|
On February 10 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote:
You're the one whos refusing to think you might be wrong and not accepting that you might not understand what I'm saying.
You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong.
You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned.
Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. I can't help you if you still don't understand it.
No one can help you realize you might not be infallible.
|
On February 10 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2018 00:13 Doodsmack wrote:On January 27 2018 14:39 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2018 13:25 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2018 10:18 Introvert wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 KwarK wrote:On January 27 2018 03:14 IgnE wrote:On January 27 2018 02:49 KwarK wrote:
If you asked me to explain my collusion theory I could easily tell you who the people involved in the conspiracy are, what their motives were, what their roles were, and what they got out of it. Can you explain how Trump was involved, what his motives were, what his role was, and what he got and hoped to get out of it? I want to see a Kwark breakdown of this. Trump's role was knowingly accepting aid from the Russian government, his motive was becoming President, what he got was a Russian intelligence hack on Clinton and the DNC and an insider feed of sensitive information from that hack, and a social media disinformation propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting Clinton. We have documented proof of Trump Jr. accepting a meeting in which ending US sanctions on Russia was discussed due to being promised information from the Russian government hack. And 30 minutes after that meeting we have Trump Sr. tweeting non public information that was obtained by that Russian government hack. My theory is that his source for the hacked information was his son, and that his son got the information when he met with the people behind the hack in a meeting he admits that he took in order to get the information from the hack. Honestly I don't really know how anyone could spin this as anything other than what it is. My Trump collusion theory is right up there with the 9/11 theory that explains that the towers fell because they got hit by planes. I know this is the feedback thread, but what "non-public information" are you talking about? The 33,000 number. The very first time Trump tweeted about Hillary's emails was just 30 minutes after the Trump Jr. meeting with Russian agents who we know were offering him dirt on Clinton, and he did not tweet the 30,000 number that had previously been in the news. The Trump collusion theory is just "it's basically what it looks like". That's a theory so lightly threaded no one else proposes it (and that's saying something). And one reason, of course, is that the number 33000 had in fact been in the news before. But there is an even better part: the number 33000 is wrong. It's actually a little less than 32000 (which was also in the news). So the wiz-bang Russian lawyer gave him the wrong number. lol In fact, that error supports the idea that he had 33000 as the number in his head because it was the number of emails turned over the government. Rest assured, there is a reason no one else wonders about this question. Notice how you ignored the "30 minutes" number. I quite enjoy how dedicated certain posters are to Trump-Russia. You go ahead and ignore everything else and fixate on the time so you can keep this theory alive.
Yes, that time isn't significant because of "everything else." In the meantime the FBI investigation of Trump and his campaign will continue.
|
On February 11 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote:
You're the one whos refusing to think you might be wrong and not accepting that you might not understand what I'm saying.
You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong.
You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned.
Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. I can't help you if you still don't understand it. No one can help you realize you might not be infallible.
This isn't a matter of fallibility. If you want, go back and take each one of my paragraphs in my last effort and respond specifically to each. As you do you'll realize that your characterization of my request doesn't match it's form.
|
On February 11 2018 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On February 10 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote:
You're the one whos refusing to think you might be wrong and not accepting that you might not understand what I'm saying.
You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong.
You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned.
Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. I can't help you if you still don't understand it. No one can help you realize you might not be infallible. This isn't a matter of fallibility. If you want, go back and take each one of my paragraphs in my last effort and respond specifically to each. As you do you'll realize that your characterization of my request doesn't match it's form.
I did that already and how you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong or any compromise for if you might be wrong.
Your request is to ban people you say are racist and to ignore randomly if people disagree. The form doesn't matter when thats the premise.
|
On February 11 2018 09:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2018 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 11 2018 08:49 Sermokala wrote:On February 10 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote:
You're the one whos refusing to think you might be wrong and not accepting that you might not understand what I'm saying.
You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong.
You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned.
Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. I can't help you if you still don't understand it. No one can help you realize you might not be infallible. This isn't a matter of fallibility. If you want, go back and take each one of my paragraphs in my last effort and respond specifically to each. As you do you'll realize that your characterization of my request doesn't match it's form. I did that already and how you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong or any compromise for if you might be wrong. Your request is to ban people you say are racist and to ignore randomly if people disagree. The form doesn't matter when thats the premise.
Bruh. I'm not even saying me. I'm saying if someone (not me) reports something for being racist/actionable and some mods think it is and some don't, that instead of waiting for universal agreement (they don't for plenty of actions on other perceived violations), they lower the threshold of how many people think it's actionable/racist before taking action.
There's no randomly ignoring people and just banning anyone I think is racist. All of this would be clear if you were actually understanding my posts.
EDIT: This is in the context of advocating ethnic cleansing as a sensible solution not being actionable, but calling it what it is, is actionable.
|
I am understanding your posts. In theory they make sense and would do what you say. But if you understood my posts I am talking about what would happen in practice and obvious issues that you're ignoring under the banner of worse things.
