|
On January 22 2020 21:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:According to my memory I've had one argument with DMCD where I thought he was being really unreasonable. *I might have thought so on other times too, but I don't think it's been something I vocalized. (It happened after DMCD accused GH of being opposed to gay marriage. ) That argument happened while he was attacking GH in a way that made even JimmyC post that it was unreasonable. Show nested quote + JimmiC December 04, 2019 04:32
What is going on with you lately? First you make up some crap and freak out on the environment thread, then you go at GH super hard for no reason on the pol thread and now your even pick fights here and on the US pol thread. I can't tell if you are purposely misreading to get into fights or what, but I wish you luck.
I'm not going to sit here and claim DMCD didn't stick his foot in it in that instance, but you, GH and Nebuchad could have tried to defuse the situation and instead all three of you made it worse.
It's much easier to get away with bullying without repercussions when the other guy started with a mistake.
|
This is a strange scenario on which to stake a claim, what’s the resolution?
|
On January 22 2020 21:47 farvacola wrote:
This is a strange scenario on which to stake a claim, what’s the resolution?
I expect this conversation dwindles away and disappears at some point. If I gave anybody some food for thought that's about all I'm really looking for.
edit: To clarify, I've mostly said what I came here to say and at no point was sticking my arm in this meatgrinder enjoyable. I could imagine myself feeling the need to post again to clarify things or correct wild misrepresentations but beyond that I think I'm through.
|
On January 22 2020 21:09 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 21:03 brian wrote:
i don’t. i meant it in earnest. i’m grateful for the opportunity to further understand. Given that you started with (and apparently still hold) the assumption that I was acting as a blatant hypocrite I find this a little hard to believe. Feels much more like you're trying to find a way to twist what I'm saying to justify that initial assumption (and to justify the shit you threw based on it). Show nested quote +so you are indeed attributing his post to people not in the conversation. we agree there? Given that you are trying to draw a similarity between the use of the word "attribute" in "rexxo is attributing a position to someone not in the conversation" and "attributing rexxo’s post to people who weren’t in the conversation", and from my point of view the nature of the "attribution" is completely different, I do not think we agree and I think you are trying to twist what I said into something I did not say. Show nested quote +i can’t see any world in which attacking a person is seen as increasing their social prestige. we must see things in drastically different lights. If you're completely unfamiliar with the concept of a bully trying to look good to his pals by picking on an "outsider" to the social group, then I can well imagine that my entire line of argument doesn't make much sense to you.
believe me or not we’re here doin the thing. but in lieu of me understanding what you mean by the nature of attribution for what might be only my own benefit, ill just take your word for it, thanks for trying to explain it to me anyway.
|
What should I be doing instead of what I'm doing?
Edit: I don't appreciate getting reported in the website feedback for doing absolutely nothing btw, I ought to mention it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 22 2020 15:03 Aquanim wrote:https://tl.net/forum/general/543016-south-american-politics-thread?page=55#1083Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 07:05 rexxO wrote:
Patiently awaiting JimmiC dropping in to explain to us how Glenn should have just done his best to not do cyber crimes if he wanted to not get arrested by the Brazilian government. Apparently we live in a world where some blow-in with 40 posts across TL.net and LiquidDota thinks it's appropriate to wander in and bait and defame somebody who isn't even participating in the current conversation. (Also worth noting rexxO has some history of acting antagonistically towards Dangermousecatdog as well.) This sort of thing is a symptom of the effect which GreenHorizons, aided and abetted by Nebuchad, Drone and several other less active/influential/provocative posters have had on this subset of the site. They have antagonised, baited and provoked JimmiC, DMCD, etc. so often, and been tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by other members of the site and moderation for so long, that it has become normalised and new people are getting in on the act. This is how bullying and ostracism works.
This is one of the most bizarre accusations I’ve seen in here yet. Some of the most level-headed and reasonable posters are accused of making a hostile environment for two posters who are among the leading shit-starters* in the politics threads, because someone else made a post in some other thread? Truly feels like this entire line of complaint comes from some alternate reality.
*JimmiC is usually ok, starts shit almost exclusively with GH, but does so very frequently.
|
On January 22 2020 21:48 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 21:47 farvacola wrote:
This is a strange scenario on which to stake a claim, what’s the resolution? I expect this conversation dwindles away and disappears at some point. If I gave anybody some food for thought that's about all I'm really looking for. edit: To clarify, I've mostly said what I came here to say and at no point was sticking my arm in this meatgrinder enjoyable. I could imagine myself feeling the need to post again to clarify things or correct wild misrepresentations but beyond that I think I'm through.
That was all very bizarre.
Not sure if it helps, but despite not generally reporting posters (other than bots), I'm one who formally reported the post from Rexxo (who was warned) and got stats so ty for not trying that before this I guess.
