|
fool of sound posted:My issue isn't if people want to call Raenir Salazar a liberal and he wants to call himself a leftist. Feel free. The problem is when the argument over which label is true overtakes whatever productive argument they are having about, say, welfare versus state capitalism. What you're not understanding is this is all in response to someone saying, "the problem is that the political divide here is causing moderation problems" and and Raenir said "no there's no political divide, people are just misbehaving, we're all leftists, our ideologies are the same". If nobody's allowed to argue with that, then obviously there's no discussion about the issue to be had.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Personally I'm sick of reading posters say "but we agree on XY% of things!!" because 1) any number is obvious bullshit the poster can't actually know, 2) even if it were accurate there's still a massive amount of disagreement possible in the 100-XY% space, and 3) it functions entirely as a lazy deflection from someone unwilling to defend their own opinions cloaked in a plea to find common ground
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here. Yeah, and this is part of the "shared reality" that I mentioned in the QCS thread: if two people aren't even able to agree on which sources are trustworthy vs. which ones require enormous scrutiny, any other conversation between them, regardless of topic, is extremely unlikely to get anywhere. Like, how can you have a serious discussion about US foreign policy with someone who genuinely thinks that the CIA is not an intelligence agency, but an international crime syndicate? You cannot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Like, how can you have a serious discussion about US foreign policy with someone who genuinely thinks that the CIA is not an intelligence agency, but an international crime syndicate? You cannot. ...why... couldn't you? Like, the CIA's involvement in global drug trade and the like has been documented for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:You keep trying to make this about individual labels when the liberal/leftist divide is the heart of the problem with D&D. Restating, an ongoing source of friction in D&D is that some left-wing posters with a gatekeeping fetish keep labeling other left-wing posters as "liberals" in an attempt to invalidate their arguments. These other soi disant "liberal" left-wing posters are frequently befuddled by this position and deny it, shocking the fetishists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah, and this is part of the "shared reality" that I mentioned in the QCS thread: if two people aren't even able to agree on which sources are trustworthy vs. which ones require enormous scrutiny, any other conversation between them, regardless of topic, is extremely unlikely to get anywhere. This is a perfect example of my points. You don't believe that overthrowing democratically elected governments or funding death squads should be considered criminality. Leftists do, for good reasons such as "they're murdering leftists and installing fascist governments in their place". And your casual support for an institution which murders my ideological brethren makes me want to be extremely hostile to your lovely ideology, which is going to get the mods called on me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:What you're not understanding is this is all in response to someone saying, "the problem is that the political divide here is causing moderation problems" and and Raenir said "no there's no political divide, people are just misbehaving, we're all leftists, our ideologies are the same". If nobody's allowed to argue with that, then obviously there's no discussion about the issue to be had. That's not really how I read Raenir's post, but if that's the reading people are concerned about then ya ok. Obviously ideological differences exist and should be discussed. Anyone pretending "leftist" or "liberal" represent a monolithic ideology, or really that they usefully describe an ideology at all, either has no idea what they're talking about or are being reductionist for the purposes of tribalism though; there are tons of ideological variants that could conceivably fall under the heading of "liberalism" and even more that could be called "leftism".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
The main problem I see with D&D is that the moderation doesn't always reinforce its primary purpose, which is to have the most interesting discussion possible. To do this, I strongly believe the positions posters take shouldn't be moderated, only the quality of the arguments they make in favor of those positions. Quality here can refer to many things, such as logical soundness and reliability of sources, but should also include novelty. For ideas to be interesting to an audience that talks and thinks about this stuff a lot, as we can assume is true of most D&Ders, there needs to be some element of originality, creativity, or at least obscurity. If this was the standard we used, odious positions would be dealt with as a natural consequence rather than through moderators having to come up with lines about what is and isn't acceptable. If you're saying something that's indefensible, you likely won't be able to defend it in a way that passes muster, and this is what you'd be punished for, not what you were originally advocating. The part about novelty also catches someone who tries to hit and run, coming back to reiterate an idea they hadn't been able to support before. As for the current topic, having both liberals and leftists in D&D should be a good thing, as more diversity of thought leads to better discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:This is a perfect example of my points. You don't believe that overthrowing democratically elected governments or funding death squads should be considered criminality. Leftists do, for good reasons such as "they're murdering leftists and installing fascist governments in their place". And your casual support for an institution which murders my ideological brethren makes me want to be extremely hostile to your lovely ideology, which is going to get the mods called on me. My point is not that the CIA does not commit heinous acts that should be universally denounced, but that the assertion that it is not an intelligence agency simply because it commits those acts is just profoundly wrong. Intelligence agencies in the modern era have many responsibilities, and spying is only one of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:...why... couldn't you? If you missed the referenced conversation, no one was disputing that. Someone was saying don't call them an intelligence agency, they don't have intelligence functions, it's 1000% crime all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:My point is not that the CIA does not commit heinous acts that should be universally denounced, but that the assertion that it is not an intelligence agency is just profoundly wrong. Intelligence agencies in the modern era have many responsibilities, and spying is only one of them. And my point is that we are ideologically opposed because you appear to be able to divorce the institution from the mass murdering it's responsible for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The main problem I see with D&D is that the moderation doesn't always reinforce its primary purpose, which is to have the most interesting discussion possible. To do this, I strongly believe the positions posters take shouldn't be moderated, only the quality of the arguments they make in favor of those positions. Quality here can refer to many things, such as logical soundness and reliability of sources, but should also include novelty. For ideas to be interesting to an audience that talks and thinks about this stuff a lot, as we can assume is true of most D&Ders, there needs to be some element of originality, creativity, or at least obscurity. This is honestly a way better explanation of some of the points I feel like I've been failing to make. The moderation doesn't reinforce the stated primary purpose and it feels like the mods have no actual audience or goal in mind and mod from the hip. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:My point is not that the CIA does not commit heinous acts that should be universally denounced, but that the assertion that it is not an intelligence agency simply because it commits those acts is just profoundly wrong. Intelligence agencies in the modern era have many responsibilities, and spying is only one of them. You keep using this example and I'm almost positive someone saying it's an international crime syndicate is being hyperbolic and saying they believe the CIA's work is primarily criminal and that the bad outweighs the good. You're avoiding the intended message by latching onto a very literal reading. edit: And if it's literally about one specific person who can't form a coherent argument I don't get why you keep going back to that as an example of a thing that's always happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:And my point is that we are ideologically opposed because you appear to be able to divorce the institution from the mass murdering it's responsible for. The guy said "the CIA commits heinous acts", what more are you looking for? e: would "the CIA commits heinous acts and gently caress Joe Biden and gently caress the Democrats for not dismantling it yesterday!" have been better? How are u fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:My point is not that the CIA does not commit heinous acts that should be universally denounced, but that the assertion that it is not an intelligence agency is just profoundly wrong. Intelligence agencies in the modern era have many responsibilities, and spying is only one of them. Crime is also one of them. A frustrating aspect of arguing in D&D is how often qualitative analysis gets debated as if it's quantitative analysis. Like, I don't care if Raenir thinks of themselves as a leftist, it's a meaningless term, but that's the thing, so often arguments like, "Who is better, X or Y?" gets treated as something that has to be proven and if you can't "prove" it, you fail. Key point, "proving" people would do worse under Trump's second term than Biden. That's not possible because it's a hypothetical. Yet it gets treated on this forum constantly as something people need to "line their evidence up for," and when evidence is offered, it then gets blown off as not a true "smoking gun." But what does smoking gun to prove a hypothetical look like? It leads to the most impossible to conclude arguments imaginable. So how do you prove the CIA is "not" a crime syndicate? I disagree with the person who said it was an either/or between that and being an intelligence agency, but someone trying to prove it's an either/or the other way around will hit the same problem. This is kind of what I meant in QCS about D&D always believing an "objective" reality - There is no objective way to prove the CIA is not a crime ring, only to show whether they do or don't do crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:This is honestly a way better explanation of some of the points I feel like I've been failing to make. The moderation doesn't reinforce the stated primary purpose and it feels like the mods have no actual audience or