|
On March 07 2020 08:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 04:02 brian wrote:On March 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2020 02:36 Sent. wrote: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. You need to show that you're stronger than your compulsive disorder. Lots of people find GH's ideas absurd, but unlike you, they can stop themselves from responding to GH's posts when it's clear the discussion would be pointless. You're acting like an addicted person, and being nice to you doesn't work because it's like telling an alcoholic that drinking is bad for them. You always respond with the equivalent of "yeah drinking is bad and I should stop doing that" while opening another beer. That is a fair point. But to keep with you analogy shouldn't we treat the disease instead of only blaming the addict? an addicts disease is not the heroin. it resides within the addict, not the drug.
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.
you say everyone, i say vocal and recently very obnoxious minority. i don’t put you especially in this bucket, for what little it’s worth. 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? To you first point, yes, I failed the analogy. To the second everybody was hyperbole I should have said many. To the fun part the bet. There is lots of examples and I actually don't want you banned if you agree I met the criteria, I'd prefer getting a hold of your signature for a time instead! I think ChristianS has been nothing but respectful and taken time to write some pretty good posts. And when GH is engaging it is great, when GH is put in a corner he goes to his go to move of being super condescending and betlitting as if the other person is not on his level. Here is the example., would be interested in your take. And for the record I remembered this one because it was recent, and I felt it was very unjust but it is far from unusual and very recent. Show nested quote +On February 07 2020 00:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse. Good morning! I don’t know if you’ve ever tried arguing it out with somebody who believes in, like, chemtrails before. The discussion inevitably hits a note a lot like this one. You tell them “that’s a lot of interesting theorizing you’ve done, but foundationally, the evidence to support it is weak,” and they say “the evidence isn’t weak! It’s overwhelming! Look in the sky right now! You’re just blinded to it by [brainwashing/fluoride/some other boogeyman].” In other words, if you don’t agree with them, it must be because there’s something wrong with you, like a learning disability. I generally like your posting a lot, GH. I agree with you on quite a bit, and where I don’t, or haven’t decided, I still greatly value your perspective. It’s one of the bigger reasons I came back to the thread. But you have this unfortunate tendency to look at people who disagree with you, and not see people who disagree with you, but pilgrims who have not yet completed their journey to agreeing with you. So you say “I think [argument]” and they say “well I think [counterargument]” and you respond “oh, you haven’t figured this one out yet? That’s okay, you’ll get there. I believe in you.” You don’t do it all the time, and you’re generally pretty cordial about it; lest I be misinterpreted by Seeker or someone, I don’t think there’s anything moderation-worthy about it. But it’s condescending, and unpleasant. Even if you actually are right, and they’re wrong, it still does nothing to advance the conversation or convince them. I should probably try to take a break from the thread today. I don’t think I’ve gotten much out of the discussion, it’s certainly been pretty unpleasant, and judging from your and others’ reactions, people aren’t especially interested in hearing my perspective. But thanks for trying to explain what you think is wrong with me; I just wish you’d take opposing arguments on their face a little more instead of seeing them as mile markers on people’s pilgrimages. GH attacking me, especially directly never bugged me. What does is when he is a dick for no reason, like when he called most of the thread boot lickers or the above or the countless other times.
i don’t find that post to be a problem myself, and i’d go as far as saying i’d disagree with points of christians response as well. i’ll admit none the less that i don’t anticipate, and won’t bother even looking for, anything worse from christians, i didn’t see that one coming, i had been thinking of only the people in this thread, but that’s on me. it feels a little like it doesn’t quite hit the mark for me but i certainly won’t beat it, so i’ll take the ban . temporary, again, please.
i’ll be damned if i let you into my signature! out of curiosity did you already have something in mind? though i’m still taking the ban instead. hit me with it.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 07 2020 18:13 Acrofales wrote:
I've told GH when he's being a dick in the thread in PM every now and then and mostly he gets it. It doesn't excuse his being a dick, but over time he has clearly learned to not be a dick as much (or hardly at all). It's hard for both sides: he has a political view that is not just directly in conflict with what most of us believe at a very fundamental level, but he is very good at putting his finger on the sore spot in every topic. Combine that with that he also doesn't have much of a solution beyond: "we're at rock bottom, and have been for a few decades. How about we try something (anything) completely different". This gets everybody riled up. Kwark voiced rather well why this is not a bad thing.
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.
Think that's all pretty fair and demonstrates you've engaged with the substance of my posts, even if we have slightly different views/perspectives/conclusions.
I don't want to nitpick on any of the rest but the racist PM thing was a joke, I took an entire month ban for it, and I sincerely apologized
I don't mind being reminded of it, but I think that it was not a sincere allegation I invented, but clearly a joke that didn't land matters.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2020 20:57 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 08:02 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2020 04:02 brian wrote:On March 07 2020 03:28 JimmiC wrote:On March 07 2020 02:36 Sent. wrote: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. You need to show that you're stronger than your compulsive disorder. Lots of people find GH's ideas absurd, but unlike you, they can stop themselves from responding to GH's posts when it's clear the discussion would be pointless. You're acting like an addicted person, and being nice to you doesn't work because it's like telling an alcoholic that drinking is bad for them. You always respond with the equivalent of "yeah drinking is bad and I should stop doing that" while opening another beer. That is a fair point. But to keep with you analogy shouldn't we treat the disease instead of only blaming the addict? an addicts disease is not the heroin. it resides within the addict, not the drug.
