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.

Main Paineframe posted:

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:

Again, it's totally fine for d&d to be for a certain audience like every other sub forum is but you need to be honest. Hell we have two wrestling forums to avoid arguments and put the spicy jokes in a containment zone. No one gives a gently caress if you constrain things in D&D if you're honest about it. But if you keep presenting one image but not enforcing rules in a way that matches that image people will keep being mad about it.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Do the mods consider it tribalism to label posters as trolls or bad faith based on past arguments and actions?

Raenir Salazar posted:

Part of the problem, either explicitly or implicitly, is that trying to make the forums "not cater to a specific group" has been in of itself criticized as being de facto favouring of liberal positions because it implies there is still a debate between capitalism and socialism.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

Isn't this precisely how do the vast majority of appeals of dnd probations go?

Bishyaler posted:

So what's worse, the real actual violence carried out by the CIA or the imagined violence in my head? I'm going with the first one.

Main Paineframe posted:

It's irreconcilable partially because it's an unknowable matter of opinion. Arguments that involve goons predicting the future often go badly, partly because it's inherently unfalsifiable and based heavily in beliefs, and partly because goons are unbelievably terrible at predicting the future in politics.

But mostly it's because people get tilted trying to push harder and harder for their side, forget that they're posting on an internet forum rather than trying to convince a room full of Democratic leaders, and start being assholes. I love a good hypothetical, but people act like disagreeing with their political strategy ideas is as silly as denying that the sky is blue.

Jazerus posted: