Announcement: Forum restructuring scheduled for this Sunday night

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shauni

Banned
Member
Why is that a bad thing? There was recently a thread asking whether conservatives / republicans have a role in the forum. If you check that thread, the majority opinion seems to be that no, they don’t. I think some might have called for it to be bannable to be right leaning. The logic was that GOP (a US right wing party) has recently put forwards some really bad motions on LGBT rights, so if you support conservatives, you are complicit to the suppression of the LGBT community in the USA by association.

Moderators or site owners didn’t comment on the thread but kept it open, so I would assume they would agree with the premise to a degree.

So that leaves a lot of posters, who are conservative / right leaning, yet disagree with the US GOP policies on minority treatment, unwelcome in a huge part of Etcetera front page, the News & Politics stories.

So from that point of view, splitting the politics to its own area will allow like minded posters to gather there, while people who come to Era to enjoy the endless variety of gaming, music, TV, films, sports etc. discussions will have two great forums they can participate in. It’s a much healthier approach and should make the site feel less toxic.

My only hope is that also the benign “personal advice” threads on things like dating, health and family matters would be part of the entertainment forum, so that Etcetera would only be News & Politics.
Then maybe instead of running away, those people need to engage those topics and question why they feel they way they do. But of course they don't, they want to just mentally jerk off to their own echo chamber about how they aren't 'those kind' of conservatives. And that's all this move is designed to do, to further the ability of those people to do that.
 
Then maybe instead of running away, those people need to engage those topics and question why they feel they way they do. But of course they don't, they want to just mentally jerk off to their own echo chamber about how they aren't 'those kind' of conservatives. And that's all this move is designed to do, to further the ability of those people to do that.
Come on, let's be honest here. Some people just don't want to be dog piled for having what they feel is just a different view. When this board is heavily leaning towards one way, and the vast majority have an opposing view, you get a bunch of people ganging up and jumping down your throat if you stray from that view point. It's hard for someone to engage without being dog piled on. I don't blame someone who wants to avoid that.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Come on, let's be honest here. Some people just don't want to be dog piled for having what they feel is just a different view. When this board is heavily leaning towards one way, and the vast majority have an opposing view, you get a bunch of people ganging up and jumping down your throat if you stray from that view point. It's hard for someone to engage without being dog piled on. I don't blame someone who wants to avoid that.
If you have solid beliefs and are able to argue faithfully, that shouldn't be a problem. There's been lots of times when I've been a voice alone in a discussion or argument, but I continued on and had those beliefs challenged and it either strengthens my beliefs or it makes me rethink them.

The dogpiling thing is just bullshit. It's just an excuse, little more than 'I want to throw out my inflammatory opinion and not be challenged.'
 
Come on, let's be honest here. Some people just don't want to be dog piled for having what they feel is just a different view. When this board is heavily leaning towards one way, and the vast majority have an opposing view, you get a bunch of people ganging up and jumping down your throat if you stray from that view point. It's hard for someone to engage without being dog piled on. I don't blame someone who wants to avoid that.
What are these different views you're worried aren't being heard?
 
I think this change is for the better. We shouldn’t be forced to read dozens of depressing or political topics just to find discussions on entertainment.

Bring on 2.0!
I'm surprised that you're this invested in the nature of the discussions here considering this is one of your two posts.
 
If you have solid beliefs and are able to argue faithfully, that shouldn't be a problem. There's been lots of times when I've been a voice alone in a discussion or argument, but I continued on and had those beliefs challenged and it either strengthens my beliefs or it makes me rethink them.

The dogpiling thing is just bullshit. It's just an excuse, little more than 'I want to throw out my inflammatory opinion and not be challenged.'
Nah, it's not bullshit at all. It happens frequently. Some people just don't want to be attacked from a ton of posters when nobody else is also arguing the same stance. You tend to be a lone wolf in that discussion and probably because others also feel they don't want to be attacked in the same way so they stay out of it. Not every one is thick skinned or can handle it as well as you can so they just would rather not engage. I completely understand that angle even if I don't necessarily agree with their view.

What are these different views you're worried aren't being heard?
I'm not worried about any views not being heard. Where did you get that idea from?
 
