|
On April 28 2018 06:18 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2018 02:26 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I would argue that, rather than chilling discussion, Stealthblue's ban has almost frozen it. No one here wants a vox article or mother Jones or some garbage op-ed, but when he sent things like npr or nyt articles on lesser-known events they could often start discussion on something I had never heard of before and I would have never thought to ask about. And, as a further benefit, gh's perspective helped me understand the "left vs far-left" on those issues, since he was basically always willing to challenge the normal viewpoint offered by someone like mohdoo or christianS or p6.
Also, p6's sig is perfectly summed up by "obnoxiously obsequious." Thank you to whoever said that, just imagining someone shouting "I HAVE THE HONOR..." gave me a good laugh. It’s from Hamilton, you goober. Oh  I probably should watch it, considering one of my friends has been "Hercules Mulligan" on steam for like half a year now. Also, I should clarify that the articles were much better than the tweets, and that the tweets were something that I don't miss much. A lot of them were just roasting Trump or the Congressional republicans, and I can leave my dorm and sit in the grass to hear other students instead if I wanted substanceless bashing of the right.
You should.
For reference, the my sig as a popular signature line from the era that Hamilton and Burr both used often. It was used in letters where they would do a lot of shit talking, which is why overwrought polite tone is amusing. They were the prototype keyboard warriors, but they really shot each other.
|
On April 28 2018 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 06:34 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2018 06:18 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On April 28 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2018 02:26 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I would argue that, rather than chilling discussion, Stealthblue's ban has almost frozen it. No one here wants a vox article or mother Jones or some garbage op-ed, but when he sent things like npr or nyt articles on lesser-known events they could often start discussion on something I had never heard of before and I would have never thought to ask about. And, as a further benefit, gh's perspective helped me understand the "left vs far-left" on those issues, since he was basically always willing to challenge the normal viewpoint offered by someone like mohdoo or christianS or p6.
Also, p6's sig is perfectly summed up by "obnoxiously obsequious." Thank you to whoever said that, just imagining someone shouting "I HAVE THE HONOR..." gave me a good laugh. It’s from Hamilton, you goober. Oh I probably should watch it, considering one of my friends has been "Hercules Mulligan" on steam for like half a year now. I recommend. Kind of pricey by most standards, but it was worth the cost. Very well-executed play, if somewhat overhyped (not that the play is bad, it's just the hype is insane). On April 28 2018 04:29 NewSunshine wrote:On April 28 2018 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2018 02:26 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I would argue that, rather than chilling discussion, Stealthblue's ban has almost frozen it. No one here wants a vox article or mother Jones or some garbage op-ed, but when he sent things like npr or nyt articles on lesser-known events they could often start discussion on something I had never heard of before and I would have never thought to ask about. I think that getting rid of Stealthblue's spam is one of the few unqualified successes of the moderation that we can actually talk about. Because man... the man is non-stop. I would say it's a mixed bag, after some thought. The way he posted articles all the time was good for keeping everyone a little more informed about various topics, and spurring new lines of discussion, but sometimes, particularly when posting tweets, it really didn't add much that was useful or wanted. I will also say though, that not many tweets are actually good seeds for discussion in a general sense, and when they are it's typically because they dovetail into an article. He wasn't the only one that would post a garbage tweet from time to time, either. I guess my metric is, articles are usually good, and tweets can go either way but very easily be vapid if not used correctly, and we generally have the common sense to know what a good source is. But that's something else to be discussed in the moment as well. But the resulting chill on discussion cuts down on all of it, for better and worse. I think I've been the most vocal opponent of tweets here for the longest time. Stealthblue is particularly egregious because while there is an occasional nugget of interesting commentary, wherever he posts his tweets it's just a long chain of inane garbage that adds nothing but certainly makes the thread look like a place for strings of meaningless one-liners. More importantly, he evidently didn't have any sense of "enough is enough" considering that the cited reason for actually getting rid of him was that he didn't respond to requests to come and talk about it. Let's be real, doodsmack is the handsdown worst when it comes to tweets. Almost all of his posts are tweets and not so witty oneliners. I haven't commented on stealth hoping I would get a response for which posts got me banned, reasonably confident they don't have any they want to present after weeks of waiting I guess I might as well. I didn't find it very annoying, but that's probably partially because I usually mostly agree with it. I can understand why it would bother people on the right and I can see how much of a shitfest the thread would be with a conservative/republican version of SB. I think we could bring back Stealth (if he didn't stop because the mods acted so poorly) by just agreeing on some sites we could approve of as a group, the same if some Republican/conservative wanted. Obviously right leaning articles will draw a lot of attention and pushback, but it should be sound resistance, based on substance and with consideration of the argument being made. My biggest pet peeve as has been mentioned before is (particularly) neolibs disagreeing with positions but doing a piss poor job of substantiating their position and fleeing/throwing out ad homs when that gets exposed. I think it's clear I don't agree with Danglars or xDaunt on much, but I've seen it happen to them enough that I see it's all too common and a large part of what they are bothered by.
