EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 302
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17978 Posts
On July 02 2020 00:34 Jealous wrote: I don't think anyone claims or thinks that this is an acceptable way of posting. My interpretation is that people are addressing the trajectory of discourse that led to this post, as they see it as more nuanced and potentially productive. I'm re-reading the thread while trying to put myself in Biff's shoes, for example, as a result of the above posts. In doing so, I'm understanding more and more why Biff might have gotten frustrated enough to make such a post. It certainly didn't come out of nowhere. Do I think it's entirely justified? Definitely not the language used, but overall, I can understand why it was made. I read that exchange and GH was infuriating. Was Biff maybe *willfully* ignorant there? Yeah. Possibly. But I really do understand it. I have travelled a lot and am always super interested in learning about the local culture, but I don't see any issues with people similarly recognizing really cool stuff in those cultures and making it part of their style. Throug talent and happenstance these people might get rich/famous, and I can totally understand why this makes people of the original culture jealous. But in almost all the cases I have seen brought up, it is a real appreciation of the culture. Moreover, as a European, where cultural intermingling has about a 3000 year old history (as opposed to the very recent history we are discussing in the USPol thread) it is also a bit difficult to understand why a white guy owning a taco truck is cultural appropriation... when we have been exchanging both preparation methods and ingredients for the better part of 2 millennia without anybody thinking it was cultural appropriation... so this may be a uniquely American thing that we just do not understand, and that might also have been Biff's problem. It clearly drove him over the edge of frustration. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On July 01 2020 22:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Read the US pol thread. The discussion when GH got back from his ban got ugly. Apparently it's ok to call Biff an incel and when GH does his "I am a black man, shut up", schtick, and white people are grave looters and calling Biff acting in bad faith because he has a wealth of experience in musical culture and GH is not intellectually equipped to deal with a line of reasoning and is clearly out of his depth. When it is GH himself acting in bad faith and Biff is constantly personally attacked by by GH, Artisreal, Wombat_NI, under constant insinuations he is racist for engaging in good faith in a forum. But somehow it is Biff who is the sole one who is inappropriate and not cool. Somehow it has become acceptable for GH to act the way he does, but for no-one else to do so. One rule for GH, one rule for everyone else. I've travelled around more than most in the thread, and experienced many different cultures and thought I would add my personal thoughts and experiences to the discussion. But as soon as I saw how toxic it became from the GH crowd, I deleted what I wrote and declined to add anything. And I am glad I did, because in doing so, I would experience what Biff experienced but worse. I used that term. But in a different way. I want to underscore that here. If I spot people asking for clear guidelines how to navigate a highly case specific and individual theme, they often, not always, try to navigate the waters in the shortest way possible to their goal. That can be - women's pants - legally evading regulations - showing they're not racist - showing they aren't sexist - showing that it's not racism / sexism but something else In sum they want to tiptoe a line that got drawn. For whatever reason. Examples may be - not wanting to engage in the matter and taking the easy way out - not get called out for unduly behaviour thanks to plausible deniability - honestly wanting to know an easy answer to a complex subject that is not possible to give And this tiptoeing is what's prevalent in right wing circles regarding racism and with misogynistic incels that just want to put their member in a woman in the most predictably successful, secure way possible. The latter not wanting or being able to engage in an interpersonal relationship that could lead to their goal. Sometimes there is no rule for every occasion. Thus there is no definition of a thing (racism, sexism, misogyny, sexual assault) that encompasses everything. And expressly not speaking about legal terms but societal terms. I did not call anybody an incel. The user's (TL) way of approaching a subject did remind me of how they (Incels, corporations) do it though. I am also willing to debate that. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28654 Posts
But much like how Biff's reply to GH can be 'understood' from a perspective of being annoyed with the exchanges, GH's replies to us must also be understood from his perspective of us treating it like an exercise (not with malicious intent) and with perceived deliberate obtuseness (without this perceived deliberate obtuseness actually being deliberate) while to him, the topic is way more serious and is part of a pattern of 'privileged people losing unjust privileges and attempting to challenge this development'. Tbh, for as heated as the debate was at times I also think it was one of the more productive ones we've had in a long time and I think many posters emerged with a broader understanding of the topic. It's also one where the european and american differences in perspectives and mindsets really manifest itself, something we should be cognizant of. Great success, imo. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
