EPTI think interpretive charity would work, but only if the posters themselves weren't intentionally vague and obtuse. A lot of "gotcha" statements and worming to get posters to say things they don't believe is irksome to say the least. If we have to constantly try to interpret what the meaning is, we'll just lazily force an incorrect ideology on you and wait for you to clarify. It's a round-robin game that seems to never end. And when some of us do bring up the sad state of discourse, they get bullied into leaving the thread.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 286
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
I think interpretive charity would work, but only if the posters themselves weren't intentionally vague and obtuse. A lot of "gotcha" statements and worming to get posters to say things they don't believe is irksome to say the least. If we have to constantly try to interpret what the meaning is, we'll just lazily force an incorrect ideology on you and wait for you to clarify. It's a round-robin game that seems to never end. And when some of us do bring up the sad state of discourse, they get bullied into leaving the thread. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 14 2020 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think that applies a lot to the right wing posters moreso than the left wing, just because there aren't a lot of them posting. The quality of those on the right posting has dropped considerably. I mean, is there really a right winger Trump voter that posts regularly in that thread anymore? It just looked like Nettles dips in once in a while. It's hard to call that a lack of quality, when it just so happens the remaining 1-2 guys not banned or gone just happen to be that kind of poster. I still read the thread, though not quite as frequently nowadays, so apologies if I missed you. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 05:33 Danglars wrote: I mean, is there really a right winger Trump voter that posts regularly in that thread anymore? It just looked like Nettles dips in once in a while. It's hard to call that a lack of quality, when it just so happens the remaining 1-2 guys not banned or gone just happen to be that kind of poster. I still read the thread, though not quite as frequently nowadays, so apologies if I missed you. That's what I'm talking about the drop in quality. xDaunt kept the thread alive with thoughtful engagements even though he was against 90% of the thread it seemed. And I think a lot of people appreciated his candor (not necessarily his beliefs in certain matters). Now we just have left vs far left (as they claim to be) arguing over semantics and how evil the US is vs other countries, or how the left isn't better than the right etc etc so on and so forth. Policy discussions are rare and if they start, are abandoned because we cycle back into the previous topics we've already and continue to rehash. I've voiced my frustration on that multiple times but always get rebuffed by the holders of the moral high ground. | ||
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
On May 14 2020 04:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think that applies a lot to the right wing posters moreso than the left wing, just because there aren't a lot of them posting. The quality of those on the right posting has dropped considerably. From my perspective, it seems that they aren't really defending anything of merit. Just trying to soothe the ugly that is the current political sphere of the party. When they do that and don't bring much of any substance behind it, most will just apply the labels you mentioned Serm. I think interpretive charity would work, but only if the posters themselves weren't intentionally vague and obtuse. A lot of "gotcha" statements and worming to get posters to say things they don't believe is irksome to say the least. If we have to constantly try to interpret what the meaning is, we'll just lazily force an incorrect ideology on you and wait for you to clarify. It's a round-robin game that seems to never end. And when some of us do bring up the sad state of discourse, they get bullied into leaving the thread. In the case of a poster being "vague" intentionally or not the Ideal would be for people to ask them to clarify what they were saying Instead of passing judgment on what they said and just making assumptions on what they said. Ie when I brought up the government telling people who were democratically going about their business what they had to vote for and decide as a people being problematic I was memed for "we're still going to have the same legal structure for socialism as capitalism because why would there be any difference?" Because oh why would I assume anything would change when you change the fundamental structure of the way decisions work in the economy. If someone had said "why wouldn't what the government is doing now with sexual harassment and racial profiling in employment be different in socialism instead of what we're doing with capitalism" the conversation would have continued. Instead, we work with Schrodinger's socialism where everything is known and unarguable while also easy to implement and could change easily, but no one does it because rich people are evil and should die. | ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