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.
you say everyone, i say vocal and recently very obnoxious minority. i don’t put you especially in this bucket, for what little it’s worth. 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? To you first point, yes, I failed the analogy. To the second everybody was hyperbole I should have said many. To the fun part the bet. There is lots of examples and I actually don't want you banned if you agree I met the criteria, I'd prefer getting a hold of your signature for a time instead! I think ChristianS has been nothing but respectful and taken time to write some pretty good posts. And when GH is engaging it is great, when GH is put in a corner he goes to his go to move of being super condescending and betlitting as if the other person is not on his level. Here is the example., would be interested in your take. And for the record I remembered this one because it was recent, and I felt it was very unjust but it is far from unusual and very recent. On February 07 2020 00:50 ChristianS wrote:On February 06 2020 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2020 15:55 ChristianS wrote:
Not being intentionally obtuse, but feel kinda like I’m being gaslighted? I would say that is what it feels like when we confront our most deeply held hegemonic beliefs/worldviews. Lean into it imo. Edit: Ah, I misread. I thought TentativePanda said You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you Thought he was referring to some previous interaction I had forgotten. In that case... uh... no, I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my position What Panda, Gahlo, Gors, and myself now are getting at is that this is something about your political firmware, not about the instance. The tragedy is, it intrinsically prevents you from recognizing the argument they are making. You're prepared (EDIT: looks like you did it before I got this edit in) to argue against it in a manner perfectly demonstrating their point and you literally can't see it and won't no matter how long or many ways they try. It is because you are making base assumptions about how the world functions that they don't agree with and you accept as immutable. No one can make you, but that only changes when you start to challenge the hegemonic assumptions at the root of your worldview for better or worse. Good morning! I don’t know if you’ve ever tried arguing it out with somebody who believes in, like, chemtrails before. The discussion inevitably hits a note a lot like this one. You tell them “that’s a lot of interesting theorizing you’ve done, but foundationally, the evidence to support it is weak,” and they say “the evidence isn’t weak! It’s overwhelming! Look in the sky right now! You’re just blinded to it by [brainwashing/fluoride/some other boogeyman].” In other words, if you don’t agree with them, it must be because there’s something wrong with you, like a learning disability. I generally like your posting a lot, GH. I agree with you on quite a bit, and where I don’t, or haven’t decided, I still greatly value your perspective. It’s one of the bigger reasons I came back to the thread. But you have this unfortunate tendency to look at people who disagree with you, and not see people who disagree with you, but pilgrims who have not yet completed their journey to agreeing with you. So you say “I think [argument]” and they say “well I think [counterargument]” and you respond “oh, you haven’t figured this one out yet? That’s okay, you’ll get there. I believe in you.” You don’t do it all the time, and you’re generally pretty cordial about it; lest I be misinterpreted by Seeker or someone, I don’t think there’s anything moderation-worthy about it. But it’s condescending, and unpleasant. Even if you actually are right, and they’re wrong, it still does nothing to advance the conversation or convince them. I should probably try to take a break from the thread today. I don’t think I’ve gotten much out of the discussion, it’s certainly been pretty unpleasant, and judging from your and others’ reactions, people aren’t especially interested in hearing my perspective. But thanks for trying to explain what you think is wrong with me; I just wish you’d take opposing arguments on their face a little more instead of seeing them as mile markers on people’s pilgrimages. GH attacking me, especially directly never bugged me. What does is when he is a dick for no reason, like when he called most of the thread boot lickers or the above or the countless other times. i don’t find that post to be a problem myself, and i’d go as far as saying i’d disagree with points of christians response as well. i’ll admit none the less that i don’t anticipate, and won’t bother even looking for, anything worse from christians. it feels a little like it doesn’t quite hit the mark for me but i certainly won’t beat it, so i’ll take the ban . temporary, again, please. That particular post was explaining why people were being critical of what was being interpreted as his prioritization of process over common sense expressed by another poster as You’re that “legal trivialities > common sense” guy, aren’t you . I would just say nothing in that should be more offensive or reflective of a lack of consideration than saying and apologize if ChristianS was insulted, I wouldn't bother discussing things with people at this point if I didn't think they offered valuable insight that could better inform my perspective On January 18 2020 04:20 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2020 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Figure I'd put this response where it belongs. On January 18 2020 02:15 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 17 2020 23:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2020 22:39 Nebuchad wrote:On January 17 2020 22:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2020 05:48 Nebuchad wrote:On January 17 2020 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2020 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a single sentence quoted there, mini-GH, why do you even need to ask what is the propaganda? Maybe this is a stupid question, but, why "mini"? I am small and cute It is because you are small and cute indeed. Overtime, you ended up copying GH mannerisms and so is indistinguishable. You look up to big bro GH so much you've ended up repeating whatever he says ad nauseum word for word. You interject whenever someone argues with GH. GH is a big boy. He doesn't need you to answer for him and attack the other person whenever someone wants to talk with GH. Case in point the above conversation. How does that square with your earlier theory that GH has no ideas and that when he's questioned he waits