goal in mind and mod from the hip. The CIA is both an international crime syndicate and an intelligence agency. It doesn't have to be an either/or discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Crime is also one of them. This describes the problem I see with debating definitions instead of facts. Trying to argue if the CIA is a crime ring OR an intelligence organization is reductionist and stupid. It is simultaneously factually true that the CIA performs intelligence services to the US government AND they commit crimes. Both of those things can be backed up factually, they are non-exclusive, both can be discussed in a largely objective way. The definition argument is not only non-productive, but actively detrimental to understanding of the CIA and what it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You keep using this example and I'm almost positive someone saying it's an international crime syndicate is being hyperbolic and saying they believe the CIA's work is primarily criminal and that the bad outweighs the good. You're avoiding the intended message by latching onto a very literal reading. Bishyaler posted:And my point is that we are ideologically opposed because you appear to be able to divorce the institution from the mass murdering it's responsible for. Here's the full conversation: MonsieurChoc posted:On one hand, what Cheney did was illegal and extremely petty. On the other hand, the CIA is the evilest organization on Earth and must be destroyed if we are ever to know peace. CommieGIR posted:I mean, that's Intel Agencies in general. They all loving suck because they are all run by sociopaths and psychopaths. MonsieurChoc posted:The CIA isn’t an intel agency. Raenir Salazar posted:What does the 'I' stand for? MonsieurChoc posted:International Crime Syndicate. I don't know how you can read this conversation and conclude that: a) Liberals/D&D posters are a-OK with the CIA and its actions b) MonsieurChoc isn't simply trying to be as disagreeable as possible to derail the thread (which worked, btw)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Here's the full conversation: Gumball Gumption posted:edit: And if it's literally about one specific person who can't form a coherent argument I don't get why you keep going back to that as an example of a thing that's always happening. edit: Wait LMAO "Edit: Pretty much all literature on the CIA shows that it is very bad at it's supposed job of gathering intel, but very good at murder, drug smuggling, funding death squads and just crimes against humanity in general." Ok yeah no I'm back to my first point which is someone saying it's an international crime syndicate is being hyperbolic and saying they believe the CIA's work is primarily criminal and that the bad outweighs the good. You're avoiding the intended message by latching onto a very literal reading. This feels like a great example of debating definitions instead of facts and yep, it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This describes the problem I see with debating definitions instead of facts. Trying to argue if the CIA is a crime ring OR an intelligence organization is reductionist and stupid. It is simultaneously factually true that the CIA performs intelligence services to the US government AND they commit crimes. Both of those things can be backed up factually, they are non-exclusive, both can be discussed in a largely objective way. The definition argument is not only non-productive, but actively detrimental to understanding of the CIA and what it does. Was about to post something very similar. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
It was an overly aggressive way to assert things, I agree, but it also wasn't worth a tangent. Though that may be because I have family members who insist politicians are fascist and then when I try to say, "Sorta, but that's not quite what fascism means..." they angrily go on about fascism being pro-corporation so I've just learned to sigh and say, "Probably," to which they say, "Definitely," and then I leave the room. But also, people were trying to debate that poster that the CIA regularly commits crimes more than any kind of defense work, and that deserves an eyeroll from me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You keep using this example and I'm almost positive someone saying it's an international crime syndicate is being hyperbolic and saying they believe the CIA's work is primarily criminal and that the bad outweighs the good. You're avoiding the intended message by latching onto a very literal reading. Hm, liberal use of hyperbole seems to result in derails a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Not to put you specifically on the spot, but this sort of argument, arguments about the exact definitions of politically charged terms, have a serious tendency to overwhelm actual productive discussion in D&D. Is-this-iberal-or-leftist is a common one, but is-this-genocide-or-force-assimilation is also a favorite, as is is-this-neocolonialism-or-imperialism or is-this-bad-reporting-or-propaganda. Often, arguments about these loaded terms come down to forums tribalism, and thus become both vicious and pointless. I really wish people were more willing to change their word choice in favor of actually discussing the facts of the matter. It's not as though there aren't a ton of different flavors of liberals and leftists, and a poster describing the positions they hold is way more productive than arguing about what they're allowed to call their beliefs. I think it's more interesting because of how the wording shifted between posts - and how so many people, including you, missed that shift. After all, Raenir never said there was no difference between liberals and leftists. He said that D&D is overwhelmingly left, and that it's a myth that there's a bunch of liberals here. Pepsi responded by accusing Raenir of saying that the conflict between leftists and liberals is a myth, which is something Raenir never said. He then went on to accuse Raenir of "denying the 150-year history of conflict between leftism and liberalism". It's a pretty wild thing to just throw into a post to begin with, but it's a forceful response to something no one even said in the first place. And that's something that happens a lot, where someone's so convinced that their opponent holds a position that they argue against poo poo their opponent never even said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
