For one thing, when you’re gambling, you might be benefitting (see above for examples on how one might get something of value) from someone else’s misfortune, or worse. Second, in a game–particularly in gambling–there are winners and losers. This framework trivializes a matter in which just gallows humor doesn’t. Gallows humor serves certain purposes, but it doesn’t set up winners and losers.
Thanks. I think this is a concern that is specific to you and is not they way most people would view the reference to gambling in the thread. I personally don’t feel that the gambling aspect makes a significant difference. But as I said, everyone has their own particular unacceptable subjects. If you want to discuss the election without any mention of gambling, you are free to start your own thread.
I really don’t get this at all. What stage are you objecting to?
- Do you object to a thread that includes discussions about the election ( I assume not)
- Do you object to making predictions in such discussions?
- Do you object to a thread devoted to those predictions?
- Do you object to a retrospective look at those predictions to see how accurate they were?
- Do you object to identifying which poster had the most accurate prediction?
That is all that that thread is doing.
I guess I could see that if there was actual money at risk that it would be unseemly to profit off the misery of others, but that isn’t what is going on.
If it bugs you that people are making light of serious events then again you are complaining about the wrong thread, and in fact you are probably reading the wrong message board. Pretty much every political topic has jokes in it. Take for example the Alex Jones thread. 26 people were killed at Sandyhook, yet among the serious discussion we also have links to Simpsons episodes.
I’m really not clear on what it is you think you want?
As I said before, I am very specifically objecting to the framing of the discussion in terms of a game, specifically gambling. Any language that refers to bets or gambling or placing bets on an outcome. Anything that would even in only abstract terms make participants in the thread winners or losers in a betting framework.
I have listed above the types of benefit that might accrue in casual gambling. Real money would of course make it worse, but this is bad enough.
This is irrelevant. See my comments above.
I think my OP is very clear. Don’t frame discussions of serious topics in terms of the contributors to the thread engaging in betting or gambling on the outcome.
Having watched this thread from the beginning and actually posted rather early on I feel like coming back to point out the following: The OP was motivated to start this thread based on the 2022 Senate Confidence Pool Contest. As I pointed out in post #20 and others have mentioned as well throughout this thread that is actually a PREDICTION thread about the election. There is no betting. I don’t read anything in that thread as being a “joke” about the election. There is no prize being offered for those who end up getting the outcome correct. AND the OP acknowledges they haven’t even read the thread in question. So what the hell is the issue?
The OP then shifts gears to bring up some fake contests (will the neighbor child be beaten to death or not) unlike anything I’ve ever seen in all my years reading the Dope. I seriously doubt something like that would gain much traction beyond people saying how gross and inappropriate it would be to engage with that. The Death Pool threads are morbid and some may find them tacky but I don’t see anyone celebrating the death of anyone.
It seems to me the OP is engaging in some RO rather than having a valid point to make.
And regarding the post you just made in response to Buck_Godot’s most recent post, NO ONE IN THAT THREAD IS BETTING OR GAMBLING ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION. The word used is “contest”. Try reading the thread. You may learn something.
I understand what you are asking. I don’t agree with you though.
So, you are against predicting the outcome of senate races, as if someone is correct, they are a winner?
I believe my comments above adequately address this question.
No, they don’t.
Read them again
I seriously doubt that would help. Your position is ridiculous regarding that thread.
And I believe that comments in reply to your OP have more than adequately addressed yours.
As for some reason, you have not accepted those, I am trying to figure out what it actually is that you are objecting to.
If all you are saying is, “I don’t like it.”, then fine, thank you for sharing your opinion. If you actually want to know why others don’t share your opinion, then actually listening to what they have to say, rather than flatly stating that you will ignore it, will serve you much better.
I said I would ignore comments that address gallows humor generally, because that is not the subject of this thread. I will only consider comments that specifically address the terms of the OP, which are stated very clearly. So, if you want me to consider your answers, address them specifically to the issue of framing a discussion in terms of a game, specifically a type of gambling, not general comments about gallows humor.
So, you’d object to someone saying, “I bet that SOB Trump won’t serve a day in jail?”
Is that the framing of the entire thread/discussion? Or is it just a random comment? It makes a difference to me.
Then all I can say is that you appear to have a very specific bee in your bonnet that is not shared by most (or, based on the responses to this thread, any) of the other posters on this board.
Since we are all confused as to why that specifically bugs you so much, we have shifted the discussion to large topics of gallows humor because that at least is something that we can make sense of and address. But since it appears to be a pet peeve specific to you we really can’t contribute much.
I think the problem you’ve got here is that, while “Making light of tragic events is inappropriate!” is a bad take in general, it is at least a comprehensible take, and people are going to keep defaulting back to that interpretation of your post, because your actual argument is borderline incomprehensible.
Which has been done, and ignored.
What is it that you are not understanding here? Or is it just that you are stating your disagreement in the form of a question?
I have found the hard way, that when someone says, “I don’t understand why…” there are two possibilities. The first is that they want to understand why. The second is that they don’t. I make the mistake often of thinking that it’s the first, and finding myself frustrated, trying to explain something to someone who really doesn’t want to understand.
If you are actually asking this question in ernest, please explain what it is, specifically, that you do not understand that has not been addressed in this thread.
YOU HAVEN’T EVEN READ THE THREAD!
I went back and read the entire thread you mention in the OP. The word “game” does not occur in that thread one time. NOT ONCE.
“Contest” is in the title and I spotted one use of the word “competition”. Since this is a thread about the Senate elections that shouldn’t so surprising much less offensive. Aren’t elections frequently referred to as contests? That doesn’t seem unusual at all. Competition may not be as commonly used but it doesn’t strike me as being so crazy. But then again, you openly acknowledge you haven’t even bothered to read the thread so you have no way of knowing that, do you?
Nope, just a case of recreational outrage.