for me to give an answer so that he can say it's his answer? Part and parcel. Not mutually exclusive. Nobody answers for me. I don't see why you would doggedly answer for GH. Let GH answer for himself. And you don't need to talk like him either. This capitalism is the root of all evil schtick is getting old. Develop your own way of speech. People interject to head off the tiresome GH vs the same couple of posters shade-throwing sessions that derail this thread with regularity. Well, can’t speak for anyone other than myself, as well as GH (because the left posters are his fan club obviously). Do people want to discuss politics or not? For fuck’s sake. I think I've been doing better at ignoring the nonsense and not getting sucked into endless back and forths with JimmiC in particular but constantly seeing "GH thinks.. GH says... GH ____" get's a little old after a while. Especially when it's not even what I actually think, like "capitalist class are evil bogeyman" or whatever. I know Seeker thinks this is because I'm a bad person and JimmiC is good, but I'd hope there's others among us that see it differently. Yay! Childish victim mentality strikes again! Never change, GH. in response to my (imo) reasonable concerns about Seeker's posts and PMs or more generally sentiments like this: On January 03 2020 09:30 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:49 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE! A good amount to take on Trump's $46 million Q4. Overall still way lower than Trump's 2019 haul. I think Bernie could beat him though. On January 03 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind. Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no? I trust you all to use good judgement. I haven't banned anyone yet for it, if that helps. "That journalist in the field deserved to get his head kicked in! He had it coming. More of that, please! Here is my rambling rationale" isn't going to work, even if delivered with lighter flair. Just to be clear: 1. "I think it's justified to bomb X (country) even if that means some innocent children will die" 2. "I think it's justified if Andy Ngo got beat up" Those both okay, both bannable by you or is one okay and one would get someone banned? 1. Fine because it's not advocating for violence against the children. I assume the poster wishes there would be no child casualties. If they express wanting the children to die, then I ban. I assume they are talking about attacking a state, armed militants, etc. 2. Advocates direct violence against an individual You're overthinking it, but post more in the website feedback section if you'd like. If someone says they want to assassinate bernie, assassinate trump, whatever, I'll ban them. If they say they want to shoot, or someone should shoot, antifa or nazis generally speaking I'll ban them. As a pre-emptive, I don't care about the thesis on morality some of you are ready to post. link which Drone summed up my issue (besides the questionable moderation practice) with: On January 03 2020 22:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 21:46 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not the issue. The drone strike thing is literally a strawman as I don't know anyone who was saying how great drone strikes were. Xxio is literally talking about multiple types of violence (as you can see the commas if nothing else) and even if it is about a particular type of people that still is consistent about it being people. It's not a strawman, GH asked Xxio how he felt about the following statements: 1. "I think it's justified to bomb X (country) even if that means some innocent children will die" 2. "I think it's justified if Andy Ngo got beat up" Xxio said that he felt #1 was acceptable and that #2 was not (and gave some context for why). My personal opinion is that support of #1 is several magnitudes worse than support of #2 (I'm not a fan of either). Stuff like this is why 'catchphrase moderation' (political equivalent of 'no balance whining') doesn't work for this thread, the issues we debate are more complex and nuanced and thus require a contextual (and thus arbitrary) way of dealing with it. Saying 'support of violence gets you banned' either bans virtually every poster from the thread, or requires adherence to a personal definition of violence that excludes a lot of violence (state sanctioned, for one) from the equation.
which speaks to where a lot of the conflict arises imo. People are readily able to identify when they believe I'm "whitewashing" or whatever other nation's history/actions but the point I'm always trying to highlight is how easily people ignore how they constantly do that for capitalism and their preferred parties as demonstrated imo succinctly in "yeah advocating for policy that results in innocent children being slaughtered as collateral damage is acceptable but not saying Ngo should get punched in the face for promoting fascist interests, that is bannable."
Basically I would say that people say egregiously offensive things pretty regularly, but if they fit acceptable hegemonic framing, people struggle to notice it in many cases.
EDIT: Essentially, we've come a long way from when "Dog's Name is Nigger, Deal With It" was an acceptable thread title for General, and I just try to keep pushing us in that direction and there's not really a way to do that which doesn't make people uncomfortable.
That said I'll do more to be more considerate about how people are interpreting my posts and hope others grant me the same.
|
On March 03 2020 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:
Why in the world do we currently have 2 politics topics? The democrat primary thread is entirely redundant. We have all the same conversations. Just look at the last 20 pages. Completely useless. Seems to provide a safer space for multiple people to not be harrassed by GH and his acolytes to discuss current US politics even if they have to pretend to be democrats to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to say for everyone.
I'm sorry.
We have a difference of opinion on what/who violates a decorum we disagree on. It's not just us and politics, it is everyone everywhere about everything, from microwaving fish in the office to expecting someone to bring reusable bags shopping, to checkpoints in Gaza, Gitmo to Gulags, Nazi's to neighborhood covenants, Bombs to books, and the list is endless.
That said I recognize I'm a guest, and while I obviously believe in a more collective style of 'ownership', I also recognize the material conditions under which we operate. Which is to say it is TL's house, and I'm a guest. I think most people appreciate where I'm coming from now which is really what I wanted more than anything.
