|
Oh, I didn't think to check this thread this morning!
While I appreciate IgnE's accurate thread criticism I will say that I am still a registered Republican, although that's not say I haven't thought about changing it. (When I first registered at 18 I almost picked independent). Again I don't know why I'm telling anyone this, but whatever. I have been a very hard critic of the GOP, as I think most long time posters know.
And farv must have the "crazy, embattled CA conservative" which is one stereotype used to explain why the CA GOP can't even get on the general election ballot sometimes.
The other is of course the super moderate, polar opposites.
But with regard to the thread, I think it's super important to know what it is we are criticizing. Finding out what was actually said, in context, is low-hanging fruit but is still missed far too often. I've kind of made of habit of posting these contextual clues when I can because it's super easy. Sometimes it's accepted (normally when a news article is used for more info). But sometimes it's not.
I will say that the dynamic of having multiple responses to almost every post makes a conservative poster pick and choose what to address. It also forces us to be super cautious in seeing goalpost shifting or rabbit trials. This can leadto accusations of dodging. Sadly, in this case, that became the discussion itself.
|
As someone who is to the left of most of this forum I'd advise against picking your battles or being afraid of stuff. It's not really worth it, they're liberals, they can't hurt you 
And I agree with you that this situation where you generally stop engaging after a few posts looks like dodging, in fact I'm still not convinced that it isn't dodging in a bunch of cases. I think you know that I believe conservatism as an ideology is morally bankrupt, especially in the US. I don't know that I can be convinced of something else, but in my online experience I've almost never seen a conservative not walking away from an actual conversation, so that didn't help with my belief there.
|
i can’t disagree with that any more fully. not having the time or inclination to respond to every leftist viewpoint should be one of the easiest things to appreciate from the sidelines.
nothing makes this clearer than the last four pages of the main thread. like igne (nearly) said, one post about what trump meant started a storm of four pages of trump bashing. it would be a snooze fest thirty pages long if someone actually wanted to respond to every post.
|
I also agreed. I don’t expect anyone to respond to my posts if they are getting bombed with responses.
|
In cases of "dogpile" that's true, but my perception on that topic isn't limited to those specific situations.
|
sorry i’m posting so much, slow day at work.
i’d contend almost every single conservative controversial post would fall under ‘dogpile.’ it’s a product of the demographics. i don’t think necessarily this dogpile affect is a bad thing so long as it’s not personal. the last four pages imo are almost a perfect example again, short the lone aforementioned too-personal attack. i read a lot of interesting things there but the simple facts are if everyone wants to post their opinions the dogpiling happens organically by virtue of the sheer number of posters and the relatively high percentage of lefties.
and i think everyone should feel welcome to post their opinion, too, in case that wasn’t clear. which is why i think it’s just a foregone conclusion once it gets started.
|
The conservative posters are also fond of roping in all of the left in their rebuttals, which does have the byproducts of the entire left side of the thread responding.
Folks on the left do the same thing as well, to be clear.
|
how to deal with dogpiling while avoiding dodging is a tricky issue; one way might be to simply assert (and follow through) that you're only going to argue with one or two other people to keep the issue manageable. or a simple in thread statement noting you're ignoring a bunch of responses cuz there's too many. ofc such behavior implicitly is reasonable;
imho it's also better (as a policy, not commenting on what happened here) to ignore someone from the start than to respond to someone for a bit then stop responding to them.
|
On May 18 2018 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:As someone who is to the left of most of this forum I'd advise against picking your battles or being afraid of stuff. It's not really worth it, they're liberals, they can't hurt you And I agree with you that this situation where you generally stop engaging after a few posts looks like dodging, in fact I'm still not convinced that it isn't dodging in a bunch of cases. I think you know that I believe conservatism as an ideology is morally bankrupt, especially in the US. I don't know that I can be convinced of something else, but in my online experience I've almost never seen a conservative not walking away from an actual conversation, so that didn't help with my belief there.
