|
On May 08 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
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.
When someone advocates a position in the thread I disagree with I tend to make that disagreement known, particularly when no one else points out what I see as a glaring problem with the position. Often to make sure I'm not misreading their argument I ask clarifying questions to establish they are indeed saying what I think I'm seeing.
I mean, I am attacking the viewpoint that Israel is or was a good ally or that anything about their recent behavior regarding Iran should change the assessment that we shouldn't have the relationship that we do.
I don't know what to tell you if you're going to a political thread expecting bad (imo) opinions not to be challenged other than Mods can turn the US politics thread into that if they want, but that's not what it was made for or it's stated ethos. You're not avatars, you make the shitty arguments yourself (or parrot them), then I challenge the arguments, that's how this is supposed to work. If you're tired of it, stop posting shitty opinions you expect to go unchallenged.
|
On May 08 2018 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
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. When someone advocates a position in the thread I disagree with I tend to make that disagreement known, particularly when no one else points out what I see as a glaring problem with the position. Often to make sure I'm not misreading their argument I ask clarifying questions to establish they are indeed saying what I think I'm seeing. I mean, I am attacking the viewpoint that Israel is or was a good ally or that anything about their recent behavior regarding Iran should change the assessment that we shouldn't have the relationship that we do. I don't know what to tell you if you're going to a political thread expecting bad (imo) opinions not to be challenged other than Mods can turn the US politics thread into that if they want, but that's not what it was made for or it's stated ethos. You're not avatars, you make the shitty arguments yourself (or parrot them), then I challenge the arguments, that's how this is supposed to work. If you're tired of it, stop posting shitty opinions you expect to go unchallenged.
What if youre wrong and the argument isnt so shitty? What if there might be something to learn from someone who disagrees with you?
my feeling here (and again, this isn't only you I sometimes feel this way about) is that we ascribe a statement or a viewpoint or an idea to a certain political party, and as soon as that happens, its automatically wrong. I see arguments inferred from some statements (and this happens to you frequently) that are nonsensical, and the reason it happens is that someone already made up their mind that you are wrong before they even bothered to understand the argument.
This happens far too often on a forum that often considers itself well-informed and unbiased.
|
On May 08 2018 10:22 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2018 08:49 Plansix wrote:
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. When someone advocates a position in the thread I disagree with I tend to make that disagreement known, particularly when no one else points out what I see as a glaring problem with the position. Often to make sure I'm not misreading their argument I ask clarifying questions to establish they are indeed saying what I think I'm seeing. I mean, I am attacking the viewpoint that Israel is or was a good ally or that anything about their recent behavior regarding Iran should change the assessment that we shouldn't have the relationship that we do. I don't know what to tell you if you're going to a political thread expecting bad (imo) opinions not to be challenged other than Mods can turn the US politics thread into that if they want, but that's not what it was made for or it's stated ethos. You're not avatars, you make the shitty arguments yourself (or parrot them), then I challenge the arguments, that's how this is supposed to work. If you're tired of it, stop posting shitty opinions you expect to go unchallenged. What if youre wrong and the argument isnt so shitty? What if there might be something to learn from someone who disagrees with you? my feeling here (and again, this isn't only you I sometimes feel this way about) is that we ascribe a statement or a viewpoint or an idea to a certain political party, and as soon as that happens, its automatically wrong. I see arguments inferred from some statements (and this happens to you frequently) that are nonsensical, and the reason it happens is that someone already made up their mind that you are wrong before they even bothered to understand the argument. This happens far too often on a forum that often considers itself well-informed and unbiased.
The bold part is what bothers me the most about people arguing that they are after better quality debate/discussion but then do exactly what you describe.
I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong and either misinterpreting positions or that there is more or less merit to an argument than I initially perceive. The problem that virtually everyone has recognized but rarely beyond their political bend is that some people make statements or share opinions that they disagree with and many posters respond poorly to that.
