• Forums Discussion v3 - Post about Tudd and win a 1 month ban
    5,023 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BackSapper;52694161]I was literally thinking about this a couple of hours ago. I had a post all typed out, then deleted it as it was sounding whiny. A CTRL+F on SH for Tudd's name brought up 13 results, which all of the threads he created was news about hate crimes, bigotry, borderline polidicks topics, social justice warrior hate, and terrorism. All the threads are of course posted within the past three-five days. He's within his rights to post it all, but wouldn't you think that he's trying to still push his own ideological agenda?[/QUOTE] Just post the news you want to see, then. [editline]18th September 2017[/editline] Honestly, I'd be okay with making discussing Tudd bannable in this thread. Outside of reporting and talking to moderators about it, a lot of posts in this thread boil down to the kind of bickering that can't be acted upon. These posts aren't accomplishing anything.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;52695480]Just post the news you want to see, then.[/QUOTE] My point is that it's borderline spam. We already have pretty strict posting guidelines. If I decided to load up my favorite news aggregate and posted the same news topics over and over, what makes me better then what Tudd does? I guess from now on I will try to find as many great news stories of puppies and children to clog up SH to counter act what he posts - at least that sounds like what you want me to do.
[QUOTE=BackSapper;52695523]My point is that it's borderline spam. We already have pretty strict posting guidelines. If I decided to load up my favorite news aggregate and posted the same news topics over and over, what makes me better then what Tudd does? I guess from now on I will try to find as many great news stories of puppies and children to clog up SH to counter act what he posts - at least that sounds like what you want me to do.[/QUOTE] I don't remember entirely, but I think the mods' answer to your questions was exactly what wauterboi said. At least, I'm pretty sure that was the answer. It was a while back about this same topic.
Impeach tudd when?
[QUOTE=sam6420;52695582]Use specific examples, that seems to get a better response than "I don't like tudd or his posts or threads they're spam."[/QUOTE] Look at the last 24 hours of SH [T]https://i.snag.gy/fbacuX.jpg[/T] of these 31 topics active in the last hour, 12 are from tudd, which is a bit over a third. And while I wouldnt mind as much if they were varied topics or really important events, its obvious that most of these threads are minor events that happen to support tudds worldviews. Not bannable directly, sure, but important to realize. And its clear he is cherry picking even within his articles. For example in [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579059"]this thread[/URL], He framed the situation (in his snippet) as a single student angerly protesting that a professor didn't get fired merely for the accusations against him for sexual harassment, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/nyregion/rochester-university-sexual-harassment.html?mcubz=3"]when the reality is actually a lot deeper[/URL]. To be fair, we all make mistakes, I certainly do, but this happens so damn often with tudd that its clear that hes doing this on purpose. Currently, he is in a thread he made arguing why climate change isnt as a big a deal as others make it, and [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143"]its going about as well as you would think[/URL]. Should we ban tudd over this? I dont think so. Ill admit a while back I was worried that people may actually fall for his nonsense, but its clear now that most arent. He's like the Jeb of SH. He can say whatever but no one really takes him seriously, except maybe as an ironic meme.
I'd feel more lenient towards it if everything he posted didn't have such a thinly veiled attempt to push his political ideologies, or if he'd own up and admit to it instead of feigning ignorance.
[QUOTE=kyle877;52695869]I'd feel more lenient towards it if everything he posted didn't have such a thinly veiled attempt to push his political ideologies, or if he'd own up and admit to it instead of feigning ignorance.[/QUOTE] Or if he would actually read. I know he can read, the way his post written in [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143[/url] show that he is reading. But the content of his post can only exist if he did not read, so I feel this is not enter in as shitpost, even though he is reading. Example, [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143&p=52695816&viewfull=1#post52695816[/url] This post demonstrate. Or User Killuah do better: [QUOTE=Killuah;52695918] Tudd has gon from -posting that shit, biased opinionated article that grossly missinterprets the study cited to - editing out his nonsensical comment on it when realizing that his initial joy of finding something that apparently scientifically proves his "climate change believers and progressives are so bad" world view to -posting it again one post later to - ignoring posts that prove how shit the articles are to -I don't know which points you are talking about please read the whole paper and present me the points so I don't have to to - selective reading when presented with an abstract that proves how shit the article and how wrong and dangerous his opinion is to - well maybe there is more in the paper than what the abstract says to -let's argue about what an abstract is It's like arguing with the embodyment of Cartman.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=da space core;52695859]Look at the last 24 hours of SH [T]https://i.snag.gy/fbacuX.jpg[/T] of these 31 topics active in the last hour, 12 are from tudd, which is a bit over a third. And while I wouldnt mind as much if they were varied topics or really important events, its obvious that most of these threads are minor events that happen to support tudds worldviews. Not bannable directly, sure, but important to realize. And its clear he is cherry picking even within his articles. For example in [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579059"]this thread[/URL], He framed the situation (in his snippet) as a single student angerly protesting that a professor didn't get fired merely for the accusations against him for sexual harassment, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/nyregion/rochester-university-sexual-harassment.html?mcubz=3"]when the reality is actually a lot deeper[/URL]. [/QUOTE] I didn't snip that thread on purpose to make it only appear a single student was outraged. The story was a hunger strike by a student over a accused professor. If people couldn't figure out there was a bigger controversy from a professor with over 10 people accusing him of sexual harassment charges from the first source or second one that I posted, that is on their lack of reading comprehension. What I highlighted in the OP was the recent development with the situation. Obviously now with the vigil turned riot, nobody needs to point that out though.
