US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 140

On May 09 2018 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:


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 08:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:


He's saying that he appreciates Igne more than the other way around tbh. And GH has a valid point. There's definitely a tendency that fringe pov's get attacked by posters 'in the center' for being stupid/native/unrealistic if leftist fringe or stupid/evil/immoral if right-fringe, rather than the arguments being addressed in any comprehensive manner. It's predictable that this turns into a shouting match.

If people want to argue that 'but we tried that and it doesn't work, they ignore our well thought-out arguments and focus on meaningless tangential points', meh. I'm not saying that never happens. But I know that I have had productive discussions with xdaunt, with danglars, with GH. Igne and Falling have both been highlighted by the same group of posters for being people who address the arguments rather than the person making the arguments. We may not have swayed their political opinions, but at least personally, I have felt like I have succeeded in making them understand the counter-argument to whatever point they have been making, which tends to make them a bit more sympathetic towards people holding the opposing point of view.

People overlook this when discussing politics. It's not about changing the mind of the person you're arguing with. I mean, this does happen occasionally, but you shouldn't expect that, no matter how brilliant of an argument you think you are presenting. I've certainly thought to myself when making a post 'he has to agree that he was wrong after reading this', and experienced disappointment when that doesn't happen. Being older and less naive, I've come to realize that this is an unrealistic expectation.

However, there's still validity to discussing stuff online. A lot of it. You can a) influence bystanders who don't have a strong opinion before reading the argument, and b) you can make the other person you are arguing with understand where you are coming from. The latter point is important, and it's something I perceive as missing from political discussion today. People generally tend to reach that point rather quickly if they sit down in person and talk about an issue - people are less confrontational in person, people respond to personal attacks with hostility. But online, there tends to be a strong pile-on of people saying 'not only is your argument wrong, but you are immoral or an idiot for holding on to it'. That's not how you change people's minds.

Aside from that I commend the 'we should be better at dropping the discussion'- realization. I get wanting to win a discussion. But if you've presented your argument three times, it's unlikely to become more persuasive the 8th time you reiterate it. It's also important to allow whomever you are discussing with leave the discussion with his or her dignity intact. Harping on 'you were wrong that time and you refused to acknowledge that you were wrong this time and I'm gonna keep mentioning it until you acknowledge it', that doesn't actually work either. If people stop engaging, it's normally smart for both to do so. I understand that if you approach discussion with the mindset that you want to beat the person you are discussing with, this doesn't give you the full mental satisfaction that a retraction would give you, but if you are approaching a discussion with the mindset that you want to beat the person you are discussing with, it's probably best if you avoid discussing.

On May 09 2018 07:31 Mohdoo wrote:


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 09:25 Introvert wrote:


Have we had a sustained argument?

[Poster] wrote:

How could anyone argue that allowing Iran to start pursuing nuclear weapons again right now is aligned with a "belief in democracy, human rights, and global prosperity"? There's no real disagreement to be had among foreign policy experts, they all agreed it was important to stay in the deal. Any delay at all (it's actually longer than 7 years, if you actually knew anything about the JCPOA) in a nuclear weapons program in a Middle Eastern country with a recent history of instability and a susceptibility to radical influences is a laudable achievement. The withdrawal of the US from this deal is a major blow to the safety of the region, and by extension, the rest of the world. If the civil war in Syria and the resultant refugee crisis has taught us anything, it is that the problems of this hotbed of conflict will no longer stay geographically contained.

The rest of this post is shameful Euro-bashing. This isn't a "tactical division", it's a full-scale withdrawal from a multilateral agreement. Trying to somehow place the blame on the EU for this is nothing short of deceit - they held up their end of the bargain and the US is explicitly refusing to continue their obligations. The fact that Trump has been adversarial to Merkel and made gestures towards leaving NATO in the past is only further points to the US being at fault for this divide, one that makes some European countries' willingness to negotiate with Russia instead much more understandable from a political perspective.

On May 09 2018 13:30 IgnE wrote:
but look, it led you to post a highly productive response

On May 09 2018 13:08 mozoku wrote:

**Please read my post that was being responded to before reading this**

I mention this because I've read people repeatedly ask GH this, but this is a prototypical example of a "neoliberal shitpost."