The prescribed response is something to the effect of making a counter argument or not responding. A lot of posters like to respond to posts critical of their opinion/argument without actually offering a counter argument or addressing significant portions of the critique.
That's usually at the core of the issue whether it's p6, Danglars, myself, or anyone else.
|
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything.
|
On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything.
I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away).
Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it.
Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas.
|
I agree with Jock's assessment.
|
On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas.
rofl, I mean I would totally get it if people then didn't act like I shouldn't suggest abolishing the police without having a detailed plan of exactly how it works. But it's basically just chatting about some stuff....
It's becoming increasingly clear that several people just want the circle jerk and are still just trying to find a legitimate argument for it.
Just be honest, say we don't want our views challenged or to go through the work of defending them to scrutiny. There's a comedy in how much of Danglars' justification for not making good arguments, and not responding to simple questions you guys have basically used word for word at this point and still not put it together.
|
On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas.
Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way.
I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
|
On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason?
I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind.
It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions.
None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are).
You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars.
|
On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!". I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason? I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars.
The reason I didn't use your name is because I have had the same experience with posters from all sides of the political spectrum. This is not an area where political alignment is causing the problem, its an area where a type of approach to discussion is the root cause.
Anyone can challenge my position on anything they want. The only time I feel different is when I make an off hand comment and then there's 4-5 posts from the same poster in various sections of the forum about how awful it was. Its such an obnoxious way to conduct discussion that it makes the whole thing stressful. I get enough stress from work I don't come here for more of it in my spare time.
So its fine, tell me I'm being silly - I often am being silly, but when you keep dragging the same comment up day after day for 2 weeks it starts to make me look like the sensible one.
|
On May 09 2018 06:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!". I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason? I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars. The reason I didn't use your name is because I have had the same experience with posters from all sides of the political spectrum. This is not an area where political alignment is causing the problem, its an area where a type of approach to discussion is the root cause. Anyone can challenge my position on anything they want. The only time I feel different is when I make an off hand comment and then there's 4-5 posts in various sections of the forum about how awful it was. Its such an obnoxious way to conduct discussion that it makes the whole thing stressful. I get enough stress from work I don't come here for more of it in my spare time. So its fine, tell me I'm being silly - I often am being silly, but when you keep dragging the same comment up day after day for 2 weeks it starts to make me look like the sensible one.
Again, not sure if you're referencing me, but what comment/experience are you talking about?
|
It was a few days ago.
Nothing too intense, just pretty annoying to feel like I have to defend myself all over the forum. To be fair, my comment was reasonably shit, i misinterpreted something you said, but then a big deal is made out of it at which point it stops being interesting or fun posting in the threads any more.
I'm pretty much done with the US politics thread anyway. I'm not blaming anyone for that but I was mostly there because I'm trying to get a grip on how Americans interact with their political system and ideologies. I think I'm past the point where its worth the irritation of how discussions generally go because mostly what I've learned is that there's a whole lot of crazy and everyone is absolutely sure that they are right about most things.
Maybe I'll come back and poke the bear every now and again because I've had great discussions on there with yourself and others GH I just think the atmosphere in the thread has been fairly toxic for a while and I'm not into it.
|
On May 09 2018 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
It was a few days ago.
Nothing too intense, just pretty annoying to feel like I have to defend myself all over the forum. To be fair, my comment was reasonably shit, i misinterpreted something you said, but then a big deal is made out of it at which point it stops being interesting or fun posting in the threads any more.
I'm pretty much done with the US politics thread anyway. I'm not blaming anyone for that but I was mostly there because I'm trying to get a grip on how Americans interact with their political system and ideologies. I think I'm past the point where its worth the irritation of how discussions generally go because mostly what I've learned is that there's a whole lot of crazy and everyone is absolutely sure that they are right about most things.
