EPTJust the last page has enough from JimmiC to justify a ban.
That's not a plea to ban him though, just pointing it out in hopes it could be acknowledged by fair minded folks.
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 318
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
Just the last page has enough from JimmiC to justify a ban. That's not a plea to ban him though, just pointing it out in hopes it could be acknowledged by fair minded folks. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On June 28 2023 04:50 KwarK wrote: He wasn’t taking potshots at Twitter, he was defending Twitter against an imaginary straw man where we all think Twitter is about to go offline. It’s standard culture war stuff. The right wing thought process here goes 1. Musk is alt right these days 2. Therefore all libs are automatically triggered by his existence 3. Therefore triggered libs (which is all of them) insisted Twitter would fail within weeks of his takeover because they hate him 4. But it isn’t offline yet 5. Therefore libs are dumb Obviously you and I know that no part of that makes any sense at all but that doesn’t prevent it from being the right wing thought process. Twitter is still online therefore libs are dumb. The context was Desantis failing a presidential campaign launch hosted on Twitter. So it was essentially irrelevant except for the word Twitter but BJ saw the word Twitter and felt the need to remind us that because Twitter wasn’t yet offline anyone left of centre had somehow been proven wrong. I live in a very red area. You don't seem to understand them very well, if at all. I suggest you not try, they are simple enough but not in a way that is "easily understood", it is a wholly different type of simplicity. The left wing narrative surrounding them seems remarkably petty though, almost as petty as Rush Limbaugh. Possibly more so. My source is that most people here don't care about Musk and consider him a liberal because "electric car guy". You seem to forget the vast majority of people on the right are old. I point to the Obama election and coverage of that to back up my claim that most young people are not conservative or alt right. I also point to racist grandpa's. These memes exist because there is a reality behind them. Religious people (this I can comment from on the inside) generally dislike Musk because he glorifies satanic behavior, and thereby dismiss him on those grounds. None of these groups use, or in any way care about, Twitter X. Basically I don't know where you are getting the idea that he is in any way right. Pun intended in part. But I know rabid right wingers (slur slingers at the southern border, anti government goons, trumpers, religious right, you name it) and only one had claimed Musk in bemused mirth. And he was bemused by Musk buying Twitter, nothing more. I don't know, maybe it is just my experience, and it may be way more localized than I think. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2574 Posts
I was going to make a snide remark along the lines of "Do you actually think Kwark respects anyone on the mod team enough for them to be able to 'talk some sense into him'? ...but the second post of this thread is Kwark saying he'll defer to wiser minds amongst the mods, so who knows. KwarK is shitty. KwarK is shitty to everyone. I take refuge in the idea that, to KwarK, he is attacking someone's ideas by way of attacking their person. He's not trying to make someone feel bad for the sake of it, he's trying to make people feel bad so they repent for their wrongthink. I also take refuge in this being consistent - I would be MORE concerned if he was only shitty to GH, or BJ, or whoever, and cordial with everyone else. It gives off "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" energy, but for myself I've kind of just written that off as KwarK being KwarK. If something was going to be done about it, something would have been done already. Spending energy on getting something done about it now feels like a waste of time. Hopefully this doesn't read as a defense of KwarK - I don't think the way he chooses to interact is appropriate. I'm merely stating how, and why, I've made my peace with it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25665 Posts
On July 10 2024 10:35 Fleetfeet wrote: @magic powers I was going to make a snide remark along the lines of "Do you actually think Kwark respects anyone on the mod team enough for them to be able to 'talk some sense into him'? ...but the second post of this thread is Kwark saying he'll defer to wiser minds amongst the mods, so who knows. KwarK is shitty. KwarK is shitty to everyone. I take refuge in the idea that, to KwarK, he is attacking someone's ideas by way of attacking their person. He's not trying to make someone feel bad for the sake of it, he's trying to make people feel bad so they repent for their wrongthink. I also take refuge in this being consistent - I would be MORE concerned if he was only shitty to GH, or BJ, or whoever, and cordial with everyone else. It gives off "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" energy, but for myself I've kind of just written that off as KwarK being KwarK. If something was going to be done about it, something would have been done already. Spending energy on getting something done about it now feels like a waste of time. Hopefully this doesn't read as a defense of KwarK - I don't think the way he chooses to interact is appropriate. I'm merely stating how, and why, I've made my peace with it. I mean it’s very case-by-case, I can find it immensely entertaining I must confess, or rather unfair and unwarranted. I think there is something to be said for cutting through the bullshit and the airs and graces, call the proverbial space a garden