Then maybe instead of running away, those people need to engage those topics and question why they feel they way they do. But of course they don't, they want to just mentally jerk off to their own echo chamber about how they aren't 'those kind' of conservatives. And that's all this move is designed to do, to further the ability of those people to do that.
Era is kind of odd. It's ostensibly a gaming website, but the non gaming side also wants Era to be a hub for progressive viewpoints. I'm with everyone that far, but being upset that people might be able to look at topics they are interested in without having to partake in US politics seems a step too far. It's awesome that people are exposed to our particular brand of progressivism, but it's probably counterproductive to try and force people to engage if they don't want to. Instead of being exposed to the progressive viewpoints of Era members they are instead likely to just look elsewhere.
 
Then maybe instead of running away, those people need to engage those topics and question why they feel they way they do. But of course they don't, they want to just mentally jerk off to their own echo chamber about how they aren't 'those kind' of conservatives. And that's all this move is designed to do, to further the ability of those people to do that.
That's rather aggressive, you can't force people to enter every topic, it's not a prequisite. For the remainder of the year I'll tell you what I'm looking forward to the most discussion wise on this forum.

-Destiny : Forsaken
-Red Dead 2
-Spider-Man
-Alll the tv show OT's

Those are all positive community threads. You can't knock people for only being interested in those type of topics.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Nah, it's not bullshit at all. It happens frequently. Some people just don't want to be attacked from a ton of posters when nobody else is also arguing the same stance. You tend to be a lone wolf in that discussion and probably because others also feel they don't want to be attacked in the same way so they stay out of it. Not every one is thick skinned or can handle it as well as you can so they just would rather not engage. I completely understand that angle even if I don't necessarily agree with their view.
"Attacked" is just another BS term. It's "challenged" and you're right, they don't want that. They want to retreat and not defend views that are, generally, indefensible logically.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Era is kind of odd. It's ostensibly a gaming website, but the non gaming side also wants Era to be a hub for progressive viewpoints. I'm with everyone that far, but being upset that people might be able to look at topics they are interested in without having to partake in US politics seems a step too far. It's awesome that people are exposed to our particular brand of progressivism, but it's probably counterproductive to try and force people to engage if they don't want to. Instead of being exposed to the progressive viewpoints of Era members they are instead likely to just look elsewhere.
That's rather aggressive, you can't force people to enter every topic, it's not a prequisite. For the remainder of the year I'll tell you what I'm looking forward to the most discussion wise on this forum.

-Destiny : Forsaken
-Red Dead 2
-Spider-Man
-Alll the tv show OT's

Those are all positive community threads. You can't knock people for only being interested in those type of topics.
Point to anything I said about being 'forced' to engage with anything. You're never 'forced' to engage with anything here. You shouldn't be able to actively avoid that these things exist, though, whether you want to engage in the discussion or not.
 
That's rather aggressive, you can't force people to enter every topic, it's not a prequisite. For the remainder of the year I'll tell you what I'm looking forward to the most discussion wise on this forum.

-Destiny : Forsaken
-Red Dead 2
-Spider-Man
-Alll the tv show OT's

Those are all positive community threads. You can't knock people for only being interested in those type of topics.
By the way people are whining about wanting a board free of politics you would think that they are being forced into entering those topics.
Are you unable to go into topics discussing the things you're interested in with the way the site is setup now?
 
That's rather aggressive, you can't force people to enter every topic, it's not a prequisite. For the remainder of the year I'll tell you what I'm looking forward to the most discussion wise on this forum.

-Destiny : Forsaken
-Red Dead 2
-Spider-Man
-Alll the tv show OT's

Those are all positive community threads. You can't knock people for only being interested in those type of topics.
How are the proposed changes affecting any of this?
 
Point to anything I said about being 'forced' to engage with anything. You're never 'forced' to engage with anything here. You shouldn't be able to actively avoid that these things exist, though, whether you want to engage in the discussion or not.
How do you feel about people that use scripts to filter out threads they don't want to see? Should they not be allowed to tailor their experience here. Sure you may not have said forced but saying things like "you shouldn't be able to avoid" sounds like lack of choice.
How are the proposed changes affecting any of this?
They're not, I'm just letting that poster know we are all here for different reasons.
 