On July 02 2020 01:12 JimmiC wrote: I think GH himself and many of us on the left would say the back story for why criminals act the way they act is hugely important and ending that systemic racism and other factors is the main point behind defunding the police. It is about taking the money away from a broken system that punishes and creates criminals and moves to a model that stops criminality before it starts using the current money from police and incarceration to fund social programs to help "raise the floor". (A lot more complicated than that of course but trying to sum up likely poorly). At some point you have to look at why there are so many people that end up having no other issues with anyone other then with GH and think what is the commonality here and why do so many react this way to him? It is not politics, we have many left posters that don't get this reaction. It can't be skin colour, we have other Black and non Caucasians who do not create this reaction. At some point looking at the root cause of why he pisses off so many and to such a point is a valuable exercise and it becomes clear it a constant mix of passive aggressive digs and condescension that has been going on for nearly a decade and shows no signs of slowing down or personal growth. All he has done is stopped putting the bad words in his posts so he does not get banned as much. Perhaps reading the posts of GH from Biff's point of view the way jealous did would be valuable, maybe not. But a huge amount of very different people all have the same reaction to GH and it is not just bad luck. with a lot of respect, i don’t intend to get into any conversation about who might be right or wrong here because we’ve done that too many times and it seems fairly clear here that we will continue to disagree. i think you brought up a good point on taking out the bad stuff to avoid getting banned though, if you’ll entertain me. i think writing ones post with the clear intention not to call someone a fucking douchebag is a minimum requirement of posting. you’re brushing this aside as ‘all he has done is removing the mean words from one’s post,’ but i would ask if you think that is as dismiss-able as it reads to me? or maybe to ask another way, how would you re-write Biffs post without the means words to avoid getting banned? and since i started the post with specifically not being interested in calling this right or wrong, i’m really just asking as an exercise to see if their collective posts are equitable, without any further judgement. I’m hearing that one poster gets away with this while the other doesn’t. I am very interested to understand how this back and forth might still unfold more amicably, and ultimately how the post i reported could possibly be conveyed in a not-bannable fashion. How would GH get away with posting the same thing? or did i misunderstand entirely? I’ll always be the first in line to admit my capacity for imagination is pitiful, so if there is nuance here I think perhaps this would be where I’m most obviously missing it. | ||
|
Jealous
10141 Posts
On July 02 2020 00:43 brian wrote: never mind this isn’t a critical point to be made. suffices to say understanding ones motives in no way is helpful in justifying their actions, entirely or otherwise. many criminals would employ a similar method of excusing their behavior. which is by no means a comparison, but rather an explanation of why that is a poor avenue for discussion in my opinion. I think understanding the underlying reasons for why something happened is actually an incredibly important process, depending on the context. Perhaps unfortunately, this is not one of those contexts, but not for the reason you've listed, I believe. No one is trying to justify the "criminal" actions here. For example, understanding why a person stole food from a grocery store frames the action in a way that is either sympathetic or unsympathetic. If it's just a kid doing the five finger discount for some instagram challenge or whatever, that's a pretty shitty "justification." If it's a parent trying to feed his family, I think more people will be sympathetic to that. Sympathetic vs. unsympathetic motivations are taken into consideration legally (since we're on the topic of criminality - although it's obvious that legality does not imply morality, something something Draconian something Hammurabi etc. etc. don't want to get into it), and individually they are taken into consideration morally. Thus, I can't really agree with your argument. In short, I agree with your conclusion, but not the underlying reasons. The reasons why I think that this is a poor avenue for discussion is as I've outlined on the previous page, namely that just about everyone involved in the thread to some extent is aware of the individual behaviors that generate such situations, they have been discussed to death here with no readily apparent or quantifiable outcome, punishments have been doled