US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 8

On August 21 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote:

Even left and right are pretty subjective. I don't meet most of the ideological purity tests the American right seems to demand of its adherents but I don't identify as left beyond my beliefs that the free market is a tool that should serve society, and not the other way around. The right believe in a mixed economy given their support of socialized law enforcement, military, justice etc, I draw the line just a little further with public and private provision of healthcare and education but that seems to be all the difference when it comes to being branded a socialist.

I like science, rationalism, individual rights and freedoms, constitutional protections, a limited state etc. Hell, I even think a gun ban wouldn't be practical. I recognize the state sucks at providing many services, particularly those which are not natural monopolies, and that the free market is both the product of the exercise of our own natural rights and also reliably the most effective way of getting goods to people. I think equality of outcome is a ridiculous goal and that equality of opportunity is the essence of the American Dream. I suspect I have about 90% of beliefs in common with many of the younger atheist members of the Republican party who don't get why gay marriage or abortion are such huge deals. When I was in the UK I was a member of the Conservative Party and I voted for Cameron in the leadership elections and then the General Election, twice. I want to be a conservative but I simply cannot be a Republican.

On August 22 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote:
Alright, so the last little exchange involving zeo is perhaps a good demonstration of what I mean about selective/partisan interpretation of shitposting.

Basically, zeo made a claim (Trump is leading in the polls again) that is demonstrably wrong, and repeated a talking point (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in X days) that doesn't really add to the discussion. Not really very great posting and something that is perhaps worth calling out as unproductive. However, the response given is pretty disproportionate and even less productive:

On August 23 2016 08:41 zeo wrote:
My claim was demonstratively correct, and I demonstrated it was correct. The fact that she had still not given a press conference after 261 days is incredible and it makes sense to remind people once a month that a candidate is avoiding reporters especially with her health issues.

I couldn't give less of a shit what random forum posters say to slide the thread and slander me, they have been proven wrong time and time and time again, from the Libya threads, to the Syria thread, Ukraine and beyond. I can come to my own conclusions and and have my own views on geopolitics, not everyone that disagrees with you is being paid. It's when people in your position start spouting the same schizophrenic blabbering as the rest of the peanut gallery you should come to the conclusion as to why the general forum is so shit in the first place. A pathetic loser that lost an internet debate can call me a shill, its sad, but satisfying to see someone become that desperate and I know they've lost. You don't get to say that as a 'moderator'.

Why don't we all start calling each other shills? The Clinton campaign has poured millions into 'correct the record' I'm sure the only sensible thing to do would be to call everyone I disagree with a psy-op shill. The thread will be great in no time. Or would there be another standard for me slandering other people?

On August 23 2016 09:21 KwarK wrote:
Thanks for checking in and letting us know the official Kremlin stance on the matter. For what it's worth, I can't check your IP, my assumption that you're a Kremlin shill is purely from the fact that you shill for the Kremlin all day every day.

On August 23 2016 04:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You just aren't trying very hard to find examples that would contradict what you want to believe, which is just human nature

On August 23 2016 04:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I can't talk to doodsmack anymore I'm convinced he's a legitimate troll no one is that fucking retarded

On August 23 2016 05:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You're an idiot who keeps spouting blatantly false statements because you can't admit you were wrong

On August 23 2016 05:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Glad you agree it isn't sexist and it's fucking retarded for doodsmack to assert it is

On August 23 2016 05:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
You're a mess.

On August 23 2016 05:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'd say continuously insisting something to be the case when no intelligent person would agree with you and when multiple sources have disproven you is a pretty good example of how to actually 'act retarded'

On August 23 2016 05:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
But it seems like when a regressive-left guy like doodsmack starts spreading nonsense, if you try to call him out on it the cavalry comes because left sticks together even if it's just retarded

On August 24 2016 07:51 Barrin wrote:
@MODERATORS

I really think it's worth taking a closer look at what I was saying in this thread. Or at least what I was trying to say; I think I failed to make myself clear. Let me try again.

I think that many informal logical fallacies should be actionable*. I didn't really mean all of them; just enough to make things fair and as non-contentious as possible as far as political threads go. I've narrowed it down to several of them with a common theme that should be easily understood.

*What I mean by "actionable" logical fallacy is that you should receive a warning for committing them. Just a warning. With multiple chances to get it right before a possible escalation to temporary bans. Especially many chances for committing different fallacies.

Red Herring fallacies are a among a malicious troll's best weapons and frankly I think should all be actionable just because of that. But here are the ones I especially have in mind for keeping the peace, ones that when committed have participants draw negative attention towards each other and away from the issues:

• Ad Hominem
  
• Appeal to Motive
  
• Appeal to Poverty & Appeal to Wealth
  
• Appeal to Ridicule
  
• Appeal to Spite
  
• Guilt by Association
  
• Ergo Decedo
  
• Tu Quoque

And indeed the Moral High Ground fallacy should also be actionable, as it is largely just a way to imply the above. We're at a neat total of 10 fallacies so far, btw.

I would also seriously consider adding the Ecological and Appeal to Fear fallacies to that list, as they are at the core of racism and frankly how too many atrocities have begun and been justified.

Again, all of the previous logical fallacies, when committed, serve only to draw attention away from the issues and instead towards each other. I think a warning should be given out every time one happens until people catch on, or eventually escalating it to (temporary) bans before giving up on the entire discussion.

BTW, I really think using such established rules for arguments actually makes the moderation job easier and less stressful.

---

@EVERYONE

I would also highly recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with (informal) logical fallacies. It will help you identify when someone is bullshitting you, even yourself, and you will be a better person because of it. For the sake of proper discussions, I recommend that you call them out as you see them.

Here are 20 of the more common and relevant logical fallacies worth starting with:

• Anecdotal Fallacy
  
• Appeal to Probability
  
• Appeal to Authority
  
• Appeal to Tradition
  
• Appeal to Popularity
  
• Argument from Fallacy
  
• Argument to Moderation
  
• Cherry Picking
  
• Circular Reasoning
  
• Hasty Generalization
  
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
  
• Equivocation
  
• False Dichotomy
  
• Ignoratio Elenchi (politicians' favorite)
  
• Loaded Question
  
• Reification
  
• Shifting the Burden of Proof
  
• Special Pleading
  
• Straw Man
  
• Wrong Direction

If you're really serious about it, I also recommend familiarizing yourself with Cognitive Biases and (key word) trying to eliminate them within yourself.

If nothing else, please try to make an extra effort not to commit the Psychologist's fallacy and especially not the Proof by Assertion fallacy. Or in other words: be humble and willing to change your mind.

If everyone puts effort into this I bet we could actually have one of the best political forum (threads) on the internet. That's all I got. Up to you guys now. I don't think I have many (if any) answers as far as politics go (so I did much more lurking than participating in that thread), but I am pretty sure about what I've said here. I liked that thread; don't let me down!

Frankly it's as if the standards in that thread are lower than the rest of TL.