EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 230
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8247 Posts
On May 11 2019 01:29 brian wrote: didn’t he get banned for a similarly innocuous post recently as well? idk. seems too heavy handed. with some exceptions, the thread is usually worse off without him. while exceptions do exist imo, i think that could be said for most posters. I'm unsure why you think the thread is worse off without him. While he does provide a counter view into topics, which is appreciated, he always goes about it in the worst way possible. Fallacies are not in his dictionary, and he uses all of them consistently. He also argues consistently based on knowledge none of us could possibly possess. I'm not going to go back and check, but I would be willing to bet he's the type of guy who knew Trump would win before the election, and then lambasted "the media" for being wrong about it (despite knowing perfectly well how probability works). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
No real offense to the authors by ignoring their posts; it would be better in a lightly moderated forum to expose the cowardice and stupidity. Since that part does not exist at this time, there's no real other recourse. Campaign against the bannings if you really want responses. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 11 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote: I like him in the thread because he brings the other view point and does it directly, no concern trolling, no passive aggressive BS. He also sources his shit and will answer direct questions about it. I think if people stopped trying to convince him (because it isn't going to happen) and just listened to him or questioned it he could be very interesting. How he thinks, while you can disagree, is how a huge % of Americans do. I also think it is kind of hard on him/mods. Say there are 20 people who make 1 dickish comments to him. And he makes 5 diskish comments back. To him he showed restraint got 20 gave out 5. To the mods everyone else is only doing 1 and he did 5. (made up numbers for effect if not clear) I far prefer the directness, I think the passive aggressive comments stir up more shit, but I understand why others feel different. I can understand this, but when you know the community you participate in thinks you're a massive asshole because you post like one, and you get repeatedly banned for it, and refuse to ever consider changing your posting habits, the patience available for it will be pretty thin. I would point to GH as a good example of someone who got banned, though debatably, for being inflammatory, but has done a pretty good job so far of being less abrasive than he was before. xDaunt has refused to put in the same effort. While I would like to be able to engage with someone who disagrees with me, he flat out refused, resorting instead to his usual "you understand nothing, go re-read me" schtick. It's tiresome. On May 11 2019 01:49 Danglars wrote: You just have to ignore people make statements like "White Supremacist rallying cry, by a bunch of White Supremacists" at some campaign event and other stupid shit. You were free to respond to me directly at any point, rather than chime in with this stupid passive aggressive snipe. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 11 2019 00:45 NewSunshine wrote: His complaining about being misrepresented is the problem to begin with. It was never about what he thinks. When people with large amounts of influence, like the President, say dangerous things, that will influence people to think or do dangerous things. I'm not even talking in hypotheticals, it's already happened. Trump is emboldening the worst parts of us, and every time he goes to a rally instead of doing his job it gets worse. Rather than acknowledge the impact his words can have, Daunt wanted me to think it was okay because he saw it as a joke. My point is that's irrelevant. What he thinks as one person doesn't matter here. And he probably knows that too. So for him to respond the way he did was incredibly dickish, put mildly. I don’t know why you are so invested in making him admit “the impact [Trump’s] words can have.” That’s not really how the forum should work. And as a matter of fact xDaunt did admit that the rally-goer’s comment was inappropriate, and further implied that it was tasteless and possibly immoral. But you wanted him to confess that everything you said about Trump’s response to that comment was true and righteous. In my view xDaunt effectively and clearly decoupled the xenophobic comment from Trump’s response. He only said Trump’s response was a joke. You unfairly recoupled them and said that xDaunt thought the whole thing was “funny.” It was clearly a straw man. People can disagree about how responsible people are for how others interpret their words and behavior. But you never narrowed it down to that. You muddled it all together and imported a lot of assumptions because you were apparently more interested in castigating xDaunt for a bunch of things that he didn’t actually say. I can’t really blame him for not wanting to engage with you when you were so uncharitable to him. There is some irony in the fact that this affair also turns on how one interprets xDaunt’s posts, and in how the subsequent reaction(s) to those interpretations are themselves interpreted. In my view the forum is at its best when people are charitable in their interpretations and resist the urge to crucify their opponents for holding wrong beliefs. The whole point for me is to probe ideas and sentiments, not weed out heresy. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 11 2019 02:26 IgnE wrote: I don’t know why you are so invested in making him admit “the impact [Trump’s] words can have.” That’s not really how the forum should work. And as a matter of fact xDaunt did admit that the rally-goer’s comment was inappropriate, and further implied that it was tasteless and possibly immoral. But you wanted him to confess that everything you said about Trump’s response to that comment was true and righteous. In my view xDaunt effectively and clearly decoupled the xenophobic comment from Trump’s response. He only said Trump’s response was a joke. You unfairly recoupled them and said that xDaunt thought the whole thing was “funny.” It was clearly a straw man. People can disagree about how responsible people are for how others interpret their words and behavior. But you never narrowed it down to that. You muddled it all together and imported a lot of assumptions because you were apparently more interested in castigating xDaunt for a bunch of things that he didn’t actually say. I can’t really blame him for not wanting to engage with you when you were so uncharitable to him. There is some irony in the fact that this affair also turns on how one interprets xDaunt’s posts, and in how the subsequent reaction(s) to those interpretations are themselves interpreted. In my view the forum is at its best when people are charitable in their interpretations and resist the urge to crucify their opponents for holding wrong beliefs. The whole point for me is to probe ideas and sentiments, not weed out heresy. I simply don't think that kind of response from the most powerful man in the country is acceptable, and I don't think trying to give it a pass is acceptable. In a different, bleaker political environment, the person saying "shoot them" would not have been met with such ridicule. There's a slippery slope that I don't think we need to tread. So while it may be uncharitable of me to assume xDaunt and Trump were both looking for plausible deniability, this is the kind of subject where I don't mind being a bit uncharitable. That's not the kind of thing I would ever let anyone joke about. It skirts a very dangerous line. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
