US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 8
Forum Index > Website Feedback |
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
My problem is when it ventures from the realm of calling people out for shitty posting, which is what Biff did, into straight up insults. The second part of your post, that says that he picks stupid lines of attacks and cherry picks, is fine - calling people out for bad posting is alright. The first part, in which you talk about being a "paid Kremlin shill" is a straight insult. And it's a hell of a copout to say that you didn't address that towards him - you said it in a way that was meant to be taken as an insult. The difference between "X has Y flaws that make talking to X really unpleasant" and "let's just face it, X is just a fag" is pretty significant. The former has a purpose and I'd say is generally acceptable as long as it doesn't turn into a flame war. The latter is just bad for the discussion. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 21 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote: Even left and right are pretty subjective. I don't meet most of the ideological purity tests the American right seems to demand of its adherents but I don't identify as left beyond my beliefs that the free market is a tool that should serve society, and not the other way around. The right believe in a mixed economy given their support of socialized law enforcement, military, justice etc, I draw the line just a little further with public and private provision of healthcare and education but that seems to be all the difference when it comes to being branded a socialist. I like science, rationalism, individual rights and freedoms, constitutional protections, a limited state etc. Hell, I even think a gun ban wouldn't be practical. I recognize the state sucks at providing many services, particularly those which are not natural monopolies, and that the free market is both the product of the exercise of our own natural rights and also reliably the most effective way of getting goods to people. I think equality of outcome is a ridiculous goal and that equality of opportunity is the essence of the American Dream. I suspect I have about 90% of beliefs in common with many of the younger atheist members of the Republican party who don't get why gay marriage or abortion are such huge deals. When I was in the UK I was a member of the Conservative Party and I voted for Cameron in the leadership elections and then the General Election, twice. I want to be a conservative but I simply cannot be a Republican. I acknowledge I'm using a very broad term in "right leaning mod." The very lack is evidenced by toleration of liberal shitposters (they may be snide because they're not also viewed as wrong) and moderation/warning of conservative or right-wing shitposters. Not a purity test, a thread moderation historical test. I'm plagiarizing oBlade extensively because he nailed it in the EZ thread: any rube can look at the snark that gets through, expect the de-facto low bar for posting to be applied universally, and run afoul of mods that swing one way. That's what gets people like EZ banned, that's what creates future snide shitposters, and it will chase discussion from both sides out of the thread and thereby general forum. Hell, I identity as chief amongst equality loving free speechers and anti-discrimination advocates, but that puts me on the Right these days go figure. But that's for a different thread, a mod for both sides or theoretical non-aligned mod would be evidenced by how equally the (largely unspoken) rules are applied. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
On August 22 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote: Alright, so the last little exchange involving zeo is perhaps a good demonstration of what I mean about selective/partisan interpretation of shitposting. Basically, zeo made a claim (Trump is leading in the polls again) that is demonstrably wrong, and repeated a talking point (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in X days) that doesn't really add to the discussion. Not really very great posting and something that is perhaps worth calling out as unproductive. However, the response given is pretty disproportionate and even less productive: My claim was demonstratively correct, and I demonstrated it was correct. The fact that she had still not given a press conference after 261 days is incredible and it makes sense to remind people once a month that a candidate is avoiding reporters especially with her health issues. On to the main part: The response was people desperate to deflect and jump on any post that might even slightly be considered negative towards Hillary. They have a pack mentality where they validate each others bitter spiteful personal attacks because they know moderation staff won't take any action, they think they can shout down and ruin any thread where there are varying opinions and not just their own. Does Kwark have any proof I'm a Russian shill? Please, I know you can pull my IP addresses for the 7 years I've been on this forum. What type of stupid immature diarrhea kind of argument is that? Instead of actually engaging in discussion these people retreat into their little hugboxes and call whoever disagrees with them Hitler, even if the people they are supporting idolize Hitler. No, please Kwark, next time you lose an argument say I'm in a tiny cubicle in St. Petersburg if it makes you feel any better about yourself and validates your beliefs. I couldn't give less of a shit what random forum posters say to slide the thread and slander me, they have been proven wrong time and time and time again, from the Libya threads, to the Syria thread, Ukraine and beyond. I can come to my own conclusions and and have my own views on geopolitics, not everyone that disagrees with you is being paid. It's when people in your position start spouting the same schizophrenic blabbering as the rest of the peanut gallery you should come to the conclusion as to why the general forum is so shit in the first place. A pathetic loser that lost an internet debate can call me a shill, its sad, but satisfying to see someone become that desperate and I know they've lost. You don't get to say that as a 'moderator'. Why don't we all start calling each other shills? The Clinton campaign has poured millions into 'correct the record' I'm sure the only sensible thing to do would be to call everyone I disagree with a psy-op shill. The thread will be great in no time. Or would there be another standard for me slandering other people? | ||
KwarK
United States40776 Posts
| ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15564 Posts
On August 23 2016 08:41 zeo wrote: My claim was demonstratively correct, and I demonstrated it was correct. The fact that she had still not given a press conference after 261 days is incredible and it makes sense to remind people once a month that a candidate is avoiding reporters especially with her health issues. I couldn't give less of a shit what random forum posters say to slide the thread and slander me, they have been proven wrong time and time and time again, from the Libya threads, to the Syria thread, Ukraine and beyond. I can come to my own conclusions and and have my own views on geopolitics, not everyone that disagrees with you is being paid. It's when people in your position start spouting the same schizophrenic blabbering as the rest of the peanut gallery you should come to the conclusion as to why the general forum is so shit in the first place. A pathetic loser that lost an internet debate can call me a shill, its sad, but satisfying to see someone become that desperate and I know they've lost. You don't get to say that as a 'moderator'. Why don't we all start calling each other shills? The Clinton campaign has poured millions into 'correct the record' I'm sure the only sensible thing to do would be to call everyone I disagree with a psy-op shill. The thread will be great in no time. Or would there be another standard for me slandering other people? i got labelled a "right wing nut" for correctly identifying the Mulroney government's track record with deficits in the 80s. people were yelling and screaming and all angry and stuff. it ended with me presenting the correct deficit #s and interest rates and the rebuttal was "well if you want to calculate it that way"... Actuarial Scientists these guys are not. 5 days later when i noted something stupid Trudeau did during a debate with Mulcare i got labelled a "left wing nut". so i guess if you average it all out i'm a "centrist waffling fence-sitter". | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
On August 23 2016 09:21 KwarK wrote: Thanks for checking in and letting us know the official Kremlin stance on the matter. For what it's worth, I can't check your IP, my assumption that you're a Kremlin shill is purely from the fact that you shill for the Kremlin all day every day. You're just baiting now. No point in having website feedback if you are just going to shitpost in it. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 23 2016 04:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You just aren't trying very hard to find examples that would contradict what you want to believe, which is just human nature On August 23 2016 04:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I can't talk to doodsmack anymore I'm convinced he's a legitimate troll no one is that fucking retarded On August 23 2016 05:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You're an idiot who keeps spouting blatantly false statements because you can't admit you were wrong On August 23 2016 05:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Glad you agree it isn't sexist and it's fucking retarded for doodsmack to assert it is On August 23 2016 05:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: You're a mess. On August 23 2016 05:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I'd say continuously insisting something to be the case when no intelligent person would agree with you and when multiple sources have disproven you is a pretty good example of how to actually 'act retarded' On August 23 2016 05:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote: But it seems like when a regressive-left guy like doodsmack starts spreading nonsense, if you try to call him out on it the cavalry comes because left sticks together even if it's just retarded So we're clear on the fairness of mod action. | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
I really think it's worth taking a closer look at what I was saying in this thread. Or at least what I was trying to say; I think I failed to make myself clear. Let me try again. I think that many informal logical fallacies should be actionable*. I didn't really mean all of them; just enough to make things fair and as non-contentious as possible as far as political threads go. I've narrowed it down to several of them with a common theme that should be easily understood. *What I mean by "actionable" logical fallacy is that you should receive a warning for committing them. Just a warning. With multiple chances to get it right before a possible escalation to temporary bans. Especially many chances for committing different fallacies. Red Herring fallacies are a among a malicious troll's best weapons and frankly I think should all be actionable just because of that. But here are the ones I especially have in mind for keeping the peace, ones that when committed have participants draw negative attention towards each other and away from the issues:
I would also seriously consider adding the Ecological and Appeal to Fear fallacies to that list, as they are at the core of racism and frankly how too many atrocities have begun and been justified. Again, all of the previous logical fallacies, when committed, serve only to draw attention away from the issues and instead towards each other. I think a warning should be given out every time one happens until people catch on, or eventually escalating it to (temporary) bans before giving up on the entire discussion. BTW, I really think using such established rules for arguments actually makes the moderation job easier and less stressful. @EVERYONE I would also highly recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with (informal) logical fallacies. It will help you identify when someone is bullshitting you, even yourself, and you will be a better person because of it. For the sake of proper discussions, I recommend that you call them out as you see them. Here are 20 of the more common and relevant logical fallacies worth starting with:
