|
On May 04 2018 17:15 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2018 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote: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).
I mean I'm not going to cape for Danglars, but the issue isn't that he wasn't a dick, the issue was that there are a lot of dicks in the thread and
1. The neolib dicks were getting more slack and often instigating/immediately sinking to the bait and acting holier than thou at the end of it.
2. Mods did a poor job of handling what may or may not have been legitimate actions
3. Mods need to quit making shit worse for some amorphous reasons that range from too much attention demanded by the US politics thread to only a single mod having any interest in paying it any attention.
4. Pretty poor response from the almost the entire mod staff outside of Drone and Seeker from a community leader perspective.
5. Not just saying that they don't give a shit (then letting us handle it), they set too high a bar for themselves as volunteers when it comes to ethics and leadership so tough shit, or some other statement that didn't smell like bullshit.
The reason I want to see the posts, is because it's perfectly possible that a lot of people are all arriving at the same wrong idea and would rather spend dozens of pages collectively explaining away the need for them to cite some examples than have to deal with me being right. Both because it's me/danglars and because they just don't want to be wrong.
|
On May 04 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:
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.
Oh, I know what a "neoliberal" is, I just want to know what a "neolib" shitposter is as GH uses it, because it seems to mean "posters I disagree with, but I won't identify the posts or who I am talking about", case in point the post above. There are plenty of people who expresses neoliberal opinions and mindsets in the thread, but curiously for a claim that there are plenty of them, he cannot identify a single person or post that he thinks is of worst posting quality than danglars; instead they are neolib dicks/shitposters.
|
Every time I see somebody say that one side of the political spectrum was moderated differently than another I just laugh. Its ridiculous to think that. Any mod action I saw was solely the consequence of someone acting like a douchebag.
|
On May 04 2018 21:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:
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. Oh, I know what a "neoliberal" is, I just want to know what a "neolib" shitposter is as GH uses it, because it seems to mean "posters I disagree with, but I won't identify the posts or who I am talking about", case in point the post above. There are plenty of people who expresses neoliberal opinions and mindsets in the thread, but curiously for a claim that there are plenty of them, he cannot identify a single person or post that he thinks is of worst posting quality than danglars; instead they are neolib dicks/shitposters.
Uh... I think I've been pretty clear. There's several pages detailing it. I'm not really here to make a shit list though.
As to whether Danglars was 'worse' than any/all of them, probably, at least sometimes. But there's only one of him and up to ~half a dozen at a time of the other. People have a tendency not to bother reading or understanding my arguments, proudly proclaiming it, then thinking their critique is valuable. I'm getting used to it at this point. As I have with most of the stuff that bothered me or I might hope be actioned. If you thought I was trying to demonstrate danglars isn't the 'worst' (whether he is or not), you clearly had absolutely no idea what I was arguing.
Perhaps this was just one of those town hall votes that have been all the rage lately though?
On May 04 2018 22:34 Aveng3r wrote:
Every time I see somebody say that one side of the political spectrum was moderated differently than another I just laugh. Its ridiculous to think that. Any mod action I saw was solely the consequence of someone acting like a douchebag.
You know my critique is not that right?
|
You have detailed nothing. See, it would be very easy to completely shut me down by pointing to a post where you have detailed what a neolib shitposter is, seeing as you only mention neolib just a single page ago, but you cannot even do that.
If by clear, you mean, writing neolib shitposters and neolib dicks without regard to what a neoliberal is, you have been very clear that you have no interest or capability to detail whatever it is you are talking about, only to use the term as disparagement towards posts which don't appear to actually exist.
That neoliberals is a reprehensible political view to you doesn't make them shitposters, and dicks; it makes you intolerant.
|
On May 05 2018 00:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You have detailed nothing. See, it would be very easy to completely shut me down by pointing to a post where you have detailed what a neolib shitposter is, seeing as you only mention neolib just a single page ago, but you cannot even do that.
If by clear, you mean, writing neolib shitposters and neolib dicks without regard to what a neoliberal is, you have been very clear that you have no interest or capability to detail whatever it is you are talking about, only to use the term as disparagement towards posts which don't appear to actually exist.
You're conflating quite a few different things in a variety of ways, allow me to try to clarify. I don't think every shit poster is a neolib, I don't think every neolib is a shit poster. I don't think every shit post comes from someone who habitually shit posts.
If you're sincerely ignoring the pages of me detailing what my critiques are, including the several others included in the post that apparently triggered you, and genuinely want and think your argumentation/engagement to this point warrants it, I'll indulge you.
But if that's really what you want I expect you to be prepared for what that entails. You sure you want that?
EDIT: I guess I should admit I use Neoliberal somewhat interchangeably with 'centrist', partly because people like to be called centrist and the pseudo-credibility and apparent reasonableness it provides.
|
No really GH, this is the exact problem you have in the US pol thread.
1) Thinking a phrase is an argument, all by itself.
2) When this is pointed out that it isn't, you claim that you have explained something, when you haven't. Maybe you have a year ago, but the argument is here and now.
3) Claim that whoever you are arguing with, is triggered or needs a safe space or privileged or don't have the requisite cultural experience or whatever.
