|
They can run an esports team or multiple esports teams, but not a politics thread. Don't worry, it's a joke. Esports is much easier.
I only want to see the TL history book from the moderator point of view. Previous healthy thread(s), slow departure of reasonable posters, the attempt to introduce new subjective standards to fix the problem, and the ultimate abandonment of literally everything in that post setting out the new subjective standards. To quote a portion:
Over time, a posting culture has developed that stands in stark contrast to the values we value as a site.
The moderation team and wider staff came to a consensus that things need to change in this thread so that it aligns closer to the values of the rest of TLnet. We’re going to introduce more subjective moderation in the thread. What this means is that if we feel that your posting in this thread is to the detriment of the thread then we’re going to slap you with a thread ban (temporary or permanent). On this April Fool's day, let's remember that holding to the ideals set forth in the first post would "ban all of you, lock the thread."
|
United States44439 Posts
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't".
|
On April 02 2026 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't".
I've repeatedly stressed that I specifically would appreciate people ignoring anyone else they think unworthy and demonstrate a capacity to maintain a discussion about US politics among themselves that isn't centered around their petulant and incessant need to mock and gawk to self-soothe.
Thus far (I dunno, like ~a decade?), they've demonstrated they lack that capacity. I've seen enough little things change over the years to hold out hope that we'll get there one day though.
|
On April 02 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2026 04:26 KwarK wrote:
I genuinely think the heart of GH's issue with the current topic is that he's not the guy with the stupidest takes right now. He's grown used to the naked contempt his posts are normally able to generate and right now he's being forced to share.
It's tough, he looks at the contempt oblade is earning and thinks "that should be mine, why to they keep responding to that idiot, what does he have that I don't". I've repeatedly stressed that I specifically would appreciate people ignoring anyone else they think unworthy and demonstrate a capacity to maintain a discussion about US politics among themselves that isn't centered around their petulant and incessant need to mock and gawk to self-soothe. Thus far (I dunno, like ~a decade?), they've demonstrated they lack that capacity. I've seen enough little things change over the years to hold out hope that we'll get there one day though.
You are the they, people fight with you because you are a cunt to them. Either passive aggressively, by either responding to someone else’s post with a dig to them. Or just being really condescending. Or once in a while the mask comes off and you go straight for it.
People are not arguing that the discussion couldn’t be better, it could. The issue people have with you, is you are the number one offender for making the conversation worse, because you have been doing it forever.
This you making great discussion?
I think it is a skill issue. You'd probably have better luck copy pasting it into an AI and having it explain it to you.
No one is mean to you for any other reason than they think you deserve it based on how you treat them.
|
On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile.
I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line?
EDIT: I should note this could be considered "Defamation per se"
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line?
I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child.
|
On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child.
Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example.
I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are.
How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity?
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity?
It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
I identify as a revolutionary socialist but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines. Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism and the revolution can be made up of millions of people individually doing their part.
|
On April 14 2026 10:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
Eh, honestly I think the power of 'white nationalist identity politics' is situational.
As of right now, with Trump/Maga support/approval at historic lows, especially among the non-party aligned. I think you can get away just running the person with your favoured policy ideas/best ideological alignment. To do otherwise right now would be conceding far too much needlessly when in a strong position (which the Dems are guilty of often). That’s literally what went wrong. 2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.” 2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity? It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done + Show Spoiler +but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
Had a feeling you understood that concept.
I identify as a revolutionary socialist + Show Spoiler +but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines.
Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism.
But incrementalism can be in conflict with direct action. It frequently acts as a substitute for people (like it seems most of the thread is) far less politically engaged than you or myself.
|
United States44439 Posts
On April 14 2026 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
far less politically engaged than you or myself.
We're not the same.
|
On April 14 2026 10:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2026 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:46 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 10:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:55 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2026 09:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2026 09:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On April 14 2026 09:32 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
That’s literally what went wrong.