A series of tweets that actually makes a point is clearly better than a single random tweet.
|
On April 28 2018 08:29 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2018 06:34 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2018 06:18 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On April 28 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2018 02:26 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I would argue that, rather than chilling discussion, Stealthblue's ban has almost frozen it. No one here wants a vox article or mother Jones or some garbage op-ed, but when he sent things like npr or nyt articles on lesser-known events they could often start discussion on something I had never heard of before and I would have never thought to ask about. And, as a further benefit, gh's perspective helped me understand the "left vs far-left" on those issues, since he was basically always willing to challenge the normal viewpoint offered by someone like mohdoo or christianS or p6.
Also, p6's sig is perfectly summed up by "obnoxiously obsequious." Thank you to whoever said that, just imagining someone shouting "I HAVE THE HONOR..." gave me a good laugh. It’s from Hamilton, you goober. Oh I probably should watch it, considering one of my friends has been "Hercules Mulligan" on steam for like half a year now. I recommend. Kind of pricey by most standards, but it was worth the cost. Very well-executed play, if somewhat overhyped (not that the play is bad, it's just the hype is insane). On April 28 2018 04:29 NewSunshine wrote:On April 28 2018 02:45 LegalLord wrote:On April 28 2018 02:26 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I would argue that, rather than chilling discussion, Stealthblue's ban has almost frozen it. No one here wants a vox article or mother Jones or some garbage op-ed, but when he sent things like npr or nyt articles on lesser-known events they could often start discussion on something I had never heard of before and I would have never thought to ask about. I think that getting rid of Stealthblue's spam is one of the few unqualified successes of the moderation that we can actually talk about. Because man... the man is non-stop. I would say it's a mixed bag, after some thought. The way he posted articles all the time was good for keeping everyone a little more informed about various topics, and spurring new lines of discussion, but sometimes, particularly when posting tweets, it really didn't add much that was useful or wanted. I will also say though, that not many tweets are actually good seeds for discussion in a general sense, and when they are it's typically because they dovetail into an article. He wasn't the only one that would post a garbage tweet from time to time, either. I guess my metric is, articles are usually good, and tweets can go either way but very easily be vapid if not used correctly, and we generally have the common sense to know what a good source is. But that's something else to be discussed in the moment as well. But the resulting chill on discussion cuts down on all of it, for better and worse. I think I've been the most vocal opponent of tweets here for the longest time. Stealthblue is particularly egregious because while there is an occasional nugget of interesting commentary, wherever he posts his tweets it's just a long chain of inane garbage that adds nothing but certainly makes the thread look like a place for strings of meaningless one-liners. More importantly, he evidently didn't have any sense of "enough is enough" considering that the cited reason for actually getting rid of him was that he didn't respond to requests to come and talk about it. Let's be real, doodsmack is the handsdown worst when it comes to tweets. Almost all of his posts are tweets and not so witty oneliners. I haven't commented on stealth hoping I would get a response for which posts got me banned, reasonably confident they don't have any they want to present after weeks of waiting I guess I might as well. I didn't find it very annoying, but that's probably partially because I usually mostly agree with it. I can understand why it would bother people on the right and I can see how much of a shitfest the thread would be with a conservative/republican version of SB. I think we could bring back Stealth (if he didn't stop because the mods acted so poorly) by just agreeing on some sites we could approve of as a group, the same if some Republican/conservative wanted. Obviously right leaning articles will draw a lot of attention and pushback, but it should be sound resistance, based on substance and with consideration of the argument being made. My biggest pet peeve as has been mentioned before is (particularly) neolibs disagreeing with positions but doing a piss poor job of substantiating their position and fleeing/throwing out ad homs when that gets exposed. I think it's clear I don't agree with Danglars or xDaunt on much, but I've seen it happen to them enough that I see it's all too common and a large part of what they are bothered by. A series of tweets that actually makes a point is clearly better than a single random tweet.
That was just a particularly obnoxious tweet spam post, though you have plenty of single random tweet crappy posts too. You are indisputably the worst when it comes to tweet posts. Seriously, just look at your post history.
|
The thread is more or less dead now...it was much better when news could be easily posted.
|
On balance I think the old system was better. Yes, the tweet spam could be reduced, but when it comes to trash articles it wasn't so bad. It would normally only take me a few sentences to see if the rest of it was worth my time. Meanwhile, tweets are eyesores.
The problem with the old thread wasn't sourced content, it was unmoderated posting from those of a particular political persuasion. Perhaps it's because I didn't receive the same dog-pile that xDaunt or Danglars did when they posted, but I found ignoring posts or posters to be adequate.
