|
Is d&d supposed to be a leftist safe space or a place to discuss and debate? If you dare to disrupt the status quo you will get a glut of posters throwing themselves at you until you either get probed for not responding to them, or get probed for responding to their attacks of bad faith that lead to no room for substantive response. A sizable portion of which who retreat to cspam. If mods are only judging on reports and not the thread that’s going to benefit those participating in the group think. Thought d&d was the place where that isn’t what is accepted, or is the leftist cultivated community more important?
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
Again, issue of leftists refusing any nuance to exist and trivializing everything into correct or subhuman is the conundrum at hand. You can’t reason with leftists, it’s all about supreme power or bust for them. If being centrist is a slur, the rot runs deep.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
D&D today is like reading about ‘settled science’ during peak COVID. Not sure if I ever saw a bit of ‘settled science’ that didn’t get blown apart under scrutiny later, at least in scope of how it was discussed in the press, by the feds, or online (and not by the actual scientists themselves who would have been careful not to talk about the work in such ways). Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Would be helpful if you had an example here. Every post complaining about ‘both sides are bad’ conversations
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D Short one liners, reductivism, etc. are all social tools used to bully. You can say you feel okay bullying Nazis, go do so in GBS or CSPAM. These are leftist tools for control, acting no different than Nazis, just with a different target. That’s not debating or discussing. Calling someone a Nazi should not be okay unless you take the effort to compare their arguments with those historically made by the reich. Calling someone a Nazi doesn’t change them. Banning doesn’t either. Showing them how their arguments mirror Nazi principles might. This goes the other way too If the effect of your argument is to turn anyone you dislike into a ‘ist’ to nullify their opinion you aren’t debating or discussing. Way too much of this going on here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I'd like to use this post as an example of why rule I.B.1 (respond only to what was said) exists. You'll notice Mr. Crisis' points do not make sense as a response to calls for action against the unintelligent UKMT poster, because the latter was not serious, not articulated with arguments, and if taken at face value was unambiguously pro-Nazi. If I may be so bold as to take a guess at another user's motivation, this is because Mr. Crisis has been dying to make the argument you see above for quite some time, and is using this poor fit as the opportunity. It’s in response to the multiple calls to just ban people, ban all Nazis, etc. I didn’t quote the pile on because I’m on mobile and lazy. If you want to say the latter is my problem then so be it, but don’t say it wasn’t directed at the recent conversation. I can argue that the actions posters are demanding from moderators is not okay on a philosophical level while not engaging the details of whatever was said by quoted OP.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
The only thing that makes the argument bad faith is the unwillingness to consider arguments against it Which the constant reductivism of everything into ‘Nazism’ , ‘racism’, etc is doing. It’s bad faith responses that are simultaneously calling for moderator’s approval of. It’s only a ‘tired’ argument if you’ve given up on it yourself, or you’ve run out of points you can retort. Just because you convinced yourself you call someone a Nazi doesn’t mean you get to punch them without suffering consequences of causing the escalation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 21:22
|
|