|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:2) "better things aren't possible" cynicism posting needs to go the way of the dodo. It just isn't useful or productive; all it does is foster downward spirals. So what does this mean though? Because "better things aren't possible" was frequently sarcastically and disparagingly levied at posters who had realistic or otherwise pragmatic views about the election. "The Election is between Biden and Trump, M4A isn't on the ballot, a public option is." -> "So you think better things aren't possible?!" or "I support Bernie but I don't think he can beat Trump." rinse and repeat with that same response. Looked at a certain way, depending on what you mean, it's discouraging to viewpoints that aren't explicit and unapologetic support of the most extreme consensus no matter how unlikely it currently is in the current political environment to get implemented, and thus discouraging to those who would prefer what's actually currently feasible or on the ballot. Unless what you really mean is some variation of doomposting, i.e "Trump is not going to get arrested when he leaves office", "Biden is not going to get anything done and a more competent fascist will take power", etc. Can you clarify? I think in the latter case, the frequent unsupported assertions of the worst possible outcome as the only outcome possible also need to stop (edit typo) because it frequently is unsupported nonsense, baseless, and doesn't really have a response that isn't just "nope I disagree" because its a discussion of peoples axioms, because no one knows how a large manner of things will turn out. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jan 7, 2021 |
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Unless what you really mean is some variation of doomposting, i.e "Trump is not going to get arrested when he leaves office", "Biden is not going to get anything done and a more competent fascist will take power", etc. Can you clarify? Yeah that's the stuff I'm talking about. It just sends things into either a despair spiral or a pointless fight about a despair spiral and that's something it's fundamentally not fair to ask the mods to cope with -- mods aren't and can't be therapists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
ronya posted:I mean, these days if I want to find random idiots being aggressively ignorant on the Internet and then getting publicly owned by the peanut gallery's best wits for their trouble, I can just prowl Twitter for a bit. There's a positive surfeit of corncobs. By comparison, everyone reads the same goddamn content here, and everyone's post (ignores aside) appears in sequence between everyone else's. We don't upvote posts here. There are (or at least should be) no superusers. The structure democratises discussion in a way that the free-to-access social networks don't, and that instills value into interactions even with the aggressively ignorant, because the discussion takes place in view of the whole community, not in a back-alley fifth-order comment chain, or as part of a celebrity audience's pile-on. And in this place, ignorance is not a renewable resource. Cefte fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah that's the stuff I'm talking about. It just sends things into either a despair spiral or a pointless fight about a despair spiral and that's something it's fundamentally not fair to ask the mods to cope with -- mods aren't and can't be therapists. As far as I am concerned, Doomposting is just a subset of a larger tolerated type of bad posting that kind of makes USPOL, and frankly a big chunk of D&D, annoying to engage with at times: Hyperbolic posting. Making an effort to extract underlying meaning from hyperboles is not only discouraged, but actually against the rules of the forum. Interacting with them on their own merit or reading through these interactions is a PITA because responses have to be almost equally hyperbolic or essentially tone-policing. I don't really have a good answer beyond letting people call these for what they are. Aramis fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I would also be curious to hear peoples' feedback both on the last few weeks of uspol and on how yall feel the changes to what tweet posting is allowed have gone. Idk if it has been universally a good thing, but I do feel like I've seen a lot more discussion on average. When out of context stuff has been posted, it's been interesting to see the context then get dug up Personally, I like US Pol best when it does stuff like in the last 24 hours or when the Black Lives Matter protests started. During those times of rapid news happening, it is amazing how US Pol can serve not only as a congregator of news from all over the web - live tweets, videos, news organizations, breaking news, etc, but also at the same time discussing that news, what it means, what parts of that stuff being posted is BS and so on. Those are the times that US Pol really, really shines. I wouldn't want to miss it during those times. The problems with US Pol happen when the news coming in is slow - or even nothing is happening. Then all these ridiculous fights break out, with lots of bad faith arguments, trying to provoke people, trying to score points no matter what, etc. The problem is that as there is nothing (new) coming in from outside, these fights just continue on and on and on and on. By the time the same fight has gone around in a circle a dozen times, nothing will change. Even if one side is obviously in the right (or feels that way), keeping those fights going on at that point doesn't help anyone. I've recently gone through that a bit, and after calling out another poster half a dozen times for posting unsubstantiated wrong facts, posting proof that the other poster was wrong, and that poster simply repeating his wrong fact - I simply stopped responding to them. Now, did that poster win that fight? I don't think so - anybody reading that fight would have hopefully seen the difference. Me continuing that "discussion" wouldn't change anything at that point. Anybody still thinking that that other poster was correct at that point wouldn't be convinced by me posting the same (or similar) proof a seventh time. So I stopped. And that discussion ended. And other news came up, or other discussions started, and everything was fine. If news is happening, then that makes these fights quickly fall apart as there is so much other stuff to discuss and focus on. And this is a GOOD thing. So my suggestion would be to think about how the days with slow news can be handled. I think that longer probations would definitely help - 24 hour minimum. I think idiot kings or moderators stepping into fights that have been going in circles for a couple of pages and stopping it (no matter who is "winning") would help. It would be nice if the people just making the same statements again and again without reacting to arguments/proof by the other side would be called out by IKs and moderators and probated if they continue to do that. But more important (for the health of the thread and the community) is to step in and simply stop that fight going around for the tenth round. Edit: I liked most of the stuff Athanatos posted here. With the added note that just the news itself isn't enough - the discussion of that news is very important as well. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Posts like this, and there have been quite a few of them, keep suggesting to me that a what most people want out of a USPOL thread is a place to share and discuss ongoing news. Are there people who really earnestly enjoy the stuff that happens on slow news days, or do most people just skip over that anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The problem is that if one person who believes "dems good" gets into a discussion about American politics with someone who believes "dems bad" then they will inevitably conflict on this key point, especially in the seemingly endless election cycle we have in this country. For example, if we want to talk about healthcare then one person is going to say "the Democrats will improve healthcare" which the other will respond with "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare". This becomes especially pertinent because there is a very popular sentiment that elections are the most important part of politics, so the discussion always has to fall to the question of who you vote for. The problem I see with that is that, for USPol, I'm not sure that "dems good" or "dems bad" is a helpful conversation to even have. Like, instead of the debate being "The Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally) vs "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally), it's sort of better to say, especially since USPol is very much a breaking news thread, "The Democrats have introduced this healthcare bill into congress. Lets talk about what it says and if what it does it will improve healthcare or not." or even, "Let's talk about whether it will pass the Congress or not." That way, instead of making broad statements about the nature of the world, we're talking about actual analyzable events and policies. And there's obviously room for disagreement there, but at least we're disagreeing about the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:The claim that a host of USPol posters have a simplistic "dems good" viewpoint is extremely wrong and dumb. Probably no one actually does. The divide isn't really even ideological, the vast majority of the posters are Left of Dem, although there is obviously some spread. I apologize for picking on your post, but I think it demonstrates a few problems with USPOL discourse. I don't believe that leftists and liberals are "on the same side". On many issues, liberals are much closer to conservatives than to leftists. I think that it's dismissive and paternalistic to call liberals "practical" and leftists "idealists". Posters frequently argue that what Democrats are doing is "necessary compromise" and "working within feasibility", while skepticism is "better things aren't possible, bad-faith bullshit". Posting historical examples of Democrats opposing leftism is frequently dismissed as "re-litigating the primaries" or the like. It's one thing to maintain an attitude of detached objectivity when discussing specific the consequences policy proposals and objective phenomenon. But as a news thread, USPOL inevitably produces topics like "so-and-so Democrat calls for X", for which discussion will inevitably turn on whether you think said Democrat is a trustworthy ally of the proletariat, or a capitalist looking for the minimum-effort path to placate proles while enriching donors. We're discouraged from repeatedly dredging up the same historical examples that posters arguing the other side repeatedly refuse to engage with. Therefore, we're dissuaded from discussing the future, the prediction of which is functionally impossible without discussing the past. What remains is discussing the present news in terms of assuming that only the just-spoken words matter, which is a liberal axiom I wholly disagree with. So what, then, is the point of USPOL? That's why I disagree with Heironymous that USPOL will improve in a couple weeks. I think USPOL was tolerable when we could usually join together in criticizing Republicans in the news. With the Democrats in charge, most topics will revolve around whether Democrats are worth believing in. I think the idea of an anonymous posting thread would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not optimistic that it would actually improve things. I think the fundamental disagreement isn't really about assuming good faith from other posters, but