|
On April 16 2018 21:15 Plansix wrote:I’ve seen some real garbage posts from right leaning posters. My favorite was when one poster complained that the left always makes immigration about race, while also posting a right leaning article that stating the reason to limit immigration was the changing racial make up of the US. I always felt it should have been warned for trying to pick a fight and losing the fight in the same post. But straight up, we had a conservative poster drop the 14 words, white nationalist motto in the thread. Not a lot happened with that. So I’m not really buying the argument that conservatives are auctioned more than left leaning posters. Edit: also stuff like this Is some hot garbage, but people just roll with it.
Thankfully the mods apparently had better understanding than the posters who were responding to it. I give the the mods some credit, because in instances like that they are clearly more reasonable
Or maybe they just didn't see it.
|
Not directly related but, there was an argument over something like this in the US pol feedback thread when someone I can't remember was arguing that the USA should be a "white ethnostate".
The "unofficial official" line the US pol thread was apparently under was that such views weren't to be moderated because since white supremists were seeking to normalise white supremacy as a political view, and indeed the president of USA appears to be trying to normalise such views, such views were taken to be within accepted discourse of the US pol thread.
To me, that appears to be a somewhat unreasonable point of view to take, so I wouldn't take the non-action as a reasonable one. Since those kind of posters are now self moderating themselves, I would say that the revised US pol mod standards have been seen to change.
|
Yeah, I believe a member of the writing staff vocally objected to it and to the lack of moderation of posts advocating for white supremacy. I know he gave up his staff position and posting in the US pol thread proper soon after. And ethnostate is just a reframing of the goals of white supremacy. Hence the name white nationalist.
Now to be clear, I don’t know if those posts where reported. I just know people felt like they were slowly becoming acceptable. And like contributed to the vitrol in the thread.
|
On April 16 2018 23:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2018 21:15 Plansix wrote:I’ve seen some real garbage posts from right leaning posters. My favorite was when one poster complained that the left always makes immigration about race, while also posting a right leaning article that stating the reason to limit immigration was the changing racial make up of the US. I always felt it should have been warned for trying to pick a fight and losing the fight in the same post. But straight up, we had a conservative poster drop the 14 words, white nationalist motto in the thread. Not a lot happened with that. So I’m not really buying the argument that conservatives are auctioned more than left leaning posters. Edit: also stuff like this Is some hot garbage, but people just roll with it. Thankfully the mods apparently had better understanding than the posters who were responding to it. I give the the mods some credit, because in instances like that they are clearly more reasonable Or maybe they just didn't see it.
I didn’t report it. But the post was completely out of nowhere and was spoiling for a fight with no one in particular. I don’t believe it was destined to be the catalyst for good discussion.
|
So after the last 2 or so weeks, I gotta say I'm not really enjoying the change in moderation when it comes to posting tweets and news articles.
Something like this most recent post...
+ Show Spoiler +
While very short and to the point, it is still informative about an important current event in US politics. I don't follow many of these political people on twitter or keep an eye on a bunch of different news sites, so it was cool that people would come to the thread to post information from a variety of sources that I normally wouldn't come across in the course of my day. If there was a US News thread or something that filled that purpose I'd check it out, but it was the US politics thread that scratched that itch for me.
The frequency of news posts and topical tweets has declined substantially lately, I imagine because of the increased standards for posting. As long as the things being posted are relevant to US politics and aren't just opinionated mudslinging, then I say let them post. Let other people decide whether the content is worthy of starting a discussion without putting all the burden on the one posting the source.
|
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that particular policy myself. Seems kind of random, and I'm not sure why they did it.
|
On April 18 2018 17:26 iamthedave wrote:
Yeah, I'm not so sure about that particular policy myself. Seems kind of random, and I'm not sure why they did it.
I would guess because certain posters tended to post articles without explanation. Other posters assuming the OP agree with the point the article makes and challenging the conclusion. Only for the OP to claim they don't agree and were merely showing it when they lose the argument.
|
There was a lot of letting the article argue for the poster. Maybe there should be an exception for tweets that are about stories that are breaking. Seems tough to moderate. Maybe we just go by the court's definition of porn, "We know it when we see it."
|
On April 18 2018 14:58 Tachion wrote:So after the last 2 or so weeks, I gotta say I'm not really enjoying the change in moderation when it comes to posting tweets and news articles. Something like this most recent post... + Show Spoiler +While very short and to the point, it is still informative about an important current event in US politics. I don't follow many of these political people on twitter or keep an eye on a bunch of different news sites, so it was cool that people would come to the thread to post information from a variety of sources that I would normally wouldn't come across in the course of my day. If there was a US News thread or something that filled that purpose I'd check it out, but it was the US politics thread that scratched that itch for me. The frequency of news posts and topical tweets has declined substantially lately, I imagine because of the increased standards for posting. As long as the things being posted are relevant to US politics and aren't just opinionated mudslinging, then I say let them post. Let other people decide whether the content is worthy of starting a discussion without putting all the burden on the one posting the source.
