|
On October 23 2018 23:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2018 21:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2018 21:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I thought the purpose of the blog thread was so all the people who keep getting banned for being condescending assholes would have somewhere else to post unmoderated.
That seems to be a success.
This is so they don't go moaning in the website feedback US pol thread about being constantly banned for being condescending assholes.
This seems to have failed. It seems that you aren't very familiar with the blog, but it's not unmoderated nor are several posters ones that have been regularly (or at all afaik) banned for being condescending assholes. fwiw I don't think any of us had a problem with getting banned or have complained about it since the blog has been up. And yet you and xdaunt are here moaning about the US pol thread. Also: anybody noticed how creepy xdaunt's post is?
It's not my cup of tea, but I'm not sure I'd got o creepy. I think there are a lot of people, especially older who basically think. You go to whatever bathroom you have below the waist. I think this is the biggest obstacle to the trans bathroom thing. Which to me is a giant red herring distracting from bigger issues.
People often bring up the "I don't want to explain it to my kids at a young age" excuse. First, that is kind of what you signed up for when you had kids, and this is a much easier talk then the eventual sex one. I have not had this discussion with my kid yet but I did have a discussion about two men kissing. It was shockingly easy: Kid "dad why are those two men kissing" me "Well most times men like women and women like men, but sometimes men like men and women like women". Kid "you like women like mom right?" Me "thats right" Kid "Can we have french fries?" It was a non issue for him.
As for if it happened in the bathroom woman transitioning to a man came in and used the stall, I don't even know why I would need to have that conversation my kid wouldn't notice. Nor would he notice if he was in the women's and the opposite person came in and used the stall. In fact if we went with the "if you have a penis rule" it would be more confusing because you could have someone dressed and acting like a lady come into the mens bathroom and whip it out and use the urinal. Not a big deal to me, I'd just tell my kid "some times people born as men go onto live as women". "why dad". "I'm not really sure to be honest, but whatever the reason as long as they not hurting anyone its ok with me" "sounds good, can we have pizza?"
I do think that would be a much scarier conversation though, they just letting the person who is dressed as and identifies as a women go into the women's bathroom and use it. I'm honestly not sure why we even care. Outside of the urinals I would be fine with unisex bathrooms. Here we have a lot of "family" bathrooms with are 1 toilet rooms that either person could use. It might be less efficient at say stadiums, but it would solve this issue.
|
On October 23 2018 01:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On October 21 2018 06:37 Simberto wrote: It's definitively an interesting experiment.
From my personal experience, i can say that at this point i dread to enter GHs blog, because it seems to be very focused on the hardcore US rightwing spin of literally everything, with a tone that makes it clear that any dissent is to be ridiculed. The main people who act that way are xDaunt and Danglers, who echo each other.
Maybe this is an attempt to show other people how they feel they were treated in the main thread. I don't know. But i have at this point lost any interest to conflict the stuff that is being said in that thread, because it would basically be a fulltime job just to start to dissect the bullshit.
They get along with GH rather well because they all agree to hate the mainstream democrats, and manage to read each others posts in a way that makes them feel that the other conceded that they have won. I pretty much agree with this sentiment. It is a blog unified by grievances, an echo chamber all unto itself. You guys really want to push this "echo chamber" thing even if you have to distort the concept beyond recognition huh? Has echo chamber ever has a proper definition? It is a pejorative used when an individual does not see their specific viewpoint expressed to their satisfaction. There are conflicting view points in the main thread, but they do not overtly express the accepted left v right or progressive v Democrats dynamic, so it is an echo chamber for people invested in those conflicts. The existence of an echo chamber is simply a matter of perspective.
The presence of a vociferous argument about the transgender issue seems to contradict the idea of the blog being an echo chamber. There's several left or leftish posters in there, and several right or rightish posters. It may have started just as people upset with the direction of the main thread but I feel it's grown beyond that.
