|
On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. + Show Spoiler +
I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK.
Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking.
(As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure + Show Spoiler + edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!)
Didn't StealthBlue get demodded and catch some warning/bans for not posting news stories the way people wanted?
|
Bisutopia19282 Posts
On October 09 2025 23:09 ChristianS wrote:
@Bisu: I admire the sentiment and agree with a fair amount of what you said, but I hear “culture of optimism” and “not criticize the other side, but challenge them” about a US politics thread and I wonder if you’ve been following a different US politics than I have. We’re not really in “culture of optimism” times, you know?
We don't have to behave like others. I'm not raising my kids to keep with today's culture. I'm raising my kids to start the culture of the next generation. One that helps neighbors, friend, and people who need it out in public. It's okay to be different and do better then those around us.
|
Northern Ireland25853 Posts
On October 09 2025 20:15 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK. Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking. (As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!) Hey, thanks for the shoulder tap and remembering when I casted with AmazingXKCD! On the Kwark issue: I think we can all always be doing our best to talk to each other with respect and kindness. A difference of opinion isn't an excuse to say whatever we want to others. As referenced in one of the other nested posts, saying "Go F Yourself", as post content is not acceptable and should not exist on any of the pages of TL. Lately, I've seen more and more hateful content from both sides specifically in this forum. People condoning the murder or celebrating the deaths of individuals. I would like to call on everyone here to hit a reset button and focus on a culture of optimism, positivity. A culture that doesn't criticize the other side, but challenges the other side to think critically about a topic. And if you are on the other side of an opinion, I challenge you to open your mind to that discussion instead of throwing back attacks. TLDR: Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 09:17 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does no one remember the "bullying is bad" era of moderation/thread consensus? I remember the years you spent insisting that everyone but you was literally complicit in genocide if that helps. This guy is trying to remember a time when we actually tried to respect each other and moderate respect for each other on TL. You can't talk like this to people. This kind of rhetoric is just not okay. Let's please do better then this.
I mean I’d love to just discuss things, possibly while holding hands and joining together in a spirited rendition of Kumbaya. It’s quite tricky given other factors. One of which is perpetual disingenuous argumentation. I can’t control the other side of a discussion. If it’s good faith you’ll see the best of me in that regard, if it’s bad faith the worst.
To swing back to Magic Power’s point, I’m not any kind of voice of reason in most places I reside, but appreciated haha! I’m not actually defending Kwark especially, I’m couching it in a wider context.
My contention is, well pick one’s poison. Blatant strawmanning, genuinely bad faith argumentation, refusing to learn how to use the quote functionality, refusing to admit when one is wrong so a discussion can move forwards, derailing interesting discussions, dumping 2 hour long videos with no summary (against rules), and more besides.
If it were in isolation, that’s one thing, but there’s tons of transgressions there and they all add up.
Plenty of that is done ‘civilly’, but is not civil, it degrades things away from a genuinely civil discussion space.
Kwark is being very obviously uncivil, but I’m not particularly defending him. My point is if people are consistently uncivil (as I see it) while ostensibly being civil, it has the same degradative effect as someone just cutting through it and telling people to fuck off.
I’ve said in the past that certain ‘civil’ actions should be more strictly moderated if they’re clearly absolute nonsense, in this very feedback thread. But they aren’t.
The wider site would also probably benefit from a block function to avoid various feuds perpetually spilling over, but I recognise that’s probably a good chunk of work for a niche benefit.
|
On October 09 2025 23:23 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 23:09 ChristianS wrote:
@Bisu: I admire the sentiment and agree with a fair amount of what you said, but I hear “culture of optimism” and “not criticize the other side, but challenge them” about a US politics thread and I wonder if you’ve been following a different US politics than I have. We’re not really in “culture of optimism” times, you know? We don't have to behave like others. I'm not raising my kids to keep with today's culture. I'm raising my kids to start the culture of the next generation. One that helps neighbors, friend, and people who need it out in public. It's okay to be different and do better then those around us.
Yeah, for sure, and I’m a strong believer in trying to act right even when somebody else isn’t. But like, optimism is, to some degree, an empirical question, no? To say “things are good” or “things are going to get better” depends at least somewhat on actually looking at things and how they’re trending?
As an extreme example, if the other side is forming vigilante mobs and running around town murdering perceived enemies, I’m not going to feel particularly optimistic, or be especially interested in “challenging their rhetoric without criticizing them” as an ideal to strive for. Not saying that’s exactly where we’re at, but it is context-dependent, isn’t it?
|
Northern Ireland25853 Posts
On October 09 2025 23:23 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 23:09 ChristianS wrote:
@Bisu: I admire the sentiment and agree with a fair amount of what you said, but I hear “culture of optimism” and “not criticize the other side, but challenge them” about a US politics thread and I wonder if you’ve been following a different US politics than I have. We’re not really in “culture of optimism” times, you know? We don't have to behave like others. I'm not raising my kids to keep with today's culture. I'm raising my kids to start the culture of the next generation. One that helps neighbors, friend, and people who need it out in public. It's okay to be different and do better then those around us.