Maybe I'll come back and poke the bear every now and again because I've had great discussions on there with yourself and others GH I just think the atmosphere in the thread has been fairly toxic for a while and I'm not into it.
I can understand your feelings but I didn't really do what you said in the previous post. It wasn't day after day or obnoxious. Someone asked for an example and your post happened to be one of the first ones I came across. Had you just said it was a poor post in the first place I'd have held you up as an example of how to handle that, but you got emotional and lashed out. That's a perfectly human reaction and I don't take it personally. But that reaction is common and at the core of why a lot of people have noticed discussions are mostly crap.
I even let it go (the best I could) when you disagreed/complained. I didn't drag it out and try to force you to admit it, I just thanked you and moved on.
I do think the whole describe/say one thing, but something else happened or was said, is also at the core of a lot of the problems in the thread. Being able to notice "Hey, I just implied they said/did something they didn't, I should acknowledge that" would do wonders for the quality of conversation in the thread.
|
On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason?
I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars.
Not just you. A lot of what you are describing also applies to you to a lot of people. The only difference is that we are like "ya know, it just doesn't matter what this guy thinks" and we close the tab and go do something else. I am not saying it is bad to spend a lot of time involved in philosophical/political discourse. I actually consider it a obligation as a participant of democracy. But that's another discussion.
To me, this issue boils down more to a matter of common courtesy or consideration. Do I think you're wrong about something? Totally. Do I want to drag the entire thread down with me as I get in the ring and have a long, drawn out boxing match? No, the thread deserves better than that. People don't need to witness my battle. The thread exists to serve many people and when we get into these extremely long, drawn out discussions, it discourages other people from discussing other topics.
It is sort of like talking during a movie. It feels good to give your perspective and theorize as the movie progresses. But other people also want to enjoy the movie. So I wait until after the movie. Not the best comparison, but I think you understand what I am saying. When we let ourselves argue for 20+ posts, we hurt the thread for our own selfish pursuit of satisfying philosophical discourse.
If you knew me in real life, you would know what an accomplishment it is for me to shut my mouth. But I do it for the sake of the thread. It doesn't matter if I think you or Introvert are 100% wrong about something. The pursuit of trying to get either of you to realize it is not as pleasant for everyone else as it is me. It feels like hogging the thread and making everyone wait for me to feel like I am done.
|
On May 09 2018 07:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason?
I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars. Not just you. A lot of what you are describing also applies to you to a lot of people. The only difference is that we are like "ya know, it just doesn't matter what this guy thinks" and we close the tab and go do something else. I am not saying it is bad to spend a lot of time involved in philosophical/political discourse. I actually consider it a obligation as a participant of democracy. But that's another discussion. To me, this issue boils down more to a matter of common courtesy or consideration. Do I think you're wrong about something? Totally. Do I want to drag the entire thread down with me as I get in the ring and have a long, drawn out boxing match? No, the thread deserves better than that. People don't need to witness my battle. The thread exists to serve many people and when we get into these extremely long, drawn out discussions, it discourages other people from discussing other topics. It is sort of like talking during a movie. It feels good to give your perspective and theorize as the movie progresses. But other people also want to enjoy the movie. So I wait until after the movie. Not the best comparison, but I think you understand what I am saying. When we let ourselves argue for 20+ posts, we hurt the thread for our own selfish pursuit of satisfying philosophical discourse.If you knew me in real life, you would know what an accomplishment it is for me to shut my mouth. But I do it for the sake of the thread. It doesn't matter if I think you or Introvert are 100% wrong about something. The pursuit of trying to get either of you to realize it is not as pleasant for everyone else as it is me. It feels like hogging the thread and making everyone wait for me to feel like I am done.
Seems Igne did it just fine. One reason many of them turn into shit fests is because some posters aren't actually making arguments, they are just posting (instead of thinking to themselves) "ya know, it doesn't matter what this guy thinks his argument is ridiculous" and then not closing the tab but repeating it over and over without making a real argument.
|
On May 09 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:31 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason?