You are defending your estimation of Trump’s conduct, not your reaction to xDaunt’s disagreement with that estimation. Those are separate things. It’s not like xDaunt was making jokes about immigrants, yet your responses appear to indicate that you think he was. And you wonder why he responded “dickishly” to you. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24767 Posts
On May 11 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote: I like him in the thread because he brings the other view point and does it directly, no concern trolling, no passive aggressive BS. He also sources his shit and will answer direct questions about it. I think if people stopped trying to convince him (because it isn't going to happen) and just listened to him or questioned it he could be very interesting. How he thinks, while you can disagree, is how a huge % of Americans do. Honestly, if someone is never going to be convinced that they are wrong and someone else's idea was actually correct, then they shouldn't be allowed to post in the thread. This is hard to moderate because most people will claim they will change their mind when provided with reasonable evidence, but in actuality its very common for users to be beyond convincing of things, regardless of the actual truth of the matter. Of course, we are all sometimes guilty of doubling down on our beliefs when we should be questioning them (hello confirmation bias), but if you truly think a user will never be convinced of anything aside from their current beliefs, then you should not support their participation in a discussion, and the mods shouldn't either. The only counterargument I can give some credence to is that they provide a useful perspective even though everyone else knows they are wrong much of the time and are beyond convincing, and their ideas are considered but they are otherwise ignored. History has proven that never works though. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 11 2019 03:05 IgnE wrote: xDaunt wasn’t joking ... You are defending your estimation of Trump’s conduct, not your reaction to xDaunt’s disagreement with that estimation. Those are separate things. It’s not like xDaunt was making jokes about immigrants, yet your responses appear to indicate that you think he was. And you wonder why he responded “dickishly” to you. IgnE for mod. He reads. Micronesia: I think you have to go one step further. You have to ask yourself whether, contrary to all of your experience, there might be a clever argument and answer out there that would switch you to believing a vote for Trump is the best choice for America in 2020. It's a really tall order. You're so passionate in opposition that you've previously stated "As an example, I normally vote, but next year I will be voting in the presidential election even if my house is surrounded by rabid bears." Now, if I were perusing the thread with fresh eyes, I might think based on that post that I'd found a person whose mind is made up, who has made it personal, who isn't really open to contrary arguments. Rabid bears, indeed. Is this a poster that is open to being convinced otherwise, or has he given me reason to think he's evaluating things rationally and just hasn't heard the right argument yet. I think that push-and-pull is the real trouble with judging others' openness to being persuaded otherwise. I'll also add that I'm not immune and have no privileged eyesight on things I think are proven beyond doubt or are bedrock principles of good political philosophy. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24767 Posts
Who I vote for is my business, but I'm willing to hear arguments and counterarguments for the strengths and weaknesses of all candidates and the incumbent. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18251 Posts
On May 11 2019 21:14 micronesia wrote: Danglars, if you want to go to the other thread and make an argument that I should be willing to stay home and not vote if there are rabid bears encircling my home, feel free. I'm willing to keep an open mind about that. Who I vote for is my business, but I'm willing to hear arguments and counterarguments for the strengths and weaknesses of all candidates and the incumbent. What about the strengths and weaknesses of rabid bears, where can we discuss that? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8247 Posts
On May 12 2019 19:32 Acrofales wrote: What about the strengths and weaknesses of rabid bears, where can we discuss that? It's called Rabies lyssavirus. Let's not discriminate and use derogatory names like "rabid". It really hurts their feelings. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Let's face it: no one has ever been banned for the type of post that I made. I did reach out to KBB and ask him what the basis was for this new level of moderation that is being applied to me. KBB's gave a non-answer. Needless to say, micronesia's post above certainly didn't reinforce any lingering confidence that I might have that the thread will be properly moderated. This wasn't even a difficult situation to figure out. Igne laid it out quite easily. NewSunshine's posts called for me to defend a point that, very expressly, was not mine. The mods thinking that I am obliged to do so is untenable, both for me and for the thread. To the extent that what the mods considered the "tone" of my post to be the real problem (which is also ridiculous given the types of posts that are made daily and which are unactioned), then perhaps the best approach is to simply not respond to the type of post that NewSunshine made. I generally have been pretty responsive to everyone who has tried to engage me, but it simply is not going to work if the mods are going to keep fucking with me. So from here on out I'm going to scale back my participation in the thread. Many posters will not get a response from me anymore. This isn't my preferred course of action, but I'm out of ideas. | ||
| ||
