|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37065 Posts
So basically this thread became US Politics Mega-thread 2.0?
|
On February 25 2017 05:54 Seeker wrote:
So basically this thread became US Politics Mega-thread 2.0?
It's the meta-thread, where people argue about arguing about US politics.
|
On February 25 2017 05:54 Seeker wrote:
So basically this thread became US Politics Mega-thread 2.0?
You're a few months late, this has been super tame for a while now.
|
On February 25 2017 07:41 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2017 05:54 Seeker wrote:
So basically this thread became US Politics Mega-thread 2.0? It's the meta-thread, where people argue about arguing about US politics.
zlefin's gripe catalogue and moderation meta too
|
Can we just turn this into a reconstruction of what Plansix's twitter might look like?
On February 25 2017 06:57 Plansix wrote:
The easiest way to the heart of a conservative is to attack the media. It’s been a crowd pleaser since Nixon and Trump is just tapping that rich vein.
Fuck the gripes right? We need a catalogue of Plansix's twitter-length personal bromides for posterity.
|
You know, for a while there I thought I had "most disliked regular poster" (speaking of their posts) on lock, now I'm thinking I might not even be in the top 5. Meanwhile I think zlefin shot up the charts.
As the US politics thread is rather unorthodox, I am going to suggest an unorthodox proposition. We do a poll of who's posts are the worst (within some specific time frame) and we give them a 3 day. Maybe we could weight it somehow to give those on the right a more fair playing field unless they think everyone having the same access and opportunity is fair enough already?
|
On February 26 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
You know, for a while there I thought I had "most disliked regular poster" (speaking of their posts) on lock, now I'm thinking I might not even be in the top 5. Meanwhile I think zlefin shot up the charts.
As the US politics thread is rather unorthodox, I am going to suggest an unorthodox proposition. We do a poll of who's posts are the worst (within some specific time frame) and we give them a 3 day. Maybe we could weight it somehow to give those on the right a more fair playing field unless they think everyone having the same access and opportunity is fair enough already?
You are like the over-the-hill heavyweight superstar boxer of bad posters in the thread. You used to hold the belt, but now you're relegated to signing autographs at county fairs. So no, you are not even in the conversation for top 5 worst posters.
|
On February 26 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
You know, for a while there I thought I had "most disliked regular poster" (speaking of their posts) on lock, now I'm thinking I might not even be in the top 5. Meanwhile I think zlefin shot up the charts.
As the US politics thread is rather unorthodox, I am going to suggest an unorthodox proposition. We do a poll of who's posts are the worst (within some specific time frame) and we give them a 3 day. Maybe we could weight it somehow to give those on the right a more fair playing field unless they think everyone having the same access and opportunity is fair enough already?
That's a charming and friendly idea to keep the constructive discussion we are having going.
|
On February 26 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
You know, for a while there I thought I had "most disliked regular poster" (speaking of their posts) on lock, now I'm thinking I might not even be in the top 5. Meanwhile I think zlefin shot up the charts.
As the US politics thread is rather unorthodox, I am going to suggest an unorthodox proposition. We do a poll of who's posts are the worst (within some specific time frame) and we give them a 3 day. Maybe we could weight it somehow to give those on the right a more fair playing field unless they think everyone having the same access and opportunity is fair enough already?
I like this
|
On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:14 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
1) Sessions, part of the Trump election campaign chose to have a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
2) Russian intelligence chose to actively intervene in the US election to favour the Trump campaign.
3) The Trump administration then sacrificed American geopolitical interests to offer concessions to Russia.
4) Sessions stated "I did not have communications with the Russians", a statement which can be demonstrated not to be true by the fact that he held a private meeting with Russian intelligence.
Those four are established facts. I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap. I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit.
So this just happened in the thread. I think I make my position quite clear in this exchange. Any comments?
|
United States43748 Posts
On February 26 2017 03:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
You know, for a while there I thought I had "most disliked regular poster" (speaking of their posts) on lock, now I'm thinking I might not even be in the top 5. Meanwhile I think zlefin shot up the charts.
As the US politics thread is rather unorthodox, I am going to suggest an unorthodox proposition. We do a poll of who's posts are the worst (within some specific time frame) and we give them a 3 day. Maybe we could weight it somehow to give those on the right a more fair playing field unless they think everyone having the same access and opportunity is fair enough already?
Direct democracy and tyranny of the majority never failed, right? What you're proposing actually has a specific name. It's called ostracism and was a part of Athenian democratic politics. It didn't go well.
|
United States43748 Posts
On March 03 2017 04:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:17 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it. I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink. I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit. So this just happened in the thread. I think I make my position quite clear in this exchange. Any comments?
I have literally no idea what I am meant to have done wrong here.
I opened by reminding xDaunt what the facts of the case were because he has become blinded by them due to descent into cultist status. I said he had a handicap when it came to understanding the difference between facts and #fakenews. This is an individual who has decided that every single major news source in the western world is now #fakenews, from the BBC to the NY Times.