"Attacked" is just another BS term. It's "challenged" and you're right, they don't want that. They want to retreat and not defend views that are, generally, indefensible logically.
You're arguing semantics of words at this point. The point is this board leans heavily in one direction and if you go against the grain, you can have the a lot of people ganging up on you to challenge your view. Engaging one on one in a discussion or debate, or even with a group that has a reasonable split on sides of the issue isn't the same as when you're vastly outnumbered and every one is focusing on you in disagreement. Dog piling is something that happens here and I would even say often the view point is shitty so it's not even a question as to why it is happening, but even then I find in general that often stances land more binary rather than nuanced in situations where it's not so clear. It certainly is easier on my end since I end up being on the side this board leans towards, but I certainly can see it from the other side of the fence. It sounds to me like you're in denial that it happens and that whenever it does, they deserved it. Personally, I love a good nuanced discussion and like to have my views challenged too, but not everyone is as rational or as thick skinned either.
 
Point to anything I said about being 'forced' to engage with anything. You're never 'forced' to engage with anything here.
The first part of your post strongly conflicts with:

You shouldn't be able to actively avoid that these things exist, though, whether you want to engage in the discussion or not.
The second part of your post. You do want people to be forced to engage with US politics, even if it's only passively. This is fine, and I can understand why you feel this way. That doesn't mean it isn't counterproductive. I feel that the subtle exposure to progressive viewpoints is more vital than being bombarded with political thread titles they are never going to click anyway.
 
Last edited:

Shauni

Banned
Member
You're arguing semantics of words at this point.
I'm going to stop you right there, because I'm not. There is a very big difference between 'attacking' someone and 'challenging' their views.

How do you feel about people that use scripts to filter out threads they don't want to see? Should they not be allowed to tailor their experience here. Sure you may not have said forced but saying things like "you shouldn't be able to avoid" sounds like lack of choice.
I mean, personally, when it comes to social issues, I would say no. I think everyone should be exposed to that and it should always be openly seen to everyone. One of the key strategies of the right is to decouple social and civil rights from popular topics so that they won't be seen. If they aren't seen, then they aren't thought about as much, if they aren't thought about as much, it fosters ignorance, and ignorance fostered allows for oppression to continue. I'm all for choice in whether you want to engage in discussion about it, but I personally don't think it should be an option for anyone to avoid its existence.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
The second part of your post. You do want people to be forced to engage with US politics, even if it's only passively. This is fine, and I can understand why you feel this way. That doesn't mean it isn't counterproductive.
Engaging in something and being aware its happening isn't the same thing. And I never specified US politic, you did. I said social and civil issues with no region specified.
 
I'm going to stop you right there, because I'm not. There is a very big difference between 'attacking' someone and 'challenging' their views.
When it's one on one or one on a couple, to the person that's more challenged. When it's you against a mob, that feels attacked. It's a matter of perspective.
 
When it's one on one or one on a couple, to the person that's more challenged. When it's you against a mob, that feels attacked. It's a matter of perspective.

I had this happen once - over a game... !

There were like 100 people dog piling on me and they didn't care about my arguments AT ALL, they only wanted to tell me that I'm wrong and silence me, they were really rude too.

A mod came in and told them to stop finally...

This poster can't be serious to say it doesn't happen or trying to justify this behavior
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
When it's one on one or one on a couple, to the person that's more challenged. When it's you against a mob, that feels attacked. It's a matter of perspective.
It's a matter of definition. Like now, I have three people against my opinion. I could easily say you, TSM and TheGhost are attacking me, but that's not what's happening. And it's almost never what's happening when supposed 'dogpiling' happens here either. It doesn't really matter what the 'perspective' is.
 
It's a matter of definition. Like now, I have three people against my opinion. I could easily say you, TSM and TheGhost are attacking me, but that's not what's happening. And it's almost never what's happening when supposed 'dogpiling' happens here either. It doesn't really matter what the 'perspective' is.
So are you denying that dog piling happens here? Are you claiming everyone argues on a rational and reasonable level all the time no matter the side? Or are you saying one side is always arguing in a rational and reasonable manner? Are you saying that one person against fifty can't feel they're under attack for stating a different point of view that goes against the grain? Heck, I think what you're saying even proves my point about how people treat things as binary rather than nuanced.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
So are you denying that dog piling happens here? Are you claiming everyone argues on a rational and reasonable level all the time no matter the side? Or are you saying one side is always arguing in a rational and reasonable manner? Are you saying that one person against fifty can't feel they're under attack for stating a different point of view that goes against the grain? Heck, I think what you're saying even proves my point about how people treat things as binary rather than nuanced.
I'm not denying it every happens, as I clearly said, but most of the time 'dogpiling' is just code for 'indefensible opinion'. It does happen sure, but I would say 9 times out of 10 most of the time I see that claim it's what I just said.