So to me the problem was uneven moderation. I don't mind if the thread becomes the Wild West. The mods say almost every poster is a fine contributor to the rest of TL. In that case, simply let it go. Warn/ban the personal attacks, the violent, or the racist/sexist/etc, but taking action against only the most obvious garbage (that guy who wished Dick Cheney or whoever it was would die is a good example). Or the thread could become more locked down, as is being attempted now. If the conservatives had any faith in the moderation team as a whole this new idea might be welcomed.
But I'm not sure that the posting of articles (or even tweets) was the problem. The changes to the posting of news or opinion articles was unneeded, but I'm not sure it is what is slowing the thread down. So maybe calling it "the old system" is wrong, these are really two separate changes that should be viewed separately.
And how's that Danglars "temp" ban coming along, anyways?
|
Im sure folks on the left would tone it down if they had any confidence the moderators would moderate the conservative posters when they crossed the line. Until recently, I’ve never really had any faith that would happen.
|
On April 28 2018 06:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 27 2018 17:42 bo1b wrote:
I think the second last time I was banned, when I was discussing the concept of toxic femininity as a counter point to toxic masculinity, I brought up an example of girls literally starving themselves to death to appear more feminine, and was pretty promptly told it was ultimately male actions which caused that.
That was the point at which I realised an awfully large chunk of posters in the U.S politics thread have such a narrow view of the world, and are completely incapable of changing it, or even entertaining alternative views. If you want to know why people that aren't almost stamp cut don't post in that thread anymore, it's because some combination of the following will happen:
a) The post will be banned
b) It will be needlessly picked apart to find the smallest flaw in reason, almost always tangentially related to what is being discussed, and almost always in a manner that's not arguing the argument so to speak
c) Not a single person opposing the idea will actually critically think about what is posted, or rather, they will think about reasons as to why it's wrong from whatever point of view they happen to hold, and stop there.
d) "So you're saying that..."
For a perfect example, check out the exchange between Igne and Aquanim above.
Stealthblue no longer posting an inane barrage of hyperbolic twitter comments from generally left leaning op-ed posters for respected publications such as vox, has done absolutely nothing negative to the quality of thread, nor impacted to a great degree the interaction that was happening there. What it is though is another example of sticking to the rules over a moderation decision so without nuance that being able to post an article which is interesting and worth a read, can no longer be done as the post itself, nor even with a "check out this article".
It's worth noting that while I occasionally find what Greenhorizons posts to be utterly repulsive, I would rather open a thread full of people posting actual real discussion points that can offend my delicate sensitivities, then open it and scroll back 5 pages of people saying the same thing in slightly different words while quoting a talking point which also says the same thing. That's odd, I don't really recall any of that happening when you was talking about "toxic femininity". Mostly there was discussion, some confusion, more discussion over semantics, then the conversation moved onto some guy talking about how manly men fight bears and wolves or whatever and maybe some martyring. Also Drone (I think? One of the mods anyways) posting himself in a pink T-shirt smoking a big spliff. Perhaps the problem is your perception that your opinion piece should be immune to any criticism and discussion, to be acepted as fact and praised. I have most certainly never posted a picture of myself smoking a spliff.  It's a recollection. It might be entirely fabricated. There may not be a pink t-shirt, it may not be you, it may not be a mod, heck there may not even be a picture and it's all a figment of my imagination. It's not like bob1 has confirmed or refuted my vague recollections either.
______
Well, Aflayers has turned the thread to shit with his "SJW" balderdash. Pretty wierd to hear someone use SJW as a non-ironic term nowadays. Hard to tell if he is acting out a character or he is serious to be honest. Also Bernie is "radical far left" according to one guy. Perhaps it's time that such sweeping wide phrases of left or right which only serve to paint people into tribes to fight each other should be banned and they should be encouraged to define specifically their meanings.
|
On April 28 2018 12:21 Introvert wrote:
On balance I think the old system was better. Yes, the tweet spam could be reduced, but when it comes to trash articles it wasn't so bad. It would normally only take me a few sentences to see if the rest of it was worth my time. Meanwhile, tweets are eyesores.
The problem with the old thread wasn't sourced content, it was unmoderated posting from those of a particular political persuasion. Perhaps it's because I didn't receive the same dog-pile that xDaunt or Danglars did when they posted, but I found ignoring posts or posters to be adequate.
So to me the problem was uneven moderation. I don't mind if the thread becomes the Wild West. The mods say almost every poster is a fine contributor to the rest of TL. In that case, simply let it go. Warn/ban the personal attacks, the violent, or the racist/sexist/etc, but taking action against only the most obvious garbage (that guy who wished Dick Cheney or whoever it was would die is a good example). Or the thread could become more locked down, as is being attempted now. If the conservatives had any faith in the moderation team as a whole this new idea might be welcomed.