This reflects my worries with regards to the heightened article posting requirement as well. The chilling effect is real.
|
On April 18 2018 20:17 Plansix wrote:
There was a lot of letting the article argue for the poster. Maybe there should be an exception for tweets that are about stories that are breaking. Seems tough to moderate. Maybe we just go by the court's definition of porn, "We know it when we see it."
if i’ve learned anything from this thread it’s that rules must have at least two subsections and an example/counter-example of each in order to be properly understood and followed.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
My apologies. I am still working on a statement to the public. Work has been very hectic as of late and it is making it difficult for me to tend to TL things.
|
On April 18 2018 20:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 20:17 Plansix wrote:
There was a lot of letting the article argue for the poster. Maybe there should be an exception for tweets that are about stories that are breaking. Seems tough to moderate. Maybe we just go by the court's definition of porn, "We know it when we see it." if i’ve learned anything from this thread it’s that rules must have at least two subsections and an example/counter-example of each in order to be properly understood and followed.
You’re not wrong. I’ll volunteer one of my many shit posts as an example of what not to do in the “if/when flow chart on how to post in the US pol thread”
|
One of the things I've noticed since starting to read back is the attitude shifts in different posters.
GH used to be a lot happier, Stealthblue and zlefin are unchanged beside volume of posts, Danglars was much more willing to speak his mind.
|
On April 18 2018 22:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
One of the things I've noticed since starting to read back is the attitude shifts in different posters.
GH used to be a lot happier, Stealthblue and zlefin are unchanged beside volume of posts, Danglars was much more willing to speak his mind.
That’s not from the rules, that’s from the temp-ban lol.
|
He is traveling back to 2015 in the old thread.
|
On April 18 2018 23:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 22:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
One of the things I've noticed since starting to read back is the attitude shifts in different posters.
GH used to be a lot happier, Stealthblue and zlefin are unchanged beside volume of posts, Danglars was much more willing to speak his mind. That’s not from the rules, that’s from the temp-ban lol.
I didn't mean volume for you, I meant that you were less opaque when arguing things and you were more willing to just say something clearly.
To be fair, there were a lot more conservatives to agree with you back then and you weren't being forced to defend someone you dislike (Trump). I don't think you like him, at least not as a person.
|
On April 19 2018 02:12 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2018 23:04 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2018 22:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
One of the things I've noticed since starting to read back is the attitude shifts in different posters.
GH used to be a lot happier, Stealthblue and zlefin are unchanged beside volume of posts, Danglars was much more willing to speak his mind. That’s not from the rules, that’s from the temp-ban lol. I didn't mean volume for you, I meant that you were less opaque when arguing things and you were more willing to just say something clearly. To be fair, there were a lot more conservatives to agree with you back then and you weren't being forced to defend someone you dislike (Trump). I don't think you like him, at least not as a person.
If you want to see the heyday, check out Jay Chou’s thread from 2012. Everybody that was repelled by my viewpoints would at least follow the argument from beginning to end and post quite honestly (and xDaunt too, and a half dozen long-gone right and center right posters).
Now you have to prune through people griping about one line in two paragraphs, “but Trump...,” and dismissing the entirety of the post in a single line of response. Not to mention people that would rather take the conversation in their own direction with their own private questions without contributing an ounce to conversational equity. You get back what you put in, posters. And most people that liked putting in lots quit the thread or became infrequent posters.
|
2017-2018 pushed a lot of folks farther into their corners. A campaign driven by grievance can’t lead to unifying the country. It just leads to more division and resentment. Trump was never interested in being president of the entire country.
|
On April 19 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote:
2017-2018 pushed a lot of folks farther into their corners. A campaign driven by grievance can’t lead to unifying the country. It just leads to more division and resentment. Trump was never interested in being president of the entire country.
Both parties are getting that way now. No sign of abatement yet, unfortunately. I'd hoped maybe Americans would be so shocked by how divisive things have gotten that they'd start cooling the jets, but it seems like things are still getting worse in that regard, looking at the stories coming out of the media.
|
On April 19 2018 07:16 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote:
2017-2018 pushed a lot of folks farther into their corners. A campaign driven by grievance can’t lead to unifying the country. It just leads to more division and resentment. Trump was never interested in being president of the entire country. Both parties are getting that way now. No sign of abatement yet, unfortunately. I'd hoped maybe Americans would be so shocked by how divisive things have gotten that they'd start cooling the jets, but it seems like things are still getting worse in that regard, looking at the stories coming out of the media.
I said back early 2017 that everyone needs to touch the stove. Republicans don’t like state employees having collective bargaining. Now they get to deal with all these strikes, which collective bargaining was used to avoid in the past. They wanted to cut state taxes, now their states are on fire. Racism is being ignored and protections are being rolled back, so they get to deal with an increasingly angry number of brown folks protesting. Gotta touch that stove.
You just wait though, the time will come for the left to touch the stove. Hard to know the shape and form, but we are that dumb too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/A5xeo/fb37ed0709.png)
