I’m quite interested in discussing and debating the upcoming UK general election. However, Fiendish_Astronaut has started a thread that’s horribly biased.
His post is: “The announcement perhaps sums up the sense of disorder and chaos that has plagued this government throughout its term as the rain thrashed down on the Prime Minister with his words drowned out by music blasted out by protesters in front of the gates of Downing Street. Sunak already looks like a defeated man and will need a miracle to remain in number 10.”
I give him kudos for his eloquence in his eviscerating description of the election announcement. But it’s a blunt and one-sided look at Sunak’s election prospects. That’s not the opening of a discussion. It’s a diatribe. Am I allowed to call out Fiendish_Astronaut on his flagrant bias, and request a neutral debate opening topic?
So you’re saying the original thread should stand, but I should start an alternate thread with a different subject title? So Fiendish_Astronaut’s thread, which is incredibly biased, is the start of the debate? And there should be two debates on the same subject in different threads? OK, I’ll start a new thread.
Huh? I disagree. It’s normal to have different political (conservative vs progressive or whatever) opinions on political threads–it’s definitely not threadshitting.
I think it could be considered thread-shitting if someone came into the original thread and wrote “this topic is stupidly framed and impossible to debate as presented” or something like that. Which is what OP of this thread seems to want to say.
Anyway, now I understand why there are two threads on the UK general election, both still active.
Yes but ISTM that the response to the question would have better been to advise phrasing the strong disagreement with the OP in a manner that did not attack the poster, and was forum appropriate, rather than to create two threads on the same subject.
Strong honest disagreement civilly expressed is to be encouraged. Not separate rooms for different opinions.
I think you can challenge me in the thread or start a new topic that frames the government in a different way. I did include the word “sense” deliberately and that is not the same as saying that there is disorder and chaos. I also believe that is the prevailing feeling amongst a majority of Britons. In fact it may even be the prevailing feeling among the a number of Conservative voters.
I completely disagree that it is incredibly biased. I think it is a good take, but as ever threads are opinions. I’m not trying to be the BBC. Though I think if a BBC reporter said “there has been a sense of chaos and disorder during this government’s term” that would not be unbalanced. There really has been! The ‘Sunak looks like a defeated man’ bit would probably cross the line though.
There are some massive disagreements here over proper form in Politics & Elections.
First, if an OP is “a blunt and one-sided look” at an issue, I don’t see that as a bug; I see it as a feature. I want opinionated OPs. They’re good for starting the conversation. When I start a thread in Great Debates or P&E, I try to make them opinionated, and I often put a fair amount of thought into them before posting them.
Second, disagreeing with the OP isn’t threadshitting. It’s what leads to an interesting thread. The disagreement should be interesting and civil, but if it doesn’t occur, there’s not much of a thread. Multiple perspectives are to be welcomed.
@Fiendish_Astronaut didn’t err in making an opinionated OP; they wrote a great OP that’s leading to conversation. You wouldn’t have erred if you’d disagreed with FA’s take in the OP, as long as your disagreement had been civil and interesting.
Had the OP been like, “Fuck Sunak, he can kiss my ass, as can all conservatives, they suck,” then sure, it would’ve been a rant and not a good OP. Had your response to the actual OP been like, “what is wrong with you, Sunak is great, please stop voting you’re ruining our country,” then sure, it would’ve been a threadshit and not a good response.
But as it is, your diagnosis of the OP is wrong, as is your belief about what a disagreement with it would’ve necessarily been.