Yup, it’s this, plus the constant needling not-quite-moddable insults from @Der_Trihs , @Zoobi , @crowmanyclouds etc, which you can’t respond to because it will lead to modding or a hijack. About as enjoyable as being attacked by a crowd of biting midges while trying to dodge a herd of stampeding buffalo.
There’s still a debate forum, but no one wants to debate anymore, at least nothing remotely contentious. Maybe that’s because most posters have got old and crotchety, or it’s due to greater polarisation everywhere, but the result is the same.
Rephrase it like this: If you told me your name is Waldo, and instead I say “You don’t seem like a Waldo to me. You seem more like a Gertrude. I’m going to call you Gertrude now.”
The libertarian position would be that nobody can pass a law making it a crime for me to call you Gertrude, even if it pisses you off. IMO that’s the correct position.
But it would be within the remit of a workplace or message board to decide that misnaming someone is inconsistent with their code of conduct. Freedom of speech just means the government can’t prosecute you for things you say. It would be anti-libertarian to suggest that non-government entities can’t have their own code of conduct which excludes people for misnaming or misgendering people. Otherwise freedom of association doesn’t mean much.
It is this shift in meaning that so annoys those here who still identify as conservatives. The term has been co-opted by white nationalist authoritarians, so now
conservative = Nazi adjacent
and that’s what people think when you say “conservative,” even if you really mean small government and fiscally responsible.
So now when someone calls themselves a conservative everyone else thinks Josh Hawley not Mitt Romney.
Meanings shift, and it can really suck when when something you use to describe yourself all of the sudden means something different than what you intend. Doubly so when there is no new, simple definition to replace the broken one.
“I’m a conservative, but not the MAGA kind, rather the kind who thinks government should mostly stay out of people’s lives, and manage things responsibly and efficiently so that the whole country is prosperous and safe” doesn’t fit on a hat.
Another word for a “not-quite-moddable insult” is a criticism. Everyone receives them on this board and in real life. But not everyone is able to handle them very well.
But my question is: would it be within the remit of a different message board to say that so misnaming someone is consistent with their code of conduct?
One problem the board has, and it’s been trending that way for years, is that it gets smaller and smaller and the same few posters continue to dominate. And as people choose not to post for whatever reason, that domination grows. This thread is yet another example.
Then, if you’re like me, and find that you really don’t like a lot of those dominating posters, you don’t get involved and may even start blocking enough to a point where tens or even hundreds of posts are missing in any given thread.
Frankly, I’ve got a list of maybe a dozen posters I’d be happy to never see post again. Because even if we’re at least nominally on the same side regarding politics and culture, I can’t stand their personalities and verging on one-trick pony opinions.
The main reason I stopped participating in political threads (and have P&E on global ignore) is because trying to engage far-right conservatives as if they were authentic posters helps to justify their legitimacy in their eyes (“Heh I fooled the libs into thinking I am being sincere and honest once again, hahaha!” >pens more garbage posts ad nauseum<). The only winning move past a certain point became Not To Play, even if the actual thought process there as such may not have actually reached said level of 2nd tier meta-awareness. The line between Troll and True Believer eventually got rubbed out into nothingness in any event, and either way I simply got too fatigued to continue to give a crap.
I don’t agree with this. Certain posters have gotten very good at throwing little darts that are just within the rules, and fighting back in the thread requires equal finesse, otherwise the mods are activated. “Taking it to the Pit” is inefficient and just invites the dart-thrower(s) to call in allies for a full-scale dogpile. It’s a broken and tiresome part of this board.
Are there even “tons of boards” any more? It’s seems like there is the Dope (very small in today’s internet) and Reddit (dominant in same). Sure, there are individual blogs and specialty fora and wikis, but are there any other major “general interest” boards?
I would add a third, though less common, point: we have had (and continue to have) conservative posters who are strongly invested in debating particular topics (lately, that’s been transgender topics), and not only often lean on cherry-picked cites to make their arguments, but vocally complain that the board rules prevent them from being able to freely express their viewpoints.
Insults outside of the Pit are against the rules. There are ways to criticize a person without making it an insult. If it’s an actual insult, then it’ll get modded. I frankly think you’re making shit up.
Really, there are ways to criticize a person that leaves them feeling insulted, but once it veers into insult territory, that’s where you can be modded. Anything less than that isn’t an insult.
“Insults within the rules” is fictional, unless you’re talking about the Pit. I’m calling bullshit on this.
This sounds like yet another persecution claim that will be free of cites, as usual.
Frankly, if this is happening, then it’s worthy of an ATMB discussion. I very much doubt it though.
I don’t identify as a libertarian anymore, but looking around nowadays at what’s become of libertarianism, it seems like that would be the soft libertarian position. The movement has become so incoherent that it’s hard to guess the doctrinaire position, but I’d guess it’s something like “everyone should have the right to say whatever they want if they’re willing to risk being shot.”
Surely you aren’t asking if there are general-interest message boards other than Reddit and SDMB?
I dunno about that. If you don’t actually reply to or name the person you’re trashing, it’s quite possible to go off on an apostrophic tangent about the stupidity of “that kind of person”, right beneath the reply, in a way that everyone knows exactly who you’re talking about. I know because I’ve done it (not proud of it, just saying).
People do overstate the case for persecution and selective modding, but let’s not act like there aren’t ways to flout the spirit of the rules. Some of our dear-departed conservative luminaries virtually made an artform of pushing the boundaries and drawing fouls, and the practice hasn’t disappeared with their departure.
I agree with (and somewhat identify with) the first sentence, but not the second. I think it’s fair to say that it’s not always easy to determine which variety of conservative ideas a person has, but I don’t think I would automatically attribute far-right beliefs unless there was an explicit reason to do so.
And if you report it, that is going to be modded. If “everyone” can understand it, so will the mods. If nobody reported it then you got away with a rules violation.
This isn’t some kind of clever ruse, it’s nothing more than getting away with something.
I have absolutely seen people get modded for insults without naming names. It’s not some kind of secret way to insult people.