|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. Discendo Vox posted:No. Your decision to refuse to consider the source of media when you find it rhetorically convenient to do so does not mean that I do not scrutinize the content of media. The "schism" is the degree of tolerance shown for your interest in making GBS threads up the forum, as demonstrated by your rapsheet. These posts are a good example of why the media literacy thread was closed in the first place, and why it should remain closed unless someone else can take the reins. The post Stringent linked had DV object to a video interview posted by a channel owned by Iran. Stringent and other posters asked whether DV believed the interview had been manipulated, or why this channel should be considered less trustworthy than other state media. DV refused to explain and was probated. Nothing was learned, and yet DV has now decided that Stringent is just "interested in making GBS threads up the forum". Even when treated with the absolute softest kid gloves, DV can't help but condescend to and personally attack people they disagree with, nor are they capable of assuming good faith.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I agree with this, probes after the fact just serves to piss people off - having a mod just telling people to knock it off when things get dumb (circular, heated, trolling, etc) would be best. Agree with this. What's the point of rolling through and handing out a 24-hour probe for a post like this when you're doing it a week after the fact in a mostly dead thread? Is it just to remind that poster to continue not posting in that thread? DeadlyMuffin posted:Part of the issue is that what once person considers debunked is not the same as another person. In the I/P thread there are people who see any indication that a journalist has interacted with the Israeli government as disqualifying, and pointing it out is enough to debunk a source. So if someone posts one of those sources there's a bunch of whining about how it's already debunked and shouldn't ever be discussed again. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what's going on in that thread, and it would benefit your argument to provide some links to what you're talking about. I don't think what you describe has happened recently. The only instance I can think of that kind of fits was a while ago, when the thread was covering how a particular NYT article on sexual violence on October 7th was suspect, and discussing the reasons why. This subject was covered in great detail, and the thread concluded that this article is not credible. Less than two pages later, a new account joins the discussion and starts rapid firing a bunch of obvious propaganda that is immediately shown to be false. That user then also reposts the NYT article the thread just covered, and people get obviously frustrated and tell them it's been debunked and to read the thread. Are you referring to something else? Esran fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
Seven Deadly Sins posted:On the topic of doomposting above; one of the more irritating things that has been happening in various places, but particularly in relation to the I/P thread, is people who show up to constantly derail any concept of nuanced opinion with a definitive blanket statement that can't be engaged with or refuted. In the I/P thread in particular, you get a bunch of drive-by sniping of any conversations regarding the complicated issue of support for Israel among the populace (and its political ramifications) with a dismissal of "nah, biden is a turbo zionist who loves genocide, it's that simple and it's not worth having any other discussion". Some of it comes with very old (and, to be fair, factually accurate) statements from Biden during his days as a senator, but most of the time it's just a pithy one-liner dismissal designed to shut down discussion and eliminate nuance from a difficult topic. It's essentially the along the same lines as the frivolous doomposting that was talked about otherwise, and mostly just serves to be a form of venting that everything is bad and it's impossible to get better. I think this is misrepresenting the I/P thread, and like I asked the other guy, please point to the posts you think are problematic instead of just handwaving about how people are posting badly with opinions you disagree with. People don't just post "Biden evil lol" (that would get you probated), they build a case that Biden is a Zionist by sourcing statements Biden has made throughout his career, as well as statements made by others, and actions taken by Biden both before and after he became president. It is not "pithy one-liner dismissal", it is as well sourced and supported as anything posted in D&D. It is not "Biden said a thing one time in the eighties that was bad", it is "Biden currently says and does things that are bad, and has a long history of both saying and doing things that are bad, and here are receipts". It is not generally designed to shut down discussion, but to provide pushback on the (wildly optimistic and fanciful IMO, but more importantly generally posted without attached evidence) opinion that Biden is not these things. If you disagree, you are welcome to post evidence that supports the position that Biden is not a Zionist who loves, or at least tolerates, genocide (in that thread, not here). It should not be the purpose of moderation to ensure you don't see opinions you disagree with just because they lack nuance in your eyes, and nuance is only warranted if you can provide evidence that supports that nuance. Esran fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Mar 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