implement and whatnot, sure. There’s plenty of bullshit to go around these days. As you say I don’t think he’s attacking people, they’re merely collateral damage from attacking an idea someone’s espoused. Nothin’ personal kid On the flipside I mean part of why I’m so active on TL is that combination of decent moderation standards and a pretty consistent community who you get a sense of over the years. In general I do somewhat value that historic heavy contributors get a little slack too, it does further foster that sense of community. But why one of the most consistently abrasive posters on the whole site is a moderator is perhaps pushing that too far, for me. I don’t think Kwark lets these two roles cross over and he seems to compartmentalise exceptionally well, so I don’t have any complaints on that in isolation. The two in combination aren’t a great mix in terms of optics. I’ve copped a few temps in my time and really had little complaint there, but Kwark’s recent flurries in the US Pol thread would have seen many a user cop one as well. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4313 Posts
I guess it's possible that KwarK is not selecting a few individuals to abuse, perhaps it's just a general behavior. I definitely agree that, if someone was eager to put a stop to it, they would've already done it. That's the reason why there's no point in writing a formal complaint. Seeing that Kwark is completely unwilling to stop his abuse and other mods are unwilling to step in, that means I'll likely be gone from the forum pretty soon, because I can't handle such toxic behavior from a mod. From a user, yes. Because users can and do face consequences for abusing others. No one is willing to show KwarK any consequences. Thank you for voicing support, it feels good to know someone cares. Alright, it's way past bedtime for me. Have a good one, take care. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On July 10 2024 10:35 Fleetfeet wrote: Pretty much this. Basically people appreciate the catharsis when they agree with him/disagree with his target. He's usually close enough to right for people to just giggle along, or not wrong enough to make anyone want to invite this sort of wrath on themselves by pointing out he's wrong/being unconscionably "shitty" to borrow you're word (myself included more than once). @magic powers I was going to make a snide remark along the lines of "Do you actually think Kwark respects anyone on the mod team enough for them to be able to 'talk some sense into him'? ...but the second post of this thread is Kwark saying he'll defer to wiser minds amongst the mods, so who knows. KwarK is shitty. KwarK is shitty to everyone. I take refuge in the idea that, to KwarK, he is attacking someone's ideas by way of attacking their person. He's not trying to make someone feel bad for the sake of it, he's trying to make people feel bad so they repent for their wrongthink. I also take refuge in this being consistent - I would be MORE concerned if he was only shitty to GH, or BJ, or whoever, and cordial with everyone else. It gives off "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" energy, but for myself I've kind of just written that off as KwarK being KwarK. If something was going to be done about it, something would have been done already. Spending energy on getting something done about it now feels like a waste of time. Hopefully this doesn't read as a defense of KwarK - I don't think the way he chooses to interact is appropriate. I'm merely stating how, and why, I've made my peace with it. This most recent bit he's doing is just so ridiculous that despite me being the target (and his overall sentiment not even being that far outside of the avg), it's not landing, which says a lot about how he is going about it imo. | ||
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
Yes, Palestine is an awful situation. Yes, climate change is going to kill millions. Yes, the constitutionally mandated two party system sucks. Yes, the checks and balances really don’t stand up to abuse in a hyper partisan environment. We all know this, none of it is new, none of it is interesting, he has nothing of value to say on any of those subjects. The restatement of the starting point doesn’t get us anywhere. But he does this aggravating thing where he takes this basic awareness of a huge systemic problem and pretends that he, and only he, understands it. He mistakes the higher understanding that everyone else has, that these problems are structural and don’t have easy fixes, with their ignorance of the problems. He makes vacuous platitudes a virtue. He’s the forum equivalent of when Kendall Jenner fixed police brutality with a Pepsi. Then when put on the spot about any of these problems he just reverts to the imaginary revolution. When pressed for details he can’t provide any because revolutions are complicated and the real world is complicated and there are no easy fixes which is exactly what everyone else was already saying. But despite being the last man across the finish line he does it with smug superiority. The more I think about the Kendall Jenner comparison the more apt it seems. Every post by him is like hearing Kendall Jenner learning about racism for the first time, deciding she has something to contribute to the discussion, and insisting that her Pepsi plan should be implemented. Then accusing everyone not fully behind her Pepsi plan as being complicit in police brutality. Then, whenever challenged, insisting that the Pepsi plan won’t work unless everyone gets fully on board with it so any failures are really everyone else’s fault. It’s just annoying. Edit: Kendall Jenner’s Pepsi based easy answers are actually probably better contributions than GH’s imaginary revolution answers because at least then I’d have a Pepsi. Edit2: but if Kendall Jenner did fix racism or GH did fix Palestine then I’d absolutely commend them for it and they’d be fully entitled to be smug superior assholes about their easy fix forever. The doubters like me would deserve all we got for our skepticism. But the successful fix needs to precede the smugness. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2574 Posts
