• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:36
CEST 06:36
KST 13:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Official Replay Pack BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO8 - Group A Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals RECOVER LOST BTC USDT FUNDS RECLAIMER COMPANY [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 29489 users

US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 34

Forum Index > Website Feedback
Post a Reply
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 322 Next
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17953 Posts
November 27 2016 15:30 GMT
#661
On November 28 2016 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2016 17:55 Acrofales wrote:
Why is there 23 posts of feedback about sources? Aren't the rules already clear?

"Here is a contextless YouTube video, tweet, op ed, etc". Forbidden and actionable.

"Here is what I think, and my reasoning is X, but person Y said it more eloquently than me, so here is a link that I urge you to watch/read if this interests you" is a valuable contribution to the thread. Regardless of whether that link is Chomsky or Breitbart.

I dispute that the latter is valuable. If the fact that the mere mention of Breitbart sends people on a "your source is stupid and you're stupid for linking it" tirade isn't a problem then I don't know what is. We end up with Case 3 above. Chomsky is the same.

I don't think that "someone else said it more eloquently than me" is a valid argument. It's a deflection to avoid having to defend your own argument yourself. It's not immediately apparent that that is the case but I argue that ultimately it is so.

People dropping an issue and not arguing for pages and pages is not a bad thing. I learned my lesson being banned for getting a bit too emotionally invested in "proving TM wrong" in the recent discussion on rape culture. You do not HAVE to reply to everything. It's fine to decide "this conversation is going nowhere" and stop discussing it.

Point in case, we disagree on what constitutes a valuable contribution to the thread. Lets move on with our lives?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-27 16:27:23
November 27 2016 15:33 GMT
#662
On November 28 2016 00:16 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2016 15:54 LegalLord wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:46 Nebuchad wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:44 LegalLord wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:40 Nebuchad wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:38 LegalLord wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:36 Nebuchad wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
On November 27 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:
How do you differentiate between someone who fetishizes experts and someone who knows or aspires to know what experts say on a subject?

Fetishizing experts is basically accepting the opinion of experts as the absolute truth, and if "experts" disagree with a certain position then it is instantaneously invalid, end of story. Also what could fall into this is the viewpoint of "find me experts who argue this point to prove it's valid."

Wanting to know what experts say on a subject involves... actually reading what experts say on a subject. Preferably with a due amount of critical thought since said experts are far from perfect and far from unbiased.


This counters what you said earlier in which bringing up experts in public discourse was in itself pseudo-intellectualism. Now you need a specific attitude connected to the bringing up of experts. This description of fetishization doesn't warrant a removal on expert opinion.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I really don't think you're going anywhere good with this.

What? How did you get that? I definitely didn't say that.


That was my take on: "When it's used in a public discourse, it has a different purpose: to appear well-versed and to be able to cite sources and expect people to just take your word for it because the amount of effort it takes to actually address it is ridiculous. That is pseudo-intellectualism, pure and simple."

Referring to "academic style argument." Which is absolutely true. Any academic who isn't capable of using plainspeak when talking outside of his/her/its academic sphere isn't really worth listening to outside of that academic sphere. Same goes for anyone who writes up a post in academic style, though in that case I suspect a more deliberate game of obfuscation at play there.


If you were talking about style in your answer to me, then you still haven't explained your original claim of "Frankly, the "this academic said" "that academic said otherwise" game is a pointless show of pseudo-intellectualism"

Honestly this is starting to look like a Doodsmack-style "let me find a context to make your posts look as if they're contradictory" misrepresentation. It's a game that gets really tiring really fast.

You mean The Daily Show style. I, however, think it's a useful game to avoid wasting time arguing with people that are known for that.

To be fair I do retract the statement in this specific context. And I do tend to ignore people saying that kind of thing.

Problem is, there's about as many of those as there are people who randomly link John Oliver videos that have no intellectual value and are just glorified "pwnage videos" like I used to watch back when I was a wee little lad. And yet people think they have value.

