Poll of the Day > Wait, when did Foxxbox become a moderator?!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Happy Birthday, Foxx!
:D

---

TheWitchMorgana posted...

no, i'm not! that's what i just said

Okay microx ;)

:l

---

Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

---

Alpha218 posted...

Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

I mean, y'all have yet to invite me to one of your margarita parties, so that's fairly bad form in my book. =p

---

Alpha218 posted...

Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

A general statement can still apply.
---

Alpha218 posted...

Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

That's something a terrible mod would say! You can't fool me!

---

Alpha218 posted...

Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

It's not a great big mystery.

You overthink things for starters. Beyond that, who cares what your problems are, this is the job you chose.

You worry more about political and identity biases spreading throughout the website, instead of sticking to the basics like obvious trolling, bad words, and really bad words, and really bad overt content of that which is suitable for 4chan....

But when it comes to issues more refined and articulate, you feel the need to censor them based on your personal bias...that makes you a bad moderator. You choose to cross a line that's none of your business to begin with.

If "1+1=2", then so be it, that's the way of the world.... but if there are those against such notions because it doesn't account for some "flavor of the month SJW-isms"; and it's the person quoting "1+1=2" getting moderated for "trolling", that's on YOU for having no spine in dealing with reality.

ok

---

Alpha218 posted...

ok

exactly

Doctor Foxx posted...

There's a lot of good going on that's not work, it just means my time on the internet is limited so I can enjoy those other things.

How did you feel about your time away?

Good to hear there's some good things going on then!

I had mixed feelings about my time away. Often I didn't think of here much at all, but sometimes when browsing Reddit or other forums, I missed the sense of community here. I mean, it's a somewhat toxic community, but it's the only forum where I've felt in actually got to know the users beyond a handful of posts. I'd come back and check here periodically but nothing that grabbed me and made me want to come back... Until the pandemic. I think seeing a lot of users I recognize here while not getting much social interaction irl helped contribute to my return.

MinPa posted...

Yeah on FFXIV I was Laharl, here I was Kanoopy.

Kwame was just asking about you the other day! @IAmNowGone Oh wait, just saw the post where you credit us and Jen for drawing you back haha.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Someone told me TDC was back and I had to say hi

I'm flattered my topic was able to bring you out for a few posts despite your busyness!

ryanell666 posted...

It's not a great big mystery.

You overthink things for starters. Beyond that, who cares what your problems are, this is the job you chose.

You worry more about political and identity biases spreading throughout the website, instead of sticking to the basics like obvious trolling, bad words, and really bad words, and really bad overt content of that which is suitable for 4chan....

But when it comes to issues more refined and articulate, you feel the need to censor them based on your personal bias...that makes you a bad moderator. You choose to cross a line that's none of your business to begin with.

If "1+1=2", then so be it, that's the way of the world.... but if there are those against such notions because it doesn't account for some "flavor of the month SJW-isms"; and it's the person quoting "1+1=2" getting moderated for "trolling", that's on YOU for having no spine in dealing with reality.

who cares. pick up a football

---

Entity13 posted...

On one hand, are you sure you didn't actually earn those moderations, back when the rules around here were either different or handled differently? I mean, you do have a reputation around here, with the general consensus on this board being that you are full of it, that you have always been full of it, and that you will for the foreseeable future continue to be full of it; and until the day comes that either you leave or the site allows for a single user to be publicly marked for their reputation, there will always be at least one person who feels the need to point out that you are full of it. So ask yourself if those moderations were all her, or if you have some serious personal growth to get on with.

When you go from not receiving moderations very often to suddenly getting them every day, how legitimate do you think those moderations are? And a few of those events specifically pertained to Foxx at the time.

