EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 280
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
On March 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote: an addicts disease is not the heroin. it resides within the addict, not the drug. That is a fair point. But to keep with you analogy shouldn't we treat the disease instead of only blaming the addict? I find it frustrating that almost everyone agrees that talking to GH is frustrating and that a bunch of his posts are whataboutism or clearly taken out of context or a whole bunch of other terrible things we would not accept from anyone else. But because of the pure volume and work it would entail we have basically decided that everyone should know better than to deal with him the way he deals with others. Perhaps a solution that would end my issue, and would also end the over 20 people who have said it is an issue would be if GH posted consistently better. Which he is clearly capable because some of his posts are fantastic. this can be said of everyone in this thread and is good advice generally. this is not special to GH whatsoever. In the last year GH has not treated anyone more poorly than they treat him. i’m willing to go out on a limb here and offer a(temporary, my balls aren’t that big) ban bet for proof. hopefully it doesn’t need to be said that it should be like, within the last two years. if anyone is harboring feelings older than that, time to join us in 2020. open to anyone. show me what you think proves this point. if i can beat it, you go. if i can’t, i go.  . make this tiresome, exhausted conversation a little more fun this go around!I do not understand why he is allowed to be the way he is( not from a moderation perspective but from a, lets grab the pitchforks perspective), but anyone else who does it is a problem. I think everyone should be treated equally, I am actually a socialist. GH thinks he should be treated specially because of reasons, but everyone else should have to follow the rules about backing up their statements, using peoples an articles quotes in good faith, and so on. I'm fine that it has been chosen to not be moderated, but then I don't anyone should be particularly upset when other emulate his style, and point it back to him perhaps with some more directness. i have not personally encountered a scenario where someone else tried to raise their pitchforks and it has specially been a problem where GH has previously done the same without rebuke. got any examples? preferably from the last year or two? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9132 Posts
On March 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote: That is a fair point. But to keep with you analogy shouldn't we treat the disease instead of only blaming the addict? I find it frustrating that almost everyone agrees that talking to GH is frustrating and that a bunch of his posts are whataboutism or clearly taken out of context or a whole bunch of other terrible things we would not accept from anyone else. But because of the pure volume and work it would entail we have basically decided that everyone should know better than to deal with him the way he deals with others. Perhaps a solution that would end my issue, and would also end the over 20 people who have said it is an issue would be if GH posted consistently better. Which he is clearly capable because some of his posts are fantastic. I do not understand why he is allowed to be the way he is( not from a moderation perspective but from a, lets grab the pitchforks perspective), but anyone else who does it is a problem. I think everyone should be treated equally, I am actually a socialist. GH thinks he should be treated specially because of reasons, but everyone else should have to follow the rules about backing up their statements, using peoples an articles quotes in good faith, and so on. I'm fine that it has been chosen to not be moderated, but then I don't anyone should be particularly upset when other emulate his style, and point it back to him perhaps with some more directness. You're "addicted" to something that's not a disease to most people. People who aren't addicted can stop drinking whenever they want. You can't. You say that almost everyone agrees that talking to GH is frustrating, but nobody finds it frustrating in the way you do. When others find something frustrating, they try to solve the problem (step 1) and when they see they can't, they avoid the problem (step 2). You seem unable to make the second step, like you're aware it's possible in theory, but your OCD forces you to keep trying to get rid of the problem "because it's so frustrating!". I do not understand why he is allowed to be the way he is but anyone else who does it is a problem. That's a bad argument because it doesn't justify your behiavior in any way. You also don't see that your posting is a completely different kind of a "disease" that should be treated differently. I'm not interested in your justifications, I'm telling you that I think your posting is bad and you should stop interacting with GH or be forced to stop interacting with GH if you prove yourself incapable of doing that on your own. I'm leaning toward the latter because I don't believe you can make yourself stop. Your first ban with "GH" in the "Reason" field happened on July 24 2018. We're in 2020 and you're still doing the same shit. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On March 07 2020 03:07 KwarK wrote: There’s a profound moral sickness in modern capitalist society which we’re really bad at talking about. We drink coffee picked by child slaves and don’t think about it. We eat dollar chickens and don’t question what it takes to make a chicken so cheap. We drive past homeless people in giant trucks. We bomb countries and starve populations whose only sin is being born over resources our economy demands. Our police routinely kill citizens in the service of monied interests. When GH argues that the status quo isn’t peace and that meeting the intrinsic violence of the status quo with revolutionary violence is fully ethical I can’t help but think he kind of has a point. That any plea for peaceful opposition must explain why only one side is required to be peaceful. I live a very comfortable life doing nothing but looking at spreadsheets and telling people what numbers mean. If I think about the