I think that’s great, but they do have to live in it.
I’m known as being quite an entertaining political ranter amongst me various circles, specially after a few beers. People dig it, it’s one of my solid niches.
The sad part is I’d rather not be that angry all the time, but it’s either ignoring wider trends, or paying attention and being angry.
|
On October 09 2025 23:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 20:15 BisuDagger wrote:On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK. Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking. (As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!) Hey, thanks for the shoulder tap and remembering when I casted with AmazingXKCD! On the Kwark issue: I think we can all always be doing our best to talk to each other with respect and kindness. A difference of opinion isn't an excuse to say whatever we want to others. As referenced in one of the other nested posts, saying "Go F Yourself", as post content is not acceptable and should not exist on any of the pages of TL. Lately, I've seen more and more hateful content from both sides specifically in this forum. People condoning the murder or celebrating the deaths of individuals. I would like to call on everyone here to hit a reset button and focus on a culture of optimism, positivity. A culture that doesn't criticize the other side, but challenges the other side to think critically about a topic. And if you are on the other side of an opinion, I challenge you to open your mind to that discussion instead of throwing back attacks. TLDR: On October 09 2025 09:17 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does no one remember the "bullying is bad" era of moderation/thread consensus? I remember the years you spent insisting that everyone but you was literally complicit in genocide if that helps. This guy is trying to remember a time when we actually tried to respect each other and moderate respect for each other on TL. You can't talk like this to people. This kind of rhetoric is just not okay. Let's please do better then this. I mean I’d love to just discuss things, possibly while holding hands and joining together in a spirited rendition of Kumbaya. It’s quite tricky given other factors. One of which is perpetual disingenuous argumentation. I can’t control the other side of a discussion. If it’s good faith you’ll see the best of me in that regard, if it’s bad faith the worst. To swing back to Magic Power’s point, I’m not any kind of voice of reason in most places I reside, but appreciated haha! I’m not actually defending Kwark especially, I’m couching it in a wider context. My contention is, well pick one’s poison. Blatant strawmanning, genuinely bad faith argumentation, refusing to learn how to use the quote functionality, refusing to admit when one is wrong so a discussion can move forwards, derailing interesting discussions, dumping 2 hour long videos with no summary (against rules), and more besides. If it were in isolation, that’s one thing, but there’s tons of transgressions there and they all add up. Plenty of that is done ‘civilly’, but is not civil, it degrades things away from a genuinely civil discussion space. Kwark is being very obviously uncivil, but I’m not particularly defending him. My point is if people are consistently uncivil (as I see it) while ostensibly being civil, it has the same degradative effect as someone just cutting through it and telling people to fuck off. I’ve said in the past that certain ‘civil’ actions should be more strictly moderated if they’re clearly absolute nonsense, in this very feedback thread. But they aren’t. The wider site would also probably benefit from a block function to avoid various feuds perpetually spilling over, but I recognise that’s probably a good chunk of work for a niche benefit.
I think the following two statements can't both be true at the same time:
1) US pol discussions have no impact on real politics.
2) Dishonest debating tactics have to be met with a lot of insults, and other options are not viable.
If 1) is true, then it should be easy to stay calm and collected, because there are no real life consequences to any of what a politically opposed side says in US pol.
If 1) is false, to what degree is it false and how would that change the equation?
I personally don't believe that 1) is 100% true, but I do believe it's around 95-99% true. This makes me ask the question: what is the point of the kind of antagonism such as hurling insults at forum users? If their claims have little to no impact on real life, then they can be easily ignored, which rules out insults as a meaningfully useful option.
This leads to the next question: what else could personal insults accomplish? Do they change any minds? Do they lead to better, more productive discussions? Do they drive the most unproductive forum users away? Anything else?
I believe that the answer to all of those questions is "no". What do you think? Or are there other benefits to these personal insults?
I would conclude that the main - and possibly only - purpose of personal insults is sudden impulsive gratification with no regard for consequences. That's all it does in my opinion.
|
Absent any other actions, at least updating the thread's ancient mod note to something more relevant would be more effective at spreading BisuDagger's message.
|
On October 09 2025 00:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 00:18 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not sure whether this was ever a fully explicit thread rule but mods used to talk sometimes about no grudge-holding. That’s a little bit fuzzy to define, but I took it to mean: obviously you’ll take a poster’s history into account in reading and responding to their posts, but if they’re responding to something new and all you’re doing is dredging up some old argument so you can rehash it, maybe just don’t and save everybody some time.
Whether or not it’s action-worthy, I do think Kwark runs afoul of that principle with GH. It kinda reminds me of LegalLord’s “electable delectable” thing. And I thought that bit was kinda funny, and even after it got annoying I still sort of admired the performance art of it, but it was just kinda clear that, like, we’re all trying to talk about Topic B and he’s dragging us back to Topic A, not to say anything new about it, but to remind us he still feels the way he did last time he brought it up.
