|
On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please.
I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response.
On April 26 2018 11:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. There's no "myth" to it. It's quite real. For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and stipulate that Danglars' posting was actionable. However, if Danglar's posting is going to be the standard, then there are many leftist posters who also need to be banned.
Who do you think you are talking to, I got three pages of mod notes my guy? You gunna sit there and claim left leaning posters don't get action? I got perm banned.
And I remember the two conservative posters who said they thought the perm ban was to harsh, and they liked arguing with me. And the one conservative poster who cheered the mods on for doing it, saying it was a "good ban". The dude is there to piss people off.
|
On April 26 2018 11:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please. I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response.
If they had really gotten sick of it they would have stopped posting. The thread had a real discussion going on about religion and commerce in the thread for days until the mods revealed that they remade the thread specifically to ban Danglers and crack down on news spam.
|
On April 26 2018 11:39 ChristianS wrote:
I fall squarely into the categories of imbeciles who keep reporting Danglars? And people who reported wrongly but don't deliver content? I'd think you'd have better ammunition than that against me. I've never once reported Danglars, or anyone else in the politics thread that I can remember. I'm pretty sure I've used the report button a single-digit number of times since I joined TL.
I won't defend Azuzu's post, and I don't agree with it, but you must realize at this point how much your reputation for stirring up shit exceeds practically anybody else in that thread, and this is a perfect example of why. You snarkily suggest Azuzu should have known nobody would dignify his post with a response, and yet you did literally that by making your snarky response. Besides being self-defeating, by doing so you spotlight a post thst was already unlikely to generate a good discussion and add a venomous post of your own that will probably invite yet more venom when people respond to you. Back in the day, if I checked my subscribed threads and saw a dozen pages had popped up since I last checked in, there was a very good chance thst this exact pattern was why.
For the record, I don't mind that the thread is moving pretty slowly. I much prefer that to suddenly seeing there's 300 unread posts because somebody picked a fight and now everybody's been laying down their very very best clever put-downs for a dozen pages.
It's really quite besides the point whether you pushed the report button or didn't. The attitude that you're expressing here is emblematic of the posters about which Sermokala and I were complaining. Rather than jump on the Azuzu's of the thread who are the ones actually starting trouble, you're more interested in taking me to task for my response. Sorry to point out the obvious, but only an idiot or a sanctimonious fraud would finger me as being the problem. In your case, it's the latter.
|
On April 26 2018 11:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:39 ChristianS wrote:
I fall squarely into the categories of imbeciles who keep reporting Danglars? And people who reported wrongly but don't deliver content? I'd think you'd have better ammunition than that against me. I've never once reported Danglars, or anyone else in the politics thread that I can remember. I'm pretty sure I've used the report button a single-digit number of times since I joined TL.
I won't defend Azuzu's post, and I don't agree with it, but you must realize at this point how much your reputation for stirring up shit exceeds practically anybody else in that thread, and this is a perfect example of why. You snarkily suggest Azuzu should have known nobody would dignify his post with a response, and yet you did literally that by making your snarky response. Besides being self-defeating, by doing so you spotlight a post thst was already unlikely to generate a good discussion and add a venomous post of your own that will probably invite yet more venom when people respond to you. Back in the day, if I checked my subscribed threads and saw a dozen pages had popped up since I last checked in, there was a very good chance thst this exact pattern was why.
For the record, I don't mind that the thread is moving pretty slowly. I much prefer that to suddenly seeing there's 300 unread posts because somebody picked a fight and now everybody's been laying down their very very best clever put-downs for a dozen pages. It's really quite besides the point whether you pushed the report button or didn't. The attitude that you're expressing here is emblematic of the posters about which Sermokala and I were complaining. Rather than jump on the Azuzu's of the thread who are the ones actually starting trouble, you're more interested in taking me to task for my response. Sorry to point out the obvious, but only an idiot or a sanctimonious fraud would finger me as being the problem. In your case, it's the latter.