@Serm: 100%. And we've had that exact topic in thread go on and on without getting posters clarify themselves, or continue to give vague replies. There are a few exceptions who don't get their thoughts across as succinctly as they'd like and are willing to clarify. Then there are the others who don't. I feel like a lot of people go on the defensive when people are genuinely trying to get solutions out of them and it stalemates the entire thing. I don't have an answer or workaround that will fix it. I'm just giving my impressions. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
I restrained myself. Apparently to no avail, since we're back to talking about this, seemingly for no reason this time. | ||
KwarK
United States42254 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:01 Nebuchad wrote: It's funny, two days ago when we were talking about how Trump was saying something stupid and nobody posted for hours because there's nothing to say about that, I almost posted in this thread to troll the people who said that the thread stops when we talk about ideologies. I restrained myself. Apparently to no avail, since we're back to talking about this, seemingly for no reason this time. The thread stops when the poster hijacks an ongoing conversation to plug their oft repeated, and rebuffed, political conspiracy theories and failed attempts to start a coup inside the thread. The thread moves along nicely when there is actual discussions going on. Like JimmiC just said, everything is taking a back seat to the pandemic. I've read some interesting things regarding the economy that I've thought about posting but declined to, because I know it'll get hijacked into how socialism will save us magically. The thread moves as dictated by the participants and said participants are tired (as has been stated by other posters) of rehashing the same 2-3 topics. On May 14 2020 07:06 KwarK wrote: xDaunt got radicalized by white nationalists at some point around 2016. He went from a garden variety fuckstick who couldn’t make a point if his life depended on it to a crypto fascist who was stupid enough to think nobody could see through his extremely thinly veiled code. Those of us who were in the topic at the time saw, in real time, how he slowly abandoned the beliefs of the old Republican Party and replaced them with unsubstantiated Trumpisms. Love you KwarK. Never change. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: The thread stops when the poster hijacks an ongoing conversation to plug their oft repeated, and rebuffed, political conspiracy theories and failed attempts to start a coup inside the thread. The thread moves along nicely when there is actual discussions going on. Like JimmiC just said, everything is taking a back seat to the pandemic. I've read some interesting things regarding the economy that I've thought about posting but declined to, because I know it'll get hijacked into how socialism will save us magically. The thread moves as dictated by the participants and said participants are tired (as has been stated by other posters) of rehashing the same 2-3 topics. Ok, I'll leave for a while then. Have a nice thread. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:09 Nebuchad wrote: Ok, I'll leave for a while then. Have a nice thread. I don't mind that you participate. You actually take the time to answer questions and try to clarify your position. You do often fall to being kind of a jerk after a certain point though. Not sure how else to state it. I honestly read 90% of your posts because there is some substance to them and it does make for an interesting conversation. But take your leave if you feel you should. Come back soon. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
I believe the thread will die once you've eliminated all the people who you "can't discuss with", because there's not that much to discuss when everyone agrees on the basic premises. But you'll get to see, maybe. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:21 Nebuchad wrote: The posts I'm receiving warrant being a jerk against sometimes in my opinion, especially in the case of the last discussion I was a part of, that was atrocious. And the general situation with the guy who answers half of my posts with dumb shit because he knows I've decided not to answer him and he gets a kick out of writing bad posts to me to see if he can troll me into answering is not helping either. I haven't had too much fun posting in the thread for a while, but that's okay, I realize the thread doesn't revolve around what I like. I believe the thread will die once you've eliminated all the people who you "can't discuss with", because there's not that much to discuss when everyone agrees on the basic premises. But you'll get to see, maybe. No one is wanting to eliminate anyone from posting. But do you not agree that the thread starts a discussion, gets hijacked for 3-4 pages, and then just dies? We get some sporadic posts and discussion and then it dies. I'm not averse to having discussions with people I may find "difficult" but I don't want that to be the topic every single time. Especially when I agree with the basic premise of their argument and push for them to provide some substantial examples/ideas that we all can contribute to. And go back to the main thread and see where this entire conversation started and why we're now discussing it, you want to see why this is being brought up again without reason. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42254 Posts