It starts with an assertion that not only completely ignores a major point raised in my post (i.e. that Iran is using sanctions funds to expand aggression in the region), continues on by making appeals to authority and other unsupported assertions without making any actual counterarguments to what I said in my post , misrepresents several of my arguments (1) given that I mentioned the larger goals of the US-European coalition above, it should be rather obvious that I was referring to tactical division in that context; 2) labels my post (which falls in line with previous themes I've commented on in other posts) as "shameful Euro-bashing", even though I clearly invite others to chime in with alternative perspectives on a totally non- Euro-bashing topic in my following sentence), takes a completely unprovoked and unnecessarily hostile tone (my post was provocative, but respectful and encouraged discussion imo), and addresses the essentially the lone dissenting view posted on the topic.

I understand that poor posting quality isn't restricted to any part of the political spectrum but if we're banning GH and Danglars for low-quality posts, can't we at least warn these types of posts? It's not an inviting environment for serious discussion when dissenting views are regularly answered with hostility, misrepresentation, and nonresponse to the original post's major points. This is certainly a repeating pattern in the thread (as evidenced by the chorus of posters with identical concerns), and I fail to see why it should receive less moderator attention (or even acknowledgement) than GH, Danglars, or newsfeed-style posts.

My suspicion is posters make these posts are responding emotionally, and would not let a higher posting bar stop them from responding. However, since these posters know that they can satisfy their emotional urge with a shitpost and shitposts are easy, they do so. I have a feeling these posters are capable of somewhat higher posting quality if they put in a little more effort/review/thought, but simply have no incentive to within the current norms of the thread. In fact, I suspect there's no need to even satisfactorily address the dissenting view in the thread to satisfy said emotional urge, as I wager most posters (and readers) will eventually agree with a cacophony of bad/defeated arguments on one side over a single quality argument on the other (most people exhibit strong herd tendencies). Consequently, the thread ends up as it is now: with the dissenting posters (who make up many/most of the thread's best posters) frustrated and posting less, and an overall poor level of intellectualism (due to the cycle above self-selecting for posters seeking validation of their existing beliefs).

A uniformly stricter moderation policy would raise discussion quality and encourage intellectual discourse as it would nudge posters to make the effort to write higher quality posts. I'm talking warns for clearly bad posts like the one above, and threadbans for repeat offenses. A higher quality discussion invites more readers, and the assurance that posts will be responded to seriously will invite more posters. It's a win for everyone and would be a drastic upgrade from the echo chamber that the thread mostly is right now.

On May 09 2018 13:39 xDaunt wrote:

I said I agreed with him, and I already have discussed this very issue at length multiple times in this thread. The mods clearly don't care. I'm not sure what else you want from me.

EDIT: Speaking of which, where have you been on this issue? I would expect you to have joined mozuku, me, and others on this one by now. Surely your love of abusing zlefin isn't interfering with your better judgment, is it?

On May 09 2018 13:53 IgnE wrote:


i was speaking to mozoku, who made a productive post in the thread after being viciously attacked by [name redacted] in the quoted post, above

i don't want any speech to be chilled in the thread. i like arguments. i just don't like dumb arguments. but you can't ban for stupidity. i would prefer to have a rule against making multiple posts with basically the same content in lengthy, dumb arguments

On May 09 2018 19:15 Plansix wrote:
When the topic of racism in America comes up again and the left leaning poster have to run a class on racism 101 for hundredth time, we can revisit the topic of banning for stupidly.

On May 09 2018 14:48 IgnE wrote:
practically

On May 10 2018 00:11 xDaunt wrote:

See, I disagree. Most of the stupidity falls into the category of the snarky stupidity that I referenced earlier. It would be very easy to eliminate those posts and posters.

On May 10 2018 00:10 Plansix wrote:
I’ve had to explain the same rudimentary concepts to the same posters repeatedly. They either have selective memories or some learning disability I am not aware of. Or they see forcing folks to explain the same basic concepts, like systematic racism, over and over again as a way to chill discussion on the topic.