I know you are kind of joking but I will just say that my main reason for participating in the thread has always been that politics is interesting to me and therefore I find shooting the breeze about it fun. With no disrespect to people like GH, I don't view this as a conversion platform. So I know they don't bite, but sometimes I simply don't enjoy replying. Add in having less time than I'd like and voila.
I think sometimes what you see as dodging is simply not wanting to take the time to do something. So if you want to use a post as a springboard, and no one takes you up on it, it looks fishy. I've always tried to keep conversations as narrow as I csn, and that too can be frustrating to see I assume. Now that I think about it, that's very consistent with focusing on narrow (but often important) corrections.
And don't worry, I find many of your posts...ridiculous? I'm searching for a word here. That one is not quite right and should be taken as nicely as possible.
|
On May 18 2018 05:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:As someone who is to the left of most of this forum I'd advise against picking your battles or being afraid of stuff. It's not really worth it, they're liberals, they can't hurt you And I agree with you that this situation where you generally stop engaging after a few posts looks like dodging, in fact I'm still not convinced that it isn't dodging in a bunch of cases. I think you know that I believe conservatism as an ideology is morally bankrupt, especially in the US. I don't know that I can be convinced of something else, but in my online experience I've almost never seen a conservative not walking away from an actual conversation, so that didn't help with my belief there. I know you are kind of joking but I will just say that my main reason for participating in the thread has always been that politics is interesting to me and therefore I find shooting the breeze about it fun. With no disrespect to people like GH, I don't view this as a conversion platform. So I know they don't bite, but sometimes I simply don't enjoy replying. Add in having less time than I'd like and voila. I think sometimes what you see as dodging is simply not wanting to take the time to do something. So if you want to use a post as a springboard, and no one takes you up on it, it looks fishy. I've always tried to keep conversations as narrow as I csn, and that too can be frustrating to see I assume. Now that I think about it, that's very consistent with focusing on narrow (but often important) corrections. And don't worry, I find many of your posts...ridiculous? I'm searching for a word here. That one is not quite right and should be taken as nicely as possible.
If you don’t like something, tax or ban it. If you like something, subsidize it. The counter arguments that you will do a great deal more harm than good in these actions unintentionally are very long. If people want evidence, you have to bring it in from across history and much of that will be very contested anyways. I’m using this just as an example. It really pains me to leave people without a greater understanding or response, but there were usually too many, and even outlining the sharp areas of the response prompt howls of incredulity or reflexive accusation in and of themselves. So the conservative poster around here chooses well to find the interesting subjects and focus on them, and not harbor the belief that somebody will suddenly wish to dramatically reduce the size of government or privatize and consumer-orient the health care system because they just had never heard the argument before.
|
On May 18 2018 05:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 04:13 Nebuchad wrote:As someone who is to the left of most of this forum I'd advise against picking your battles or being afraid of stuff. It's not really worth it, they're liberals, they can't hurt you And I agree with you that this situation where you generally stop engaging after a few posts looks like dodging, in fact I'm still not convinced that it isn't dodging in a bunch of cases. I think you know that I believe conservatism as an ideology is morally bankrupt, especially in the US. I don't know that I can be convinced of something else, but in my online experience I've almost never seen a conservative not walking away from an actual conversation, so that didn't help with my belief there. I know you are kind of joking but I will just say that my main reason for participating in the thread has always been that politics is interesting to me and therefore I find shooting the breeze about it fun. With no disrespect to people like GH, I don't view this as a conversion platform. So I know they don't bite, but sometimes I simply don't enjoy replying. Add in having less time than I'd like and voila. I think sometimes what you see as dodging is simply not wanting to take the time to do something. So if you want to use a post as a springboard, and no one takes you up on it, it looks fishy. I've always tried to keep conversations as narrow as I csn, and that too can be frustrating to see I assume. Now that I think about it, that's very consistent with focusing on narrow (but often important) corrections. And don't worry, I find many of your posts...ridiculous? I'm searching for a word here. That one is not quite right and should be taken as nicely as possible.
