Political threads/forum

[The Human Q-Tip]

I just want to make sure that's not the general mentality that people are going to go into this new forum with. If everyone's working under the assumption that the people they disagree with are only there to stir the pot and start fights, then this is going to be an exercise in futility.

I don't think it's a general assumption that others are acting in bad faith, but rather a recognition that we all don't see each discussion the same. Sometimes, it's best just to call it quits on a particular point rather than just continuing to go in circles as everyone essentially just keeps rewording/repeating the same points.

It's okay to acknowledge that a disagreement that isn't going to be resolved here, and move on.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

This should be pinned at the top of the forum

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cOvyDpWfM

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Its a simple question.

It is a totally fair question.

The first thing I'd point out is that this could have been done behind the scenes, with people lobbying Ben for a new forum and promising only to invite "good posters." That did not happen. Instead, it's been tossed out here for everyone to discuss, in the open. And I'd point out that anyone else here, including you, was free at any time to approach Ben with a plan for opening things back up.

I personally support inviting everyone who asks. If others disagree with that, then they need to speak up. The most important criteria is a promise to abide by the rules, the most important of which is "Don't run to Ben". The purpose of a private forum -- as I see it anyway -- is not to be exclusionary. The purpose is to be able to keep problems in-house to we don't get shut down. I will say the only rumblings I've heard regarding people who shouldn't be invited are those who've run to mods/Ben in the past. I think we should give everyone a clean slate, though.

What I sort of don't understand is that you agree that people should just ignore posters they don't like, and shouldn't be running to mods/Ben to try to shut things down. I'd think you'd support something like this.

 

[TyGuy]

The drumpf and libtard type shit is some dumbshit. Just me personally. I just can't with the Samantha bee and Steven Crowder type low quality shitposts intended to provoke while saying nothing of substance

Crowder can be annoying and provocative , but then I thought he had the fairest take on net neutrality actually acknowledging both sides have good arguments.

At his heart he is a comedian though, so there will be some takes where he is trying to offend people and does.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't have faith the ones ruining threads will stop, and I don't have faith they would be removed. So I'm close to agreeing with crat, this will just be the same thing in a different forum

There is a shit-ton of finger-pointing about exactly who is "ruining" threads. Not surprisingly, who people see as ruining threads generally aligns with political opinions. So do we want to boot those people, or not? Because I can guarantee that 1) there isn't going to be agreement as to who they are, and 2) it is going to start a shitload of controversy.

Personally, I don't really get how a poster can 'ruin" a thread. Either use the ignore button, or simply quit responding. "Don't feed the troll" (if that's what you think the person really is) is one of the oldest/best rules for the internet.

But there are exceptions, so here's how I see it working -- if someone is truly going over the edge, then I think a bunch of posters regardless of political persuasion can recognize that and ask the person, publicly to cool it. If not, then maybe action needs to be taken.

Again, that's how I see it. I have absolutely zero authority. Just trying to get a halfway decent discussion going to see if we can make this work.

 

[Nathan S]

Crowder can be annoying and provocative , but then I thought he had the fairest take on net neutrality actually acknowledging both sides have good arguments.

At his heart he is a comedian though, so there will be some takes where he is trying to offend people and does.

Legit thought you were pimping Jae Crowder again for a second and was gonna be like "bro, I jumped off that sinking ship months ago."

 

[Sebastian]

This should be pinned at the top of the forum

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cOvyDpWfM

Can we all agree this was the worst?

 

[AZ_]

Can we all agree this was the worst?

I want a special counsel appointed to look into whoever produced this.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

I want a special counsel appointed to look into whoever produced this.

Colin Kaepernick got up to tell her she was disrespecting the anthem.

 

[lukecfg]

Though I seldom post, I'd like to participate. It was an easy way to get exposure to a diversity of well-argued views. I found it to be a valuable, if occasionally frustrating, daily read.

 

[Real Deal]

Fattest L of 2018 for sure. Burn it.

Can we all agree this was the worst?

 

[David.]

There is a shit-ton of finger-pointing about exactly who is "ruining" threads. Not surprisingly, who people see as ruining threads generally aligns with political opinions. So do we want to boot those people, or not? Because I can guarantee that 1) there isn't going to be agreement as to who they are, and 2) it is going to start a shitload of controversy.

Personally, I don't really get how a poster can 'ruin" a thread. Either use the ignore button, or simply quit responding. "Don't feed the troll" (if that's what you think the person really is) is one of the oldest/best rules for the internet.

But there are exceptions, so here's how I see it working -- if someone is truly going over the edge, then I think a bunch of posters regardless of political persuasion can recognize that and ask the person, publicly to cool it. If not, then maybe action needs to be taken.

Again, that's how I see it. I have absolutely zero authority. Just trying to get a halfway decent discussion going to see if we can make this work.

I agree with most of this sans the initial part. There are people on both sides no one has issues talking to and they' are people on both sides no one can rally stand. So I don't think their ideology is the causal factor.


I'm not confusing jking with other particular posters, ever. Let's not pretend Nathan is the same as another poster.

 

[David.]

Crowder can be annoying and provocative , but then I thought he had the fairest take on net neutrality actually acknowledging both sides have good arguments.

At his heart he is a comedian though, so there will be some takes where he is trying to offend people and does.

He does a really really good job arguing but he's insufferabke and is whatever the opposite of funny is . I think he's a huge net negative. "Look at the dumb feminine liberals and watch me kill their strawmen" is horrible but that's what sways those in the middle

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree with most of this sans the initial part. There are people on both sides no one has issues talking to and they' are people on both sides no one can rally stand. So I don't think their ideology is the causal factor.


I'm not confusing jking with other particular posters, ever. Let's not pretend Nathan is the same as another poster.

Nobody sees everyone on the "other side" as ruining threads. What I'm saying is that people are less likely to see people with whom they are ideologically aligned as troublemakers. So, there often isn't agreement on exactly who is causing problems..

 

[TyGuy]

Legit thought you were pimping Jae Crowder again for a second and was gonna be like "bro, I jumped off that sinking ship months ago."

He’s actually trying for Utah from what I’ve seen. It’s mildly annoying.