out to offending individuals repeatedly by moderators, etc. Sometimes it crosses a line, sometimes it does not, and it's not really up to us as fellow posters (and readers, in my case) which way it is determined to have gone by the moderators. I can understand the motivation to discuss it, I just think it is pointless and a waste of everyone's time at this juncture. Was Biff's post wrong to make as it was made? Yes. Can I understand the reasons why they made it? Yes. Is anything going to come out of discussing it? No. On July 02 2020 01:04 Acrofales wrote: I read that exchange and GH was infuriating. Was Biff maybe *willfully* ignorant there? Yeah. Possibly. But I really do understand it. I have travelled a lot and am always super interested in learning about the local culture, but I don't see any issues with people similarly recognizing really cool stuff in those cultures and making it part of their style. Throug talent and happenstance these people might get rich/famous, and I can totally understand why this makes people of the original culture jealous. But in almost all the cases I have seen brought up, it is a real appreciation of the culture. Moreover, as a European, where cultural intermingling has about a 3000 year old history (as opposed to the very recent history we are discussing in the USPol thread) it is also a bit difficult to understand why a white guy owning a taco truck is cultural appropriation... when we have been exchanging both preparation methods and ingredients for the better part of 2 millennia without anybody thinking it was cultural appropriation... so this may be a uniquely American thing that we just do not understand, and that might also have been Biff's problem. It clearly drove him over the edge of frustration. I understand your perspective, but similarly, I don't think that discussing the topic of appropriation here has any merit either. Part of the reason is because this is the meta-thread, so I think that bringing up the specific topic might actually muddy the waters unnecessarily. It is hypocritical for me to list what I found to be the major contributing issues, but I want to be clear why I think the actual topic itself is practically irrelevant: Biff's questions being ignored repeatedly, condescending conversations being engaged in in favor of responses, round-about responding, and needlessly accusatory statements rife with buzzwords and shitty comparisons made unnecessarily. None of these behaviors are against the rules, as evidenced by the lack of moderator response (at least one of Drone's posts addressed some of this, but no action came of it - it's clearly a personal opinion and not a moderation stance). So, there's really no point in exploring the "why?" I'm sorry if I'm coming off as awfully dismissive, but I do understand and appreciate your position, I just feel that it's not pragmatic. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
I'd say it's the same for others as well, but GH is a constant that always pricks people with his holier than thou, smug attitude. If he's clearly not interested in anything and is tired from the discussions/questions being asked of him, why persist in the manner? Falling asked a question and barely got a reply. Biff asked a question and got temped. People are continually engaging GH because they don't agree or want some form of clarification to see if they might agree. But GH isn't interested. He's right. They're wrong. And if you dare question it, then woe be ye. It's insufferable to have to read 8 hours of a thread to get up-to-date on a topic, only to be exhausted at the amount of bullshit that is floating in it. | ||
|
Jealous
10141 Posts
On July 02 2020 01:19 Liquid`Drone wrote: While I think that overall the cultural appropriation debate has been really good (and GH has been instrumental in this) then I also see how debating with him was frustrating (and I called him out for it in the thread.) But much like how Biff's reply to GH can be 'understood' from a perspective of being annoyed with the exchanges, GH's replies to us must also be understood from his perspective of us treating it like an exercise (not with malicious intent) and with perceived deliberate obtuseness (without this perceived deliberate obtuseness actually being deliberate) while to him, the topic is way more serious and is part of a pattern of 'privileged people losing unjust privileges and attempting to challenge this development'. Tbh, for as heated as the debate was at times I also think it was one of the more productive ones we've had in a long time and I think many posters emerged with a broader understanding of the topic. It's also one where the european and american differences in perspectives and mindsets really manifest itself, something we should be cognizant of. Great success, imo. To me that's actually quite tragic. EDIT: On July 02 2020 01:23 brian wrote: with a lot of respect, i don’t intend to get into any conversation about who might be right or wrong here because we’ve done that too many times and it seems fairly clear here that we will continue to disagree. This is basically what I'm getting at in my first response to you; made it before I saw this, sorry. | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On July 02 2020 01:23 brian wrote: i think writing ones post with the clear intention not to call someone a fucking douchebag is a minimum requirement of posting. Getting a handle on the principles underlying this idea (or trying to, at least) is and was a major benefit I have received from being able to participate in conversations on TL. It's especially rewarding when I am able to review the writings of folks in the legal world and pick out some of the expressive tendencies I've identified as problems in my own writing here. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21655 Posts