For the record I’d file this under “constructive feedback for Kwark” and not “me begging for mod action against Kwark” but I thought it might describe the dynamic people are taking issue with (well, one of them at least). I don’t see how that holds. I think it’s a good idea, but the spirit of said idea is to not hold one’s past transgressions or annoying traits against them, when they’re working on doing better. I try, and fail at times in that process. I resent shit I’ve already agreed was a mistake being dredged up so someone can throw a dig, so I fully agree with the ‘no grudge’ idea, don’t get me wrong. If one continually posts in the exact same manner, in seeming perpetuity that’s not holding a grudge and being uncharitable, it’s calling a spade a spade, at least as one sees it. It’s a two-way concept, one not wanting to be pigeonholed, or having past opinions dredged up to bash a new opinion is 100% fair, but equally if you just keep doing the exact same things, people absolutely can dredge up the past because you haven’t shown any inclination to deviate from those patterns. I don’t wish to single users out, I am speaking in a generalised capacity. People don’t seem to have a massive issue with my posting, so I have little experience of blowback that might be unfair or irk me. Of the posters who do get a bunch, I see very little change in their habits. Which is totally their call to make, but they can’t really complain if people who find their habits annoying, continue to
Wanted to circle back to this, first of all to say there’s been a consistent pattern where I write a post, and you write a really good and thought-provoking response, which I don’t find time to think about and respond to before the thread moves on. Sorry about that! Sometimes I don’t respond to somebody because I don’t think it’s worth it, but in your case I can’t remember the last time you had a post I didn’t think was really quite good. And generally speaking I think the thread would be a lot better if people spent more time trying to engage with posts they thought were good and not reacting to posts they thought were bad.
On this specific topic: yeah, it’s not easy to find the line, which is why I always thought the “no grudge” thing was a good idea but not especially actionable for moderation. You can just not respond to somebody you think is back on their bullshit, of course, and sometimes that’s appropriate, but that’s also kind of “ceding the field” to them. I think there’s a fair number of people who despise GH’s posting style and are choosing not to engage with him, who are then frustrated when someone else who likes his posts more (e.g. me) engages with him and it takes over the thread anyway.
But in Kwark’s case I only sometimes think that applies. There’s a classic tweet (I think that’s a fair description whether you agree with it or not) that I think tends to encapsulate Kwark’s feelings about GH:
And if GH is essentially just posting “daily reminder that supporting Democrats makes you complicit in genocide” and Kwark reiterates his criticism of that, fair enough. But if GH is posting “okay, what do you guys think the Dems should/will do in this shutdown” and Kwark is replying “lol well obviously they should firebomb Walmarts until Republicans agree to socialism” then, like, I’m just not sure we’re gaining much from it? I might even find his post funny, and lots of people in the thread might agree with his criticism, but couldn’t we all save a lot of time if he just linked the tweet every time instead of typing out a new version of that response?
Then if he’s willing to just link the tweet, maybe he could put it in a spoiler to save us even more time. And at that point we could save even more time if he just doesn’t click “Post.” And now with all that time we’ve saved we could just discuss the actual currently-relevant subject.
|
There's nothing wrong with being angry. The world is getting worse, and it's something that's being done, on purpose, by people, to the rest of us. That sucks. It would be weird to not be angry about it.
In terms of forums like these the problem is probably more frustration than anger, at least it is for me. You would want people to be convinced when you make a good argument, or when you show that their argument is bad, but that rarely ever happens. But it's probably worth trying to remember that the people who are frustrating here aren't really representative of any kind of average. You'll never get oBlade to admit that he doesn't believe in anything, but a lot of other people do, most people do actually. Trump used to be -22 with Gen Z, now he's -38. Those people won't be regulars on a political thread, but they're around.
If you want to draw optimism from something, as a whole we're still behaving like humans. It's the systems that are pushing people to become more rightwing, not people who are pushing systems to become more rightwing. You still get to have faith in humans.
