|
Norway28561 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 02:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's incredibly hard to get a healthy political discussion going in a climate where posters choose the interpretation that paints their co-debaters in the worst possible light. It is, and that goes double for the fact that we live in a pretty hostile political climate in general. But I hope you realize "we all need to be nicer to each other" is not really a solution, simply because there are genuine bad-faith actors afoot. If nothing is done about them, what kind of discussion can you really hope for?
I don't think many if any of the regular posters are genuine and unrepentant bad-faith actors. I think the posters who are (often rightly) perceived as arguing in bad faith are mostly all intelligent people who are capable of posting better. And I personally think that banning posters from political threads is different from banning people from other segments of the website, because unless someone is a really, really terrible poster, it's very hard to avoid it being perceived as policing of opinions. Maybe it'd be better with a more hands-on approach, but personally I am so engaged in the thread that I do not at all want to engage in active moderation, as I don't want any posters to fear arguing with me.
I think we all need to be nicer to each other is a great solution as long as people actually adhere to it. 
And I mean, I've posted this before; politics is a lot more important than starcraft. There's a lot of abhorrent shit going on that people should be pissed off about, not apathetic. And there are political opinions held by groups of people in the world that I find incompatible with human decency. So I also understand that people slip up.
|
On August 21 2017 00:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2017 14:47 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote:On August 20 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote:
At least he didn't attempt to explain why the 14 words were nothing to with white supremacism and that anyone who disagrees is a retard. So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional. I think the people you listed are pretty much the only people you'll be able to find who will believe that you weren't defending the 14 words when you wrote that long rant defending the 14 words. And only because they're highly skilled in selective facts. You can't use them in a non white supremacist way. .... but you can use "fruits" to refer to gays in your posts and not be homophobic. Got it. Are you equating the very contextual use of the word fruits in a post attacking gay conversion therapy with defending the 14 words right now?
Yep, I am. Clearly you understand that context matters. You would be a much better poster if you applied that concept universally.
Edit: For the record I did like the joke.
|
United States42008 Posts
I know that context matters, I just don't see a context in which the 14 words aren't white supremacist. If someone wanted to communicate that idea in a non white supremacist way then they should not simply grab the nearest Nazi slogan and discretely mark it with the number 14 (his 14th point).
Can you at least agree that if there is a non racist way of making that argument it was very much not the route he opted to take? Something along the lines of "this isn't an intrinsically Nazi idea, although in this example he did go full Nazi".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 21 2017 02:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's incredibly hard to get a healthy political discussion going in a climate where posters choose the interpretation that paints their co-debaters in the worst possible light. It is, and that goes double for the fact that we live in a pretty hostile political climate in general. But I hope you realize "we all need to be nicer to each other" is not really a solution, simply because there are genuine bad-faith actors afoot. If nothing is done about them, what kind of discussion can you really hope for? I don't think many if any of the regular posters are genuine and unrepentant bad-faith actors. I think the posters who are (often rightly) perceived as arguing in bad faith are mostly all intelligent people who are capable of posting better.
The problem is that this perception has a very large tendency to be skewed by political opinions, and being perceived as "wrong" is always a contributing factor to any ban. That tends to contribute to a situation where there are any number of mitigating factors that make it more acceptable to be a shitty poster, arguably one in bad faith, if you just have fewer wrong opinions. And of course opinion aside, there are clear discrepancies in who is and isn't allowed to start piss-fights out of every discussion, generally slanted towards those who start ones with generally disliked posters.
On August 21 2017 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
And I personally think that banning posters from political threads is different from banning people from other segments of the website, because unless someone is a really, really terrible poster, it's very hard to avoid it being perceived as policing of opinions.
Nor should it be. It's a genuine problem.
On August 21 2017 03:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Maybe it'd be better with a more hands-on approach, but personally I am so engaged in the thread that I do not at all want to engage in active moderation, as I don't want any posters to fear arguing with me.
Maybe it would be better with a more consistent approach. The same kinds of things should be problematic from whichever side it comes from, but there is a tendency for there to be much more consistent action for posters who have a wrong opinion.