[QUOTE=freaka;52694164]If you honestly care so much about what someone posts on an internet forum its time to go outside.[/QUOTE] that's a cheap cop out my man of course i care about my browsing experience in a forum that i browse what is up with people thinking you can't be reasonably bothered by trump propaganda
[QUOTE=Tudd;52695894]I didn't snip that thread on purpose to make it only appear a single student was outraged. The story was simply there was a hunger strike by a student. If people couldn't figure out there was a bigger controversy from a professor with over 10 people accusing him of sexual harassment charges from the first source or second one that I posted, that is on their lack of reading comprehension. What I highlighted in the OP was the recent development with the situation. Obviously now with the vigil turned riot, nobody needs to point that out though.[/QUOTE] Fine, then it was a mistake, I wasn't pushing that claim hard because your original source didn't mention the other details, so I just added a source with more info. Do you care to respond to my (or anyone elses) other criticisms?
[QUOTE=da space core;52695907]Fine, then it was a mistake, I wasn't pushing that claim hard because your original source didn't mention the other details, so I just added a source with more info. Do you care to respond to my (or anyone elses) other criticisms?[/QUOTE] If your other point is I post news that is from my purview, then yes, I am completely guilty to that like everyone is when they post news that they are attracted to.
Could a mod please have a look at this thread: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143[/url] Tudd has gon from -posting that shit, biased opinionated article that grossly missinterprets the study cited to - editing out his nonsensical comment on it when realizing that his initial joy of finding something that apparently scientifically proves his "climate change believers and progressives are so bad" world view to -posting it again one post later to - ignoring posts that prove how shit the articles are to -I don't know which points you are talking about please read the whole paper and present me the points so I don't have to to - selective reading when presented with an abstract that proves how shit the article and how wrong and dangerous his opinion is to - well maybe there is more in the paper than what the abstract says to -let's argue about what an abstract is It's like arguing with the embodyment of Cartman.
If i post this trash article people will talk about me and my ego with continue to grow
[QUOTE=Killuah;52695918]Could a mod please have a look at this thread: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1579143[/url] Tudd has gon from -posting that shit, biased opinionated article that grossly missinterprets the study cited to - editing out his nonsensical comment on it when realizing that his initial joy of finding something that apparently scientifically proves his "climate change believers and progressives are so bad" world view to -posting it again one post later to - ignoring posts that prove how shit the articles are to -I don't know which points you are talking about please read the whole paper and present me the points so I don't have to to - selective reading when presented with an abstract that proves how shit the article and how wrong and dangerous his opinion is to - well maybe there is more in the paper than what the abstract says to -let's argue about what an abstract is It's like arguing with the embodyment of Cartman.[/QUOTE] The title of this thread should seriously be changed, it's basically the opposite of what the original scientific article is actually saying.
It's more than that. This post summarizes it very well [QUOTE=Zyler;52695896]This is how misinformation happens. Someone with a vested interest in seeing something a certain way trawls through news article headlines or published papers, looking for anything that will support their personal viewpoint and ignoring anything that goes against it. When they finally find something that looks to them like it supports their biased viewpoint, they throw it down on a forum without any understanding of the underlying context or the years of research and specific vocabulary that went into it. They then defend their wrapped comprehension to the last conceivable tidbit by arguing semantics, framing extraneous and pedantic possible interpretations and leveraging any possible degree of uncertainty to the point of tedium. [B]Eventually, after everyone gets sick of arguing with them and leaves out of the exasperation of trying to explain complex background concepts to the person, they claim victory [/B]and go on to peddle the same article or paper in the next place they can. More and more of the same like-minded people then copy the first person and repeat the same misconstrued narrative across the internet. Eventually, this leads to a daisy chain of users and websites all referencing each other and contorting the narrative even further like a game of Chinese whispers. By the time you hear about it again, it's been warped so much it bears no resemblance to the original source material. Nonetheless, you now have a small army of biased news sources repeating the same incorrect facts, all referencing each other in a never-ending circle.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;52695925]The title of this thread should seriously be changed, it's basically the opposite of what the original scientific article is actually saying.[/QUOTE] Just going to point out this is a problem from multiple sources that are highly rated and lean both ways. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/18/new-climate-calculations-could-buy-the-earth-some-time-if-theyre-right/[/url]
Honestly I'm starting to miss the days when Garry would actively come on and dish out bans. Like sure, some of his bans are really fucking retarded (such as the one where he banned a user for disagreeing with him) and sometimes I think he's a bit of a cunt, but if he were out here actively dishing out bans, well for starter's i'd have received a dozen permabans by now, and in addition we wouldn't be having this tudd discussion.
