|
On September 29 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear. It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets).
If more right-leaning folk could hold a discussion like Introvert does, I'd be way less annoyed with them collectively. It's not fair to him specifically, either, because as one of the main conservative posters who isn't banned, he'll find multiple people ready to argue against his points, but not necessarily to support them. But I've always appreciated his ability to enter a conversation without being condescending and/or gaslighting right out of the gate. I disagree with his politics in many ways, but as someone expressing the other side, as it were, I think he helps spur healthy discussion more often than not.
|
On September 29 2018 12:50 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear. It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets). If more right-leaning folk could hold a discussion like Introvert does, I'd be way less annoyed with them collectively. It's not fair to him specifically, either, because as one of the main conservative posters who isn't banned, he'll find multiple people ready to argue against his points, but not necessarily to support them. But I've always appreciated his ability to enter a conversation without being condescending and/or gaslighting right out of the gate. I disagree with his politics in many ways, but as someone expressing the other side, as it were, I think he helps spur healthy discussion more often than not.
Maybe I'm misreading things a bit but it wasn't a comment on the appreciation for intro's post but rather how long he'll put up with the quality, or rather lack thereof, of the posts in response to him.
Granted there's usually several of varying quality so I'll leave it to him to comment on that part of his experience.
|
On September 29 2018 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 12:50 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear. It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets). If more right-leaning folk could hold a discussion like Introvert does, I'd be way less annoyed with them collectively. It's not fair to him specifically, either, because as one of the main conservative posters who isn't banned, he'll find multiple people ready to argue against his points, but not necessarily to support them. But I've always appreciated his ability to enter a conversation without being condescending and/or gaslighting right out of the gate. I disagree with his politics in many ways, but as someone expressing the other side, as it were, I think he helps spur healthy discussion more often than not. Maybe I'm misreading things a bit but it wasn't a comment on the appreciation for intro's post but rather how long he'll put up with the quality, or rather lack thereof, of the posts in response to him. Granted there's usually several of varying quality so I'll leave it to him to comment on that part of his experience.
Oh I get that, I just thought I'd mention it since you brought him up. I've been trying to do better about recognizing good discussion from people I disagree with, is all, since there's been a lot of bad.
|
I guess something I've wondered is if a poster like nettles and his posts are nonsensical conspiracy theories or whatever why do several people feel obligated to comment on them?
Shouldn't people just ignore them, or at least ignore it once it's clear they aren't getting anywhere?
Wouldn't the easiest way to deal with something like his most recent post be to just ignore it (or at least better than what happens now)?
|
On September 29 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear. It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets).
I mostly agree, although obviously moving the inflammatory posts away from the people who are inflamed by them also means those posters aren't getting as much pushback. You can easily get, for instance, an xDaunt post about how corrupt and evil the Obama Justice Department was, followed by a Danglars post mostly in agreement, and maybe a post from you saying it's been a corrupt and evil institution since its inception, which xDaunt mostly treats as agreement. In a case like that the second thread is insulating the conversation from the posters who would defend the Obama Justice Department, or the FBI in general, or at least argue xDaunt's allegations are just unsubstantiated rumor and conspiracy theory.
The absence of liberal posters challenging the claim allows the conversation to progress to, say, you and xDaunt discussing the merits of an advocacy system, which is an interesting discussion that probably wouldn't have happened in the main thread. But I do think the second thread can be insulated from confrontation in the way that we associate with echo chambers.
Again, I don't want this to sound like criticism of the Mega-Blog's existence - I continue to be amazed that the mods allowed it and that it is working as well as it is. It's a very interesting experiment, and as it stands now if I was only going to read one thread it'd probably be the Mega-Blog.
|
I saw the reference to the blog thread in the ABL and took a look, but who has time for two threads? I'm not ready to give up on this one yet. Although the mods might give up before I do.
