules but are allowed. Allowing those but not other “hot button” topics means that the rules aren’t being applied to everyone, correct?

So wanting the rules to be applied fairly and consistently means one has a problem with LGBT issues? One shouldn’t make exceptions to the TOS based on one’s own views. The fact that you incorrectly prejudged my own views based on that speaks volumes. LGBT issues involve fighting for fairness and fighting against double standards, and that’s exactly my problem with the rule being applied. It’s going against that.