2008 Dems: “Sure, it may ruffle a few feathers, but Bush’s unpopularity has America ready for a change.”
2025: “The 19 year old in charge of allocating government grants, a Mr Big Balls, has cancelled pharmaceutical trials after confusing transgenic mice with transgender mice.” So your solution to prevent the fascists from getting into government, is just to let the racists win? You'll just only ever have old white nominees for the Democratitic party as long as the Republicans remain rascist? Seems like a winning plan. To be fair, Kwark is a registered Republican and a conservative (just not the completely batshit US kind) so it's really not that absurd this is the advice in that context. Whether the more progressive minded posters cosign, challenge, or ignore Kwark's position is what I find interesting. It's ostensibly right up their alley for discussion and far more effective/dangerous at converting people than the typical sexist/white supremacist tropes from the right wingers around here. To be fair, GH is a convicted pedophile. I mean I suppose we could dig up the posts of Kwark saying he's a conservative and a member of the Republican party but they don't really feel necessary for this to be clearly crossing a line? I'm literally not a conservative and I joined the Republican Party because I'm an actual political activist who engages in direct subversive action + Show Spoiler +rather than just pretending to be a revolutionary on the internet like you.
But you know these things already, you just thought that it'd be funny to engage in name calling. And now you're here crying because I chose to demonstrate the absurdity of your chosen line of attack by returning it to sender with a little added spice. It's a dumb game, but it's a game that you decided you wanted to play.
But sure, if you want to pretend that we actually believe what we're accusing each other of then by all means let's do that. You keep calling me a conservative and I'll keep reminding people of that time you were literally convicted of sexual abuse of a child. Meh, I just expect better from multiple people in a variety of ways. You could try making this same point, but with something I actually said, like I did with yours as one example. I'll accept your assertion that you are (were?) a member of the Republican party as "subversive action" (how's that going?), but the "conservative" thing came from you saying you were a conservative in the UK and Democrat in the US because Republicans are what they are. How do you self-identify politically? For future reference/clarity? It's going okay. I don't want to give any legally ambiguous examples of things I've done + Show Spoiler +but I can give others.
One simple example is I'm on the board of a fairly major legal aid nonprofit that does an awful lot of good work for vulnerable people (indigenous, undocumented, incarcerated etc.). It's an extremely woke organization, so woke it's almost beyond parody, which can be problematic when trying to get rich people to open their wallets. One of the ways in which I provide value, beyond direct financial support and my services as a CPA, is as a token "Republican" serving as the Treasurer. They can parade me when they need to show how bipartisan they are in the current climate and I just find it funny.
I'll give you another example. I keep serving my community as an Election Judge on behalf of the Republican Party. I run the voter center election after election and I make damn sure that every person with the right to vote gets to vote. That homeless guy who is just here because it's cold out? I'll process his same day enrollment myself. If he doesn't have the documents on hand I'm familiar with the minimum requirements to get them in the system and will happily walk him through where he can get what from. And when the conspiracy theorists show up and see the Dominion machines I'm on 'their side' as I explain to them the various safeguards.
Obviously there's other ways you can damage Republican causes from the inside too.
Had a feeling you understood that concept. I identify as a revolutionary socialist + Show Spoiler +but I'm not an anarchist and I'm not a psychopath. We live in a world in which the majority of people are fed by spreadsheets and it would be morally abhorrent to destroy the status quo without having a plan for feeding a billion children during the time required to make the new system. Good intentions cannot excuse manmade famines. Sounds like you mean that sincerely? Direct action is not in conflict with incrementalism. But incrementalism can be in conflict with direct action. It frequently acts as a substitute for people (like it seems most of the thread is) far less politically engaged than you or myself. We're not the same.
I didn't say we were.
|
In the spirit of respecting the rules, I decided to post this here instead of the USPMT:
I know we have a user ban list for this thread, at this moment I really, really wish we had a "topic of discussion" ban list, or at least a sensible "off topic" rule.
I understand this is tangentially connected to politics, but I honestly believe this has gone too far and for too long and basically completely derailed the thread and made it about gender.