I suppose I asked for it though so I should thank you for your perspective as well.
|
This was a wild trip of a read.
|
My first thought was definitely why cross-thread, and why smearing by proxy?
the effect which GreenHorizons, aided and abetted by Nebuchad, Drone and several other They have antagonised, baited and provoked JimmiC, DMCD
I misjudged just how tribal things exist now. Aquanim identifies the culprit parties, and identifies the wronged parties. This style of interaction is definitely interesting and I'll have to observe more.
|
I fully realize I am charging in unasked here, but this is my thought on the never-ending stupid circular debates about GH's role in the thread's health.
Everyone needs to stop trying to assign blame on some people or groups for making the thread bad. Ignore posts you think are not constructive (does not equal I do not agree with). If you think someone is trying to baiting you, posting bad stuff, or being unfair to you ignore or maybe PM them, don't start a three-page tit for tat for Christ's sake.
Too much of the thread has been a weird meta-commentary bemoaning other posters in an annoyingly self pitiful way.
I think GH posts interesting things. I think that.JimmiC posts interesting stuff. I don't care to read through two pages of them criticizing each other. Or more recently the new of the line drawing between Neb, Drone GH and the other side which I frankly don't even care enough to know who's all in that side because it has nothing to do with US fucking politics or anything which is remotely important enough to think about.
|
|
|
Hey, I'm not really a US Pol poster but I do read a bunch of it.
I'd like to just quickly reply to this from Aquanim:
Show nested quote +On January 22 2020 21:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
Sometimes I wish I knew what GHs goal on the forum is, but i'm 99% sure it isn't what aquanim thinks it is. I think he's here (at least to some degree) to learn how to get his political message across, what tactics are effective and what he can get away with. Are you 99% sure it's not that?
From my observations reading the thread, GH is one of the people who believes what he writes the most. There are a couple users who I suspect of mainly posting as a writing exercise, but GH is definitely not one of them.
In fact I'd say that for me his larger posts are easier to understand than large posts from other users. (In terms of following his logic and thought process)
Now I will say that I haven't read the thread all that closely for a couple months, but especially during the time when JimmiC just came in to the thread and the months after that I read at least 90%.
|
Just now catching up on the thread I was reading an interesting discussion on gender and names and the language surrounding gender identities, and just when I was thinking about how interesting this is, how nice it is that GH hasn't inserted himself into capitalsm is the root of all evil into this, then GH comes along with some bullshit about "gender under capitalism is at the root" of all evil again and no one bats an eyelid at this.
If you guys are happy to let the situation become GH's and Nebuched's playground for capitalism is evil and "critical pedagogy" through sheer posting volume, with the public backing of Drone, I'll leave you guys to fester together in spontaneous group hugs and an unintended parody of an oscar speech, where every topic is GH turning everything into capitalism is the root of all evil, or being an arsehole at someone by telling them that they "don't understand the point of the exercise" instead of engaging with them in debate instead of roleplaying an arsehole teacher, believing that he gets to ask all the questions, but answers must come from the other guy, but without reciprocation of the debate.
Where Nebuched happily tells people that they and their ideologies are are the enemy, that's the kind of thread you have let the US Pol thread become. In the first place I only ever got into the pol threads as I wanted to combat the spread of the now normalised hateful speech of white supremacists that was being openly displayed on a forum I happened to visit. Well done. I'll leave you to it.
__________
On January 24 2020 00:40 Fildun wrote:
From my observations reading the thread, GH is one of the people who believes what he writes the most. Beleives in what he writes like, falsely accusing someone of posting racist PMs to him, and then continue insinuating when asked about it? That's the type of person you are defending here. Believes in what he write the most is not how I would describe it.
|
FWIW, my perspective regarding GH is that he does both. It’s clear that he believes what he writes, but in addition he also practices what he preaches. It does seem based off my now-limited understanding of critical pedagogy that he is attempting this in this thread. While I do believe at one point he mentioned in discussion that he (at least partially) uses this thread to practice arguments and methods of changing minds that he can apply to the real world, I don’t have the evidence nor believe it’s a bad thing if that is true or not.
Critical pedagogy seems dependent on the “students” finding answers for themselves, presumably to make the topic/information more meaningful/personal. When GH poses a question with society, this is what he requests from other posters, and will argue his answers on the situation vs. theirs. It just so happens that his answers are geared toward an anti-capitalist standpoint so all discussions of these answers inevitably drift towards this topic. When others in the thread pose a question with society, this is his answer as well.
The frustration others are experiencing in this thread are perhaps indicative of a flaw with critical pedagogy itself; the views and discussions are shaped by those with the “strongest” views and feelings in the discussion. If a “student” gives an answer in the discussion that is opposed to the answer of the teacher, the teacher will likely feel obligated to “correct” the answer via argument until the student accommodates the teachers viewpoint. The student is welcome to do the same when the situations are reversed; however the teacher has more experience and energy invested in the process and as a result will likely be more successful.
