|
On May 03 2018 10:37 Aquanim wrote:
Back when xDaunt posted frequently Danglars made utterly worthless +1 posts on the regular, so I don't think it's a problem limited to any particular political point of view.
That's one part I've disagreed with them about, while I think they are mostly correct on the modding issue otherwise.
It's not because they are on the right (though it makes their positions that much more detestable), it's because they are outside the accepted political sphere.
The point we've been making like a bajillion times now is not that the shitty posts are unique to neoliberals, but the tolerance of neoliberal shitposts is several degrees higher than for non-neoliberalish positions.
That the response from mods was to action those frustrated with shit posting rather than the people making the shit posts.
It should be abundantly clear by now.
|
On May 03 2018 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:...
The point we've been making like a bajillion times now is not that the shitty posts are unique to neoliberals, but the tolerance of neoliberal shitposts is several degrees higher than for non-neoliberalish positions.
I don't really agree with this either. In my view, Danglars got away with exceptionally bad posting for an exceptional length of time. The fact that he's been slapped with a serious penalty now just seems like karma finally catching up.
|
On May 03 2018 10:56 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 10:51 GreenHorizons wrote:...
The point we've been making like a bajillion times now is not that the shitty posts are unique to neoliberals, but the tolerance of neoliberal shitposts is several degrees higher than for non-neoliberalish positions. I don't really agree with this either. In my view, Danglars got away with exceptionally bad posting for an exceptional length of time. The fact that he's been slapped with a serious penalty now just seems like karma finally catching up.
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument. The +1 shit posts rolled in whenever Danglars would post. Hell, I was probably part of it sometimes. The difference is the few times I think Danglars actually should have been actioned I could point to some very specific posts which were clearly against the rules as they existed.
One reason I think he hasn't been provided some example posts (beyond some not very bad ones selected by P6, but also had this problem) is they are always surrounded with neolib shit posts.
Showing his problematic posts would draw attention to the very thing we've been talking about.
|
On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
...
He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway.
|
On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway.
Maybe, maybe not. Since it's already assumed you're right, let's see some of those examples and see which read is more accurate. You can pick the examples.
EDIT: You know what, I know he actually does this, but it's both within the rules and less bad than how neolibs do it. He might come in with a "stupid liberals think _________" or something but it will be after a half dozen "hurr durr Republicans/conservatives are so evil and stupid" posts.
If people can't take it, don't dish it out.
|
On May 03 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway. Maybe, maybe not. Since it's already assumed you're right, let's see some of those examples and see which read is more accurate. You can pick the examples.
I've got better things to do than argue case-by-case with people I know I won't convince and don't really need to.
|
On May 03 2018 11:10 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway. Maybe, maybe not. Since it's already assumed you're right, let's see some of those examples and see which read is more accurate. You can pick the examples. I've got better things to do than argue case-by-case with people I know I won't convince and don't really need to.
That's a remarkably convenient argument for someone who wants people to assume he's right but has no ability to support his argument.
I'm sure it's totally for your reason though.
Think that's 0-2 for the two posters you made a point to specifically call out. 0-3 if you count xDaunt. Maybe just keep it to yourself next time?
|
Well, since you've put me in a position where I either have to relitigate a ten thousand page thread or get into a pissing contest in Website Feedback, I think this conversation is finished.
|
On May 03 2018 11:30 Aquanim wrote:
Well, since you've put me in a position where I either have to relitigate a ten thousand page thread or get into a pissing contest in Website Feedback, I think this conversation is finished.
Or just substantiate your position with any examples you want. Don't pretend I put you out just because I didn't accept your argument without you supporting it.
|
I will stipulate that this:
On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway.
was a statement of personal opinion that I do not oblige you to accept.
|
On May 03 2018 13:01 Aquanim wrote:I will stipulate that this: Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway. was a statement of personal opinion that I do not oblige you to accept.
Wasn't it all a statement of opinion no one should be expected to accept? Which is kinda my point about +1 shit posting. though this is basically a reasonable conclusion.
|
i'd call it a vote in a new england town hall
|
On May 03 2018 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 13:01 Aquanim wrote:I will stipulate that this: On May 03 2018 11:06 Aquanim wrote:On May 03 2018 11:04 GreenHorizons wrote:...
He's not lying that he'd rarely start it. People couldn't help but engage with the lowest hanging fruit and harp on it without addressing his whole argument.