On July 02 2020 01:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: These days when I come back to see a bunch of new posts the amount of reading vs skipping is pretty much directly proportional to how involved GH is.I have a hard time glossing over the fact that GH is allowed to non-answer constantly and use snide remarks towards others. People are looking for sincere responses and most of those are overseas in other countries that might not understand the intricacies and they try to get the details here because it's a place they're comfortable with exchanging ideas and knowledge. I'm against allowing him to start something and then not finish it or wait for someone else to clarify for him as if he isn't beholden to the same standards of polite discourse. I'd say it's the same for others as well, but GH is a constant that always pricks people with his holier than thou, smug attitude. If he's clearly not interested in anything and is tired from the discussions/questions being asked of him, why persist in the manner? Falling asked a question and barely got a reply. Biff asked a question and got temped. People are continually engaging GH because they don't agree or want some form of clarification to see if they might agree. But GH isn't interested. He's right. They're wrong. And if you dare question it, then woe be ye. It's insufferable to have to read 8 hours of a thread to get up-to-date on a topic, only to be exhausted at the amount of bullshit that is floating in it. There is only so many times I want to read people trying to ask strait answers to have a real discussion only to get dismissive answers. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On July 02 2020 02:00 Gorsameth wrote: These days when I come back to see a bunch of new posts the amount of reading vs skipping is pretty much directly proportional to how involved GH is. There is only so many times I want to read people trying to ask strait answers to have a real discussion only to get dismissive answers. I'm the same way. Then when you get to a red text after a post, you have to go back and see what the lead up to it was. I'd appreciate if a mod besides Drone, Falling, KwarK or Seeker could chime in with what they've been seeing in the thread recently, to get an "outsiders" point of view. I mean, if we're all mistaken in our critiques of each other's posting, I'd like to know. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
What followed it is the stuff I have to scroll through (at least it wasn't a Trump tweet, small victories). I recognize different aspects of politics interest different people but nothing in what followed it is interesting to me. I appreciate drone, farv, brian, and artisreal helping to clarify and Nath and ChristianS humbling me when I discovered I wasn't the only one that while agreeing with IgnE generally, found the focus on capital at the expense of race in his analysis problematic. If mods ever wanted to go through my ban history I can assure you most of the actions come from responding to posts like Biff's or xDaunt's racism isn't a serious problem worth our attention type posts. That the stuff people are complaining about came before his post and not me responding in kind after it is growth imo. I'd just have people think for a moment about the difference between when Republicans get more upset at having their behavior pointed out as racist/problematic than doing racist/problematic things and when they do it. I don't have any reason to be rude unprovoked. I even give the most obnoxious posters a relatively clean slate when they approach a topic sincerely. If you haven't at minimum googled a word before asking me about it, I don't consider that sincere and good faith though. EDIT: To clarify this is what I'm talking about: Please, think before you chime in with your opinion on a given post or series of posts. There will usually be some history behind a given exchange in our forums, so take the time to observe what might really be going on and put the conversation into context before you decide who's "right" and who's "wrong." Above all, take into account who is posting - context is everything. Chirping in with your grossly uninformed opinions will only make you look dumb and irritate the heck out of the people who do know what's going on. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
It's sorta a harm vs abuse (incident vs pattern) thing. I also don't think Biff is even remotely close to xDaunt when it comes to expressing/holding racism/racist views. | ||
|
brian
United States9617 Posts