number of manhours that I consume daily (as in the portion of the hours involved in the creation of the resources I consume that is allocable to me) it surely must be in the hundreds. I live in a system in which their time, and therefore their lives, are valued at a fraction of mine. And most of the time I’m okay with that. I’ve normalized it. People starve so I may overeat and that’s just the way it is. But I quite like that GH hangs around pointing out that this is all morally despicable. That the correct response to not being able to obtain an ethically sourced product is not to give up and pay the slavers, it’s to not consume that product. If Jesus is actually keeping score in accordance with his stated philosophy we’re all fucked. He’s maladjusted but I don’t know that he’s actually wrong. Like even if all he posted was “YOU ALL DESERVE THE GULAG FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS SYSTEM” over and over I’d still not be sure he didn’t have a point. But he posts better than that which, from his political perspective, is probably generous. He treats us with more respect than we’d give Nazis, for example. My issue is how far and how long do you entertain his rhetoric? If we all agree there is something wrong and ask for his opinion, and he gives it vaguely and we push it to get more specifics, and then he tells us to go read literature to understand his point, when do we get to say "shut the hell up"? How often do we let various discussions get railroaded back to his topic of discussion? Have you noticed the level of participation and the variety of topics have severely dropped? Does this not bother any mods? Everyone says he can't have the conversation by himself, and yet every single time, everyone follows his bait and the thread stalls. It never fails. So mods can either start taking action to allow the thread to be what it is was intended to be (a thread for the discussions of a variety political topics in contemporary society within the US), or allow GH his blog so the echo chamber isn't there. | ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
On March 07 2020 05:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: My issue is how far and how long do you entertain his rhetoric? If we all agree there is something wrong and ask for his opinion, and he gives it vaguely and we push it to get more specifics, and then he tells us to go read literature to understand his point, when do we get to say "shut the hell up"? How often do we let various discussions get railroaded back to his topic of discussion? Have you noticed the level of participation and the variety of topics have severely dropped? Does this not bother any mods? Everyone says he can't have the conversation by himself, and yet every single time, everyone follows his bait and the thread stalls. It never fails. So mods can either start taking action to allow the thread to be what it is was intended to be (a thread for the discussions of a variety political topics in contemporary society within the US), or allow GH his blog so the echo chamber isn't there. this reads to me like ‘everyone’ is having a conversation you don’t like. excuse me if i’m misunderstanding. i’ll elaborate assuming that is the case. the point of ‘he can’t have a conversation by himself’ is one where someone else is interested in talking through it with him. you call it ‘taking the bait.’ is it not the case, in your opinion, that these posters enjoy the conversation they’re having? and you just don’t care for the topic? that’s the idea of ‘one person alone cannot have a conversation’ if there is a back and forth, it is clearly something someone wants to discuss. you not wanting to participate or considering it of no value is in fact not a reflection of the value of the conversation. this is one of the few things i take real issue with in this thread. constantly crying ‘nobody cares about his positions’ is asinine. people care, thus the conversation. it takes more than one person to have a conversation. if a person finds themselves complaining still, it is that person that is having the problem. any one person need not feel entitled or interested in every topic of conversation. again, this has absolutely no reflection on the value of the conversation itself. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On March 07 2020 06:24 brian wrote: this reads to me like everyone is having a conversation you don’t like. excuse me if i’m misunderstanding. i’ll elaborate assuming that is the case. the point of ‘he can’t have a conversation by himself’ is one where someone else is interested in talking through it with him. you call it ‘taking the bait.’ is it not the case, in your opinion, that these posters enjoy the conversation they’re having? and you just don’t care for the topic? that’s the idea of ‘one person alone cannot have a conversation’ if there is a back and forth, it is clearly something someone wants to discuss. you not wanting to participate or considering it of no value is in fact not a reflection of the value of the conversation. this is one of the many things i take issue with in this thread. constantly crying ‘nobody cares about his positions’ is asinine. people care, thus the conversation. it takes more than one person to have a conversation. if you find yourself complaining still, it is you that is the problem. This is not correct at all. But I appreciate your take on the matter. No matter the topic we discuss, once GH involves himself, he usually brings it back to his version of socialism, democracy is dead, kill the capitalists, revolution. Rinse and repeat. It is the same tired argument over and over. When people do attempt to talk around him, he forces himself into the conversation with more of the above until someone bites. Then we find ourselves where we are now. People might care about his posting. Most everyone here has engaged with it at some point or other. But it's getting repetitive and it isn't yielding anything fruitful in it's attempt to rally. He just told ChristianS that he needs to self-reflect on his life because he is a perpetrator of all the evil things about capitalism. While he can articulate his points using words from others, when we ask for his views, he shifts. Most of us just wanted answers to basic questions and never got them. I post when I feel I have something to contribute to the thread and I've seen a lot of posters just not post because we know where the thread is headed most of the time. The thread itself has declined in quality and the posting hasn't gotten any better for it. | ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