While I'd like to keep pushing us as a community towards improvements I mentioned, I don't want to be unreasonably unbearable. I'm aiming to be a more cordial "dangerous negro" (me Kwark are cool no worries) that keeps my compromises toward negative peace (ty for that acknowledgement Drone and others) to a fair amount by the standards of those with determinative power without entirely compromising my position.
That will necessarily be a contentious balance, but I think we all appreciate not seeing posts like:
but we also can't pretend they weren't once acceptable or that it is not, in part, those contentious disagreements from which we grow and progress. (Edit: For context it was posts like these that prompted me to go from lurker to poster, to US politics thread pita)
With that all said.
TLDR: I just want to again say sorry to everyone for any wrongs I've committed against them, and ask the forgiveness of those who have not granted it already.
Finally, I want a solidarity tempban for 2 days with brian as a show of good faith to my commitment to do better and in recognition of past wrongs.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 07 2020 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:[and I sincerely apologized I don't mind being reminded of it, but I think that it was not a sincere allegation I invented, but clearly a joke that didn't land matters.
Sure if by sincerely apologized, you meant you:
posted it 2 months later
not even to the person you accused falsely
in another thread.
The "apology" isn't actually an apology but and some passive aggressive about "breaking decorum" and how it was misconstrued. That's not an apology, nevermind a sincere apology. Utterly unrepentant.
Edit: oh look there it is again "decorum". I posted this post whilst GH was typing the above. Because apparently being totally megalomanical when having supporters isn't enough, you have to shut down any and all people who even dare have the temerity to oppose your mass of posting in the thread.
|
Such drama.
On March 06 2020 23:05 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2020 22:16 Seeker wrote:On March 06 2020 21:54 Fildun wrote:
Seeker: Whenever I hear that MLK quote of the white moderate being the biggest challenge for the Civil Rights Movement, I think of you. I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? Aight I was kinda just being mean for the sake of it but there is a reason why I wrote that. I'm very curious whether you have a goal for the US pol thead and if so, what it is. To me it looks like you (and by extension the other moderators who decide over the thread) want to ideally keep the arguments very civil, to a (to me) extreme degree. The best way to do this in general is to just simply try to keep the argument in the centre of the political spectrum. Now I personally think that most interesting discussions happen when an "extremist" person is involved, say GH or danglars. However, to me it looks like that kind of discussion isn't particularly liked by the moderators, and there are of course obvious reasons for that. [...] Edit: @Nebuchad To me it always felt like xDaunt would think way more about the effect of his words and the "line" in US pol than danglars, and would intentionally obfuscate and/or alter his words as to have plausible deniability whenever someone would post an answer to his posts. But then again, this is definitely not a hard science and it's just what I read into their posts.
I don't agree with the extremist label, as you may expect. GH can answer for himself.
I thought the thread was more fun to read, and definitely more something I'd like to post in when there was more diversity of opinion. xDaunt and LegalLord chief among them. And come on people, if you tire of lines of argument that you know GH will take, then do yourself a favor and ignore his posts. You aren't obligated to give a response every time you find something outrageous.
I did get kinda confused about which posters said "xDaunt is alright, but Danglars is the guy intentionally obfuscating and posting in bad faith" vs "Danglars is all right, but xDaunt is this neo-fascist-something that posts in bad faith" since that went on for so so long. Five posts in a row when somebody blamed me for something xDaunt wrote. I think I remember Drone and Jockmcplop and maybe one other doing the posts compared the two frequent right-wing posters of that time.
I've always posted what I believe about politics and the direction that I think would be best for the country. The width of the Overton window and some assumptions about why someone would believe as I do contribute to these misunderstandings of rational argument. Especially on topics I consider close to my heart, such as free speech in culture and law and religious free exercise in society. I challenge anyone to PM me something, anything I've written, that was "intentionally obfuscat[ing]" or "alter his words as to have plausible deniability." I know IgnE has been on me in the past and is right to say that I'm not that good of a writer. And like I said before, I will tell people exactly why I support things, and people are perfectly free to assume there's some unstated, nefarious "real" reason if they wish, but don't expect me to credit that in the column of deliberate obfuscation. I almost always take people to mean what they say, because that's healthy in a debate. Sidenote, IgnE & Drone & Falling are usually even-handed in their complaints.
On a more conciliatory note, I do see value in having a US Politics thread that is basically dominated by left-of-center (American context) posters that don't have much good to say Trump and the GOP. Obviously, there's an absolute ton of nuance in positions regarding health insurance and taxation and foreign policy that's aided by 95% of posters agreeing that the reforms need to go in the same general direction. It's valuable from that standpoint, and maybe more valuable when the average forum reader is in agreement with that. The other thing of value is to have active posters that voted for Trump, like around 46% of the electorate, to understand their view on why he is the best candidate for America. Maybe that ought to be a separate thread to not break down the left-of-center discussion, I don't really know (and that really goes back to when GH's separate blog thread).