If I try to look past the pure ad hominem here, the best I can tell your criticism of me is that I'm not totally fair-minded in who I call out. That might be true. But it's not my job to moderate the thread in the first place, so trying to blame me for not calling out Azuzu's post isn't really worth much. I'm not even obligated to be even-handed in who I do and don't call out; incidentally I've never seen you call out a conservative poster for bad posting, so I don't know that you're in a strong position to make this criticism.
But you know what, I am actually going to argue that your response to Azuzu's post was worse than his post. He was at least trying to say something on topic; I think he was wrong + Show Spoiler +Danglars stopped posting because he was banned, Sermo seems entirely sincere in saying he thinks mods are unfair to his viewpoint so he doesn't want to post, and you hadn't posted much in months anyway.
I'm a bit curious what you think I'm fraudulently pretending to be, but indulging the ad hominem's you throw out is how threads turn to shit, so I'm not going to ask. But on topic, I don't really mind the thread moving slowly. I used to read the thread partly as a news aggregator, but since people have mostly stopped posting articles I'd probably stop reading the thread consistently if it still moved as fast as it used to.
|
On April 26 2018 11:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:46 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please. I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response. If they had really gotten sick of it they would have stopped posting. The thread had a real discussion going on about religion and commerce in the thread for days until the mods revealed that they remade the thread specifically to ban Danglers and crack down on news spam.
But lets look at some peak Danglars picking a fight in the Politics thread.
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=14#274
We got this right here, where he makes a post that is almost entirely links to articles that are going to argue for him. Arguing against a point no one was discussing in the thread.
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#286
And then a response that claims he says some stuff on twitter he thought was mean, or something.
https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#291
And then someone asks him simple questions and he responds with this trash.
This not someone who is interested in a discussion. This is someone who is there to pick a fight and then act like he didn't start it.
|
On April 26 2018 12:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:50 xDaunt wrote:On April 26 2018 11:39 ChristianS wrote:
I fall squarely into the categories of imbeciles who keep reporting Danglars? And people who reported wrongly but don't deliver content? I'd think you'd have better ammunition than that against me. I've never once reported Danglars, or anyone else in the politics thread that I can remember. I'm pretty sure I've used the report button a single-digit number of times since I joined TL.
I won't defend Azuzu's post, and I don't agree with it, but you must realize at this point how much your reputation for stirring up shit exceeds practically anybody else in that thread, and this is a perfect example of why. You snarkily suggest Azuzu should have known nobody would dignify his post with a response, and yet you did literally that by making your snarky response. Besides being self-defeating, by doing so you spotlight a post thst was already unlikely to generate a good discussion and add a venomous post of your own that will probably invite yet more venom when people respond to you. Back in the day, if I checked my subscribed threads and saw a dozen pages had popped up since I last checked in, there was a very good chance thst this exact pattern was why.