about assuming good faith from politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The problem I see with that is that, for USPol, I'm not sure that "dems good" or "dems bad" is a helpful conversation to even have. Like, instead of the debate being "The Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally) vs "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally), it's sort of better to say, especially since USPol is very much a breaking news thread, "The Democrats have introduced this healthcare bill into congress. Lets talk about what it says and if what it does it will improve healthcare or not." or even, "Let's talk about whether it will pass the Congress or not." That way, instead of making broad statements about the nature of the world, we're talking about actual analyzable events and policies. And there's obviously room for disagreement there, but at least we're disagreeing about the same thing? Once the Biden administration is actually in power I think that it should improve, because we'll be arguing about specific actions that the administration takes, rather than squabbling over the degree of certainty we have about the good/bad things the administration is totally going to do, just wait guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:That's why I disagree with Heironymous that USPOL will improve in a couple weeks. Just to clarify, I think there will be potential for improvement in a few weeks (that is, post-inauguration), not that such will happen automatically. fool of sound posted:Posts like this, and there have been quite a few of them, keep suggesting to me that a what most people want out of a USPOL thread is a place to share and discuss ongoing news. Are there people who really earnestly enjoy the stuff that happens on slow news days, or do most people just skip over that anyway? Also, we might actually have some slow news days. I feel like we haven't really had any of those in about five years. Something new was always coming down the escalator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Also, let's not forget that the reason such a split happened in the first place was because there was literally nowhere else in DnD where you could say mean things about Joe Biden outside of the GE 2020 thread. Those "mean things" take several forms: 1) Joe Biden is a rapist/white supremacist/segregationist/concentration camp lover/whatever, and his supporters tolerate if not outright support/approve of those things 2) Joe Biden is personally responsible for the Iraq War/the clusterfuck at the Southern border/student debt non-forgivability/LGBTQ issues/whatever, therefore he cannot be trusted when he says he will do something about those issues during his term (and if you think that he can be trusted, it is obviously your burden, dear 3) Joe Biden has dementia and won the election despite hiding in his basement all summer and fall (or any other conservative/alt-right talking point or smear that has ironically been co-opted by the so-called "leftists") You can take literally any post criticizing Joe Biden from the past two years, not just from USPol but D&D as a whole, and it would fit neatly into one or more of these categories. The reason most posters in D&D find these topics annoying is not because they are diehard Biden supporters and hate hearing him criticized. In fact, I don't think there are any diehard Biden supporters in D&D! Rather, people dislike engaging with these topics is because said topics are a combination of "unresolvable or irrelevant issue that results in circular and extremely tedious arguments that drown out everything else", "bad faith attempt to bait liberals into getting probated (with the help of IKs who run interference)", and "total nonsense". Also worth noting that the people bringing up these topics are usually those who think that better things are not possible. It is obvious that those posters want to spread their cynicism and nihilism and toxicity and feelings of hopelessness far and wide, and even skimming their posts is usually enough to leave a sour taste in one's mouth. The bottom line is that most USPol posters read and engage with the thread in order to learn about current events, gain new insights about issues or improve their understandings of the country and its systems. Barging in with "Biden is a monster!!!" takes is the equivalent of blowing a klaxon at an otherwise chill house party: it's gonna make everyone dislike that person. Indeed, it serves no good faith purpose, and everyone, especially the klaxon blower, knows it. That's why a rule against it had to be made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The problem I see with that is that, for USPol, I'm not sure that "dems good" or "dems bad" is a helpful conversation to even have. Like, instead of the debate being "The Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally) vs "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally), it's sort of better to say, especially since USPol is very much a breaking news thread, "The Democrats have introduced this healthcare bill into congress. Lets talk about what it says and if what it does it will improve healthcare or not." or even, "Let's talk about whether it will pass the Congress or not." That way, instead of making broad statements about the nature of the world, we're talking about actual analyzable events and policies. And there's obviously room for disagreement there, but at least we're disagreeing about the same thing? I don't disagree. Obviously, there aren't many people actively spouting "the Democrats are infallible" across multiple threads, but a certain pattern begins to emerge when the most mild criticism of Democratic leadership is met with disproportionate pushback. And that's not to say that the most mild support of Democratic leadership isn't also met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. People have all sorts of chips on their shoulder, myself included. The problem is that there is a very distinct knee jerk tendency to attack or defend the Democrats per political affiliation. What you're proposing seems more of a change in tone than a change in substance, and TBF there is a lot to be said about keeping discussions civil. But civil tones and contentious topics can lead to some pretty divisive places. And this line got especially bad in the Tara Reid debacle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
People have already argued these pointes better then me so just consider this a vote or whatever. Don't split the thread Make it clear that wordcount doesn't mean effort or worth Ban the the use of dismissing terms (Bad faith, Nothing Matters, Doomposting, You're just a Liberal, Etc) Heinous poo poo said in a calm and respectful manner is still heinous poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Obviously, there aren't many people actively spouting "the Democrats are infallible" across multiple threads, but a certain pattern begins to emerge when the most mild criticism of Democratic leadership is met with disproportionate pushback. "Mild criticism", like a poster making probably a couple hundred posts accusing anybody who supported Democrats of approving of burying children in shallow graves in the desert before he was finally told to get out of D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:People have already argued these pointes better then me so just consider this a vote or whatever. I agree with "nothing matters" and "you're just a liberal" are just dismissive but I dunno some people do legitimately Doompost and argue in bad faith and calling it out should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Just to clarify, I think there will be potential for improvement in a few weeks (that is, post-inauguration), not that such will happen automatically. If it doesn't improve in the next few weeks its probably because another person was shot and killed on government property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Doctor Nutt posted:At this point USPOL has such a long history of dumbass infighting and grudges between a bunch of fine people who all voted for the same person in the primary, so maybe we should just reshuffle usernames for everyone that posts in USPOL and see what happens. Mellow Seas posted:I think my (no-)joe gangtag actually keeps me from getting into arguments because it makes people who might otherwise attack me assume I'm not a terrible lib, but actually I just was given the tag as a joke by some anonymous mod fool of sound posted:Posts like this, and there have been quite a few of them, keep suggesting to me that a what most people want out of a USPOL thread is a place to share and discuss ongoing news. Are there people who really earnestly enjoy the stuff that happens on slow news days, or do most people just skip over that anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The problem I see with that is that, for USPol, I'm not sure that "dems good" or "dems bad" is a helpful conversation to even have. Like, instead of the debate being "The Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally) vs "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally), it's sort of better to say, especially since USPol is very much a breaking news thread, "The Democrats have introduced this healthcare bill into congress. Lets talk about what it says and if what it does it will improve healthcare or not." or even, "Let's talk about whether it will pass the Congress or not." That way, instead of making broad statements about the nature of the world, we're talking about actual analyzable events and policies. And there's obviously room for disagreement there, but at least we're disagreeing about the same thing? I like this point a lot and it speaks well to the problem of hyperbole. Look at the ACA for instance! My life has literally been saved by the expansion of coverage offered by the ACA because I live in a medicaid expansion state. Tens of millions of more Americans got access to healthcare that didn't previously have it thanks to the ACA. The ACA also sucks poo poo in a lot of ways and in fact was also pretty much a big old handout to the insurance companies. Also, there are subset of people for whom affordability of care actually became worse, and still millions of people who have slipped through the cracks and still have no access to routine medical care (both issues are mostly at the feet of lovely Governors who didn't accept the medicaid expansion, as far as I can tell, because with medicaid expansion the subsidies for silver plans and FPL coverage for medicaid are very good). This poo poo is extremely complicated. And yet anytime the ACA gets brought up there will be folks who come out of the wood work to insist that it actually didn't do anything to help anyone and it was just as bad as nothing or what we had before, which is complete bullshit. Posting isn't praxis imo, and being willing to discuss nuance and details of public policy should not be taken as endorsement of status quo. also re: gang tags, although mine may appear political in nature, they came from donating to bail funds in games during last year's ongoing BLM marches and you can have them when you pry them from my cold dead fingers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:I agree with "nothing matters" and "you're just a liberal" are just dismissive but I dunno some people do legitimately Doompost and argue in bad faith and calling it out should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:3) Joe Biden has dementia and won the election despite hiding in his basement all summer and fall (or any other conservative/alt-right talking point or smear that has ironically been co-opted by the so-called "leftists") I guess since policing bad faith arguments is something that's being discussed, I want to point to this oft-repeated, largely-unpunished bad faith accusation that minimizes criticism from the left. I don't think this thread is the place to go on a long screed about how the most effective propaganda campaigns are built by weaving truth into fiction, but if "this was said on FOX news" is what passes for 'meet effort with effort', then I think the USPol thread is going to continue its decline. I don't mean to pick on you specifically, TWT, but you did give the proverbial 'squeak'. e: on doomposting, it seems to me like it's more blowing off steam at a frustration with a party that talks the talk but has failed to walk the walk for decades than it is an unironic encouragement of abandoning governance entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Doctor Nutt posted:And yet anytime the ACA gets brought up there will be folks who come out of the wood work to insist that it actually didn't do anything to help anyone and it was just as bad as nothing or what we had before, which is complete bullshit. Someone also once tossed out a figure of how many times Republicans had "fooled" us with claims to decorum, and the random numberpad mashing came out to a figure that implied the Republicans had fooled us about 80 times a second since 1860. Numeracy matters guys! Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:The problem I see with that is that, for USPol, I'm not sure that "dems good" or "dems bad" is a helpful conversation to even have. Like, instead of the debate being "The Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally) vs "I do not believe Democrats will improve healthcare" (generally), it's sort of better to say, especially since USPol is very much a breaking news thread, "The Democrats have introduced this healthcare bill into congress. Lets talk about what it says and if what it does it will improve healthcare or not." or even, "Let's talk about whether it will pass the Congress or not." That way, instead of making broad statements about the nature of the world, we're talking about actual analyzable events and policies. And there's obviously room for disagreement there, but at least we're disagreeing about the same thing? How about if I posted about how much the healthcare and insurance industries control the Dems, and how like people like Richard Neil have acted as their catspaw, and talk about the history and general trend of similar bills that have been attempted before. My main issue with a lot of USPol is a lack of remembering what's happened before, and a certain determined naivety that automatically plugs good intentions on what have traditionally been shown as bad actors, who have a monetary interest in not solving society's worst problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Doctor Nutt posted:I like this point a lot and it speaks well to the problem of hyperbole. Look at the ACA for instance! My life has literally been saved by the expansion of coverage offered by the ACA because I live in a medicaid expansion state. Tens of millions of more Americans got access to healthcare that didn't previously have it thanks to the ACA. The ACA also sucks poo poo in a lot of ways and in fact was also pretty much a big old handout to the insurance companies. Also, there are subset of people for whom affordability of care actually became worse, and still millions of people who have slipped through the cracks and still have no access to routine medical care (both issues are mostly at the feet of lovely Governors who didn't accept the medicaid expansion, as far as I can tell, because with medicaid expansion the subsidies for silver plans and FPL coverage for medicaid are very good). This poo poo is extremely complicated. And yet anytime the ACA gets brought up there will be folks who come out of the wood work to insist that it actually didn't do anything to help anyone and it was just as bad as nothing or what we had before, which is complete bullshit. And before someone says it, yes, it is selfish to be annoyed I was left out and crab bucket and what not, but the fact remains I still fear every single health issue I suffer and didn't even go to the doctor the last time I had chest pains because I'm loving broke and can't afford that bill World Famous W fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
ronya posted:Sure; I think you said much the same in the last feedback thread, actually. While I understand where you're coming from, a large portion of the trouble comes from the fact that many people are unwilling to accept that anyone could reasonably be working from different basic assumptions. The problem isn't so much the conflicting assumptions as it is a refusal to accept that it's really possible for there to be conflicting assumptions. A number of people refuse to just allow any space to disagree on some things - if they disagree on some thing that draws from some conflict in basic assumptions, they conclude that the person they disagree with is either obviously wrong or actively trolling, and therefore they continue to attack the point endlessly until someone gets probated or their target gets sick of it and leaves. And generally, segregating ideological groups has been ineffective at dealing with that, because those people see it as the stupid biased mods creating a single Correct People Containment Zone for the one true ideology and a number of mod-sanctioned Bad Faith Sanctuaries where the obviously-wrong posters can surround themselves in endless fantasies to protect them from the hard truths. This leads to two problems. First, people constantly jumping into other ideologies' threads to shitpost at the people they believe are obviously wrong. So much of the trouble that happens comes from people actively seeking out the groups they