Frankly, there are individuals who almost only exist to try to bait other people into saying something banworthy. There are far too many cases where two folks go over the line but only the one with a "worse" opinion gets actioned. There are mods who use their moderation status as a carte blanche to shitpost and occasionally to ban someone if they think that it's something they could get away with. And the reality is that the only way to avoid much of that crap is to keep a consistent blacklist of bad-faith-but-moderation-favored posters who are simply never worth engaging, because the aggregate performance of moderation does very much play favorites. And that does seem very much inconsistent with my perception of your ideal of how we should all be able to come together.
|
It is kinda rich that LegalLord is talking about baiting posts after months of dropping in "electability" into random posts as bait. I am no saint and have posted some bait worthy shit. But I am not throwing rocks in my glass house.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:
But I am not throwing rocks in my glass house.
I disagree. That's kind of exactly what you're doing.
Yeah, it goes without saying that my posting hasn't always been perfect. I certainly never said otherwise and I do acknowledge that some things were better not posted or posted a different way. I nevertheless don't think that that undermines the point made above in any way.
|
You're problem with kwark is as bad as zelfins problem with danglers. You keep hyping up the boggyman of kwark abusing his mod status that you've invented things that he doesn't do to justify your fears of him. He doesn't have a place of athority in the thread as a mod. He doesn't ban people from the thread. He might be talking about it in the mod foums about people but we have no idea of that or ability to prove or disprove this. I still have a problem with kwark for various things in the past (my initial and continued ban from tech support still infuriates me) but he just doesn't do the things you're accusing him of.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
You're problem with kwark is as bad as zelfins problem with danglers.
I very much disagree. I see the desire to make the comparison given that both see lots of instances in this specific thread. If I start making "kwark trolling; annoying" type posts with that kind of frequency, then you might have a point. But no, it's not a reasonable comparison.
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
You keep hyping up the boggyman of kwark abusing his mod status that you've invented things that he doesn't do to justify your fears of him.
Possibly. I think the "consistent toxic asshole with a mod icon" status is fairly ubiquitous though. If "abusing mod status" were only my criticism then perhaps you would have a point, but it is not, not in the slightest. And incidentally my point on this "fruits into vegetables" as noted is "I don't really care" (though I do still think that someone else might get actioned for something like that). So I can't say that I agree with you on seeing the worst in every situation. I do admit I was wrong with that one "name the races" scenario and I admitted that I simply misunderstood it. Though perhaps you should look at his response to my misunderstanding to see what kind of petty grudgemaker I might assume would make such a troll post.
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He doesn't have a place of athority in the thread as a mod.
Someone with a mod icon posting in the thread always has a place of authority in the thread, if implicitly. It sets the standard. Every other mod understands that.
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He doesn't ban people from the thread.
He does occasionally. Generally for people he has a grudge against. When he thinks the case for it is sufficient to exercise that grudge.
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He might be talking about it in the mod foums about people but we have no idea of that or ability to prove or disprove this.
True - so I don't talk about that.
On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
I still have a problem with kwark for various things in the past (my initial and continued ban from tech support still infuriates me) but he just doesn't do the things you're accusing him of.
He does the "post like a toxic asshole" thing for sure. There are many instances where Kwark specifically was criticized for that; most other mods at least have some understanding that their position means they shouldn't be a contributor to the bad aspects of the thread. That he never gets called out for it by the rest of the moderation means that it can generally go on in perpetuity.
And I will note this much: my opinion changed most of all in the aftermath of the 90-day "self-exile" we had, where I saw what the thread would be like without him. His return marked a precipitous drop in the quality of discourse and I don't see that as a coincidence. Most of the criticism therein significantly predates my involvement in noting it.
|
On August 21 2017 02:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 01:41 Danglars wrote:On August 21 2017 00:25 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus, I actually typed up a response to this last night and then thought "what's the point, it's just oBlade trying to make a fuss about it, and he'll probably drop it anyway."
You guys are literally getting salty over a pun. That's it. That's the whole thing. It's just a word association joke, gays -> fruits, Pence -> conversion therapy -> electroshock therapy -> comatose people -> vegetables, fruits -> vegetables. What exactly is the outrage here?
In other contexts the term "fruits" being used for gays might be considered a little offensive, but it's obviously not used as a pejorative here, it's just to make the joke. If it becomes clear that Kwark regularly uses the term fruits for gays in other discussions we can talk with him about how that's not the preferred term, but when we're in a discussion about the literal physical and psychological torture of gay people, it's patently absurd to get more offended by Kwark's joke than by the practice itself.
If you don't give a shit about gays, maybe you think using the word "vegetable" for comatose people is a little insensitive, but let's drop the act for a minute. oBlade, xDaunt, and Danglars are banding together to try to get everyone to use the right PC labels? I don't buy it for a second. If your quest to prove the moderation is biased, latching onto petty shit like this only makes it more likely no one ever takes your quest seriously.
