Chaos and the Kiddies Table

[320 Years of History]

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.

Red:
??? You are the one who said "do something about it." I merely indicated that I do do things about it.

Blue:
??? And that changes the quality of my arguments in what way? Their rigor isn't diminished by that which gives rise to my being here and making them.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

OK, that's about the funniest thing I've ever read. I should continue to participate in a board in which no real discussion takes place because I have an obligation to educate the world? Yes, I'll admit that I am obsessed with education, and regard education as the answer to everything. Unfortunately, while that works great for newborns, it is pointless for adults. I don't come here to engage with morons with the intent of "educating" them. They had their bite at the learning apple and failed to even break the skin. It is waaay too late now. It was too late when they were born to ignorant parents.

No, I came here in search of intelligent, thoughtful people who disagree with me. I've found a few, but generally all I've encountered are thoughtful, intelligent people who agree with me and an astonishing army of idiots. I refuse to believe that this is what the world is. I know there are thoughtful people who hold conservative beliefs. I believe that they are scared off by the mindless attack dogs. Ban them from the CDZ. Try to create ONE forum which upholds standards that you would see employed in an actual debate. Can you imagine someone in a debating society indulging in the idiocy you see here?

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

I can think of nothing to do except express my opinion that the CDZ is not working, and that the staff here are not doing enough to make it work. If others agree, maybe the staff will pay attention. So far few have joined me in my criticisms, asked the mods to respond or stated whether or not THEY think this section works or needs improvement. Trolls respect NOTHING. They exist to spread chaos and kill conversation. Mods who cannot recognize these idiots, and ban them without the slightest hesitation, serve no purpose whatsoever.

 

[Elvis Obama]

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Oh, you just don't get it. Typical uppity prole ...

These guys are the vast intellects; their time is better spent pondering 'The Big Ideas N Stuff'. All the little people out there are supposed to do the actual work implementing their latest 'Deep Thoughts', and then spend their little free time left sitting quietly at their feet in the evenings, being awed by the constant pearls of wisdom and many profundities they pondered while you out doing your jobs and will generously share with you.

Hey mods, it's simple. Ban this guy from the CDZ. He is not someone who has any respect for the notion of a "clean debate zone". He seeks to do nothing but reduce every exchange to a thoughtless "rank-out" contest. I just don't understand the mods here. You established this subforum for the purpose of creating one place where this nonsense wouldn't be allowed, and then you allow it. WHY? Let him romp in, and destroy, every other subforum here, but leave ONE place where people HAVE to take the high road.

 

[OldLady]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.
I don't see a lot of this in the CDZ. I have always felt safe to speak my mind here, whatever forum I'm in. Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile. You do know that you can report any violations, including insults, in the CDZ? It is sort of the OP's responsibility to keep the thread on track, by steering it back.
I wish you would stay; I've always appreciated your input in whatever forum. A little sanity here is a good thing.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

A year? Wow. My sympathies.

I think it's worth pointing out that someone regarded participating here as a "punishment" for a lost bet. How does the staff here feel about the fact that this place is regarded as a punishment for thoughtful people?

 

[OldLady]

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Well, what he wants is really a "Vapid Sophistry Forum", wherein he and 320 can post endless examples of the 'Joys of Circular Reasoning' without some sane person posting and pointing out they're verbally constipated and ridiculous.

Um, this is an example of what goes wrong in this forum.

 

[OldLady]

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Oh, you just don't get it. Typical uppity prole ...

These guys are the vast intellects; their time is better spent pondering 'The Big Ideas N Stuff'. All the little people out there are supposed to do the actual work implementing their latest 'Deep Thoughts', and then spend their little free time left sitting quietly at their feet in the evenings, being awed by the constant pearls of wisdom and many profundities they pondered while you out doing your jobs and will generously share with you.

? Their ideas are no more profound than anyone else's but usually they're willing to explain why they believe what they do, rather than just insult others. Which seems to be your role.

 

[Elvis Obama]

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

Well, I do do something about it, and in a very direct way. I have sent my three kids to schools that taught them how to be informed and how to be critical thinkers. I require them to present rational arguments when discussing things with me. I've done the same for over a dozen disadvantaged kids whom I've mentored over the past 20+ years.

And yes, as goes my participation in the forum, I do challenge poorly developed lines of argument. Moreover, I have on multiple occasions entreated for well ordered and presented discussions on multiple topics. You'll find almost every one of those offers for rigorous thought and discussion in the Structured Debate Forum. You'll also find there's not been one person who presented a strong argument on those topics.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics​

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.