I'm left wondering what you actually mean when you use terms like "sealioning", "concern trolling" or "just asking questions", because I don't think you're using the common definitions. If someone claims Biden's gaffes are due to his stutter, and you then post a link that has Biden saying "My gaffes are not due to my stutter", that doesn't really seem like nitpicking? The exchange with MP you linked also is not "sealioning". MP claims "Similarly, the fact that anyone thinks a ceasefire will put an end to the Israeli genocide of Palestinians is a great example of just how effective propaganda has been all this time". Majorian says they don't know of anyone that believes that, and asks MP to provide examples. This is bog standard "I disagree with your premise". He then basically says that he thinks MP gave bad examples of propaganda, and you interpret that as "concern trolling". It's not, it's disagreeing with an argument. MP claims Biden did (or attempted) "radical stuff" and is responsible for "unprecedented progressive accomplishments", and Majorian responds with "In what way have Biden's policies/initiatives/expansions of presidential powers been "radical," exactly? Can you be specific?". That is asking MP to elaborate on or support their claim. This is not what "just asking questions" means. The posts you're linking read like mostly ordinary disagreements to me, so your post comes off like you either don't understand what these terms mean, or you're grudgeposting. Esran fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
I have a passing familiarity with Majorian's posting, and I don't consider them to be usually employing the tactics you mention. I think it is unrealistic to ask for moderators to take post history, and the prior discussion, posts and positions of a poster into account when dishing out probations, especially when the posts you point to as examples are so non-obviously problematic that you have to retreat to "ah, but it's not these posts specifically, you have to consider the posting history" when I ask why you're calling these posts "sealioning" or "just asking questions". I don't think after such a retreat you can honestly still claim that there's an "obvious undeniable pattern". It reads like you don't like this particular poster, and so when they make these perfectly normal arguments, it's bad faith JAQ'ing off, but if someone else had posted the same thing, it would be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Isn't the whole point of ramping probes that they take post history into account? Sure, but I would expect the probed post to be problematic. Which the ones Raenir linked weren't. I'd like moderators to not probe for completely normal posting, just because someone disagrees with the opinion being expressed or is holding a grudge from earlier. The dreaded rapsheet should not prevent posters from countering arguments, asking for elaboration or simply disagreeing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not sure what you mean by retreat, my point and argument regarding Majorian's, and B B's, and to a lesser extent, Cpt_Obvious's posting still stands exactly as I said them. You are clearly incapable of distinguishing disagreement from bad faith posting or people being out to get you, so I'm now less surprised about why your initial post was pointing at completely normal posts as if they were evidence of anything. I think your input on moderation should be ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One fundamental fault of current enforcement policy, among others, is that punishments not only arrive late, but a) rule violations intended to sabotage discussion and b) rule violations for objectively correctly identifying these efforts are treated equally harshly. If anything the latter are more commonly and more harshly punished, as Raenir Salazar has documented. This documentation shouldn't be necessary to get you to enforce the rules on users who are not participating in good faith. I think you are misusing "objectively correct". It doesn't mean "I agree with". The Raenir post has received disagreement from several posters who see little obviously wrong with many of the posts being linked to, and when asked to explain how these posts were problematic, Raenir assumed I was out to get them, and also decided they didn't need to elaborate further. Even if you believe that post contains evidence of trolling, I think it is also a great example of something else: An inability to articulate an argument clearly enough for other posters to understand, while believing that the argument essentially makes itself and is self-evidently true, and so people disagreeing or asking for clarification on the argument must be doing so in bad faith. It has been pointed out several times that your complaining about rapsheets doesn't really work when yours is so extensive. I suppose you should also receive a forumban? An alternative way to reduce the number of reports is doing something about the people who keep mashing the report button whenever they see an opinion they don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Correct as in the same users were punished for trolling. Again, we do not have to deny the content or existence of these users' rapsheets in considering whether or not Koos group almost always applies forumbans, or recognizes the motivations of the users with a long history of violating the rules in established ways. Repeatedly denying Raenir's detailed explanations does not actually shift the associated burdens. I don't think Koos said that he "almost always applies forumbans" in the