My exact words:
That said, no side has a monopoly on baiting the denizens of this board.
And you say “there is no game here”. 
If there really was no game here, you wouldn’t be twisting words. Buh-bye now.
Same here.
Well, they did, it is very underwhelming to claim that arguments that one can cite from experts or more experienced people are worthless. Since their opinions (mine too) and expert advise are not death with, they stand. That is all.
Like Colibri and others said, and I agree 
, it’s not worth it for me also to continue to respond to you in this thread.
How is that different from saying both sides do it?
Bye.
Once again you cited a college student’s op ed piece in a college newspaper among other things. Your cites are not good. Your arguments are frequently hard to detect. Just linking to an opinion piece is not an argument.
You will notice that noone here is jumping in to defend your position on the thread in question. Mostly criticizing me for my tone. And I admit that my tone degenerates when I have to deal with racism and racist ideas being held up as social justice.
Bye.
Perhaps you can present an argument in that other thread when you get a chance. ANY ARGUMENT will do.
Interesting question: if someone’s behavior in Great Debates is such that mods are thinking they’re not debating in a way that makes the board better, maybe Great Debates would be improved by that poster’s exile?
Yeah, yeah, hive mind woke sheeple mob pitchforks whatever. Regardless of their beliefs, if their tactics are just pissing everyone off through misrepresentation and unrealistic cite-demands, I say they get uninvited from the party.
So, you think other folks ‘toeing’ the line allows you to too?
I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works here.
Well things have certainly been heading in that direction of late, and my expectation is that this trend will continue.
[“Shoot these rabid dogs. Death to this gang who hide their ferocious teeth, their eagle claws, from the people! Down with that vulture Trotsky, from whose mouth a bloody venom drips, putrefying the great ideals of Marxism!.. Down with these abject animals! Let’s put an end once and for all to these miserable hybrids of foxes and pigs, these stinking corpses! Let’s exterminate the mad dogs of capitalism, who want to tear to pieces the flower of our new Soviet nation! Let’s push the bestial hatred they bear our leaders back down their own throats!”]
I am at a loss for words. Reality has long disappeared over the horizon.
Wow. That is just offensively over the top.
As a Czar, I’d think you’d be a lot more worried about the coming Revolution here at the Dope
I think that in the majority of cases, I am not the one that starts with the sniping but I could be wrong.
I think in the OVERWHELMING majority of cases if a moderator says “simmer down” the tone of the thread becomes much more polite and a few of the posters predictably disappear with some regularity.
I am merely making a suggestion that I think would improve debate. I think it would help, I don’t see how it would make it worse.
How 'bout this for a suggestion, stop taking the bait.
(To the extent that it’s that and not you instigating things.)
It’s easier said than done.
This is a little rich from someone getting their back up about a suggestion to improve things around here. If my suggestions is offensive to you in some way, please explain it to me so I can help make you feel better.
After the above? Yeah, it’s you.
Do you realize that “bothsiderism” isn’t even a word? Do you not see the red squiggly line?
Are you just nitpicking about exactly how it’s spelled? Because if you are complaining about bothsidesism as a word you are very much behind the times. It has been used by publications such as the NY Times since at least 2016.
It’s a recent coinage, but a very useful one.
No, no. Comparing a question about when to ban someone from a message board to calls for the state-sponsored murder of political dissidents is a measured, reasonable analogy that can only further good will and mutual understanding.
I’m assuming you mean “the non-woke posts generate more flags than the woke posts because of the imbalance of posters on this site”. If so, yes, that is true, and has been mentioned times too numerous to count here in ATMB. It is a difficult effect to mitigate. I think the mods do a reasonable job of trying to clean up the mess, but then it isn’t my ox being gored most of the time.
Accusations of biased moderation as a whole have been thrown around since the beginning of the board. No one has made a credible case. Your statement is the closest that anyone can come to it. Also note that the mods who get the most flack for being biased are typically getting the same flack from both sides. YMMV.
This in itself doesn’t sound like a bad suggestion. However, many posters feel that the tone of the threads are already over-policed, and that limiting the amount of snark and venom a poster can use removes any fun element from the discussions. I don’t know that I agree, to the extent that there is a bit of a culture of who can sling the greatest, smartest zinger and still be in the rules.
I think this is a fair question. Who started poking who is always a difficult game when kids are doing it in the back seat and you aren’t able to monitor directly, but on a board with a written record, it can be evaluated after the fact.
There is a validity to the point that multiple posters on one side can line up and each slip in one zinger and everyone seem to be playing by the rules, but the one on the other side is stuck getting stung to death by the bees, and attempts to fight back look like they are just being nasty.
If I were moderating, I certainly would be looking for that kind of behavior. I can’t speak to how the actual moderators do their job, other than many do seem to go and review problem threads in depth before handing out punishments.
As BigT points out, your use of “butthurt” to apply to yourself is anomalous. “Butthurt” is a slang whiny accusation that the other person doesn’t have a real grievance. Using it on oneself is perplexing.
Yeah, I can’t speak to specific examples. My opinion is that pointing out folks are starting toward a line makes tons of posters start ranting in ATMB about the “new rules” and how the board is no fun any more.
You think the terms “hive mind” and “echo chamber” are used neutrally? That there’s no snark at all in the choice of those terms?
I don’t believe there is an objective standard on what constitutes “an admission that you are unable to win arguments on their merits”, at least in the context of snarky remarks. People remain free to judge the merits of other posters’ viewpoints by their choice of using “Drumpf” or “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”, for instance. Deciding that “hive mind” is similar in use is their choice. You don’t have to agree.
Yes, he did. That he was trying to claim that other posters are using bogus arguments does not preclude that he denigrated the majority viewpoint that he disagrees with.
So which is it? You never use the word “hive mind”, or you do use it to characterize a certain group of people?
Of course that just begs the question of what is center? When the Tea Party are the moderate Right, what is the goalpost?
“Mainstream” is a difficult thing to measure when the spectrum is skewed so wide.
No, I’m not complaining how it is spelled (because it isn’t an actual word). I would think that outside of MPSIMS, IMHO, The Pit, etc. standard English should be encouraged, in order to facilitate communication.
No it doesn’t. You’re just making that up.
Your rejection of it is a very narrow view. Indeed, you have become what you are accusing the other person of. A simple rejection of an argument for nothing more than two words.
Context is everything. If I had done nothing more than accuse interlocutors of hive mind thinking then you’d be correct.
But that’s not what happened where I was used as an example. Hate my arguments and me all you like but I doubt anyone could support a claim that my argument existed solely of saying my opponents were hive mind drones.
You are correct I am using “hive mind” to denigrate the opposing viewpoints. That is my viewpoint. I was making an observation. One I would be happy to back-up. Would you feel better if I was more explicit about it then fine…I will be. Happy to call it “group think” or “PC” or “thoughtless” or what have you.
You can disagree with me, of course, but of the two of us who is debating in good faith?
We can come up with loads of “hive mind” thinking and slight variations on that theme. Five years ago you heard nothing about Mexicans all being rapists. Then Trump mentioned it and doubled down on it and now you have millions who will tell you how Mexicans are all rapists. What about election fraud in the last election? Hell, this goes back ages. How many “witches” were burned because everyone though that was a thing?
That is the hive mind. Would you defend the witch burners as thoughtful people and me saying they were a hive mind is dismissive?
Hive mind or group think exists. It is a real thing. And if someone is arguing a baseless position such as “the election was stolen” then I feel justified in saying that is the hive mind talking.
If you really want good debate then call me out on the “hive mind” thing. Hand waving it away makes you the person you decry.