Why do you avoid discussing the questions asked in this thread? Do you like this forum? Are you satisfied with the level of civil discourse here?

I would start a lot more threads in the CDZ if I wasn't concerned that they would instantly be derailed by the chaos that rules here. Ages old rules about how to create polite conversation (as mentioned in my OP) are abandoned online. Why? Sometimes the kiddie table is a rickety folding table, while the adults use the ornate dining table. Here it is the opposite. Here the nutjobs and brats control everything.

 

[OldLady]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

Have you reported him or not?

 

[Picaro]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

You're nothing but a troll, and this is just another troll thread. What I said was clear; you just don't like it that you fool no one, that's all. Grow up.

 

[Picaro]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

Have you reported him or not?

For what, posting in a troll thread? lol. You need to get over being made out to be wrong about your false claim re the percentage of Muslims who are 'radical' by me in that other thread; you just look petty and silly running around baiting and complaining about those who best you in discussions.

And so should Elvis and 320, but they're probably incapable of that.

 

[Picaro]

Well, good for you. I guess the rest of us unwashed are just not good enough for your graciousness then.

Indeed, not to mention their alledged 'informed information and commentary' isn't any more accurate or correct than the usdual astro-turfers' talking points in the regular forums, and their responses to other posters who might disagree with them are invariably snarky knee jerk insults anyway, which is why their lamentations are so fatuous and hilarious.

I once had respect for you and your well thought out and researched arguments, this ends the respect. I cannot respect someone who is only doing good on a bet.

I can't recall him ever making it through an entire thread without making snarky insulting remarks about everybody else's 'intelligence n stuff'; most of us took less than a week to see what what his real level of 'intellect' is. Same with 'Elvis'.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

Have you reported him or not?

I've reported many people here. It has achieved nothing. The mods are apparently happy with the way the CDZ operates. Now? Why would I continue to report people after I've given up on this place? Why continue reporting people? Don't you get it? It's either heavy handed moderation or chaos. Heavy handed moderation would chase away the trolls and kiddies. Traffic here would be a fraction of what it currently is. The admins prefer a high traffic rate to worthwhile conversation. I would like one of them to have to courage to explain why.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."
- Thomas Jefferson

That's how rational, emotionally mature people think. Over the course of my life I have had many arguments on every subject under the sun. These conversations have been impassioned, but never angry. They have never sunk to the childish level of personal insult. I have been to parties where I have heard people express relief that so-and-so wasn't invited, because he's a nutjob and conversation is impossible if he's around. I have attended many family gatherings where the kids are seated at a separate children's table, because the grown ups wanted to talk. All these are standard strategies/behaviors in social interactions.

The came the internet, where nutjobs hold the whip hand. Where twelve year olds get to dominate. Hey, mods! Why do you allow it? Hey posters! Do you like this garbage?

I ran forum boards. Admittedly they were not politics boards, they were movie discussion and photoshopping boards. Nonetheless we had chat subforums, and we constantly had people stepping over the line and we had a zero tolerance policy towards such people. People online value their identities. They build up their "brand" and they resent losing their online name, and being knocked back to zero posts and zero recognizability. All you have to do is take that away from them. It's a lot of work, but if you're not willing to do the work, you have nothing.

The CDZ is a failure. There is no commitment to debate or discussion here. It is just a slightly more polite wasteland. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to create a truly safe zone before the rational people will come out to play. The CDZ, it seems to me, indicates some awareness of this situation and some attempt to deal with these problems, but it's a half-measure at best.

If this is truly how you think of the CDZ, why are you bothering to come in here? Seems a bit pointless from the viewpoint you have expressed, or am I misunderstanding something?

First of all my participation here has slowed considerably, and this thread is something of a farewell. My search for a decent politics forum started recently, and the first forum I participated in was in every way worse than this place. I had some slight hope for this place, but that about as enthusiastic as I've gotten.

I was curious, as I ease off into the sunset, whether I am the only one who feels this way. Perhaps others feel as I do, or perhaps not. I doubt mods would be inclined to be critical in a public forum, but I also wondered whether they were happy with the kind of traffic that dominates here. Knee-jerk, hyper-partisan, fact-free, absurdly personalized arguments, reduced almost entirely to the low level of ad-hominem attacks. That's what happens when you let a lot of immature nuts dominate conversations.

You say that you would like the general public to be better informed (I am paraphrasing), and yet, when presented with a real opportunity to move towards that laudable goal, you cut and run instead of standing and fighting. Interesting....