But I'm not sure that the posting of articles (or even tweets) was the problem. The changes to the posting of news or opinion articles was unneeded, but I'm not sure it is what is slowing the thread down. So maybe calling it "the old system" is wrong, these are really two separate changes that should be viewed separately.
And how's that Danglars "temp" ban coming along, anyways?
You've always seemed to state your opinion clearly and concisely, and gone through any back and forth agreements/disagreements that might arise from that. In other words, you're a perfectly reasonable poster. The same can't be said of all Conservative posters in that thread.
But the moderation team does need to be more even handed. If one poster posts with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight, and someone gives it to them, the mods should step in and warn one or both of them.
|
On April 29 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 12:21 Introvert wrote:
On balance I think the old system was better. Yes, the tweet spam could be reduced, but when it comes to trash articles it wasn't so bad. It would normally only take me a few sentences to see if the rest of it was worth my time. Meanwhile, tweets are eyesores.
The problem with the old thread wasn't sourced content, it was unmoderated posting from those of a particular political persuasion. Perhaps it's because I didn't receive the same dog-pile that xDaunt or Danglars did when they posted, but I found ignoring posts or posters to be adequate.
So to me the problem was uneven moderation. I don't mind if the thread becomes the Wild West. The mods say almost every poster is a fine contributor to the rest of TL. In that case, simply let it go. Warn/ban the personal attacks, the violent, or the racist/sexist/etc, but taking action against only the most obvious garbage (that guy who wished Dick Cheney or whoever it was would die is a good example). Or the thread could become more locked down, as is being attempted now. If the conservatives had any faith in the moderation team as a whole this new idea might be welcomed.
But I'm not sure that the posting of articles (or even tweets) was the problem. The changes to the posting of news or opinion articles was unneeded, but I'm not sure it is what is slowing the thread down. So maybe calling it "the old system" is wrong, these are really two separate changes that should be viewed separately.
And how's that Danglars "temp" ban coming along, anyways? You've always seemed to state your opinion clearly and concisely, and gone through any back and forth agreements/disagreements that might arise from that. In other words, you're a perfectly reasonable poster. The same can't be said of all Conservative posters in that thread. But the moderation team does need to be more even handed. If one poster posts with a chip on their shoulder looking for a fight, and someone gives it to them, the mods should step in and warn one or both of them.
I agree with the first part more or less, but strongly disagree with the bold part.
I'll start by saying this is my personal perspective not necessarily reflective of the cleanest and easiest way to address such a situation.
That unfairly disarms someone being attacked from defending themselves/their position. If we could reliably count on mods to consistently apply a minimum level of effort/substance/decorum in disagreements/provocative posts than perhaps this would be reasonable. But as it stands currently, if someone comes in looking for a fight and someone wants to entertain them, let them. If it's unreasonable, action the person that made it unreasonable.
The whole suspending both kids for fighting when one was bullying the other and one simply fought back (and might have won) is a terrible way to handle things imo. I think people can be encouraged to defend themselves and we can count on intervention from the 'adults' when we can't settle it amiable among ourselves. But proper intervention isn't dolling out the same reprimand to both aggressor and defender.
Unless, as I said, Mods want to be held accountable for more actively policing instigating posts before they escalate. That doesn't mean just actioning anyone posting anything provocative, it means critically looking at how someone is engaging in the discussion and whether any provocativeness or snark is reasonably underpinned with substance.
A lot of subjective analytical work I'm under the impression mods aren't interested in doing for free.
As such it seems far more reasonable to let people fight if that's what they want, but make sure it substantive and that the posters that take it too far, too personal, or violate the generally accepted rules of the site at large in a way distinct from how the thread generally does then act on that post/poster and make it clear what, if anything the person defending themselves posted that was inconsistent with thread expectations.
I wasn't going to make this post, but there's a reasonably good example of what I'm talking about happening now.
On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime. Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy. You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do.
On April 29 2018 20:49 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2018 20:44 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 20:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 20:17 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 19:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 19:31 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 18:21 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate?