On July 10 2024 11:00 WombaT wrote: I mean it’s very case-by-case, I can find it immensely entertaining I must confess, or rather unfair and unwarranted. I think there is something to be said for cutting through the bullshit and the airs and graces, call the proverbial space a garden implement and whatnot, sure. There’s plenty of bullshit to go around these days. As you say I don’t think he’s attacking people, they’re merely collateral damage from attacking an idea someone’s espoused. Nothin’ personal kid On the flipside I mean part of why I’m so active on TL is that combination of decent moderation standards and a pretty consistent community who you get a sense of over the years. In general I do somewhat value that historic heavy contributors get a little slack too, it does further foster that sense of community. But why one of the most consistently abrasive posters on the whole site is a moderator is perhaps pushing that too far, for me. I don’t think Kwark lets these two roles cross over and he seems to compartmentalise exceptionally well, so I don’t have any complaints on that in isolation. The two in combination aren’t a great mix in terms of optics. I’ve copped a few temps in my time and really had little complaint there, but Kwark’s recent flurries in the US Pol thread would have seen many a user cop one as well. Hard agree with the bolded. As far as I see, KwarK doesn't shit where he eats, and that's at least commendable. It's tonally confusing to have KwarK as a mod posting as he does, and like GH hinted at KwarK's interactions are like a wild bear's - They're great and amusing when the bear is interacting with your enemy, but when it turns to you or a friend you begin to wonder why you let a bear in the room. + Show Spoiler + This is not meant as a sleight on KwarK's intelligence, merely a point to his savagery. Mods (and KwarK) - have there been talks about this? I expect the atmosphere is that TL forums are well in their twilight years and there's not a lot of drive to reinvigorate them nor new traffic coming through to be turned away by angry bears, but... is change possible? Could you make a house rule of 'Kwark is a mod everywhere but uspol, and is actionable there?' | ||
|
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
But the only moderating I do is PBUs and ad bots and it wouldn’t change my posting any. Not sure what upsides you’re imagining would happen but I’m game to try it if you’d like. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8998 Posts
I lurk more than post these days because the conversations are either not worth any effort to get involved, or the interactions with a few posters just leaves me drained. I've been here long enough to agree and disagree with a lot of what everyone says, even some Rs. But these days, it's just an amusing way to pass the time. Reading Kwark lay into GH's image of being a holier than thou revolutionist without providing details of what he's personally done to drive it forth in a tangible way is hilarious to me. Not trying to shit on GH (more than he already gets), just using the exchange between the two as an example. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
On July 10 2024 12:24 GreenHorizons wrote: One problem with Kwarks reasoning is that I don't think I'm better than anyone here, just making a better choice by supporting revolutionary socialism rather than opposing it and arguing for why I believe that. Just like the libs are arguing they are making a better choice than Trump supporters by supporting Biden. I don’t oppose your Pepsi based solution to racism, I’m not the reason it hasn’t worked. Nobody here is stopping you from fixing anything. Go ahead. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2574 Posts
On July 10 2024 12:02 KwarK wrote: I would have zero issues with not being a mod in any topic. Being a moderator on a starcraft forum may be great for picking up girls but I’m already married so there aren’t really any perks. But the only moderating I do is PBUs and ad bots and it wouldn’t change my posting any. Not sure what upsides you’re imagining would happen but I’m game to try it if you’d like. I think the perception that you're actionable has value for the discourse. Right now everyone assumes you're immune because you're a mod, and are extra shitty because you're immune. I think it's kinda wild that you're a mod and act the way you do, but as mentioned I've made my peace with it. I don't care if you're a mod or not, but I see how you acting as you do and wearing that badge feels like a conflict. I mostly brought the topic here so people could vent and hash it out without just destroying USPOL for a day. I don't have any sort of demand for resolution. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23296 Posts