That's not surprising, we are far apart from the start, and I'm not as precise as I like to think I am in english when I write quickly. Politics put another layer on top of this cause words generally are there to represent larger concepts and it's rare that they mean the same thing to everyone so confusion can start easily.
In your specific case I haven't seen you dodge a whole lot, just the odd one here and there, but I also haven't engaged with you almost ever.
|
Isn't the problem more of a case where (usually) a trump supporter decides to paint that anyone who disagree with them as "liberals", "the left" and other broad sweeping political generalisation, and anyone who feels that describes their political sprectrum then feels obliged to respond to that. Case in point would be Introvert's use of "special Trump centers of their brains", or GH definition of liberal, which simply is an all out labelling that causes anyone to disagree with them to respond. They aren't arguing with one of two major political parties in USA, or a nebulous undefined political sprectrum; they are arguing against specific people and they should respond as such. Seems especially disingenuous to say that it is simply demographics that cause dogpiling, when the primary cause from my view is the broad and unspecific labelling that which causes otherwise uncaring people to respond.
As a more example, witness danglars and his labelling of me as liberal, which according to GH means I am now The Democratic Party of USA; if it wasn't for that I don't identify which either of those labels, I probably would vehemently rebut everything they write. In the end though, I don't really see problems with arguing with more than one on your side, as long as their arguments doesn't involve that they are supported by others in the thread. Quite a few times I've had many people argue with me alone and I felt no real problems in doing so.
|
Saint Doodsmack the martyr. He died for our tweets.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
And on the 31st day he will rise from the grave.
|
I thought he would reform on tweet/article + snarky comment in order to keep up his second love:
Doodsmack wrote: Show nested quote +On May 18 2018 22:53 Introvert wrote:
The label "animal" comes after judgment. It doesn't weaken anything. Do you think Trump is a bigot?
Snarky comments and questions on other posters.
|
This seems another case in what is clearly now a miscommunication in what is expected when bringing tweets into the discussion. I am increasingly baffled as to why these bans on well meaning posters keep happening. If this isn't what the mod team wants for the thread than please for the love of god explain why.
Every time one of these ridiculous bans occurs the thread seems to suffer.
|
I would've thought the first half dozen warns and bans on only a snarky one-liner introducing a tweet would bring everybody to the same page: Describe relevance and connect to US Politics. It's pretty self-evident that providing a tweet with nothing more than an insult to Trump's intelligence furthers nothing.
I am increasingly baffled as to why these bans on well meaning posters keep happening.
Just when you thought he couldn't get any dumber. This could almost qualify as an Onion tweet.
You see, this well meaning poster intended to do ... what?
|
Danglars is right. It's not like that tweet has no relevance to US Politics or required much legwork to make a reasonable thing to share.
And of course if there were many right wingers left/Trump supporters left, the comment would be very likely to incite an argument, the exact sort of behaviour rightish posters have recently been banned for.
Gotta mod fairly, or not mod at all.
|
It’s easy to post tweets and not run afoul of the rule.
|
On May 18 2018 00:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2018 15:59 xM(Z wrote:On May 17 2018 02:13 IgnE wrote:On May 16 2018 16:30 xM(Z wrote:
what the fuck people, i find the 'they want to die' logic asinine; there is nothing factual about it.
no one wants to die(excluding people with disorders here) period, not even those strapped on explosive belts that blow themselves up.
both indoctrination and socialization(by living there) can lead(and do lead in this case) to extreme manifestations of violence/rage but neither trigger an actual desire to die in its supporters. the former comes from "i don't want to die but <insert indoctrination reason here> and the later from 'i don't care if i die because <insert oppressive reason here>'.
how does this dying stuff would work anyway?:
- does one randomly wakes up one day with an acute desire to die(when, how, why)?;
- does one always wanted to die?; was it born that way?; is it like a chronic disease there?;
- did palestinians started breeding walking ticking time bombs because ... evolution?.