Considering Garry's eccentric handling of the website sometimes, it is also probably likely he just double the length of my avatar.
Most of us have it adblocked anyway
Tudd is like anime avatar user, but instead of the anime avatar bring the attention seeking part, it's shit opinions and spamming news threads about students. Treat him the same way you do anime avatar users, ignore them.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52696058]Considering Garry's eccentric handling of the website sometimes, it is also probably likely he just double the length of my avatar.[/QUOTE]What Avatar?....Oh right Ad block
The only thing worse than Tudd is people constantly bitching about his avatar. [editline]19th September 2017[/editline] and anime
On one hand I understand the concern with how Tudd frames his articles, but on the other hand this site is so fucking liberal that I think it needs more opposing viewpoints. If you can't handle an anti climate change article without running to the mods that means you just can't handle any criticism of your politics.
[QUOTE=Killuah;52696240]Most of us have it adblocked anyway[/QUOTE] I'm a fan of this method as demonstrated here before [QUOTE=myon;52616165]I just replaced his with a MSN emote. [editline]26th August 2017[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ufeKGGn.png[/IMG] simple and effective[/QUOTE] Really works wonders! [t]https://files.catbox.moe/tsoupq.png[/t]
why does anyone care anymore
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52696399]If you can't handle an anti climate change article without running to the mods that means you just can't handle any criticism of your politics.[/QUOTE] Imagine calling climate change a political issue.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52696399]On one hand I understand the concern with how Tudd frames his articles, but on the other hand this site is so fucking liberal that I think it needs more opposing viewpoints. If you can't handle an anti climate change article without running to the mods that means you just can't handle any criticism of your politics.[/QUOTE] Except it's not a legitimate anti climate change article but rather an opinionated trash tier piece missinterpreting a paper and all together blatant missinformation. I thought somebody who would read the thread should'e know that...? Calling this "criticism of your politics" is wrong and borderline intently wrong for the sake of... I don't know what you wanted to accomplish with that post. It just makes you look uninformed and opportunistic.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52696399]On one hand I understand the concern with how Tudd frames his articles, but on the other hand this site is so fucking liberal that I think it needs more opposing viewpoints. If you can't handle an anti climate change article without running to the mods that means you just can't handle any criticism of your politics.[/QUOTE] verifiable science isn't a partisan issue. get off your high horse, there are plenty of conservative posters on this site that don't transparently push an agenda, aren't blatantly intellectually dishonest and don't have a victim complex. we've been over this 'opposing viewpoints' thing before and said right wingers have even chimed in. this whole idea that everything is politicised is what's wrong with discourse in this situation. fundamental chemistry isn't up for debate here. if something is at odds with the verifiable facts, then its fucking WRONG my dude. end of discussion. there is no equal merit to be found.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52696399]On one hand I understand the concern with how Tudd frames his articles, but on the other hand this site is so fucking liberal that I think it needs more opposing viewpoints. If you can't handle an anti climate change article without running to the mods that means you just can't handle any criticism of your politics.[/QUOTE] The site can handle views they disagree with just fine in general. It's the specific user that is the issue, as people repeatedly point out over and over and over which people keep refusing to actually accept. The issue with Tudd is not necessarily his views (though most of us [I]do[/I] disagree with him regardless) but the fact he is so intellectually dishonest about it. You physically cannot debate him because he will continuously resort to any underhanded or evasive tactics that come to mind in order to avoid actually addressing any real arguments against his points. If he didn't pull that bullshit or if the mods would actually do something about the fact he does rather than making it seem like they're playing favorites (which regardless of what they think they're doing is exactly how it comes across to most of us when people have repeatedly given examples of Tudd doing shit that people have gotten banned for in the past) then there would be no issues.
[QUOTE=NachoPiggy;52696425]I'm a fan of this method as demonstrated here before Really works wonders! [t]https://files.catbox.moe/tsoupq.png[/t][/QUOTE]Is there a hack to change his name too?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.