I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars. Not just you. A lot of what you are describing also applies to you to a lot of people. The only difference is that we are like "ya know, it just doesn't matter what this guy thinks" and we close the tab and go do something else. I am not saying it is bad to spend a lot of time involved in philosophical/political discourse. I actually consider it a obligation as a participant of democracy. But that's another discussion. To me, this issue boils down more to a matter of common courtesy or consideration. Do I think you're wrong about something? Totally. Do I want to drag the entire thread down with me as I get in the ring and have a long, drawn out boxing match? No, the thread deserves better than that. People don't need to witness my battle. The thread exists to serve many people and when we get into these extremely long, drawn out discussions, it discourages other people from discussing other topics. It is sort of like talking during a movie. It feels good to give your perspective and theorize as the movie progresses. But other people also want to enjoy the movie. So I wait until after the movie. Not the best comparison, but I think you understand what I am saying. When we let ourselves argue for 20+ posts, we hurt the thread for our own selfish pursuit of satisfying philosophical discourse.If you knew me in real life, you would know what an accomplishment it is for me to shut my mouth. But I do it for the sake of the thread. It doesn't matter if I think you or Introvert are 100% wrong about something. The pursuit of trying to get either of you to realize it is not as pleasant for everyone else as it is me. It feels like hogging the thread and making everyone wait for me to feel like I am done. Seems Igne did it just fine. One reason many of them turn into shit fests is because some posters aren't actually making arguments, they are just posting (instead of thinking to themselves) "ya know, it doesn't matter what this guy thinks his argument is ridiculous" and then not closing the tab but repeating it over and over without making a real argument.
Saying "but igne appreciates me!" doesn't address what I am saying. The problem is the number of posts dedicated to a single back and forth. It is selfish and shits up the thread.
|
On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
people who talk on internet forums are a self-selected group, and it tends to self-select toward obnoxious, crazy, and highly opinionated (and yes, this includes me and everyone else who posts, as a trend).
in a way it reminds me of the anthropic principle, though i'm sure there's one that's far more on point.
|
On May 09 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 07:31 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2018 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!".
I mean I presume you're talking about me but didn't want to use my name for some reason?
I think you guys should be able to tell from Igne and my conversation that you guys are full of shit. He basically said I was wrong about everything, demonstrated why he thought so, and changed my mind. It goes differently with many of you because you have no desire or intention of substantiating random opinions. You guys are literally arguing to be able to violate rule 1 because it's inconvenient to have someone challenge your positions. None of this "oh we should be able to say silly things without them being challenged or acknowledging we were wrong" stuff was ever argued before you guys started seeing consistent challenges from the left (as there are basically none from the right as seen in the ~60 posts about how stupid and bad the Republicans and Trump are). You guys make the exact opposite argument about Danglars. Not just you. A lot of what you are describing also applies to you to a lot of people. The only difference is that we are like "ya know, it just doesn't matter what this guy thinks" and we close the tab and go do something else. I am not saying it is bad to spend a lot of time involved in philosophical/political discourse. I actually consider it a obligation as a participant of democracy. But that's another discussion. To me, this issue boils down more to a matter of common courtesy or consideration. Do I think you're wrong about something? Totally. Do I want to drag the entire thread down with me as I get in the ring and have a long, drawn out boxing match? No, the thread deserves better than that. People don't need to witness my battle. The thread exists to serve many people and when we get into these extremely long, drawn out discussions, it discourages other people from discussing other topics. It is sort of like talking during a movie. It feels good to give your perspective and theorize as the movie progresses. But other people also want to enjoy the movie. So I wait until after the movie. Not the best comparison, but I think you understand what I am saying. When we let ourselves argue for 20+ posts, we hurt the thread for our own selfish pursuit of satisfying philosophical discourse.If you knew me in real life, you would know what an accomplishment it is for me to shut my mouth. But I do it for the sake of the thread. It doesn't matter if I think you or Introvert are 100% wrong about something. The pursuit of trying to get either of you to realize it is not as pleasant for everyone else as it is me. It feels like hogging the thread and making everyone wait for me to feel like I am done. Seems Igne did it just fine. One reason many of them turn into shit fests is because some posters aren't actually making arguments, they are just posting (instead of thinking to themselves) "ya know, it doesn't matter what this guy thinks his argument is ridiculous" and then not closing the tab but repeating it over and over without making a real argument. Saying "but igne appreciates me!" doesn't address what I am saying. The problem is the number of posts dedicated to a single back and forth. It is selfish and shits up the thread.