On November 28 2016 00:16 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 27 2016 16:25 LegalLord wrote:
C, D, E: I'm just going to assume the position I am predisposed to support is right and call it a day.

Wait, that's ninety nine percent of the thread.

I do get what you're saying. I just think everybody knows by now to gloss over long video or deep (sometimes paywalled) academic citations. It's useful to have somebody busts out the "no academic/researcher/scientist believes what you're saying" type of argument. It's not useful when it's one appeal to authority after another. Nobody has the time to critically examine historical, economic, military, climatological, sociological papers because politics treads so many fields and it takes a survey of competing academic works to gain an understanding at what things are in academic contention (or if you cite Chomsky, all bets are off). But, you know, people know this.

You say people know, but I'm not so sure they know. Some people know, but that tends to be very clearly delineated along ideological lines within the discussion at hand. And the mods/newcomers who aren't deep enough in the discussion to have known its evolution over the years don't necessarily know either. It needs to be explicitly said to be better understood. I hope that I've been able to demonstrate what a response to KZ will look like in terms of how it affects the thread, and if I haven't been able to then I never will be able to. I now move on to the Kurt Eichenwalds, Paul Krugmans, and John Olivers of the thread who are no better but certainly no less common nor less positively regarded despite being poisonous to discussion.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 27 2016 15:53 GMT
#663
On November 28 2016 00:30 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 28 2016 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
On November 27 2016 17:55 Acrofales wrote:
Why is there 23 posts of feedback about sources? Aren't the rules already clear?

"Here is a contextless YouTube video, tweet, op ed, etc". Forbidden and actionable.

"Here is what I think, and my reasoning is X, but person Y said it more eloquently than me, so here is a link that I urge you to watch/read if this interests you" is a valuable contribution to the thread. Regardless of whether that link is Chomsky or Breitbart.

I dispute that the latter is valuable. If the fact that the mere mention of Breitbart sends people on a "your source is stupid and you're stupid for linking it" tirade isn't a problem then I don't know what is. We end up with Case 3 above. Chomsky is the same.

I don't think that "someone else said it more eloquently than me" is a valid argument. It's a deflection to avoid having to defend your own argument yourself. It's not immediately apparent that that is the case but I argue that ultimately it is so.

People dropping an issue and not arguing for pages and pages is not a bad thing. I learned my lesson being banned for getting a bit too emotionally invested in "proving TM wrong" in the recent discussion on rape culture. You do not HAVE to reply to everything. It's fine to decide "this conversation is going nowhere" and stop discussing it.

Point in case, we disagree on what constitutes a valuable contribution to the thread. Lets move on with our lives?

People absolutely should drop the issue when it's not going anywhere, that much is true. There are the "what is racism" and "what is rape" and "what is genocide" and so on, discussions that prove that people need to learn to let this shit go.

The problem is how it recurs. Yes, to some extent it is unavoidable that people disagree what qualifies as stupid and what doesn't. Yes, it is true that there are cases where what I say isn't really a terrible post (linking an article to make a point for you isn't in itself problematic, but it is in the context of interjecting into an ongoing argument with that). But when people consistently think that John Oliver videos are worth linking or people who take a pseudo-intellectual "academic style" to posting "really know what they're talking about" then I start to have a problem with that. People start to believe that "letting it go" is more so an issue of not being able to respond rather than valuing my own time and not wanting Case 2 or Case 3 to develop. And frankly I'm not sure that people even acknowledged that this was a problem before I started explaining why I think it was. It's not very easy to speak out against academics/pseudo-academics even when they really are wrong, and that's a deeper issue that needs addressing.

