|
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?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
|
Norway28623 Posts
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.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
|
Norway28623 Posts
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.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
|
Hyrule19026 Posts
I don't spend my holiday weekends moderating a megathread. I'll catch up later.
|
On November 28 2016 07:13 tofucake wrote: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.
|
Canada11340 Posts
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 
|
@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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
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.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sometimes one side being unwilling to let it go is more than enough if they end up being particularly persistent about it.
|
most posts in the thread arent really worth responding to, and even fewer are worth responding to in nice, formatted multi paragraphs.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
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 ^^
|
I've been doing my best to ignore bait posts and my life is less stressful I've found :D
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