Danglars, imo the attitude of "I think the other side is shitty so I have a right—no, obligation—to be shitty" seems to describe your posting better and better lately, and if anything ever gets you banned, that will be it. I hope that doesn't happen, because when you aren't acting like that I think you bring a lot of value to the thread. Just my opinion, obviously, so take it or leave it. I have an obligation to ride that edge until people like ChristianS stop making excuses for only one side (or admit they hold a double standard). And to channel a little StealthBlue for a moment now, you missed a spot of cum on your face. It sure seems to me that this crusade only ends one way. At some point you'll deliberately say some shitty stuff and it will shit up the thread, and some mod will go back through and think: Is this post shitty? Yes, by the poster's own admission. Is it responsible for shitting up the thread? Yes, definitely. Is he likely to learn his lesson without being actioned? No, in fact he's publicly said he's gonna keep escalating his shitposts to prove a point. Then you'll be in Disneyland and we'll never hear the end of zlefin's cooing. What if instead you took a more positive, lead-by-example attitude? Call out shitposts in the thread if you want, or bring them up here, but in your own posting, why not try to post in a way that improves the quality of discussion rather than degrades it?
Escalating is your word, and incorrect. If you could see it, there's a rampant thread double standard because the predominant ideological viewpoint here agrees with the majority of liberal shitposters. I'm providing necessary counterbalance. It stays at thread actual standard. You want to see standards change, then advocate for banhammers to self restrict. Otherwise, you're just keeping conservatives on the plantation and telling them to be happy for it.
|
I'd just like to point out I told the Mods this was going to happen way back when Jonny and I were constantly getting into it. It became a shitposting arms race and our shitposting economies seem not to be a limiting factor.
We've legit had people trying to compare the people protesting not having their constitutional rights to the people protesting to take them away like they are equally reasonable and decent positions.
But we're supposed to act like the people arguing that we should be concerned about the rights of the people arguing to take away the rights (and lives) of the PoC counter-protesters aren't arguing that the people arguing for my extermination need more protection while the people having their constitutional rights consistently and systematically violated is an "overblown issue"
I legit don't know how to interpret that in any other way than "We're more concerned about the rights of white supremacists than PoC because we can only be one of them".
|
Edit: @LL, if that wasn't clear
You're not doing the homework. If you want to show someone is posting unacceptably you have to actually go and find podts of theirs that you find unacceptable. You keep trying to skip the step where you actually show that their posting was bad, and do a sort of blame-free "what the thread is like when they post vs when they don't" thing.
I think I've said this every time you've tried that metric, but if that were sufficient for banning someone xDaunt would be long gone. It's about 50/50 when he decides to post whether everything flares up for the next 24 hours. His critics think he says inflammatory shit on purpose just to get a reaction. But he argues (often correctly) that it's the liberals who respond to him that escalate the tone, and he shouldn't be held responsible for that. If we took this post hoc approach I think the moderation would be very biased against conservatives because there's a lot more liberals around to get mad at stuff they said.
I hated the thread in that period, incidentally, so that might be a matter of taste.
|
On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote:
At least he didn't attempt to explain why the 14 words were nothing to with white supremacism and that anyone who disagrees is a retard. So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional.
Who knows? What is harder to believe, that someone who can usually understand what is being said in plain English suddenly can't, or that someone would spend so many hours purposely failing? You are generally pretty clear about what you are saying (or not saying), but for whatever reason people take a deep dive and read all sorts of weird stuff into your posts.
On August 21 2017 04:53 LegalLord wrote:
And I will note this much: my opinion changed most of all in the aftermath of the 90-day "self-exile" we had, where I saw what the thread would be like without him. His return marked a precipitous drop in the quality of discourse and I don't see that as a coincidence. Most of the criticism therein significantly predates my involvement in noting it.