Walking away from the discussion every time may be the "best option" but it feeds into something that makes the thread ultimately too circlejerk at times. It leads people to just accepting whatever they want to be true, which is antithetical to the entire point of having an informal discussion in the first place.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28623 Posts
November 27 2016 18:30 GMT
#664
I feel people are kinda discussing different things here. On one hand, there's the 'watch this expert explain it' or 'read this expert explain it' and those are generally quite annoying - the appeal of the forum is that you get the sense of communicating with other forumers. Like, the reason why I find this thread so valuable, pedagogically, despite its shortcomings, is just this; you get to directly communicate with people whose perspectives are different from yours. Linking expert opinions is different;there's no communication. And I also think spending 2 minutes constructing an argument that will take 30+ minutes to respond to is kind of rude

In a similar vein, there's the whole 'appeal to authority', which I am deeply critical of; an argument should stand on its own legs, it is validated by its logic, not by its articulator. Even more annoying is the namedropper - who quotes esoteric experts in attempting to establish himself as deeply knowledgeable on the subject matter. (Namedropping in a purely academic context is different - because if you can assume your conversation partner knows of what is namedropped, thus it's just a way of skipping a redundant step in the conversation).

I don't think there's much disagreement here. But there are also examples where sources are awesome.

For example, posting a two paragraph post where you explain the basic outline of a concept, for then to add a link with 'if you want to learn more about this, this guy does a good job explaining it' is highly appreciated.

In addition, the more trustworthy sources that corroborate a statement, the more believable the statement is. That's just how it is. (I'll agree that more than 5 sources and it ends up just being a gish gallop of sorts). And the thing is, when presented like that, when the sources are corroborations of the statements made in a post, then you don't even necessarily have to relate to the sources. It just allows you to skip the step of asking 'can I have a source for that, please?' in the event where you don't accept the statement at face value.

Finally, I just feel like I have to restate this.. Virtually every time you go on some US politics megathread website feedback posting spree, I feel like even if your posts were triggered by something else, you invariably end up posting about your experiences discussing with kwizach, even if it's just showcased through subtle references to old posts and discussions. And I'll just state right out that I think his style of sourcing finds itself in the second group. Rather than the 'appeal to authority - establish him as an authority - have a look at this 20 page article and maybe you'll understand' kind of sourcing, he links sources that corroborate his arguments. We've been over this in the past, I get that you're irked because you at some occasion(s) felt that this was not actually the case, that his sourcing wasn't genuine, that it just gave off the impression that his arguments were grounded in fact. Maybe you were right. But I am fairly certain pretty much nobody else (maybe xdaunt cuz he seems to agree with you? which btw in a way corroborates your argument ) really cares. I at least think it got boring a pretty long time ago.
Moderator
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
November 27 2016 18:37 GMT
#665
why hasn't this one been actioned, is it just slow getting around to it? it's been bugging my ocd self.
other stuff on the same page been actioned, which is why I wasn't sure it was just in the not yet gotten around to pile.
or is stuff in the overall chain being evaluated still?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6319#126369
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-27 19:01:15
November 27 2016 18:56 GMT
#666
Starting from the bottom:
On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Finally, I just feel like I have to restate this.. Virtually every time you go on some US politics megathread website feedback posting spree, I feel like even if your posts were triggered by something else, you invariably end up posting about your experiences discussing with kwizach, even if it's just showcased through subtle references to old posts and discussions.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you feel the need to draw attention to that, every single time I talk about the issue of improper posting. I reference it as one example of many. Yes, it's not one directly relevant to the current example that spawned this thread of discussion, and I give it the requisite amount of attention (2-3 indirect references, one direct and extremely brief one). Yes, I do feel like it's relevant, because it's a great example. No, I don't think you're being fair by giving it more attention than I did or intended to. I can see why you think it but that's definitely not what I was mostly talking about.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And I'll just state right out that I think his style of sourcing finds itself in the second group.