the liberal vs leftist stuff makes no sense unless you take it as a given that being a leftist makes you implicitly not a dnd poster. most of dnd's most prominent and especially the most prolific posters are leftists. like I get that people see themselves as posting in dnd and not as dnd posters (in spite of multi-year, multi-thousand post counts in dnd), but just taking this thread for instance, of the 30 people with the most posts in the thread, by my count ~over 20 are leftists (almost entirely communists/MLs, and i'm not even counting social democrats which would be several more) https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=whoposted&threadid=3982820
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Personally I'm sick of reading posters say "but we agree on XY% of things!!" because 1) any number is obvious bullshit the poster can't actually know, 2) even if it were accurate there's still a massive amount of disagreement possible in the 100-XY% space, and 3) it functions entirely as a lazy deflection from someone unwilling to defend their own opinions cloaked in a plea to find common ground I've made that point before, but it was in response to someone taking a minor disagreement and going at the person like they fully supported the most regressive and reprehensible position. Usually because they post in a thread or forum that person doesn't like. The lovely clique issue, basically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:edit: Wait LMAO "Edit: Pretty much all literature on the CIA shows that it is very bad at it's supposed job of gathering intel, but very good at murder, drug smuggling, funding death squads and just crimes against humanity in general." Well, there was no "intended message". It's not about debating definitions instead of facts. It should be pretty obvious that the poster's sole intent was to derail the thread by picking a fight using hyperbolic rhetoric that they knew would get replies, and it is something that happens very frequently in this forum, i.e. even when two sides are 95% in agreement about something, one side focuses on the remaining 5% only for the sake of "othering" their opponent. Another context in which this happens is immigration: virtually everyone in this forum agrees that the situation at the southern border is terrible, but liberals are constantly accused of being okay with it, or not agreeing with the leftist posters that Democrats get off on the suffering of brown people, or something or another. It's just pure idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:the liberal vs leftist stuff makes no sense unless you take it as a given that being a leftist makes you implicitly not a dnd poster. most of dnd's most prominent and especially the most prolific posters are leftists. like I get that people see themselves as posting in dnd and not as dnd posters (in spite of multi-year, multi-thousand post counts in dnd), but just taking this thread for instance, of the 30 people with the most posts in the thread, by my count ~over 20 are leftists (almost entirely communists/MLs, and i'm not even counting social democrats which would be several more) A little misleading to use the feedback thread for that, let's take a look at https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=whoposted&threadid=3965530 (and subtract the thread-banned posters)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Restating, an ongoing source of friction in D&D is that some left-wing posters with a gatekeeping fetish keep labeling other left-wing posters as "liberals" in an attempt to invalidate their arguments. These other soi disant "liberal" left-wing posters are frequently befuddled by this position and deny it, shocking the fetishists. Yeah this basically is the rub anytime you disagree with anyone who calls themselves a "leftist" even a little they start calling you a dirty lib and talk about how all libs are the devi, they assign you a label and put you in that box then most feel defensive about that because they are trying to tell you what you are and what you believe, it leads to endless pointless slapfights. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Here's the full conversation: This leads to a ton of issues too, people misremember some conversation and it becomes some warped part of forums lore through getting passed along/misremembered to the point people are getting attack for things not even close to what originally happened, it's just tedious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:A little misleading to use the feedback thread for that, let's take a look at https://forums.somethingawful.com/misc.php?action=whoposted&threadid=3965530 (and subtract the thread-banned posters) sure, that's still a good example of how many of the most prominent and prolific dnd posters are obviously leftists though
