|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Cefte, the entire thing that makes a source 'bad' in the context of debate and discourse is that it routinely mixes lies with facts, and truth with fiction. That is what makes propaganda effective in the first place. It is simply not reasonable to expect the other side to put in overwhelmingly more effort to pick apart and respond to each point said source presents with counter-citations. So yes, I object to the idea that that is a normal or acceptable expectation. Furthermore, this right here: If somebody is wrong, they are going to post wrong poo poo, and you can prove them wrong, you can post correct sources. That's debate. Your issue seems to be that people who are bad and wrong might continue to post after you prove them wrong. They will. You can't stop them. Having a moderator stop them is a stupid idea. "someone is wrong on the internet" is not a thing that should be mod enforceable. 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.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted: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? They can get angry as they want, but the point is that someone who is a subject matter expert(evidenced by them bringing the heat with proof they are right), being met by little/no effort, is already a situation you can probate someone. The lack of evidence or effort is the bad posting behavior. Not the fact that they're wrong, because it's not on mods to determine who is wrong. Mods aren't the experts on everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
The NYT has done direct propaganda for the US government, not just generalized American Dream stuff and running Tom Cotton op-eds. Notably under the Bush administration.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
It's bullshit that the Tara Reade accusations on the sitting president are forbidden discussion in the USPOL thread. Yes it does turn into a lot of poo poo when it comes up, because people feel strongly about it. The solution there is to mod more on it, otherwise you're going to continue to have people bringing it up over and over because it's not being addressed. Saying "this always causes a poo poo show" reeks of "this is just causing drama" which is what lots of orgs and groups do when people bring up injustice, be it, racial, gender, or sexual assault, in order to silence it. And don't accuse me of brigading in from CSPAM I don't post there. The president being an accused rapist is just as relevant for Biden as it was for Trump. Or Clinton. And you're telling SA victims how much they matter when you're banning discussion when it's about certain people. edit: In case it's unclear why this is in the sourcing thread, this explicitly came up during discussion of whether RT was a relevant source, in USPol Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Maybe we should have a separate thread for rape/sexual assault in politics related? As far as the USPOL thread, a lot of the time its brought up, it's in non-good faith reasons IMO. It's posters who just want any excuse to bring it up so they can play the gotcha It's relevant to USPOL, it should be in USPOL Relegating it to another thread is, again, far too similar to how sexual assaults are handled badly in other organizations/settings. "This causes too much drama and it's just here to try and undermine [important person who is accused]. But we care, so you can have a safe place to talk about it while we ignore you"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 20:28
|
|
card instead of engaging in what a poster is actually saying.
|
Kalit posted:Last time I checked, lots of political related things are relegated to their own threads in D&D. USPol is focused on current US news. There's been no new developments about Biden being a rapist or Tara Reade for quite a while. It does nothing but causes multiple page derails of poo poo that's been said a million times before. Stop trying to act like you're fighting for a noble cause. Saying "sexual assault allegations deserve to be talked about" isn't some performative nobility white knight poo poo. It's pretty basic. I've seen SA talked about in a lot of orgs and it mostly goes exactly like this. People who want to deny it stir up a huge amount of poo poo and then someone can say "welp it causes drama, we should stop talking about it".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Please show me where the rule or mod-given order of "no posting about sexual assault in current US political news in the USPol thread" exists? I'll even do you a solid and show you where the "post in good faith" rule exists, which was broken when Reade was brought up today to try to justify RT when its commonly known she had given interviews to other news sources: Here's where the mods said no Tara Reade chat. It didn't say "by all means post about Tara Reade from good sources" GreyjoyBastard posted:hello we are not doing tara reade chat here Handsome Ralph posted:Gonna go ahead and repeat what GJB said last night -- Main Paineframe posted:If you missed the last feedback thread, we're trying to break subjects that draw large amounts of ongoing discussion out of USPol, so that the thread can move on to new news, while the subject that got broken out gets the full focus it deserves without being mixed in with a bunch of other random crap. I both don't agree with that, and specifically don't agree with that with regards to sexual assault discussion. I don't think I need to explain, again, why this is especially problematic with regards to sexual assault discussion? It's not like primary chat, which is almost entirley irrelevant after the election. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're accusing someone on Something Awful of being a sexual assaulter, that's something you should raise to Jeffrey. It's not an accusation of sexual assult, and you know that. But trying to say "well discussing this in an internet forum is different" because it's not, not in the way it's being handled. It's very common in organizations to stop talking about sexual assault allegations against an important person by blaming "drama" even when it's not about a member. You see this in fandoms all the time, with regards to the celebrities they're fans of. It doesn't have to be an organized cover-up. What it is, is deciding that something that's vastly applicable and common(sexual assault by a man in a powerful position) and is simply too controvertial for discussion. In a thread where every time Glenn Greenwald gets linked we have a 3 page derail. It's enforcing patriarchy and rape culture, even if you're not consciously moderating by saying "yes I support patriarchy and rape culture". In practice, you're making sexual assault allegations not a safe thing to discuss because you're valuing the comfort of some posters over the discussion of tough and stressful things. What sexual assaults are OK to talk about in politics? Some? None? Is sexual assault discourse banned from the thread or just this specific one, and if so why?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
""I think that moving discussions of sexual assault, against one specific person, to a specific separate thread has a silencing effect for reasons previously stated"Deteriorata posted:If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:We have at various points allowed people to discuss Reade's accusations in multiple threads but it progressively devolved into massive shitshows that were all around disgusting and unpleasant and, imo, categorically unhealthy both on an individual level and to dnd as a space as a whole. Even in the threads that had multiple extremely severe warnings of 'if you are lovely about this you will get huge probes.' I think part of it is it has become a proxy for the ever present "electoralism vs nothing matters" clique battles, and that sucks. Survivors deserve better. However there are plenty of other subjects that don't lead to productive outcomes that aren't outright banned in the thread and a specific incidence of sexual assault being one of the ones that is doesn't look good at all. Personally I haven't noticed any especially strict moderation on the subject in any USPOL thread, despite what you're saying, on this subject. The crackdown on low content in the last 24 hours was more severe. Space Gopher posted:Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it? "People aren't giving sexual assault the space and respect it deserves" is not an effective counter to me saying that people ren't giving sexual assault the space and respect it deserves. Absolutely if someone is saying "this hurts and triggers me based on my experience" the response is to apologize not say "well too bad" and that's true in any discussion like this, and doing otherwise is being a dick.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Cefte posted:Think of it as a post sealed in a time capsule from 2019 to the present day, when bad-faith source control across a Western country's entire institutional media persists as a primary tool to exclude the left from political discourse. I understand, very well, that your most pressing concern in a United States post-2020 election may be locking down fascist propaganda, but please, have the courtesy to recognise that we are not all American, and that our own political experiences are not myopic or outdated because they have fundamentally differed from yours. Where are you posting from, speaking fluent english, where rising fascist propaganda isn't a concern? I don't know that it's a distinctly US problem.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2021 01:11
|
|