Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2023 10:41:53 GMT
So basically, the problem is the right. Ban the right and the left will live is peace and harmony forever and ever in the EU. Nonsense. Who suggested banning the right? You can attack that straw man of an idea if you wish but it serves no constructive purpose because no one thinks the right can or should be banned. I did, and as a solution to the problem that you explained so enthusiastically. Where else was your post heading? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 10:52:58 GMT
Steve the disinhibition effect of taking away online anonymity has been debunked many a time.
Research suggests that non-anonymous accounts are not only more aggressive on average than anonymous accounts, but they are also far more influential in encouraging other users to join social-media pile-ons.
Perhaps, but most of the facebook forums I have been on rarely degenerate to to depths that can sometimes be plumbed on forums such as this. Though they do also act as places where conduct might be less inhibited than in real life. For one thing, if a person you are talking to in real life says something that makes you think him an idiot, you are unlikely to say so if he is a lot bigger than you through a reluctance to suffer a smack in the mouth. On any internet forum people would tend to be less inhibited at expressing their inner negativity. All the more so where they also have anonymity.. dont agree in the slightest. Facebook has long been known as one of the worst platforms for bullying trolling and online harrasment.
Sites this like this are far more moderate by comparison. You are simply engaging in the "grass is greener on the other side" to back up your flawed view that online anonymity is the problem on the interwebby , when the evidnece shows that haters will still hate , trolls will still troll ,and bullys will still bully no matter what.
This is from a decade ago , and still remains largely true today.....
Facebook Worst For Trolling, Says Study
A survey finds online bullying is most prevalent on Facebook and 19-year-old males are most frequently victimised.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 10:54:34 GMT
you validate my point that fitness for office is in the eye of the beholder.
I dont believe keir starmer and new labour are fit for office , but it wont stop others voting for or against them. Same with Trump.
Though clearly Trump is a far dodgier character than any of the others. This is just demonstrably obvious. But to go into detail about how and why would be a diversion from the main topic so I am going to leave it there. Dont agree. To many in the uk , trump was nothing more than an irrelevant foreign eccentric , and jeremy corbyn a far larger problem that terrified many people at the thought of him becoming prime minister. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 11:06:11 GMT
Its probably a diversion and should be on a separate thread but I think there is a difference between Corbyn and Trump.
I don't agree with the policies of either man but fully accept they are entitled to put those forward and if the majority vote for them then that is the nature of democracy.
The reason I would argue Trump is unfit for office is not his policies (although I do not favour them) but his mental capacity. There appears to be clear signs of excessive narcissism and hence inability to separate his own interests from those of the office to which he seeks to the extent that he appears prepared to overthrow democracy itself to protect himself and his ego.
While I think Corbyn's policies were wrong, I don't see the same flaws in him. Understand others may disagree. That's cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 11:13:22 GMT
Anyway back to the essence of the thread and this forum specifically.
Darling is right that different users want different things from this forum and surely most if not all want it to be fun and lively. The question is where should the line be drawn and it would be good to understand the thinking of the moderators (or owner) on this
Surely no one wants a dry academic debate but equally surely no one wants a forum where two posters simply shout "wankerrr" "tosserr" at each other all day. Somewhere between those extremes the balance must lie.
In theory the mind zone operates to a higher bar than the rest of the forum (which at times doesn't seem far above the "wankerr, tosserr" level). One option may be to flip the forum such that the entire forum apart from say one designated sub forum operates to "mind zone" standards. In that one designated forum those who want to shower others with insults can play with likeminded beings.
Would that proposal be desirable to the members or do they prefer the status quo?
Same question to the moderators (and owner) ?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 11:17:54 GMT
Its probably a diversion and should be on a separate thread but I think there is a difference between Corbyn and Trump. I don't agree with the policies of either man but fully accept they are entitled to put those forward and if the majority vote for them then that is the nature of democracy. The reason I would argue Trump is unfit for office is not his policies (although I do not favour them) but his mental capacity. There appears to be clear signs of excessive narcissism and hence inability to separate his own interests from those of the office to which he seeks to the extent that he appears prepared to overthrow democracy itself to protect himself and his ego. While I think Corbyn's policies were wrong, I don't see the same flaws in him. Understand others may disagree. That's cool. well i brought corbyn into the thread to help explain to steve that people viewed his hero jeremy the way he views trump. Trump is a diversion though.