Red:
??? The context of his "cut and run" is participation the USMB forums. What point is served by his remaining here and contributing in the face of the rampant knee-jerk, hyper-partisan and fact-free remarks that pervade the conversations here? None of any value that I can think of.

For my own part, I don't intend to participate here once the duration of my lost wager's "penance" is complete. There is just too much derelict and glib intellectual torpidity for me to endure beyond a year. Truly I had no idea that "average folks" were as "loud, strong and wrong" as has been shown to me by having participated in a variety of topics on this forum. I don't get it. How can one profess to care enough about political matters to engage in public discourse about them yet, as so many folks here are, refrain entirely from factual investigation?

I mean really. I can count on one hand the number of times someone on USMB (besides I) has, in context, cited credible/rigorous research facts to support their arguments. In contrast, I see repeated echoes of partisan content/ideas drawn from partisan sources. Why have the discussion if all one is going to do is parrot what any of us can read in various editorials?

You guys want an informed and thoughtful populace? Then DO something about it. Don't just sit there and type out your whining about the "problem", as you see it, accually get of your duff and DO something about it. I see this as a great opportunity to do just that, challenge those who, as you said, "refrain entirely from factual investigation". Just running away to another forum where that is already taking place does nothing to solve the problem.

First of all, I'm not running away to another forum. I've tried to find one, and so far I have failed to do so. There is nowhere to go.

I recently posted a thread about the current crisis in the Republican party. A common topic of discussion in the real world in recent months, but here there's nothing. People talk about Trump till they drop, but analyzing the relationship of the party to their rank and file members is beyond them. I tried to explain to people that I am not a leader of the Republican party, and therefore have nothing to do with the topic, but no one could get it. If they couldn't insult the poster, what's the fun? Again, this is not debate. Debate requires dispassionate, factual argument, not insults.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile.

I think Elvis Obama's point is that it isn't your butt that should feel "kicked," as it were. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with strong counterarguments. It's wholly another to lambaste them personally. But rather than assail folks ideas with cognitively solid rebuttals, folks just attack the person. Moreover, folks aim to find (be it real or imagined) any little crack they can find in another's case and use it as the basis for discarding and discrediting the entirety of a writer's ideas.

Why? I don't know, but I have to suspect that it's because they lack any substantive basis for taking on the central argument. Now if one wants to chip away at the edges, so to speak, fine, but in doing so, at least have the integrity to state that while one can find flaws in some minor points, one must accept the central theme presented. It seems, however, even that is too much for many folks here.

What is even more frustrating, chafing even, for me at least, is when folks refute some bit of irrelevant minutia offered in a post, and whether that data point is right or wrong isn't going alter the substance of the remark in which the item was noted. The most recent illustration of that is found in this Politics sub-forum thread. (the first post in that thread that pertains to this paragraph's comments is #247 -- my second one in the thread -- and the relevant comment is in the "sidebar" comment at the very end of the post.)

I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247. Never mind that nothing I wrote in that post hinged on the relationship between the two guns mentioned in that sidebar paragraph. Even today, another member persists in trying to poke holes in the veracity of that claim and is trying to twist the remark into something it is not and was never meant to be. Personally, I think it generous to consider the remarks made by that member and the one who even today continues on that line to be illustrative of anti-intellectualism; as far as I'm concerned, it's indicative of utter stupidity.

Look in another new thread. You'll find one members who think in my OP I've:

• Asserted "conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything."
• Called for "doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here."

Now I can't say where, how or why they came up with those conclusions. I can only observe that they did and that I neither wrote nor intimated either of those things. And to your comment about my vernacular, I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.

Lastly, I'm sure you have ample illustrations of your own whereby folks have done nothing other than make empty claims about the insufficiency of your remarks. I don't even understand what is to be gained from doing that. Sure, it makes sense if one is delivering a stand up comedy act. In a discussion about public policy, economics, religion, science, etc., what is that to achieve? And to to Elvis Obama's point, what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.

 

[OldLady]

Another case of that 'pot, kettle, black' thingie, wherein some astro-turfers post their favored propaganda, then astro-turfers on some other 'side' post theirs, and then all the various shills post snivels about how the others are ruining threads n stuff. The real snivel is that astro-turfers just don't like free and open discussions, especially those LARPing as 'educated and informed observers' while being nothing of the sort.

Is this available in English? I can't follow a word of it.

Good.

Then why did you post it? To be misunderstood? I can call you a snirtkin, and determine for myself that the word "snirtkin" means a moron with non-existent communications skills and a completely empty brain, but what would be the purpose if you didn't know that was what I meant? This is supposed to be communication. A forum board where the vast majority of participants are pointlessly enraged and inarticulate morons, devoted solely to insulting people, has nothing to do with debate or discussion.