To play Devil's Advocate, I was given certain assurances from other moderators that people other than Foxx were involved, but the frequency of moderations just suddenly went down when Foxx left. And technically a lot of the resulting moderations from the largest incident stemmed from an unjust moderation where I criticized a racist remark but some troll -- and I have my guesses -- spun it to try to claim that I supported it (which is hardly an isolated incident and goes back to that unfounded "reputation" you talk about -- since a small group of dedicated, but influential trolls have repeatedly and relentlessly slandered and libeled me, spinning whatever I say to something worse than anything seen in Littlefinger's Little Game). And, of course, technically several other PotDers were made into mods at the same time who also kinda left or got demodded around the time Foxx left so technically there are other suspects. However, it's a relief when you have one fewer suspect to worry about.

As for the fact that I get moderated more often than others for posting IDENTICAL content at times (or toned down content), you can credit that to a mix of mod bias and persistent trolls. I also once got warned to quoting somebody where the original comment -- the thing the mod specifically cited as being offense -- was left up on the board. Which, by the way, is why I have to edit things I'm quoting at times, something that literally no other poster has to do.

Entity13 posted...

On another hand, no, I have vague memories of Foxx's time as a mod and recall it not impacting me nor anyone I cared about.

Yes, I get it, you don't care about me. Feelings successfully hurt! =(

Entity13 posted...

Patterns cease to be random when you recognize them.

I cannot speak for anyone named Erik that used to be on this board, but I will say this: entertainment, even popular entertainment, is exactly that - entertainment. Taking what is said too seriously is the fault of the consumer, not of the show. That said, Jon, John, and Stephen make attempts at some research--albeit to a limited degree I have called out on Youtube when it's come to such a topic as History--while writing their material, because they practice the idea that the best comedy is derived from the truth. That, in itself, is not propaganda. Propaganda would be like moderators on a gaming site deleting messages, and warning the poster(s), that call into question current events or offer another point of view that had been shared elsewhere. Propaganda comes from the presenter, not the audience. Again, people might take those comedians too seriously, but people also take Fox, Breitbart, Alex Jones, or heyday Colbert Report too seriously.

By that argument, the CCP doesn't produce propaganda because we recognize that it's propaganda... which isn't something I think most people would consider a valid argument.

The literal definition of propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" which fits Oliver and Stewart to a tee.

As for your moderator example, I'm not really sure what that is.

Entity13 posted...

You could try asking her to rephrase the question in a digestible manner, like a responsible person might do.

There's no responsibility to answer questions on a forum. If somebody asks something weird that I don't understand and I have no investment, I'm just going to move past it. And I should note that Foxx didn't challenge that point -- as would have been her right -- but instead it's you who took umbrage for whatever reason.

Entity13 posted...

And no? This isn't the first time the subject of tenure has been brought up. Helly isn't the first nor only person to bring it up, either, though I cannot speak of right or wrong regarding his estimate to when you started coming here. I recall the first time I saw you, and you tried to throw some weight and familiarity around like you had always been here. I asked who you were back then, because I did not recognize you, and then you responded by saying the same of me, despite me actually being a known user, albeit an awkward, somewhat unpopular one (who once had a fling for BTB) for so many years. Someone with tenure here, even as a lurker, would have recognized at least that much.

Helly has been one of the most consistent proponents of this Birther-esque obsession. As for whatever interaction you're referring to, I have no recollection so I can't speak to that incident.

As for when I started to use this board more regularly, I don't recall claiming to have lurked here; I said that I occasionally visited. At that time, some of the posters recognized me, I recognized some of them, and then others neither knew me nor I them. Which, considering I didn't often visit, was to be expected. Even today I sometimes visit CE yet there only maybe a handful of people I recognize and some I recognize more for their time here. People can visit boards with minimal impact to the community. And bear in mind that for all my time regularly posting here (starting circa 2014 or so), I've only posted in a few of the major community topics going back a few years rather than the entirety of that time. Thereby I was around but not really part of the community.


---

Entity13 posted...