Believe as you wish. I made my point. I will not make it again. I did not attempt to make it this time, contrary to what you seem to believe. I wrote my one long response to him to demonstrate exactly what my issue is; that is for all intents and purposes the last time I have anything to say on the matter. Read it and the response to it, draw your own opinions, and if you disagree with me then we agree to disagree and I nevertheless have nothing more to say on the matter.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Rather than the 'appeal to authority - establish him as an authority - have a look at this 20 page article and maybe you'll understand' kind of sourcing, he links sources that corroborate his arguments. We've been over this in the past, I get that you're irked because you at some occasion(s) felt that this was not actually the case, that his sourcing wasn't genuine, that it just gave off the impression that his arguments were grounded in fact. Maybe you were right. But I am fairly certain pretty much nobody else (maybe xdaunt cuz he seems to agree with you? which btw in a way corroborates your argument ) really cares. I at least think it got boring a pretty long time ago.

I don't talk about it much either. Though if you read the last two pages perhaps you will see that people more or less at least acknowledge the argument I made and that it is partially valid in that specific context. Again, believe as you wish, but frankly I think you're looking too much into it and extending one example into thinking that it's the whole issue. You did this last time as well, when my issue was with the farvacola post more than the KZ post, where he just happened to be the writer of a post which was a catalyst for the kind of unpleasant situation that I dislike in the thread. I don't think your context assumption is meant in any malicious way but nevertheless it is trying to read context into my posts that just isn't really there.

Then to the main point:

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I feel people are kinda discussing different things here. On one hand, there's the 'watch this expert explain it' or 'read this expert explain it' and those are generally quite annoying - the appeal of the forum is that you get the sense of communicating with other forumers. Like, the reason why I find this thread so valuable, pedagogically, despite its shortcomings, is just this; you get to directly communicate with people whose perspectives are different from yours. Linking expert opinions is different;there's no communication. And I also think spending 2 minutes constructing an argument that will take 30+ minutes to respond to is kind of rude

So far, we agree. Though "30+ minutes" can be an understatement if it would take multiple days to formulate a response, which is stupid if it's a rebuttal in absentia.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In a similar vein, there's the whole 'appeal to authority', which I am deeply critical of; an argument should stand on its own legs, it is validated by its logic, not by its articulator. Even more annoying is the namedropper - who quotes esoteric experts in attempting to establish himself as deeply knowledgeable on the subject matter. (Namedropping in a purely academic context is different - because if you can assume your conversation partner knows of what is namedropped, thus it's just a way of skipping a redundant step in the conversation).

Yes. I agree.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think there's much disagreement here. But there are also examples where sources are awesome.

For example, posting a two paragraph post where you explain the basic outline of a concept, for then to add a link with 'if you want to learn more about this, this guy does a good job explaining it' is highly appreciated.

Kind of. Your argument should be able to stand on its own, based on your own logic. If that takes two paragraphs to articulate that's just fine. My earlier post on fracking took an image and a paragraph to articulate, for example. Something like describing Bayesian probabilities takes much longer. But if you have to draw into those sources to actually respond to that argument then we're starting to have problems.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In addition, the more trustworthy sources that corroborate a statement, the more believable the statement is. That's just how it is. (I'll agree that more than 5 sources and it ends up just being a gish gallop of sorts).

Yes. Though it's helpful if the sources have a means to be corroborated.

On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And the thing is, when presented like that, when the sources are corroborations of the statements made in a post, then you don't even necessarily have to relate to the sources. It just allows you to skip the step of asking 'can I have a source for that, please?' in the event where you don't accept the statement at face value.

Yes, I agree.

So frankly, it seems like we mostly agree on the premises, but somehow the interpretations of how they apply give a different interpretation on that one poster. That's fine; as I previously posted we will just have to agree to disagree. But then I ask you this much: do you find my Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3 scenarios problematic, in your own interpretation of how that discussion would go that may or may not have been fairly articulated? To make it more specific since I didn't name anyone in particular, Case 2 is generally some of our more economics-and-philosophy-inclined posters, Case 3 is the overcited treatises or Breitbart, Sam Harris, Noam Chomsky, Stefan Molyneux, Kurt Eichenwald, and so on. Case 1 is if people walk away from the argument.

John Oliver videos randomly posted: do you see why I don't think they add anything to the discussion?