"its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". You really think without police society would instantly descend into 'complete and utter lawless anarchy'? I think you have a terribly distorted idea of what police, especially in this country actually do or don't do for that matter. To the point of the practical application of the idea, disarming them (taking away their guns) would work wonders to clear out their ranks voluntarily. It goes both ways. I think you have no idea how much crime is prevented by the police, even a bad one. That's not an answer to the question though? I'd agree that neither of us really know how much crime is prevented by police, not unrelated to their refusal to provide information that would help us deduce that. Though I'm not arguing we need them or society will instantly collapse. If you're going to make that argument, you're going to need something more than an assertion I didn't disagree with. Look at any nation without a functional police force. Look at countries with large social unrest resulting in police not working. (like Egypt during the Mubarak revolution). Increased crime, vigilante justice, gangs assuming control of neighborhoods. So your argument is that the US would look comparable to Egypt amidst a revolution, if we were without police? I think you at least answered my first question, that you genuinely believe that US police by way of existing and their performance (by what measure no one knows) are effectively staving off anarchic chaos comparable to Egypt during a revolution. Besides thinking that sounds completely absurd on it's face, I'm curious, why do you think people would be motivated to enact such a society full of chaos were it not for police as we know them in the US? Surely police aren't why you're not part of a roving gang of evil anarchists? On April 29 2018 19:34 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 18:55 iamthedave wrote:On April 29 2018 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 29 2018 17:31 iamthedave wrote:
Though I clashed with GH over the ATP thing, I think people got the wrong end of the stick. GH's main point has always been that the reforms necessary to fix the police in the US at this point are so sweeping and thorough that they'll never happen, meaning that the best solution is to scrap the entire institution and start over from brass tacks. Even if what you built in their place is basically the same institution (though I know GH would prefer something else), the idea is you would have the opportunity to fix the structural issues plaguing the current establishment. And what happens during the time between scrapping the entire institution and the rebuild being along far enough for them to operate? "its ok, we only expect 6 to 8 months of complete and utter lawless anarchy". If we're going to move it into the realms of reality, then it should be taken as a given that there'd be a stand-in for the police during the re-organisation. It might have to be national guard or military police in hotspots, even militia. In the US you wouldn't do it all in one go, but state-by-state, since as a whole the nation has the spare resources to cover for a state at a time, though the biggest states might be a tough one. Military police have a spotty record for obvious reasons, but they'd be sufficient until the police were ready to go back to work. As you put it yourself, 6-8 months of military police in a single state shouldn't be an impossibility. They probably couldn't provide the level of coverage the cops do, but they'd keep things ticking along. In addition, the 'new' police would be getting rolled out in stages, so it wouldn't be entirely on their shoulders, more of a 'phase-in-phase-out' process. Bearing in mind I'm hardly a massive supporter of the idea, but I can figure out a basic idea of how you'd cover the logistics on that front in about ten seconds of thought. There are definitely ways to cover the transition period, and if an administration were actually going to do it, they'd almost certainly go about it roughly along the lines I've suggested. I think the issue comes down to whether or not you view the current situation as tenable, and whether or not you actually want it to improve. The US police have molded themselves into a society separate from the rest of you, with its own rules and laws, above outside accountability in a lot of cases. If the police aren't law-abiding, and aren't being punished when they break the law - as several are confirmed to have done - then what are they for? Christ, even the judges in Judge Dredd got that part right. If a Judge stepped out of line, it was considered the absolute worst thing imaginable, and they were executed on the spot without any consideration of other alternatives. Because they were the law, and it was important, even then, for the public to understand that nobody is above the law, especially not those enforcing it. Sure, but now we're talking about police reform and not abolishing it or scrapping it and starting over. I have repeatedly told GH that many people would readily agree with him that police in the US needs to be reformed and better but that his choice of words and arguments turns supporters into opposition. The police don't need to be "reformed and better", they need to be systematically dismantled from top to bottom. My words don't turn supporters into opposition, they expose (sometimes to themselves) alleged allies as the opposition they are . Do I think people would commit more crimes if there was no risk of police prosecution? Yes, because we are human. While I challenge the assertion itself, I also have to note we've moved a world away from your initial suggestion of "complete and utter lawless anarchy" Have no police for a week and I expect you will see an uptick in crime. Have none for 6+ months and yes, I expect anarchy. You can mitigate it by deploying the military to patrol but that only helps prevent part of the crimes. I don't think it will do much to actually solve the crimes that do happen in the way police investigations do. Exactly. I would imagine that small disputes over the course of time would escalate into cycles of violent retribution. People think we are all civilized by our very nature but all the psychological evidence points to that being a myth. We are civilized because we live in large civilizations with enforced expectations of behaviour. Remove that and all bets are off. Also, how long before private security companies go about enforcing the law? Would things be any better under that regime than they are now? Where would the oversight come from?
These are the type of problematic 'fight picking' posts I'm talking about.
I'm fine settling it by way of reasonable discussion, but if it's going to be halted/scolded on grounds of being disruptive/unproductive, then reprimand the people making crappy posts/arguments like that, not both me and them because I had the audacity to confront their argument rather than rely on moderators to step in (to something I think they've made clear they'd prefer to avoid).