But let's say you somehow missed all that. Let's say you somehow didn't know who Foxx was one post, and miraculously know who she was and what she'd done to you (allegedly) a few posts later. Let's say you passed through this board on occasion however many years ago.

A poster used an older name for Foxx that I don't associate with the poster because I know them better by this name because for five years or so they've been using this name.

Entity13 posted...

Let's say you passed through this board on occasion however many years ago. Past You is still unfamiliar, and you are still not a vet here. I would sooner call that Raven guy, a lurker who may or may not have moved on by now, a vet when the one thing he did was message me asking if I needed a ride to the Iron Maiden concert I had mentioned since he was in the area (a little over eight years ago). You? I'm still not convinced.

I don't go around intimating "vet status" because I find the concept as a whole stupid and juvenile. And I could here another 30 years and not be considered a vet, while others who were here a shorter period of time would be considered one because the notion as the whole is silly.

But if it assuages your mind, you can denote the years before I began regularly -- rather than occasionally -- posting here as the age of vets and label them going backwards PZ for pre-Zeus. Or don't, because I don't particularly care either way.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

I tend to think of PotDers by the name I originally knew them by. TDC will always be TheDarkCrusader for me. Foxxboxx is Foxxboxx. Besides, does the PotD wiki even exist anymore?

I very frequently forget the older names because I get used to the new ones. Not just here, mind you, but in general. It's hard enough keeping track of everybody without adding that layer to it. (And that's not even getting into the matter of alts...)

I can't remember if I ever interacted with Jigsaw when was TheDarkCrusader or whatever other name he might have used, so at this point he'll always be Jig or Jigsaw to me until he changes his name and I gradually forget the previous one.

Alpha218 posted... Its always funny how people randomly accuse people of being bad mods when they cant actually see what we do

What about when people accuse you of being a good mod?

---

Zeus posted...

By that argument, the CCP doesn't produce propaganda because we recognize that it's propaganda... which isn't something I think most people would consider a valid argument.

No, your comparison is a strawman at best, and a weak man fallacy at its most disingenuous. If we know something is identified as propaganda, then we can almost certainly be sure it is purely propaganda unless it happens to be a satirical spin on what propaganda looks like. What I said, however, was that these entertainers make no secret about putting on a show for a show's sake. There is a world of difference here.

Now, if you meant to say that Jon Stewart's comedy is built off of a series weak man fallacies, then I might be inclined to agree, as that would be identifying and breaking down the type of humor being used. It's not like some major pundit on a major "news" network trying to look or act serious, because that's a different kind of funny when such fallacy is used - pitiful. And yet there will always be people who take Jon, John, and Stephen seriously through their jokes, just as there will always be folks who take Tucker seriously.

That's not on these comedic performers, and calling them propaganda is a misnomer. The fault is low-echelon thinking that is so used to seeing political rivals as cartoon villains, and the little our mass media (be it right-leaning or left) has done to quell this issue because quelling issues doesn't sell, that critical thinking and acceptance of humor as being just that go out the window for sake of trying to legitimize Us Versus Them. So no, the comedians are not propaganda.

Zeus posted...

As for whatever interaction you're referring to, I have no recollection so I can't speak to that incident.

Shame. I don't have the exact date, nor a screenshot of this, but it sticks in my mind as our first ever interaction.

Zeus posted...

As for when I started to use this board more regularly, I don't recall claiming to have lurked here; I said that I occasionally visited. At that time, some of the posters recognized me, I recognized some of them, and then others neither knew me nor I them. Which, considering I didn't often visit, was to be expected.

And to this day I've yet to discover who those people were that you claim recognized you. That does make it difficult to believe you on this point, the first ever point of contention between us, but I do accept that you are saying as you do and wish to be able to put it behind us without further reference.

---

GunslingerGunsl posted...

I don't think the reply itself was the issue they were discussing. It makes sense that some people might not know who TDC was referring to since he was using her old username. But I think people were pointing out that Zeus says he has been here for over a decade despite the fact that most people who were would have recognized the username Foxxboxx.