Of course that doesn't speak to the quality or lack of it in the discourse, but that's for readers to decide. I imagine GH intends to mod for quality and I don't think he's modded many people so far so I assume he's quite happy with the discourse level so far.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36671 Posts
On October 24 2018 18:56 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 01:22 Plansix wrote:On October 23 2018 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On October 21 2018 06:37 Simberto wrote: It's definitively an interesting experiment.
From my personal experience, i can say that at this point i dread to enter GHs blog, because it seems to be very focused on the hardcore US rightwing spin of literally everything, with a tone that makes it clear that any dissent is to be ridiculed. The main people who act that way are xDaunt and Danglers, who echo each other.
Maybe this is an attempt to show other people how they feel they were treated in the main thread. I don't know. But i have at this point lost any interest to conflict the stuff that is being said in that thread, because it would basically be a fulltime job just to start to dissect the bullshit.
They get along with GH rather well because they all agree to hate the mainstream democrats, and manage to read each others posts in a way that makes them feel that the other conceded that they have won. I pretty much agree with this sentiment. It is a blog unified by grievances, an echo chamber all unto itself. You guys really want to push this "echo chamber" thing even if you have to distort the concept beyond recognition huh? Has echo chamber ever has a proper definition? It is a pejorative used when an individual does not see their specific viewpoint expressed to their satisfaction. There are conflicting view points in the main thread, but they do not overtly express the accepted left v right or progressive v Democrats dynamic, so it is an echo chamber for people invested in those conflicts. The existence of an echo chamber is simply a matter of perspective. The presence of a vociferous argument about the transgender issue seems to contradict the idea of the blog being an echo chamber. There's several left or leftish posters in there, and several right or rightish posters. It may have started just as people upset with the direction of the main thread but I feel it's grown beyond that. Of course that doesn't speak to the quality or lack of it in the discourse, but that's for readers to decide. I imagine GH intends to mod for quality and I don't think he's modded many people so far so I assume he's quite happy with the discourse level so far. GH has no power or jurisdiction on TL. If he tries to “mod” anything, I’ll ban his ass right away.
|
On October 24 2018 22:38 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 18:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 01:22 Plansix wrote:On October 23 2018 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2018 00:58 Plansix wrote:On October 21 2018 06:37 Simberto wrote: It's definitively an interesting experiment.
From my personal experience, i can say that at this point i dread to enter GHs blog, because it seems to be very focused on the hardcore US rightwing spin of literally everything, with a tone that makes it clear that any dissent is to be ridiculed. The main people who act that way are xDaunt and Danglers, who echo each other.
Maybe this is an attempt to show other people how they feel they were treated in the main thread. I don't know. But i have at this point lost any interest to conflict the stuff that is being said in that thread, because it would basically be a fulltime job just to start to dissect the bullshit.
They get along with GH rather well because they all agree to hate the mainstream democrats, and manage to read each others posts in a way that makes them feel that the other conceded that they have won. I pretty much agree with this sentiment. It is a blog unified by grievances, an echo chamber all unto itself. You guys really want to push this "echo chamber" thing even if you have to distort the concept beyond recognition huh? Has echo chamber ever has a proper definition? It is a pejorative used when an individual does not see their specific viewpoint expressed to their satisfaction. There are conflicting view points in the main thread, but they do not overtly express the accepted left v right or progressive v Democrats dynamic, so it is an echo chamber for people invested in those conflicts. The existence of an echo chamber is simply a matter of perspective. The presence of a vociferous argument about the transgender issue seems to contradict the idea of the blog being an echo chamber. There's several left or leftish posters in there, and several right or rightish posters. It may have started just as people upset with the direction of the main thread but I feel it's grown beyond that. Of course that doesn't speak to the quality or lack of it in the discourse, but that's for readers to decide. I imagine GH intends to mod for quality and I don't think he's modded many people so far so I assume he's quite happy with the discourse level so far. GH has no power or jurisdiction on TL. If he tries to “mod” anything, I’ll ban his ass right away.
I thought he was at the center of the secret marxist plot to deny kickboxer his right to an opinion. Mind you, its a secret plot so you would never admit it anyway. Carry on.
|
Did somebody say jurisdiction? I love jurisdiction :D
|
I think they're onto us Seeker
|
On October 24 2018 22:56 farvacola wrote: Did somebody say jurisdiction? I love jurisdiction :D Number one reason to punt terrible cases to a lower court?
|
I suggest the thread prohibit all instances of the words Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, left, right, and so on.
|
I suggested that wide sweeping generalisations of political spectrum should be moderated a while ago, but no one really cared for it.
|
On November 03 2018 20:11 oBlade wrote: I suggest the thread prohibit all instances of the words Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, left, right, and so on.
That would be an interesting experiment, if only for a short time to see how it goes.
|
On November 05 2018 22:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I suggested that wide sweeping generalisations of political spectrum should be moderated a while ago, but no one really cared for it. I want the word “the media” to never appear in the thread again. It lacks the specifics necessary specifics to have any meaningful discussion.
|
I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically?
|
On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Does it really matter when you post like an asshole conspiracy theorist?
Left and right leaning posters have been thread banned. No one gets banned from the thread for their political leaning. They get banned for posting like a dick.
|
On November 06 2018 09:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Does it really matter when you post like an asshole conspiracy theorist? Left and right leaning posters have been thread banned. No one gets banned from the thread for their political leaning. They get banned for posting like a dick.
Can I get a level-headed answer from a moderator instead of random insults from a poster of the regular forum? How is this in any way acceptable?
|
On November 06 2018 10:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 09:41 Plansix wrote:On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Does it really matter when you post like an asshole conspiracy theorist? Left and right leaning posters have been thread banned. No one gets banned from the thread for their political leaning. They get banned for posting like a dick. Can I get a level-headed answer from a moderator instead of random insults from a poster of the regular form? How is this in any way acceptable?
Good luck.
As to P6's comment, it does a rather good job of demonstrating the asshole posts being actioned is a matter of perspective that they keep having interrupted from a variety of political perspectives.
|
On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to?
|
On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to?
I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking.
|
On November 06 2018 20:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to? I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking.
Firstly, its not hyperbole to say that leftist mobs are lynching people in restaurants (I assume this is what the ban is for), its just not true at all.
Secondly, there isn't really an 'unbiased' in political discussion. The moderation team should make it clear what is or is not acceptable (they do this) and then enforce it. They take into account things like your general demeanour, posting history etc.
If every politics post you make comes across as you just trying to start a fight over nothing then you might get a ban for it. Posts by different posters aren't treated equally, not because of your political affiliation but more because of your general manner and how you talk to people.
|
On November 06 2018 20:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to? I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking.
I think the problem may be that you consider almost everyone who isn't at the rightmost edge of the GOP a "hardcore leftist". That shifts your view in such a way that you assume that "hardcore leftists roam with aggressive posting"
|
On November 06 2018 20:54 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2018 20:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 06 2018 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote: I've got the impression the moderation on the forum is heavily biased against certain perspective. Obvious hiperbole from one side is considered "trolling worthy of LIFETIME ban" while calling the POTUS "a murderer and genocidal" is perfectly ok, not even a warning. (this is my experience)
Is it of public knowledge how many admins moderate it, and how each of them leans politically? Would be nice if we know who or what you are refering to? I got banned for exagerating, can't remember who the other poster was but he doubled down that rolling back on obamacare was the same as commiting genocide. Most of the "conservative posters" on the thread are gone, but what I consider hardcore leftist are allowed with extremely agressive posting and roaming both the original thread and this one, for example "Plansix" a few posts above. It's just an example anyway, the moderation team should be somewhat unbiased politically that's why I'm asking. GoTunk! you are a pretty good example of why wide sweeping generalisations of political spectrum should be moderated. Anyways, you are refering to yourself being banned, (are you lifetime banned?), but you can't even tell us exactly what you was banned for. Don't faff around, tell us directly or link the post.
|
|
|
|