I don't even have a problem with some light bullying, if someone's arrogantly wrong (myself included) take em down a notch, but do it with a substantive argument that attacks the position and it's weaknesses directly, take into consideration the entirety of a contrary post/opinion and not merely one's own interpretation of a weakness, and engage fully with the argument, don't dwell unnecessarily (if it's a premise critical to the rest of their argument feel free to drill down) on frivolous and tangential parts, especially at the expense of bringing the more substantial critique to light.
|
How is that picking a fight with you? They aren't being offensive, they aren't insulting you either. They're raising what they feel are reasonable objections to your idea. Nor are they posting with a chip on their shoulder, goading you into a row with them. You're discussing a fairly radical idea that I don't think they've really thought about before, and they see the police as essential where you do not. It's not as if they're raising unique, special objections, these are the objections I imagine most people would have.
What's your problem with the tone or content of what they say there?
I can't imagine a moderator seeing anything there, or in your responses so far, to moderate (though I know Seeker popped in for a friendly reminder later).
|
On April 27 2018 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 17:42 bo1b wrote:
I think the second last time I was banned, when I was discussing the concept of toxic femininity as a counter point to toxic masculinity, I brought up an example of girls literally starving themselves to death to appear more feminine, and was pretty promptly told it was ultimately male actions which caused that.
That was the point at which I realised an awfully large chunk of posters in the U.S politics thread have such a narrow view of the world, and are completely incapable of changing it, or even entertaining alternative views. If you want to know why people that aren't almost stamp cut don't post in that thread anymore, it's because some combination of the following will happen:
a) The post will be banned
b) It will be needlessly picked apart to find the smallest flaw in reason, almost always tangentially related to what is being discussed, and almost always in a manner that's not arguing the argument so to speak
c) Not a single person opposing the idea will actually critically think about what is posted, or rather, they will think about reasons as to why it's wrong from whatever point of view they happen to hold, and stop there.
d) "So you're saying that..."
For a perfect example, check out the exchange between Igne and Aquanim above.
Stealthblue no longer posting an inane barrage of hyperbolic twitter comments from generally left leaning op-ed posters for respected publications such as vox, has done absolutely nothing negative to the quality of thread, nor impacted to a great degree the interaction that was happening there. What it is though is another example of sticking to the rules over a moderation decision so without nuance that being able to post an article which is interesting and worth a read, can no longer be done as the post itself, nor even with a "check out this article".
It's worth noting that while I occasionally find what Greenhorizons posts to be utterly repulsive, I would rather open a thread full of people posting actual real discussion points that can offend my delicate sensitivities, then open it and scroll back 5 pages of people saying the same thing in slightly different words while quoting a talking point which also says the same thing. That's odd, I don't really recall any of that happening when you was talking about "toxic femininity". Mostly there was discussion, some confusion, more discussion over semantics, then the conversation moved onto some guy talking about how manly men fight bears and wolves or whatever and maybe some martyring. Also Drone (I think? One of the mods anyways) posting himself in a pink T-shirt smoking a big spliff. Perhaps the problem is your perception that your opinion piece should be immune to any criticism and discussion, to be acepted as fact and praised.
Apologies for late response. If I thought my posts were above criticism, I don't think I'd have responded with (what I believe to be) level headed discussion for 5 pages, after the literal first reply was this:
Body image problems are imposed on girls by society, advertisements etc and by men who care so much about their looks. Sex sells because of men. And that is the root of the problem really.
People absolutely did what I said they did.
On April 28 2018 06:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2018 21:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 27 2018 17:42 bo1b wrote:
I think the second last time I was banned, when I was discussing the concept of toxic femininity as a counter point to toxic masculinity, I brought up an example of girls literally starving themselves to death to appear more feminine, and was pretty promptly told it was ultimately male actions which caused that.
That was the point at which I realised an awfully large chunk of posters in the U.S politics thread have such a narrow view of the world, and are completely incapable of changing it, or even entertaining alternative views. If you want to know why people that aren't almost stamp cut don't post in that thread anymore, it's because some combination of the following will happen:
a) The post will be banned
b) It will be needlessly picked apart to find the smallest flaw in reason, almost always tangentially related to what is being discussed, and almost always in a manner that's not arguing the argument so to speak
c) Not a single person opposing the idea will actually critically think about what is posted, or rather, they will think about reasons as to why it's wrong from whatever point of view they happen to hold, and stop there.
d) "So you're saying that..."
For a perfect example, check out the exchange between Igne and Aquanim above.
Stealthblue no longer posting an inane barrage of hyperbolic twitter comments from generally left leaning op-ed posters for respected publications such as vox, has done absolutely nothing negative to the quality of thread, nor impacted to a great degree the interaction that was happening there. What it is though is another example of sticking to the rules over a moderation decision so without nuance that being able to post an article which is interesting and worth a read, can no longer be done as the post itself, nor even with a "check out this article".