This statement right here though,
My personal view is that since the conservative PoV is flawed, not based on empirical data, generally reactionary and even evil etc. that it’s really impossible for a conservative poster to post in “good faith”.
is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb. I suspect there are a lot of posters who share this feeling, even if they know they aren't supposed to say it. I do appreciate the honesty, however (but no, it doesn't make me more inclined to engage with that person). There is a saying in conservative circles that i don't use because it's reductive, but it fits in right here, and im sure you've all heard it-
"The right thinks the left is wrong, and the left thinks the right is evil."
And while now is not the most civil time in our country with respect to right or left, the above quoted sentiment fits perfectly into this saying.
|
This is a gaming forum, so I don’t think it makes sense to adopt a hardline stance with respect to politics, which is why I’ll tolerate people whose political perspectives I disagree with. But I do disagree with their perspectives and I just don’t personally (sorry) respect them. I would consider that TL has a right to moderate any over the top invective, given this is not a partisan space, but there will always be tension with such a moderation policy. That can’t be helped and is intrinsic to the topic of politics.
But what’s really the point of having “good faith” arguments with someone whose beliefs you don’t respect? I can agree there should be standards for civil debate, and you ( Introvert) do meet those, because your posts are coherent and reasoned. But it just strikes me as something different.
Anyway, I don’t mind this terminology that much, and I would concede it can be usefully applied in this situation, but I just had some worries it would obscure the fact that there are very serious disagreements which can’t be breached.
|
On September 29 2018 14:44 Introvert wrote:I saw the reference to the blog thread in the ABL and took a look, but who has time for two threads? I'm not ready to give up on this one yet. Although the mods might give up before I do. This statement right here though, Show nested quote +My personal view is that since the conservative PoV is flawed, not based on empirical data, generally reactionary and even evil etc. that it’s really impossible for a conservative poster to post in “good faith”. is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb. I suspect there are a lot of posters who share this feeling, even if they know they aren't supposed to say it. I do appreciate the honesty, however (but no, it doesn't make me more inclined to engage with that person). There is a saying in conservative circles that i don't use because it's reductive, but it fits in right here, and im sure you've all heard it- "The right thinks the left is wrong, and the left thinks the right is evil." And while now is not the most civil time in our country with respect to right or left, the above quoted sentiment fits perfectly into this saying.
Is this the origin of that quote?
|
Norway28761 Posts
I've seen versions of that quote in the norwegian political climate too, especially with regard to immigration/ handling of the refugee crisis. The right wing accuses the left of stupidity and naivete, the left wing accuses the right wing of stupidity and being evil (or greedy, or selfish, or inconsiderate, or morally bankrupt).
|
|
|
On September 29 2018 14:44 Introvert wrote:
is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb.
Yeah I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement. I think the republican party is "evil", and by evil I mean ideologically and morally bankrupt - I also believe a lot of what they stand for is reactionary/regressive rather than conservative. But I wouldn't describe all conservative individuals like that. For example in Switzerland the conservatives are much more centrist and starkly contrasted with the far right, in a different party; I have a lot fewer problems with them here.
I guess my main point of contention with conservatism is that I don't think tradition has any value, and that just because things are some way doesn't mean that's the way they should be. But I suspect a lot of conservatives agree, and they believe things should be that way because they've thought about it and they think that's the correct way, rather than just because things happen to be like that right now.
In general I'm not a big fan of the term conservative because it's a little vague regarding policy, I'd rather describe people by what they believe than by a general attitude about reality that requires a context to have meaning. I'm a progressive but I don't think that tells you a lot about me, I'd much rather say I'm a socialist.
|
European conservatives are much different from US conservatives. It’s abit like comparing European and American liberals. The German CDU e.g. is ideologically close to the centrists parts of the Democratic party.
|
On September 29 2018 23:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 14:44 Introvert wrote:
is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb. Yeah I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement. I think the republican party is "evil", and by evil I mean ideologically and morally bankrupt - I also believe a lot of what they stand for is reactionary/regressive rather than conservative. But I wouldn't describe all conservative individuals like that. For example in Switzerland the conservatives are much more centrist and starkly contrasted with the far right, in a different party; I have a lot fewer problems with them here. I guess my main point of contention with conservatism is that I don't think tradition has any value, and that just because things are some way doesn't mean that's the way they should be. But I suspect a lot of conservatives agree, and they believe things should be that way because they've thought about it and they think that's the correct way, rather than just because things happen to be like that right now. In general I'm not a big fan of the term conservative because it's a little vague regarding policy, I'd rather describe people by what they believe than by a general attitude about reality that requires a context to have meaning. I'm a progressive but I don't think that tells you a lot about me, I'd much rather say I'm a socialist.
