Help Identify why Polidicks is so Shyte (protip: its u) - General

[QUOTE=DinoJesus;53083758]My biggest pet peeve about how people discuss politics here is some dude will post a short and concise opinion, and then two or three guys with more time than sense will respond to it in five long paragraphs each. And the arguments are always a bunch of hostile over assumptions about the other person's intentions and character. And then they expect five paragraphs back or else they act like they just btfo of the other guy. It just comes off as obnoxious and smug.[/QUOTE] Essentially this. Too many assumptions and too little actual dialogue between users of different ideologies.

[QUOTE=Chonch;53095271]Essentially this. Too many assumptions and [b]too little actual dialogue[/b] between users of different ideologies.[/QUOTE] That's rather rich coming from someone who's known to stir shit before leaving a thread.

It's definitely not Tudd, that's for sure.

[QUOTE=varg666;53094305]I say it's because Polidicks is an echo chamber where if your opinion is not a same as their opinion, you will look down upon. Which is why I don't post there, since I think it's a waste of time debating with them anyway.[/QUOTE] one look through your post and ban history draws a picture that the real cause is just fear of anyone arguing against your reactionary, radical views on anything not western and conservative, really. :thinking:

I have no idea why the Tudd option is so high, I can't remember the last time he posted a thread (or posted at all) in Polidicks. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53087654]In that case, what's the purpose of the media bias check site before posting threads then?[/QUOTE] tbh I'd like to get a moderator ruling on this one. If there is no need to actually cite sources when making claims then I don't see why I should have to bother checking MBFC every time I want to make a thread. As far as I can tell it's completely fine to use non-legitimate sources as story updates posted later in the thread anyway. [QUOTE=butre;53084610]not all political discussion has anything to do with trump though[/QUOTE] Sure, but a lot of it does. Someone referenced a thread earlier about far-right extremism in Germany on the rise. Someone posted in that thread talking about the rise of left wing extremism in the US, and the conversation naturally evolved towards Trump. Adding on to what someone else in this thread posted about political discussions during the Obama era, Obama was more Hope and less Change; there wasn't a huge upset in the order of things under his leadership as opposed to Trump, who, as president, as had marked effects on a variety of national and international issues. You aren't going to have a political discussion forum without talking about Trump. Even if you split it into US Polidicks and World Polidicks you would have people talking about Trump in threads about trade, defense, or climate change. [QUOTE=PacificV2;53085236]It's always the same clique of people circlejerking eachother nowadays and spewing out the most childish, reality-warping, disingenuous opinions this forum has had in a long while. I almost feel certain topics are apparently owned by a small vocal group of people that always pop up at the same time and shout down everyone atop ivory towers built out of unreadable drivel and pseudo-smartness whenever someone has the gall of disagreeing. It's the users. The self-propelled trump hysteria machine simply can't stop - otherwise, what would all those guys complain about?[/QUOTE] Instead of crying like a baby in another thread about users talking about politics and describing it as "hysteria" why don't you actually participate in polidicks? If you feel like "certain topics are owned by a small group" then post your own threads. OP wants to talk about polidicks being salty but this just reads like someone who can't argue their points well enough to participate and would rather shit on the whole section without putting in the smallest amount of effort. [QUOTE=Chonch;53095271]Essentially this. Too many assumptions and too little actual dialogue between users of different ideologies.[/QUOTE] "too little actual dialogue" you do know you have a reputation for basically jumping into threads, making a contentious post, then bailing while everyone else wonders what you are talking about right. like I agree that it's largely people of two different ideologies disagreeing with stuff, and that the stakes of their disagreements tend to be pretty high (see: healthcare, climate change) but you are the last person on this board (except maybe varg) who should be talking about a lack of dialogue. [QUOTE=varg666;53094305]I say it's because Polidicks is an echo chamber where if your opinion is not a same as their opinion, you will look down upon. Which is why I don't post there, since I think it's a waste of time debating with them anyway.[/QUOTE] Man who doesn't participate in discussions whatsoever and hides behind ratings spam whines about forum being an echo chamber, calling it a "waste of time". Poetry.

what is this thing you call Polidicks, haven't seen it for a year

[QUOTE=EddieLTU;53105667]what is this thing you call Polidicks, haven't seen it for a year[/QUOTE] It's this place where a bunch of scumbag pieces of shit post bad opinions about their stupid political beliefs, those goddamn self-righteous pricks. But I think it would be better if everyone was nicer and more tolerant of each others opinions.

Polidicks is full of a lot of genuine stupidity. About half the typical posts there are made by people who either know almost nothing about politics or have their political priorities completely in a fucking whirl.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53105652]"too little actual dialogue" you do know you have a reputation for basically jumping into threads, making a contentious post, then bailing while everyone else wonders what you are talking about right. like I agree that it's largely people of two different ideologies disagreeing with stuff, and that the stakes of their disagreements tend to be pretty high (see: healthcare, climate change) but you are the last person on this board (except maybe varg) who should be talking about a lack of dialogue. [/QUOTE] The point stands. Assume less, ask more questions.