I guess that's where we can start.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28623 Posts
November 27 2016 19:59 GMT
#667
If you remove the 'mic drop' aspect of your case examples, then I don't really find them that problematic. The issue for me is basically whether the source is part of the argument or the argument? I don't mind youtube videos either - as long as they come with timelines of what is relevant.

Like there was a recent discussion on overpopulation. There was an unsourced claim that the world's population would increase until 20 billion at the end of the century or something. Both me and Acrofales made posts where we argued against this, cited some UN population committee, and linked Hans Rosling's youtube videos because he explains demographic changes in a very comprehensible manner. Basically, presenting an argument, a source to back up the argument, and the Hans Rosling video as an optional avenue for increasing their understanding for whatever readers might have been curious. Not trying to toot my own horn here, I just remember it because I was involved and it was recent, but this to me is a representation of 'good' sourcing.

As for the rest;
I don't really mind neither Chomsky nor Harris, I think they both have valuable insight. But I'm also not very interested in arguing against them. However, I remember a discussion on Harris where I thought the back and fourth where one poster was echoing 'expert criticism' of him (as part of a greater argument on why he did not trust him as an expert on the topic they were discussing) was very interesting and educational. This discussion was very much in line with what you describe as case 2/3, but I really enjoyed reading it. Not something I'd ever enjoy participating in, but I did enjoy reading it.

As for John Oliver, I think he is entertaining, but yes, I agree, I don't think it adds anything to a discussion on its own. I am however totally fine with someone linking a John Oliver video and saying 'look at his explanation starting at 14:15 - I think it highlights something very problematic' or whatever.
Moderator
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 27 2016 21:29 GMT
#668
Yes, the mic drop is the big problem. Of course, that gets into the question of what is and isn't a mic drop. I suppose that would simply be "posts that make it prohibitively difficult to respond properly to them by virtue of being oversourced and underexplained." I would go further and say that the sources should simply corroborate the argument, not be used to construct it. Basically the arguments should be able to stand on their own, the sources are a bonus. Oversourcing is a terrible game. To be fair, most treatise-posters properly acknowledge this. In the case of John Oliver videos or Paul Krugman blogs or Kurt Eichenwald opinion pieces, however, it's basically popular opinions are alright, unpopular opinions are not.

I remember that Sam Harris argument and really do think that is a bad one. Not something bad enough that I felt it necessary to complain about it at the time, but absolutely a bad one. It becomes a game of talking about people - not relevant people like the possible leadership of the country, but some people with some opinion. I realize that I don't have to be part of or enjoy every discussion, but that is the kind of scroll-through Case 2 stuff that I just don't see as beneficial to the thread.

John Oliver reminds me of the RedLetterMedia Star Wars prequel critique. It's an hour a piece and really not good to watch unless you're into a bizarre "pwnage video" style that says the exact kind of bashing you want to hear. And yet people uncritically post it saying "I know it's long but it makes the case perfectly!" No, it just feeds into the echo chamber. And that's a problem with John Oliver and a lot of other fan favorites who some people believe are valid sources despite being nothing of the sort.

To add a caveat, a post that says "read this source" is fine if it's meant to start a discussion in the article-sharing sort of way. The problem starts when you intend to use it to prove your own point and to explicate the logic you should be making yourself. And of course, accessibility is a nice one here, in terms of not being behind a paywall (e.g. certain magazines that require subscriptions) and in terms of not being absurdly long without reason. That makes the Case 1/2/3 scenarios occur. For example, I posted an article summary of something interesting I read about Eichenwald and a bizarre saga involving a Sputnik News employee; that's mostly source material but the articles themselves, rather than the argument they are making, is what is of interest there.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
tofucake
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Hyrule19026 Posts
November 27 2016 22:13 GMT
#669
On November 28 2016 03:37 zlefin wrote:
why hasn't this one been actioned, is it just slow getting around to it? it's been bugging my ocd self.
other stuff on the same page been actioned, which is why I wasn't sure it was just in the not yet gotten around to pile.
or is stuff in the overall chain being evaluated still?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6319#126369

I don't spend my holiday weekends moderating a megathread. I'll catch up later.
Liquipediaasante sana squash banana
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
November 27 2016 22:14 GMT
#670
On November 28 2016 07:13 tofucake wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 28 2016 03:37 zlefin wrote:
why hasn't this one been actioned, is it just slow getting around to it? it's been bugging my ocd self.
other stuff on the same page been actioned, which is why I wasn't sure it was just in the not yet gotten around to pile.
or is stuff in the overall chain being evaluated still?

