|
Jaxyon posted:There's actually some good instances I've seen in USPol of people buying into outright lies and BS framings from right wing propaganda, because propaganda works. You're not immune to right wing propaganda by being a leftist, nor are you immune from marketing by being aware of marketing.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
As a contrarian at heart, I will exclusively post in USPol:Them and you can't stop me
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
I am also a little worried, with this framing of Biden that if a political rival of Biden from the left is saying he has dementia and doesn't back it up with anything is ok because my side is inherently truthful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:USPol is a problem. It's the largest and fastest moving thread in D&D, and also arguably the worst one. It's dominated by contentless twitter embeds and grudgy slapfights, and extended or in-depth conversation is difficult as it get buried under a half dozen other arguments and and news stories. With the general election over it now generates easily 90% of both the reports and probations in the subforum, and despite adding a half dozen IKs to help out it still moves too quickly to effectively moderate, and I suspect it will remain so no matter how many mods or IKs we have watching it. Posters who are insightful contributors elsewhere become sneering shitposters The subject matter is too broad and the discussion too shallow. Meanwhile, while other threads occasionally have minor problems, they're frequently solvable via mod or IK participation instead of probations. Any action is years late and the way probes and bans are handled in D&D gives me zero confidence anything will ever change. Moderators here busy themselves giving dozens of probes to repeat offenders with almost no ramping over a period of years, saving this only for posters they personally dislike. Failing that, mods do work better suited to a word filter. The amount of non/wasted effort by mods in this subforum is staggering. Under current conditions, any work done to clean up US Pol will inevitably let the problem metastastize to other threads for months before anything is done, if ever. See for example the election thread, which was unreadable trash just as described in your post for almost its entire lifetime. For starters, eliminate the concept of the megathread and insist threads actually have a topic with real rules. For seconds, regardless of your frankly comical aversion to this solution, reacquaint yourselves with the permaban instead of letting the same handful of insufferable toxic posters run threads into the ground for years. Anything else is direct avoidance of the real problem. If a thread feels like Afghanistan you need to rethink your entire approach instead of finding new ways to flog yourselves and everyone else who desires worthwhile discussion spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:This isn't necessarily what people mean when they say there's too much hyperbole, more just an amusing anecdote, but I remember somebody saying a few months back that "the ACA did nothing for 99.9999999% of Americans", which I did the math on and found that they were claiming the ACA had helped approximately one third of one person. Or, people reading posts could understand the definition of the word hyperbole. Do you understand that "99.9999999%" is meant to be an exaggeration for effect and isn't meant to be taken literally? This kind of semantic attack is one of the current worst things about D&D/USPol. Another quick example, I saw someone complain that the tweet date wasn't exactly the same when someone posted evidence of some cop bad behavior and in the post said "this happened today" rather than discuss the actual topic. These kind of semantic deflections from engaging in the actual topic are a problem. You know what the other poster wants to talk about but you make it about a semantic mistake or a technicality or a typo and focus on that rather than actually discuss the issue at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Another issue with ideological containment zones is eventually as someone already mentioned, either they go out searching for a fight and define themselves in opposition to some other thread or subforum, or they shift the overton window and start eating each other. I think if I remember right four years ago there was a lot more conservatives and libertarians on the forums and as they went extinct the vitriol has shifted leftwards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Or, people reading posts could understand the definition of the word hyperbole. Do you understand that "99.9999999%" is meant to be an exaggeration for effect and isn't meant to be taken literally? The problem with this line is if everything you say is hyperbole or can be taken as such because it is outlandish then you really aren't saying anything worthwhile and there are several people that are repeat offenders of this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
99.999999% of the time hyperbole is obvious If it isn't you're doing it wrong and deserve to be drawn and quartered and the pieces dropped into separate volcanos