This is what we are seeing in the thread, with GH as the role of teacher (which is what some others have stated they feel as well). Poster X poses a question of society, others discuss answers in a variety of contexts, and GH joins with his anti-capitalist answer. Some are interested in GHs answer, others aren’t, and those that have a problem with it engage with GH. GH is quite intelligent (not to say other posters aren’t), and combined with the effort he places in the discussions he frequently is able to outlast and sometimes outargue his opponents, which is fine. However he doesn’t seem to engage with others in the context of their answers, e.g. he is not likely to join a discussion on a particular topic without mentioning (not necessarily with invalidity) how the US or capitalism are to blame. This lack of willingness from a teacher of critical pedagogy could easily lead to accusations of what I’ll call “natural indoctrination” among students, since even though the teacher isn’t necessarily encouraging students to adopt his/her view, the sheer amount of time spent arguing contexts pertinent to the teacher and the quality of the arguments compared to the students logically leads to the students favoring those teacher’s arguments.
All that being said, while GH argues/discussed in this style, I don’t think he views the forum as a classroom and perhaps this is why he’s so adamant in his views; feeling less responsibility to facilitate general understanding and focusing on sharpening his viewpoints/answers instead. I also don’t necessarily think this is malicious, but it’s quite easy for me to understand how others could construe it to be. I think in order to be both an ethical facilitator and assuage the concerns of others in this thread, it would behoove GH to discuss answers with others outside the anti-capitalist/“US is bad” framework to allow the posters to fully develop their answers, and then argue those directly. But I can also certainly understand why GH wouldn’t want to do that, since that idea is antithetical to his views.
Sorry that was a lot, I apologize if it was hard to comprehend. Much respect to GH and other posters in the Pol thread <3
|
On January 25 2020 23:32 Ryzel wrote:
FWIW, my perspective regarding GH is that he does both. It’s clear that he believes what he writes, but in addition he also practices what he preaches. It does seem based off my now-limited understanding of critical pedagogy that he is attempting this in this thread. While I do believe at one point he mentioned in discussion that he (at least partially) uses this thread to practice arguments and methods of changing minds that he can apply to the real world, I don’t have the evidence nor believe it’s a bad thing if that is true or not.
Critical pedagogy seems dependent on the “students” finding answers for themselves, presumably to make the topic/information more meaningful/personal. When GH poses a question with society, this is what he requests from other posters, and will argue his answers on the situation vs. theirs. It just so happens that his answers are geared toward an anti-capitalist standpoint so all discussions of these answers inevitably drift towards this topic. When others in the thread pose a question with society, this is his answer as well.
The frustration others are experiencing in this thread are perhaps indicative of a flaw with critical pedagogy itself; the views and discussions are shaped by those with the “strongest” views and feelings in the discussion. If a “student” gives an answer in the discussion that is opposed to the answer of the teacher, the teacher will likely feel obligated to “correct” the answer via argument until the student accommodates the teachers viewpoint. The student is welcome to do the same when the situations are reversed; however the teacher has more experience and energy invested in the process and as a result will likely be more successful.
This is what we are seeing in the thread, with of course GH as the role of teacher (which is what some others have stated they feel as well). Poster X poses a question of society, others discuss answers in a variety of contexts, and GH joins with his anti-capitalist answer. Some are interested in GHs answer, others aren’t, and those that have a problem with it engage with GH. GH is quite intelligent (not to say other posters aren’t), and combined with the effort he places in the discussions he frequently is able to outlast and sometimes outargue his opponents, which is fine. However he doesn’t seem to engage with others in the context of their answers, e.g. he is not likely to join a discussion on a particular topic without mentioning (not necessarily with invalidity) how the US or capitalism are to blame. This lack of willingness from a teacher of critical pedagogy could easily lead to accusations of what I’ll call “natural indoctrination” among students, since even though the teacher isn’t necessarily encouraging students to adopt his/her view, the sheer amount of time spent arguing contexts pertinent to the teacher and the quality of the arguments compared to the students logically leads to the students favoring those teacher’s arguments.
All that being said, while GH argues/discussed in this style, I don’t think he views the forum as a classroom and perhaps this is why he’s so adamant in his views. I also don’t think necessarily think this is malicious, but it’s quite easy for me to understand how others could construe it to be. I think in order to be both an ethical facilitator and assuage the concerns of others in this thread, it would behoove GH to discuss answers with others outside the anti-capitalist/“US is bad” framework to allow the posters to fully develop their answers, and then argue those directly. But I can also certainly understand why GH wouldn’t want to do that, since that idea is antithetical to his views.
Sorry that was a lot, I apologize if it was hard to comprehend. Much respect to GH and other posters in the Pol thread <3
Pretty fair assessment in my view. I would say rather than "to blame", "exacerbate" would more accurately reflect my sentiment.
I'd also blame myself over the pedagogy for shortcomings in practice thus far. But I'd go back to the Hampton quote on the process of theory, practice, and experience.
|
I just wanted to voice my support for KwarK's posting
|
United States41979 Posts
I can’t really keep up with the thread these days but thanks.
|
On January 29 2020 14:12 Zambrah wrote:
I just wanted to voice my support for KwarK's posting
Is this in response to my post a few days ago?
|
I cant remember who but it seemed like people weren't keen on KwarK's posting, and hes by far my favorite poster in that thread when he does post, so I thought I'd voice my support.
I will never forget his vegetable joke.
|
On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in.
I like the thread better without posts like these (or me responding to them). Doesn't everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