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, there was no "intended message". It's not about debating definitions instead of facts. It should be pretty obvious that the poster's sole intent was to derail the thread by picking a fight using hyperbolic rhetoric that they knew would get replies, and it is something that happens very frequently in this forum, i.e. even when two sides are 95% in agreement about something, one side focuses on the remaining 5% only for the sake of "othering" their opponent. IMO this just comes down to intellectual laziness. Laying a sick burn on someone lets you feel like you've won an argument without actually putting forth any effort. The same with hyperbolic usage of loaded words. The intent is to derail the argument and befuddle your opponents so you can "win" without actually saying anything meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Yeah, and this is part of the "shared reality" that I mentioned in the QCS thread: if two people aren't even able to agree on which sources are trustworthy vs. which ones require enormous scrutiny, any other conversation between them, regardless of topic, is extremely unlikely to get anywhere. Honestly, that entire disagreement is just petty word bullshit. Yes, many intelligence agencies all over the world have, at various times, engaged in straight-up criminal conduct, including funding or facilitating overseas crimes or working with organized crimes. And there's a lot to talk about there! There's the way that government oversight and accountability is apparently ineffective over intel agencies, with an additional side discussion to be raised about whether or not that ineffectiveness is intentional. There's the way that intel agencies involve themselves in international crime as a way to evade what little oversight and accountability the state is able to enforce over them. And so on. Instead, it gets muddled by an argument over the definition of "intel agency", because the person who wanted to talk about the CIA's crimes distracted everyone by hyperbolically trying to redefine words instead of just loving talking about the CIA's crimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, there was no "intended message". It's not about debating definitions instead of facts. It should be pretty obvious that the poster's sole intent was to derail the thread by picking a fight using hyperbolic rhetoric that they knew would get replies, and it is something that happens very frequently in this forum, i.e. even when two sides are 95% in agreement about something, one side focuses on the remaining 5% only for the sake of "othering" their opponent. I think that's a goofy argument to avoid engaging with the poster who doesn't like the CIA but it doesn't really matter because I think that exchange raises another D&D problem, why did people engage with that? Why did a mod engage with it instead of just bouncing it if it's agreed that it's pure idiocy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Semicolons can, where comma's and periods; cannot. I did not say that everyone in D&D has the same ideology; nor are there no substantial differences between ideologies. There are however extremely wide amount of variety in left-wing ideologies of which I believe D&D consists of a wide variety of posters and posting ideologies; such that I think its improbable that the statement "D&D is full of liberals" can be true. However I think its important to note that never have I seen someone's claim "Oh I'm not a liberal, I'm a leftist" actually be examined or challenged, as that would be inconvenient; I instead always see the claim go "D&D is full of liberals", no one really gets the chance to dispute such a wide ranging generalization beyond the relatively tame "D&D is not full of liberals"; no one can really challenge it beyond "I don't think that's true" since no one can really speak of anyone other than themselves. Also I didn't say I was a leftist I said I was "on the left", I'm more of a humanist as Isaac Asimov was; which is progressive but not necessarily a leftist philosophy. I do not care if the cat is white or black as long as it catches mice. Broadly speaking I think the vast majority of D&D's posters are at a minimum critical of capitalism, believe in egalitarian conceptual structures, that massive economic reforms are needed, and in social justice. I think that's a pretty wide overlap in the venn-diagram in goon opinions that have commonality with leftist beliefs in terms of concrete policy goals. I think the claim, "D&D is full of liberals" is at best, a kind of appeal to authority in how its used, and generally seems more to do with the willingness of some posters to want to discuss the details more and not just accept a position that a leftist or marxist lens of that issue would at face value provide. The claim is always this absurd overgeneralization of an entire userbase and always seems to be conveniently whoever is disagreeing with you and always seems to come paired up with the general desire to be able to "push back" against the liberals who were already conveniently defined to be basically anyone who mainly posts in D&D, it's all very circular in its usage and specific to these forums and doesn't seem to reflect real life politics or any kind of academic understanding of political philosophy at all. As Fool of Sound notes its used in a very tribalistic way, I don't think the distinction between being a liberal or being a leftist has actually ever been critically examined on these forums by anyone in years as its been appropriated towards tribal disputes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And that's something that happens a lot, where someone's so convinced that their opponent holds a position that they argue against poo poo their opponent never