Why do you come here, to this board entirely, but specifically this subforum, where clearly your brand of pointless non-communication is being discouraged? GO AWAY. Are you so obsessed that you have to shit in every single subforum you see? Destroy conversation everywhere?

Mods. What is wrong with you? Is there not one person on staff that cares about the quality of discussion here? What the point of the CDZ when you don't care about whether people are conversing or merely insulting one another?

Have you reported him or not?

For what, posting in a troll thread? lol. You need to get over being made out to be wrong about your false claim re the percentage of Muslims who are 'radical' by me in that other thread; you just look petty and silly running around baiting and complaining about those who best you in discussions.

And so should Elvis and 320, but they're probably incapable of that.

Not at all, Picaro. My claim in the other thread wasn't false, and I certainly didn't remember you, personally, as one of those who disagreed. Let me remind you of the CDZ rules:


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

It seems to me that you are quite actively putting down posters and trolling, since you haven't tried to engage in any real discussion about the OP topic, which is, is the CDZ being adequately moderated to maintain their own rules?
I still believe you are a sterling example of what the OP complains of. He is not a troll, in my opinion; although I still struggle to figure out what a troll is, if you go with the definition in Google, it is someone who visits threads with the sole mission to derail the actual topic, cast aspersions and personal insults. Some posters on USMB call anyone a troll who consistently disagrees with their viewpoint, but that is not a troll.
It would be helpful if a mod would explain why your posts here have been okay.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile.

I think Elvis Obama's point is that it isn't your butt that should feel "kicked," as it were. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with strong counterarguments. It's wholly another to lambaste them personally. But rather than assail folks ideas with cognitively solid rebuttals, folks just attack the person. Moreover, folks aim to find (be it real or imagined) any little crack they can find in another's case and use it as the basis for discarding and discrediting the entirety of a writer's ideas.

Why? I don't know, but I have to suspect that it's because they lack any substantive basis for taking on the central argument. Now if one wants to chip away at the edges, so to speak, fine, but in doing so, at least have the integrity to state that while one can find flaws in some minor points, one must accept the central theme presented. It seems, however, even that is too much for many folks here.

What is even more frustrating, chafing even, for me at least, is when folks refute some bit of irrelevant minutia offered in a post, and whether that data point is right or wrong isn't going alter the substance of the remark in which the item was noted. The most recent illustration of that is found in this Politics sub-forum thread. (the first post in that thread that pertains to this paragraph's comments is #247 -- my second one in the thread -- and the relevant comment is in the "sidebar" comment at the very end of the post.)

I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247. Never mind that nothing I wrote in that post hinged on the relationship between the two guns mentioned in that sidebar paragraph. Even today, another member persists in trying to poke holes in the veracity of that claim and is trying to twist the remark into something it is not and was never meant to be. Personally, I think it generous to consider the remarks made by that member and the one who even today continues on that line to be illustrative of anti-intellectualism; as far as I'm concerned, it's indicative of utter stupidity.

Look in another new thread. You'll find one members who think in my OP I've:

• Asserted "conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything."
• Called for "doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here."

Now I can't say where, how or why they came up with those conclusions. I can only observe that they did and that I neither wrote nor intimated either of those things. And to your comment about my vernacular, I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.

Lastly, I'm sure you have ample illustrations of your own whereby folks have done nothing other than make empty claims about the insufficiency of your remarks. I don't even understand what is to be gained from doing that. Sure, it makes sense if one is delivering a stand up comedy act. In a discussion about public policy, economics, religion, science, etc., what is that to achieve? And to to Elvis Obama's point, what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.

I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.
I noticed. Nice job.
I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247.
That's a common tactic, and an even more common one in gun arguments is to reject articles and studies as "lies" or "liberal propagada." Some days that is more frustrating than others. With those posters, you can't possibly "win."

what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.
So I don't know what you would call it when I can't help myself from opening my big mouth and continuing to state my objections or my point of view (stupid, opinionated old geezer, I guess). I realize some posters won't accept whatever evidence I provide, but a thread is a mixed audience. Not everyone is arguing sheer garbage. If that is all that shows up, I move on.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Yes, sometimes I get my butt kicked, but you get used to it after awhile.

I think Elvis Obama's point is that it isn't your butt that should feel "kicked," as it were. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with strong counterarguments. It's wholly another to lambaste them personally. But rather than assail folks ideas with cognitively solid rebuttals, folks just attack the person. Moreover, folks aim to find (be it real or imagined) any little crack they can find in another's case and use it as the basis for discarding and discrediting the entirety of a writer's ideas.