I haven't read the last ~110 pages of the thread, so apologies if I'm out of date and neglecting frequent posters that will likely vote Trump//are on the right wing of the GOP. One last restatement: If you don't like GH's brand of revolutionary socialism (if that's the right word for it), or the way he argues, just ignore him. And if you have a question regarding the 2020 Dem candidates, you can find me in that thread.
|
|
|
On March 08 2020 06:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2020 05:31 Danglars wrote:Such drama. On March 06 2020 23:05 Fildun wrote:On March 06 2020 22:16 Seeker wrote:On March 06 2020 21:54 Fildun wrote:
Seeker: Whenever I hear that MLK quote of the white moderate being the biggest challenge for the Civil Rights Movement, I think of you. I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? Aight I was kinda just being mean for the sake of it but there is a reason why I wrote that. I'm very curious whether you have a goal for the US pol thead and if so, what it is. To me it looks like you (and by extension the other moderators who decide over the thread) want to ideally keep the arguments very civil, to a (to me) extreme degree. The best way to do this in general is to just simply try to keep the argument in the centre of the political spectrum. Now I personally think that most interesting discussions happen when an "extremist" person is involved, say GH or danglars. However, to me it looks like that kind of discussion isn't particularly liked by the moderators, and there are of course obvious reasons for that. [...] Edit: @Nebuchad To me it always felt like xDaunt would think way more about the effect of his words and the "line" in US pol than danglars, and would intentionally obfuscate and/or alter his words as to have plausible deniability whenever someone would post an answer to his posts. But then again, this is definitely not a hard science and it's just what I read into their posts. I don't agree with the extremist label, as you may expect. GH can answer for himself. I thought the thread was more fun to read, and definitely more something I'd like to post in when there was more diversity of opinion. xDaunt and LegalLord chief among them. And come on people, if you tire of lines of argument that you know GH will take, then do yourself a favor and ignore his posts. You aren't obligated to give a response every time you find something outrageous. I did get kinda confused about which posters said "xDaunt is alright, but Danglars is the guy intentionally obfuscating and posting in bad faith" vs "Danglars is all right, but xDaunt is this neo-fascist-something that posts in bad faith" since that went on for so so long. Five posts in a row when somebody blamed me for something xDaunt wrote. I think I remember Drone and Jockmcplop and maybe one other doing the posts compared the two frequent right-wing posters of that time. I've always posted what I believe about politics and the direction that I think would be best for the country. The width of the Overton window and some assumptions about why someone would believe as I do contribute to these misunderstandings of rational argument. Especially on topics I consider close to my heart, such as free speech in culture and law and religious free exercise in society. I challenge anyone to PM me something, anything I've written, that was "intentionally obfuscat[ing]" or "alter his words as to have plausible deniability." I know IgnE has been on me in the past and is right to say that I'm not that good of a writer. And like I said before, I will tell people exactly why I support things, and people are perfectly free to assume there's some unstated, nefarious "real" reason if they wish, but don't expect me to credit that in the column of deliberate obfuscation. I almost always take people to mean what they say, because that's healthy in a debate. Sidenote, IgnE & Drone & Falling are usually even-handed in their complaints. On a more conciliatory note, I do see value in having a US Politics thread that is basically dominated by left-of-center (American context) posters that don't have much good to say Trump and the GOP. Obviously, there's an absolute ton of nuance in positions regarding health insurance and taxation and foreign policy that's aided by 95% of posters agreeing that the reforms need to go in the same general direction. It's valuable from that standpoint, and maybe more valuable when the average forum reader is in agreement with that. The other thing of value is to have active posters that voted for Trump, like around 46% of the electorate, to understand their view on why he is the best candidate for America. Maybe that ought to be a separate thread to not break down the left-of-center discussion, I don't really know (and that really goes back to when GH's separate blog thread). I haven't read the last ~110 pages of the thread, so apologies if I'm out of date and neglecting frequent posters that will likely vote Trump//are on the right wing of the GOP. One last restatement: If you don't like GH's brand of revolutionary socialism (if that's the right word for it), or the way he argues, just ignore him. And if you have a question regarding the 2020 Dem candidates, you can find me in that thread. The made up story below always strikes me as a great example of you being you. Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:
Stories abound. My pro life friend was an unviable fetus for several months up to birth. She was diagnosed with huge abnormalities that guaranteed a death soon after birth. Her mom still wanted to have her after being encouraged to have an abortion by her doctors, friends, and family. Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil.
The surgeons were ready the second she was born to operate. She was rushed into the operating room, mom didn’t even get to hold her. Everything was fine inside. No problems. She’s in her early thirties now. She has had to exercise a lot of forgiveness to the people that wanted to kill her.
I’m very much at odds with people that deny the humanity of the fetus to make it sound like abortion is as morally unquestionable as removing a tumor. Ok. I know the current political climate means compromise on when to legally permit the killing of your unborn child (and who decides). None of that justifies the baby-killers protestors of clinics.
There’s also the morally grey protestors that remind expectant mothers that their baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and know the sound of their mothers voice. I know people who are alive today because their mom changed their mind a few steps from the door of the abortion clinic. Talk to them and you might find a moral dilemma condemning all protestors. Some of my favorite responses to it.
Like what? There's a awful lot of painting of evil going on here, but what exactly is said that is pure evil?
On March 17 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:
What confuses me is the part where the girl who everyone agreed would definitely not live is alive. We skipped over a resurrection somewhere in the story.
On March 16 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Just answer the question Danglars. What "Some of the stuff they said to her mom was pure evil." Go on. You are happy to give an anecdote, but not to elaborate on the part that doesn't make any sense in context.