just honestly, fuck off with that. what do you mean there's nothing factual about it? let's return to Marx here: "they do not know it, but they are doing it" why is it that people who are so keen to criticize the libertarian/liberal concept of rational autonomous subjectivity, homo oeconomicus, are the first to disavow the unconscious of the oppressed? "how does it work? it makes no economic/biological sense!" since when is desire an entirely conscious operation? anyone who consciously desires death is "disordered," anti-biological. (first: to me, desire = a wish or longing; craving, more implied than articulated; primal. if i have the wrong meaning then i don't know, suggest another word.) second, i won't even touch on the homo economicus bit because it defeats your whole argument then i can't nitpick at it + Show Spoiler +even if we go with what the wiki has here, self-interested agents who usually pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally. there's no way you can show how back and forth fighting then running for cover is an optimal way to pursue ones death. . i think that i understand your post(for the most part), but you're interchangeably mixing two contexts: i desire/urge to die(a.k.a., the unconscious of the oppressed) vs i have the right to die(a.k.a., liberal concept of rational autonomous subjectivity). you use what you think might trigger the former to justify the/an outcome of the later. the answer to your question(in very broad strokes) comes from understanding the relation of those contexts with each other. the structure is layered, with the want at the bottom and the right on top and as with entropy, it has one and only one heading - up. meaning, the desire to die is prior to the right to die; if you don't fix or get passed the desire you can't reach 'the right to'('cause you're fucking dead) and if you're already pondering on your 'right to' then the desire is no longer an option(it was replaced by a need to die). throwing rocks at people with guns can be seen as a rational gesture if you're trying to die but to justify it, you need a rational reason for what triggered it; you can't say but the unconscious ...+ Show Spoiler +the part of your mind that contains feelings and thoughts that you do not know about, and that influences the way you behave because it, will always trigger unconscious/automated reactions. if you admit that for rational actions the trigger needs to be a rational reason, then you have to look at palestinians as rational agents and you(the liberal, since you brought it up) are not able to do that because then you'll need to justify what's happening there(morally and ethically) and objectively, you can't do it. the western culture taught you that you can sometimes be allowed a right to die in extreme conditions(pain, life quality ..etc) and applying that to this scenario, makes palestinians 'want to die'(as people put it) also stem from atrocious living conditions and not from the fucking unconscious. (ps: i'm not using fuck as a stance enforcer or something; i just fuck a lot, it doesn't mean much here) no what im saying at the beginning there is that while it might be inappropriate to say that they had a conscious, deliberate wish to die, it might be true that they still had an (unconscious) desire to die. if you read my sentence carefully, i am asking why someone like you, who criticizes liberal policies which assume homo oeconomicus pertains, refuses to see anything but homo oeconomicus when it comes to desire (ie "this makes no sense, no one wants to die, etc"). lastly i contested even this biopolitical logic of control (that only the "disordered" could possibly consciously wish to die), intimating that some people might consciously, deliberately wish to die, which you admit may be the case in extreme conditions then i don't understand this: refuses to see anything but homo oeconomicus when it comes to desire (ie "this makes no sense, no one wants to die, etc") my initial post wasn't based on a random-theoretical assessment of people potential capabilities. i literally went and looked for vids and images and live feeds with whats going on there; from the people with families and their kids living in temporary tents washing their laundry in carry-on laundry sinks to the gas canister sling-shooting masked men and based on what i know about people wanting to die(for me that's suicide; if by self or by anothers hands is irrelevant here), i saw nothing that matched with the clinical behavioral expectations of suicidal people.
plus, there's also this thing that says that (historically)during war/conflict times suicide rates drop allegedly because of a greater social integration, increased patriotism, greater sense of purpose, and so forth.
if you want a general replay to a hypothetical situation maybe similar to the one we were discussing, i'll give you percentages for the people who will "want to die": less then half than the average suicide rate averaged over lets say, 30 years.
else, i don't get what you want and don't know if i will get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