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6319#126369

I don't spend my holiday weekends moderating a megathread. I'll catch up later.

ok, I just got confused by the other post on that same page being actioned, which made me think someone was active.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11340 Posts
November 27 2016 22:27 GMT
#671
Well, no one actually reported it, so that could be part of the problem. And I was still sleeping, so now it is back to report cards
Moderator"In Trump We Trust," says the Golden Goat of Mars Lago. Have faith and believe! Trump moves in mysterious ways. Like the wind he blows where he pleases...
Blisse
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Canada3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-28 05:55:15
November 28 2016 04:58 GMT
#672
@Legal non-specifically, I don't think anyone has mic dropped a John Oliver video in 300 pages, so that example is a bit dated :p I think most of us "got" that other people in the thread don't like it. But John Oliver also makes good points once in a while (I enjoy the humor in his non-political ones at least).

I agree with your points, it's a bit hard to enforce because generally I don't think enforcing the thread to be extremely on-topic would be very beneficial, but it's also probably annoying when a current topic in is suddenly derailed by a random, lower quality "mic drop" post, even if the majority of the "mic drop" posts are ignored as generally potentially informative noise.


On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I feel people are kinda discussing different things here. On one hand, there's the 'watch this expert explain it' or 'read this expert explain it' and those are generally quite annoying - the appeal of the forum is that you get the sense of communicating with other forumers. Like, the reason why I find this thread so valuable, pedagogically, despite its shortcomings, is just this; you get to directly communicate with people whose perspectives are different from yours.


OT but this is the reason why I come back to the thread even though I get angry at a lot of the things that are being said. It's good to hear the variety of arguments and either reaffirm my own positions or be forced to readjust my beliefs. I can believe they are wrong, they can believe I am wrong, but at least there's varying opinions in spite of the poor sample size and I'm not in an "I'm right" bubble.



On November 28 2016 12:18 Noidberg wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote:
I love his lack of nuanced positions and weak relationships with reality, because that's what it takes to open a dialogue these days due to politicians being too timid to tackle the big issues. Ban muslims - people start talking about how radical elements of islam can be a problem instead of brushing it under the rug. Build a wall - hm maybe immigration control is actually something the people care about rather than just giving lip service every cycle and saying "comprehensive immigration reform". Attacking China and mexico for ripping us off on trade deals etc etc. Now with that tweet you referenced Biff, I hope we can actually find out how many people illegally voted, even in nonconsequential places like LA and SF and ultimately it will enter the mainstream dialogue.



That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid.

Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day.

He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario.

If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer?

I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.

So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying?

I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy.



I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end.

It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.


This.

You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war.

Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness.


Also wanted an opinion on whether calling Hillary a crazy bitch here is too far or not? I think the entire paragraph is weakly supported hyperbole but assuming it is true, is that conclusion a step too far or something that can be said? Or am I simply being too PC/politically correct about it?
There is no one like you in the universe.
xM(Z
Profile Joined November 2006
Romania5281 Posts
November 28 2016 08:53 GMT
#673
PC's would argue that bitch is more of a woman orientated smirch but that's weak; other than that, there's a whole lot of shitting on political figures in here.
And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17953 Posts
November 28 2016 08:59 GMT
#674
On November 28 2016 13:58 Blisse wrote:
@Legal non-specifically, I don't think anyone has mic dropped a John Oliver video in 300 pages, so that example is a bit dated :p I think most of us "got" that other people in the thread don't like it. But John Oliver also makes good points once in a while (I enjoy the humor in his non-political ones at least).