On March 19 2019 07:59 Plansix wrote:
I want to know the name of the hospital and doctors involved, because they must be terrible at their job to declare a healthy baby to be a non-viable fetus. The world needs to know.
On March 19 2019 08:59 Plansix wrote:
Because the miracle baby isn’t real?
Your quotes are messed up, so apologies on the results of the quote reply.
I responded to your story of being offended in an abortion debate because your wife had a baby that died in her body. I added a story involving people I know. The discussion on miscarriage (and it's applicability to the abortion debate) and abortion relating to alleged birth defects/fetal nonviability was quickly derailed.
You literally said my post on your lost baby was deliberately designed to "clear malice and attempt to hurt me on something I have expressed was extremely painful and the worst moment of my life."
You then argued that "this type of posting and person is who the moderators should be looking to remove rather than the people who don't follow the technical guidelines in sourcing."
And to conclude, you thought your lost child wasn't even comparable to someone that was nearly aborted from misdiagnosis.
I don't know why you're bringing this up again, but here goes. I won't argue with the father of a baby that died in his partner's womb after that person directly accuses me of personal malice and attempt to hurt you. I will do what I did every time, which is apologize for bringing up another story and ask others to disengage. Any rube can see the emotional context makes further continuance improper.+ Show Spoiler +How would this even has continued? We both accuse each other of making it up and demand to see proof? On such an emotional subject, and after I had just seen your reaction? That's 1000% drop the subject territory.
For any interested in the truth of the matter, since it occurred in this exact thread: link
On March 15 2019 22:58 xDaunt wrote:
Is it actually a thing for the pro-life movement to consider the removal of dead babies morally wrong? Or even an abortion? On March 16 2019 04:55 IgnE wrote:
it seems to me that referring to “a highly trained medical professional” only obscures the real question at issue. what is relevant is not the medical/mechanical dimension but the emotional and ethical dimensions. you might as well say also that such issues should be discussed “between the person in the very complicated position and their highly trained spiritual professional (priest/minister/rabbi/imam/yogi).” perhaps this is illustrative of how doctors and scientific professionals in general have taken on a priestly role in our society On March 16 2019 05:08 IgnE wrote:
honestly dude your reaction here seems misplaced. i think it’s fair to say that when dangles and dauntless write “abortion” they are referring to killing something, not some broader definition under a backwards law that prohibits the kind of medical procedure your wife very sadly underwent
+ Show Spoiler [JimmiC] +On March 16 2019 04:41 JimmiC wrote:
Yes they are very complicated issues that I think should be discussed between the person in the very complicated situation and their highly trained medical professional.
As to your last statement both have value to show the complexity and the emotions involved. But neither are the be all end all they add context.
However, the way you choose to write the last sentence considering how careful you are with your word choice shows a clear malice and attempt to hurt me on something I have expressed was extremely painful and the worst moment of my life. This confirms what I thought about you, and I think will show many others what type of person you are. I think you have shown in a way I could never have expressed how little your opinion or better yet version of morality is.
My feedback thread appropriate comment is that this type of posting and person is who the moderators should be looking to remove rather than the people who don't follow the technical guidelines in sourcing. .
You should be a little ashamed at stooping so low, but sadly for you I have such little respect for you and thick enough skin that your attempt to hurt me failed miserably and is just another example of why you are who you are. On March 16 2019 05:00 JimmiC wrote:
Please don't try to equivocate the potential of what might have happened to a friend of yours and what actually happened to my child. They are not the same or equal. But you know this, even for you this a disgusting level of concern trolling. Please just stop.
I asked about quotes regarding Fildun's "would intentionally obfuscate and/or alter his words as to have plausible deniability," since I've seen the allegation made before, but have no idea of what posts make the substance of it and need quotes. I did not think it would bring back probably the most insanely emotionally charged post exchange I think I've ever had on this website, or maybe any website ever, dead-infant almost-aborted-adult, liar-accusation abortion shambles.
So, examples are welcome that don't also involve accusing me of personally attacking someone on the subject of their lived tragedy. My jaw is back on the floor and my heart beating rapidly to hear that brought up again in this context. Holy cow. No more responses on that subject, it's highly inappropriate in US politics/feedback, and I won't turn this into some GH-JimmiC smearfest exchange.
|
|
|
I am a little surprised how many people have defended GreenHorizons. It is not the arguments that GH makes that upset people but how he makes his points. Here's a recent example:
GH brought up a story of a man about to be executed
On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. Show nested quote +Hours after a federal judge denied a stay request in the upcoming execution of Alabama prisoner Nathaniel Woods, the son of Martin Luther King Jr. released an open letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking her to intervene in the case.
Woods is slated to be killed via lethal injection on Thursday for his capital murder convictions in the shooting deaths of three Birmingham police officers in June 2004.
By all accounts, Woods was not the shooter and did not have a gun at the time of the shooting. Woods was instead convicted of capital murder, despite personally killing no one www.montgomeryadvertiser.com
GH does not say why he has brought this up and gives no further detail. The one sentence he wrote implies the man is completely innocent and this is injustice.
Acrofales asks for more information which GH does not provide and farv makes a general comment about the court system. GH brings up racism which elicits one response and then the thread moves on to other things.
