EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 43
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Sermokala
United States14056 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
+ opisska, but for other reasons or reasons on top of those mentioned there. when you ban someone who is clearly wrong to you, it means you give up on him. your comfort is more important than his rehabilitation. the idea links with other values like goals, merits, worth, but in the end, a ban only validates his believes. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14056 Posts
Saying Islamic refugees are more then likely to be rapists and criminals is something you can disagree or agree with in a debate. Saying it's beacuse of who they are and tangentially beacuse of their skin color is not. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5784 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On January 27 2017 02:21 Sermokala wrote: i'll disagree on how you interpret his words then.You mistake when someone is disagreeing with you and when they're just being a dick. Saying Islamic refugees are more then likely to be rapists and criminals is something you can disagree or agree with in a debate. Saying it's beacuse of who they are and tangentially beacuse of their skin color is not. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18840 Posts
On January 10 2017 06:38 LegalLord wrote: What you did is make a stupid comparison to Hitler by virtue of it being an easy example. There's even a special term for such an argument, by virtue of how common it is. I continue to hold that the issue of Godwin's Law is self-evident and anyone who doesn't see the problem there isn't worth discussing the issue with. I will simply relay the words of the creator of that term on the issue: On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote: What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3262 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6656#133110 on one hand, it kidna looks like it's just putting up some opinion article with no added explanation, which looks to be in violation of the guideline at the top of the thread; on the other hand, it feels (almost) sufficiently relevant, in some way that would make that not apply. It's like there's some rule or explanation that I can't articulate which would cover this case, and make it fine. can anyone think what that would be? it's not a generic rule about some things simply being self-evidently relevant. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19180 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6711#134206 it's like, if you think the guy is trolling, you're a mod, give them a warning directly instead of saying this. if you don't think they're trolling, then don't accuse them of trolling in a way that sounds like it might be considered across the line if it were an ordinary post. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 29 2017 10:50 TheExile19 wrote: "fuck you, got mine", except with worse grammar and even MORE racism Source. On February 02 2017 06:42 zlefin wrote: you are an idiot. First, obama was not in the lame duck period, that is the period after the election but before the new president is sworn in. the vacancy happened in february. second, the dems would have let trump nominate a justice and they would most likely have voted on him because that is what has been done for the entire history of the nation. so it's pretty likely they would've continued doing the thing which has been done for the entire history of the nation. for you to claim they'd have done otherwise you'd hvae to bring some serious evidence, which you have not done. instead it is merely your partisan bias making you think that way (at least that's the likeliest reason). So bring some real proof that dems would've violated the rule, rather than your own questionable claim, which is countered by the history of the nation. that it seems wrong to you intuitively means little, your intuitive judgment is rather poor, and intuitive judgment shouldn't be relied upon entirely for usch things anyways. The people do have a voice in these long lasting decisions, they have it when they elect a president, who nominates people during the course of their term. They had such a choice when they elected obama. so your counterpoint fails completely. furthermore, judges are NOT an elected position, at least not at the federal level. that is by design, and it is furthermore good, as the research has generally found that elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges. can you own up to the fact that you simply don't understand the issues well? and that your judgment isn't that good? PS while you claim your anger is at both reps and dems, on this issue the bulk of the anger should be at the reps, and your level of apparent vitriol seems low vs them compared to what you were saying about the dems. but I shall watch and try to measure more carefully to see if that is only my own bias coloring my observations of how you talk. Source. The first post is self-evidently banworthy. The second has no fewer than three overt personal attacks. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5784 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
But I can't think of a better post opener than "you are an idiot" for the Trump era, so perhaps it's the new TL zeitgeist. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 02 2017 10:24 IgnE wrote: how about a cap of like 7 posts per poster per 24 hour period to be enforced by thread readers via the report button. so if a poster engages in a long pointless back and forth and exceeds their 7 post limit for the 24 hour period bored/frustrated on-lookers can report them for temp ban. that way i dont have 400 posts to read if i dont read the thread for 24 hours and people have to put more thought into their posts You need to be more efficient with your TL reading. Start reading the US Politics Thread while you're taking a shit. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3262 Posts
On February 02 2017 11:27 LegalLord wrote: Well that's one way to give a shit while reading the thread I guess. Oof. That one hurt. | ||
| ||
