|
Why does just living somewhere or having lived somewhere make someone an expert and grant them any special protection? I live in America, do my opinions on American politics get special protection from posters living in other countries? Do they have to be extra deferential in disagreeing with me or risk punishment? There are people who live in America who will tell you that the country is crisscrossed with a network of secret tunnels where children are bred to be sex slaves for one party's political leaders to enjoy in the basement of a Washington DC pizza restaurant. If true, that's a slam dunk case that someone needs to invade America and take out our criminal adrenochrome drinking regime. Just living here doesn't magically make someone a better source for information, especially in a complicated situation like "should we support an invasion of that country" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 29, 2022 |
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Our China thread is the main casualty of inconsistent moderation support throughout the years, in this context, with the majority of local posters having abandoned it years ago because they got tired of being shouted down by a 10-fold number of Americans regurgitating their morning news or some such at them. I don't see how it makes much sense in general political threads or in threads specifically about the US. Punishing Americans for even politely and thoughtfully disagreeing with someone who came into the US thread to argue about US foreign policy, just because their parents owned a restaurant in another country, makes much less sense. Like if UK-US relationship came up in the UKPol thread I would not expect to be able to go in there and have everyone defer to me on UK policy toward America because living in America supposedly makes me an expert on all things involving America. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The situation was a bunch of American's talking about how things were in Haiti and when someone from Haiti came to speak up he was being shouted down for being wrong about the country he grew up in by a bunch of people who had never even been there, that's quite different then the examples being made up here. Shouting down (cheerleading, brigading, insults, etc) are already against the rules though, you don't need to cite someone's expert credentials to punish that. Were they being shouted down or just disagreed with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
For reference this is the post (in the US thread, not a Haiti specific thread or something) that was actually punishedcat botherer posted:You sure seem to be describing a post-apocalypic wasteland. So you think there won't be restaurants in Haiti if we don't intervene?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
I'm not trying to relitigate who was right or wrong, or argue with you personally. I just don't think the rule as applied is good for discussion, and when someone claimed that staluigi was being "shouted down", I provided the post to show that didn't actually happen (imo anyway). Like yeah several Americans disagreed with them, and several Americans agreed with them. It's not really surprising that if you post about a complex geopolitical topic in the US politics thread that the majority of replies would be American. Describing that as "shouting down" is absurd imo. If I went into the UK Pol thread and argued with them about their country's relationship to America, it would be rather for someone to say I was being "shouted down" by Anglocentrists because most of the people disagreeing with me in the UK thread live in the UK. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Reading the news about poo poo happening in other countries is not lived experience. Lived experience isn't necessarily more reliable than the news either. It might be, but it might not be. Any rule against disagreeing with people's "lived experience" needs to be properly thought out, because arguments should also be well sourced and backed up, not just appeals to authority Ie "Malaysia is so poor they don't even have Kentucky Fried Chicken" "I live in Malaysia and I'm posting from a KFC right now." "Well Malaysia looks poor on my TV so you must be lying" versus "Biden legitimately won the 2020 election" "I live in America and I worked the election and signed that affidavit that I personally saw all the cheating going on" "You couldn't have seen that here's a mountain of proof discrediting all the claims of cheating" You could dismiss both as "reading the news about poo poo happening" being inferior to "lived experience" but uhhhh one is a lot more reasonable than the other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Ok here's some feedback: when the mod running the feedback thread is trolling it and mocking users, it defeats the purpose. People are going to stop bothering if even anodyne suggestions like "keep this thread around more" are sarcastically dismissed. Assuming the point is to get honest feedback that mods may not necessarily like. If the point is to discourage people from posting feedback you may as well just not have it. Also if the moderation of this forum is going to be as heavy-handed as it is, it's a bad look when mods are trolling and breaking their own rules constantly especially here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've only given one joke response in this thread, to a user who seemed to be joking themselves (Harold Fjord), and it was not at any particular person's expense. I also don't believe I've done anything to discourage feedback, and I welcome feedback that is critical of my or my team's decisions, because as you say doing otherwise would defeat the thread's point. Referring to CZS who seemed to be running the thread, or at least was replying the most.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 20:07
|
|