disagree with for the express purpose of picking a fight. Second, people are constantly mad at the mods for giving official sanction and protection to ideologies they disagree with, while the mods are overwhelmed with reports fighting about what exactly should or shouldn't be allowed in a given ideology's thread. Personally, I don't think further ideological segregation would be a good path to follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:As someone who fell through the cracks you admit are there, am I allowed to say that the plan is poo poo because I've been hosed or do I have to say "Eh, it was good enough for the time, I should just be happy for others". Do I have to preface any criticism by pointing out that others were helped every time or can I lament my own situation without having to throw it a bone? It's not very complicated, just say that it's poo poo for you. No need to make a novel out of it. Posters are expected to interpret your posts at face value. So when you say that it's poo poo accross the board, then that's what's being replied to. If you want to discuss how the policies affect you individually, then making it about the global perspective is counterproductive for you as well since posters wont even be engaging with what you want to say. That's my 2 cents anyways. I have no idea how prevalent that perspective is. It's just how choose to read these forums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Not challenging you but more helping define things. Would "If we don't actively stop using fossil fuels and radically change society, half green energy measures won't do anything in the long run" be doomposting? This is a random example and not aimed at anyone in particular That specific statement, to me, is maybe *slightly* into doompost territory (even though it's almost certainly true), only because there's a lot of work being done on various scientific approaches to climate change, and while the vast majority of those won't help much, there's always a possibility that we'll come up with other/additional solutions. Yes, I'm aware this is akin to betting on the lottery and is a Bad Idea, but "won't do anything" is literally predicting the future. Throw a "probably" or an "almost certainly" in there, and I'm good. That being said: a) I would NOT call out that statement if you posted it in a thread, because b) I'm fully aware that I tend to be nitpicky/pendantic/OCD-ish at times and it can annoy those around me rather than being helpful. World Famous W posted:As someone who fell through the cracks you admit are there, am I allowed to say that the plan is poo poo because I've been hosed or do I have to say "Eh, it was good enough for the time, I should just be happy for others". Do I have to preface any criticism by pointing out that others were helped every time or can I lament my own situation without having to throw it a bone? You're allowed to say "the plan is poo poo for me and anyone else in my position because we've been hosed". To do otherwise is declaring that the plan is poo poo for everyone because you've been hosed, which just isn't true for everyone in a broad sense (unless the message is actually "the plan is poo poo because it didn't fix things and help society in a comprehensive and effective way" which is a fair argument, but needs to be stated as such). Edit: World Famous W posted:And before someone says it, yes, it is selfish to be annoyed I was left out and crab bucket and what not, but the fact remains I still fear every single health issue I suffer and didn't even go to the doctor the last time I had chest pains because I'm loving broke and can't afford that bill aas Bandit fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This leads to two problems. First, people constantly jumping into other ideologies' threads to shitpost at the people they believe are obviously wrong. So much of the trouble that happens comes from people actively seeking out the groups they disagree with for the express purpose of picking a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I guess since policing bad faith arguments is something that's being discussed, I want to point to this oft-repeated, largely-unpunished bad faith accusation that minimizes criticism from the left. I don't think this thread is the place to go on a long screed about how the most effective propaganda campaigns are built by weaving truth into fiction, but if "this was said on FOX news" is what passes for 'meet effort with effort', then I think the USPol thread is going to continue its decline. I don't think something being said on Fox News (or worse yet, Breitbart, TheDonald, etc.) in and of itself is sufficient to dismiss the criticism, but should be a huge red flag. To state this as a version of the famous Mark Twain quote, "whenever you find yourself agreeing with the alt-right, it is time to pause and reflect." Lib and let die posted:e: on doomposting, it seems to me like it's more blowing off steam at a frustration with a party that talks the talk but has failed to walk the walk for decades than it is an unironic encouragement of abandoning governance entirely. Dems have not always failed to "walk the walk" though. Most of the progress in this country over the past 50 years have been made under Democratic administrations. I think a lot of the left-leaning posters are just frustrated that things aren't progressing anywhere as quickly as they want, and this quickly turns into "Dems are just as bad" or similar criticisms. Literally no one in D&D has ever claimed that Dems are perfect, but there are quite a few that repeatedly claim that Dems are absolutely terrible and even as bad as Republicans. You even occasionally hear accusations such as "Dems just want to lose because they hate having power" or even "Dems are colluding with Republicans to make sure they (Dems) lose".
