Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shaduln posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

I would prefer just the news.

---

LapisLazuli posted...

Shaduln posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

I would prefer just the news.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Shaduln posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

I would prefer just the news.

---

Reg posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Shaduln posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

I would prefer just the news.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

i rarely post news articles.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Reg posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Shaduln posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

I would prefer just the news.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I'm pretty sure that Corrik and I generate 90% of the discussion in this topic. The rest is just people posting news articles.

i rarely post news articles.

You actually contribute, unlike about 50% of the people here. The 90% figure is a but-for figure, since you need two sides to have a discussion on anything. But there are a number of liberals here who do make interesting posts.
---

The issue is that actual news and articles often gets buried and completely ignored by the waves of absolute bullshit posts from certain users here.

I know personally that I check out almost entirely during any kind of redsox wankfest or similar until it's settled down, and any news brought up during it is gonna get glossed over.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

The issue is that actual news and articles often gets buried and completely ignored by the waves of absolute bullshit posts from certain users here.

I know personally that I check out almost entirely during any kind of redsox wankfest or similar until it's settled down, and any news brought up during it is gonna get glossed over.

yeah I've given up on trying to post news to derail that sort of shit because certain users simply don't give a fuck and will continue to engage in the idiocy.
---

I guess, there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about what the topic is for, or what is interesting. Maybe we should divide this topic into 2 topics - Politics News and Politics Discussion?
---

The fundamental issue you need to realize is that most people here don't considering your devil's advocate jackoff posts "discussion".
---

Also, it's kind of crazy how users who admit they don't read my posts or Corrik's persistently respond to them with personal insults. Up to now I've followed a policy of ignoring such harassment and that's probably the best way to deal with it, but this kind of behavior is really unacceptable and should be called out at least once.
---

If you don't like my posts, why don't you just not respond to them?
---

You've specifically admitted to making post you don't even necessarily agree with for the sole intent of getting people riled up to argue with you.

You've got very little ground there, it's what you want to happen.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you don't like my posts, why don't you just not respond to them?

We are sick, sick people.

Thats why we need containment
---

LapisLazuli posted...

You've specifically admitted to making post you don't even necessarily agree with for the sole intent of getting people riled up to argue with you.

You've got very little ground there, it's what you want to happen.

When did I say that? I make posts I don't necessarily agree with for the purpose of fostering discussion. Getting people riled up has nothing to do with it.
---

What was it, a year and a half ago? 2 years? Someone else is gonna have to help out with the date on that one.

I am not about to get into another one of these back and forths again, though.
---

Should i just repost the news pieces of the last 24 hours y/n
---

y
---

red sox 777 posted...

You actually contribute, unlike about 50% of the people here. The 90% figure is a but-for figure, since you need two sides to have a discussion on anything.

i disagree that the people who post news articles don't contribute anything, though. usually people who post news add their own take on it, like in this post, for instance:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/76701362/903051010

also, you often get one or more people responding to the news article.

what you're describing is what muffin does in the freedom topic half the time - tons of times he'll just link to an article without adding any commentary whatsoever of his own (or very little - at times he'll add a "yup" or whatever). i find that pretty annoying as well. i go to that topic to read and participate in interesting dicussions on libertarianism/anarchy, not to see a reason.com feed. i'd say that without your posts and corrik's posts this topic series still contains a healthy amount of discussion, though.
---

I'm not going to pretend I remember everything I said 2 years ago, and I really don't think it matters. If you find my posts neither interesting nor funny, you are perfectly free not to respond. If you actually disagree with what I say, by all means, you're welcome to explain why you disagree. Posting repetitive personal attacks that completely ignore the content of my posts is ridiculous, and while the fact that multiple people do it here may make it feel more acceptable, that really doesn't make it any more acceptable, civil, or productive.

If all you want is a curated news feed, I suggest making a topic for it. There are so many sources on the internet for political news, that I highly doubt I would find such a topic interesting.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Should i just repost the news pieces of the last 24 hours y/n

That'd be for the best.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

You've specifically admitted to making post you don't even necessarily agree with for the sole intent of getting people riled up to argue with you.

