|
On June 05 2018 11:40 Sermokala wrote:
Thats a pretty vauge subsection of posts that would cause a large swath of posters to get actioned.
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.
aye, it's not past arguments per se, the issue is the vagueness/broadness, as well as the insults over it.
some of it is also disputes about misrepresentations of what actually happened in the past argument.
These things often end up feeding into an ongoing cycle of disputes/accusations that end up resembling a feud; which ends up causing perennial problems.
PS I'm putting mozoku on an ignore to cut down on the feud; and cuz he continues to BS [in particular by ignoring the counterpoints]. so I shan't be countering his BS points since I won't be seeing them at all. if someone reasonable wants to know the problem with his points than it can of course be provided on request.
|
I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what he's going on about either. I dutifully checked out the links but saw nothing that indicated what he seems to think it indicates.
The other problem is that the Supreme Court decision didn't even answer the central issue we were arguing about back then; they cited procedural reasons in their decision to rule in the baker's favour, and its entirely possible if they hadn't found those they could have ruled the other way. It's impossible to know just how swaying those arguments were.
The decision's the decision. There's really not much to be drawn from it concerning the larger issues the case brought to the table.
|
On June 09 2018 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed.
The hell is this?
|
On June 09 2018 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed. The hell is this?
A random rambling post that may have been written while the poster was drunk?
|
On June 09 2018 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed. The hell is this?
Since you're posting here, I assume you think Kwark's post is actionable. Mind making an argument as to why? I thought his post was a bit out of the blue, and some of them are points you've addressed before, but it didn't jump out at me as blatantly ad hominem or anything. I guess I could see it actioned for drudging up an old grievance out of nowhere? But that seems pretty thin.
|
On June 09 2018 08:55 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2018 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed. The hell is this? Since you're posting here, I assume you think Kwark's post is actionable. Mind making an argument as to why? I thought his post was a bit out of the blue, and some of them are points you've addressed before, but it didn't jump out at me as blatantly ad hominem or anything. I guess I could see it actioned for drudging up an old grievance out of nowhere? But that seems pretty thin.
Its a vauge unconnected callout targeting a specific person for their opinions in the thread. The thing seeker keeps warning people about.
|
I suppose I'm unclear on what those warnings mean. Here's Seeker's latest warning:
On June 09 2018 08:56 Seeker wrote:
Reminder to all USPMT posters that while we encourage political debates, we do not condone attacks on one another because of one's views. Keep the debates civil and tame.
It reads to me like a warning against ad hominem attacks, i.e. restrict yourself to "your argument is wrong because xyz" rather than "you're stupid because xyz". Certainly the line can get fuzzy sometimes, e.g. "your argument is stupid because xyz" or "I hope you're not saying this because only a stupid person would say that." But Kwark's post seems to be pretty clearly criticizing GH's argument, not GH himself. Kwark isn't always totally civil and tame, but in this case he seems civil and tame to me.
Maybe the rule is something different, in which case I just don't understand what it is or whether Kwark is breaking it. Is even "your argument is wrong because xyz" still an attack they wouldn't condone?
|
So, I'm not really sure what the right way to address this is, or if this is even the right place. I haven't posted on teamliquid enough to have any familiarity with the moderation system.
Anyway, I was warned for a post in the US politics thread, because:
"Stating that Danglars' (and people like Danglars) political views are the reasons as to why your life is at a threat is taking things a bit too far."
I could quibble a bit that I wasn't talking about his views, but his actions, but that's not the issue I have here with this warning.
If I had been warned for how I'd phrased that post (I was definitely acerbic), fine.
The problem here is that I was warned for telling Danglars how people voting for Republican candidates has a negative effect on me.
There wasn't any hyperbole in what I said. If the Republicans repeal the ACA, my health care goes away, and I will almost certainly die a miserable death without any dignity. I was on the road to dying from a treatable condition that I couldn't get coverage for because of the preexisting condition loophole.
If telling people how their votes or politics negatively effects me personally isn't acceptable, than I wouldn't expect telling people how their votes or politics negatively effects abstract, theoretical people is acceptable. And if we can't talk about how policies hurt people, I don't see how we can have any sort of discussion at all.