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:As someone who fell through the cracks you admit are there, am I allowed to say that the plan is poo poo because I've been hosed or do I have to say "Eh, it was good enough for the time, I should just be happy for others". Do I have to preface any criticism by pointing out that others were helped every time or can I lament my own situation without having to throw it a bone? It is understandable to be irritated when folks leap to the defense of an obviously flawed law. It's also understandable to be frustrated with people who call the ACA literally worthless or just a handout to the rich when it literally saved your life. Asking people to tone down hyperbole isn't the same as demanding every criticism also include praise, the same as asking someone to acknowledge the flaws when relevant isn't the same as demanding they cast performative scorn alongside any positive statements. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Aramis posted:It's not very complicated, just say that it's poo poo for you. No need to make a novel out of it. Posters are expected to interpret your posts at face value. So when you say that it's poo poo accross the board, then that's what's being replied to. If you want to discuss how the policies affect you individually, then making it about the global perspective is counterproductive for you as well since posters wont even be engaging with what you want to say. Edit: Edited to be more generous, something I"m also asking for World Famous W fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:As someone who fell through the cracks you admit are there, am I allowed to say that the plan is poo poo because I've been hosed or do I have to say "Eh, it was good enough for the time, I should just be happy for others". Do I have to preface any criticism by pointing out that others were helped every time or can I lament my own situation without having to throw it a bone? I think it's perfectly fine for you say that the ACA sucks poo poo and didn't help you, and it does genuinely suck poo poo that you are in that situation, and I am sorry. The nature of criticism goes both ways and as long as you are specific enough in your criticism I don't think you need to make any sort of special declaration or preface to your statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Did you need to include the "It's not very complicated"? You right out of the gate made it clear my concern or wording was foolish to you and the answer should be obvious. I apologize, I didn't mean this in any demeaning way. I was attempting to address what I perceived to be your concern that having to qualify each statement in a fully verbose manner was expected by saying that you were overestimating the amount of effort necessary. In my opinion, at least. No offense meant, really. I definitely could have worded this better. Aramis fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I don't think something being said on Fox News (or worse yet, Breitbart, TheDonald, etc.) in and of itself is sufficient to dismiss the criticism, but should be a huge red flag. To state this as a version of the famous Mark Twain quote, "whenever you find yourself agreeing with the alt-right, it is time to pause and reflect." Again, not the thread for a long form discussion, but I would very much suggest you encourage you to read some of the writings of Noam Chomsky, a vocal supporter of Biden in the 2020 General Election to the media criticisms made in bad faith that are a large component of Trumpism - Chomsky even uses the exact same wording ("Mainstream Media") as the alt-right does - is it on Chomsky to pause and reflect and restructure his criticisms to not mirror right-wing talking points, or is it upon the reader to pause and reflect that maybe valid criticisms are being warped into right-wing talking points for the very purpose of disempowering those criticisms? quote:Dems have not always failed to "walk the walk" though. Most of the progress in this country over the past 50 years have been made under Democratic administrations. I think a lot of the left-leaning posters are just frustrated that things aren't progressing anywhere as quickly as they want, and this quickly turns into "Dems are just as bad" or similar criticisms. Yeah, you're mostly right, here. They're not failures, per se, they're just disappointments. But if they'd make realistic promises like "we'll make sure you have an additional 4th HDHP plan to choose from during open enrollment" rather than "we're going to revolutionize healthcare access in America", there wouldn't be such a perceived chasm between what they promise and what they ultimately deliver powering that frustration. I certainly don't think peoples' frustrations with this pattern of behavior deserve to be tone policed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:I agree with "nothing matters" and "you're just a liberal" are just dismissive but I dunno some people do legitimately Doompost and argue in bad faith and calling it out should be fine. I'd say that banning being dismissive is more constructive than banning dismissive words. Though I kinda want to take the  emote out back and shoot it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:01
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I just want to emphasize this part of what you posted (and especially the bolded part). People willing to do this are the people that, imo, dnd should be cultivating and should be tailoring thread policies around. Particularly given how much of the dissatisfaction around here is with 1) people putting words into the mouths of others in order to rage post at some edited/perceived version of what they said and 2) with wild and reductive generalizations. People unwilling to find the barest minimum of common ground necessary to have a conversation probably aren't contributing anything and I will lose no sleep if they decide to stop posting here. I think the core issue is that what you want (and I likely agree with) requires active moderation to be at a level currently not met and, based on the last feedback thread, seemingly counter to the wishes of at least one moderator. If I had to draw on what I see in d&d and what I've run into professionally, I'd make the following loose arguments : -Posters (and most people in general) need to learn that it's ok to