Like I did last time this occurred, I would encourage folks who want to have this in depth discussion to create a new thread and hash it out, because this is honestly getting ridiculous.
|
On September 10 2026 02:47 Jankisa wrote:
In the spirit of respecting the rules, I decided to post this here instead of the USPMT:
I know we have a user ban list for this thread, at this moment I really, really wish we had a "topic of discussion" ban list, or at least a sensible "off topic" rule.
I understand this is tangentially connected to politics, but I honestly believe this has gone too far and for too long and basically completely derailed the thread and made it about gender.
Like I did last time this occurred, I would encourage folks who want to have this in depth discussion to create a new thread and hash it out, because this is honestly getting ridiculous.
Yeah, it is pretty annoying at this point. Especially considering that we have had the same fucking discussion multiple times now, and nothing new is ever being added. At this point, you basically know that the second someone mentions "what is a man" or something similar even as a joke, the thread is just gone for the next 5-10 pages. Every single time.
|
United States44439 Posts
You can also just tell people it’s not a good faith question and skip the responses.
|
That's what we have been doing, the issue is that the thread, while in this mode is useless for other people who want to discuss the thing the thread is about.
During this period, I tried to say something twice, did not work.
During last, I tried to post relevant news articles, comments, observations on multiple occasions, then again pointing out the absurdity of the situation, and again we just had to wait for like a week for this to die out.
It's obviously your call but this thing seems to go against the spirit of what the thread is supposed to be about.
If I skip the responses, which I do, the thread doesn't exist, so what's the point.
If that's the advice, and thread titles have no meaning, let's just turn this thread into the new US Politics mega thread, at least it has US Politics in the title.
|
Norway28923 Posts
People discuss what people want to discuss. It's a bit annoying when people just reiterate the same point over and over because people have 'I want the last word' syndrome but I see no reason to ban any subject. It's also clearly relevant to US politics. I've been skipping the parts of the discussion I think is uninteresting but I also think some interesting and valid points are being raised.
|
On September 10 2026 04:32 Jankisa wrote:
That's what we have been doing, the issue is that the thread, while in this mode is useless for other people who want to discuss the thing the thread is about.
During this period, I tried to say something twice, did not work.
During last, I tried to post relevant news articles, comments, observations on multiple occasions, then again pointing out the absurdity of the situation, and again we just had to wait for like a week for this to die out.
It's obviously your call but this thing seems to go against the spirit of what the thread is supposed to be about.
If I skip the responses, which I do, the thread doesn't exist, so what's the point.
If that's the advice, and thread titles have no meaning, let's just turn this thread into the new US Politics mega thread, at least it has US Politics in the title.
Exactly. I just go into the thread once a day, look at the latest post, see "still this shit going on", and go away. I guess i could go through all the responses and find the 1-2 that try to talk about something else, but if i reply to those, that just gets lost in the sea of this stupid shit anyways. You basically have to wait for 1-2 weeks until everyone has got their quips and smart takes in, and people are too bored to still try to get the last word in, and until then, the thread just doesn't exist.
We should really just have a "What is a man/woman" megathread where people can discuss that topic. I honestly just don't get it. The topic is so boring and inconsequential to begin with. It is just everyone stroking their own dick and feeling smart about themselves.
At this point, if you don't want a thing discussed, or just want to kill the thread for 1-2 weeks, simply start that topic, and it is just gone because people apparently simply cannot not talk about it once it is mentioned. It is like some kind of mind virus.
I don't know if that is really a good state of affairs.
Or is the solution to start a new "US politics - no discussion of what gender or sex means - Megathread" and hope that everyone migrates over?
|
I'm confused. Do people want me to engage with billyboy? If not, why not say anything about it to billyboy after all these years?
|
You can do whatever your heart desires, you’re an adult make the responsible choice that works best for you.
|
We would rather you engage with anyone at all after all this time but we've lost hope for that a long time ago.
Really though finding topics that cannot be discussed is a slippery slope. You have to just recognize the bad faith sometimes and just move on. Or be very clear and then not respond when someone tries to Gotcha themselves with their ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