A page later GH brings the topic back quoting himself to say
On March 06 2020 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. Hours after a federal judge denied a stay request in the upcoming execution of Alabama prisoner Nathaniel Woods, the son of Martin Luther King Jr. released an open letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking her to intervene in the case.
Woods is slated to be killed via lethal injection on Thursday for his capital murder convictions in the shooting deaths of three Birmingham police officers in June 2004.
By all accounts, Woods was not the shooter and did not have a gun at the time of the shooting. Woods was instead convicted of capital murder, despite personally killing no one www.montgomeryadvertiser.com They killed (murdered?) him after a last minute stay was denied by the US Supreme Court. Show nested quote +Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said.
Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die. www.cnn.comHe didn't have to die. Our society feels bottomless in its depravity sometimes. This imo is what happens when people prioritize process over justice. Innocent people are killed and no one is held accountable.
He is implicitly saying the man is innocent. Now maybenexttime answers to give the context behind the story which makes the man seem a lot less innocent than GH portrayed. GH rejects that story preferring to believe the killer without explaining why, and then moves from the previous stance of 'racially motivated killing of innocent man' to 'the death penalty is not justice'.
Belisarius calls out GH for his misleading initial post. This leads to Mohdoo supporting GH's switch to discussion of the death penalty. Gorsameth points out that is not how GH started the discussion and then GH posts this
On March 07 2020 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2020 00:11 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2020 23:52 Mohdoo wrote:On March 06 2020 17:52 maybenexttime wrote:On March 06 2020 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Alabama is scheduled to kill a man tonight for killing cops literally no one disputes were killed by someone else who has confessed and been convicted. Hours after a federal judge denied a stay request in the upcoming execution of Alabama prisoner Nathaniel Woods, the son of Martin Luther King Jr. released an open letter to Gov. Kay Ivey asking her to intervene in the case.
Woods is slated to be killed via lethal injection on Thursday for his capital murder convictions in the shooting deaths of three Birmingham police officers in June 2004.
By all accounts, Woods was not the shooter and did not have a gun at the time of the shooting. Woods was instead convicted of capital murder, despite personally killing no one www.montgomeryadvertiser.com They killed (murdered?) him after a last minute stay was denied by the US Supreme Court. Alabama has executed inmate Nathaniel Woods for the 2004 murders of three Birmingham police officers, the state corrections department said.
Woods, 42, did not give a final statement. He was pronounced dead at 9:01 p.m. local time, the department said in a statement Thursday.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey refused to stop the controversial execution, and the US Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay, after first ordering a temporary halt only minutes before Woods had been scheduled to die. www.cnn.comHe didn't have to die. Our society feels bottomless in its depravity sometimes. This imo is what happens when people prioritize process over justice. Innocent people are killed and no one is held accountable. You have a history of leaving out important details to suit your narrative. From your CNN article: Woods had threatened Owen, who had arrested him as a teenager, that morning, he said. Upon learning Woods had a misdemeanor assault warrant, the four officers returned to the apartment and told Woods to come outside, Marshall wrote.
"If you come in here, we'll f**k you up," Marshall quoted Woods as saying.
Chisholm went to the back and showed the warrant to Woods, who ran into the apartment, and the officers gave chase. Woods surrendered and asked the officers not to Mace him, the letter said.
Collins went outside and heard gunfire. Spencer shot Chisholm as he tried to retreat, Marshall said, and when Woods tried to escape, he saw Collins and said, "There's someone else. We got another one right here," and Spencer opened fire on Collins, who took a bullet in the thigh as he took cover and called for backup, the prosecutor said.
When help arrived, Bennett was found outside the front door, shot in the head, and Chisholm and Owen were inside. They had been shot in the back, through their bulletproof vests, Marshall wrote. All three were dead.
Investigators found Spencer in a neighbor's attic, and Woods "was found sitting on a nearby porch, apparently 'very relaxed' and carrying two .22 caliber bullets in his pocket," his letter said.
"Although Woods was not the shooter, he was hardly an innocent bystander," Marshall wrote, explaining that Woods allegedly bragged about the shootings, threatened a sheriff's deputy and composed drawings and songs boasting of the killings. The guy was outside, ran into the house to pretend to surrender so that his friend could shoot the cops in the back. Then he bragged about the whole thing. Even if this is true, why kill him? What does society gain from retribution? Nothing, but that wasn't the argument being made by GH. If GH made a post about "man will be executed, death penalty is abhorrent" he would get a bunch of people concurring. But he made a post about "innocent man will be executed because racism" except he might not be so innocent after all. I don't have an issue with people disputing his innocence (confirming it would only make killing him more horrific), I would have a problem with someone suggesting racism didn't play a role in both how/why he was convicted in Alabama and how/why he was killed in cold blood in Alabama in the year 2020 (ironically before the man who confessed to the shooting). But I don't think not repeating the polices version of events is an egregious attempt at disinformation, practically every article always reports police statements as facts or near to, so anyone that thought perhaps it was justified to kill him despite everyone knowing he didn't pull the trigger could see it in the cited article or one of their own finding. I thought people took away the important parts without it turning into a CSI cold case discussion, and I think the format I presented it in helped that happen. I'll take the criticism seriously though and be more thoughtful next time.
Firstly, nobody has said that racism was not a factor in the conviction. Secondly, although I don't expect GH to blindly trust the police's version I think it is dishonest to completely ignore it as well and twist the story how GH originally did. Finally, GH claims he was right in how he introduced the topic, before making a 'I-am-not-actually-sorry' apology.