sense that he has forumbans on a hair trigger, which seems to be how you're understanding it. I think he said that if another moderator asks for a forumban, he'll generally approve it. Regarding Raenir's "detailed explanations", I don't think they were either of those things. You can't accuse other posters of sealioning, insincerity, nitpicking and other bad faith tactics, and point to a bunch of their posts as evidence, and then when someone says they don't see it, suddenly these posts don't prove anything by themselves anymore, and the "obvious undeniable pattern" that you insist is there is only visible to those who "do an investigation" into the context, and that poster's previous discussions, posts and stated positions. And then when I say I still don't see it, it's because I'm asking in bad faith and intend to "muddy the waters". It's exactly what I just described: A failure to properly support a claim, and then assuming bad faith when people disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You can say you disagree with my posts but please don't make up what I've said about them. I've been very careful to quote you exactly. I didn't make anything up. Here's proof: You accusing another poster of sealioning, concern trolling, insincerity and nitpicking, and pointing to their posts as evidence Raenir Salazar posted:In particular posts like this, which are just insincere: The post where the evidence of these tactics is now suddenly not so clear anymore, and it requires a bunch of context to see the "obvious undeniable pattern" that you still insist is there. Raenir Salazar posted:I am not saying these posts individually are necessarily these things (although I'm sure some are); but that considering context, that clearly on the whole they aggregate their way towards being those things overall. Because obviously people can make a post that in isolation doesn't break the rules, or seem to be in bad faith, but once we consider context, such as post history; whether or not a poster based on prior discussion, posts, and positions, should really in fact know better then the ignorance a particular post seems to be all of a sudden implying; that there's some level of dishonesty motivating the posts.Thus just because a single post out of context to you seems fine, it should be clear given an unbiased observer, aware of their post history, who can do an investigation, who can look at it in context what makes it problematic. The post where you decide I am operating in bad faith because I don't agree with you Raenir Salazar posted:Ultimately there's a few things happening here, (1) that you fundamentally misunderstood the argument and (2) and that your reaction here tells me there's no circumstance where you will, and consequently (3) that your intentions here are to try to muddy the waters by dragging out my post in obnoxious litigation from "what even is the meaning of sea lioning/jaq'ing off/etc" to "I demand you explain in meticulous detail why these posts are relevant, so I can then disagree point by point for every post, in which you then need to explain and refute those points in turn" forever; the irony would be hilarious if weren't so equally sad. So you're just wrong. You may not have meant what you wrote, but I represented what you wrote accurately. socialsecurity posted:Yeah this is why posting in the I/P thread is dangerous and exhausting, it doesn't matter what you say really, even trying to understand the basics of what's happening sometimes will get you labeled a genocide supporter, by the same people spend their time defending the Russian and Chinese genocides. You end up spending so much time trying to correct people imagining poo poo you are saying that you get off on a tangent and never discuss the original point, which probably is their goal to derail the "bad thread" It's not my feedback thread, so it's up to the mods what kind of feedback they think is valuable, but I would consider a post like this worthless, because you're not backing your claims at all. At least two other people in this thread have done this exact same thing: Complain about how mean people are being to them, and how many rules those posters are certainly breaking, and when they're asked to point to the posts that show this happening, they go silent. Maybe you should point to the posts where this is happening? And also, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you without inventing a conspiracy where they must be posting in bad faith to deliberately derail the "bad thread", then maybe a political discussion forum isn't right for you? They could just be disagreeing with you because they think your ideas and arguments are bad. Esran fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 12:06
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I just took a quick look at the I/P thread The first post led to a probation, so what's the problem? The second post is not calling someone a genocide denier, it's summarizing an (incredibly long-winded) argument. The original poster then clarified their argument later. You are simply misreading the post. The third post is disagreement with an argument (that China and Israel are both committing genocides) put forth by the original poster. There's literally nothing in the second two posts demonstrating that "it doesn't matter what you say really, even trying to understand the basics of what's happening sometimes will get you labeled a genocide supporter, by the same people spend their time defending the Russian and Chinese genocides. You end up spending so much time trying to correct people imagining poo poo you are saying that you get off on a tangent and never discuss the original point, which probably is their goal to derail the "bad thread". Raenir wasn't "trying to understand the basics", they were making a big pile of claims that people disagreed with. Neither of the responses made anything up, they're disagreeing with claims made by the poster they're responding to. This is not "it doesn't matter what you say really, you can't even ask about the basics". This is "I made a bunch of claims and then people disagreed with me". If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, a forum for discussing politics is probably the wrong place to post.