|
On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it.
The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary.
The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left.
|
Since far right in current and past political lexicon appear to be an euphemism for white supremacists, I sure hope so!
Unfortunately that isn't the case; there has been plenty banned for expressing those views on TL, and the ones left are adept at dog whistling all the while.
|
On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it.
I mean that combined with Danglars pretty much sums it up how distorted I think the political range in the thread is.
It's abundantly clear who prefers negative peace.
|
Someone has to explain to me this negative peace business. I feel like I have missed the point some of you are trying to make.
|
On August 31 2018 03:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Someone has to explain to me this negative peace business. I feel like I have missed the point some of you are trying to make.
I've done it probably a dozen times but what's one more.
Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. When, for example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.
Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way.
Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.
The authors of this dossier consider peace as well-managed social conflict. This definition was decided on during Irenees’ Peace workshop held in South Africa in May 2007.
|
On August 31 2018 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. I mean that combined with Danglars pretty much sums it up how distorted I think the political range in the thread is. It's abundantly clear who prefers negative peace.
I think here the term should be called subjective peace.
|
On August 31 2018 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. I mean that combined with Danglars pretty much sums it up how distorted I think the political range in the thread is. It's abundantly clear who prefers negative peace. I think here the term should be called subjective peace.
Is that already a thing or something you'd like to define for us?
|
On August 29 2018 22:30 JimmiC wrote:
Anyone else find it odd that most of the people with the big issues of how the thread are moderated no longer use the thread? If your done with it why do you care?
A bit late, and I’d say the assertion doesn’t really hold up (as was addressed by others), but I’m guessing I’d fall into that category more cleanly than GH or most of the others who are more commonly known for expressing disapproval about the way the moderation team works.
The answer is that I still follow the thread occasionally, despite not really being inclined to post. I was a regular for quite a long time, and I did offer criticism at the time as well. Unfortunately it’s really gotten quite unpleasant, to the point that I honestly just don’t want to post there even if on the surface the discussion seems interesting. That has a bit to do with the political climate (reading the news is pretty hit-and-miss these days too, sadly) and a lot to do with the people who are actually regulars at this point.
Frankly, it seems that the people with the most interesting things to say either stopped posting or were moderated out. The people most happy with the current state of affairs are generally those who are least interesting to talk to. That kind of explains at least why I think that you might even notice that, although irregulars or sometimes-banned individuals are more common here than people who don’t post at all.
I’d also be inclined to comment that this seems like a bait post, though I’ll take your apology as sincere enough to take your word that it isn’t.
|
|
|
Some of the folks that no longer take part in the thread burned through a whole bunch of good will over the years. And did their fair share of trolling. Not that I’m not guilty of some high level shit posting.
|
On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left.
That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you.
Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway.
Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented.
|
On August 31 2018 18:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left. That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you. Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway. Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented.
I think you're both a little right, but keep in mind Trump wouldn't make it 10 posts in the US politics thread, not even when he was a Democrat.
|
Norway28876 Posts
justice party in norway? whats that?
the progress party is significantly, significantly more sane than the GOP is. I'd rather vote for Siv Jensen in Norway, even if the entire spectrum is available, than vote for Trump in the US, even with Hillary as the only alternative. The current GOP is something comparable to 'demokratene i norge' crossed with 'partiet de kristne' - those have a combined 0.5% of the vote and no parliamentary representation.
|
On August 31 2018 19:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
justice party in norway? whats that?
the progress party is significantly, significantly more sane than the GOP is. I'd rather vote for Siv Jensen in Norway, even if the entire spectrum is available, than vote for Trump in the US, even with Hillary as the only alternative. The current GOP is something comparable to 'demokratene i norge' crossed with 'partiet de kristne' - those have a combined 0.5% of the vote and no parliamentary representation.
Sorry my norwegian is absolutely rubbish and I mix up words all the time. I talked about Fremskrittspartiet of course.
Ok for the sanity, it’s Norway after all. Make it the swedish democrats or AfD. I guess I have a worse image of the Fremskittspartiet than they are because literally everybody in my milieu absolutely hates them.
|
On August 31 2018 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 03:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Someone has to explain to me this negative peace business. I feel like I have missed the point some of you are trying to make. I've done it probably a dozen times but what's one more. Show nested quote +Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. When, for example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.
Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way.
Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.