On July 10 2024 12:31 KwarK wrote: I don’t oppose your Pepsi based solution to racism, I’m not the reason it hasn’t worked. Nobody here is stopping you from fixing anything. Go ahead. See... Revolutionary socialism is "pepsi" and if I don't single handedly describe and bring about the revolution to his satisfaction I'm just roleplaying online. It's not the ad hominem of it that I find especially destructive (though it is certainly destructive) to discussion, but the strawmanning combined with the ad hominem based reasoning. It's easily one of the most universally disliked behaviors in the thread and anyone else would have been reined in by now. Unless we're making caricatures of Republican positions to smugly sneer and laugh at their stupidity and moral depravity for believing/supporting such things. That's still allowed but less common (with posters, still pretty common referring to politicians) since most of the right wing posters had enough of it or were banned more or less for responding in kind. Kwark's problem is that I'm not caricaturing libs positions, but I am being critical of the underpinning reasoning of them and their moral implications. He's unable to satisfactorily rebut my points on their merit, so he's resorted to doing the making strawman caricatures (pepsi) thing with revolutionary socialism. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
On July 10 2024 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote: See... Revolutionary socialism is "pepsi" and if I don't single handedly describe and bring about the revolution to his satisfaction I'm just roleplaying online. It's not the ad hominem of it that I find especially destructive (though it is certainly destructive) to discussion, but the strawmanning combined with the ad hominem based reasoning. It's easily one of the most universally disliked behaviors in the thread and anyone else would have been reined in by now. Unless we're making caricatures of Republican positions to smugly sneer and laugh at their stupidity and moral depravity for believing/supporting such things. That's still allowed but less common (with posters, still pretty common referring to politicians) since most of the right wing posters had enough of it or were banned more or less for responding in kind. Kwark's problem is that I'm not caricaturing libs positions, but I am being critical of the underpinning reasoning of them and their moral implications. He's unable to satisfactorily rebut my points on their merit, so he's resorted to doing the making strawman caricatures (pepsi) thing with revolutionary socialism. Let’s say all of us in the forum get on board with it. We all decide to agree that inviting Hamas and Bibi to share a Pepsi would solve the problem of Palestine. What then? Us forum posters can’t get them to meet up and share a Pepsi. And hell, even if it would actually work and we convinced them it would work they still wouldn’t want to because both groups actually benefit from the continuation of violence at the expense of their communities. The structural problems remain, they’d refuse precisely because it would work. So then what? Where does that leave us? Exactly where we started. In the most charitable imagining possible of your contribution it still has no value. We all know the moral issues with the status quo. It’s not that I can’t rebut them, it’s that I don’t wish to rebut them, I accept those points, I agree, they’re evident to the point of being beneath commenting on. Where you lose me is when you attempt to hand wave away all the complexity that resulted in the status quo with a Pepsi. You mistake my disinterest in your Pepsi based solution as an endorsement of the status quo and pretend that you, and you alone, see the moral problems with that status quo. You’re behind the curve Kendall. The rest of us had already heard of the problem some time ago and know that there aren’t easy answers. The dismissal of your Pepsi plan is not a defence of West Bank settlements and I’m tired of you insisting that I can’t dismiss one without being accountable for the other. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2574 Posts
Besides, we've hashed this out before. All GH is basically ever trying to do is get people to admit that the system is fundamentally broken beyond the point where it can self-repair. Anything past that point in the plan has always been ???????. @GH I don't think it's true that he is unable to satisfactorily rebut your points. I think KwarK clearly disagrees with you and is fair to do so, I just think KwarK's next steps after "disagree with GH" are as ??????? as yours are (no offense intended.). | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 10 2024 12:02 KwarK wrote: But the only moderating I do is PBUs and ad bots and it wouldn’t change my posting any. Not sure what upsides you’re imagining would happen but I’m game to try it if you’d like. Didn’t you once ban LegalLord because you were triggered by him calling Joe Biden Brandon? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
On July 10 2024 13:57 Fleetfeet wrote: Could (or would) the person you wish GH were even exist or post here though? Besides, we've hashed this out before. All GH is basically ever trying to do is get people to admit that the system is fundamentally broken beyond the point where it can self-repair. Anything past that point in the plan has always been ???????. @GH I don't think it's true that he is unable to satisfactorily rebut your points. I think KwarK clearly disagrees with you and is fair to do so, I just think KwarK's next steps after "disagree with GH" are as ??????? as yours are (no offense intended.). Of course the system is broken. That’s Kendall noticing that racism exists. I don’t disagree with Kendall that racism exists. I just wish she’d stop insisting that her noticing this is an unusually insightful contribution and that she’s better than us because she’s promoting Pepsi. And that anyone not on board has either failed to notice racism or secretly likes it. I don’t meaningfully disagree with GH about the issues, just like I don’t think Kendall Jenner was wrong when she discovered racism. It’s an important issue that needs to be addressed. My disagreement with GH is entirely over whether he’s closer to Lenin or Kendall. I think he’s a clown, not a conservative. | ||
| ||