Are you familiar with the idea of Chesterton's Fence? There's a lot of conservatism in that. It's neither a blind acceptance of tradition nor a appeal made to cover an argument. The idea is that maybe certain traditions and norms exist and have persisted all these years for a good reason, and we should be hesitant to throw them out. There is no contradiction, as I've seen you say before. It's purely misunderstanding to say that (American) conservatism is somehow internally inconsistent. Thinking of it as being an attitude however, could very well have some truth to it.
In fact depending on who you ask conservatism isn't an ideology at all. But that's in the weeds. I am more concerned that the feeling that one's opponents either cannot argue in good faith or whose staring point is somehow logically incoherent isn't going to allow one to even hold a conversation.
On September 29 2018 22:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I've seen versions of that quote in the norwegian political climate too, especially with regard to immigration/ handling of the refugee crisis. The right wing accuses the left of stupidity and naivete, the left wing accuses the right wing of stupidity and being evil (or greedy, or selfish, or inconsiderate, or morally bankrupt).
And as Tachion reminds us, there was a lot of that "incivility" way before our current moment and way before Donald Trump. Krugman was a respected figure at one time, to certain people.
|
These political views are not just interpretions of an ambiguous movie or book, they impact people’s lives. The current administration and conservatives are actively trying to screw me and my wife over. And the conservatives I know have always responded to that fact by treating it likes it’s an attack on them, rather than a statement of fact. Or called me hysterical or say im over reacting. It’s haed to have a political discussion when that is so often the default response.
|
On September 29 2018 14:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear. It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets). I mostly agree, although obviously moving the inflammatory posts away from the people who are inflamed by them also means those posters aren't getting as much pushback. You can easily get, for instance, an xDaunt post about how corrupt and evil the Obama Justice Department was, followed by a Danglars post mostly in agreement, and maybe a post from you saying it's been a corrupt and evil institution since its inception, which xDaunt mostly treats as agreement. In a case like that the second thread is insulating the conversation from the posters who would defend the Obama Justice Department, or the FBI in general, or at least argue xDaunt's allegations are just unsubstantiated rumor and conspiracy theory. The absence of liberal posters challenging the claim allows the conversation to progress to, say, you and xDaunt discussing the merits of an advocacy system, which is an interesting discussion that probably wouldn't have happened in the main thread. But I do think the second thread can be insulated from confrontation in the way that we associate with echo chambers. Again, I don't want this to sound like criticism of the Mega-Blog's existence - I continue to be amazed that the mods allowed it and that it is working as well as it is. It's a very interesting experiment, and as it stands now if I was only going to read one thread it'd probably be the Mega-Blog.
Point taken. My disappointment in the Obama administration overrides any motivation I have left to defend them, which does leave space to discuss/challenge each other on the issues rather than defend politicians and their cynicism.
Technically there's nothing stopping people from objecting to their characterizations of the Obama administration (or whatever else), they just prefer to have the discussions they're having in the mega-thread.
|
On September 30 2018 03:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 23:29 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 14:44 Introvert wrote:
is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb. Yeah I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement. I think the republican party is "evil", and by evil I mean ideologically and morally bankrupt - I also believe a lot of what they stand for is reactionary/regressive rather than conservative. But I wouldn't describe all conservative individuals like that. For example in Switzerland the conservatives are much more centrist and starkly contrasted with the far right, in a different party; I have a lot fewer problems with them here. I guess my main point of contention with conservatism is that I don't think tradition has any value, and that just because things are some way doesn't mean that's the way they should be. But I suspect a lot of conservatives agree, and they believe things should be that way because they've thought about it and they think that's the correct way, rather than just because things happen to be like that right now. In general I'm not a big fan of the term conservative because it's a little vague regarding policy, I'd rather describe people by what they believe than by a general attitude about reality that requires a context to have meaning. I'm a progressive but I don't think that tells you a lot about me, I'd much rather say I'm a socialist. Are you familiar with the idea of Chesterton's Fence? There's a lot of conservatism in that. It's neither a blind acceptance of tradition nor a appeal made to cover an argument. The idea is that maybe certain traditions and norms exist and have persisted all these years for a good reason, and we should be hesitant to throw them out. There is no contradiction, as I've seen you say before. It's purely misunderstanding to say that (American) conservatism is somehow internally inconsistent. Thinking of it as being an attitude however, could very well have some truth to it.