And there's that term again: attack. I didn't say anything about people being attacked. I said challenge. Weird how you keep using the obviously more inflammatory word despite my clarification that word is not accurate to what we're discussing.
 
Dog-pilling certainly exists, but the only time this becomes a real issue is when a post is misinterpreted early on and then for the rest of the thread new people keep replying to it despite it being clarified or resolved. 90% of all other situations it usually occurs because someone said something really stupid, inflammatory or ignorant and they generally reveal themselves to be acting in bad faith. It sucks when it's you and you don't deserve it, but it's really not that common. This notion that people are just one wrong word or opinion away from being tarred and feathered by the mob is way over blown to put it lightly. As long as you put in a modicum of thought into your post and actually read through the thread before posting you're not going to get attacked. There are many many long time posters who have made virtual careers out of being contrarian and rarely run into issues because despite their opposing views on certain subjects they generally argue in good faith.

Irregardless in the context of this change splitting up EtcetEra is a nuclear option to fix this supposed problem, while not actually fixing it at all as it doesn't address the behavior at all. There are far better solutions like stricter moderation, etiquette rules for members and likely even technological features that could be implemented to help stop excessive replies to a post which actually address the issue itself.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Dog-pilling certainly exists, but the only time this becomes a real issue is when a post is misinterpreted early on and then for the rest of the thread new people keep replying to it despite it being clarified or resolved. 90% of all other situations it usually occurs because someone said something really stupid, inflammatory or ignorant and they generally reveal themselves to be acting in bad faith. It sucks when it's you and you don't deserve it, but it's really not that common. This notion that people are just one wrong word or opinion away from being tarred and feathered by the mob is way over blown to put it lightly. As long as you put in a modicum of thought into your post and actually read through the thread before posting you're not going to get attacked. There are many many long time posters who have made virtual careers out of being contrarian and rarely run into issues because despite their opposing views on certain subjects they generally argue in good faith.
Exactly.
 
I'm going to stop you right there, because I'm not. There is a very big difference between 'attacking' someone and 'challenging' their views.



I mean, personally, when it comes to social issues, I would say no. I think everyone should be exposed to that and it should always be openly seen to everyone. One of the key strategies of the right is to decouple social and civil rights from popular topics so that they won't be seen. If they aren't seen, then they aren't thought about as much, if they aren't thought about as much, it fosters ignorance, and ignorance fostered allows for oppression to continue. I'm all for choice in whether you want to engage in discussion about it, but I personally don't think it should be an option for anyone to avoid its existence.
All well and good, but we see it 24/7, just because we ignore it on here doesn't mean we don't read about it and emphasize about it on other avenues.
 
I'm not denying it every happens, as I clearly said, but most of the time 'dogpiling' is just code for 'indefensible opinion'. It does happen sure, but I would say 9 times out of 10 most of the time I see that claim it's what I just said.
Again, perspective plays a role in all this. You happen to be on the side that is likely dog piling, so you may not notice it as much. How often do you see a dog piling on an opinion that leans left on this board? How often do you see a dog pile on an opinion that leans right? You don't think that factors in when the board heavily leans one way and how one might approach to engaging on the issue of politics? If you know going against the grain puts you at risk of getting dog piled on, don't you understand that some people would just rather not engage knowing what the odds of a dog pile are? It's just not worth it to them and not everyone is as thick skinned as you seem to be. You can handle it; great. Not everyone can under that constant amount of being "challenged". So it makes perfect sense how some would rather not engage knowing what the results can be. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.

