|
On September 01 2018 00:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 22:19 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 18:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote: to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left. That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you. Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway. Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented. And from my persepextive, the europhiles here are so far left that they shriek and point and say “Far Right!” Or as I heard recently from a Canadian, if Bernie went and ran in Montreal next election, he’d be a mushy center-right candidate. That's not true for the record, Bernie would be center left in Canada. And mostly everywhere. I think the main problem we have is that there is the perception that far right is an insult. It is, at first, simply a description. I personally believe that far right views aren't logically sustainable, but that doesn't mean that I would insult someone by saying they're far right, that's not why the word is useful. Agreed, I would think the comment the Canadian made was some hyperbole meant to show how right the center is in the US compared to the center in Canada.
|
On August 31 2018 22:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 18:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 31 2018 02:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2018 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 29 2018 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 29 2018 22:36 brian wrote: to be fair, hardly anyone uses the thread anymore, relatively. the volume has declined significantly. i think it was GH? that said it most perfectly imo. negative peace.
i think a mix of the new normal would be better. the tone of the thread has increased dramatically. the strict enforcement against ad hominem is a huge plus.
everything else, however, i think serves only to chill the discussion to death. i don’t envy anyone moderating the thread though, so i’m sure the lack of any posting at all is preferable to sifting through dozens of pages of petty grievance. the mccain bullshit being a prime example. a ‘problem’ that literally can only exist for two or three days(which has since passed, and yet the quibbling goes on,) requiring such pedantry? who would want to deal with that. and to call it a problem even, when the only ‘warning’ put out was in respone to a post clearly aimed at provoking rather than enlightening? tiresome.
the idea that some of us must have an exhaustive rule set with strict interpretative leeway in order to post in a thread reflects very poorly on the posters imo. and that’s been a recurring theme in this thread for quite some time. I would agree (and said not many posts ago) that indeed I think TL has chosen a moderation policy of negative peace. Frankly, I accept that, most of the argument (from me anyway) is about TL trying to simultaneously maintain that it's actually a very methodical, fair and rule based moderation policy and a somewhat haphazard, fungible, subject to interpretation and so on depending on what is most convenient (I could put together a compilation but I feel like we're past that anyway). Even that I wouldn't be too bothered by, but the reason I bothered to write the recent posts I did is sorta 2 parted. 1. I actually care about discussion and dialogue, considered myself a part of a community (even if reluctantly allowed by some), and think that my personal benefits from the thread are only a part of why I participated in the first place. I've had people send me messages (some that I've never seen/don't remember them partaking in discussions I'm a part of) ask questions, and offer help. That has significance to me and I think it benefits the community. I didn't want that to end because we couldn't come to agreeable terms. 2. Is the more petty part. I don't appreciate all that being portrayed as childish or arguing for the sake of arguing. So what a lot of people are noticing is me trying to draw some attention to examples outside of myself. That being said, I'm actually still thread banned, but that's mostly because with the resolution agreed upon, that made the most sense. Anyway, I do get some enjoyment out of reading the thread without posting. It's a bit frustrating at times, not as informative as I once remember it (maybe nostalgia/something else?), and once serm, intro, and neb finally completely give up on it, reflective of a very narrow band of the political spectrum. At that point I imagine I won't follow it much, if at all. The spectrum goes from Danglar who is at the right of the far right to Drone who is a norwegian leftist and probably outside the bottom left corner of the political compass with euro liberal centre right winger à la Kwark or leftists such as myself somewhere in the middle. The thread has less insane bickering and people shouting the same one thing over and over and over again, and is simply less toxic than before. I’m not missing it. The thread has no right of the far right voice. Zero regular posters supported Trump in the primary. The thread however has many posters in the far left, a couple on the fringe (although that keeps moving left), and it just makes more people feel like they’re center left. That or you are so radical that you don’t even see the onbious nuances between posters in the thread, and that what you call “the left” encompasses the entirety of most european countries political spectrum save the hardcore far right populists. In France, or Germany, the whole of the right wing would be the left for you. Drone and Kwark have completely opposite views for example. It just happen neither of them would vote for the GOP, which has become the equivalent of the Front National or the Justice Party in Norway. Personally, I have never in my life met