|
On October 09 2025 23:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 23:28 WombaT wrote:On October 09 2025 20:15 BisuDagger wrote:On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK. Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking. (As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!) Hey, thanks for the shoulder tap and remembering when I casted with AmazingXKCD! On the Kwark issue: I think we can all always be doing our best to talk to each other with respect and kindness. A difference of opinion isn't an excuse to say whatever we want to others. As referenced in one of the other nested posts, saying "Go F Yourself", as post content is not acceptable and should not exist on any of the pages of TL. Lately, I've seen more and more hateful content from both sides specifically in this forum. People condoning the murder or celebrating the deaths of individuals. I would like to call on everyone here to hit a reset button and focus on a culture of optimism, positivity. A culture that doesn't criticize the other side, but challenges the other side to think critically about a topic. And if you are on the other side of an opinion, I challenge you to open your mind to that discussion instead of throwing back attacks. TLDR: On October 09 2025 09:17 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does no one remember the "bullying is bad" era of moderation/thread consensus? I remember the years you spent insisting that everyone but you was literally complicit in genocide if that helps. This guy is trying to remember a time when we actually tried to respect each other and moderate respect for each other on TL. You can't talk like this to people. This kind of rhetoric is just not okay. Let's please do better then this. I mean I’d love to just discuss things, possibly while holding hands and joining together in a spirited rendition of Kumbaya. It’s quite tricky given other factors. One of which is perpetual disingenuous argumentation. I can’t control the other side of a discussion. If it’s good faith you’ll see the best of me in that regard, if it’s bad faith the worst. To swing back to Magic Power’s point, I’m not any kind of voice of reason in most places I reside, but appreciated haha! I’m not actually defending Kwark especially, I’m couching it in a wider context. My contention is, well pick one’s poison. Blatant strawmanning, genuinely bad faith argumentation, refusing to learn how to use the quote functionality, refusing to admit when one is wrong so a discussion can move forwards, derailing interesting discussions, dumping 2 hour long videos with no summary (against rules), and more besides. If it were in isolation, that’s one thing, but there’s tons of transgressions there and they all add up. Plenty of that is done ‘civilly’, but is not civil, it degrades things away from a genuinely civil discussion space. Kwark is being very obviously uncivil, but I’m not particularly defending him. My point is if people are consistently uncivil (as I see it) while ostensibly being civil, it has the same degradative effect as someone just cutting through it and telling people to fuck off. I’ve said in the past that certain ‘civil’ actions should be more strictly moderated if they’re clearly absolute nonsense, in this very feedback thread. But they aren’t. The wider site would also probably benefit from a block function to avoid various feuds perpetually spilling over, but I recognise that’s probably a good chunk of work for a niche benefit. I think the following two statements can't both be true at the same time: 1) US pol discussions have no impact on real politics. 2) Dishonest debating tactics have to be met with a lot of insults, and other options are not viable. If 1) is true, then it should be easy to stay calm and collected, because there are no real life consequences to any of what a politically opposed side says in US pol. If 1) is false, to what degree is it false and how would that change the equation? I personally don't believe that 1) is 100% true, but I do believe it's around 95-99% true. This makes me ask the question: what is the point of the kind of antagonism such as hurling insults at forum users? If their claims have little to no impact on real life, then they can be easily ignored, which rules out insults as a meaningfully useful option. This leads to the next question: what else could personal insults accomplish? Do they change any minds? Do they lead to better, more productive discussions? Do they drive the most unproductive forum users away? Anything else? I believe that the answer to all of those questions is "no". What do you think? Or are there other benefits to these personal insults? I would conclude that the main - and possibly only - purpose of personal insults is sudden impulsive gratification with no regard for consequences. That's all it does in my opinion.
Your assertion is very obviously nonsense, as any SC player should easily be able to attest to when ragequitting after getting protossed. The fact that it's a videogame and has 0 consequence on anything doesn't mean you don't get (irrationally) angry about it.
|
Northern Ireland25853 Posts
On October 09 2025 23:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 23:28 WombaT wrote:On October 09 2025 20:15 BisuDagger wrote:On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK. Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking. (As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!) Hey, thanks for the shoulder tap and remembering when I casted with AmazingXKCD! On the Kwark issue: I think we can all always be doing our best to talk to each other with respect and kindness. A difference of opinion isn't an excuse to say whatever we want to others. As referenced in one of the other nested posts, saying "Go F Yourself", as post content is not acceptable and should not exist on any of the pages of TL. Lately, I've seen more and more hateful content from both sides specifically in this forum. People condoning the murder or celebrating the deaths of individuals. I would like to call on everyone here to hit a reset button and focus on a culture of optimism, positivity. A culture that doesn't criticize the other side, but challenges the other side to think critically about a topic. And if you are on the other side of an opinion, I challenge you to open your mind to that discussion instead of throwing back attacks. TLDR: On October 09 2025 09:17 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does no one remember the "bullying is bad" era of moderation/thread consensus? I remember the years you spent insisting that everyone but you was literally complicit in genocide if that helps. This guy is trying to remember a time when we actually tried to respect each other and moderate respect for each other on TL. You can't talk like this to people. This kind of rhetoric is just not okay. Let's please do better then this. I mean I’d love to just discuss things, possibly while holding hands and joining together in a spirited rendition of Kumbaya. It’s quite tricky given other factors. One of which is perpetual disingenuous argumentation. I can’t control the other side of a discussion. If it’s good faith you’ll see the best of me in that regard, if it’s bad faith the worst. To swing back to Magic Power’s point, I’m not any kind of voice of reason in most places I reside, but appreciated haha! I’m not actually defending Kwark especially, I’m couching it in a wider context. My contention is, well pick one’s poison. Blatant strawmanning, genuinely bad faith argumentation, refusing to learn how to use the quote functionality, refusing to admit when one is wrong so a discussion can move forwards, derailing interesting discussions, dumping 2 hour long videos with no summary (against rules), and more besides. If it were in isolation, that’s one thing, but there’s tons of transgressions there and they all add up. Plenty of that is done ‘civilly’, but is not civil, it degrades things away from a genuinely civil discussion space. Kwark is being very obviously uncivil, but I’m not particularly defending him. My point is if people are consistently uncivil (as I see it) while ostensibly being civil, it has the same degradative effect as someone just cutting through it and telling people to fuck off. I’ve said in the past that certain ‘civil’ actions should be more strictly moderated if they’re clearly absolute nonsense, in this very feedback thread. But they aren’t. The wider site would also probably benefit from a block function to avoid various feuds perpetually spilling over, but I recognise that’s probably a good chunk of work for a niche benefit. I think the following two statements can't both be true at the same time: 1) US pol discussions have no impact on real politics. 2) Dishonest debating tactics have to be met with a lot of insults, and other options are not viable. If 1) is true, then it should be easy to stay calm and collected, because there are no real life consequences to any of what a politically opposed side says in US pol. If 1) is false, to what degree is it false and how would that change the equation? I personally don't believe that 1) is 100% true, but I do believe it's around 95-99% true. This makes me ask the question: what is the point of the kind of antagonism such as hurling insults at forum users? If their claims have little to no impact on real life, then they can be easily ignored, which rules out insults as a meaningfully useful option. This leads to the next question: what else could personal insults accomplish? Do they change any minds? Do they lead to better, more productive discussions? Do they drive the most unproductive forum users away? Anything else? I believe that the answer to all of those questions is "no". What do you think? Or are there other benefits to these personal insults? I would conclude that the main - and possibly only - purpose of personal insults is sudden impulsive gratification with no regard for consequences. That's all it does in my opinion.