Then I got told that being snarky doesn't change minds and I had an exchange about whether one party is a debate owes the other party persuasively framed facts in order to change their mind and who is responsible if the facts don't change minds (the person refusing to let facts change their mind or the person who tried insufficiently hard to frame the facts in persuasive language). This is a classic Trumper talking point that has featured a lot since the election with the Trump voter justifying their vote after the fact with "you should have done more to convince me that I was making the wrong choice" or "you shouldn't have described my ideas as stupid if you didn't want me to vote in line with those ideas". I get why they do it, they're trying to reconcile their self image as an intelligent person with an act that they should very obviously be ashamed of and so they externalize the blame. But it's an obviously flawed argument, you can't blame other people for the way that you think.
Then I got told that as a TL mod I had an obligation to always frame my opinions in the optimally persuasive language rather than simply stating them in their raw forms. Pretty laughable.
And apparently that makes me an instigator.
|
On March 03 2017 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink.
I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit. So this just happened in the thread. I think I make my position quite clear in this exchange. Any comments? I have literally no idea what I am meant to have done wrong here. I opened by reminding xDaunt what the facts of the case were because he has become blinded by them due to descent into cultist status. I said he had a handicap when it came to understanding the difference between facts and #fakenews. Then I got told that being snarky doesn't change minds and I had an exchange about whether one party is a debate owes the other party persuasively framed facts in order to change their mind and who is responsible if the facts don't change minds (the person refusing to let facts change their mind or the person who tried insufficiently hard to frame the facts in persuasive language). Then I got told that as a TL mod I had an obligation to always frame my opinions in the optimally persuasive language rather than simply stating them in their raw forms. And apparently that makes me an instigator.
1. Someone isn't even talking to you. You jump in with a response including this gem: " I know you struggle a lot with facts these days but not all of us are suffering from that particular handicap."
2. I point out that this is snarky. If you don't think this is snarky then our definitions obviously substantially vary.
3. You say, "Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink."
4. except I actually agree with the facts you stated. as reading any of my posts on this matter would make clear.
5. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts.
6. What I was saying had nothing to do with Trump or experts or voting or foreign policy or whatever.
So I get very confused as to what you are even talking about and ask for clarification.
7. You respond, "I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you."
8. You aren't responding to anything I've said. You jumped into this thread and started name calling someone else. I called you out on it. I proceed to receive a defense consisting of incoherent
rambling about trump, russia, college educated people, other stuff. I ask for clarification, I get swear words back, plus I get stereotyped as an alternative fact supporting moron. So I end with
9. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that.
|
On March 03 2017 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2017 04:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:48 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:40 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2017 03:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On March 03 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I think we're a long way past using facts to change people's minds. One man's fact is another man's #fakenews. You go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. Snarkiness doesn't change what happened, but if it makes you like me less and liking me less helps you discredit what I said, and discrediting what I said helps you get to a point where facts become more malleable, then I wouldn't dream of interrupting you in your descent into doublethink.
I have no interest in this narrative that Trump voters were somehow compelled to support Trump, despite the immense weight of obvious reasons not to, due to the adversarial ideas from the other side. If someone says that what you're doing is stupid and you choose to do it anyway as a way of getting back at those educated liberal elitists who think they're so smart, well, you're not proving anyone wrong. You get to own your own idiocy. Don't try blaming me or my snarkiness for failing to change your mind. If you want to dismiss the facts then go ahead, but you're not doing it because of me, you're doing it because you're too insecure to accept that learning requires an acceptance that you don't already know it all. Have you read a single post of mine in the last 3 pages? I am pretty much doing the exact opposite of "Dismissing those facts" you and I have been bringing up repeatedly. The "I voted Trump because I don't like the way those college educated people said I didn't really know enough about foreign policy to be overruling all those experts who said Trump would be a catastrophe" argument has come up an awful lot. Your snarkiness comment was the latest iteration of that argument. You can go "the way you presented these facts offended me so I'm going to choose to not accept them" as much as you like. That's fine. Go ahead and do it, a good 30% of America already has that shit perfected to an art form. But snarkiness doesn't change the facts. People who are right do not owe people who are wrong an explanation that carefully sidesteps all mention that the two sides aren't equally valid. People who willfully choose to continue to hold false beliefs after being educated otherwise simply out of spite need to take some personal responsibility for that, rather than blaming their betters. Ok maybe I am just really misperceiving the positions I think I've taken vs whatever I've actually taken? But can some others weigh in on these two questions: 1. What position do you think I have about Russia/Trump stuff? 