... He became very good at making it look like he hadn't started it, anyway. was a statement of personal opinion that I do not oblige you to accept. Wasn't it all a statement of opinion no one should be expected to accept? ...
I've been treating all of your posts in that discussion as statements of opinion I don't accept as well, despite your assertions of them as "abundantly clear" facts, for the record.
I would not, however, presume to speak on whether any/everybody else does or should accept them. That would seem pretty rude.
|
Danglars’ tone is perpetually condescending and the notion that “omg the neolibs arguing with him are so much worse” is crap.
|
We all kinda gave as good as we got. The mods stance Danglars seems to be more about how he responded to a temporary ban.
|
What is this "neolib" you keep refering to GH? I have argued with Danglars on a few occassions, and I am pretty sure I am not a "neoliberal shitposter", nor can I recognise that tolerance to the responses to Danglars were higher than to Danglars himself, up till the point he was thread tempbanned in the new thread.
It's also a strange argument that everyone who has ever argued with one particular person in a pol thread, must be of a particular political leaning, especially when the label you have placed is not one I can say applies to the people who reply to him.
|
Neoliberal: term used to discrible hawkish, pro business, vaguely anti labor, hands off capitalism, liberals that make up a pretty sizable part of Democratic Party. Often used as a pejorative.
Like all political labels, it is overly broad and tires to pin down political views to the right left spectrum. But it exists and is used often by people trying to point out the bad part of their political spectrum.
|
The actual thread seems a lot better now, good job everybody. 
|
On May 03 2018 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 03:09 xM(Z wrote:
i got this, kill two birds with one stone: have GH come up with a community policing scheme then implement it.
-he gets his fuck the police wish and a chance to put his money where his mouth is;
-mods wash their hands of US thread(for a while at least);
-based on the outcome, be none the wiser or get schooled.
(some deals/wagers could be made prior for some extra incentives) I think I've pitched a few various potential mod schemes, haven't really gotten much feedback though. I'm also not a big 'punishment' person, so if I were to do it in the image of a community policing idea bans would be a tool of last resort. No banning without talking to the person directly first. Which would have been a check in the process for the bans Danglars and I experienced. Seems pretty obvious at this point with only one mod that actually cares to mod and a few that prowl the thread looking for posts that upset them so they can action them unprovoked, the only sensible solution is a community based one. It might not be perfect, but I'm basically 99% sure anything else is going to be as bad or worse than everything we've had. i remember Nyx posting a vid. on the alternating of populism(forms of socialism) <-> capitalism throughout the recent human history, the need for it and the economic changes/benefits that came with those.
long story short, it mainly focused on the economical effects, the changes brought and emphasized the need for those changes but barely touched on the social aspect, for which they implied(they gave examples, real ones) that the change from populist rule to capitalist rule came peacefully because populists realized that some deregulation will be beneficial but the change from capitalism to populism always happened through turmoil and bloodshed(rioting, revolutions etc).
that being the analogy(current TL rule = capitalist, future GH rule = populist) dictates that you more or less need to kill some of em else it ain't happening.
|
On May 03 2018 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:30 Aquanim wrote:
Well, since you've put me in a position where I either have to relitigate a ten thousand page thread or get into a pissing contest in Website Feedback, I think this conversation is finished. Or just substantiate your position with any examples you want. Don't pretend I put you out just because I didn't accept your argument without you supporting it.
The thing is that the only people reading this are people very familiar with Danglars. If you feel he didn't start it, nobody's going to find a post that'll convince you, because you already read the post that convinced them of the opposite.
All I can say for my part is I legitimately thought - of all the conservative posters - that Danglars in particular was a troll who just posted here to piss off people on the left, given the established pattern of 1. post in a tone/manner guaranteed to annoy someone 2. deny saying the thing he said 3. start condescending people for saying he said the thing he said 4. use 3. as an excuse to proclaim the conversation not worth his time and 5. repeat about two weeks later.
When I directly engaged with him out of curiousity, he went through those exact steps in that exact order, and I watched him do it half a dozen times before hand, and he did it irrespective of how he was treated.
xDaunt always struck me as someone with legitimate points who usually only posted if he felt he had something to say, and agree or disagree, tended to stand by his positions with a modicum of respect and decorum (though tended to become testy when people started having a go at him, which seemed reasonable to me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