Ive never heard him claim that. Im just under a decade. Although Ive been using the site without a UN since it began. Only for FAQs/guides up until 2012 when I needed to know what a certain NES game was. So I wouldnt have had any idea (although could put two-and-two together) who it was.

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Happy Birthday, Foxx!
:D

Is it?

Happy b-day yayyy.

---

zebatov posted...

Ive never heard him claim that. Im just under a decade. Although Ive been using the site without a UN since it began. Only for FAQs/guides up until 2012 when I needed to know what a certain NES game was. So I wouldnt have had any idea (although could put two-and-two together) who it was.

I haven't heard him say that either, though I haven't been back on this board for too long. I have just been a spectator in some of the new PotD drama. lol.

Entity13 posted...

No, your comparison is a strawman at best, and a weak man fallacy at its most disingenuous. If we know something is identified as propaganda, then we can almost certainly be sure it is purely propaganda unless it happens to be a satirical spin on what propaganda looks like. What I said, however, was that these entertainers make no secret about putting on a show for a show's sake. There is a world of difference here.

...what?

Entity13 posted...

Now, if you meant to say that Jon Stewart's comedy is built off of a series weak man fallacies, then I might be inclined to agree, as that would be identifying and breaking down the type of humor being used. It's not like some major pundit on a major "news" network trying to look or act serious, because that's a different kind of funny when such fallacy is used - pitiful. And yet there will always be people who take Jon, John, and Stephen seriously through their jokes, just as there will always be folks who take Tucker seriously.

That's not on these comedic performers, and calling them propaganda is a misnomer. The fault is low-echelon thinking that is so used to seeing political rivals as cartoon villains, and the little our mass media (be it right-leaning or left) has done to quell this issue because quelling issues doesn't sell, that critical thinking and acceptance of humor as being just that go out the window for sake of trying to legitimize Us Versus Them. So no, the comedians are not propaganda.

No, it's just propaganda and the "oh, they're comedians" argument is an example of the motte & bailey fallacy. Jon Stewart in particular was famous for playing up his show's journalistic elements then retreating behind the "oh, I'm just a comedian!" whenever he was challenged on some legitimate issue. And while you can certainly blame some of his perception of credibility on his audience, at the end of the day he wasn't just a comedian. Leno was a comedian covering news stories, J-Stew and J-Olly are a lot more than that. And I suppose there are *some* parallels to mere punditry but... the persistent and pervasive slant and misinformation on the general public feels like more than that.

Entity13 posted...

And to this day I've yet to discover who those people were that you claim recognized you. That does make it difficult to believe you on this point, the first ever point of contention between us, but I do accept that you are saying as you do and wish to be able to put it behind us without further reference.

They responded in the initial topic to that effect. I *believe* one of them at the time may have been Papercup, but we're talking 6 years ago or so. But even then, any interaction would have been fleeting since it's not I was routinely posting on PotD at that point.

---

Zeus posted...

...what?

Here I thought what I said was simple. Let me rephrase and expand that so it is easier to consume for you.