Also, I'm a little salty that my possible death as a result of federal policy is less of a problem as far as thread moderation than the fact that people's feelings might be hurt by learning that my death is a possibility as a result of federal policy enacted by the people they vote for. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a little fucked up.
EDIT: Oh hey ChristianS. I was a little slow. Anyway, assuming it was a related to the warning I received two minutes before that message was posted, the post in question is this one.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27046031
|
I agree with the warning, but I also think there is a clear disconnect between the posters who treat heathcare as an ideological debate and those who rely on the protections provided by the ACA to avoid things like bankruptcy and death.
|
I don’t think anyone could convince you if this doesn’t sound like going too far:
On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:
You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany.
...
In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again.
|
i guess this isnt the necropolitics thread. who is marked for death and who is marked for life needs to be discussed elsewhere
you just need a straussian style kyadytim
|
On June 09 2018 10:51 LegalLord wrote:I don’t think anyone could convince you if this doesn’t sound like going too far: Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:06 Kyadytim wrote:
You, and people like you, are a threat to my life. You are a threat to my life in the same way that Germans who voted for Nazis during the 1920s and early 1930s were a threat to the lives of Jews living in Germany.
...
In case you didn't catch it, you're voting for people who would see me dead not because they actively hate me, but because promising to see people like me dead makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier. You, collectively, are exactly the Germans in the 1930s who voted for people blaming Jews for all of the nation's ills because whatever they do to Jews is fine with you as long as they do make your nation "great" again.
which one of his assertions is factually incorrect? there are several and i'm not sure which one(s) you're contesting.
|
The part about being happy to see him dead is a bit much. However, if you are someone who relies on the ACA, seeing people cheer its repeal would feel like that. That is the problem with politics, sometimes it is about life and death.
|
On June 09 2018 10:37 ChristianS wrote:I suppose I'm unclear on what those warnings mean. Here's Seeker's latest warning: Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 08:56 Seeker wrote:
Reminder to all USPMT posters that while we encourage political debates, we do not condone attacks on one another because of one's views. Keep the debates civil and tame. It reads to me like a warning against ad hominem attacks, i.e. restrict yourself to "your argument is wrong because xyz" rather than "you're stupid because xyz". Certainly the line can get fuzzy sometimes, e.g. "your argument is stupid because xyz" or "I hope you're not saying this because only a stupid person would say that." But Kwark's post seems to be pretty clearly criticizing GH's argument, not GH himself. Kwark isn't always totally civil and tame, but in this case he seems civil and tame to me. Maybe the rule is something different, in which case I just don't understand what it is or whether Kwark is breaking it. Is even "your argument is wrong because xyz" still an attack they wouldn't condone?
The warning are for "your argument is wrong beacuse xyz" instead of "you are bad for having that argument beacuse xyz"
Kwark is better then probably any other poster at insulting someone through their argument instead of because of their argument. Its a tightrope for him because that quoted post is pretty dangerously close to a callout but the way he argues it GH's name is used purely for context and isn't inherently the discussion at hand. If he used GH's name again or alluded to him again it would probably be actionable.
|
On June 09 2018 08:55 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 05:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 09 2018 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's never entirely made clear what the policy stances of GH's proposed new Democratic party are. Do they end agricultural subsidies? Do they put greenhouse gas taxes on cattle? How do they feel about nuclear power? Education? Are the big banks going to be broken up? Are guns being banned? Are private prisons being shut down?
You can very easily get a consensus by pointing at the centre and saying "it's not left enough, it needs to be more left' but that means something different to everyone. There are wedge issues to me, like socialized healthcare, where I'm super left. There are leftist stances like gun control that I have an opinion about but don't really care either way. Then there are leftist issues like nuclear power, where I'm opposed to the sandal wearing, pot smoking hippies. And it's never really made clear what exactly I'm going to get from the new progressive platform.
People imagine it'll be all the things that they want and none of the things that they don't want, and because it doesn't exist that's pretty easy to imagine. But I expect that in reality we'll be disappointed. The hell is this? Since you're posting here, I assume you think Kwark's post is actionable. Mind making an argument as to why? I thought his post was a bit out of the blue, and some of them are points you've addressed before, but it didn't jump out at me as blatantly ad hominem or anything. I guess I could see it actioned for drudging up an old grievance out of nowhere? But that seems pretty thin.