We cant vote trump into or out of power ( personally i cant see how joe biden can be viewed from outside of america as an improvement either but thats another matter) but we could with jeremy corbyn and his labour party , and even today , steve cant accept the majority didnt share his view .
Corbyn clearly was a different character to trump , with differnt flaws , but that didnt make him less , but more dangerous to the uk population.
This hanging onto the edge of our seats about who is the president of a foreign superpower and what their flaws are show the reality that scotland and england are nothing more than small vassal puppets of washington.
Perhaps its time to stop people like jeremy running for leadership of uk political parties , turn westminster into a museum , and gain the vote for an american presdent as beffiting our status as a satellite of the united states.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 11:21:08 GMT
Same question to the moderators (and owner) ? The owner can run the site as he sees fit , and the mods do the backing up of his rules. Its that simple.
Personally i think this forum has the right touch about it. It appears well run , well moderated ( that is not overly moderated to the point of quashing debate as i have seen elswhere) and isnt a jerk circle of nodding heads.
If it isnt broken ,why fix it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 29, 2023 11:30:05 GMT
Personally I think it is broken or at least sub-optimal in allowing the level of playground abuse that is all too prevalent. My view is just one view though, which is why I asked what is the view of other members and for an explanation of their thinking from the moderators and Tinculin. I fully accept that ultimately it is their train set - they can do as they wish - but surely valid to ask them for their views?
I respect your right to hold a contrary view of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 11:36:25 GMT
Personally I think it is broken or at least sub-optimal in allowing the level of playground abuse that is all too prevalent. As i have said up the thread , show me a platform where this nirvana of politeness and lack of playground abuse exists?
As a forum member i have given you my view. It isnt broken , so dont fix it. Its about achieving balance , not strangling debate because some cant handle the baser side of human nature.
This forum achieves that balance in my view .
That goes without saying. It also works both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 29, 2023 12:38:19 GMT
Dappy, as long as you are mentally consigning half the population to 'a silo' or pretending some handy bogeyman invented internet politics in 2016, you are actually making the problem slightly worse by refusing to engage using reason. Your absurd, counterfactual positions make polarisation unavoidable It is self-evidently obvious that Trump is unfit for office ........... You think I would have voted for the other shower ? The question to ask is why a country with that many people and an ethic that applauds success rather than taxing it out of existence ended up with the complete shower it did to choose from at the ballot box. I'd have voted for him (and i remind you as i have said before I did not give a stuff about yank politics until it appeared my youngest was about to become a GI Bride and probably a US Citizen; that she did not is another story but she looked like walking that path at about the time Trump started his campaign for the nomination, and so i started taking an interest, and to someone in my situation he seemed the obvious choice. I suspect those who voted for him felt exactly the same.
If you want better politicians, find ways of having better applicants.
Which brings me to the London Mayoral election, What is it about the guy forced to withdraw were the left scared of ?
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jun 29, 2023 13:22:59 GMT
Dappy, as long as you are mentally consigning half the population to 'a silo' or pretending some handy bogeyman invented internet politics in 2016, you are actually making the problem slightly worse by refusing to engage using reason. Your absurd, counterfactual positions make polarisation unavoidable Actually his post was a very thoughtful contribution and made a lot of sense. It is self-evidently obvious that Trump is unfit for office yet millions of Americans seem to view him as some sort of political messiah who is victim of a massive establishmentarian conspiracy. That so many believe this requires explanation and Dappy has put forward reasonable arguments as to how that has come to be, and most of what he has said stacks up. He did not say that the internet was invented in 2016 which is just an untrue straw man. What he said was actually more nuanced, that around about that time a certain populist operator whom he named as Steve Bannon, cynically realised the potential for using the internet to establish echo chambers where false narratives useful for his cause could become established. Other right wing populists have learned from this. If the left also learns to do this on the same scale we really will be in trouble. I have always thought that suggesting that someone refuses to engage using reason was hardly complimentary as well as accusing one of absurd counterfactual input, accompanies by not one example, impolite and possibly trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jun 29, 2023 13:29:08 GMT
Personally I think it is broken or at least sub-optimal in allowing the level of playground abuse that is all too prevalent. As i have said up the thread , show me a platform where this nirvana of politeness and lack of playground abuse exists?
