|
We don't need more rules when the mods can't keep up enforcing the existing ones. There's not much risk of people being passively propagandized when there's an army of posters ready to explain how everyone agreeing with an article from Reason is plotting to undermine the entire administrative state.
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Kalit posted:It might even make the mods jobs easier. Instead of reading through the slapfights that are caused by sourcing/hot take tweets/etc, they instead just probate those who do not follow a new source format. I dunno it sounds like the issue is the endless slapfights and hot takes. We could just moderate those? Especially if we're banning specific sources anyway. There's 'no blacklist', but there is because someone just got probed for posting a PU video while literally saying that they are terrible but bringing up a specific broken clock incident. If I cross post that Prager U video into the libertarian thread to point out that even they agree that Jrod is a dumb lost causer, do I get mod smacked? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
If you aren't going to point to specific posters you think are arguing in bad faith then of course people disagreeing with you or discussing the topic you've identified as bad faith will assume it's about themselves. Has the rule of assuming good faith been enforced ever beyond the most obvious posts about posters?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why is that an important distinction? A "respected" news source who in good faith acts as a stenographer for someone intentionally trying to push bad information, due to the inherent structures bias of the media outlet they work for and the society they live in, is no more telling the truth or improving the reader's understanding of the world than the same reporter just making that exact same poo poo up. The difference between the two is largely whether they are or perceive themselves to be pro-status quo/establishment or not. Talking the actual material effect of their output, not whether one is more morally correct than the other. This does not seem to me to be rooted in the evil intentions you are ascribing it. Do you have more to support this theory of secret plots to confuse posters into trusting Russian propaganda?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2021 18:01
|
|