2. What position do you think Kwark thinks I have? Thanks! I wasn't responding to your view on Russia or Trump. I was responding to your "snarkiness when presenting the facts won't change minds". It's a very common view for Trump voters that the validity of actual demonstrable facts can be undermined by the manner in which they're presented and therefore if you fail to accept the facts then the blame for that can be firmly placed at the feet of the person who told you the facts, and not on you yourself. Your position echoed that. You said that it was my responsibility to not be snarky if I wanted to change minds using facts. Fuck that. If the facts of the issue don't change your mind then that's on you. It is a basic fact of persuasion and human psychology that calling someone a moron does not increase your chances of actually persuading that person to your beliefs. I would hope a TL mod understands that. That is all I am saying. Nothing about me being a TL mod means that I have an obligation to try and improve your political beliefs through persuasive language. You believe whatever you want to believe. That is, as Bobby Brown once said in his song of the same name, your prerogative. You are a TL mod. I would think that part of that responsibility includes not acting as the instigator to drag an entire thread down into shit. So this just happened in the thread. I think I make my position quite clear in this exchange. Any comments? I have literally no idea what I am meant to have done wrong here. I opened by reminding xDaunt what the facts of the case were because he has become blinded by them due to descent into cultist status. I said he had a handicap when it came to understanding the difference between facts and #fakenews. This is an individual who has decided that every single major news source in the western world is now #fakenews, from the BBC to the NY Times. Then I got told that being snarky doesn't change minds and I had an exchange about whether one party is a debate owes the other party persuasively framed facts in order to change their mind and who is responsible if the facts don't change minds (the person refusing to let facts change their mind or the person who tried insufficiently hard to frame the facts in persuasive language). This is a classic Trumper talking point that has featured a lot since the election with the Trump voter justifying their vote after the fact with "you should have done more to convince me that I was making the wrong choice" or "you shouldn't have described my ideas as stupid if you didn't want me to vote in line with those ideas". I get why they do it, they're trying to reconcile their self image as an intelligent person with an act that they should very obviously be ashamed of and so they externalize the blame. But it's an obviously flawed argument, you can't blame other people for the way that you think. Then I got told that as a TL mod I had an obligation to always frame my opinions in the optimally persuasive language rather than simply stating them in their raw forms. Pretty laughable. And apparently that makes me an instigator.
You were the instigator. It's pretty glaringly obvious.
|
United States43748 Posts
I'm not sure how you're not understanding this because this isn't that complicated but I'll talk you through it anyway.
Since the election an awful lot of Trump voters feeling Trump voter regret and shame have externalized their shame by insisting that it is really the fault of those who told them it was a stupid thing to do because by framing it in those terms they somehow forced the Trump voters to do the stupid thing.
This is an existing narrative. It is, to put it in Trump voter terms in which everything is either #altfact or #fakenews, this is an #altfact. It exists.
Now, you, a self described Trump voter who openly acknowledges being unhappy with Trump, decide to write the following.
I find your snarkiness seriously irritating. If you want to change someone's mind, this is no way to do it.
in response to me restating the facts of the controversy to xDaunt who appeared to have forgotten them in his eagerness to cry #fakenews.
This is quite clearly a part of the broader narrative. You are responding to a post that states the facts of the controversy by insisting that I cannot possibly expect to change the mind of the reader with facts alone if I am not willing to be less snarky about the facts. And that therefore if my facts fail to change the mind of the reader it is my fault, for not framing the facts in sufficiently persuasive language, and not the fault of the individual who didn't like the tone and used that as a means to disregard the facts.
So that's why we got into a discussion of that. You repeated the same argument the rest of your group did when they were confronted with the reality of their decision and responded to the feelings of shame through denial and blame of others. You voted for Trump, but clearly you couldn't have been expected to be swayed by the facts if they were too snarky. It's not your fault, it's everyone else's fault for not trying hard enough to persuade you not to.
Obviously the argument you made is idiotic, the sole responsibility for being wrong belongs to the individual who chooses to disregard the facts and go with their feelings. I attacked the argument you presented.
You switched your argument from an obligation of the person in possession of the facts to treat the person refusing to believe them with more respect to an absolute obligation of me, a TL staff member, to always use persuasive language. You then ran to website feedback to try and report me for not trying hard enough to persuade you.
|
Why is this here? Is any action needed? Moderation so far on the shitstorm of a discussion that kicked up today seems great. If you two for your panties in a bundle, why not take it to pm? Or better yet, leave each other alone?
|
United States43748 Posts
On March 03 2017 06:15 Acrofales wrote:
Why is this here? Is any action needed? Moderation so far on the shitstorm of a discussion that kicked up today seems great. If you two for your panties in a bundle, why not take it to pm? Or better yet, leave each other alone?
I PM'd him before this started and he insisted that it was a matter for website feedback.
|
I'm fine with the poster being individually judged by present and past snarkiness. Even Kwark as mod only once banned somebody in disputed fashion (good website feedback discussion followed in another thread, if it wasn't Kwark it would've been another with same feedback) aka he isn't taking sides with the hammer.
Everything is in line with the average shitposting content of the thread and I'd rather more loose moderation than heavier. Of course Trump supporters are going to be turned off by the exact thing you quoted, TheLordOfAwesome. Why shouldn't the normal gripes Trump voters have on name calling and rambling be reflected in the TL thread by people name calling and rambling? You can't expect people that didn't change their behavior (it's disputedly docile and justified as Kwark alleges) when the issue was raised to them to do so now.
|
That's a pretty silly thing to say given that it's meandering, sometimes prolix-laden dodges that inspire the sort of pointed snark KwarK is known for.
|
I believe we've had this discussion before, but the regular posters have also established certain anti-standards to shitposting which we generally abide by. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