Not really, especially since it's kwark. I was just genuinely confused as to where that came from and what I was supposed to do with it. Or if since it wasn't addressed to me directly if it was just a random critique of my politics.
The comment itself is pretty vacuous, which is why it being a drunk post made enough sense to me.
But no, I didn't expect it to be actioned, nor have I been the reporting the people that have gotten actioned lately in the thread, in case anyone was wondering.
|
@Plansix Given this warning I don't understand how I'm supposed to approach the issue the ways Republican policy affects me. Should I understate how bad it is, and just keep it to levels of general harm?
On June 09 2018 11:09 Plansix wrote:
The part about being happy to see him dead is a bit much. However, if you are someone who relies on the ACA, seeing people cheer its repeal would feel like that. That is the problem with politics, sometimes it is about life and death.
That bit about happy to see me dead is a rhetorical trick. Because "repealing the ACA" is equivalent to "me dying" I took the normal sentence "You're voting for people who would see the ACA repealed not because they hate it, but because promising to repeal it makes people like you happy, and actually managing to follow through with it would make people like you even happier," which I don't think anyone would disagree with being a reasonable thing to say, and made substitutions to change the emotional impact. It probably wasn't a great thing to do at the time, but I was a bit emotional and it's too late to go change it.
On June 09 2018 11:02 IgnE wrote:
i guess this isnt the necropolitics thread. who is marked for death and who is marked for life needs to be discussed elsewhere
you just need a straussian style kyadytim
Heh, fair.
Although wouldn't necropolitics be more accurately something like the politicking between various realms of the dead for hierarchical status in the afterlife?
(I'm not sure what you mean by Straussian style, though)
|
|
|
On June 09 2018 11:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2018 10:37 ChristianS wrote:I suppose I'm unclear on what those warnings mean. Here's Seeker's latest warning: On June 09 2018 08:56 Seeker wrote:
Reminder to all USPMT posters that while we encourage political debates, we do not condone attacks on one another because of one's views. Keep the debates civil and tame. It reads to me like a warning against ad hominem attacks, i.e. restrict yourself to "your argument is wrong because xyz" rather than "you're stupid because xyz". Certainly the line can get fuzzy sometimes, e.g. "your argument is stupid because xyz" or "I hope you're not saying this because only a stupid person would say that." But Kwark's post seems to be pretty clearly criticizing GH's argument, not GH himself. Kwark isn't always totally civil and tame, but in this case he seems civil and tame to me. Maybe the rule is something different, in which case I just don't understand what it is or whether Kwark is breaking it. Is even "your argument is wrong because xyz" still an attack they wouldn't condone? The warning are for "your argument is wrong beacuse xyz" instead of "you are bad for having that argument beacuse xyz" Kwark is better then probably any other poster at insulting someone through their argument instead of because of their argument. Its a tightrope for him because that quoted post is pretty dangerously close to a callout but the way he argues it GH's name is used purely for context and isn't inherently the discussion at hand. If he used GH's name again or alluded to him again it would probably be actionable.
there should be no action for addressing a particular poster, only for violating the rules of decorum, if there must be an action at all
|
Whoops. I wasn't aware necropolitics was actually a word. Also, I'm completely wiped, and I have no idea what you're trying to get across to me regarding the second link.
|
On June 09 2018 11:48 Kyadytim wrote:Whoops. I wasn't aware necropolitics was actually a word. Also, I'm completely wiped, and I have no idea what you're trying to get across to me regarding the second link.
Going back to your big post about addressing the issue; there's nothing wrong with a) posting your story or b) explaining how the ACA keeps you alive or c) being angry that Republicans will take any cheap route to defund it.
The problem comes from the jump to 'they want to murder me'. It's hard to really talk policy at that point. It's no less a conversation corrupter than 'you support the nazis!!!!' A Conservative can only refute and can't really do anything but defend from that point, when their reasons for opposing the ACA aren't personal.
Most policies have victims. The ACA helped a lot of people (you included), but it hurt people too. There are reasons the Repubs aren't happy with it.
The true problem is they have no idea what to replace it with, and that's really how best to talk about the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