4) When pressed further you act all self righteous.
But by all means, go ahead. Go explain what and who these neoliberal shitposting dick posts who Danglars are arguing against.
|
On May 05 2018 01:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No really GH, this is the exact problem you have in the US pol thread.
1) Thinking a phrase is an argument, all by itself.
2) When this is pointed out that it isn't, you claim that you have explained something, when you haven't. Maybe you have a year ago, but the argument is here and now.
3) Claim that whoever you are arguing with, is triggered or needs a safe space or privileged or don't have the requisite cultural experience or whatever.
4) When pressed further you act all self righteous.
But by all means, go ahead. Go explain what and who these neoliberal shitposting dick posts who Danglars are arguing against.
Can I not use more recent shit posts that aren't necessarily 'neoliberal'? I mean there's one on this page and that would make this much easier. But if the point is to demonstrate the "danglars faced this too and it helped provoke his objectionable posts" argument, that's a bit of a shift of burden and more work, but I'd do it if it shut people up.
If I go and do it and some poster is just going to post another shit post to troll me after, I don't think it's worth it.
|
On May 05 2018 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2018 01:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No really GH, this is the exact problem you have in the US pol thread.
1) Thinking a phrase is an argument, all by itself.
2) When this is pointed out that it isn't, you claim that you have explained something, when you haven't. Maybe you have a year ago, but the argument is here and now.
3) Claim that whoever you are arguing with, is triggered or needs a safe space or privileged or don't have the requisite cultural experience or whatever.
4) When pressed further you act all self righteous.
But by all means, go ahead. Go explain what and who these neoliberal shitposting dick posts who Danglars are arguing against. Can I not use more recent shit posts that aren't necessarily 'neoliberal'? I mean there's one on this page and that would make this much easier. But if the point is to demonstrate the "danglars faced this too and it helped provoke his objectionable posts" argument, that's a bit of a shift of burden and more work, but I'd do it if it shut people up. If I go and do it and some poster is just going to post another shit post to troll me after, I don't think it's worth it.
I mean, you can, by all means. But the thing you're specifically here arguing about is "neoliberal shitposts". If you have to turn to a "non-neoliberal" shitpost then that kinda makes their point. Point to specific examples, but don't just start labeling everyone with a term you've decided is derogatory and feel like you don't have to justify it.
|
On May 04 2018 22:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2018 21:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 04 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:
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. Oh, I know what a "neoliberal" is, I just want to know what a "neolib" shitposter is as GH uses it, because it seems to mean "posters I disagree with, but I won't identify the posts or who I am talking about", case in point the post above. There are plenty of people who expresses neoliberal opinions and mindsets in the thread, but curiously for a claim that there are plenty of them, he cannot identify a single person or post that he thinks is of worst posting quality than danglars; instead they are neolib dicks/shitposters. Uh... I think I've been pretty clear. There's several pages detailing it. I'm not really here to make a shit list though. As to whether Danglars was 'worse' than any/all of them, probably, at least sometimes. But there's only one of him and up to ~half a dozen at a time of the other. People have a tendency not to bother reading or understanding my arguments, proudly proclaiming it, then thinking their critique is valuable. I'm getting used to it at this point. As I have with most of the stuff that bothered me or I might hope be actioned. If you thought I was trying to demonstrate danglars isn't the 'worst' (whether he is or not), you clearly had absolutely no idea what I was arguing. Perhaps this was just one of those town hall votes that have been all the rage lately though? Show nested quote +On May 04 2018 22:34 Aveng3r wrote:
Every time I see somebody say that one side of the political spectrum was moderated differently than another I just laugh. Its ridiculous to think that. Any mod action I saw was solely the consequence of someone acting like a douchebag. You know my critique is not that right?
I'm aware, yes. It wasn't directed at you in particular
|
On May 05 2018 04:50 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2018 22:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 04 2018 21:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 04 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:
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. Oh, I know what a "neoliberal" is, I just want to know what a "neolib" shitposter is as GH uses it, because it seems to mean "posters I disagree with, but I won't identify the posts or who I am talking about", case in point the post above. There are plenty of people who expresses neoliberal opinions and mindsets in the thread, but curiously for a claim that there are plenty of them, he cannot identify a single person or post that he thinks is of worst posting quality than danglars; instead they are neolib dicks/shitposters. Uh... I think I've been pretty clear. There's several pages detailing it. I'm not really here to make a shit list though. As to whether Danglars was 'worse' than any/all of them, probably, at least sometimes. But there's only one of him and up to ~half a dozen at a time of the other. People have a tendency not to bother reading or understanding my arguments, proudly proclaiming it, then thinking their critique is valuable. I'm getting used to it at this point. As I have with most of the stuff that bothered me or I might hope be actioned. If you thought I was trying to demonstrate danglars isn't the 'worst' (whether he is or not), you clearly had absolutely no idea what I was arguing. Perhaps this was just one of those town hall votes that have been all the rage lately though? On May 04 2018 22:34 Aveng3r wrote:
Every time I see somebody say that one side of the political spectrum was moderated differently than another I just laugh. Its ridiculous to think that. Any mod action I saw was solely the consequence of someone acting like a douchebag. You know my critique is not that right? I'm aware, yes. It wasn't directed at you in particular
Could you explain that to Danger and New for me please?