I mean, I don't think this is incompatible with a progressive approach. The goal isn't to destroy stuff for the sake of it, there's a deconstructive element for sure but you can end up siding with the way things are if that's where your analysis leads you to. "For a good reason" is a bit of a reach in my view on some of the main topics, mainly pertaining to religion and early liberalism (especially the latter).
I don't exactly remember what you're refering to with this contradiction, I'm sorry.
|
I think it's very possible for Conservative posters to post in good faith.
I simultaneously believe many of the posters in that particular thread deliberately don't do that, and then when called out on it protest vociferously about an echo chamber. I don't think it's an accident that while many people disagree with introvert he doesn't get half the shit other conservative posters do. I've disagreed with some of his assertions re: Kavanaugh but by and large he's stuck to clear, honest arguments based on the fact that not much evidence has turned up yet.
I've no complaints there, and I don't think anyone else can, either.
Danglars swinging in like Errol Flynn with 'this third accusation is bullshit ergo we should ignore the other two' on the other hand, deserves all the approbrium it's getting.
On September 29 2018 14:44 Introvert wrote:This statement right here though, Show nested quote +My personal view is that since the conservative PoV is flawed, not based on empirical data, generally reactionary and even evil etc. that it’s really impossible for a conservative poster to post in “good faith”. is very concerning and I think I've seen something similar, though not exactly like that, from Neb. I suspect there are a lot of posters who share this feeling, even if they know they aren't supposed to say it. I do appreciate the honesty, however (but no, it doesn't make me more inclined to engage with that person). There is a saying in conservative circles that i don't use because it's reductive, but it fits in right here, and im sure you've all heard it- "The right thinks the left is wrong, and the left thinks the right is evil."
For the record I don't feel that way, not that I imagine anyone cares. And the quote you finish off with is weird given that the right very clearly thinks that the left is evil as well. I've seen liberalism referred to as a disease, I've heard that all liberals should be killed, and when my stomach has been especially fortified I've even listened to Alex Jones once or twice. I have no patience for the sort of argument that tries to ignore all of the factual behaviour of conservatives in government saying and doing despicable things going back nearly a decade of obstructionist behaviour (that bizarrely has continued even into an administration where they have all the cards).
I mean... kids in camps. You seriously going to tell me that if Obama did that he wouldn't be decried as evil by American conservatives? And if he wasn't, he sure should have been.
The tendency do defend one's own party is overly strong, I think. The only way things are going to get better is if both sides hold their leaders accountable. That may be more pronounced among Conservatives right now because they need to support their party but often don't like Trump, and it's kind of a package deal. I imagine things would be considerably less divisive if Pence were in charge because he's just more defensible as a person.
|
Just learned of the second politics thread from this one. Cant see how that's a good idea. Theres basically two threads serving the same purpose. If it was restricted to banned people that would make sense and would actually be kind of fun.
|
On October 08 2018 02:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Just learned of the second politics thread from this one. Cant see how that's a good idea. Theres basically two threads serving the same purpose. If it was restricted to banned people that would make sense and would actually be kind of fun.
They serve two different purposes. This thread is for discussions which would only serve to further muck up the other thread: Ban discussions, mod discussions, post history, if certain subjects are ok, etc. While the other thread is for the actual political discussions.
For instance: Your post is ok here where you're allowed to discuss other subjects than just strictly politics, but would not have been ok in the other thread.
|
I think Doodsmack is talking about GreenHorizons blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