I agree with your points, it's a bit hard to enforce because generally I don't think enforcing the thread to be extremely on-topic would be very beneficial, but it's also probably annoying when a current topic in is suddenly derailed by a random, lower quality "mic drop" post, even if the majority of the "mic drop" posts are ignored as generally potentially informative noise.


Show nested quote +
On November 28 2016 03:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I feel people are kinda discussing different things here. On one hand, there's the 'watch this expert explain it' or 'read this expert explain it' and those are generally quite annoying - the appeal of the forum is that you get the sense of communicating with other forumers. Like, the reason why I find this thread so valuable, pedagogically, despite its shortcomings, is just this; you get to directly communicate with people whose perspectives are different from yours.


OT but this is the reason why I come back to the thread even though I get angry at a lot of the things that are being said. It's good to hear the variety of arguments and either reaffirm my own positions or be forced to readjust my beliefs. I can believe they are wrong, they can believe I am wrong, but at least there's varying opinions in spite of the poor sample size and I'm not in an "I'm right" bubble.



Show nested quote +
On November 28 2016 12:18 Noidberg wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:33 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:28 Slaughter wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:23 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:20 ChristianS wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 11:06 Dan HH wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 28 2016 07:37 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
That's what the media deserves at this point. They had a chance to call Romney a principled moderate, but he was also a racist, sexist bigot just like Trump. Now they get an unabashed liar/exaggerator to call their bluff. If the left could have an honest conversation on immigration or voter identification, they're fine. But they've left the American people's views on ID laws and immigration. So this is the price paid.

Exactly. This is why Trump is so much fun. The media, democrats, and the establish blew their loads slandering all of our other politicians, so now Trump is free to have his way with all of the leftists. Trump may end up being an utter failure of a politician, but the daily humiliation that he is inflicting upon the left is worth the price of admission. Even my most ardent #nevertrump friends have had to concede as such. Trump is a "fuck you" of biblical proportions, and I am enjoying it every day.

He is a 'fuck you' to your country's image and not much else. I'm 100% sure that if someone like Lena Dunham became your president, and on top of that democrats would be smug about choosing her and how that's gonna teach you a lesson, humiliation wouldn't enter the picture at all. You'd just think democrats are complete fucking morons, as you well should in that scenario.

If you spend 10 seconds thinking about how you'd receive the reverse you'll realize just how misguided your reading of Trump's effect on democrats is. Would it humiliate you or them if they elected the worst of what they have to offer?

I thought that the democrats were "complete fucking morons" when they elected an inexperienced political neophyte in 2008. What I underestimated was the resiliency of American institutions to the vacuous change that Obama campaigned on in 2008. This is why I'm not worried about Trump. The floor for his possible performance is surprisingly high. This peace of mind, in turn, frees me up to focus on the fun parts of Trump's election.

So you don't think it's possible to fuck up that bad as president, and in the meantime you think it's fun to watch liberals freak out. Is that more or less what you're saying?

I expect Trump to be a good, if not great, president. The relentless triggering of democrats is merely gravy.



I think its Mind blowing that you think he will actually be good at the job from what he presented during his campaign. Knows nothing? Has no plans of substance? Thinks he knows better then experts? Like what. He is completely out of anything close to his realm of expertise. Unless you think falling back on most default establishment gop positions will make him great, because that I what people like him end up relying on in the end.

It's amazing what happens when you look at Trump's campaign with the slightest bit of charity! If all I did was look at Trump through the bullshit lens that the left has supplied us, then I'd probably be convinced that the world was about to end and need to be parked in a straight jacket.


This.

You cannot evaluate trump with the mindset the USA was on the right path. We needed to shake things up not follow the status quo. You know whats scary? Hillary the warmonger, russia this russia that, Libya destruction due to swaying from the petrol dollar, or how about the complacency with the destabilization of the middle east? She straight up mentioned that russian hackers would be met with military intervention, you know how insane that is? Its like leaving out a basket of cookies on a crowded street with a sign saying dont touch. Except its a private email server with classified information. The crazy bitch was looking for reasons to go to war.