And there's that term again: attack. I didn't say anything about people being attacked. I said challenge. Weird how you keep using the obviously more inflammatory word despite my clarification that word is not accurate to what we're discussing.
Because you're not understanding the nuance of the argument and looking at it from a binary perspective. That's a problem I often see around here. To you, you think you're just challenging them. To them, when it's constant because this board leans left, it feels like being under attack for disagreeing. Perspective and nuance are most certainly at play here but you want to look at the text book definition and make it binary.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Again, perspective plays a role in all this. You happen to be on the side that is likely dog piling, so you may not notice it as much. How often do you see a dog piling on an opinion that leans left on this board? How often do you see a dog pile on an opinion that leans right? You don't think that factors in when the board heavily leans one way and how one might approach to engaging on the issue of politics? If you know going against the grain puts you at risk of getting dog piled on, don't you understand that some people would just rather not engage knowing what the odds of a dog pile are? It's just not worth it to them and not everyone is as thick skinned as you seem to be. You can handle it; great. Not everyone can under that constant amount of being "challenged". So it makes perfect sense how some would rather not engage knowing what the results can be. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise
Lol, I have been on the minority opinion many times here. Many times. I'm no stranger to being an unpopular opinion. But let's see, what opinions are you talking about that gets dogpiled on?

Because you're not understanding the nuance of the argument and looking at it from a binary perspective. That's a problem I often see around here. To you, you think you're just challenging them. To them, when it's constant because this board leans left, it feels like being under attack for disagreeing. Perspective and nuance are most certainly at play here but you want to look at the text book definition and make it binary.
No, it's you attempting to attach the most inflammatory term to what I'm talking about to shift it into a different conversation. I'm talking about challenging people's beliefs, especially those that are indefensible in a liberal democracy. You're talking about attacking people. Big difference.
 
Lol, I have been on the minority opinion many times here. Many times. I'm no stranger to being an unpopular opinion. But let's see, what opinions are you talking about that gets dogpiled on?
Great, you're more enlightened which goes to my point I made earlier that not everyone is at the same level as you. Your other question is a bit unfair though as has been pointed out in other threads that people usually don't keep records of instances so they can pull them out on a whim. It's a question that can't be answered reasonably unless someone has been keeping tracks of specifics to pull out when asked. So no, I don't have anything specific on hand.

No, it's you attempting to attach the most inflammatory term to what I'm talking about to shift it into a different conversation. I'm talking about challenging people's beliefs, especially those that are indefensible in a liberal democracy. You're talking about attacking people. Big difference.
So you're proving my point. You're looking at it from a binary view, and can't factor in the nuance of the situation. Perspective matters. How someone views something is a matter of perspective. You view it as being challenged, someone with a conservative view point being challenged by 50 different posters can feel attacked for having a differing view point. Perspective and perception matters but if you can't factor that in, then it makes complete sense how you can't understand why someone might not want to engage when they know they are vastly outnumbered.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Great, you're more enlightened which goes to my point I made earlier that not everyone is at the same level as you. Your other question is a bit unfair though as has been pointed out in other threads that people usually don't keep records of instances so they can pull them out on a whim. It's a question that can't be answered reasonably unless someone has been keeping tracks of specifics to pull out when asked. So no, I don't have anything specific on hand.
You don't have to have a specific example. You're going to bat for these people, though, so surely you have at least one opinion in mind that gets unfairly dogpiled on.

So you're proving my point.
No, I'm defusing your attempt to shift this conversation into something it's not.


You're looking at it from a binary view, and can't factor in the nuance of the situation. Perspective matters. How someone views something is a matter of perspective. You view it as being challenged, someone with a conservative view point being challenged by 50 different posters can feel attacked for having a differing view point. Perspective matters but if you can't factor that in, then it makes complete sense how you can't understand why someone might not want to engage when they know they are vastly outnumbered.
It really doesn't matter how they view it, as I said. It's not that I don't look at it that way, it's that it just doesn't matter to the situation we're talking about. You just want to shift this from challenging viewpoints to poor conservatives being attacked.

I'll give an example.

By you're logic, I can easily say this. You are disagreeing with me and you keep disagreeing with me. So, therefore, from my perspective, you are attacking me. It doesn't matter if you intend to or not, that's my perspective.

People are entitled to their own opinions and perspectives. They are not entitled to their own facts.
 
So I'm going to make a prediction for tonight and the near future.

The first week of this change is going to be rough as people get acquainted to the new form layouts. Some people will try to purposefully bombard the new section to validate it was a bad idea, those people will be dealt with. After the first week though, things will go back to normal. It won't have been as big a deal as people are screaming about, and it will probably lead to new types of topics gaining popularity as they wont be fighting for real-estate with EtcetEra.

Ultimately, how it will playout is that this new Eratainment Board will grow to be like the Gaming Board in topic type, but better due to lack of brand loyalty. Ultimately with threads for new Movie Releases and a larger number of threads for TV Shows, Anime and Music. Having given legitimacy due to being given its own board, more of these discussions will take place and it will grow to its own unique thing.