One time I listened to a canadian parliament discussion and I cried because it was the first time I saw someone have their concerns addressed and change their opinion in 5 years. What has SH done to me?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53105652]I have no idea why the Tudd option is so high, I can't remember the last time he posted a thread (or posted at all) in Polidicks. tbh I'd like to get a moderator ruling on this one. If there is no need to actually cite sources when making claims then I don't see why I should have to bother checking MBFC every time I want to make a thread. As far as I can tell it's completely fine to use non-legitimate sources as story updates posted later in the thread anyway. Sure, but a lot of it does. Someone referenced a thread earlier about far-right extremism in Germany on the rise. Someone posted in that thread talking about the rise of left wing extremism in the US, and the conversation naturally evolved towards Trump. Adding on to what someone else in this thread posted about political discussions during the Obama era, Obama was more Hope and less Change; there wasn't a huge upset in the order of things under his leadership as opposed to Trump, who, as president, as had marked effects on a variety of national and international issues. You aren't going to have a political discussion forum without talking about Trump. Even if you split it into US Polidicks and World Polidicks you would have people talking about Trump in threads about trade, defense, or climate change. Instead of crying like a baby in another thread about users talking about politics and describing it as "hysteria" why don't you actually participate in polidicks? If you feel like "certain topics are owned by a small group" then post your own threads. OP wants to talk about polidicks being salty but this just reads like someone who can't argue their points well enough to participate and would rather shit on the whole section without putting in the smallest amount of effort. "too little actual dialogue" you do know you have a reputation for basically jumping into threads, making a contentious post, then bailing while everyone else wonders what you are talking about right. like I agree that it's largely people of two different ideologies disagreeing with stuff, and that the stakes of their disagreements tend to be pretty high (see: healthcare, climate change) but you are the last person on this board (except maybe varg) who should be talking about a lack of dialogue. Man who doesn't participate in discussions whatsoever and hides behind ratings spam whines about forum being an echo chamber, calling it a "waste of time". Poetry.[/QUOTE] This is the sort of callout post that I think exemplifies why polidicks is shit nowadays. It has all the telling signs - wall of text, being a carpet bomb for multiple posts, incredibly "good-faith" stuff like name-calling and character assassinations, with a dash of very dubious logic. Ignoring the rest of the post, which is shit-stirring drama with other users (others have articulated the same ideas as you, in this thread, without looking like an ass!), none of your suggestions even make sense from where I'm standing, and I'll tell you why: [B]"participating in polidicks"[/B] - If I'm describing the situation as "hysteria", why would I want to participate in that? What's the point in posting when there's such a hostile environment, and when people can't post their thoughts without their arguments twisted and their attitudes ridiculed by mostly delusional, emotional and petty people? Polidicks is a shitshow, have you not noticed? Personally, I post so little nowadays, why would I even bother with the craziness? This whole thread is "we think polidicks is shitty and has a shitty attitude and people don't want to participate" and here your solution is pissing in a sea of piss. How did you think this was an appropriate response? [B]"make your own threads" [/B]- Don't people already do that? Doesn't Tudd create his own threads, which invariably results in tuddposting, which is something that happens so "naturally" that people came up with a name for it? Do you really think that if I made my own threads about touchy subjects, the special interest groups wouldn't pop out of the woodwork to shit down my thread saying everyone's opinions are _wrong_ without even supporting facts, sometimes because their warped reality requires them to be piss-poor activists in every thread of this forum? This is not representative of all users, all opinions or all threads, and is just a very focused example, of course, but my whole problem with that part of your argument is that people hound certain topics in any thread of Polidicks, and your suggestion is for us to post "our own" threads, just to be attacked like any other thread? How did you think this was an appropriate response? [B]"this just reads like someone who"[/B] - This just reads like someone who ran out of steam and things to say in that part of the masterpost and had to finish strong, so a very veiled "you're just probably bad at internet lol" fits perfectly. Classic Polidicks move! Do you even know who I am, since you're so keen on making such amazing assertions about me? What do you think gives you that right? This is just a dumb little callout to look "good". It's why I care about the section and about Facepunch (I've been here a while after all) that I made this post - and posting in general is super rare for me - just for you to handwave it away because "reasons". What exactly gives you the idea I don't know how to articulate my thoughts, would you be able to spell it out for me? Or is a vague (and such convenient vagueness as well!) accusation all I'm gonna get? What even is the purpose of being this combative and disingenuous besides making sure that you come out "on top"? How did you think this was an appropriate response?

hope I'm not the only one seeing the irony here