• Typically, things that are propaganda are agreed to be propaganda because they rally support behind a singular cause or mold all beliefs into a conforming uniformity (with exceptions being dealt with usually in silence). Furthermore, this is not limited to one medium, as far as I can find.
• Comedians and their shows are one medium in all existence, regardless of their aim. The aim can be to make direct jabs at various topics, to satirize something to an ironic extreme that some audiences might enjoy, or to do stand-up and try not to ask trite questions about airplane food. In the case of Jon Stewart and Co., they sought to do enough research that their jokes didn't fall flat on their face for general audiences. Imagine trying to tell jokes about how chartreuse the sky looks, for example, and I assure you people will look at you weird and possibly laugh for unintended reasons. They also considered target audiences because of Comedy Central's demographics at the time; so now imagine telling a joke about how sunny and wonderful it is to an underground village of Drow and maybe you'd see that such material wouldn't work in that hypothetical scenario. That said, their research is admittedly incomplete, and I've commented on some inaccuracies on Youtube in the past due to my pedantry I have to keep under control so I can actually enjoy intended humor more often.
• There is a line between these things, comedy and propaganda, while they may not be mutually exclusive. For instance, it is possible for propaganda to utilize comedians, as well it is possible for comedians to go too far or be taken too seriously. Actually, instead of a line, think of it like a Venn Diagram.
• The comparison you made, that the CCP must not make propaganda because it is known to be propaganda, is lame in premise and validity, and comes off as somewhere between strawman or weak man fallacies. This is a known pattern to your arguments, which does infuriate people, so you are aware.

Zeus posted...

They responded in the initial topic to that effect. I *believe* one of them at the time may have been Papercup, but we're talking 6 years ago or so. But even then, any interaction would have been fleeting since it's not I was routinely posting on PotD at that point.

Oh, so you recall there being an initial topic? That's interesting, and I'd love to hear (or read more). I may also have to ask paper if he either knows or recalls what you're talking about. I mean, you admit here you only believe one one those people was paper, so an honest mistake might be possible, but what do you think? Should I go ahead and ask him?

Zeus posted...

No, it's just propaganda and the "oh, they're comedians" argument is an example of the motte & bailey fallacy. Jon Stewart in particular was famous for playing up his show's journalistic elements then retreating behind the "oh, I'm just a comedian!" whenever he was challenged on some legitimate issue. And while you can certainly blame some of his perception of credibility on his audience, at the end of the day he wasn't just a comedian. Leno was a comedian covering news stories, J-Stew and J-Olly are a lot more than that. And I suppose there are *some* parallels to mere punditry but... the persistent and pervasive slant and misinformation on the general public feels like more than that.

Sometimes, I get the feeling you are throwing words and phrases about, either misunderstanding their meaning entirely or throwing them like a game of darts at something you've misinterpreted. Motte and Bailey Fallacy, for one thing, refers to retreating to a related (however feebly) premise that is easier to defend because a harder one to defend comes under scrutiny. This sounds simple enough, and might include such examples as:

• "Final Fantasy XV put a permanent stain on the series when it came out!" -> "I just want games to be complete when they are released."
• "How dare you not give me exactly what I want? I want a manager!" -> "Businesses need to be fairer towards their customers."

I was actually going to reference Rodney King here, but then I remembered that doing so would have missed the important details between his speeding, to avoid an issue with drunk driving and parole, and asking if we could all get along. Like, the finer points and details would have been done an injustice in the name of trying to fit this inside of a Motte and Bailey.

And there's the rub when it comes to Jon and Co. There are finer points. Maybe not like the poor lady who burned herself with 200-degree coffee and had to sue McDonald's due to the combination of skin grafts and their general attitude on the matter, but there are details nonetheless. For one, Jon had established that his run of the show was a comedy and would be a comedy that imitates news media, again with some research involved, though he didn't mention that part at first that I can recall. Yes, we already established this part, but then comes the next part. It wasn't just his critics he had to remind that his show was a comedy. That went also to fans and praises. His jokes and criticisms were not limited to the GOP or their target constituents either, for that matter; it was just overwhelmingly stacked on the GOP's shenanigans because there were so many during Dubbya's eight years, and still a fair deal of them during Obama's time.

Where you see (or claim) motte and bailey, I am seeing reminders and regular disclaimers aimed at everyone in general. You had tried to draw a comparison to CCP. Does CCP admit to anyone, let alone its own people, that it uses propaganda to rally or control the masses' beliefs? Do CNN or Fox tell their respective audiences ever, let alone on the regular, that they control their narratives rather than simply catering to base political beliefs between commercials? No, I do not find Jon's or John's regular reminders of being comedians to be motte and bailey, much like I do not see either of them passing the threshold into propaganda territory.