On July 02 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote: First thank you for taking a different approach. And secondly I'm not saying that Biff shouldn't be given a two day timeout my issue is that people seem to miss his instigation and follow up when he gets what he wants. I think of it like hockey, there are players who are agitators, they get as close to breaking the rules as they can over and over again trying to draw a penalty on the other side. If as a opposing player you react up or down 1 or in a tied game your coach is probably going to yell at you. If you beat the tar out of him up or down three your coach is probably going to buy you supper and you will take your 5 minute penalty. Basically I think Biff was frustrated enough to knowingly post something banable. And this happens enough to know that GH is agitating or instigating on purpose. I agree with Drone that it was a good discussion and interesting, and I think at times in that discussion GH was a postive, but overall it was his posting that pushed it off course and it happens way to often. When GH is banned this thread never becomes active, when he is not you know it will be. I'll do my best at your request though being passive aggressive is not my forte. I'll spoiler Biffs post for ease of reading. + Show Spoiler + Here is the real question, GH, why do you so consistently need to be such a fucking douchebag? I came here to answer someone who was not you and I use my field because, yeah, culture is my business you see. So I am interested. And the discussion is pretty darn interesting, whether it's Inge answers, or Drone's or whoever. And when you started posting, I was really ready to engage in a civil dialogue and hear your take on the question even though the three last times we have exchanged you have been such a complete douche. But then again, you come with your shitty attitude, and you transform what could be a nice discussion into a shitshow of insults, insinuation and of course, you don't give answers to anything because it's so much more fun to instead attack people. As you always do. It's a pity because I like this thread, and I like the people on this thread and you make it a genuinely unpleasant experience. Just talk like a civilized person if that's not too much to ask. Christ sake. First thing is he would not quote GH, instead he would quote me or really anyone but GH and say something like. That is my attempt, I don't think Biff would have been banned, and I don't think it would be a nice post or that GH would feel good about reading it. And I'm also sure it wouldn't end with that post, we would have 10 more back and forth in the same style. I'm also not saying that GH should be banned, I just wish he and others would stop acting like he is the victim. He is number 1 by a HUGE amount on creating drama in the pol thread. He is the annoying little brother in the back of the sedan who pokes, prods, annoys and so on till the big brother punches him then cries and Dad/Mom ground the big brother. My suggestion is that if we are going to let all the passive aggressive crap go, especially as consistently as he does it, then we should probably let the occasional punch back go even if it is more blatant. Maybe check the recent GH posts to see if there is a reason this person got so mad, and I would think being compared to a sexual harasser, incel and called a Racist would piss most off. And tbh all GH would need to do to not piss so many off is when they ask a question answer it and not quote others and make sly digs at the other or be condescending. Every other person in the thread answers direct questions. GH avoids them from everyone, not just me or now Biff. Falling asked him some simple questions the other day, on two seperate posts, no response. He didn't do his normal passive aggressive none response, he completely ignored it because he knew better than to pull that shit with a mod, but the behavior is consistent. It is really disappointing because at one point I thought he might have a interesting perspective but I really don't know what it is, when a question is asked to him I have to hope Inge, Drone, Christian or who ever will answer on his behalf and ignore his insults to whoever. And when people guess his perspective he accuses them of bad faith. i have to say i feel bad saying this only because you put in so much effort and this is going to be so easy for me to say, but i agree with you nearly 100%. I would disagree at answering direct questions, but i don’t want to speak too much for what i would assume GH is really doing there. i’ve seen him answer enough questions to my personal liking. Your rewrite kind of hit exactly what i was going for, though, in that you removed the direct personal insult and chose instead to attack what was being said. a general snipe at ‘some people being small minded’ would raise an eyebrow but i think that is easily read-over, as opposed to the direct attack on a person. i can’t overstate how important a change i think that really is. i think that is the core difference between what people are posting and why people should or shouldn’t be actioned or complained about. I’d go so far as to say your rewrite isn’t the same post because of it; and is much better for it. so in short neither GH nor Biff would get banned for your post, and that the true post is clearly bannable for anyone. aside from that- in the hockey analogy do you blame the agitator for the guy being in the penalty box? i think both here and on the ice it’s on us all to behave well enough to stay out of the box, even if it’s just enough to stay on the ice. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
