EPTdenotatively, a man whose wife is fucking someone else.
the former was definitely started with all the knowledge and implications of the latter. intended of course as an insult.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 102
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
denotatively, a man whose wife is fucking someone else. the former was definitely started with all the knowledge and implications of the latter. intended of course as an insult. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 28 2018 05:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Dang it all, I must have confused you with someone else. Hey, at least I am not so "confused" to quote someone, accuse them of changing their post, and continue to insist that post was unfairly editted post-quote, even when it was pointed out that the quote was exactly the same as the post. Because dang, clearly I have psionic powers to force you to right all over the place. xDaunt is the one constantly arguing with a "y'all on the left" he keeps in his head. Danglars is definitely the one who did the thing you describe though. And for sure, it's not the y'all people have a problem with. Used properly, it can be very charming. The problem is when you keep using it to lump people into a box that doesn't exist, so you can have an argument with people that doesn't exist. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On March 17 2018 05:14 Aveng3r wrote: There wasnt even a discussion going on anymore. It was back and forth mudslinging and personal attacks. How do you suppose that happened? Here's Serm's opener in the last exchange: On March 17 2018 03:47 Sermokala wrote: But theres nothing about GH's suggestion that people like. His suggestion is literally to get rid of the police and maybe do stuff afterwords. Theres some talk about creating reservations for minorities and reforming the police at some point but it all begins with just getting rid of the police and not expecting society to quickly fall apart. Especially you farv since you piped up, is that literally my position? I suspect you know it's not. My response: On March 17 2018 03:50 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't understand how people can still say this without feeling foolish. If you think I want to disband the police and figure it out from there you didn't understand my argument. That almost all of you made the same mistake doesn't mean I did a poor job of explaining it (maybe to an audience of neoliberals) but that almost all of you were far more focused on disagreeing than understanding. To which we got: On March 17 2018 04:13 Sermokala wrote: See GH has this problem with plans is that he doesn't really have them. He says something stupid and instead of realizing what he said was stupid he doubles down and scrambles to try and justify what he said. He believes that he can't be wrong and doesn't need to elaborate on any of his ideas because again he can't be wrong. When people ask him simple questions about his ideas or about obvious issues with his ideas he attacks them because again he can't be wrong. He brings up questions that can't be answered like "how efficient are the police" and when people ask him what that even means he knowing he can't be wrong proclaims he is right because his enemies can't prove him wrong. People ask him how creating reservations for minorities could possibly work alongside reservations for other minorities and he posts a rolling stone article as support. He doesn't have anything past just saying "abolish the police" or "End the democratic party" because he doesn't care about legitimacy or practicality. People think that because we're talking on a forum and assuming everyone's legitimately supporting the shit that comes out under their name. This doesn't apply to GH beacuse he can't be wrong. If it should stop than serm should have been told to stop or warned at least for the clear personal attacks. What doesn't make sense is responding in a way that makes it appear our arguments were equally substantive when his was a clear caricature of an argument I wasn't making. I get that I'm irritating, but that doesn't make me wrong. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On March 17 2018 05:28 Aveng3r wrote: As is always, always, always the case in that thread, the undying need to "be right" is the root of the problem. Sometimes someone is right, and someone is wrong. Simply telling them both to stop talking is one of the worst possible solutions to the person in the wrong refusing to see it. EDIT: I'd note that the wonderful replacement conversation in the US politics thread is now about Russia and the UK, but go on.... | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
If we ask him I bet he would say that he's right and you're wrong Neither side appeared willing to stop the argument and try to better understand the opposing view or acknowledge any semblance of doubt in their own position. Throw in some personal attacks and insults, and we get a moderator who's had enough and mercifully stops the whole thing. This happens frequently. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On March 17 2018 05:38 Aveng3r wrote: So we've got you saying you're right and hes wrong If we ask him I bet he would say that he's right and you're wrong Neither side appeared willing to stop the argument and try to better understand the opposing view or acknowledge any semblance of doubt in their own position. Throw in some personal attacks and insults, and we get a moderator who's had enough and mercifully stops the whole thing. This happens frequently. But we can read the argument and make a determination based on the facts. That's totally an option. As is evidenced by your take on this, this serves as a great example of why I think it was a poor way to handle it. It's not as if we were arguing over what the best color of the rainbow was. We were arguing over what in fact my argument even was. There are posts we can read that can tell us the answer to those questions. I really hope farv takes the responsibility to respond appropriately since it is his thread and he already opined. If it's an issue of me clearly demonstrating it in a single post with links I can do that, but I don't think it's necessary. EDIT 3: My petty leaked through and it's not why I'm here, so I spoiled it. Moving on: If there's a substantive counter argument to the one I'm presenting here (regarding my feedback, not the political one, outside the aforementioned context) I'm open to hearing it here or in PM, or if it's just a 'US Politics thread is irritating, GH in particular, I don't/didn't care who was right or why + our house' thing, I can accept that as well. But if it's the latter, I think Seeker should own it (since your names on the post), take the hit (a bit of why I think that's counterproductive), and we can move on. I'll be disappointed in farv too, but I can cut him some slack, I know he's a busy guy. That seems like a fair and just way to handle it, and one befitting of the situation and context. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: If the reason for stopping us was that it was off topic/derailing as suggested, I think we need a bit of an explanation as to how a story about the UK and sorta Russia (that didn't even get traction in the UK or EU threads), is getting things 'back on track'. EDIT2: I guess p6 found a way to connect it to the US, sorta, in a conspiracy theory kinda way at least. Which I heard aren't allowed. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On March 17 2018 05:28 Aveng3r wrote: As is always, always, always the case in that thread, the undying need to "be right" is the root of the problem. The thread really has been a waste of time lately. Discussions in the thread are way more interesting and edifying when you have multiple people on each side of the issue, but in the last many pages it's just been GH trashing on everyone who doesn't agree with him on everything. I keep checking up on it, and don't actually feel like I missed anything. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
On March 18 2018 00:36 NewSunshine wrote: The thread really has been a waste of time lately. Discussions in the thread are way more interesting and edifying when you have multiple people on each side of the issue, but in the last many pages it's just been GH trashing on everyone who doesn't agree with him on everything. I keep checking up on it, and don't actually feel like I missed anything. They are mostly struggling to even engage my argument. I don't have a problem with disagreeing it's the not reading something and then thinking they can accurately critique it. Then refusing to acknowledge when they realize they did in fact fabricate the position they were arguing against. Then throwing out ad hominems. Then a bunch of people who didn't read it trying to undermine my position without engaging with it AT ALL Then complaining about how bad the thread is. Because it interrupted the constant stream of giggling at gossip about Trump. People worried their clever quip about some dumbass tweet will get ignored and buried because people can't help but argue with me even if they have no idea what they are arguing about. Some of that pattern you've conveniently displayed here for us. I think the easiest way to dead this issue with the least effort is just keep a Russiagate thread open until the conclusion of the investigation. That way the people who want to talk all russiagate all the time, can do that and the people who want to talk about all the other topics of US politics can do that in the US politics thread. EDIT: Maybe I'm misreading this, but I think if I was just trashing people without at least arguable just cause I would be actioned far more frequently and severely. Or people would more clearly demonstrate how I was wrong and not just upsetting them. I've been wrong before, I remember what it's like. I made one slip up on misreading one part of an argument and got hit with a "you didn't learn English in school did you" and the condescending "this is how words work" post. I can admit it. It's a chronic inability of some folks to both resist disagreeing with me and actually reading and quoting the argument I'm making that's resulted in what we've seen recently . I couldn't make it up if I wanted to. If I was, there is a legion of people that would leap at the opportunity to prove me wrong. Their absence speaks more than they wish it did. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
Farv wanted me to take up him posting in bad faith, without intentions to argue within the rules he set out for the thread, with the moderation staff (or respond in kind, but that seems ineffective). I asked him not to snipe at me/my arguments if he's knowingly doing it without any intention to support it with any semblance of a legitimate argument and he's just flat out refusing. As such I merely request that he either change that plan or if he does snipe at me or my argument he be immediately actioned for knowingly and intentionally violating the thread rules. I suppose it still wouldn't quite apply here, but it certainly would to the US politics thread. Please and thank you  Any sort of response to previous posts would be appreciated as well. k... | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
Are there any examples or main points to be considered in this change or should it just be considered a general "shape up everyone"? I also pointioningly protest the lack of relevant picture to look at whenever I open the thread. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23451 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19150 Posts
On March 20 2018 13:44 Sermokala wrote: I don't like vague changes to policy that is not outlined in any examples other then a symbolic notion at least of "Our intention is not to silence one side, rather, it is to ensure that values of TLnet are upheld." Ones perceptions of the values of TLnet is different the another values of TLnet especially when those perceptions are turns twords something nationalist as US politics. I don't think Euro posters have given anything of value to the thread in a long time but I always assumed that it was a function of the community instead of apart of the community. Are there any examples or main points to be considered in this change or should it just be considered a general "shape up everyone"? I also pointioningly protest the lack of relevant picture to look at whenever I open the thread. The values of TLnet include actual discussion, not ranting at people with opposing views. So that's a part of it. We also want to be more open about users in the thread, as we've found that plenty of godawful posters are usually pretty okay outside the USPol thread. This means fewer site bans and more thread bans, which promotes (non-USPol) discussion elsewhere on the site rather than shutting a user down completely. On March 20 2018 20:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Should probably at least send out more specific detailed mails to the posters you think are on the edge and why so they can actually improve their behavior, rather than just get blindsided with a ban for something you guys allowed for years. That's what warnings are. All of the bans in USPol are following a warning from a mod who explains why their behavior is unacceptable. You, for example, have received several warnings and then you altered your behavior enough to not get banned. | ||
| ||