At worst, for Jon and Co., I'd call some of the reminders a tired excuse for doing someone wrong or hurtful. For some of their critics, I'd interpret matters as you or them not caring for those comedic stylings. That would be fine if that were the actual case, because no style of humor is meant for everyone. Except maybe puns. People who claim to hate puns are terrible liars.

---

Final Fantasy XV wasn't that bad. It was a vast improvement over XIII, at the very least. I went in with extremely low expectations though, I guess.

JigsawTDC posted...

Final Fantasy XV wasn't that bad. It was a vast improvement over XIII, at the very least. I went in with extremely low expectations though, I guess.

Such an opinion of XV being besides the point.

---

I have fun with XIII...
---

Entity13 posted...

Such an opinion of XV being besides the point.

Oh yeah, I mostly agree with the rest of what you wrote. I don't have the energy to engage with Zeus's antics all the time though.

LinkPizza posted...

I have fun with XIII...

XIII is my least favorite.

JigsawTDC posted...

XIII is my least favorite.

I dont know if its my favorite. But I had a ton of fun with it...
---

Entity13 posted...

Here I thought what I said was simple. Let me rephrase and expand that so it is easier to consume for you.

* Typically, things that are propaganda are agreed to be propaganda because they rally support behind a singular cause or mold all beliefs into a conforming uniformity (with exceptions being dealt with usually in silence). Furthermore, this is not limited to one medium, as far as I can find.
* Comedians and their shows are one medium in all existence, regardless of their aim. The aim can be to make direct jabs at various topics, to satirize something to an ironic extreme that some audiences might enjoy, or to do stand-up and try not to ask trite questions about airplane food. In the case of Jon Stewart and Co., they sought to do enough research that their jokes didn't fall flat on their face for general audiences. Imagine trying to tell jokes about how chartreuse the sky looks, for example, and I assure you people will look at you weird and possibly laugh for unintended reasons. They also considered target audiences because of Comedy Central's demographics at the time; so now imagine telling a joke about how sunny and wonderful it is to an underground village of Drow and maybe you'd see that such material wouldn't work in that hypothetical scenario. That said, their research is admittedly incomplete, and I've commented on some inaccuracies on Youtube in the past due to my pedantry I have to keep under control so I can actually enjoy intended humor more often.
* There is a line between these things, comedy and propaganda, while they may not be mutually exclusive. For instance, it is possible for propaganda to utilize comedians, as well it is possible for comedians to go too far or be taken too seriously. Actually, instead of a line, think of it like a Venn Diagram.
* The comparison you made, that the CCP must not make propaganda because it is known to be propaganda, is lame in premise and validity, and comes off as somewhere between strawman or weak man fallacies. This is a known pattern to your arguments, which does infuriate people, so you are aware.

Oh, so you recall there being an initial topic? That's interesting, and I'd love to hear (or read more). I may also have to ask paper if he either knows or recalls what you're talking about. I mean, you admit here you only believe one one those people was paper, so an honest mistake might be possible, but what do you think? Should I go ahead and ask him?

Sometimes, I get the feeling you are throwing words and phrases about, either misunderstanding their meaning entirely or throwing them like a game of darts at something you've misinterpreted. Motte and Bailey Fallacy, for one thing, refers to retreating to a related (however feebly) premise that is easier to defend because a harder one to defend comes under scrutiny. This sounds simple enough, and might include such examples as:

* "Final Fantasy XV put a permanent stain on the series when it came out!" -> "I just want games to be complete when they are released."
* "How dare you not give me exactly what I want? I want a manager!" -> "Businesses need to be fairer towards their customers."
I was actually going to reference Rodney King here, but then I remembered that doing so would have missed the important details between his speeding, to avoid an issue with drunk driving and parole, and asking if we could all get along. Like, the finer points and details would have been done an injustice in the name of trying to fit this inside of a Motte and Bailey.