I don’t believe 1) being true necessarily impacts and directly leads to being calm and collected.
One might know their personal input isn’t changing the world, but still very much care about it. Alternatively, one’s intellect may be a very core part of one’s identity, it’s not necessarily about the issues, but showing you’re the smartest person in the room, and not getting validation initially can spiral into hit pieces. Certainly both of those I’m susceptible, even if I don’t think I’m the smartest person in this particular room.
So I think it’s something of a false dichotomy you’re presenting here.
Although I do agree with a good chunk of your points here
|
Northern Ireland25853 Posts
On October 10 2025 00:00 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 00:41 WombaT wrote:On October 09 2025 00:18 ChristianS wrote:
I’m not sure whether this was ever a fully explicit thread rule but mods used to talk sometimes about no grudge-holding. That’s a little bit fuzzy to define, but I took it to mean: obviously you’ll take a poster’s history into account in reading and responding to their posts, but if they’re responding to something new and all you’re doing is dredging up some old argument so you can rehash it, maybe just don’t and save everybody some time.
Whether or not it’s action-worthy, I do think Kwark runs afoul of that principle with GH. It kinda reminds me of LegalLord’s “electable delectable” thing. And I thought that bit was kinda funny, and even after it got annoying I still sort of admired the performance art of it, but it was just kinda clear that, like, we’re all trying to talk about Topic B and he’s dragging us back to Topic A, not to say anything new about it, but to remind us he still feels the way he did last time he brought it up.
For the record I’d file this under “constructive feedback for Kwark” and not “me begging for mod action against Kwark” but I thought it might describe the dynamic people are taking issue with (well, one of them at least). I don’t see how that holds. I think it’s a good idea, but the spirit of said idea is to not hold one’s past transgressions or annoying traits against them, when they’re working on doing better. I try, and fail at times in that process. I resent shit I’ve already agreed was a mistake being dredged up so someone can throw a dig, so I fully agree with the ‘no grudge’ idea, don’t get me wrong. If one continually posts in the exact same manner, in seeming perpetuity that’s not holding a grudge and being uncharitable, it’s calling a spade a spade, at least as one sees it. It’s a two-way concept, one not wanting to be pigeonholed, or having past opinions dredged up to bash a new opinion is 100% fair, but equally if you just keep doing the exact same things, people absolutely can dredge up the past because you haven’t shown any inclination to deviate from those patterns. I don’t wish to single users out, I am speaking in a generalised capacity. People don’t seem to have a massive issue with my posting, so I have little experience of blowback that might be unfair or irk me. Of the posters who do get a bunch, I see very little change in their habits. Which is totally their call to make, but they can’t really complain if people who find their habits annoying, continue to Wanted to circle back to this, first of all to say there’s been a consistent pattern where I write a post, and you write a really good and thought-provoking response, which I don’t find time to think about and respond to before the thread moves on. Sorry about that! Sometimes I don’t respond to somebody because I don’t think it’s worth it, but in your case I can’t remember the last time you had a post I didn’t think was really quite good. And generally speaking I think the thread would be a lot better if people spent more time trying to engage with posts they thought were good and not reacting to posts they thought were bad. On this specific topic: yeah, it’s not easy to find the line, which is why I always thought the “no grudge” thing was a good idea but not especially actionable for moderation. You can just not respond to somebody you think is back on their bullshit, of course, and sometimes that’s appropriate, but that’s also kind of “ceding the field” to them. I think there’s a fair number of people who despise GH’s posting style and are choosing not to engage with him, who are then frustrated when someone else who likes his posts more (e.g. me) engages with him and it takes over the thread anyway. But in Kwark’s case I only sometimes think that applies. There’s a classic tweet (I think that’s a fair description whether you agree with it or not) that I think tends to encapsulate Kwark’s feelings about GH: https://twitter.com/linkofsunshine/status/1720538218628558969And if GH is essentially just posting “daily reminder that supporting Democrats makes you complicit in genocide” and Kwark reiterates his criticism of that, fair enough. But if GH is posting “okay, what do you guys think the Dems should/will do in this shutdown” and Kwark is replying “lol well obviously they should firebomb Walmarts until Republicans agree to socialism” then, like, I’m just not sure we’re gaining much from it? I might even find his post funny, and lots of people in the thread might agree with his criticism, but couldn’t we all save a lot of time if he just linked the tweet every time instead of typing out a new version of that response? Then if he’s willing to just link the tweet, maybe he could put it in a spoiler to save us even more time. And at that point we could save even more time if he just doesn’t click “Post.” And now with all that time we’ve saved we could just discuss the actual currently-relevant subject.