You've got very little ground there, it's what you want to happen.

So on principle I generally don't look at usernames when I talk to people. If people make a good point I'll agree with them, if people make a bad point I'll disagree with them.

Intentionally posting stuff that the poster don't even agree with kind of messes with my trust in b8 users.

red sox 777 posted...

I guess, there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about what the topic is for, or what is interesting. Maybe we should divide this topic into 2 topics - Politics News and Politics Discussion?

But I think there is interesting discussion to be had that's not just trolling. I've had interesting discussions about, for example, trends in primary voting this year, who's likely to be in the presidential primaries coming up, debates about whether the TPP is good or bad, discussions about supreme court rulings and whether they set precedent or constitute a narrow ruling.

I don't want to eliminate discussion from the topic. I just want quality discussion.
---

I actually haven't posted all that much news, depending on how you define "news" >_>

Tldr:

Israel makes it illegal to film their military for any reason.

Manafort woke up in jail today.

The NRA is blaming actual witches for backlash against them.

The Trump Foundation is being investigated for breaking campaign finance laws.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

You actually contribute, unlike about 50% of the people here. The 90% figure is a but-for figure, since you need two sides to have a discussion on anything.

i disagree that the people who post news articles don't contribute anything, though. usually people who post news add their own take on it, like in this post, for instance:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/76701362/903051010

also, you often get one or more people responding to the news article.

what you're describing is what muffin does in the freedom topic half the time - tons of times he'll just link to an article without adding any commentary whatsoever of his own (or very little - at times he'll add a "yup" or whatever). i find that pretty annoying as well. i go to that topic to read and participate in interesting dicussions on libertarianism/anarchy, not to see a reason.com feed. i'd say that without your posts and corrik's posts this topic series still contains a healthy amount of discussion, though.

I haven't read the freedom topic for a few years, didn't know that was Muffin's posting style now. And I don't mind people posting news, even if it's in the form of links to Twitter, but that in itself is not discussion. It's the openness of the other side to consider other positions that is the hallmark of discussion and you don't get that unless the person stating positions is actually in the discussion (which whoever made the Twitter post is not, since they aren't here and can't respond).

And yeah, 90% is too high, I mean I think I went several months without reading this topic at all. My perception is probably influenced by there being a bunch of users here who I can't remember having seen make a single post with actual content of their own, beyond parroting their agreement/disagreement to someone else's idea.
---

I don't want to eliminate discussion from the topic. I just want quality discussion.

Exactly. I don't think I'm being rude when i say that red sox's "discussion" is the equivalent of throwing shit into someone's convertible and then trying to talk to them about aspects of the car.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The NRA is blaming actual witches for backlash against them.

wat
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

tons of times he'll just link to an article without adding any commentary whatsoever of his own (or very little - at times he'll add a "yup" or whatever). i find that pretty annoying as well

I'm pretty guilty of doing this when I link news, though I try to only do it for the egregiously bad stuff to highlight how bad it is.

I can do it less tho if it bothers people.
---

In fact, you are being rude, and I can't remember having read any posts by you that could be considered quality discussion.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

The NRA is blaming actual witches for backlash against them.

wat

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1008016352211283969

Have you ever wondered what happens when witchcraft intersects with gun control? Witch spells are cast onto POTUS and the NRA. When fighting for freedom, the NRA doesn't get involved with witchcraft. We prefer education, political activism, and grassroots. https://t.co/jIQqKBVFXO

You heard me
---

I would say Red Sox generates interesting discussion often, which is more than I can say for a lot of the people chastising him now. But that's why I only ever post in here when Jakyl DOESN'T PUT THE DAMN POLITICS TAG. It's not an exaggeration to say that the extent of the contribution of a lot of people in here to any sort of discussion is to be glorified yes men without contributing any sort of interesting thoughts to the discussion.