As a forum member i have given you my view. It isnt broken , so dont fix it. Its about achieving balance , not strangling debate because some cant handle the baser side of human nature.
This forum achieves that balance in my view .
That goes without saying. It also works both ways.
The issue is not WHAT is said. It is HOW it is said. Surely everyone's vocabulary can find inoffensive words to say the same thing. Using offensive words just infâmes an offensive reply. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jun 29, 2023 13:34:10 GMT
As i have said up the thread , show me a platform where this nirvana of politeness and lack of playground abuse exists?
As a forum member i have given you my view. It isnt broken , so dont fix it. Its about achieving balance , not strangling debate because some cant handle the baser side of human nature.
This forum achieves that balance in my view .
That goes without saying. It also works both ways.
The issue is not WHAT is said. It is HOW it is said. Surely everyone's vocabulary can find inoffensive words to say the same thing. Using offensive words just infâmes an offensive reply. Ive explained my reasoning up the thread numerous times , on how in real life , we dont all walk about politely discussing what goes on around us. Im not sure why you think it wil be any different on a forum. Bad language , piss taking and arguments are all part of everyday life.
The issue can very much be what is said , no matter how you say it. Some people are unable to accept difference in opinion. Others find themselves in such a minority view they cant handle debate , and often flounce off in a huff.
Others slyly run running to mummy demanding rules are enforced in their favour because the big boy on the interwebby disagreed with them.
There are some good forums , forum owners , and mods , and there are bad ones . I wouldnt want to be a mod or forum owner , it must be similar to herding cats.
If someone cant handle harsh words , or a spade being called a spade , then perhaps internet forums isnt the place for you.
Ive been posting online now for something like 15 years or so , and i can see nothing particularly wrong with this forum , or anything worse compared to others i have participated on . In fact as i have said up the thread , it seems well run and moderated.
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jun 29, 2023 13:34:16 GMT
I'd missed that Carty was a moderator. Good. He did a good job on the old forum (while woefully unresourced) I wonder if the moderators (and owner - is that Tinculin's title) could talk between themselves and advise clearly their thinking as to why they do not consider it a good idea to adopt "mind zone" rules to the majority of the forum and (if considered necessary) having a single subforum ("mindless zone") where playground abuse and name calling is accepted? Presumably if they are content to leave forum as it is, they are accepting the reality of and endorsing the namecalling and insults that proliferate. Is in their view, completely unlimited "free speech" worth its costs? This place is more like a social club than a debating society, Dappy. If it's a debating society, it's a complete failure. I've not seen a single person change their political stance in all the time I've been on this and the previous forum. That's true of all the 'debating' forums on the internet. So, if it doesn't work as an effective debating society, what does it work as? It must work as something because it has survived while 'debating' forums have failed all around it. As I said, my view is that it's a success because the moderation is keyed more to a social club than a debating platform. I don't understand why you aren't content with the Mind Zone. It's a simple but brilliant idea. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. A debating cmub is not intended to change any minds. It is to find flaws in logic and consistency in the arguments of the others. Whether someone changes his mind is not in the gift of the one who argues more coherently than the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 29, 2023 13:41:57 GMT
This place is more like a social club than a debating society, Dappy. If it's a debating society, it's a complete failure. I've not seen a single person change their political stance in all the time I've been on this and the previous forum. That's true of all the 'debating' forums on the internet. So, if it doesn't work as an effective debating society, what does it work as? It must work as something because it has survived while 'debating' forums have failed all around it. As I said, my view is that it's a success because the moderation is keyed more to a social club than a debating platform. I don't understand why you aren't content with the Mind Zone. It's a simple but brilliant idea. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. A debating cmub is not intended to change any minds. It is to find flaws in logic and consistency in the arguments of the others. Whether someone changes his mind is not in the gift of the one who argues more coherently than the other. So, the purpose of a debate is to discover that you were right all along? Seems pretty pointless. This place is more like a social club than a debating forum. It is a social club built around a debating format. If we wanted to merely debate, we would go somewhere like Twitter. But we would be anonymous there. That's why we come here (well, most of us). This place is about its characters for a lot of us: the people we love to love and love to hate. |
|