Haha, forgiven! Do better though :p I kid
But yeah I think there absolutely is a wider propensity to kinda avoid good posts, some of which people clearly spent some time on (many of yours for example one), and just jump on the most obviously wrong ones going. Or at least the most vociferously disagreed with.
Which can be frustrating because the best posts here are great, and a good starting point to really deep dive a topic properly, and often learn something.
I’d pretty much broadly agree with a good bunch of your post. I also don’t like using this thread as a forum to call out specific users. But I do feel many problems are often caused by posting approaches, rather than political views as well.
I think say, Introvert is a pretty good poster. I disagree with them on almost everything, but I find interactions reasonably productive. People who have extremely similar politics to me, can be awful posters and drag the thread down.
|
On October 10 2025 00:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2025 23:59 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 23:28 WombaT wrote:On October 09 2025 20:15 BisuDagger wrote:On October 09 2025 14:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 09 2025 05:07 Magic Powers wrote:On October 09 2025 02:29 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 08 2025 16:14 Magic Powers wrote:On October 08 2025 11:04 Fleetfeet wrote:I really don't think it matters. Everyone (for the most part) knows who Kwark is and knows he's a shit to pretty much anyone, if given the opportunity. I used to think he's on a pedestal because he's a mod, but that actually isn't the case as best I can tell. Other than something of a personal victory, would anything change if Kwark's modship was removed? I truly don't believe so. No, KwarK is not "a shit to everyone". He is to specific people, which is when he hates something about them, either for their political views (usually) or whatever he imagines their political views are. He also shits on people who call out the fact that he is a mod who'd be long banned if he wasn't a mod. This clearly gets to him, because he can't handle being called out. Now he's apparently on the "look, someone needs to change MP's diapers" train. Doesn't bother me very much compared to what he used to say to/about me. Still not behavior a mod should ever be allowed to display, but if people can handle it, so can I. That's not his worst behavior though by any means. His worst behavior is targeted bullying, as I explained numerous times before. BJ called him out before, and surprise surprise BJ is now gone after calling the culture around here "a cesspool". I disagreed with BJ on that, but perhaps that's because my views are more in line with the people who are acting out lately. You know, BJ never struck me as thin-skinned, quite the opposite. Lets maybe let that sink in for a second. What could've happened lately that made BJ leave? Kwark is a shit to anyone, given the opportunity. You put "shit to everyone" in quotes as though I had written that; I had not. You didn't answer the question, either. Do you believe anything outside of some sort of feeling of personal victory (for you) would change if Kwark's modship was removed? Before I answer your question, I'm a believer in second, third, even fourth and fifth chances. I've been taking the "wait and see" approach a bunch of times. Just recently I thought KwarK had changed and improved, only to prove me wrong again. At some point every glimmer of hope has been erased and more chances are nonsensical. That's the point I think we're currently at. Some people only change when they're forced to change. KwarK, to me, appears to be such a person regarding his mod status. If he retains his mod status, the chances of forum culture recovering are zero. I'm baffled that someone like Wombat is defending KwarK's behavior. He used to always be the voice of reason and balance, but now he's literally approving mods breaking forum rules. To me that's a sign that forum culture has eroded and we've reached a very low point. Mods are supposed to be above rule breaking, which is the deal they (hypothetically) sign to earn their badge. So logically in my mind if KwarK has his mod powers removed, that would instantly lead to a massive improvement of forum culture. It would not only mean that mods are beholden to the same rules as everybody else, it would also imply that all forum users will be warned/banned according to their rule breaking behavior, and exceptions to that will have to be within reason. I hear you, I really do, but I don't think making KwarK not a mod changes a single thing about KwarK. He's still gonna be an asshole when he feels like it, and he's still not gonna get actioned for that, because he's still KwarK. Again, it feels like your actual issue is with the moderation standards of USPOL or TL at large, and I feel like that should be the focus. The KwarK shit feels like a personal issue, and I wholly understand why someone would have a personal issue with KwarK, but that doesn't make a great foundation for decisionmaking. (As something of an anecdotal aside, an admin or mod got fully nuked off TL at least once in our history. It certainly can happen. I can't remember their name, but they were a BW caster alongside BisuDagger a bunch iirc, and a reasonably prominent figure in the general community. It's frustrating I can't remember their name, but somone here will fill in I'm sure edit - it was amazingxkcd, they quit being staff and eventually asked to be perm'd, not as solid an example as I remembered. Oh well!) Hey, thanks for the shoulder tap and remembering when I casted with AmazingXKCD! On the Kwark issue: I think we can all always be doing our best to talk to each other with respect and kindness. A difference of opinion isn't an excuse to say whatever we want to others. As referenced in one of the other nested posts, saying "Go F Yourself", as post content is not acceptable and should not exist on any of the pages of TL. Lately, I've seen more and more hateful content from both sides specifically in this forum. People condoning the murder or celebrating the deaths of individuals. I would like to call on everyone here to hit a reset button and focus on a culture of optimism, positivity. A culture that doesn't criticize the other side, but challenges the other side to think critically about a topic. And if you are on the other side of an opinion, I challenge you to open your mind to that discussion instead of throwing back attacks. TLDR: On October 09 2025 09:17 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2025 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