be wrong, and that being wrong doesn't make you an inherently bad person. -everyone is going to be wrong, and frequently, if only due to imperfect information. -sometimes information you have is wrong, sometimes your opponents information is wrong, sometimes both of you are wrong, and sometimes both of you are right because a topic can have active contradictory elements that just bumble along. -it's healthy to apologize for being wrong, and it's healthy to recognize that you've done a poor job and should stop trying to contribute, and let someone else argue for you. -learning how to argue exactly what you want, and without going over broad, is a critical life skill. In my professional life I have watched people with laudable goals that this forum would absolutely line up behind, declaring them moral titans who should be obeyed at every turn, completely poo poo the bed and dismantle themselves because they stupidly tried to kitchen sink something and brought in easily counterable points that corrupt the rest of their arguments. What moderation can do, if active, is: -prohibit goalpost shifting or the Motte and Bailey thing Dixscenxo Vox brought up earlier. If someone makes an arguement that is shown to be wrong, overbroad/narrow, whatever, make them own it or apologize for it. Make them write 500 word essays if they want to continue. Do whatever, but make it harder to argue poorly in this particular fashion. Will this result in mod bias at times making someone put in effort they probably shouldn't have to? Probably, but if you think moderation is acting in generally good faith then it shouldn't happen too much, and it's not like anyone should expect perfect justice here or anywhere. -as a sub-benefit, this should inhibit putting words in others mouths. If you think someone is saying something then you better be able to back that up. -come down extremely hard on people posting bad sources or not reading beyond a headline. Like, three violations is a total subforum ban, including cspam. If you can't be trusted to not post fake news then you can't post in politics at all on SA. And moderators should not feel hesitant about using this punishment - it is not remotely unreasonable to expect posters to actually read and understand their arguments and sources. It also means that flooding an argument with sources becomes more perilous, which should help posters focus on the points they want and make it easier for readers to actually absorb the pertinent information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Again, not the thread for a long form discussion, but I would very much suggest you encourage you to read some of the writings of Noam Chomsky, a vocal supporter of Biden in the 2020 General Election to the media criticisms made in bad faith that are a large component of Trumpism - Chomsky even uses the exact same wording ("Mainstream Media") as the alt-right does - is it on Chomsky to pause and reflect and restructure his criticisms to not mirror right-wing talking points, or is it upon the reader to pause and reflect that maybe valid criticisms are being warped into right-wing talking points for the very purpose of disempowering those criticisms? Let's be 100% clear on one thing though: shared language (mainstream media) is not at all the same thing as jacobin and breitbart occasionally using the same disingenuous framing in their opinion articles, and it's a perfectly valid expectation that goons be good enough about media literacy to check poo poo out from a variety of sources before running breathlessly into USPOL to drop a hot take from a rose twitter account playing telephone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'd say that banning being dismissive is more constructive than banning dismissive words. I'll fight you over though because it is great and I love it
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The problem is we're not screaming and punching the Nazi's. We want to so badly that we're screaming and punching each other telling ourselves its Nazis. Cefte posted:My feeling is that even the most off-the-wall kook is incapable of making an argument that doesn't at least pretend to intersect with objective facts. When they do, you can grab them by the facts. If they wiggle, you've got them. If they don't, they're not there for a fact-based discussion, they're there to vent. The threads I personally remember, after all these years, are not the ones where everyone agreed with each other's basic assumptions, but rather where several thousand people congregated to watch Cunningham's law enacted as a blood-sport. These are two very good posts. Edit: Also this Blue Footed Booby posted:It is understandable to be irritated when folks leap to the defense of an obviously flawed law. It's also understandable to be frustrated with people who call the ACA literally worthless or just a handout to the rich when it literally saved your life. Asking people to tone down hyperbole isn't the same as demanding every criticism also include praise, the same as asking someone to acknowledge the flaws when relevant isn't the same as demanding they cast performative scorn alongside any positive statements. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I think that it's dismissive and paternalistic to call liberals "practical" and leftists "idealists". I think arguing with your post about my post is outside the scope and intent of this thread, but I didn't do what you are claiming there. I said that AMONG PEOPLE WITH IDENTICAL IDEOLOGICAL GOALS some are more given to pragmatism and some to idealism. Those are not points on the political compass, they are something else. Strategy is not inherent in the left-right continuum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:How about if I posted about how much the healthcare and insurance industries control the Dems, and how like people like Richard Neil have acted as their catspaw, and talk about the history and general trend of similar bills that have been attempted before. I think that's fine so long as its in relation to an actual health care topic that's come up, vs just something being thrown in there? I don't think what I'm talking about is a matter of tone so much as a matter that stuff so often gets relitigated that's not a current event and it gets in the way of productive discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 20:06
|
|