For the record, I don't mind that the thread is moving pretty slowly. I much prefer that to suddenly seeing there's 300 unread posts because somebody picked a fight and now everybody's been laying down their very very best clever put-downs for a dozen pages. It's really quite besides the point whether you pushed the report button or didn't. The attitude that you're expressing here is emblematic of the posters about which Sermokala and I were complaining. Rather than jump on the Azuzu's of the thread who are the ones actually starting trouble, you're more interested in taking me to task for my response. Sorry to point out the obvious, but only an idiot or a sanctimonious fraud would finger me as being the problem. In your case, it's the latter. If I try to look past the pure ad hominem here, the best I can tell your criticism of me is that I'm not totally fair-minded in who I call out. That might be true. But it's not my job to moderate the thread in the first place, so trying to blame me for not calling out Azuzu's post isn't really worth much. I'm not even obligated to be even-handed in who I do and don't call out; incidentally I've never seen you call out a conservative poster for bad posting, so I don't know that you're in a strong position to make this criticism. But you know what, I am actually going to argue that your response to Azuzu's post was worse than his post. He was at least trying to say something on topic; I think he was wrong + Show Spoiler +Danglars stopped posting because he was banned, Sermo seems entirely sincere in saying he thinks mods are unfair to his viewpoint so he doesn't want to post, and you hadn't posted much in months anyway. , and unnecessarily implying ulterior motives on the part of conservative (non-)posters, but at least he was actually saying something. Your post contributed literally nothing except a snarky put-down and an air of superiority. Ironically, your post actually clearly implied the obvious way to deal with posts like his: not dignify them with a response. And yet despite arguing yourself that it shouldn't be dignified with a response, you're attacking me for not responding to it. I'm a bit curious what you think I'm fraudulently pretending to be, but indulging the ad hominem's you throw out is how threads turn to shit, so I'm not going to ask. But on topic, I don't really mind the thread moving slowly. I used to read the thread partly as a news aggregator, but since people have mostly stopped posting articles I'd probably stop reading the thread consistently if it still moved as fast as it used to.
I hope everyone finds this post as funny as I do. Here is ChristianS, ever-pretending to be fair-minded, wondering why mean old xDaunt is coming after him. First, he complains twice about the ad hominems after having already posted this himself:
On April 26 2018 10:48 ChristianS wrote:
This is a pretty classic xDaunt response and exactly why I don't mind you not posting in the politics thread any more. Quoting a post you think is bad to snarkily tell them how bad you think their post is was a big part of why the thread usually went to shit when you showed up
Then, he feels the need to settle my hash by explaining that my response to Azuzu was worse than Azuzu's post itself because "contributed literally nothing except a snarky put-down and an air of superiority." And then in the very next sentence of his post, ChristianS does exactly what he took me to task for doing, stating:
I'm a bit curious what you think I'm fraudulently pretending to be, but indulging the ad hominem's you throw out is how threads turn to shit, so I'm not going to ask.
So I'm going to take the liberty of answering the unasked question. ChristianS is a hypocrite, and he's a sanctimonious one at that.
|
You literally quoted a post in which I said it might be true that I'm not totally fair-minded in who I call out, and accuse me of "ever-pretending to be fair-minded." So let's be clear: I'm a liberal, and I think Donald Trump might be the worst president this country has ever had. I can try to be fair-minded, but it's pretty inevitable that I'm going to see like-minded posts more favorably. This is true throughout the thread, which is why as mentioned, I don't think I have ever seen you call out a conservative poster the way you regularly do liberal posters. I could try to defend my fair-mindedness by tracking down examples of me criticizing liberal posters, but in the end I'm not going to dispute that I do have a viewpoint and that's always going to affect how I post.
The hypocrisy accusation falls a bit flat, though. My criticism is that you regularly (at least used to) say a provocative thing, spotlight whatever liberal response you thought was dumbest, and then spend pages posting snarky put-downs without actually engaging with the arguments of the people you were putting down. Me accusing you of doing that is not the same as you doing that.
The two points you're trying to call hypocrisy are me accusing you of ad hominem's and me accusing you of a post that contributes literally nothing except a snarky putdown. Thing is, criticizing your posting just isn't the same thing as calling people names like "sanctimonious fraud" and "imbecile." An ad hominem distracts from the conversation at hand with an irrelevant personal insult; talking about how your posting used to stir up shit is on topic in a conversation about whether or not the mods should be more lenient on conservatives like yourself. And in the post where you think I'm guilty of a snarky put-down and an air of superiority, I also made actual arguments. For what it's worth, I wish I had skipped the line about being curious, considering this is going off the rails enough as it is.
