|
On September 28 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it's fairly clear that there's an echo chamber developping in the thread and that the new rules are to blame to some extent. I'm there for a few days because it's laughable that Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed and I'm going to take this opportunity to laugh, but I certainly don't find the thread to be as good as it used to be.
Could it perhaps be that the "echo chamber" effect becomes increasingly strong because the republican party is acting increasingly irrational?
|
On September 29 2018 00:06 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it's fairly clear that there's an echo chamber developping in the thread and that the new rules are to blame to some extent. I'm there for a few days because it's laughable that Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed and I'm going to take this opportunity to laugh, but I certainly don't find the thread to be as good as it used to be. Could it perhaps be that the "echo chamber" effect becomes increasingly strong because the republican party is acting increasingly irrational?
I certainly believe that this is true, yeah. But irrationality is not the reason given for why people are banned, it's more about decorum and combativity.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 29 2018 00:06 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it's fairly clear that there's an echo chamber developping in the thread and that the new rules are to blame to some extent. I'm there for a few days because it's laughable that Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed and I'm going to take this opportunity to laugh, but I certainly don't find the thread to be as good as it used to be. Could it perhaps be that the "echo chamber" effect becomes increasingly strong because the republican party is acting increasingly irrational?
No, the echo chamber is more cleanly defined than just left versus right - the debate is constrained in such a way that any substantial deviation from the center-left, “Trump is evil and every form of mainstream opposition currently in play is good” orthodoxy draws immediate, severe ire. Deviate from that from the left, from the right, from the north, or from anywhere and prepare for stupidity to strike.
|
On September 28 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it's fairly clear that there's an echo chamber developping in the thread and that the new rules are to blame to some extent. I'm there for a few days because it's laughable that Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed and I'm going to take this opportunity to laugh, but I certainly don't find the thread to be as good as it used to be.
Don't you think your hostility towards Nettles is contributing to creation of an echo chamber? Other right leaning posters faced the same kind of responses in the past and their options were to either ignore the attack (what's the point of participating in the thread if you have to ignore most of it?) or defend themselves which leads to ugly "Danglars vs the thread" situations.
I'm not saying you're wrong about Nettles, just want to say most people probably don't want to participate in threads where they're treated like Nettles or GoTuNk!. An echo chamber kind of creates itself in an environment like that.
|
On September 29 2018 00:55 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it's fairly clear that there's an echo chamber developping in the thread and that the new rules are to blame to some extent. I'm there for a few days because it's laughable that Kavanaugh is going to get confirmed and I'm going to take this opportunity to laugh, but I certainly don't find the thread to be as good as it used to be. Don't you think your hostility towards Nettles is contributing to creation of an echo chamber? Other right leaning posters faced the same kind of responses in the past and their options were to either ignore the attack (what's the point of participating in the thread if you have to ignore most of it?) or defend themselves which leads to ugly "Danglars vs the thread" situations. I'm not saying you're wrong about Nettles, just want to say most people probably don't want to participate in threads where they're treated like Nettles or GoTuNk!. An echo chamber kind of creates itself in an environment like that.
I have a problem with a standard of combativity because it favors certain political positions. The more distant you are from the accepted centrist position, the more your position will be perceived as combative - and rightfully so, as society has to change a lot for you to get what you want, so you're going to have to bring it.
When it comes to trolling or making dishonest arguments, I have less of a problem with those being excluded or made to feel unwelcome.
|
I have absolutely no problem with the idea of making peddlers of conspiracy theory feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Not every position is valid, and not every argument deserves the time of day. If you come in and spread nonsense, you should be treated appropriately. This just happens to extend to Trump and his shit as well, because that's where we've ended up. This is not some tribal system where left is quashing right because they want to win, this is people exchanging arguments and ideas, and the majority finding the ideas behind Trumpism morally and ideologically bankrupt as a result.
|
Just think about all the awesome debates we can have with the other side is “irrational” and “peddling conspiracy theories.”
“But it’s true! The facts are on my sides and the other side has really gone off the deep end” - says people from both sides
“I don’t have to pretend nonsense isn’t nonsense” - says both sides
“No, really, the only way the other side has political power and support instead of being laughed out of town is they profit from a corrupt system, sway stupid voters (racist voters, gullible voters, emotions over facts voters” - SAY BOTH SIDES
“Aww come on, enough of this both sides have a point stuff. It’s time we admitted the other side is ideologically bankrupt” - SAY BOTH SIDES
It’s pathetic. Kavanaugh is just the latest in a polarized debate characterized by righteous indignation.
It’s time people thought about what it means to marginalize other people and arguments in a democracy, because you don’t have some quasi-religious God that declares your positions are closer to rational analysis of the facts and societies. It’s the echo chamber cycle “My opponents are so irrational, and everybody knows it, and their arguments are trash, and the only reason they have political power is corruption and vice” -> “I’m just going to humor them for this moment, to rediscover that they’re irrational, to berate them to their face about all the reasons why I’m right and they’re beyond even a reasonable person’s normal wrong opinions” -> “Yep, look at how extreme and radical they are. Just another consequence of irrational beliefs in a bankrupt political party. Why do they persist in these obviously wrong and crazy world views?”