If everyone puts effort into this I bet we could actually have one of the best political forum (threads) on the internet. That's all I got. Up to you guys now. I don't think I have many (if any) answers as far as politics go (so I did much more lurking than participating in that thread), but I am pretty sure about what I've said here. I liked that thread; don't let me down! If nothing else, please try to make an extra effort not to commit the Psychologist's fallacy and especially not the Proof by Assertion fallacy. Or in other words: be humble and willing to change your mind. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 24 2016 07:51 Barrin wrote: @MODERATORS I really think it's worth taking a closer look at what I was saying in this thread. Or at least what I was trying to say; I think I failed to make myself clear. Let me try again. I think that many informal logical fallacies should be actionable*. I didn't really mean all of them; just enough to make things fair and as non-contentious as possible as far as political threads go. I've narrowed it down to several of them with a common theme that should be easily understood. *What I mean by "actionable" logical fallacy is that you should receive a warning for committing them. Just a warning. With multiple chances to get it right before a possible escalation to temporary bans. Especially many chances for committing different fallacies. Red Herring fallacies are a among a malicious troll's best weapons and frankly I think should all be actionable just because of that. But here are the ones I especially have in mind for keeping the peace, ones that when committed have participants draw negative attention towards each other and away from the issues:
I would also seriously consider adding the Ecological and Appeal to Fear fallacies to that list, as they are at the core of racism and frankly how too many atrocities have begun and been justified. Again, all of the previous logical fallacies, when committed, serve only to draw attention away from the issues and instead towards each other. I think a warning should be given out every time one happens until people catch on, or eventually escalating it to (temporary) bans before giving up on the entire discussion. BTW, I really think using such established rules for arguments actually makes the moderation job easier and less stressful. @EVERYONE I would also highly recommend that everyone familiarize themselves with (informal) logical fallacies. It will help you identify when someone is bullshitting you, even yourself, and you will be a better person because of it. For the sake of proper discussions, I recommend that you call them out as you see them. Here are 20 of the more common and relevant logical fallacies worth starting with:
If nothing else, please try to make an extra effort not to commit the Psychologist's fallacy and especially not the Proof by Assertion fallacy. Or in other words: be humble and willing to change your mind. If everyone puts effort into this I bet we could actually have one of the best political forum (threads) on the internet. That's all I got. Up to you guys now. I don't think I have many (if any) answers as far as politics go (so I did much more lurking than participating in that thread), but I am pretty sure about what I've said here. I liked that thread; don't let me down! Can't we keep the philosophical approach to THAT thread you made and not THIS thread? We were talking about low content and poor quality posts and disputed moderation inconsistencies here. Not alleged logical fallacies and purportedly enforceable rules on their use. | ||
zf
231 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
Can't we keep the philosophical approach to THAT thread you made and not THIS thread? We ran out of valid arguments against it. I didn't make that thread btw. We were talking about low content and poor quality posts and disputed moderation inconsistencies here. Not alleged logical fallacies and purportedly enforceable rules on their use. What I was talking about is as much related to your first sentence as your second. I second zf's notion. This isn't a democracy. There's a line between filtering out shitty posts and murdering the discussion by adding too many stupid rules that make things worse. The rules Barrin propose would go well over that line. Ahh, hyperbole. As shown in the other thread, a great way to undermine a proper discussion. We have enough people using the phrases "straw man", "no true scotsman", etc., etc. which only serves to derail the argument into (even more) banal back-and-forth volleys. Can you provide an example of this? I think I now better understand why I avoid posting in there at all. How about this one simple rule which pretty much encompasses all of the actionable fallacies I listed (as mentioned before and after listing them): Discuss the issues, not each other. Anything less is like a free pass to troll and shitpost all day. Frankly it's as if the standards in that thread are lower than the rest of TL, and all because it's a "politics thread" (I really can't think of a worse reason). No wonder it got locked. Maybe it does just boil down to poor moderation. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States21791 Posts
Frankly it's as if the standards in that thread are lower than the rest of TL. I think that might be true, yet it's still better than the actual state of US politics. Good luck world, wouldn't be surprised if y'all started a gofundme to pay to educate US voters. | ||
Barrin
United States5003 Posts
On August 29 2016 05:08 GreenHorizons wrote: I think that might be true, yet it's still better than the actual state of US politics. Fair enough. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
GL HF P.S. I very much like Barrin's posts in this thread. And I think everyone should spend a little bit of time to go through those resources, if not for any other reason, because they are quite fascinating. If you have any questions about logical fallacies or the logic of argumentation, feel free to PM me. I'd be glad to discuss them. | ||
| ||