Why? I don't know, but I have to suspect that it's because they lack any substantive basis for taking on the central argument. Now if one wants to chip away at the edges, so to speak, fine, but in doing so, at least have the integrity to state that while one can find flaws in some minor points, one must accept the central theme presented. It seems, however, even that is too much for many folks here.

What is even more frustrating, chafing even, for me at least, is when folks refute some bit of irrelevant minutia offered in a post, and whether that data point is right or wrong isn't going alter the substance of the remark in which the item was noted. The most recent illustration of that is found in this Politics sub-forum thread. (the first post in that thread that pertains to this paragraph's comments is #247 -- my second one in the thread -- and the relevant comment is in the "sidebar" comment at the very end of the post.)

I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247. Never mind that nothing I wrote in that post hinged on the relationship between the two guns mentioned in that sidebar paragraph. Even today, another member persists in trying to poke holes in the veracity of that claim and is trying to twist the remark into something it is not and was never meant to be. Personally, I think it generous to consider the remarks made by that member and the one who even today continues on that line to be illustrative of anti-intellectualism; as far as I'm concerned, it's indicative of utter stupidity.

Look in another new thread. You'll find one members who think in my OP I've:

• Asserted "conservatives are idiots, the government never lies, and Liberals know everything."
• Called for "doctorates and such to truly be the ONLY qualified posters worthy to comment or even be here."

Now I can't say where, how or why they came up with those conclusions. I can only observe that they did and that I neither wrote nor intimated either of those things. And to your comment about my vernacular, I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.

Lastly, I'm sure you have ample illustrations of your own whereby folks have done nothing other than make empty claims about the insufficiency of your remarks. I don't even understand what is to be gained from doing that. Sure, it makes sense if one is delivering a stand up comedy act. In a discussion about public policy, economics, religion, science, etc., what is that to achieve? And to to Elvis Obama's point, what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.

I made a point of not peppering the noted OP with abstruse words and complex features of sentence structure or literary and grammatical devices/constructions.
I noticed. Nice job.
I made one remark, an ancillary/parenthetical one at that, about one gun evolving into another. That's it. One ill informed member attempted to assert my statement was inaccurate, and sought therefore to discredit everything else I wrote in post #247.
That's a common tactic, and an even more common one in gun arguments is to reject articles and studies as "lies" or "liberal propagada." Some days that is more frustrating than others. With those posters, you can't possibly "win."

what is the point of remaining active in a forum, God forfend actually engaging writers who make such remarks, where that sort of commentary prevails? None that I can identify.
So I don't know what you would call it when I can't help myself from opening my big mouth and continuing to state my objections or my point of view (stupid, opinionated old geezer, I guess). I realize some posters won't accept whatever evidence I provide, but a thread is a mixed audience. Not everyone is arguing sheer garbage. If that is all that shows up, I move on.

Let's take a look at the kind of thread that has caused me to decide that this forum is a lost cause.

The subject is CDZ - Gun Control

First there are ten useless posts. Then C_Clayton_Jones posts the truth here. This is not a legitimate attempt to foster debate.

Now, the subject of gun control is much in the news, for obvious reasons. A legitimate debate would be most welcome. It is impossible to have such a debate here. Why? Because here legitimate debate is routinely subverted in preference to catering to idiots. By the time we get to here, we've descended into insult. After that it's "butt hole buddies". I've watched college debating societies compete, and I have never heard anyone make reference to "butt hole buddies". Not even the Republicans have fallen that far. So I think we have a legitimate claim on being the worst excuse for debate that this planet has ever seen. There are then a few really nasty posts by 2aguy and his psycho squad. They too have NOTHING to do with debate. Debate is IMPOSSIBLE with psychos and children in the room.

This is in no way the fault of the members who are infantile or psychotic. They can't help themselves. What's the excuse of the mods? This is entirely their fault. They create a forum, ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging clean debate, then do NOTHING to make that happen. Why not ask c_clayton_jones to mod? He seems to be able to distinguish between legitimate debate topics and garbage. Move the illegitimate topics out. Culling out a couple of really nasty posts, but leaving the thread, with a warning to comply with CDZ rules, is an absurd response. That's like removing part of a tumor and hoping the cancer won't grow back. BAN people. IMO the only sensible thing to do is ban them from the forum entirely, but at least ban them from the CDZ. Legitimate debate is not natural. It requires rules and the guts to enforce those rules.