Agree with you on the effect of all the ban bets (not just KwarK's).
|
On August 21 2017 04:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
You're problem with kwark is as bad as zelfins problem with danglers. I very much disagree. I see the desire to make the comparison given that both see lots of instances in this specific thread. If I start making "kwark trolling; annoying" type posts with that kind of frequency, then you might have a point. But no, it's not a reasonable comparison. Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
You keep hyping up the boggyman of kwark abusing his mod status that you've invented things that he doesn't do to justify your fears of him. Possibly. I think the "consistent toxic asshole with a mod icon" status is fairly ubiquitous though. If "abusing mod status" were only my criticism then perhaps you would have a point, but it is not, not in the slightest. And incidentally my point on this "fruits into vegetables" as noted is "I don't really care" (though I do still think that someone else might get actioned for something like that). So I can't say that I agree with you on seeing the worst in every situation. I do admit I was wrong with that one "name the races" scenario and I admitted that I simply misunderstood it. Though perhaps you should look at his response to my misunderstanding to see what kind of petty grudgemaker I might assume would make such a troll post. Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He doesn't have a place of athority in the thread as a mod. Someone with a mod icon posting in the thread always has a place of authority in the thread, if implicitly. It sets the standard. Every other mod understands that. Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He doesn't ban people from the thread. He does occasionally. Generally for people he has a grudge against. When he thinks the case for it is sufficient to exercise that grudge. Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
He might be talking about it in the mod foums about people but we have no idea of that or ability to prove or disprove this. True - so I don't talk about that. Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 04:34 Sermokala wrote:
I still have a problem with kwark for various things in the past (my initial and continued ban from tech support still infuriates me) but he just doesn't do the things you're accusing him of. He does the "post like a toxic asshole" thing for sure. There are many instances where Kwark specifically was criticized for that; most other mods at least have some understanding that their position means they shouldn't be a contributor to the bad aspects of the thread. That he never gets called out for it by the rest of the moderation means that it can generally go on in perpetuity. And I will note this much: my opinion changed most of all in the aftermath of the 90-day "self-exile" we had, where I saw what the thread would be like without him. His return marked a precipitous drop in the quality of discourse and I don't see that as a coincidence. Most of the criticism therein significantly predates my involvement in noting it.
This idea that his ban hammer gives him an authority in the thread and that he sets the standard is exactly the problem at hand. Neither are true. Kwark is foremost in the admitting of the low quality of the threat and forsakes his ban ability in the threat at every opportunity. Hes no different then anyone else in the thread when it comes to moderation. Mayhaps he gets someone to tell him to flag off when he goes too far but its nothing that isn't done out of respect for others who've gone above and beyond outside of the thread. Hes just a genuine toxic asshole that instead of trying to dress up a lot of what he posts as pretending to be legitimate criticism (FOTM liberal cheerleader poster I'm looking at you) he just honestly retorts as an toxic asshole. He could feed me the same one liners and jokes like that and I wouldn't get auctioned for them all the same. He doesn't exercise a grudge against anyone and the only times hes banned someone is when they've gone way to far over the line. Useualy its falling that does the bans. Sam isn't around anymore as proof of this.
The 90 day exile was shitty though. It lacked the bad behavior that the thread is known for but its not like the quality of the thread magically rose in the absence of a few posters. The best moments of the thread are when people legitimately disagree with each other or agreeable nonsense is afoot. The 90 exile period was talk show conversation at best.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 05:18 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: @LL, if that wasn't clear
You're not doing the homework. If you want to show someone is posting unacceptably you have to actually go and find podts of theirs that you find unacceptable. You keep trying to skip the step where you actually show that their posting was bad, and do a sort of blame-free "what the thread is like when they post vs when they don't" thing.
I'd rather not. My point is not to pick out a post or a specific chain of posts that makes this-or-that person looks bad. I am content to merely report-and-wait whenever that happens - and if they can't be reported, to post it here. A general tendency is something far more debatable and forgive me if I find that debate to be unworthy.
My point here was actually a bit simpler, and I think of it as more a side-point to the initial discussion brought up by (oBlade?). It is this:
1. (To Drone: ) If you want an "everyone is nice, everyone is charitable" environment, you can't do it with a double standard of moderation where some are permitted to be shittier than others.
2. (To xDaunt: ) Feeding the troll of shitty posts only propagates them, so it's best to just let them go without a response.
On August 21 2017 05:18 ChristianS wrote:
I think I've said this every time you've tried that metric, but if that were sufficient for banning someone xDaunt would be long gone. It's about 50/50 when he decides to post whether everything flares up for the next 24 hours. His critics think he says inflammatory shit on purpose just to get a reaction. But he argues (often correctly) that it's the liberals who respond to him that escalate the tone, and he shouldn't be held responsible for that. If we took this post hoc approach I think the moderation would be very biased against conservatives because there's a lot more liberals around to get mad at stuff they said.