And there's the rub when it comes to Jon and Co. There are finer points. Maybe not like the poor lady who burned herself with 200-degree coffee and had to sue McDonald's due to the combination of skin grafts and their general attitude on the matter, but there are details nonetheless. For one, Jon had established that his run of the show was a comedy and would be a comedy that imitates news media, again with some research involved, though he didn't mention that part at first that I can recall. Yes, we already established this part, but then comes the next part. It wasn't just his critics he had to remind that his show was a comedy. That went also to fans and praises. His jokes and criticisms were not limited to the GOP or their target constituents either, for that matter; it was just overwhelmingly stacked on the GOP's shenanigans because there were so many during Dubbya's eight years, and still a fair deal of them during Obama's time.

Where you see (or claim) motte and bailey, I am seeing reminders and regular disclaimers aimed at everyone in general. You had tried to draw a comparison to CCP. Does CCP admit to anyone, let alone its own people, that it uses propaganda to rally or control the masses' beliefs? Do CNN or Fox tell their respective audiences ever, let alone on the regular, that they control their narratives rather than simply catering to base political beliefs between commercials? No, I do not find Jon's or John's regular reminders of being comedians to be motte and bailey, much like I do not see either of them passing the threshold into propaganda territory.

At worst, for Jon and Co., I'd call some of the reminders a tired excuse for doing someone wrong or hurtful. For some of their critics, I'd interpret matters as you or them not caring for those comedic stylings. That would be fine if that were the actual case, because no style of humor is meant for everyone. Except maybe puns. People who claim to hate puns are terrible liars.

i'm so happy i blocked zeus, he's such a huge troll, spreading qanon lies, as truths, ok?

---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Happy Birthday, Foxx!
:D

oh thanks!

zebatov posted...

Is it?

Happy b-day yayyy.

It was indeed this week, thanks

JigsawTDC posted...

I'm flattered my topic was able to bring you out for a few posts despite your busyness!

You've been gone so long I wanted to pop in for sure :)

Anyway this has been one of the worst weeks I have dealt with, pure unmitigated shit. It was nice to stop in and say hey and then things turned down... steeply. No one is promised another day on this planet and I like to spend those days not on forums so much any more.

So much loss this year it's hard to deal with.

---

damn entity went off on his ass

---

Entity13 posted...

Here I thought what I said was simple. Let me rephrase and expand that so it is easier to consume for you.

And yet somehow it's more confusing because you're talking in circles.

Entity13 posted...

Typically, things that are propaganda are agreed to be propaganda because they rally support behind a singular cause or mold all beliefs into a conforming uniformity (with exceptions being dealt with usually in silence). Furthermore, this is not limited to one medium, as far as I can find.

What's your argument here, that if two people don't agree that something is propaganda then it's not propaganda? You realize why that's horrifically flawed, right?

Entity13 posted...

Comedians and their shows are one medium in all existence, regardless of their aim. The aim can be to make direct jabs at various topics, to satirize something to an ironic extreme that some audiences might enjoy, or to do stand-up and try not to ask trite questions about airplane food. In the case of Jon Stewart and Co., they sought to do enough research that their jokes didn't fall flat on their face for general audiences. Imagine trying to tell jokes about how chartreuse the sky looks, for example, and I assure you people will look at you weird and possibly laugh for unintended reasons. They also considered target audiences because of Comedy Central's demographics at the time; so now imagine telling a joke about how sunny and wonderful it is to an underground village of Drow and maybe you'd see that such material wouldn't work in that hypothetical scenario. That said, their research is admittedly incomplete, and I've commented on some inaccuracies on Youtube in the past due to my pedantry I have to keep under control so I can actually enjoy intended humor more often.

