EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 151
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
for context, Igne claimed there was a sudden influx of personal attacks on Introvert and cited a claim that he had no legs to stand on in an argument about generalized bias and went on to generalize republicans. i stand by the notion that this is clearly not a personal attack, even if conceding that generalizations don’t help any argument//discussion. arguing against a fictional generalization is a great way to have an argument against a caricature that nobody ever offered up//nobody is defending. this has always been true for ‘the left’ and ‘the right.’ in taking up an argument against your generalized caricature produced by (a liberal/conservative poster) it’s easy to feel your personal argument has been misrepresented(because that’s often the goal of the generalizer anyway.) but to feel personally attacked by it? maybe we have very different definitions of a personal attack. it seems very trivial to me to say a generalization literally can not be a personal attack. i mean how do i even begin to address the fact that we have a two party system if i’m insulting you by condemning them by name? (hypothetically of course, i do not want to either insult or condemn, at least not you ^^) but yea, tl;dr is if you’re finding that you feel personally insulted because a poster condemns the (republican/democrat) attitude with regards to x or y, i do suggest finding a safe space. postscript: generalizing in a post about generalizing. too meta for me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 23 2018 02:00 Ryzel wrote: Just found out about this thread and read the last 50 pages to get that juicy back-and-forth discussion I had been craving. It did not disappoint. While there was a lot to take away, the one thing I wanted to point out is that according to brian’s logic when arguing with IgnE, anyone complaining about feeling attacked when people use generalizations like “the left”, “liberals”, and “Democrats” need to stop looking for personal insults where there are none, and/or retreat to their safe spaces. IgnE had the best contribution in the last dozen pages of this thread. To your point, On May 17 2018 23:07 Stratos_speAr wrote: Yea, you don't really have a leg to stand on when complaining about this kind of irrational bias. It really amazes me how Republicans, by becoming disgustingly partisan and electing horrific demagogues to office, completely destroyed almost any sense of decency, bipartisanship, ethical conduct, and reasonable discourse in our political process and yet think they can then criticize anyone else on it. On May 18 2018 02:31 IgnE wrote: That's not an attack on introvert? The connection between the personal you are dead wrong/irrational and he's amazed Republicans have completely destroyed decency is not quite the same as what you said, Ryzel. On May 18 2018 02:10 IgnE wrote: 5) after a gentle fact-based application of counter-spin to a shameless trump-bashing post, the people flip the script: it is now introvert who is deviously slipping his alt-right spin into the conversation; he doesnt come out and SAY that all (illegal) immigrants are animals but thats what he MEANS, because he's just an alt right trump defender and we all know that trump thinks immigrants are animals so who is triggered here? Generalizations are one thing, but such a shameless flipping of the script is quite another. I agreed on Igne's diagnosis of triggering. | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
that thread is having the usual problems, in a more extreme form than it typically does, and it'd be nice to have something done about it, but it doesn't really needs its own feedback thread imho; or myabe it does, I dunno, worth asking at least. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37108 Posts
On May 26 2018 09:08 zlefin wrote: should we expand this thread to also cover feedback on the shootings thread? since that's also very america-centric. that thread is having the usual problems, in a more extreme form than it typically does, and it'd be nice to have something done about it, but it doesn't really needs its own feedback thread imho; or myabe it does, I dunno, worth asking at least. If we're going to expand into another thread then I need to change the title. Otherwise, we'll need a separate thread. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
On May 26 2018 10:56 Seeker wrote: If we're going to expand into another thread then I need to change the title. Otherwise, we'll need a separate thread. I don't think he realized his demands would be so hard on you when he made them. :D | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 30 2018 08:44 zlefin wrote: are the mod's conclusions of the now ended danglars temp ban experiment going to be made public or kept private? If you were a mod which approach would you favor? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 30 2018 08:53 LegalLord wrote: If you were a mod which approach would you favor? personally, were I a mod, I would like to make some of the results public. My guess of typical modding practices is that they'd keep it private. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On May 21 2018 17:08 iamthedave wrote: Still, 53 warnings. That's more on one site than I've picked up in my entire internet history. Heh, you definitely weren't around for the early TL years then. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Also no, I wasn't around in the early TL years. I'm a wee bairn in website years, for I only found out the site was a thing when Starcraft 2 happened. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
doesn't this post violate the meme posting rule? and if not why not? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=239#4774 | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
I haven't seen anything besides the current text in his post, which might very well be due to Twitter not showing it when I read it earlier. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 04 2018 20:44 zlefin wrote: oh yeah, I forgot to ask about this a few days: doesn't this post violate the meme posting rule? and if not why not? http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=239#4774 The moderation staff has made it quite thoroughly clear that the rules do not apply to Kwark. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=253#5046 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=249#4975 insulting people for past actions in such a way that many people would feel affected by it; but without being specific as to exactly who, nor about the exact actual objections. Also with a significant possibility that it's based on a false/questionable reading of what actually happened; but without providing enough detail that you can actually challenge/contest/debate that. it's a problem cuz it's basically picking a fight; but in such a vague way that it can't be properly fought. as well as some other disingenuous aspects to it; like the complaint about empathy/hypocrisy which ignores that factors like that were addressed. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14203 Posts
The thread should have a history to it so I don't see a problem with bringing up past arguments. The issue I think you are trying to argue is the vagueness and broadness of the posts. General insults of standins for posters to get around a ban of attacking posters directly should be as actionable as a direct attack. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
Seriously, what's the problem? Did my three posts distract from the oh-so-important upcoming "Trump Roast Vol. 93093129032"? Even if I were to "be specific", what would that even accomplish that you two are so interested in? So we could maybe have several pages of back-and-forth from n posters trying to post-hoc backpedal away whatever it was they said before? If readers doubt the validity of my claims, they can read the thread history themselves and form their own conclusion.Or take it with a grain of salt if they wish. | ||
| ||