Trump may not be experienced but he has a whole cabinet backing him up. Hes our leader now, a cheerleader. He wants to egg you on to greatness.


Also wanted an opinion on whether calling Hillary a crazy bitch here is too far or not? I think the entire paragraph is weakly supported hyperbole but assuming it is true, is that conclusion a step too far or something that can be said? Or am I simply being too PC/politically correct about it?


Don't you have a report button? No worries. I do.
BigFan
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
TLADT24920 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-30 04:54:01
November 30 2016 04:52 GMT
#675
One thing I think most people who discuss in that thread need to learn is the simple phrase, let it go. There have been debates that went well and turned ugly suddenly because neither side wanted to concede (understandable if you don't agree) but kept arguing their point with their emotions running high.

If you've made your point and you've tried several times to convey it to a fellow poster but they don't seem to agree/understand it or are not willing to even consider it, there's nothing wrong with writing something like: "I've tried but it seems we just have to agree to disagree" and then moving onto something else.

Chances are that the topic comes up again and you'll get more chances to have them see your point. Frankly, that would make current and future discussions a lot more pleasant to partake in and makes moderation a lot easier as well since we aren't going to warn/ban everyone for a discussion gone awry.
Former BW EiC"Watch Bakemonogatari or I will kill you." -Toad, April 18th, 2017
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 30 2016 05:21 GMT
#676
Sometimes one side being unwilling to let it go is more than enough if they end up being particularly persistent about it.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-30 17:27:43
November 30 2016 17:26 GMT
#677
most posts in the thread arent really worth responding to, and even fewer are worth responding to in nice, formatted multi paragraphs.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
BigFan
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
TLADT24920 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-11-30 18:28:13
November 30 2016 18:27 GMT
#678
On November 30 2016 14:21 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes one side being unwilling to let it go is more than enough if they end up being particularly persistent about it.

yes and it's easy to just ignore the post lol. If they keep being persistent and passive-aggressive, I'm sure we'll eventually see the post and mod as necessary.

On December 01 2016 02:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
most posts in the thread arent really worth responding to, and even fewer are worth responding to in nice, formatted multi paragraphs.

if you don't feel they need a response to, don't respond ^^
Former BW EiC"Watch Bakemonogatari or I will kill you." -Toad, April 18th, 2017
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
November 30 2016 18:34 GMT
#679
I've been doing my best to ignore bait posts and my life is less stressful I've found :D
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
November 30 2016 19:29 GMT
#680
On December 01 2016 03:27 BigFan wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 30 2016 14:21 LegalLord wrote:
Sometimes one side being unwilling to let it go is more than enough if they end up being particularly persistent about it.

yes and it's easy to just ignore the post lol. If they keep being persistent and passive-aggressive, I'm sure we'll eventually see the post and mod as necessary.

I, more than almost anyone else, know how to skim that edge between being an annoying jerk and being banworthy. If only it were quite that easy to differentiate what's kind of controversial from what's banworthy.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Prev 1 32 33 34 35 36 322 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 54m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft571
Nina 177
Livibee 116
SteadfastSC 79
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 34050
Sea 5444
Nal_rA 392
Leta 138
Shine 82
Icarus 10
Dota 2
monkeys_forever472
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K915
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor106
Other Games
summit1g6807
shahzam1055
WinterStarcraft454
ViBE208
ToD180
Maynarde106
RuFF_SC271
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream2867
Other Games
gamesdonequick875
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH281
• practicex 57
• davetesta30
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1213
Other Games
• Scarra1009
Upcoming Events
GSL Code S
4h 54m
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
19h 24m
Replay Cast
21h 24m
GSL Code S
1d 4h
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
1d 5h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
OSC
2 days
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
SOOP
3 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Cheesadelphia
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
GSL Code S
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Wardi Open
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.