even said. Main Paineframe posted:Pepsi responded by accusing Raenir of saying that the conflict between leftists and liberals is a myth, which is something Raenir never said. He then went on to accuse Raenir of "denying the 150-year history of conflict between leftism and liberalism". It's a pretty wild thing to just throw into a post to begin with, but it's a forceful response to something no one even said in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think that's a goofy argument to avoid engaging with the poster who doesn't like the CIA but it doesn't really matter because I think that exchange raises another D&D problem, why did people engage with that? Why did a mod engage with it instead of just bouncing it if it's agreed that it's pure idiocy? Here's the rest of the exchange CommieGIR posted:That's pretty much what most Foreign Intelligence agencies do, yes. Please name a "Good" foreign intelligence agency. MonsieurChoc posted:No, it's not. Most intelligence agencies focus on intelligence, spying, and not world-wide mass murder. One of the reasons the KGB was way better at knowing what the West was doing than the reverse is because they actually focused on that stuff. No need to name a "Good" intelligence agency becaus there's no such thing and because it's also a very obvious and dumb deflection from the fact that the CIA does not function as an Intelligence Agency but as a Crime Syndicate. MonsieurChoc posted:Do you guys want a list of books on the CIA? Cause I got a lot of literature on it. Why did a mod bite the bait and keep tugging until they decided now finally it's time to throw out a probe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Here's the rest of the exchange It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. CGR gave him some rope to hang himself with, basically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. CGR gave him some rope to hang himself with, basically. But then he got probed for providing an answer and offering to cite sources?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:sure, that's still a good example of how many of the most prominent and prolific dnd posters are obviously leftists though Just lmao given the offsite swarm's efforts to have me thread-banned and/or forum-banned. eta: And their success as far as vitalsigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The main problem I see with D&D is that the moderation doesn't always reinforce its primary purpose, which is to have the most interesting discussion possible. To do this, I strongly believe the positions posters take shouldn't be moderated, only the quality of the arguments they make in favor of those positions. Quality here can refer to many things, such as logical soundness and reliability of sources, but should also include novelty. For ideas to be interesting to an audience that talks and thinks about this stuff a lot, as we can assume is true of most D&Ders, there needs to be some element of originality, creativity, or at least obscurity. nobody tries to argue against the novel positions, though they just shout "shut the gently caress up, liberal" and various other petty one-liners and then when they get probed for not even trying to make arguments, they complain that they're being discriminated against because of their politics Gumball Gumption posted:I think that's a goofy argument to avoid engaging with the poster who doesn't like the CIA but it doesn't really matter because I think that exchange raises another D&D problem, why did people engage with that? Why did a mod engage with it instead of just bouncing it if it's agreed that it's pure idiocy? or the poster who doesn't like the CIA could have made their actual loving argument instead of making multiple posts about the definition of "intel agency" if you're gonna post wild hyperbolic poo poo instead of what you actually wanted to talk about, don't act shocked when people engage with the wild hyperbolic poo poo instead of the parts everyone already agrees with
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I mean it's the truth just look at someone like a big flaming stinks rap.sheet where he's been probed dozens of times for posting misleading tweet or articles that say the opposite of what he claims, why should we pretend that doesn't happen? i'm actually really offended by this post's implication and it perfectly sums up the ridiculously corrosive effect that dnd's draconian moderation has on conversations. My rap sheet has a series of probes in which mods punished what they believed were low-effort or white noise posting. I'm not going to spend too much effort to argue with a sixer, and most of them were indeed sixers. Then those sixers became proof of me being a bad faith poster, and what would be a sixer offense became a 3 day offense. Suddenly, I was a habitually bad faith poster, and mods used their own actions as evidence that I needed to be more harshly punished. The long and short of it is that it pretty much drove me to stop posting in dnd for months, and even now that I have returned i post much, much less. And even now, my "pattern" of posting low effort posts worthy of sixers is used to cite me, out of the blue, as a spreader of disinformation worthy of contempt. seriously, are you all trying to make this place as closed off as possible? A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Just lmao given the offsite swarm's efforts to have me thread-banned and/or forum-banned. ?? I'm sure plenty of people would like you gone, same as there are who would like me gone. I think there's about as much of an effective push to forum ban you as there is to forum ban me
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:42
|
|