105 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

Well, he has a point. The Latin word for left is "Sinister," and it's no mistake that Sinister got that connotation.

Those lefties, man, always hanging onto your stabbing hand while they reach for their knives.

As to dichotomy: Yes, "For us or against us" is generally a fallacy. However, a little strife is absolutely necessary for any sort of change, good or bad.

[Dryth]

However, a little strife is absolutely necessary for any sort of change, good or bad.

But it's possible to engage in strife without false dichotomy. Fallacy makes it easy to find cause for conflict, but doesn't guarantee that it's justified; Refer to xenophobia during the Red Scare, as a hopefully-not-loaded example.

If I went around drawing arbitrary lines in the sand as a means of defending against accusations of poor character, what's to stop me from attacking you based on some random point that we disagree on?

[SteveT]

Well, buried beneath the character attacks, Ditto does have legitimate complaints against the way this forum is run. It is very liberal-oriented, and without any real rule enforcement, other opinions tend to get smothered out. Look at threads on abortion and gun control, and you'll see how conservatives get ganged up on to the point where it's difficult to stay in the debate simply because you end up with 3 pages to refute. And that's when the points the opponent makes are even worth refuting. A statement like "Bush is a good president" is a drop of blood in a sharkpool around here. The dichotomy in this forum is very real.

Now, yes, bringing character attacks into things is a bad strategy. It doesn't advance your point, it doesn't put people in a civil mood, and it makes you unpopular to the point where people will disagree with whatever you say just based on general principle.

Look past those, however, and you have a real dichotomy with the liberal and conservative posters, which happens to be unbalanced. For civil, productive discussion to occur in here, someone has to say, "Hey liberals, why don't you back off a bit so we conservatives can play too?" in some form or another. That's what Ditto's trying to do, and that's the type of strife that can lead to change.

[Oberon Storm]

No one has said conservatives can't play too. The only reason they get ganged up on is because there are more liberals here than conservatives. I myself would like to see more conservatives. But damnit, bring something to the table other than "You silly Socialists" or "You liberals make me laugh."

[SteveT]

But damnit, bring something to the table other than "You silly Socialists" or "You liberals make me laugh."

And that's another part of the problem. Conservative arguments aren't even taken seriously. Everyone seems to think that's all conservatives are saying.

[Oberon Storm]

No. That's all Ditto is saying.

[Alistia]

What rule am I breaking NOW?

I don't need you to break a rule to want your ability to enrage me with your idiocy limited. I'd just need you to break a rule to actually do it.


Also, that bit you said I said about shooting someone who voted for Bush...


...I forget what thread it's in, but I posted in a reply to something along the lines of "If Kerry wins, I'll shoot the nearest democrat"... and I indeed reply with what you said I did.

Be offended if you want by it, I don't really care. However, you'll note that my amount of name calling and condescendance is usually reserved for those who walk into it (meaning I've grown tired of you, and no longer care about cradling your ego or self-esteem)

[SteveT]

That's the only part of his posts you're focusing on.

[Oberon Storm]

You're right, He goes out of his way to piss people off. Why should I focus on anything else? Why should I take him seriously?

On a side note to Alista's post in response to Ditto, I went back and re-read Ditto's post. I agree. I think HoW would make a fine mod. But I don't think it is for the same reasons.

[SteveT]

*Avoids ad hominems against other posters*

Because MAYBE, if you read more than the insulting part and didn't let his tone dictate your opinion of him, he has something to say. The way he's acting is how certain liberals here tend to come off to the conservative. Sure it's exaggerated for emphasis, but for a lot of people, it's just a taste of their own medicine, only since he's the minority, he gets singled out.

Ditto, if I'm wrong in my interperatation, feel free to correct me.

[Oberon Storm]

My stance is that just by being insulting in his posts, his posts become irrelevant and void.

I hope I have never come off as an ass like that. I certainly don't mean to if I do. But it has been a while since I have seen any of the liberals act this way. I won't mention their names, but they stopped showing up. I will concede that little, if anything, was done about things they said.<_<

[SteveT]

That first sentence is what we call the style over substance fallacy.

Anyway, I agree that the problem has lessened lately. However, it still persists, and that is bad.

[Oberon Storm]

Style over substance? You said I wasn't looking past the insults. I said you are right but at the same time I don't care. If he wants me to see anything else then don't insult me.

[SteveT]

The style over substance fallacy is the one in which you believe that how someone chooses to say something influences the validity of their claims.

It's probably the most common fallacy and the easiest to fall into. I doubt anyone is 100% innocent of it.

[Alakhriveion]

Everyone shut up. Ditto's crime was addressing other memebers, as you're doing now, and personizaling a conflict, as you're doing now. Shut the HELL up.

I'm closing this thread. If anyone wants to talk about the topic, make a new one.

[GraniteJJ]

I'd just like to say a few things.

I respect that Alak closed this. I wish he had said a bit more though.

First, SteveT, I understand and respect your comments about liberals "ganging up" on conservatives, but on these forums, the conservatives are outnumbered. That is hardly the fault of the mods or the way the forums are structured. What would you like us to do? Have a limited number of people allowed to post? It just can't work that way.

Many conservatives come, feel pressured and leave. If they think that the debate isn't worth their time, then I guess it isn't, and they don't have to stay. The same happens with liberals, who somehow feel this debating is out of their league.

The problem with Ditto is not where he stands being opposite the mods. Look at me. I was a mod before arunma, and nearly everything he said was against what I believed. He was never, not even once, jailed, banned, removed from this section, or even reprimanded for crying out loud. He was respectful, and even though he was against me in everything, I respected what he said and he did the same for me. And now, he's a mod. That's good behaviour.

Hero of Winds is a conservative chap. He's opposed to most things arunma believes politically. But, at least 98% of the time (and we all have our bad days, me especially ), he is respectful. He's a decent guy, and he makes his comment thoroughly, and puts decent effort in. Sure, it would be nice to see him as a mod. Of course, you cannot nominate mods...and you certainly can't make one of them have veto power over the others. That defeats the purpose of having many...

Ditto, you are being very condescending, however, I might add you aren't the only one. In addition, it isn't entirely your fault.

Threads in Contro seem to have strange lifespans. They start of small, only one or two people posting within its first day. Then, all of a sudden, everyone seems to notice it is there. And, as activity grows, length of posts grow. Slowly but surely, the posts swell to huge sizes, and everyone is trying to say everything on the subject. Then, our issue arises.

It seems that once the posts get to large, the posters/readers reach some sort of critical point of caring. As soon as the posts get too big, people stop reading. The main points and ideas are lost. And, because one person misunderstands another person, insults begin to fly. And then, the thread begins to degrade until it gets to people saying a whole lot of nothing and making insults at eachother. Normally, the thread gets bumped back into gear when a poster comes in and says "What the fuck is this?" Then, they make a significant posts, and people go back to posting respectfully.

This is a reason most flaming goes unnoticed. It is often mild, and will often take care of itself before a mod even gets to it (it has happened to me, where I have logged off, and an hour later I'll come back and a flame war will have happened, subsided, and the thread resumed). And at this point, what can the mods be expected to do? Chastise the members and close a thread for a problem that they were mature enough to resolve themselves? Well, that hardly seems fair. If they've worked things out, what is there to moderate?

Yes, Ditto was being a tad crude, but weren't a few others? I mean, just because someone throws the first stone, doesn't mean you are allowed to get out your trebuchet and launch a boulder back. If you take the moral higher ground, then the conflict CAN and WILL be resolved faster and more efficiently, and most likely before a mod catches it and wants to throw your asses in prison.

So, play nice or you all go to bed without dessert.