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Or, people reading posts could understand the definition of the word hyperbole. Do you understand that "99.9999999%" is meant to be an exaggeration for effect and isn't meant to be taken literally? Yeah no this isn't a fyad or a fyad lite or even GBS and this is why we are trying to push effort met with effort. DND is place where people want to be able to discuss situations with nuance and verify facts and not have to worry about blatant misinfo being constantly posted. When a picture is taken or video was clipped can be absolutely crucial in determining context, and people consistently falling for false info and jumping to imagine the worst about their posting pals here on SA is a big part of what sucks when USPOL gets unreadable. Sometimes "gently caress the police" is perfectly fine enough effort for the facts at hand, but frankly what sets this place apart from other online discussion arenas is that people are generally expected to get the facts right first and not constantly get people riled up over misinformation explicitly designed to make you angry enough to share it. e: Like the poo poo people keep getting angry about and reposting before verifying sources or facts are basically doing the same thing their dumbass boomer parents are doing on facebook when they post a support the troops meme that somebody made with Assad soldiers doing ethnic cleansing or whatever because they are too dumb to care. e2: And to be 100% clear and make sure no one thinks I'm minimizing things, I'm absolutely furious at the terrible police response and all the associated events. I am simply trying to make the point that wanting to understand a more nuanced version of why something happened is not mutually exclusive with being angry about what happened and what continues to happen. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
The ACA only enrolled .5% of the population, so 99.5% would have been the correct number. My God, what an exaggeration to make it seem a little bit bigger for rhetorical effect. You know, hyperbole. This isn't the same as right wing talking points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The ACA only enrolled .5% of the population, so 99.5% would have been the correct number. My God, what an exaggeration to make it seem a little bit bigger for rhetorical effect. You know, hyperbole. This isn't the same as right wing talking points. But the ACA had more benefits then just the people who got enrolled in the exchanges?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think if I remember right four years ago there was a lot more conservatives and libertarians on the forums and as they went extinct Good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The problem with this line is if everything you say is hyperbole or can be taken as such because it is outlandish then you really aren't saying anything worthwhile and there are several people that are repeat offenders of this. Or put another way, knowing the person doesn't mean what they said literally doesn't necessarily help you figure out what they really mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The problem with this line is if everything you say is hyperbole or can be taken as such because it is outlandish then you really aren't saying anything worthwhile and there are several people that are repeat offenders of this. I personally think the best answer to hyperbole is to be a flatfaced square making short sentences questioning the basis of the claim and bet that the mod/IK will find you more funny than them trying to tapdance out of their wild shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This kind of semantic attack is one of the current worst things about D&D/USPol. Another quick example, I saw someone complain that the tweet date wasn't exactly the same when someone posted evidence of some cop bad behavior and in the post said "this happened today" rather than discuss the actual topic. I had called out this post and it was not about semantics regarding the exact date. It was because it was taking an unverified random twitter account as "proof" without even looking into it. Also, I've seen people lie about numbers (that weren't as obvious as 99.999999%) then claim it was hyperbole so  E: Clarified that I wasn't the only one to call it out, thanks VVVVV Kalit fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Or, people reading posts could understand the definition of the word hyperbole. Do you understand that "99.9999999%" is meant to be an exaggeration for effect and isn't meant to be taken literally? "This happened today", and I if I recall correctly "today" was italicized or bolded for emphasis (but maybe I'm misremembering), is not hyperbole. The timing of the event was key to the rhetorical point being made, strongly implying the poster was naïve specifically because events contradicting them were happening contemporaneously with their statements. It was just loving wrong. I actually believe it was probably an honest mistake, but instead of owning that we get doubling down and this bullshit about "semantics". Really could have been solved by a "whoops I didn't see the date and made a mistake". I'm really sick of people spreading bullshit and hyperbole, often weaponized to insult another poster, and then acting like it's some sort of pedantry when their called on material false claims and facts. Hyperbole when overused is poo poo posting that does nothing constructive except mock and start slap-fights. It should be treated like other frowned upon posting styles in the past: it better be funny and/or add value. The way it's frequently used is to posit nuclear takes and act like the poster's position is obviously correct and anyone who disagrees is shitlib, bootlicks, whatever. It's a cornerstone of the posting style of some of the most toxic poo poo in this forum. edit: Kalit posted:This was me and I wanted to say this was not about semantics regarding the exact date. I called it out because it was taking an unverified random twitter account as "proof" without even looking into it. You weren't the only one that pointed it out edit2: since a goon was motivated enough to actually look it up I wanted to note that it wasn't bold or italicized, it was the "literally" I was remembering as point of emphasis. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