people with ideas like yours and xDaunt. On a global forum, with a limited number of voters, I find your kind of political views fairly well represented. And from my persepextive, the europhiles here are so far left that they shriek and point and say “Far Right!” Or as I heard recently from a Canadian, if Bernie went and ran in Montreal next election, he’d be a mushy center-right candidate. It just so happens that European politics is far to the left of American politics. If you let that influence your conception of the American center, you lose all nuance on the right and deserve a farcical understanding of factions within the right. In mirror image, someone like me and xDaunt will disagree on trade policy, culture war policy, and social programs policy, but people to our left and ourselves are lumped into the same far right barrel because apparently the GOP is just like the Front National. It’s very disingenuous. We can argue if the GOP is really far on the right or the rest of the western world really far on the left. Here is the thing: the GOP twenty or thirty years ago would also have been left in your view and no other democratic country is nearly as far on the right as the american spectrum is. The GOP would be a fringe party of hard right nutcases in every single other western democracy and is almost universally regarded as such outside the US. I mean just look at that poll:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/worldwide-few-confident-in-trump-or-his-policies/
But that’s not the point. The point is that this forum is international and it’s normal that a majority of posters don’t recognize themselves in a party that has become so unbelievably extreme by global standards. Saying that it represent a narrow band of the political spectrum because only a minority of posters align with the GOP makes little sense.
|
On August 31 2018 23:44 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 21:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 31 2018 19:56 Liquid`Drone wrote: justice party in norway? whats that?
the progress party is significantly, significantly more sane than the GOP is. I'd rather vote for Siv Jensen in Norway, even if the entire spectrum is available, than vote for Trump in the US, even with Hillary as the only alternative. The current GOP is something comparable to 'demokratene i norge' crossed with 'partiet de kristne' - those have a combined 0.5% of the vote and no parliamentary representation. Sorry my norwegian is absolutely rubbish and I mix up words all the time. I talked about Fremskrittspartiet of course. Ok for the sanity, it’s Norway after all. Make it the swedish democrats or AfD. I guess I have a worse image of the Fremskittspartiet than they are because literally everybody in my milieu absolutely hates them. Can't fathom why. They're a completely ok'ish party. Not something I'd vote on myself, due to various stances I don't agree with, but not something I can see outright hating either. But I guess in politics, even in sane countries, it's normal to hate on the opposition just for the fact that they're the opposition. It's a very unhealthy habit which can easily end up biting you in the ass if you keep voting the same party because it's "your team", despite their stances having changed over the years to no longer represent yours (see: GOP). clarification: "You" here is a hypothetical person, not "you" as in actual you. I think their hateful rethoric against muslims, their climate change denialism, their proposal to dissolve the sami parliament doesn’t help. The fact that every single high quality artistic institution would disappear if their ideas were applied doesn’t really cut it either in my milieu, since they want to end state support to culture altogether (unless it’s national romantic stuff, they like that apparently).
They are not complete fascists like the front national or the AfD, but they represent for the least an unsavory brand of politics.
|
Poll should had really included USA opinion as a baseline measure.
|
On August 31 2018 22:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 31 2018 03:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Someone has to explain to me this negative peace business. I feel like I have missed the point some of you are trying to make. I've done it probably a dozen times but what's one more. Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and ‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. When, for example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). Positive peace is filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.
Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way.
Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.
The authors of this dossier consider peace as well-managed social conflict. This definition was decided on during Irenees’ Peace workshop held in South Africa in May 2007. Nope, I've read it, but theoretical peace studies on real world war and peace bears very little relevance whatsoever to an online forum. There is no violence in an online forum, unless perhaps if one poster finds the location of another poster. The theoretical construct of violence, peace, ceasefire, resolution of conflict, does not apply to online forums. There is no prevention of violence, the impositon of negative peace by the presence of armed forces standing between two armed forces. What does peace and what does violence even mean in an online forum? With that there extends that the concepts of various peace bears no meaning as there is only mod and admin action to regulate the interactions between various posters. Even with extending the concept as a most tenuous analogy, how would a policy of not negative peace be enacted? We are not fighting a war over land ownership or control of water, the concept has no relevance whatsoever, there is only posters and mods.