As for EtcetEra, after the rough first week of topics posted in the wrong board, things will normalize. Politics and World News will continue unimpeded, The joke threads will continue unimpeded, the dating, health and "am I already dead?" threads will continue as normal. Really, the only difference up front will be that we won't see the purely Entertainment Industry Threads since they will be in their own board.

In the end, people naturally hate change, and you can't please everyone. That said the community isn't changing and politically we are a progressive forum If something is broken, lets experiment and see if we can fix it. Maybe we make it better, maybe things get worse.. and if things get worse, well fixing them is just as simple as recreating the old "Community" board and moving the threads. So the only downside is the potential for there maybe being minor inconvenience if everything has to be move back.

So basically, lets just see how it works. We might like it in practice better than in theory.
 
You don't have to have a specific example. You're going to bat for these people, though, so surely you have at least one opinion in mind that gets unfairly dogpiled on.
I'm going to bat for what I feel is better for the discourse on this forum even it's opinions I don't agree with. Echo chambers are bad for discussion. If this site leans so heavily to one side to the point where a view that goes against the grain is felt that should not be spoken in fear of being dog piled on then that's bad as it stifles presenting different view points for the discussion.

No, I'm defusing your attempt to shift this conversation into something it's not.
No you're not. You're not trying to understand why someone with a conservative view might not want to engage. You assume because they want an echo chamber and I'm suggesting it's because they don't want to be dog piled on.

It really doesn't matter how they view it, as I said. It's not that I don't look at it that way, it's that it just doesn't matter to the situation we're talking about. You just want to shift this from challenging viewpoints to poor conservatives being attacked.
It absolutely matters when we're discussing on why they might not want to engage in the discussion. There's a lot more nuance of why that happens if you want to discuss that aspect and not simply the binary definition of challenged versus attacked.

I'll give an example.

By you're logic, I can easily say this. You are disagreeing with me and you keep disagreeing with me. So, therefore, from my perspective, you are attacking me. It doesn't matter if you intend to or not, that's my perspective.

People are entitled to their own opinions and perspectives. They are not entitled to their own facts.
Behavior isn't strictly defined by facts. Humans aren't robots. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to how people behave. I ask again, what percentage of dog piles do you see for someone stating a liberal view point? Now what's the percentage of dog piles for stating a conservative view point? If you're not looking at one happens almost all the time while the other does not, then you're really not paying attention to what happens here but it happens because this board heavily leans left. Now with all that laid out, knowing that your view point can be "challenged" by a ton of people every time you post a conservative view point, is it that hard to understand why some don't think it's worth engaging?

You say I'm going to bat for them where as I'm saying I understand why they don't engage as often.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
I'm going to bat for what I feel is better for the discourse on this forum even it's opinions I don't agree with. Echo chambers are bad for discussion. If this site leans so heavily to one side to the point where a view that goes against the grain is felt that should not be spoken in fear of being dog piled on then that's bad as it stifles presenting different view points for the discussion
But you're unwilling to offer even an example of what these opinions are. That says a lot right there.

No you're not. You're not trying to understand why someone with a conservative view might not want to engage. You assume because they want an echo chamber and I'm suggesting it's because they don't want to be dog piled on
I don't have to try to understand, because I do understand. But yes, I am, it's pretty obvious how you're trying to guide this argument.

It absolutely matters when we're discussing on why they ight not want to engage in the discussion. There's a lot more nuance of why that happens if you want to discuss that aspect and not simply the binary definition of challenged versus attacked
And we've already gone over the nuances of that. But you want to continue attaching the term attack to this discussion.

Behavior isn't strictly defined by facts. Humans aren't robots. There is a lot more complexity and nuance to how people behave. I ask again, what percentage of dog piles do you see for someone stating a liberal view point? Now what's the percentage of dog piles for stating a conservative view point? If you're not looking at one happens almost all the time while the other does not, then you're really not paying attention to what happens here but it happens because this board heavily leans left. Now with all that laid out, knowing that your view point can be "challenged" by a ton of people every time you post a conservative view point, is it that hard to understand why some don't think it's worth engaging?

