|
Jaxyon posted:Bad posting behavior is what should be moderated. If I post numerous good citations and somebody reposts their same 3 sources or just goes "nuh uh economics is 100% made up and so was the Tiananmen Square massacre" then yeah they get the ban. Because they were a bad poster. Not because the mods are the arbiters of who is right or won the debate. This is a perfectly fine perspective to have here, but I want to point out how often this takes the form of pages of fighting back and forth, randos (maybe randos, maybe IKs, no way to know!!) complaining that “this is boring” and then a mod finally coming in and hitting everyone because it’s gotten nasty and angry. This happens in the non-USPOL context as well, especially in technology or other niche threads. So how much “debating” are folks willing to actually tolerate? How angry are subject matter experts allowed to be when they point to subject/industry specific sources and continue to be ignored by folks who style themselves as experts without any evidence or effort?
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:In any case, these types of issues should be easy to pinpoint if my and Discendo Vox's suggestion ends up becoming the standard: when something is posted, identify the author and try to point out their potential biases, and post the actual article or snippets from it. In fact, people have done this in the past and it is how we have collectively come to determine that Haberman regularly acted as the Trump family's mouthpiece. This is just common sense. Put some effort into your post before you start going off like a white hot ball of pure anger.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Folks posting dishonest or misleading links (or similarly misrepresenting completely normal links) should get a week minimum. The pages and pages of garbage that come from this sort of poo poo stirring is obnoxious and it's usually the same people doing it over and over again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
axeil posted:When looking at any source people need to ask these questions to themselves: Not incapable, just unwilling. If the source scores points for "praxis" or whatever the gently caress, then it gets posted
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that we're in this thread doing a a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum about how the BBC is the same as RT because someone managed to generalize the idea of propaganda to three true/false questions is exhibit loving A of exactly what propaganda outlets like RT are trying to accomplish. It’s telling how the folks doing this refuse to agree to just explain when posting something why they believe the source to be good and their own opinion on the particular topic. Nothing more than bad-faith posting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
Yes, directly insulting me as “trumpian” is surely the way to convince me that you’re posting in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You accused me of posting in bad faith, and in return I provided evidence that that was clearly not the case, and that if anything you were posting in bad faith. It is "how it works". You won't show us why people should be allowed to post anything they want without bothering to show that the source has some legitimacy or disclosing the point of posting the source in the first place. This is because the only reason to defend such a position is to excuse the constant shitposting of garbage ranging from unsourced rumors to outright lies that "feel right" and get used as a cudgel against others. That's it, there's no debate to be had when this happens and the fact you couldn't address the meat of my argument and went straight to insults further proves my point. It's bad faith posting, take responsibility for what you post instead of lashing out and projecting on others.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I can read their post that way too now that you mention it. I took "people who do this are posting in bad faith" after quoting me to be referring to me, but I can see how they could be refering to the people I was talking about... but why double down when I pushed back instead of indicating that they weren't talking about me? Sorry for the confusion and anger then.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What is the material difference between the two, when it comes to any given article? The motivation of the journalist is different, but whether they're coldly doing what they're told, completely aware of the actual purpose of their actions, or they're being swept up in the emotions of the moment and convinced by the lies of the government, the outcome is the same: The populace is deceived by the media, according to the wishes of the ruling class. You're conflating temporary issues that are corrected later with constant and systemic malice. There's a massive difference and you need to acknowledge it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like: This looks great and I hope it's enforced as often as needed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2021 23:14
|
|