I guess the 12th time was not the charm.
I'll just agree to disagree then.
EDIT: Just caught up on the thread, lol what a mess.
|
Or you know, you can can actually describe why this concept of negative peace is applicable to an online forum, and how your preferred solution presumably that of a "positive peace" can be implemented in an online forum?
Also, if you are going to pretend that you have written this 12 times, go ahead and show me 12 posts.
|
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation.
|
Most of the true shit posters got banned or changed their ways, so now we are left with arguing about even pettier shit.
|
But the question is, why are they arguing here instead of the main thread? Last time I looked, being petty isn't against the US pol thread rules.
|
some of it has to do with how meta political discussion is. also, that this thread isn't heavily policed for how apropos any particular feedback is. that said, this thread still seems fairly feedback focused on the whole to me. also, some people banned from the thread can still post in here, which lets them roundabout post on the topic they want to.
|
What do you mean how meta political discussion is? Political discussion is discussing politics, it kind of is by definition meta.
|
hmm, I'm not sure how to explain my point; but I'll write some stuff and maybe it'll explain it abit. or maybe it's just a bad point in the first place. we don't just discuss politics, we discuss how we discuss politics, and how our own discussion changes. and it's not just us who do that; the nature of more advanced political discussion tends to get very fine-grained like that.
perhaps it's the nature of political discussion that they're far more prone to being meta than some other kinds of discussions. and then that makes it harder to demarcate a difference between a feedback thread and a general discussion thread.
|
On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation.
GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently).
I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion.
Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them.
No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right.
If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home.
GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one.
I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough.
|
Some arguments in the thread are not to change minds, but to undercut whatever narrative the person is putting out there. Most of us know who’s mind we can change and who will never back down.
|
On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. I don't really expect people's opinions to change just based on reading a discussion on the internet. You can, however, learn more about the other side and prompt internal consideration of points you hadn't heard before.
Some exchanges are valuable and deserve to be left "as is" at some point. I've found earlier this year that some topics will always earn me two or three posts in reply to every post of mine. I carry a worldview that is somewhat rare within the forum.
You're making wayyyy too much of It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired You just let the topic lapse or move on to a new piece of current events. You're being far too pessimistic here. I see very little of people declaring victory and running off into an imaginary sunset and I think that's your own imaginative construction of personal perceptions.
References of Liquid`Drone, since he posted on the topic http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27011996 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27017610
|
On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post".
For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft.
|
On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft.
For the record I was never opposed to explaining myself more clearly, but the last instance was someone literally expecting me to repeat myself when what they asked was at the top of the page they asked on.At some point people have to take responsibility for frequently failing to simply read the discussion they are wishing to opine on.
Several times what happened was one of us would post something that frazzled the status quo, someone would terribly mischaracterize the post, then rather than actually read the OP, people keep building and repeating arguments based off of some terrible mischaracterization of the argument. Or demanding and expecting it to be repeated for them so they don't have to read the discussion.
We're not perfect posters, but anyone who actively followed the thread should be able to acknowledge that I'm describing something that happened reasonably frequently.
|
On September 23 2018 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. For the record I was never opposed to explaining myself more clearly, but the last instance was someone literally expecting me to repeat myself when what they asked was at the top of the page they asked on.At some point people have to take responsibility for frequently failing to simply read the discussion they are wishing to opine on. Several times what happened was one of us would post something that frazzled the status quo, someone would terribly mischaracterize the post, then rather than actually read the OP, people keep building and repeating arguments based off of some terrible mischaracterization of the argument. Or demanding and expecting it to be repeated for them so they don't have to read the discussion. We're not perfect posters, but anyone who actively followed the thread should be able to acknowledge that I'm describing something that happened reasonably frequently. Hence why you're on the frequent ban list. It's supposed to be a cue to shape up your posting habits.
Just like Stealth and Mohdoo should be getting the hint not to quote/media spam, you three should get the hint that a discussion also involves making yourselves clear. And elaborating further when challenged.
|
On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom.
|
On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote: I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom.
Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those.
If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself.
|
|
|
|