Just a simple question. What decides whats a legitimate case of racism vs not? Do you want people to disagree on whats racist but still ban them just in case?
Instead of answering or responding how it would work in anyway you just say that I dont understand.
|
On February 11 2018 13:28 Sermokala wrote:
Just a simple question. What decides whats a legitimate case of racism vs not? Do you want people to disagree on whats racist but still ban them just in case?
The same process that decided me calling ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing was actionable. (unless you're asking like Plato's cave style)
Considering there are always people in the world that will argue even Nazi's and the KKK aren't racist there's probably always going to be someone who will disagree whether something is racist. I mean the person who said it is extremely unlikely to agree that what they said was racist for example. So yeah, like lots of the actions they take some people will disagree. But you repeatedly say "ban" I'm not saying ban anyone. Not unless they are repeat offenders like how it works with other offenses.
|
Not related to any current US pol discussion, but what should one do when you have quoted someone and they basically deny they have posted that?
|
send them to the trump campaign aide application.
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 06:08 Sent. wrote:
Why do anything?
I read this in the existential sense but that's not how you meant it huh?
|
Maybe I should repost that in the stupid questions thread...
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 05:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Not related to any current US pol discussion, but what should one do when you have quoted someone and they basically deny they have posted that?
there's a considerable chance you'll get no answer; the mods frequently refuse to answer/ignore reasonable questions that seek to clarify policy.
|
Unrelated to any current discussion:
This is just a passing thought I had, so people can tell me if it's stupid. I'd like to see a new rule for the politics thread specifically banning the "I'll take your silence/desire to disengage as an admission of defeat" rhethorical tactic people use sometimes. I've only ever seen it result in nastiness. The way I see it, if someone says "I'd rather not continue discussing this with you, so I'm gonna drop out," you oughta respect that. The other people in the thread can continue discussing the subject in that person's absence, but using another poster's exit to score points always reads like a bait, even if it isn't intended that way.
It's more complicated if someone wants to remain in the thread and continue discussing the same subject, but ignore a particular poster; that seems like it defeats the purpose of a forum. But if someone just says "this discussion is stupid / a waste of time / not going anywhere, so I'm gonna drop it," it seems obnoxious to respond "Haha! Let the Official US Politics Megathread Court Record show that I won this round!" Respond to any points of theirs you feel a desire to respond to, and then if they stop responding, just leave it alone imo
|
Although I agree that it’s hella mean-spirited, I hardly think it’s worth a separate rule. There are bigger fish to fry in our favorite cesspool of a thread.
|
I mean, sure it's not the worst thing that happens in the thread. It is pretty well-defined, though. That's something I always thought was clever about the martyring rule in the TL Ten Commandments: if I had to list the top ten most obnoxious tendencies online forums are prone to, ban martyring would definitely not make the list, but unlike most more heinous offenses, it's very easy to define when someone is or is not ban martyring; so if you make a clear rule and apply it evenly, critics have little room to criticize the moderation team when they apply it.
It wouldn't make a big difference, certainly, but I have trouble imagining it doing anything but helping, as long as it was stated clearly beforehand (and perhaps added to the mod note at the top of the thread). If you didn't tell people it was a rule, and then banned someone for it, they could easily complain "of all the things people say in that thread, this is what got actioned?" But as long as it's stated clearly as a rule, and people know not to do it, it seems like it would help when there's a discussion that's getting nasty and one or both sides would like to drop it and move on.
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 11:11 IgnE wrote:
let the people decide
and if they decide wrong we ask again
|
On February 15 2018 10:12 ChristianS wrote:
Unrelated to any current discussion:
This is just a passing thought I had, so people can tell me if it's stupid. I'd like to see a new rule for the politics thread specifically banning the "I'll take your silence/desire to disengage as an admission of defeat" rhethorical tactic people use sometimes. I've only ever seen it result in nastiness. The way I see it, if someone says "I'd rather not continue discussing this with you, so I'm gonna drop out," you oughta respect that. The other people in the thread can continue discussing the subject in that person's absence, but using another poster's exit to score points always reads like a bait, even if it isn't intended that way.
It's more complicated if someone wants to remain in the thread and continue discussing the same subject, but ignore a particular poster; that seems like it defeats the purpose of a forum. But if someone just says "this discussion is stupid / a waste of time / not going anywhere, so I'm gonna drop it," it seems obnoxious to respond "Haha! Let the Official US Politics Megathread Court Record show that I won this round!" Respond to any points of theirs you feel a desire to respond to, and then if they stop responding, just leave it alone imo
Nah. Let the reader decide for him or herself if a poster is disengaging from a hopeless stalemate or fleeing from a lost argument. I’ve felt similar engaging with you when you choose to put forth an alternate basis for argument while not acknowledging the accuracy or inaccuracy of my original argument. I hoped any reader would see the hopelessness of getting an answer on one topic, while understanding the other aspects are related but not superior to the original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