For real though. Regular fascism goes somewhat along the lines of The nation and the volk is under siege in a cultural war against a shadow foe, an international cabal that has no nation but controls banking, the media, and the political class, a cabal that hates us for our historical superiority and seeks to destroy all that made us great by dividing us with feminism and race mixing. They are enemies and must be destroyed under the guidance of the great leader. Whereas xDaunt cleverly mixed it up by explaining that while he believed that the nation and people were superior and were engaged in a shadow war against those enemies who he did believe were in control of banking, the media, and the political class and were trying to undermine the nation with feminism and talking about racial issues it was a completely different thing because the enemy he was concerned about were called globalists (because they were internationalists and had no nation). But the great leader should definitely brand them all as enemies and they should all be destroyed. It was a modern day enigma, breaking that code was damn near impossible. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:27 KwarK wrote: For real though. Regular fascism goes somewhat along the lines of Whereas xDaunt cleverly mixed it up by explaining that while he believed that the nation and people were superior and were engaged in a shadow war against those enemies who he did believe were in control of banking, the media, and the political class and were trying to undermine the nation with feminism and talking about racial issues it was a completely different thing because the enemy he was concerned about were called globalists (because they were internationalists and had no nation). But the great leader should definitely brand them all as enemies and they should all be destroyed. It was a modern day enigma, breaking that code was damn near impossible. I remember engaging with him a few times and just left more confused how he could believe what he wrote, even after all of the evidence everyone produced countered him. It did get more radical as time went by, which is probably why a lot of hostility from me was directed towards him in the pol thread. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: No one is wanting to eliminate anyone from posting. But do you not agree that the thread starts a discussion, gets hijacked for 3-4 pages, and then just dies? We get some sporadic posts and discussion and then it dies. I'm not averse to having discussions with people I may find "difficult" but I don't want that to be the topic every single time. Especially when I agree with the basic premise of their argument and push for them to provide some substantial examples/ideas that we all can contribute to. And go back to the main thread and see where this entire conversation started and why we're now discussing it, you want to see why this is being brought up again without reason. How do you define a discussion that goes well vs a discussion that gets hijacked? From where I sit it sounds like that's just a value judgement. I think if you don't want to eliminate people from posting, you ought to start. The issue that you have with the thread can't be solved without eliminating some of the posters in it. I'm not going to suddenly stop having a socialist onlook and approach to the political stuff I read, and from what you've said, just knowing that some people might talk about socialism keeps you from posting stuff that you would have otherwise posted. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On May 14 2020 07:44 Nebuchad wrote: How do you define a discussion that goes well vs a discussion that gets hijacked? From where I sit it sounds like that's just a value judgement. I think if you don't want to eliminate people from posting, you ought to start. The issue that you have with the thread can't be solved without eliminating some of the posters in it. I'm not going to suddenly stop having a socialist onlook and approach to the political stuff I read, and from what you've said, just knowing that some people might talk about socialism keeps you from posting stuff that you would have otherwise posted. You didn't read what I wrote closely enough. I said talking about how socialism is going to solve it magically. And I've been on record in the thread saying democratic socialism is probably the best way forward for the US. I don't post about the feds bailing people out because it will get misconstrued into something entirely not what was stated. I also don't post because I feel like some of it isn't that "newsworthy" to talk about and can be solved in 2-3 posts. Lastly, a discussion where there are more than four or five people responding to each other versus two going back and forth arguing semantics or term definitions is my definition if you really care to know. I think most would agree. I may be in the minority here. That's fine. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12045 Posts
In the last discussion I had, at least three people attacked me because socialism won't solve racism, a claim nobody ever made on the forum. Either this is a case of lacking some of that "interpretative charity" that was discussed earlier, or this is just about talking about socialism in general. | ||
| ||