I posted the cop photo as evidence that they sided with Donald Trump supporters and the date was largely rhetorical because it was a picture of a cop siding with a Donald Trump supporter and they didn't magically switch sides at a given date. The photo was tweeted on a specific date, and I assumed it had been taken on that specific date. Instead of arguing the merits of the photo as evidence, people latched onto the date because it helped them own their posting enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
That's the kind of thing that is obvious without specific proof anyway. Sometimes demands for evidence are just another rhetorical attack
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I posted the cop photo as evidence that they sided with Donald Trump supporters and the date was largely rhetorical because it was a picture of a cop siding with a Donald Trump supporter and they didn't magically switch sides at a given date. The photo was tweeted on a specific date, and I assumed it had been taken on that specific date. You admitting that you made an assumption about a tweet from a random twitter account is something that is bad. But please, keep going on about not caring how accurate the information you post is 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
this is another example of valuing argumentation over discussion. "it doesn't matter that what i posted was inaccurate, it speaks to a general truth" regarding something that everyone in this forum agrees (cops are racist) except you can get attacked for not saying "cops are racist" at the right time, in the right way, or too infrequently like who, exactly, needs convincing that cops are bad, in d&d. what is the merit of that argument, except for the speaker to release "i think cops are bad" into the world as a form of self expression
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder why USPol is so toxic!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:this is another example of valuing argumentation over discussion. "it doesn't matter that what i posted was inaccurate, it speaks to a general truth" regarding something that everyone in this forum agrees (cops are racist) except you can get attacked for not saying "cops are racist" at the right time, in the right way, or too infrequently There were people in the thread arguing that the cops weren't siding with Trump. If you go to the F the police thread, there are still people who argue against defunding the police.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I posted the cop photo as evidence that they sided with Donald Trump supporters and the date was largely rhetorical because it was a picture of a cop siding with a Donald Trump supporter and they didn't magically switch sides at a given date. The photo was tweeted on a specific date, and I assumed it had been taken on that specific date. I said the point was rhetorical, what part of a point being rhetorical makes it wrong to point out it is based on a false claim? This feels like complaining that people are letting the facts get in the way of your sick burns. Maybe if you paid more attention to substance of the point you were making instead of its rhetorical cleverness it would have been a better post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
This is the post in question:Cpt_Obvious posted:I mean, this literally happened today: Shitshow posted:It was rainy, lovely, and cold in DC today. That pic is not from today. Majorian posted:Please address the meat of what's being argued, instead of this pedantic poo poo, TIA. Also Kalit, don't backseat mod. Kalit posted:Sorry, I won't offer advice on how people can stop posting lies in the future. I think it's fair to say that the IKs active at the time thought posting misleading information in D&D wasn't as big of an issue as posters being too aggressive in calling out said misinformation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
this same exact argument is happening right now in uspol, in a different form people just don't want to discuss facts if those facts are inconvenient to narrative. they simply do not want to. all kinds of people do this, it is human nature. thats fine but it is very boring
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
My point overall is that you're not gonna solve the left/liberal divide in USPol with moderation but you can solve issues like "people focusing on a dumb technicality rather than discussing the underlying issue." USPol is at its best when it is debating and discussing an actual issue, not semantics or technicalities that don't relate to the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
"liar" seems like a pretty strong accusation there It's fine to call out errors when people make then, but if we all agree on the broader issue I don't see why the need is felt to get in all these digs over relatively minor errors
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
I guess what it comes down to is, what is USPol for? Hopping back to the health care thing, is it a thread to discuss what affect increasing Medicare reimbursement rates will have on access to health care for seniors, or is it a thread to be pissed off that there are people who don't have health care? Because if you want to talk about the one, I can see why'd you be annoyed by people talking about the other. And I think the thread could be either, but I think it suffers if it tries to be both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