Does no one remember the "bullying is bad" era of moderation/thread consensus? I remember the years you spent insisting that everyone but you was literally complicit in genocide if that helps. This guy is trying to remember a time when we actually tried to respect each other and moderate respect for each other on TL. You can't talk like this to people. This kind of rhetoric is just not okay. Let's please do better then this. I mean I’d love to just discuss things, possibly while holding hands and joining together in a spirited rendition of Kumbaya. It’s quite tricky given other factors. One of which is perpetual disingenuous argumentation. I can’t control the other side of a discussion. If it’s good faith you’ll see the best of me in that regard, if it’s bad faith the worst. To swing back to Magic Power’s point, I’m not any kind of voice of reason in most places I reside, but appreciated haha! I’m not actually defending Kwark especially, I’m couching it in a wider context. My contention is, well pick one’s poison. Blatant strawmanning, genuinely bad faith argumentation, refusing to learn how to use the quote functionality, refusing to admit when one is wrong so a discussion can move forwards, derailing interesting discussions, dumping 2 hour long videos with no summary (against rules), and more besides. If it were in isolation, that’s one thing, but there’s tons of transgressions there and they all add up. Plenty of that is done ‘civilly’, but is not civil, it degrades things away from a genuinely civil discussion space. Kwark is being very obviously uncivil, but I’m not particularly defending him. My point is if people are consistently uncivil (as I see it) while ostensibly being civil, it has the same degradative effect as someone just cutting through it and telling people to fuck off. I’ve said in the past that certain ‘civil’ actions should be more strictly moderated if they’re clearly absolute nonsense, in this very feedback thread. But they aren’t. The wider site would also probably benefit from a block function to avoid various feuds perpetually spilling over, but I recognise that’s probably a good chunk of work for a niche benefit. I think the following two statements can't both be true at the same time: 1) US pol discussions have no impact on real politics. 2) Dishonest debating tactics have to be met with a lot of insults, and other options are not viable. If 1) is true, then it should be easy to stay calm and collected, because there are no real life consequences to any of what a politically opposed side says in US pol. If 1) is false, to what degree is it false and how would that change the equation? I personally don't believe that 1) is 100% true, but I do believe it's around 95-99% true. This makes me ask the question: what is the point of the kind of antagonism such as hurling insults at forum users? If their claims have little to no impact on real life, then they can be easily ignored, which rules out insults as a meaningfully useful option. This leads to the next question: what else could personal insults accomplish? Do they change any minds? Do they lead to better, more productive discussions? Do they drive the most unproductive forum users away? Anything else? I believe that the answer to all of those questions is "no". What do you think? Or are there other benefits to these personal insults? I would conclude that the main - and possibly only - purpose of personal insults is sudden impulsive gratification with no regard for consequences. That's all it does in my opinion. Your assertion is very obviously nonsense, as any SC player should easily be able to attest to when ragequitting after getting protossed. The fact that it's a videogame and has 0 consequence on anything doesn't mean you don't get (irrationally) angry about it.
You're interpreting my comment in a way that I didn't intend. Let me state very clearly that self-control is difficult. It requires some mental effort, sometimes a lot, and it's very important to learn it and to learn to apply it at the right times.
In your job you would never behave the same way as you do when you play video games or when you write comments in this thread. Correct?
So, I'm aware that this thread lowers the level of self-control when compared to spaces such as one's work space. My argument isn't that self-control is easy around here while reading people's comments and replying to them. My argument is that not having a level of self-control is at worst completely counter productive and at best nothing more than a way to get instant gratification (with no regard for consequences). Consequences such as deterioration of forum culture. Your own mental state being impacted negatively. Other people's perception of you as a person worsening. Etc.
|
United States43111 Posts
On October 10 2025 00:10 Nebuchad wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being angry. The world is getting worse, and it's something that's being done, on purpose, by people, to the rest of us. That sucks. It would be weird to not be angry about it.
|
United States43111 Posts
So I check the topic and the new posts are
On October 10 2025 00:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:The US money system has been a scam since 1913. meh. Show nested quote +
“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the gun but the value of your work that gives you the right to money.