The authors of this dossier consider peace as well-managed social conflict. This definition was decided on during Irenees’ Peace workshop held in South Africa in May 2007.
Nope, I've read it, but theoretical peace studies on real world war and peace bears very little relevance whatsoever to an online forum. There is no violence in an online forum, unless perhaps if one poster finds the location of another poster. The theoretical construct of violence, peace, ceasefire, resolution of conflict, does not apply to online forums. There is no prevention of violence, the impositon of negative peace by the presence of armed forces standing between two armed forces. What does peace and what does violence even mean in an online forum? With that there extends that the concepts of various peace bears no meaning as there is only mod and admin action to regulate the interactions between various posters. Even with extending the concept as a most tenuous analogy, how would a policy of not negative peace be enacted? We are not fighting a war over land ownership or control of water, the concept has no relevance whatsoever, there is only posters and mods.
|
On August 31 2018 18:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left. That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you. Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway. Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented.
And from my persepextive, the europhiles here are so far left that they shriek and point and say “Far Right!” Or as I heard recently from a Canadian, if Bernie went and ran in Montreal next election, he’d be a mushy center-right candidate.
It just so happens that European politics is far to the left of American politics. If you let that influence your conception of the American center, you lose all nuance on the right and deserve a farcical understanding of factions within the right. In mirror image, someone like me and xDaunt will disagree on trade policy, culture war policy, and social programs policy, but people to our left and ourselves are lumped into the same far right barrel because apparently the GOP is just like the Front National. It’s very disingenuous.
|
What is disingenuous is your justiposition that the entire American political sprectrum is on the right, that those on the right on the normalised American political spectrum can be called the far right in an attempt to redefine far-right so you can say you are far-right proudly.
This us or them, "europhiles" business (what does this even mean to you? You've never been actually interested European politics in actuality except for random unfounded snipes at the EU) is a case in point that you actually aren't caring for what you want the centre to be viewed as.
There is nothing on trade policy, culture war policy (whatever this means as this doesn't mean anything concrete at all), and social programs policy that can be described as far right, except those that happen to be policies that match those of authoritarian rascist and religious supremacy.
|
On August 31 2018 21:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 19:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
justice party in norway? whats that?
the progress party is significantly, significantly more sane than the GOP is. I'd rather vote for Siv Jensen in Norway, even if the entire spectrum is available, than vote for Trump in the US, even with Hillary as the only alternative. The current GOP is something comparable to 'demokratene i norge' crossed with 'partiet de kristne' - those have a combined 0.5% of the vote and no parliamentary representation. Sorry my norwegian is absolutely rubbish and I mix up words all the time. I talked about Fremskrittspartiet of course. Ok for the sanity, it’s Norway after all. Make it the swedish democrats or AfD. I guess I have a worse image of the Fremskittspartiet than they are because literally everybody in my milieu absolutely hates them.
Can't fathom why. They're a completely ok'ish party. Not something I'd vote on myself, due to various stances I don't agree with, but not something I can see outright hating either. But I guess in politics, even in sane countries, it's normal to hate on the opposition just for the fact that they're the opposition. It's a very unhealthy habit which can easily end up biting you in the ass if you keep voting the same party because it's "your team", despite their stances having changed over the years to no longer represent yours (see: GOP).
clarification: "You" here is a hypothetical person, not "you" as in actual you.
|
On August 31 2018 22:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 18:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote:
to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left. That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you. Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway. Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented. And from my persepextive, the europhiles here are so far left that they shriek and point and say “Far Right!” Or as I heard recently from a Canadian, if Bernie went and ran in Montreal next election, he’d be a mushy center-right candidate.
That's not true for the record, Bernie would be center left in Canada. And mostly everywhere.
I think the main problem we have is that there is the perception that far right is an insult. It is, at first, simply a description. I personally believe that far right views aren't logically sustainable, but that doesn't mean that I would insult someone by saying they're far right, that's not why the word is useful.
|
Norway28876 Posts
yeah Bernie is certainly left of center in Norway, too. In terms of policies pushed I assume he has some pragmatism to him, I think he'd actually like to go further than he proposes, because he frequently sounds more like a socialist left party of Norway member than a labour party of Norway member, and his history of supporting sandinistas, going to russia, being a proper hippie and all, puts him in that camp.
I mean this in the best possible way, of course. Most traditional democrats are more like the conservative party in Norway, but Sanders really does go a couple notches leftward from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