Not sure he quite hit the mark this time though I'll admit wasn't much a fan of the religion discussion there. And no I'm not going to tag out and pick up the last 120 posts, don't worry.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

I don't want to eliminate discussion from the topic. I just want quality discussion.

Exactly. I don't think I'm being rude when i say that red sox's "discussion" is the equivalent of throwing shit into someone's convertible and then trying to talk to them about aspects of the car.

The worst thing is he apparently doesn't realize that the reason discussion is so hard in these topics is because of him and similar.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

I actually haven't posted all that much news, depending on how you define "news" >_>

Tldr:

Israel makes it illegal to film their military for any reason.

Manafort woke up in jail today.

The NRA is blaming actual witches for backlash against them.

The Trump Foundation is being investigated for breaking campaign finance laws.

2 of these I didnt even realize had been brought up!
---

I agree that "yes men" is boring discussion.

That being said, it's still a hell of a lot better than our recent alternatives.

And to be fair, Lapis, i didn't bring up the NRA thing because I thought it was too dumb for discussion.
---

red sox 777 posted...

In fact, you are being rude, and I can't remember having read any posts by you that could be considered quality discussion.

red sox criticizes red sox
---

Discussion generally isn't hard in this topic. There are a bunch of users here who engage in good faith. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother posting. I usually just ignore the people who add nothing and that prevents me from wasting time on unpleasant arguments like this one.

I don't know why some people say they hate my posts so much and yet simply can't help themselves but respond to seemingly every one of them. If you can't stand to see people express opinions you disagree with, I'll give you a hint. You won't change anyone's mind (including mine) unless you present actual, good, arguments. At best, you can get people to fall in line because they are afraid of you or see some benefit to doing so. So I strongly recommend either posting something productive or nothing.
---

Nobody is buying this schtick.
---

Last time I tried to have a good faith argument with red sox he just started trolling so I haven't tried since and typically just don't respond
---

I don't consider pseudo-intellectual jerkoff sessions with zero relevance to current events to be of high quality.

I enjoy using this topic as another news source, because other users have often brought things to my attention that i was otherwise ignorant of.

I like to think that whenever anything insurance, particularly related to health, shows up inthe discussion, I'm in a unique position to give insights because I'm employed by the industry. But that hasn't really happened much recently, because Republicans in Congress have basically only had the "obummercare BADDDDDD" position for years now.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It's the openness of the other side to consider other positions that is the hallmark of discussion and you don't get that unless the person stating positions is actually in the discussion (which whoever made the Twitter post is not, since they aren't here and can't respond).

i think what you're looking for is "debate" and not "discussion." this is probably why you make dishonest, contrarian posts. you want people to argue with you.

i'm not entirely sure why you think it's necessary to do this. i assume it's because, like many, you have a problem with this topic being a "liberal echo chamber." it kinda is, and i'd like to have conservative voices here too, but i don't really see an easy way to solve this. the problem is that the "conservative voices" of the board make EXTREMELY bad and dumb posts about politics. i'd rather let this topic stay a liberal echo chamber than have ulti, MWC and sephyg go berserk here (corrik is probably the best of the bunch tbqh, but i have my issues with his posts as well).

i think it's better to just let this topic be the way it is than try to generate debate (or discussion) with disingenuous posts. because of your "discussion" posts, 90% of the regulars think you're annoying and want you to stop posting here. are you fine with that?
---

Heres some news

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/roger-stone-henry-greenberg-michael-caputo/index.html

lol Roger Stone
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Heres some news

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/roger-stone-henry-greenberg-michael-caputo/index.html

lol Roger Stone

This stuff is just starting to flow out into the open, jesus. I'm almost worried that we'll get so much info about collusion that people will stop even seeing it as notable.
---

Reg posted...