You say I'm going to bat for them where as I'm saying I understand why they don't engage as often.
I already said I don't see dogpiling happening that often, at least not in the way you continuously try to define it. I see a lot of people who have inflammatory views that often hard to defend be challenged a lot, yes, and they often retreat because they can't defend those views, yes.

And lol at this board 'heavily leaning left.' Defined by who and what left/right? This board is more left leaning than most prominent internet communities, but that's only because most of them are far/alt right in nature.
 
So can I reply to this?

I think the change will barely affect anything (in terms of community activity), but what bothers me here is the utter lack of transparency.
 
But you're unwilling to offer even an example of what these opinions are. That says a lot right there.
We went over this already. I don't have a spread sheet with specific examples to pull up on a whim. It's a loaded question to begin with knowing that the odds of specifics being on hand are unlikely. You'd have to have forethought ahead of time knowing that this current discussion would take place to know you should have prepped for it. So no, it doesn't really say anything.

I don't have to try to understand, because I do understand. But yes, I am, it's pretty obvious how you're trying to guide this argument.
Do you understand it? Because you're the one who made the declaration that they don't engage because they want to jerk off in an echo chamber. That doesn't sound like you understand why someone who leans with conservative view points might not want to engage on discussion here. Do I need to quote you saying that to remind you?


And we've already gone over the nuances of that. But you want to continue attaching the term attack to this discussion.
Because how one perceives the interaction heavily influences on whether they engage or not. You still fail to understand that.


I already said I don't see dogpiling happening that often, at least not in the way you continuously try to define it. I see a lot of people who have inflammatory views that often hard to defend be challenged a lot, yes, and they often retreat because they can't defend those views, yes.
It's starting to make more sense now....

And lol at this board 'heavily leaning left.' Defined by who and what left/right? This board is more left leaning than most prominent internet communities, but that's only because most of them are far/alt right in nature.
... and even more sense now...

See, it's all a matter of perspective. You just don't realize that and accept your viewpoint as absolute truth.
 
So can I reply to this?

I think the change will barely affect anything (in terms of community activity), but what bothers me here is the utter lack of transparency.
They were pretty transparent, they explained why they chose the change and what the change encompasses and what they hope to accomplish, they also asked some forum members for feedback and left this thread open so all users could give feedback. When the alternative is a locked announcement post with no explanation and without consulting anyone as they could have done they were pretty transparent.
 
They were pretty transparent, they explained why they chose the change and what the change encompasses and what they hope to accomplish, they also asked some forum members for feedback and left this thread open so all users could give feedback. When the alternative is a locked announcement post with no explanation and without consulting anyone as they could have done they were pretty transparent.
Yes, they could have done worse, but they can do a lot better to. Like revealing who the "prominent" members are. I don't think such standards are unreachable
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
We went over this already. I don't have a spread sheet with specific examples to pull up on a whim. It's a loaded question to begin with knowing that the odds of specifics being on hand are unlikely. You'd have to have forethought ahead of time knowing that this current discussion would take place to know you should have prepped for it. So no, it doesn't really say anything.
I already said you don't need specific examples. Just give a general example. It's the opposite of a loaded question, it's a specific question meant to get to the root of what this discussion is about. And a second time now, you've avoided doing that.

Do you understand it? Because you're the one who made the declaration that they don't engage because they want to jerk off in an echo chamber. That doesn't sound like you understand why someone who leans with conservative view points might not want to engage on discussion here. Do I need to quote you saying that to remind you?
I know what I said, and that's why I understand it. That's ultimately what they want. They don't want to be challenged.

Because how one perceives the interaction heavily influences on whether they engage or not. You still fail to understand that.
I understand it, I just also understand it's bullshit. To be fair, there may be some conservatives who don't think that explicitly and are just absorbing these ideas, but I would say at least 75% of them know very well what they believe and what they are saying isn't defensible. The fact that you are unable to give even one general example of an opinion that is 'unfairly dogpiled' on says everything about this.

Again, in my perspective, you are attacking me because you keep disagreeing with me. You're not attacking me. You're using a lot of right-wing style actics to try and shift the conversation in a different direction, but you're not attacking me. It doesn't matter what my perspective is. And you, nor anyone else, should coddle me and my flawed POW if I can't or refuse to see that.

It's starting to make more sense now....



... and even more sense now...