The bizarre thing in all this is that you haven't even paused for a moment to actually defend the criticism. In response to criticism, your defenses have essentially been to either say the other guy was just as bad as you, or to attack your critic. But even if you were right on both counts, neither would do anything to rebut the criticism. So here, let's try this: let's grant, for the sake of argument, that Azuzu was way out of line, that I'm horribly biased in my perspective and totally hypocritical in general. Are you gonna deny that the old politics thread exploded into bile and name-calling on literally dozens of occasions because of disputes you were at the center of? Even if there were other equally hot-headed liberal posters on the other side of those disputes, what if you had made your points in a different way that wasn't so likely to piss everybody off? Put aside everything else, and my claim is nothing more than that you have a reputation as a shit-starter, and that reputation is well-earned; if not tolerating shit-starting makes the thread move slowly, that seems fine to me.
|
free danglars. free stealthblue.
|
On April 26 2018 12:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:50 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:46 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please. I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response. If they had really gotten sick of it they would have stopped posting. The thread had a real discussion going on about religion and commerce in the thread for days until the mods revealed that they remade the thread specifically to ban Danglers and crack down on news spam. But lets look at some peak Danglars picking a fight in the Politics thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=14#274We got this right here, where he makes a post that is almost entirely links to articles that are going to argue for him. Arguing against a point no one was discussing in the thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#286And then a response that claims he says some stuff on twitter he thought was mean, or something. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#291And then someone asks him simple questions and he responds with this trash. This not someone who is interested in a discussion. This is someone who is there to pick a fight and then act like he didn't start it.
I completely disagree with the first. It leans heavily on twitter links but it provides a narrative that includes them. His first point is supported by the first twitter link. Then it introduces people arguing like he said it was arguing and then summarizes. Its probably in the top percentile of twitter useing posts in the thread.
The second is a clear example of how people were targeting him. He admits that what CA did was unethical but Hunt ignores the basic premise of his post and just looks at it like you probably did and agrees in effect with what he was saying but tries to frame it as hes disagreeing with him. Thats not picking a fight thats holding out your hand for a handshake and someone slapping it away.
The third double downs on this with hunt going for an "aha" argument while showing a complete lack of respect by ignoring the initial post where he says that CA played a role but that it wasn't that big of a deal. Instead hunt is trying to make Danglers answer an asinine yes or no question and Danglers responds with as much as hunt deserves to get back. The attitude of the thread is even more clear on that last post as Iymoon tries to egg on Danglers on this asinine point that Danglers never refuted in the first place.
|
On April 26 2018 09:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 09:39 Azuzu wrote:On April 26 2018 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 26 2018 08:52 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 08:48 xDaunt wrote:
I’m just amused that so many people think that the lack of newsbotting is the cause of the thread being in its current “slow” state. That some conservative posters thought it was way more fun being hecklers during Obama’s administration? Not much fun when you aren’t the underdog? Well, at least you understand what’s missing, notwithstanding your inexplicably poor understanding of why it’s missing. Is it that conservative posters are attempting to gain leverage over how the thread is moderated by abstaining and pointing out the decreased thread activity? Just out of curiosity, did you really expect anyone to dignify this with a real response?
I'm sorry for making that so pointed. I was in a weird mood.
To be honest, I'm not sure what kind of response I expected. The specific question I would like answered is "what would it take you/conservatives to start posting again?", which I guess is tied to "why did you stop?".
I assumed the conservative posters were still interested in the thread because they're still posting here, although that might be a bad assumption. Admittedly, without going too deep, I did feel a little "the ump called out of ours so we're taking the ball home" but that might not have any basis in reality.