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm going to repeat again that I don't agree with the interpretation you've arrived at and that it doesn't align with the intention of my posts, and I don't think there's any utility in going back and forth where it seems like if I try to explain, that just seems to result in more misunderstanding instead of clarification. I'm fine with simply letting it be. Raenir Salazar posted:And this can either be done by mistake because they didn't take the time to fully read or consider the fine nuances of the post, or deliberately in order to fan the flames, is this what Bel Shazar is doing? I have no idea. Your post was very long with lots of different points being made, but the main thrust argued that someone asking for military intervention to stop Israel is also necessarily asking for genocide (this was the original claim that prompted the discussion). That's slightly different from arguing that no force can be used at all, but I think you can understand how someone might read it that way. I think as per the rules of D&D that we should assume the people expressing disagreement in that thread are doing so because they genuinely disagree, and aren't deliberately fanning the flames. Raenir Salazar posted:The second thing is that "disagree with" is putting it a bit mildly, if the only issue with the I/P thread was people "disagreeing" with each other I don't think it'd be a source of contention, because can just agree to disagree. The subject has strong feelings attached to it. I don't think we should expect people to just agree to disagree. We're not arguing about a technical subject where it is easy to be detached. We're talking about the mass murder of tens of thousands of people, and the starvation and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands more. It is also a subject on which it is known that a strong propaganda effort exists, and the thread has had repeated visits from posters who show up, post terribly sourced obvious lies (and often in very verbose form), and then disappear again. A recent example was the guy arguing that Israel had to continue oppressing the Palestinians as a form of self-defense, or the guy who showed up after Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation to post fake news about him they sourced from a random Israeli Twitter account. It becomes very tedious to repeatedly pick those posts apart and rebutting every point, so I don't think it's unreasonable that some people now just focus on the overarching argument being made in a post and call bullshit on that, and then ignore all the little details that often aren't crucial to the main argument anyway. I think people posting that way aren't doing so for malicious reasons. They are simply expressing their disagreement (sometimes rudely) with what is being said. Raenir Salazar posted:And to stress this very hard, You're basically the only person making any kind of reasonable attempt at a counter argument, like it is technically true that on some level the other replies are "disagreement" but they're largely lacking any substance or content, aren't responding to the actual argument, are hostile (you should be ashamed!), or a baffling and blatant example of the kind of thing where I don't think people get to have it both ways where they feel justified in yelling at people who just disagree with them about the finer points of whats happening or should happen, in regards to the I/P conflict, but then feel like all of the benefit of the doubt and nuance should be given to the ability to litigate the Holodomor and other genocides when its an communist country that's accused. The context for this discussion is that Israel is doing a genocide in Gaza right now. The hostility you're getting is likely because against that backdrop, you are taking a very strong stance that asking for a military intervention against Israel is itself a genocidal request. People who disagree with that are going to feel like you're accusing them of genocidal rhetoric, or they're going to feel that you're running interference for Israel. I don't want to get into either Xinjiang or the Holodomor, except to say that even if you firmly believe that both of these are genocides, you need to understand that this is not an uncontroversial viewpoint. That there is a genocide happening in Israel is pretty much only contested by Israel and maybe the US, and I don't think you disagree with it either. Neither do most of the people posting in the I/P thread, but some of the people posting there don't believe that the other two events are genocides. I'm not saying this to change your mind, but to make you understand that the reason you might be seeing a request for nuance on e.g. the Holodomor is that it's simply not a settled question whether that was deliberate (a genocide) or incompetence (a famine). I don't think anyone believes that what Israel is doing is just an accident or incompetence or that they don't know what they're doing, and so there's no need for that kind of nuance in that