See, it's all a matter of perspective. You just don't realize that and accept your viewpoint as absolute truth.
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense. Now that I pointed out your strategy any degree of specifics or attempts to address what I said in those sentences vanish. Not that a lot of them were there to begin with.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
They were pretty transparent, they explained why they chose the change and what the change encompasses and what they hope to accomplish, they also asked some forum members for feedback and left this thread open so all users could give feedback. When the alternative is a locked announcement post with no explanation and without consulting anyone as they could have done they were pretty transparent.
This thread was explicitly not about giving feedback
 
Yes, they could have done worse, but they can do a lot better to. Like revealing who the "prominent" members are. I don't think such standards are unreachable
It would be pretty crappy for the staff to give a list of who they consulted without their consent. And those people could always choose to come forward, but why would they open themselves up to being witchhunted by users unhappy with the change, or users upset that they themselves were not deemed "important" enough to ask.

This thread was explicitly not about giving feedback
Ok, well regardless people have been doing so and the staff is aware they are doing so. They could have just locked it at any point. At the very least they are providing users an outlet to vent.
 
Perception plays a role in all things, but just because people perceive things one way doesn't make them valid concerns. Way too many posters perceive challenges to their opinions and statements as attacks because they aren't used to people asking for clarification and justification for said beliefs. Especially when those challenging them often have a far stronger grasp and breadth of knowledge on the subject. Far too many people think that opinions and beliefs are sacred and don't need to be backed up with reasoning and facts. Sure having a lot of people push back is intimidating but for a lot of these people the difference between 5 and 50 doesn't really matter. The fact that any number of people are challenging them to explain and justify their beliefs is cause enough to feel attacked.

You're chasing shadows with this notion that any non-liberal or left learning person on this board is mobbed for their beliefs, this is not a real issue the vast majority of the time. What is an issue are posters who refuse to learn from their mistakes and hold a grudge for bans or challenges to their post and constantly complain about it, as well as the large number of uninformed posters who don't know a dog whistle and bad faith argument when they see it and thus still fall into this trap that beliefs and opinions are somehow valid stances all their own at the end of the day. It's due to that ignorance that you see posters talk about how they're afraid to post in a thread for fear of being dog-pilled or banned, but just because they perceive things to be that way doesn't actually make them that way, because that kind of stuff just doesn't happen most of the time.

Again, if you take just the smallest amount of time to think over your post before replying and actually reading through a thread and actually try to understand what it's about and what people are saying you're more than likely going to come out of it just fine.

Ok, well regardless people have been doing so and the staff is aware they are doing so. They could have just locked it at any point. At the very least they are providing users an outlet to vent.
Talk about setting a low bar.
 

Shauni

Banned
Member
Perception plays a role in all things, but just because people perceive things one way doesn't make them valid concerns. Way too many posters perceive challenges to their opinions and statements as attacks because they aren't used to people asking for clarification and justification for said beliefs. Especially when those challenging them often have a far stronger grasp and breadth of knowledge on the subject. Far too many people think that opinions and beliefs are sacred and don't need to be backed up with reasoning and facts. Sure having a lot of people push back is intimidating but for a lot of these people the difference between 5 and 50 doesn't really matter. The fact that any number of people are challenging them to explain and justify their beliefs is cause enough to feel attacked.

You're chasing shadows with this notion that any non-liberal or left learning person on this board is mobbed for their beliefs, this is not a real issue the vast majority of the time. What is an issue are posters who refuse to learn from their mistakes and hold a grudge for bans or challenges to their post and constantly complain about it, as well as the large number of uninformed posters who don't know a dog whistle and bad faith argument when they see it and thus still fall into this trap that beliefs and opinions are somehow valid stances all their own at the end of the day. It's due to that ignorance that you see posters talk about how they're afraid to post in a thread for fear of being dog-pilled or banned, but just because they perceive things to be that way doesn't actually make them that way, because that kind of stuff just doesn't happen most of the time.

Again, if you take just the smallest amount of time to think over your post before replying and actually reading through a thread and actually try to understand what it's about and what people are saying you're more than likely going to come out of it just fine.
I think you're kinder to these 'conservatives' than I am lol, but basically on the same page.

Where in the OP is this explicit?
The OP itself. It is not, 'Here is some ideas, what do you think about them?' It's 'Here's some things, they are happening.' Where in the OP, or any post from any admin or mod in this thread, has it been stated that this thread was for feedback?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top