I very rarely post in the thread, but I'd guess I've read around 95% of the past 2 (3?) US politics threads. I've learned a lot about politics across all spectrums through reading everyone's posts and I genuinely wish it could return to a good state even if it's fairly selfish of me to want that. I think it's true that the thread had become more toxic/partisan, but in my eyes, that just mirrored the reality of politics in the US.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 26 2018 15:12 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 09:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 26 2018 09:39 Azuzu wrote:On April 26 2018 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 26 2018 08:52 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 08:48 xDaunt wrote:
I’m just amused that so many people think that the lack of newsbotting is the cause of the thread being in its current “slow” state. That some conservative posters thought it was way more fun being hecklers during Obama’s administration? Not much fun when you aren’t the underdog? Well, at least you understand what’s missing, notwithstanding your inexplicably poor understanding of why it’s missing. Is it that conservative posters are attempting to gain leverage over how the thread is moderated by abstaining and pointing out the decreased thread activity? Just out of curiosity, did you really expect anyone to dignify this with a real response? I'm sorry for making that so pointed. I was in a weird mood. To be honest, I'm not sure what kind of response I expected. The specific question I would like answered is "what would it take you/conservatives to start posting again?", which I guess is tied to "why did you stop?". I assumed the conservative posters were still interested in the thread because they're still posting here, although that might be a bad assumption. Admittedly, without going too deep, I did feel a little "the ump called out of ours so we're taking the ball home" but that might not have any basis in reality. I very rarely post in the thread, but I'd guess I've read around 95% of the past 2 (3?) US politics threads. I've learned a lot about politics across all spectrums through reading everyone's posts and I genuinely wish it could return to a good state even if it's fairly selfish of me to want that. I think it's true that the thread had become more toxic/partisan, but in my eyes, that just mirrored the reality of politics in the US.
I don’t post anymore but I stick around here because I like the drama (that xDaunt/ChristianS scuffle above? Golden!). I think xDaunt enjoys the meta-discussion, Danglars is still somewhat invested in being part of the thread despite the ban (or at least was - at this point it’s looking less so), and Sermokala is merely a somewhat discouraged former regular.
I suppose the perception that the Danglars ban was in bad faith might have been a tipping point. It’s not about “holding the thread hostage” as much as it is the way that bad faith bans don’t go unnoticed and the community adapts. It doesn’t happen instantly, but something like that makes people have a bitter aftertaste about being involved and they withdraw fairly soon. The cheerful reception by the picked-over remnants of the thread to such a departure suggests there’s little desire to change course, so whatever.
The problem goes well beyond the ban - the quality of discussion available has declined month after month to the point where piss fight exchanges are the norm rather than an occasional occurrence. It’s not a recent problem, it’s been steadily happening for years now. The response to putting effort into a not popular opinion is to have a swarm of dismissive me-too posters look for asinine criticism to try to dismiss it. Only thing that’s changed is that now highly questionable bans are thrown into the mix.
I don’t know why you’d expect them not to walk away when the experience is wholly negative. It’s more a matter of finding the right catalyst than anything else.
|
I'm not super duper in touch with US politics so I might be off base, but I think some of the reason activity has died down is because there's just less (high-profile) political news to discuss at the moment. There's very little going on election-wise, the Korea thing is in a holding pattern until more stuff happens, the Mueller investigation is quietly chugging away, et cetera.
Obviously banning some prolific posters will also have an effect, but I don't think decreased thread activity constitutes any kind of reason or justification for unbanning them.
|
On April 26 2018 14:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 12:21 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:50 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:46 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please. I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response. If they had really gotten sick of it they would have stopped posting. The thread had a real discussion going on about religion and commerce in the thread for days until the mods revealed that they remade the thread specifically to ban Danglers and crack down on news spam. But lets look at some peak Danglars picking a fight in the Politics thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=14#274We got this right here, where he makes a post that is almost entirely links to articles that are going to argue for him. Arguing against a point no one was discussing in the thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#286And then a response that claims he says some stuff on twitter he thought was mean, or something. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#291And then someone asks him simple questions and he responds with this trash. This not someone who is interested in a discussion. This is someone who is there to pick a fight and then act like he didn't start it. I completely disagree with the first. It leans heavily on twitter links but it provides a narrative that includes them. His first point is supported by the first twitter link. Then it introduces people arguing like he said it was arguing and then summarizes. Its probably in the top percentile of twitter useing posts in the thread. The second is a clear example of how people were targeting him. He admits that what CA did was unethical but Hunt ignores the basic premise of his post and just looks at it like you probably did and agrees in effect with what he was saying but tries to frame it as hes disagreeing with him. Thats not picking a fight thats holding out your hand for a handshake and someone slapping it away. The third double downs on this with hunt going for an "aha" argument while showing a complete lack of respect by ignoring the initial post where he says that CA played a role but that it wasn't that big of a deal. Instead hunt is trying to make Danglers answer an asinine yes or no question and Danglers responds with as much as hunt deserves to get back. The attitude of the thread is even more clear on that last post as Iymoon tries to egg on Danglers on this asinine point that Danglers never refuted in the first place.