I can't really comment one way or the other because frankly, xDaunt tends to talk about things I just don't really care much about. My opinion on Vox Day and his 14 words is "I don't give a shit." I will say that the few times I do try to talk to him, he's usually alright if you don't try to bait him. I wouldn't call him a shit-starter, mostly a shit-propagator.
On August 21 2017 05:18 ChristianS wrote:
I hated the thread in that period, incidentally, so that might be a matter of taste.
Meh. This is perhaps part of the issue. Although I do remember you specifically commenting on the quality of the thread before the ban ended, and I'd say it only went downhill after the bannees came back.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:
This idea that his ban hammer gives him an authority in the thread and that he sets the standard is exactly the problem at hand. Neither are true. Kwark is foremost in the admitting of the low quality of the threat and forsakes his ban ability in the threat at every opportunity.
I disagree in full with the above premise and with the conclusions that follow. But I don't think I'll convince you otherwise.
|
On August 21 2017 04:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:
But I am not throwing rocks in my glass house. I disagree. That's kind of exactly what you're doing. Yeah, it goes without saying that my posting hasn't always been perfect. I certainly never said otherwise and I do acknowledge that some things were better not posted or posted a different way. I nevertheless don't think that that undermines the point made above in any way.
Hey, if you want to waste your time complaining about Kwark, go ahead. But acting like he brings the thread down all on his own leave out a bunch of other bad faith actors.
|
On August 21 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:
I know that context matters, I just don't see a context in which the 14 words aren't white supremacist. If someone wanted to communicate that idea in a non white supremacist way then they should not simply grab the nearest Nazi slogan and discretely mark it with the number 14 (his 14th point).
Well, I provided such a context. While I don't expect you to accept what Vox Day wrote (I certainly don't), you should at least acknowledge his reasoning. Is it all pretext and smoke screen? I've put some additional thought into that question and read the comments of the article that I linked to. Various posters raised the same concerns that you did, which he generally addressed with a denial that he adheres to white supremacism (again, consistent with the other 15 points) and an attitude of "I really don't give a shit." Take from that what you will.
Can you at least agree that if there is a non racist way of making that argument it was very much not the route he opted to take? Something along the lines of "this isn't an intrinsically Nazi idea, although in this example he did go full Nazi".
I already agreed that the 14 words are inherently racist even if they aren't inherently white supremacist. Given the differentiation that you provided earlier between communism as an ideal and communism as actually practiced, I'm sure that you are capable of understanding the difference between racism and white supremacism. So while Vox Day's use of the 14 words is unequivocally racist, I'm not prepared to say that he went full Nazi for the reasons previously given.
|
KwarK is one of the best posters in the thread though. I'd ban like three quarters of the thread before I worry about him.
|
On August 22 2017 10:48 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2017 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2017 05:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 22 2017 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:On August 22 2017 02:26 IgnE wrote:
theres not much to understand about the argument that "welfare ruined the inner city (black) family" because its so stupid. like one of the stupidest arguments. IgnE and I agree on something, let us mark this moment by blotting out the sun. Seriously, I am so bummed this thing is not going to pass over me. One of my co-workers is flying to Nevada to watch it, because he is a huge space nerd on a level I can't even being to understand. I sort of envy him right now. Traffic was a nightmare, damn Canadians driving through Washington, after already blotting out our sun (I was able to look directly at it with no glasses and not get the residual circle thing) during the forest fire. It's nice that Europe's got it's own cliven bundy types though. Who are you calling Europe's Cliven Bundy? Any of the ones making a similar argument. I don't think the racial problems we face today are all Republicans fault though in case that wasn't clear. You should know one of the more prominent folks who makes that position is black. You know...Larry Elder? There is truth to the claim that welfare has created more children without fathers in the home. Yes, the Drug War has a role to play here too, but to claim it's entirely the Drug War is not really true. Certainly 75% of black men aren't incarcerated (where, current figures put out of wedlock black children at over 75%). I'm not one to buy that this is such a societal ill (like a conservative would), but to dismiss it entirely seems odd (not the societal ill part, but that Welfare has incentive structures that've led to this situation). But yeah, it's only those racist white guys who put that forward....or Coons like Larry Elder? The hate non-left non-D blacks get from other blacks is frightening to be honest. User was warned for this post
What was the reason for this?
|
My bet is he didn't show is work while making assertions of facts on a race issue. Or dragged up an argument out of no place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