the part at which someone bites is where i would continue to argue then that there is value in the conversation and quibble then on where there exists a problem, if one exists at all. sorry again for the phrasing. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6225 Posts
I suspect that the modern thread has more posts from less posters than at most other times in its history. Perhaps this is simply nostalgia but it would be interesting to find out. I do think that's a shame if true, and I do think GH would contribute significantly to that, for the reasons zero outlined. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Seeker: the issue with you saying stuff like “Don’t overthink it, GH is just a bad person and always will be” is that it sends a pretty strong message that you’ve got a vendetta against this poster and won’t be impartial in mod disputes involving them. So much so that I’m scared to offer feedback on GH’s posting without a big disclaimer saying “TO SEEKER: this post should not be misconstrued as calling for mod action against GH, I specifically disagree with such an action.” I’ve always liked you as a mod, especially outside the politics thread, but on issues relating to GH it feels like you’re on a hair trigger. Again, I don’t think this has been so much of an issue in a while and I hope that continues. But if you’re wondering why that quote from you keeps coming up, and posters keep reacting negatively to it, you have my two cents. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 07 2020 09:54 JimmiC wrote: To swap rolls and defend seeker for a change. I think if everyone can agree he is reasonable in regards to everyone else and in other situations, then is not more likely that he has good reason for his feelings towards GH. The linking that one post over and over is clearly baiting seeker. That is his move he baits and baits and baits until people snap then he is here playing victim. I for one definitely do not agree with this. I won't rehash the past much more than just to make this remark, but folks who have been around long enough will attest to the fact that I've had many disagreements with the way that Seeker has done moderation in US Pol (though I will say that outside of politics, he tends to be much more level-headed). GH is just one example and the quote in question is cited because of how explicitly egregious that particular comment was. JimmiC: it should be said that there is one really obvious resolution to this entire issue. Just stop fucking baiting GH. There seems to be a pretty wide consensus here that your inability to do so, rather than any of the other many points you bring up in trying to deflect from that, is the real problem. Stop it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
On March 07 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote: i'm going to ignore the assholing part because even if true(which it isn't, at least from my pov), it's not relevant here.How exactly do you show "balls" online? I try to respond to every question of me, I try to admit when I'm a dick. I think I have been fairly honest. I post very nicely to those who are nice to me. What I do find hypocritical is the people like you who are openly assholes to me, because you think I'm being an asshole to GH and can't seem to figure out, that you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of doing. When someone like Drone says something it resonates, when people like you do, it is funny. I have been completely respectful to you, and you have been a complete asshole to me. I have been an asshole to GH and he has been as asshole to me. Does not seem like a big difference to me, or maybe that you are the one without "balls" but lack of self awareness would describe it much better. an admission is worth nothing if it's not followed by a change. GH admits to nothing(almost) but you can tell he does change, while you admit to everything(almost) but never seem to change. to me, that says GH can be reasoned with and even if he will never admit when he's wrong, you can see the effects of his past arguments with posters, change his behavior(ideas even) over time. you're just stuck; you diversify your conversational portfolio when addressing other posters, but on a very basic level you don't seem able to change. GH is annoying/obnoxious but you're martyrlike dangerous. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17915 Posts
My main issues with GH stem from two things: 1. "whitewashing" of other regimes. I don't even know if whitewashing is the right word, as I think he acknowledged that the USSR was absolutely awful and that Maduro is doing terrible things in Venezuela, he just disagrees that "the west" is not equally awful, but in different ways. It's whitewashing in the sense that he doesn't acknowledge that those regimes were/are *worse* than ours, or at best doesn't care for the comparison. But it's not because he doesn't think they aren't awful, it's because he thinks we are too. To him, dropping a bomb on a school in Farfaraway is just as bad or worse than murdering that number of your own citizens because you think they disagree with you. Propping up a "friendly" puppet regime who lets their citizens die of hunger is just as bad as letting your own citizens die of hunger. The problem I have is that the almost myopic focus on what is wrong with the west (and capitalism) leads him to ignore or even ridicule others' concerns with what is wrong elsewhere in the world. 2. Hyperbole. This is mostly turned down lately, but if the go-to response to anything police related is a short message to "abolish" the police, it's going to spark a heated argument with people who don't understand what you actually want and disagree with what they think you said. And the a posteriori explanations eventually do get the point across, but not before a few dozen very angry pages. Similarly, making a point by inventing racist PMs got him banned fairly recently, and rightly so. There are better ways of communicating, and GH isn't always good at picking good rhetorical tools. But he is learning and improving. | ||
| ||