When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men.
Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other, and your time is running out.
Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence.
They seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper.
This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values—an arbitrary power of government.”
Francisco D'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged. 1957. On October 10 2025 00:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2025 00:41 LightSpectra wrote:
Learning about economics from Ayn Rand is approximately the same as learning about biology from Andrew Wakefield. it is not an economic discussion. it is a moral and philosophical discussion. fiat money systems are a scam. On October 10 2025 00:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2025 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:
True, "discussion" implies some kind of thought and cognizance. it is explained in the quote. if you can't understand it... just say so. it went past you when you called it an economic discussion. if you do not understand how the Fed is a Fiat money system or how Miss Rand criticized fiat money systems in that speech by D'anconia then you can probably figure it out with a couple of ChatGPT prompts. "money is a tool of exchange that can not exist without goods produced and men able to produce them..." Anyhow, the US money system has been a scam for over a century. Most people know that going in prepare accordingly.
|
I mean, JJR is obviously his own completely distinct animal, you can’t possibly expect to generalize anything from him
|
United States43111 Posts
I just found it funny. We're encouraged to all go and try harder to have a good discussion and not just dismiss ideas as stupid and then, out of nowhere, after a prolonged absence, Randians show up with a steel gold chair.
|
On October 10 2025 00:00 ChristianS wrote:
I think there’s a fair number of people who despise GH’s posting style and are choosing not to engage with him, who are then frustrated when someone else who likes his posts more (e.g. me) engages with him and it takes over the thread anyway.
Funny you should say that, the moment I started mostly skipping his posts was after the November election when he successfully shamed you for not joining socialist LARP-ing club. And I distinctly remember that after you conceded he said people are dying because of the way people like you vote (lol).
I found that disgusting, he seems to pick as targets the kindest people that are most likely to care about his criticism and second guess themselves and be hurt (like you or DPB).
I don't think the point of "purity testing" is to test someone's ideological purity, I think it's to get pleasure from causing someone to feel bad about themselves. There's no point for them engaging with ideological adversaries because those don't give a shit what they think, so it's all friendly fire, friendliest fire even.
|
On October 10 2025 05:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2025 00:00 ChristianS wrote:
I think there’s a fair number of people who despise GH’s posting style and are choosing not to engage with him, who are then frustrated when someone else who likes his posts more (e.g. me) engages with him and it takes over the thread anyway. Funny you should say that, the moment I started mostly skipping his posts was after the November election when he successfully shamed you for not joining socialist LARP-ing club. And I distinctly remember that after you conceded he said people are dying because of the way people like you vote (lol). I found that disgusting, he seems to pick as targets the kindest people that are most likely to care about his criticism and second guess themselves and be hurt (like you or DPB). I don't think the point of "purity testing" is to test someone's ideological purity, I think it's to get pleasure from causing someone to feel bad about themselves. There's no point for them engaging with ideological adversaries because those don't give a shit what they think, so it's all friendly fire, friendliest fire even.
I'll just say that GH has, I believe, literally never antagonized me in any capacity. Neither deliberately nor accidentally. So he may have favorite targets, that's possible. I won't just deny it. But also possible is that he picks his targets from those who pick him as a target as well. So tit for tat basically.
Hard to make a judgement on that from my perspective, I'm just saying. He's left me completely alone since my first comment on tl.net. And that's not because I never disagreed with him. I've called him out on a few occasions, but he's never ruffled my feathers. He never calls me out on anything in return. Makes me think.
|
On October 10 2025 05:30 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2025 05:16 Dan HH wrote:On October 10 2025 00:00 ChristianS wrote:
I think there’s a fair number of people who despise GH’s posting style and are choosing not to engage with him, who are then frustrated when someone else who likes his posts more (e.g. me) engages with him and it takes over the thread anyway. Funny you should say that, the moment I started mostly skipping his posts was after the November election when he successfully shamed you for not joining socialist LARP-ing club. And I distinctly remember that after you conceded he said people are dying because of the way people like you vote (lol). I found that disgusting, he seems to pick as targets the kindest people that are most likely to care about his criticism and second guess themselves and be hurt (like you or DPB). I don't think the point of "purity testing" is to test someone's ideological purity, I think it's to get pleasure from causing someone to feel bad about themselves. There's no point for them engaging with ideological adversaries because those don't give a shit what they think, so it's all friendly fire, friendliest fire even. I'll just say that GH has, I believe, literally never antagonized me in any capacity. Neither deliberately nor accidentally. So he may have favorite targets, that's possible. I won't just deny it. But also possible is that he picks his targets from those who pick him as a target as well. So tit for tat basically. Hard to make a judgement on that from my perspective, I'm just saying. He's left me completely alone since my first comment on tl.net. And that's not because I never disagreed with him. I've called him out on a few occasions, but he's never ruffled my feathers. He never calls me out on anything in return. Makes me think.
Nah ChristianS is good people. DPB or Dan too, incidentally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