mostly its because someone being factually incorrect and refusing to cop to it is like catnip for combative goons, but also if i can just blatantly repost incorrect retweets from nobodies and then skate away on a cloud of "well it was rhetorical anyway, you get my drift, byeee" that is garbage tier discussionEpicurius posted:I guess what it comes down to is, what is USPol for? Hopping back to the health care thing, is it a thread to discuss what affect increasing Medicare reimbursement rates will have on access to health care for seniors, or is it a thread to be pissed off that there are people who don't have health care? Because if you want to talk about the one, I can see why'd you be annoyed by people talking about the other. And I think the thread could be either, but I think it suffers if it tries to be both. it ends up being the latter, because that is far more low-effort to discuss and produces a higher emotional release, but it serves no utility for people who want to learn about healthcare instead of having a venting space Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:mostly its because someone being factually incorrect and refusing to cop to it is like catnip for combative goons, but also if i can just blatantly repost incorrect retweets from nobodies and then skate away on a cloud of "well it was rhetorical anyway, you get my drift, byeee" that is garbage tier discussion Can I also point out the ridiculousness of saying something "literally happened" and then complaining about how pedants are missing the point and it was just rhetorical when it's pointed out no it literally didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Can I also point out the ridiculousness of saying something "literally happened" and then complaining about how pedants are missing the point and it was just rhetorical when it's pointed out no it literally didn't. I mean it did, just not on the specified date.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Holy poo poo can we go one full page without slapfights over Democratic political figures. *Monkey paw curls*
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
What is so difficult about "oh, woops. OK, my bad, but do you agree with my larger point?" Why is the instinct to be angrily defensive and want mods to intervene? Admitting to a minor mistake right away pretty much ends it right there, and its not usually going to lead to a 3-page shaming dogpile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Hmm. As a consequence of too many people doing low-content dumping on each other, many of them double posts, I'm going to turn slowmode on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:This is the post in question: Majorian and the_steve bailing out their buddies and punishing their enemies, has anyone noticed this trend? Someone should probably tell a mod or admin about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Good. Why? It's good to have differing viewpoints on these forums. As long as they are willing to listen and debate in good faith. It's specifically not good, because it's led to a shrinking circular firing squad among left wing view points harping on the tiniest differences in order to justify exclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Or, people reading posts could understand the definition of the word hyperbole. Do you understand that "99.9999999%" is meant to be an exaggeration for effect and isn't meant to be taken literally? I find that serious discussions go a lot more smoothly when people just come out and clearly state what they mean in the first place, rather than erecting a maze of hyperbole and sarcasm that readers have to puzzle through first to guess at what the poster is actually trying to say. That's especially true for D&D with its long tradition of expecting people to be able to back up the specifics of their claims - which is obviously hard to do when people avoid making specific claims in the first place, and then post sources that don't really back up their claims and aren't explained. There's a tremendous amount of slapfighting that results from people just deliberately leaving important parts of their posts unsaid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I find that serious discussions go a lot more smoothly when people just come out and clearly state what they mean in the first place, rather than erecting a maze of hyperbole and sarcasm that readers have to puzzle through first to guess at what the poster is actually trying to say. I don't think "99.99999%" is exactly a "maze of hyperbole and sarcasm" and the actual intent of the post is quite clear, they're saying the ACA helped a small portion of Americans. This is true and proven by data. If people are having a hard time parsing the meaning of a post, why don't they just ask the poster to clarify instead of trying to "gotcha" them with owns and technicalities?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why? It's good to have differing viewpoints on these forums. As long as they are willing to listen and debate in good faith. I contend that Libertarianism is an inherently bad-faith ideology that has a chose-your-own-justification for whatever position they need to take on the day, until they get revealed that they really hate statutory law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
Gerund posted:I contend that Libertarianism is an inherently bad-faith ideology that has a chose-your-own-justification for whatever position they need to take on the day, until they get revealed that they really hate statutory law. This is true, as annoying as the current divide is I am glad the Libertarian days are behind us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2021 23:24
|
|