Somewhat unsurprisingly maybenexttime is not convinced and challenges GH on GH's implication that this was a racially motivated conviction of an innocent man. GH then claims that he was only saying racism was a factor but maybenexttime says GH was doing more than that. GH's final post says maybenexttime doesn't think racism was a factor (which maybenexttime has never said) and finishes with a passive-aggressive way of asking mnt what mnt believes is GH's agenda.
I think this exchange shows GH misrepresenting the original story, misrepresenting what other posters have said, refusing to accept there is anything wrong with their posting style, and misrepresenting what he said earlier. It also shows GH not wanting to be ignored by bringing the topic back when nobody engaged with him. This is the kind of behaviour that annoys people.
|
Technically maybenexttime did say that racism wasn't a factor in the conversation. GH clearly offered that racism was a factor and maybenexttime answered that it was a "baseless claim", which certainly conveys the information that racism wasn't a factor. I realize maybenexttime probably didn't mean that but that's what is written, not a misrepresentation.
Either way, this is originally a conversation about Jimmi's behavior. He managed to make it about GH, good strategy from him I guess. I think GH could be the worst poster in here and Jimmi's posting would still match the description of it made by the lurker, Sent or LL, so the "defense of GH" that you saw still feels valid.
|
On March 08 2020 22:57 Nebuchad wrote:
Either way, this is originally a conversation about Jimmi's behavior. He managed to make it about GH, good strategy from him I guess.
It wouldn't have been possible if people had more to say about him than they do about GH, or if there weren't more people more keen to discuss GH's behavior over Jimmi's. You think that everyone in the thread fell for some sort of "strategy" that Jimmi had that made them all unanimously stop discussing one topic in favor of another? Or do you think people see someone behaving in a more egregiously unbecoming manner in the thread, which warrants further discussion?
I feel like people are just airing their grievances in general and shouldn't be chained to a single target for the duration of multiple days/pages. People had their say, moved on, and are now speaking about someone/something else (and not just GH, over the course of the past few pages).
But clearly since we haven't read Fanon's entire library, none of us are qualified to address the subject of how GH speaks to us in the thread, so we actually should just drop it.
|
Well then I'm doing the same thing you guys are doing, and you ought to not care. Shrug.
|
On March 08 2020 22:57 Nebuchad wrote:
Technically maybenexttime did say that racism wasn't a factor in the conversation. GH clearly offered that racism was a factor and maybenexttime answered that it was a "baseless claim", which certainly conveys the information that racism wasn't a factor. I realize maybenexttime probably didn't mean that but that's what is written, not a misrepresentation.
Either way, this is originally a conversation about Jimmi's behavior. He managed to make it about GH, good strategy from him I guess. I think GH could be the worst poster in here and Jimmi's posting would still match the description of it made by the lurker, Sent or LL, so the "defense of GH" that you saw still feels valid.
maybenexttime said "You made a baseless claim." and at no point said that the baseless claim in question was 'racism was a factor'. Originally GH said the man was innocent and pointed at racism. I interpreted maybenexttime's "baseless claim" to mean that the man was innocent and convicted because of his race. GH changed what he was claiming when maybenexttime explained why the man may not be innocent.
This innocence is important and it is exactly what Belisarius and Gorsameth were talking about.
In response to your second part; I could re-write my post changing the first couple of sentences, it wouldn't change the point I wanted to make about GH's posting style.
|
The post right before "You made a baseless claim" is "You made a claim that he was convicted due to racism", clearly indicating what claim we are talking about. GH then describes what he wrote, that racism is a factor, which is indeed what he wrote, and it is followed with "You made a baseless claim".
Even if you are not convinced that this is what maybenexttime is talking about, and you instead think it's about innocence, an hypothesis for which there is no evidence in the thread, surely you can admit that it makes sense for GH to interpret it that way given the context of the post?
Again, I do not think maybenexttime meant to say that, I'm just saying that's not a misrepresentation of what he has written.
|
maybenexttime's first response to GH is to provide the context to the story and criticise GH for omitting it. That is how their interaction started. That is why I am assuming the innocence is important. I do interpret "You made a claim that he was convicted due to racism" differently to you in that I think it means that racism was the ONLY (or at least the main) factor in the conviction, which is what GH was clearly implying by using words such as "innocent".
Moreover GH was already shifting from "innocent man" to "race was a factor" in response to Gorsameth which was before maybenexttime's "You made a claim..." post.
|
Okay, so in this post that we're discussing, maybenexttime mentions that GH is doing this to "push his agenda". In my interpretation that we're talking about racism, this sentence is refering to an agenda of "white man bad", "let's kill all whites" that I imagine maybenexttime is attributing to GH.
In your interpretation that we're talking about innocence, what is the agenda that GH is pushing?
On March 09 2020 05:00 Melliflue wrote:
Moreover GH was already shifting from "innocent man" to "race was a factor" in response to Gorsameth which was before maybenexttime's "You made a claim..." post.
That is untrue. GH mentioned racism in response to Acrofales and farvacola listing some reasons why the situation happened, saying that racism wasn't to be forgotten as a factor (an obviously true point).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