If that was the root of the complaint "posting too frequently" that's a critique I would accept, though I may disagree on what that means to the quality of the thread and so on, it's at least a complaint that makes sense. It's actually why I mentioned many many posts ago why if that was the complaint I'd be open to having it addressed in new moderation standards.
It's not about igne appreciating me, it's a demonstration that I can be confronted about my opinion and convinced otherwise if someone actually presents an argument instead of whining that I didn't just accept their poorly formed argument as it was.
|
On May 09 2018 08:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!". people who talk on internet forums are a self-selected group, and it tends to self-select toward obnoxious, crazy, and highly opinionated (and yes, this includes me and everyone else who posts, as a trend). in a way it reminds me of the anthropic principle, though i'm sure there's one that's far more on point.
Yes, exactly. When we choose not to beat a subject into the ground, we are making a conscious decision to be courteous to the greater good of the thread.
I am a firm believer in the idea that the best thread is the one with the most participants. When members dominate conversation, the value of the thread decreases.
|
On May 09 2018 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2018 08:11 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2018 05:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 08 2018 23:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 08 2018 20:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I can't believe that someone who just a few days ago, bangs on about neolib shitposters, grandstands on this, backtracks almost immediately, plaintively demures, then grasped at any chance to redeem himself just wrote the above post. It's like you are just an alt version of Danglars. Words have no meaning to you. "Winning" is everything. I think essentially what happens is that a poster will propose something, and then when people don't respond the way they would want, they go completely off the rails - and this is what everyone's sick of. Its not the disagreement where the actual problem lies, its the behaviour of people who can't handle being contradicted, so they get really mad and will keep going on and on and on about it until everyone else gives up (Then they can accuse everyone of running away). Its an internet forum so you will get some low quality posts because people come here mostly to chat about stuff. There's really no need to get mad about it. Put simply, some posters are far too invested in what other people on this forum think of their political ideologies and ideas. Agreed. When I have disagreements with people, it is clear when we just straight up disagree. I can end a conversation with xDaunt or LegalLord with something along the lines of "alright, I get what you mean, we just disagree". Whereas with other posters, it feels like the idea of disagreement is just unthinkable. The issue must get absolutely get pounded into the ground and if there is disagreement, more posts need to be made in a chat-window sort of way. I straight up don't understand. It feels like such a tremendous (!) waste of time and energy. I am interested in learning more about how people think, but I am not really all that interested in knowing people view me as correct. It feels like some thread posters need that happy ending where they are declared correct. Anything, no matter how many posts it takes, is worth the pursuit of someone saying "yeah, you're totally right and I am clearly wrong!". people who talk on internet forums are a self-selected group, and it tends to self-select toward obnoxious, crazy, and highly opinionated (and yes, this includes me and everyone else who posts, as a trend). in a way it reminds me of the anthropic principle, though i'm sure there's one that's far more on point. Yes, exactly. When we choose not to beat a subject into the ground, we are making a conscious decision to be courteous to the greater good of the thread. I am a firm believer in the idea that the best thread is the one with the most participants. When members dominate conversation, the value of the thread decreases.
A bunch of people participated in the "Trump Iran" deal circle jerk and that was some of the most vacuous stuff in the thread for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