It's worth noting that while I occasionally find what Greenhorizons posts to be utterly repulsive, I would rather open a thread full of people posting actual real discussion points that can offend my delicate sensitivities, then open it and scroll back 5 pages of people saying the same thing in slightly different words while quoting a talking point which also says the same thing. That's odd, I don't really recall any of that happening when you was talking about "toxic femininity". Mostly there was discussion, some confusion, more discussion over semantics, then the conversation moved onto some guy talking about how manly men fight bears and wolves or whatever and maybe some martyring. Also Drone (I think? One of the mods anyways) posting himself in a pink T-shirt smoking a big spliff. Perhaps the problem is your perception that your opinion piece should be immune to any criticism and discussion, to be acepted as fact and praised. I have most certainly never posted a picture of myself smoking a spliff.
Not smoking a spliff, but certainly in a pink shirt
|
On April 30 2018 18:14 iamthedave wrote:
How is that picking a fight with you? They aren't being offensive, they aren't insulting you either. They're raising what they feel are reasonable objections to your idea. Nor are they posting with a chip on their shoulder, goading you into a row with them. You're discussing a fairly radical idea that I don't think they've really thought about before, and they see the police as essential where you do not. It's not as if they're raising unique, special objections, these are the objections I imagine most people would have.
What's your problem with the tone or content of what they say there?
I can't imagine a moderator seeing anything there, or in your responses so far, to moderate (though I know Seeker popped in for a friendly reminder later).
They saw 'abolish the police' and then failed to do all the other things I said about engaging with the position as articulated, the whole position, and so on.
Also I wasn't just referencing the individual post but pretty much their entire engagement on the topic. They weren't coming to have a discussion or engage with what I had actually said or was proposing.
They came in to say "your idea is dumb, that will be total anarchy lol" without any consideration for any reasonable interpretation of the argument I had presented or having any intention of substantiating that position.
Look at the discussion, see what argument he offers to substantiate his position. Or Jock's "me too" to the unsubstantiated position.
To be clear I already said they shouldn't action it, but my point was that if the conversation is going to be reprimanded, don't do both. Reprimand the person clearly and flagrantly violating the purpose of the the rule about showing and not telling.
Don't come into a conversation and say "your position is obviously ridiculous, mine is the only way forward" and then not support it with any relevant evidence or have it address the position it's attempting to critique. That's terribly destructive to the discussion.
You say they see the police as essential, so support that belief. No one has, despite probably a dozen people asserting it as fact, provided anything substantiating we need the police as they exist now. For fun I entertained the idea of no police for months just to demonstrate they didn't have any real support for their assertion it would lead to a significant increase in crime in the US let alone anarchy and chaos as they came charging in claiming.
When I presented contrary evidence, they just kept repeating their assertions without any supporting information. That's not a discussion, but I'm generally the one accused of arguing poorly. That doesn't make sense. They presented an unsubstantiated position as fact, just repeated it when confronted with the fact that all the best available research does NOT support their assertion, then shifted goalposts/stopped defending it, until of course just reasserting it again without supporting information for a third time, before finally just not responding anymore when it was repeatedly exposed that their argument was worthless.
Wulfey, hunts, Jock, and Gor all engaged absolutely terribly in that discussion imo (not all gor's posts were terrible imo). Others weren't all great, but those four were especially bad and emblematic of what I think is the worst part of the thread for everyone.
If you disagree, please show me some examples of the valuable contributions they added to that discussion.
|
No, I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion that they're either picking a fight or doing something worthy of moderation.
To me, it seems more like they haven't thought deeply enough about the topic and don't have a lot to bring to the table about it. Yes you can characterise what they say as believing your idea is dumb, and I think they believe that, but they've been polite in their disagreements.
I'm sympathetic with your frustrations, but disagree with the conclusion you're drawing because of those frustrations.
Is it perhaps time for a polite walking away from the table and shelving the issue, since it looks like productive discussion on the topic will be hard?
|
On April 30 2018 19:16 iamthedave wrote:
No, I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion that they're either picking a fight or doing something worthy of moderation.
To me, it seems more like they haven't thought deeply enough about the topic and don't have a lot to bring to the table about it. Yes you can characterise what they say as believing your idea is dumb, and I think they believe that, but they've been polite in their disagreements.
I'm sympathetic with your frustrations, but disagree with the conclusion you're drawing because of those frustrations.
Is it perhaps time for a polite walking away from the table and shelving the issue, since it looks like productive discussion on the topic will be hard?
That's not polite. Saying someones idea is dumb without even thinking about it is both counterproductive and poor form.
I specifically said it shouldn't be moderated, but if they were going to, not to make it a "both sides are wrong" cop out.