Again, a lot of sound and fury, but I'm not sure what it's actually signifying. What are you actually trying to argue? That all comedians should be treated as a singular entity instead of as individuals? Because there's a pretty massive cry between the comedic work of somebody like Leno or a stand-up comedian and the faux news presentation done by "comedians" who are basically just pundits using comedy to drive their messaging.

Entity13 posted...

The comparison you made, that the CCP must not make propaganda because it is known to be propaganda, is lame in premise and validity, and comes off as somewhere between strawman or weak man fallacies. This is a known pattern to your arguments, which does infuriate people, so you are aware.

You mean my pointing out fallacies? Yes, I'm sure that must infuriate whoever is making fallacious claims.

Entity13 posted...

Oh, so you recall there being an initial topic? That's interesting, and I'd love to hear (or read more). I may also have to ask paper if he either knows or recalls what you're talking about. I mean, you admit here you only believe one one those people was paper, so an honest mistake might be possible, but what do you think? Should I go ahead and ask him?

This was all discussed in the other topic (the unmoderated mess one?). It concerns the first topic when I started to regularly use these boards. You can look it up. It covers a bunch of other stuff as well, after which I realize I had PMs from PotDers in both 2014 and 2015 as well as my moderation history -- which was virtually non-existent -- suddenly spiking in 2014 which would obviously coincide with me becoming a more regular presence here. It's not about any relatively small amount of posting that I'd done on PotD prior to 2014.

Entity13 posted...

Sometimes, I get the feeling you are throwing words and phrases about, either misunderstanding their meaning entirely or throwing them like a game of darts at something you've misinterpreted. Motte and Bailey Fallacy, for one thing, refers to retreating to a related (however feebly) premise that is easier to defend because a harder one to defend comes under scrutiny. This sounds simple enough, and might include such examples as:

My interpretation is fine. Rather than attack the meat of my argument, I can understand you trying to attack the semantics to distract from the meat of the argument.

Entity13 posted...

It wasn't just his critics he had to remind that his show was a comedy. That went also to fans and praises. His jokes and criticisms were not limited to the GOP or their target constituents either, for that matter; it was just overwhelmingly stacked on the GOP's shenanigans because there were so many during Dubbya's eight years, and still a fair deal of them during Obama's time.

Which is a backhanded assertion that propaganda has to be partisan to be considered propaganda, which isn't the case. But I'm sure you'll gloss over there to question whether my usage of backhanded was cromulent, or whether cromulent is a legitimate word in the first place because it came from the Simpsons.

---

Entity13 posted...

Where you see (or claim) motte and bailey, I am seeing reminders and regular disclaimers aimed at everyone in general. You had tried to draw a comparison to CCP. Does CCP admit to anyone, let alone its own people, that it uses propaganda to rally or control the masses' beliefs? Do CNN or Fox tell their respective audiences ever, let alone on the regular, that they control their narratives rather than simply catering to base political beliefs between commercials? No, I do not find Jon's or John's regular reminders of being comedians to be motte and bailey, much like I do not see either of them passing the threshold into propaganda territory.

Which comes down to you not understanding what I was saying, as well not understanding the commonly leveled criticism against Jon Stewart. Nor does their approach of trying to retreat behind the defense of being a comedian to excuse all of their conduct magically not change the nature of their conduct. And it wasn't a "regular reminder" on J-Stew's behalf, it was something he retreated behind when his argument was challenged or anything he created was criticized. And even now when his content is rightly criticized for its misleading nature, his defenders conceal him behind the defensive walls of "Oh, it's comedy!"


---

likehelly posted...

damn entity went off on his ass

And he took until now to respond . . . by saying I'm the one unable to understand what was said, while himself showing a lack of understanding, or that my so-called explanations are circular. I see no reason to respond further.

---

Entity13 posted...

And he took until now to respond . . . by saying I'm the one unable to understand what was said, while himself showing a lack of understanding, or that my so-called explanations are circular. I see no reason to respond further.

yeah he does that a lot

---