I'm pretty guilty of doing this when I link news, though I try to only do it for the egregiously bad stuff to highlight how bad it is.

i think it works better in this topic than the freedom topic because this topic is way more active so you usually get some people responding, like i said. plus there's so much news out there that i think there's value in posting the more important/significant stuff here. it's a lot more valuable than muffin basically using the freedom topic as a reason.com feed. people who like reason.com already go to the site and don't need muffin to direct them to it, and people who don't like the site don't give a shit about the articles, so...

but yeah, i do think adding a sentence or two to explain why you think the article you're linking to is worth linking can't hurt.
---

The exchange was obtained and published by the Post.
"How crazy is the Russian?" Caputo asked.
"Wants big &$ for the info- waste of time," Stone replied.
Caputo then texted, "The Russian way. Anything at all interesting?"
"No," Stone said.

"I was under the understanding that he was an American citizen of Russian descent," Caputo said. "I had no reason to believe that, I just assumed it."

Sure
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It's the openness of the other side to consider other positions that is the hallmark of discussion and you don't get that unless the person stating positions is actually in the discussion (which whoever made the Twitter post is not, since they aren't here and can't respond).

i think what you're looking for is "debate" and not "discussion." this is probably why you make dishonest, contrarian posts. you want people to argue with you.

i'm not entirely sure why you think it's necessary to do this. i assume it's because, like many, you have a problem with this topic being a "liberal echo chamber." it kinda is, and i'd like to have conservative voices here too, but i don't really see an easy way to solve this. the problem is that the "conservative voices" of the board make EXTREMELY bad and dumb posts about politics. i'd rather let this topic stay a liberal echo chamber than have ulti, MWC and sephyg go berserk here (corrik is probably the best of the bunch tbqh, but i have my issues with his posts as well).

i think it's better to just let this topic be the way it is than try to generate debate (or discussion) with disingenuous posts. because of your "discussion" posts, 90% of the regulars think you're annoying and want you to stop posting here. are you fine with that?

My feeling is that none of the people here who I respect find me annoying. For the others, I really don't care what they think. In fact, if they think I'm annoying I'm probably saying something right.

I make contrarian posts but not dishonest ones (unless you count obvious jokes like my global warming/evolution polls). I think maybe people perceive my posts as having a devil's advocate flavor is that my focus is often quite different from theirs. For instance, I post a lot about how Republicans win elections and win in Congress. Some people want me to take a personal moral position on Republicans, and I don't do that when discussing election strategy, because it's irrelevant.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Heres some news

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/roger-stone-henry-greenberg-michael-caputo/index.html

lol Roger Stone

This stuff is just starting to flow out into the open, jesus. I'm almost worried that we'll get so much info about collusion that people will stop even seeing it as notable.

I'm concerned about that too. I think it's actually already happened. If the FBI had uncovered the things that the trump administration has straight up admitted to, it'd be a way bigger deal.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I really don't care what they think. In fact, if they think I'm annoying I'm probably saying something right.

Yeah I'd say this is the problem
---

red sox 777 posted...

I make contrarian posts but not dishonest ones

red sox 777 posted...

I make posts I don't necessarily agree with for the purpose of fostering discussion.

?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you have a problem with this topic being a "liberal echo chamber." it kinda is, and i'd like to have conservative voices here too, but i don't really see an easy way to solve this.

I'll just say that this topic probably isn't considered a liberal echo chamber if 4 or 5 people stopped posting entirely, despite the general like mindedness on the side of being liberal more than conservative you can have varying degrees of it, and different approaches to arguments, etc etc. Like you, Kenri and SEP are going to overall agree on most things but you're all going to disagree on certain elements of certain things and have different styles of discussing.

It's generally a good place but yeah a few people who exist only to insult people and parrot make it pretty hard to read because there's an artificial feeling that debates are one sided because in any given discussion you've got like 3 or 4 people engaging and then like 3 peanut gallery people who contribute the least and for whatever reason post among the most. But they never get called on it because what kinda monster would insult their pet parrot I guess.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I make contrarian posts but not dishonest ones

red sox 777 posted...

I make posts I don't necessarily agree with for the purpose of fostering discussion.

?

It's not dishonest unless I'm saying, "X is what I think." What I'm saying is often, "X is what someone thinks, and this is why they think it. You should understand how they think."
---