Echo chambers tend to reinforce that they aren’t an echo chamber—they’re really the only sensible side left. It’s the defense mechanism of echo chambers. So go campaign for partitioning the country already, because you won’t find lasting power demonizing your opponents and defending your bubbles.
|
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch.
|
On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch.
That's how I usually check myself on arguments such as his. In these cases the history of the person in question is relevant. If they've shown repeatedly to only make arguments in favor of fairness when his side comes under fire, and when this person has rarely, if ever, been shown to reconsider and reevaluate their own opinion on an issue, it taints their calls for fairness and openness of mind. As soon as I ask myself where this person is coming from, what they're really saying vs. the text in their post become drastically different.
Regarding the latest conspiracy peddled in-thread, I have a number of follow-up questions. Is there anything inherently wrong with allowing people who wish to move to this country to do so? Is there anything inherently wrong with a shift in demographic, and the corresponding shift in resulting voter interest? To attack the premise itself, is there anything to suggest that immigrants, legal or no, automatically vote Democrat? To come at it from another angle, is it even a viable strategy to seek immigrants as part of the voter base, where the children of said immigrants won't even be able to vote for another 18 years? And then, what about the tendency for turnout among young voters to be much lower, particularly at 18 years old? Even assuming it is a strategy the Democrats are implementing, is it even viable or smart?
So let me ask, Danglars, where do you fall on the latest conspiracy theory that was rejected from the thread? In other words, do you believe that the Democrats are trying to foment a long-term demographic shift via immigration, so their voter base expands? I would refer you to the questions I asked above, but that's the central one. You respond with very vague, whitewashing appeals to emotion, but answer me regarding the actual specifics, regarding the actual post that got summarily(and wisely, imo) rejected from conversation by the majority of posters here. Justify your answer, if you please, since you seem very invested.
|
I would like to remind the poster Newsunshine that this is the website feedback thread and your question should be in the main thread.
The fact that you believe there are set facts in politics is the problem neb. It grounds you in a state of bad faith arguing that you can't get out of with the best intentions.
The echo chamber argument wouldn't be half as true if the thread didn't devolve into a Reddit thread with posts that are way worse then any "yall on the left" shitck that went on.
|
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about.
|
On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about.
Give them time, they will break him.
|
On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch.
This is a little of what I’m talking about. The true characterization is people assessing the relative value of various facts and how they should affect society. Sometimes, people assess the various value of this study or that study on a topic, and come to different conclusions.
The whole “contradictory about a factual claim” is almost troll flame bait. It’s interpretations and policies and values and applicability. Only the partisans out there think the true problem is about facts and not judgements/conclusions based on facts.
I want to know what the other side thinks and what they’re concerned with to find compromise. I don’t expect them to suddenly value religious rights or justice for all skin colors because of my persuasive arguments. They have their opinions and value judgments on that and maybe some are open to change and maybe not. This country is filled with many contradictory ways to run a government and relate individuals to the broader society. I only see one big issue in that, and it’s people like Nebuchad that would rather troll about “factual claims” and lack of “reaching across the aisle” instead of debating the issues where there’s disagreement. That’s wholehearted dumbing down of politics, and really what my previous post was meant to address. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle.
Nebuchad, you might try reaching across the aisle in your opinion that others are acting in bad faith on polarization or any other issue. This is just a suggestion. Your behavior in all this really shows that respect for others strongly held opinions and compromise in light of the diversity of political thought is a blind spot in your political ideology. ((And not to harp on all the unaddressed points too much, but both sides think they’re the ones willing to yield, and the other is too politically dogmatic. It’s entirely predictable behavior.))
|
On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle.
My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise.
|
On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about.
On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise.
I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page.
|
On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page.
Did I post this in bad faith? I wasn't aware
I also wasn't aware that my views on the republican party were such a mystery up until now, lol
|
I can’t argue the point any better than you just did for me, Nebuchad. Thank you for being so transparent in your political perspective. I’m satisfied to let the exchange stand as-is and let people read and form their own thoughts on it.
|
|
|
On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page. The example appears to be one of nebuchad in good faith. No deflection, no "I already wrote this before", no "go reread my posts", no whataboutClinton. He simply answered the question.
The same cannot be said of either of those who are attacking Nebuchad.
|
On September 29 2018 03:09 Sermokala wrote:
I would like to remind the poster Newsunshine that this is the website feedback thread and your question should be in the main thread.
My post, like Danglars's, is perfectly pertinent as feedback Re: discussion in the thread, and what constitutes acceptable discourse. If he posts here because he feels people should be able to post Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories in the main thread, then there's no reason I can't discuss that here. Please stop policing my posts, we have moderators for that. If they say the same thing, then fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
