|
Honestly team deathmatch debates where there's two "sides" and everyone advances some approximation of their "side"'s position are just stupid. Because there's so many people per side there's no real good way to hold anyone to debating a particular position that someone else holds. It's especially bad when it's about some imputed position, especially based on some sort of political compass shorthand. Abolish the concept of teams and you're debating one person and maybe things will work, but it's going to get tedious when someone gets dogpiled. I don't really have a good idea of a better model but less focused on aggro and winning is probably a big part of it. People who really want to explain their positions instead of going after others are better than people who just attack, attack, attack. Maybe it's unfair to certain posters but if someone's been hanging out in some forum for literal years at this point and can't say what they want instead of attacking what they don't want, maybe they don't have a good idea of what should be done.
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 19:15 |
|
|
If we're going to treat any skepticism of sexual violence no matter how rooted as a thinly veiled attempt to promote rape culture, we should extend the same treatment to any skepticism of mass political violence whether or not it is capital-G Genocide. It's very clear that many posters want to keep on pushing "It's not that bad", "They wouldn't have been targeted if they hadn't been whatever the criteria of the day are", "It's made up by the CIA", "The sexual violence that's part and parcel of the political violence never really happened because Reasons", "It's unfortunate but we can never be too careful about counterrevolutionaries", "Actually the  smiley is inherently funny", "The eye witness confessing their own involvement is making it up because the main perpetrator is denying it", "The civilians developed nerve gas just to drop on themselves to make the government that also produced nerve gas look bad" et multum loving cetera.Look, nobody just goes "Tara Reade is a CIA plant and should be shot for her counterrevolutionary tendencies" and expects that's not going to result in a ban. Nobody brings up what she wears or wore, or expects her to be more careful. But bringing up the CIA elsewhere is supposed to be not only acceptable but this sort of trump card that the mods for some reason won't allow. Who cares if it's pissing all over the suffering of real people, there's points to be scored! If there's any reason people keep pushing it, it's because they want violence and want it any way they can get it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:There's a much, much higher ratio of cases where the CIA made some poo poo up about what a country was doing than there is of women making up rape accusations. Yes when you travel to the magical world of make-believe you can just attribute anything you don't like to the CIA and then declare it false. That's so much more pleasant than actually engaging with the real suffering of real people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I mean, I just talked about doing soul-searching over buying into Obama's treatment of Libya, but go to town, man. Easily my favorite part of D&D is constantly being treated as the real biased, unfeeling, bad faith one here. The Libya that was already selling all its oil and natural gas to British Petroleum? Like whatever grand geopolitical strategy you're going to ascribe to everyone, Libya's about as economically exploited as it gets and Gaddafi was getting the money. Statistically Libya's no different from a random Middle Eastern petrostate, just moved to the west. That is unsurprising seeing where the oil and the money was going. But you feel things so who cares what that means for the people facing the actual consequences? Like I said before why are your feelings so much more important than what happened to them? 500 good dogs posted:Great example of a bad D&D post right here, folks. Is this sort of sarcastic response really conducive to a conversation about... anything? It's conducive to a conversation about how people who deny the reality of their abstract fantasies are contemptible scum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
If former C-SPAM superstar taintrunner is now a lib, that's about as much proof as you need that the labels are meaningless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 03:28
|
|