discussion. Israeli leaders are openly celebrating their war crimes on Twitter and in the press, so there's much less room for interpretation here. Esran fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This isn't even remotely true though? The response to that post was someone calling that opinion a "calm hitler", and I disagreed and said that is it not inherently genocidal to call for war on Israel. That's the point where you enter the conversation, seeming to disagree with what I said. Not to be too rude, but if you frequently have this problem with "dishonest" interpretations of your posts, have you considered the possibility that you're not communicating your ideas clearly? I think that's more likely than lots of different people deliberately misinterpreting you. Raenir Salazar posted:I am observing that such a post is problematic because it overly simplifies I'm not saying that post accurately represents your argument. I'm saying I can see how that poster would have interpreted your argument that way. Which is why it helped when you clarified what you're saying after that. Your argument wasn't clear enough for that poster to understand. Raenir Salazar posted:There is no issue which doesn't have strong feelings about it, whether its on the subject of socialist revolution, electoralism, or ones favourite brand of mayo. There's no rational way of delineating for a politics discussion forum which subjects are okay to disregard the rules and which aren't. People honestly shouldn't be on the internet discussing things, if they aren't willing to entertain the idea that someone might disagree with them on a topic, and maybe this subforum isn't for those people? Because again, we literally just have to point out a different historical genocide, or a different current event, and suddenly the teams swap in terms of when its okay for there to be calm rational discourse; it's incoherent. I'm not arguing that the rules should be ignored, I'm explaining to you why your post got the reaction it did. I just explained to you why "a different historical genocide" is your personal view and not an uncontroversial fact and that's why it's treated differently. Raenir Salazar posted:And also then claim its okay to yell and be hostile at people because "a strong propaganda effort exists"; either you care about the rules in having a proper discussion environment, or you don't and just want the refs to take your side in banishing those people to the shadow realm. I'm not the one asking for moderators to step in on my behalf. Raenir Salazar posted:I dunno and cannot evaluate how valid or in good faith or bad faith those anectdotes you alledge are, but presumably people should be allowed to on a discussion forum to question narratives, sources, etc Yes, and that happens in the I/P thread, by people posting and defending arguments and sources in favor of their viewpoint. The anecdotes I'm mentioning aren't that. They're people posting random garbage off of twitter or just completely unsupported claims, and when people disagree, they just move to a different subject. I'm fine with the thread simply telling them what bad posts they made, and explaining why at a broad level, without necessarily rebutting every single point. Raenir Salazar posted:This doesn't follow. Your opinion here isn't objectively correct and doesn't justify taking the position a nuanced rational discussion is only something that should be reserved for genocides by communist countries, but not for countries that have US involvement My opinion is objectively correct. It is objectively true that the reasons for the Holodomor is not a settled question among historians. That aside, I'm not saying you can't take a nuanced stance on Israel. I'm saying if you do, you should be able to defend why that nuance is justified, and you should expect that people will attack your position. If you don't bother to explain why this complexity is necessary to explain the conflict, people are going to tell you to pack it in, and that's totally fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
I don't want to argue the merits of calling the Holodomor a genocide, especially not in this thread, but I feel the need to respond when it seems like you're directly accusing me of... something. What I claimed is that whether the Holodomor should be classified as a genocide (i.e. it was intentional) is not a settled question among historians. To keep this very short and avoid making GBS threads up the thread, I'll provide two links you can use to verify that this debate exists among scholars (and not in the way neonazis like to claim there's a "debate" about the Holocaust): https://holodomor.ca/resource/was-the-holodomor-a-genocide/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question (this is a bad source, but a fine index of real sources) Which view you agree with is immaterial, all I claimed was that this question isn't considered settled in the same way e.g. the Holocaust is among historians. I think I have supported this claim, and I don't think I'm "shifting definitions".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:25 |
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The last two pages have shown me that anyone who is trying to argue if something is technically a genocide should be forumbanned, regardless of the genocide The actual definition (from the UN convention) requires intentionality, which is what the scholars are arguing over, as I explicitly said. I don't think using the commonly agreed definition of a word, and pointing out that scholarly debate exists merits a forumban.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2024 10:38
|
|