As for walking away, no. If one side isn't making real arguments but there are more of them and they are stubbornly repeating their poorly formed arguments, walking away is generally the wrong choice imo. If their arguments are as bad as you seem to agree they are, counter the chorus of bad arguments with good ones refuting them. Then the impression left from the thread isn't one guy arguing something that everyone else clearly identifies as crazy and then walking away, but several poor arguments countered by several people making good counter arguments disposing of the bad ones.
Alternatively, if people want to complain, or do want something actioned so it stops, action the people making the poorly constructed (and against the show not tell rule) arguments that never intended (or demonstrated it at least) on actually engaging with the substance of the topic, not both parties.
Then all you need to do to shut down a good argument is get someone to call it dumb until they both get actioned or the person with the good argument is pressured to walk away.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On April 30 2018 18:31 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 06:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:I have most certainly never posted a picture of myself smoking a spliff. Not smoking a spliff, but certainly in a pink shirt
Oh, picture in pink shirt has happened at least twice. Wasn't correcting that part. But it's weird to see a fabricated memory of a picture of me smoking.
|
It's a vague memory of a series of posts arguing about something or another quite some time ago. It's not suprising that it will be not be perfectly accurate. At least I managed to get the person right this time. The picture is probably the least important part of whatever the argument was about anyways.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
Just at a curiosity, how many people have actually seen and read the new statement we put up when the new thread was created?
Message from the Moderators
TLnet was founded on the idea that this is our place. We’ve used moderation as a tool to curate a place that we enjoy having discussions in and a forum that we can be proud of. This has meant that at times the rules are applied inconsistently. For instance, the standard of posting that we accept in a live report thread is vastly different to what we would expect elsewhere on the forum. At some point certain users in the US Politics thread have exploited this inconsistency. Over time, a posting culture has developed that stands in stark contrast to the values we value as a site.
The moderation team and wider staff came to a consensus that things need to change in this thread so that it aligns closer to the values of the rest of TLnet. We’re going to introduce more subjective moderation in the thread. What this means is that if we feel that your posting in this thread is to the detriment of the thread then we’re going to slap you with a thread ban (temporary or permanent). Attempts to ban dodge will result in site-wide bans as usual. The ban list will be maintained at the bottom of this post. The reason why we’ve opted for a thread ban approach is that you all seem to be pretty normal outside of this thread, so we’re giving people the benefit of the doubt that they’ll continue to behave this way once this system is in place.
This moderation policy might be perceived as being unfair. Our intention is not to silence one side, rather, it is to ensure that values of TLnet are upheld. In our assessments of each poster we will evaluate their holistic contributions to the thread and not just whether some post has crossed a line.
Please take any concerns pertaining to this moderation policy or the US politics thread in general to website feedback
I'd like to know if this statement covers everything or if it has some loose ends we still need to go over. Because if this statement covers everything then there is no need for me to draft a public statement.
|
Can we have Stealthblue back and posting articles? they usually drove a lot of discussion... And with out them we end up doing 1v1's in the thread...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 01 2018 21:21 Seeker wrote:Just at a curiosity, how many people have actually seen and read the new statement we put up when the new thread was created? Show nested quote +Message from the Moderators
TLnet was founded on the idea that this is our place. We’ve used moderation as a tool to curate a place that we enjoy having discussions in and a forum that we can be proud of. This has meant that at times the rules are applied inconsistently. For instance, the standard of posting that we accept in a live report thread is vastly different to what we would expect elsewhere on the forum. At some point certain users in the US Politics thread have exploited this inconsistency. Over time, a posting culture has developed that stands in stark contrast to the values we value as a site.
The moderation team and wider staff came to a consensus that things need to change in this thread so that it aligns closer to the values of the rest of TLnet. We’re going to introduce more subjective moderation in the thread. What this means is that if we feel that your posting in this thread is to the detriment of the thread then we’re going to slap you with a thread ban (temporary or permanent). Attempts to ban dodge will result in site-wide bans as usual. The ban list will be maintained at the bottom of this post. The reason why we’ve opted for a thread ban approach is that you all seem to be pretty normal outside of this thread, so we’re giving people the benefit of the doubt that they’ll continue to behave this way once this system is in place.
This moderation policy might be perceived as being unfair. Our intention is not to silence one side, rather, it is to ensure that values of TLnet are upheld. In our assessments of each poster we will evaluate their holistic contributions to the thread and not just whether some post has crossed a line.
Please take any concerns pertaining to this moderation policy or the US politics thread in general to website feedback I'd like to know if this statement covers everything or if it has some loose ends we still need to go over. Because if this statement covers everything then there is no need for me to draft a public statement.
Probably everyone.
On May 01 2018 22:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Can we have Stealthblue back and posting articles? they usually drove a lot of discussion... And with out them we end up doing 1v1's in the thread...
Better than vacuous Twitter spam.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