The first post was barely an argument or even a topic. It is mostly twitter posts and youtube clips he found during that day supported by his minor commentary. It is low effort post that opens and hinges upon a disingenuous comparison to Obama, which is a bad way to open any argument. But as people challenge his opening premise, he gets more and more defense and never backs down. The Obama team asked people for their information and never used it to cultivate racists.
And what are we supposed to do with that opening statement, argue against a guardian headline?
|
Well at least I entertained LL. It was all worth it after all
|
On April 26 2018 19:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 12:21 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:50 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:46 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 11:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
And again, you go into pumping the myth that it is Danglars viewpoints that got him reported, rather than he posts liked a passive aggressive asshole trying to get a rise out of people. They were what got him reported. The arguments around his viewpoints are the reason why hes banned. People argued with him being aggressive assholes and complained constantly about every little thing about him. Surprise that sending a message that arguments aren't wanted and telling conservatives that they aren't wanted ended up severely lowering the amount of content the thread generates. So much that people now have to bitch and moan about adding more then a single line of text to the content they ripped from another site to do anything. People enjoyed arguing with xdaunt Danglers and me. Don't be petty about why the thread is dieing please. I think people liked arguing with you and Xdaunt. I think people got very sick of Danglars and the way he talks at people and ignores everything they say in response. If they had really gotten sick of it they would have stopped posting. The thread had a real discussion going on about religion and commerce in the thread for days until the mods revealed that they remade the thread specifically to ban Danglers and crack down on news spam. But lets look at some peak Danglars picking a fight in the Politics thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=14#274We got this right here, where he makes a post that is almost entirely links to articles that are going to argue for him. Arguing against a point no one was discussing in the thread. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#286And then a response that claims he says some stuff on twitter he thought was mean, or something. https://www.liquiddota.com/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=15#291And then someone asks him simple questions and he responds with this trash. This not someone who is interested in a discussion. This is someone who is there to pick a fight and then act like he didn't start it. I completely disagree with the first. It leans heavily on twitter links but it provides a narrative that includes them. His first point is supported by the first twitter link. Then it introduces people arguing like he said it was arguing and then summarizes. Its probably in the top percentile of twitter useing posts in the thread. The second is a clear example of how people were targeting him. He admits that what CA did was unethical but Hunt ignores the basic premise of his post and just looks at it like you probably did and agrees in effect with what he was saying but tries to frame it as hes disagreeing with him. Thats not picking a fight thats holding out your hand for a handshake and someone slapping it away. The third double downs on this with hunt going for an "aha" argument while showing a complete lack of respect by ignoring the initial post where he says that CA played a role but that it wasn't that big of a deal. Instead hunt is trying to make Danglers answer an asinine yes or no question and Danglers responds with as much as hunt deserves to get back. The attitude of the thread is even more clear on that last post as Iymoon tries to egg on Danglers on this asinine point that Danglers never refuted in the first place. The first post was barely an argument or even a topic. It is mostly twitter posts and youtube clips he found during that day supported by his minor commentary. It is low effort post that opens and hinges upon a disingenuous comparison to Obama, which is a bad way to open any argument. But as people challenge his opening premise, he gets more and more defense and never backs down. The Obama team asked people for their information and never used it to cultivate racists. And what are we supposed to do with that opening statement, argue against a guardian headline?