|
On May 04 2018 22:34 Aveng3r wrote:
Every time I see somebody say that one side of the political spectrum was moderated differently than another I just laugh. Its ridiculous to think that. Any mod action I saw was solely the consequence of someone acting like a douchebag.
just because the offender was acting badly does not preclude the possibility of biased enforcement. it's possible that all offenders are guilty, but since many offenses are not punished at all selective enforcement/bias can occur because some categories of offenders are more or less likely to be punished for equivalent underlying acts. (I make no claim one way or the other on the matter of whether the moderation was biased here, i'm just pointing out what looks like a fallacy to me, without getting into the larger question of fact in this case)
|
Just have to say that Nixer is a shit mod and should have his ability to ban from the US politics thread completely removed.
Thanks.
|
On May 06 2018 19:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just have to say that Nixer is a shit mod and should have his ability to ban from the US politics thread completely removed.
Thanks.
Would be easier to believe you if you provided any sort of context
|
On May 06 2018 19:27 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2018 19:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just have to say that Nixer is a shit mod and should have his ability to ban from the US politics thread completely removed.
Thanks. Would be easier to believe you if you provided any sort of context
I have, he banned me (site wide) and refused to respond to any inquiries as to what posts he was banning me for. That is shitty modding no matter how you cut it.
|
Sometimes it feels like the US politics thread is a thread purely intended for GH to aggressively interview various posters, most often times P6.
If we were to review the thread and tally up which posters are either being quoted or doing the posting, it would show a very small number of posters are a huge huge majority of the posts. Reflecting back on times when people were banned, it is clear to see that while there were less posts per day, there was significantly more variety to who was posting.
I am not really making a suggestion or even recommending something change. I am just pointing out that the thread has a strong tendency to turn into more of a chat window and that these back and forth posts often end up strongly discouraging other conversations from taking place. There is clearly a dominating/suppressing effect that these conversations have.
Overall, it feels to me like the thread would benefit from more variety.
|
On May 08 2018 07:02 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes it feels like the US politics thread is a thread purely intended for GH to aggressively interview various posters, most often times P6.
If we were to review the thread and tally up which posters are either being quoted or doing the posting, it would show a very small number of posters are a huge huge majority of the posts. Reflecting back on times when people were banned, it is clear to see that while there were less posts per day, there was significantly more variety to who was posting.
I am not really making a suggestion or even recommending something change. I am just pointing out that the thread has a strong tendency to turn into more of a chat window and that these back and forth posts often end up strongly discouraging other conversations from taking place. There is clearly a dominating/suppressing effect that these conversations have.
Overall, it feels to me like the thread would benefit from more variety.
You're keying in on what many of us have been saying for a while. That there is a generally neoliberal/centrist orthodoxy and the conflicts arise generally out of it being challenged.
That manifests in back and forth between p6 and myself because he often espouses them and vociferously defends them. Too your point, look at doodsmack/wulfey/excludos recent posts. They were skeptical of my position, I explained it further, they dropped any public expression of their skepticism.
P6 instead tried to defend his position (this is what I would encourage) which generates more posts. More often than not p6's position is shared by a number of liberals who just choose not to engage with the substance/discussion. For instance I don't care about what P6 thinks as an individual (relating to the most recent discussion) my contention is with the position he's articulating, not the person articulating it. Again, he's just one of the posters that frequently puts those takes forth and defends them with many posts (usually short and not addressing the entire argument and not quoting it so that it's much harder to follow). So it looks like I'm "interviewing" him or whatever, but it's just flushing out what I see as a bad position that others would generally just +1 post about if at all.
What several people are advocating is essentially the stifling of dissent. No one has a problem with the "interview' style questioning when applied to something like "abolish the police" because they are emotionally invested in proving it was as absurd as they claimed, the opposite is true when it's their view being challenged, particularly when they aren't equipped to make the argument they accept often uncritically.
|
If you aren’t not interested in my position on a subject, dont fucking ask. I’m am not some sounding board for you to assert viewpoint on liberals or whatever political wisdom you feel like dropping on the thread.
|
On May 08 2018 08:09 Plansix wrote:
If you aren’t not interested in position on a subject, dont fucking ask. I’m am not some sounding board for you to assert viewpoint on liberals or whatever political wisdom you feel like dropping on the thread.
You misunderstand, I'm very interested in the position you espoused, I don't care that it was you (as a person/poster) who espoused it. But as it was you, you're the person I quoted and asked for clarification.
|
If you are looking to have a political viewpoint clarified, read an article on the subject. There is literally an entire industry of people writing political think pieces that you can take advantage of. To often these clarifications turn into a vector for you to attack the poster's viewpoints, rather than information yourself. I have grown increasingly tired of them. We are not avatars for whatever grievance you have liberals.
And to be abundantly clear, has little to do with political viewpoints. I just think you are a bit of an asshole about all of and itching to pick a fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
