Diopolis wrote:Salandriagado wrote:People debating with you is not your opinions not being welcome. It's debate. It's literally the point of NSG. If your opinions can't withstand such scrutiny, the problem is with your opinions, not the scrutiny. Disagreeing with you is not "toxic", and pretty well anything that could actually be reasonably described as "toxic" is already against the rules, and will be dealt with if you report it.
A dogpile is different from having a debate.
Why is it our fault that you have unpopular opinions and get outnumbered as a result? Genuine question.
Salandriagado wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I don't know...people who call people liars rather than addressing their debate points are pretty toxic, especially if they do it to everyone they disagree with. There are some posters like that.
Your silly attempt to derail the thread with a poorly-disguised personal attack notwithstanding, no. People calling you out for lying is not "toxic".
At any rate, Hakons' claim seemed implausible to me, so I did a little experiment. I went to Hakons' profile, and clicked through the last ten pages of their posts. I opened every thread that they'd posted in that was in NSG and neither the CDT nor the RWDT (a total of 17 threads). I then searched for "Hakons" in each of those threads, producing a list of all of the posts quoting Hakons (after filtering out posts that weren't of this form, a total of 177 posts). I then read them all, looking for anything that could reasonably be described as "toxic". Two threads had no such posts. One contained only a post agreeing with Hakons. Nine contained nothing but polite, reasonable responses (and a single borderline-spam post that was nonetheless perfectly civil). I also note that one of these contained a very civil response to a significantly less civil post by Hakons. That leaves five threads. Of these: the thread about transgender health protections being rolled back contained one post that was mildly snarky. The riots/protests thread II contained one post which engaged in reasonable debate in a mildly snarky way and one post calling out an uncivil post of Hakons'. The religion in schools thread contained one post that engaged in reasonable debate in a mildly snarky way, and two calling out Hakons' debating tactics as impolite. The US riots thread (1) contained, out of 60 such posts, three mildly snarky posts, three posts calling out Hakons' tactics, and one polite response to an impolite post of Hakons'. Finally, the LGBT adoption thread contained, out of 32 such posts, three that were mildly snarky, and the only post of the entire lot that I'd consider even borderline "toxic" (
this one).
That is: Hakons' claim that discussing Christianity or Conservatism outside of the CDT/RWDT is met with toxicity is simply untrue (for reference, the threads that contained only reasonable non-snarky responses above were "is Antifa a terrorist group", "what makes a cult", the Illinois medicaid expansion thread, "should non-profits be taxed", "what makes a good christian", the 4th Coronavirus thread, "what would it take for you to vote for Biden", the 6th and 7th US general election threads, MAGAThread XIX, the Washington & Jefferson statues thread and the CHAZ thread, so there was no shortage of discussion of those two topics in the dataset).
That seems to be a pattern I've noticed with a lot of right wingers here. If they disparage you, its "civil debate". If you make reasoned, logical arguments against them, its "toxic and rude".
Strahcoin wrote:Katganistan wrote:No, you have to do it without flaming and trolling. If you find it difficult not to call people names, or dismiss whole groups of people as something horrid, that is on you, not on us.
Individual users' behavior was deemed problematic. Big difference.
Their community was not destroyed -- their thread where they repeatedly engaged in rulebreaking behavior, which anyone is welcome to go view for themselves, was closed.
The rules are not subjective. They are in the One Stop Rules Shop for anyone to see.
Insisting that there is a liberal bias in enforcing the rules says quite a bit, but not about moderation.
Actually, from my experience, there is a left-leaning bias in the rules and/or their enforcement.
If this is the case, surely you can prove it?
Intentionally "misgendering" a player
Is arguably a form of flaming and/or flamebaiting, and is definitely trolling.
or referencing (not necessarily making) a joke regarding such
What, you mean that tired as fuck attack helicopter 'joke'? It honestly stopped being funny the instant it was copy-pasted. That's all it is. An unfunny "joke" that is ONLY used as a weapon against trans people. Therefore, trolling. Basic fucking respect for other people shouldn't be a concept exclusive to the left, and to claim otherwise is probably the best argument against rightism.
to make a point can and often does result in a warn for "trolling", even though the former is merely the logically consistent result of believing that gender is binary and static,
Doesn't make it any less of a flame.
while the latter is not necessarily trolling (it could be attempting to show logical consistencies within an argument, etc.).
It is
never used for that purpose, and more often than not, where it is allowed, it is copypasted the instant a trans person dares be visible in an online space. It is little more than an unoriginal strawman argument crossed with flamebaiting. If your "counterargument" inherently involves disrespecting someone's existence, then you shouldn't be making it.
TL;DR:
Cisairse wrote:If your personal belief system includes "I should be an asshole," the mods aren't being biased by enforcing "no assholes allowed" rules, they're just enforcing rules that you happen to disagree with.
Meanwhile, some posters on the left do seem to get away with making more provoking posts.
Such as...?
There's a difference between being brusque and rulebreaking. Plenty of rightwingers are just as, or even more brusque than those two posts.
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:21 pm
) is surprisingly calming.
