Communicating “I honestly don’t understand the logic behind your argument” in good faith could be considered similar to calling the other person an idiot.
Think of the hundreds of different ways you can say that and the subjectivity behind what crosses the line into personal attack and then easy to understand.
It can also be the truth.
And people can be hypocrites.
Why do you guys post someplace where you don’t believe anything that anyone says is at face value but is trying to trick you? It makes discussing organizing principles impossible with you.
If that’s for me, I don’t believe
you don’t believe anything that anyone says is at face value but is trying to trick you
is at all accurate as a description of my attitude.
I’ve been thinking about this quote a lot lately:
We will fight when we must fight, but I will never allow us to get so wrapped up in the fighting that we start to think fighting is the point. The point is what lies on the other side of the fight.
So many here are so wrapped up in the fighting that the other side of the fight has gotten lost. So many feel the fighting is the point that they aren’t even interested in actual solutions anymore.
Some members of one side appear to be all-in on the solution being de-modding Wookie, so there is no mutually agreeable solution that doesn’t involve that.
If any of those people think that they can be a big enough pain to cause Wookie to quit on his own, I don’t think that strategy will work. However, it’s clear they are unlikely to win via Democratic votes, so asymmetrical warfare probably offers their best avenue for success.
This may get lost in this discussion or just not be the right place, but … anyone have an opinion on stopping the use of racial descriptors in the poker hands forum? Seems like a casual othering/stereotyping blindspot for the forum.
I don’t hate it in precisely that one thread. As most of us have a poker background, when evaluating a hand you use every bit of information when trying to come up with the best line.
I haven’t played poker (even semi) seriously in quite some time. But if you tell me villain with no read is (race) (age) versus a different (race) (age), it can change my line. Shrug.
When I played live it would seriously change the chances that someone was a purely recreational player. My data is anecdotal, but the reasoning I had was that the casinos were in heavily black areas, while anyone who was white had to drive at least 20 minutes, more likely 30-60 minutes to get there. Therefore they were far less likely to just end up at the table.
I suspect that kind of thing is true to some degree in many parts of the country.
Profiling is pretty important at a poker table before you have other reads.
I don’t intend to argue this point, and I also don’t want to feign ignorance of what everone is saying, I just think you can make your reads and express them without other-ing people or making that about their race. You can think X race plays like Y, that’s fine, but I only need the last part to assess your poker hand.
That said, this is all I came in to say. I think it is a missed chance to be better, here at UP.
Stereotyping in poker is a necessity if you’re a pro. I traveled to play for ~5 years and it’s a massive part about playing unknowns.
We also stereotype a massive amount on this forum, but the main scourges are boomers/republicans and adjacent categories.
I think its weird to try to clean up “aggressive young Asian dude playing 500bb otb” posts before “boomer woat” posts if ending stereotyping is the goal.
This post doesn’t make any sense. Excluding people for personal attacks is a major part of what makes this place different than twitter. It’s also not an accurate representation of this forum to say it’s ‘hyper-bellicose’
You’re missing the point. I’m saying that it fosters behaviour akin to grade-grubbing, but with banlust. And that culture both heightens sensitivity, and tends to promote exaggeration of the (already-inflamed) sensitivity. And not all bellicosity consists of personal attacks. I’m suggesting similarities between that and the cry-bullying culture found in certain twitter spheres.
But if your argument is that banning leads to those things, you can’t use twitter as an example to support that argument, as it essentially doesn’t have banning.
Seems like a lack of community standards and expectations to be part of a community is what causes issues on twitters.
With much of this forum left-leaning US-centric, I think it is natural for people here to mirror the same level of bellicosity that they wish to see from Democrats against Republicans. This is a politics forum copying the politics of our time. Few people want Joe Manchin’s call for bipartisanship applied to this forum.
I’m not ‘using it as an example to support that argument’. I am saying, Look, this thing is like this other thing. And then I am explaining why I think the one thing is like the other thing. It is immaterial to my case why the other thing is the way it is.
For example, if I say that my car is green “like an apple”, pointing out that the bio-chemical process by which apples become green does not apply to cars is not going to convince me that my car is not, in fact, green.
I don’t really see how this makes sense, we have like 3 Republicans? And two are pretty quiet.
To build on this, it also makes me think of the anonymity of Twitter and of here, which I assume also contributes to bellicosity or general rudeness. To think outside the box, in addition to focusing on moderation I wonder if there’s anything we can do to add some personal connection to this? Some sort of “introduce yourself” thread or inclusion of (an appropriate amount of) personal info in profiles. I think given the topics we discuss this community might be more sensitive to that than others, but maybe some small amount of info might humanize people a bit more?
