the funniest part of the CSM was when one of the goonswarm reps described the coathanger monster fleet complete with an infographic at a CCP event and got booted off the CSM
How about you just prove them wrong in a demonstrable fashion which is infinitely more persuasive and powerful to the people viewing the discussion than just whole sale silence things?
I dont want certain ideas spread, so I do my best to dissuade people form believing them. I don’t think the most convincing method is to just not have any discussion at all.
I think the really dumb crap gets disproved really quickly but surprisingly that doesn't always end the discussion. Like I can get into a discussion with Boilrig about one particular detail, point out how he's wrong but he just keeps going.
The issue is that proving them wrong doesn't matter to them, all they care about is getting that initial idea pushed into the thoughts of viewers, and that since they are often arguing with the intent to sow disarray and convert people they won't actually engage with you debate-wise aside from looking for the easiest "haha but X so gotcha try again". They'll totally engage with you, then demand people "look into it themselves", providing a free avenue for them to remind the reader "hey go look up what I told you ;)" since they'll refuse to cite sources themselves. They WANT people to be looking it up themselves, but in the way they want.
Engaging with them in a form that isn't a ban is simply not going to cut it. You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into, and when they are peddling conspiracy crack, they didn't reason themselves into the position in the first place.
I'm struggling to understand who this "they" is.
I think these people are a stark minority and probably just not used to the levels of effort people put into their posts in these sections, which is very very uncharacteristically high. That said, Politics is absolutely jam packed with misinformation in general on both sides and always has and so to be quite honest I'm sure you've found yourself in the camp of these people you hate at least once.
Being sure of yourself or any presented fact in any complex/heated political discussion is about as risky as an alcohol fueled session in Vegas.
I'm not sure just how simple spotting these people is gonna be; while it is true people like Boilrig can be seen for what they are very easily, some are much more subtle in this. It is true that it is impossible to "prove wrong" anyone who isn't even clear on what he's saying (whether you try to prove it to that person or the audience is irrelevant) but that doesn't mean we should go right to banning the person outright. If we will require sources for each and every claim (not just unpopular ones) you will find a lot less posting done, due to that requiring considerably more effort.
Unless, of course, you mean only resorting to bans to the obvious cases (even as it is recognized this obviousness is subjective and based on previous experience)?
It really doesn’t matter that you can’t change their mind. It isn’t about them and I stated that clearly.
Where is my council invite, i represent group of a most influencial and manipulative nation according to this forum, heck we even got our own discord with 50+ users.
Russia is a must or else nukies.
The whole reason the political stance of the council is important is two fold. First, everyone has their biases. Everyone. There is almost no way of getting around that at an individual level, and such biases become that much more apparent when a group is made up of like minded individuals. Second, rolling off that it helps promote the legitimacy of the council. Enough people complain about things being echo chambers and full of whatever, having a council full of whichever side of the isle is only going to exacerbate that. By outwardly showing, at least at face value, that the members of the council lean one way or another helps promote transparency in regards to the decisions they do make.
I called it first, sorry.
actually i called it first.
Right on first page.
You could make 3 spots voted for and 2 spots completely random, picked from willing participants.
Yes comrade, just how Ukraine called firsts on the Donbass region you call first on the seat at the council.
Finally my chance to ruin SH for good
if I'm elected I'll make shitposting great again
It was easy in Bee York's case recently cause the dude actually admitted to basically just doing it for the shitposts.
If anything there should be a push for more re-active content in the form of fact checking by the users, but there probably aren't many people ready to do something like that.
I don't think it needs to be so "reactive" as much as the burden of proof should be on the person making the claims. If you say something so outrageous that people are quoting you and asking for sources, and you either ignore/fail to provide sources, then you are failing your obligations as a poster in PD. If someone posts stupid sources, then it should become reactive.
To throw my hat into the ring, and I don't know how much this is worth, but I really only have one problem with the way this thread has been moderated lately: giving way too much leeway to obvious contrarians who make a point to avoid making any legitimate arguments for their points, and instead dedicate all of their time to drive-by shitposting, often ignoring literal pages of people calling them out on their shit, only to snipe one post that's admittedly a stupid counter-argument and then disappear again.
We've seen it time and time again. The infamous Tudd ("Answer me, Tudd!" became a local meme for a reason, remember); Boilrig with his constant "this is fine, everything is fine, the British empire will rise again" every time something is posted about Brexit fucking over the UK, yet mysteriously disappearing any time he's asked to explain how it's fine; more recently, actors like Bee York; and I'm sure there are others I can't think of right now.
My point is, it's really not a mystery whether or not these people are counter-productive to discussion, or if they're toxic to this community: they make the same kinds of posts ad nauseum; the forum unanimously and collectively calls them out, right-wing and left-wing alike, over and over again; the arguments they make to defend their positions are weak and circular at best, and non-existent at worse; and at times their behavior and coding literally becomes a fucking meme ("I just found this interesting, guys...").
I don't think we need a council to pick out these obvious bad apple. I think some sort of dropbox or running tally of reports or something could be implemented to remedy this issue. Have the same user constantly getting called out for pulling the same shit and disappearing whenever the heat is so much as nudged up? They're probably a bad apple and should be given a warning kick to the rear. Keep acting up after their warning ban is over? Kick their ass to the curb and hope the door hits them on the way out.
We get enough legitimate debate on this forum. I don't believe people who say this forum is in any way a leftist echo chamber: see any fucking thread about guns to see how farcical such a statement is.
We don't need these obvious toxic contrarians shitting up the otherwise legitimate discussions we often have. They don't serve any purpose whatsoever, beyond maybe uniting the entire political spectrum against their horseshit.
Those are my two cents on the matter, anyways.
Put Boilrig and Tudd alone and in few weeks we will have new Reich on Facepunch.
They can serve as the Devil's Advocates
Lord knows, we need a couple, some users are just as nuts as these 2, the only difference is they sit on agreeable patches of the garden.
If you want, I can be the evil right-wing avocado. Problem is that aside from guns, I'm fairly syndicalist with my views regarding state-banks and the like.
No offence but I think there are better people for the job grenadiac, zilla55 (wherever they are), Scorpius
Right wing advocate doesn't really mesh with that Nazis = Socialists thread you posted because "it's interesting"
Yes, because I'm clearly a goosestepping nazi planning the 4th reich via pigeonshit moonshine.
Missing the point entirely there, as usual.
You posted a video that makes a blatantly incorrect claim. You were called out on it, and said something like "If you want to argue, argue about the sources, he lists his sources"
You were then shown, correctly, that his sources aren't actually reputable or reliable sources, which either means you don't care about honest journalism or you've got some agenda you're pushing irrespective of how bad your sources are.
Someone that does that is probably the worst fit for any council intending to improve the quality of any subforum.
Uh oh yeah, pick me on the council as one of the moderate-right wing.
Like, hmm, bootstraps, guns, freedom, pro-life, maga, damn immigrants, capitalism, get off my lawn...
See? I'm the total package. Any previous posts indicating otherwise is FAKE NEWS.
@onontague is the best candidate for right wing obviously
This is getting juicy already.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.