I think the issue here is that people want to be free to have the argument, whether or not you think Danglars is out of line. You've made it clear that you think its too annoying to argue with him so you'd rather he was banned, and the mods see it that way too, but the rest of us are then deprived of the opportunity to get a window into an all too common way of looking at things.
Particularly here in Europe, many people are puzzled by the bizarre proliferation of right wing and nationalist politics in America (its markedly different from the right wing politics that are springing up in Europe) and having danglars there to explain things was both instructive and interesting.
|
I never said I wanted him banned permanently. Only that his ban has little to do with his political points of view. I received my fair share of warning and temp ban, yet I never end up here claiming my political views are being repressed by the mods.
|
What if it's framed this way: did Danglars consistently post in a way so much better than any of "us posters on the left" put together that he deserved to get maybe one or two warnings during a period where others have gotten temp banned and warned dozens of times? I've felt that TL has given a little more lenience to those with minority viewpoints (anyone who isn't part of the center left, in essence), anyways.
I don't feel like Danglars' ban was in 'bad faith' - though I guess it's one where for fairness sake I would like to have seen a couple warnings or whatever before it happening. And no one knows how long it's for, I guess - is it one of those "make your case to the mods to be unbanned" things? Because if it is, I don't see that happening.
|
Honestly, one of the things that's changed in how I view people since going back to 2015 is missing sermokala (and to a slightly lesser extent, xDaunt). Even if I didn't agree with his opinions, his posts were always critical to my understanding of why I couldn't understand why people couldn't see the "obvious answer" like I did.
It made me stop thinking "oh, that guy must be a total moron" and made me start thinking "well if he values ___ that much, then it makes total sense to him and I must look the fool to him. I wonder why we value these things so differently."
Even Danglars, who I grew to dislike (and later realized that this was quite the hot-take on someone so willing to engage in discussion when surrounded by people who disparage him constantly), was generally helpful to me gaining an understanding of the conservative's view of the world, and why they could think that what I saw to be rational was, in their perfectly functioning minds, irrational.
That, in my opinion, was worth all the baiting that any of them have ever done. I'm not saying I appreciate all of their posts equally, but I'm saying that the occasional "honestly, you have the intellectual fortitude of a 3 week-old pear" was not bad enough that it warranted all the hate they get. (Besides, xDaunt's insults sometimes just made me chuckle). They all added to the discussion much more than those few shitposts subtracted.
Also, Igne's signature has become something I think about a lot.
|
As much as I'd love to give my opinion on the thread and various posters and why I think so much of the analysis here is wrong, I'm still just trying to understand why I was banned. (a_flyer had the most accurate read I saw fwiw)
Let me start by acknowledging this is "their house" and they can ban people for any reasons they want, the point is understanding why me, why the duration, why beyond the US politics thread?
Here's the reason I was given by Nixer (who has not responded to my inquiries):
Reason: Consistent derailment and general whataboutism not only in the US Politics Mega-thread but also in other threads. This is not an acceptable way to post as it worsens the discussion quality considerably.
You've done it before and you've been shown lenience, that's stopping now. Improve your posting.
I mean I disagree with the read in the US politics forum but at least that's a dispute I was aware of.
I have literally no idea, and none of the several mods (I was told this query was posted to the mod forum as well) I have asked, including Nixer (the one who banned me) have been able to give me an example of my derailment and general whataboutism "in other threads".
I can't possibly fix my posts in other threads, let alone defend them on the merits, if the mod making the claim doesn't give some idea which posts they are even referring to. So Nixer, other mods, can I get some examples of my 'unacceptable' posts in 'other threads' for which I couldn't be communicated with and instead a 2 week ban was the choice?
ALSO: Seeker, how's that statement coming along?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
Pulling a Blizzard here. Sorry :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
