• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Announcement Insults and Personal Attacks No Longer Allowed!

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
32,814
2,753
126
I’m not pretending I don’t understand anything. This is a great example, you think I’m lying because I’m not in agreement with you. I fully understand what you’re saying, but as I’ve said above if you truly do think that person is deliberately lying then simply ignore them, tell them, refute it, etc. But trying to dive into their psyche to figure out their underlying motives is an impossible feat and can be used to stifle discussion on this discussion forum.

And again things that you think may be black and white rarely turn out to be so simple, especially in politics. We shouldn’t be trying to regulate “truth” and “motives” on here. That’s what discussion is for, not rules and bans.
I guess the point is in your past this is something that you use to do, just go back and check our local aracvni9ds thread titles ands you will see that many times the thread title was edited by the powers that be !
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
I guess the point is in your past this is something that you use to do, just go back and check our local aracvni9ds thread titles ands you will see that many times the thread title was edited by the powers that be !
It’s not though. There’s a select few that claim it is, but that doesn’t make it true. Last time this came up there were quite a few posters of all stripes that came out and defended me. Whatever I post on here is my own actual opinions and not some devious plot to lie and troll you and argue in "bad faith".
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
It's always conservatives and "independents" that need to pretend nothing is truly knowable. They need that in order to justify not voting for filthy liberals to themselves, otherwise they would have to admit they are every bit as filthy and then some.

Philosophically, sure, nothing is knowable. Is that a peach you are eating or is it just an object executing its methods when your methods access them?

But that isn't what we are discussing here. We are discussing observable reality, behaviors we can predict with 100% accuracy, like gravity. Peer-reviewed studies vs. one lone scientist on the fossil fuel industry's payroll. If your objection to reality relies solely on perceived bias then your opinion isn't worth yesterday's Big-Mac now resting in the bottom of your gold-plated toilet.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
8,957
974
136
It's always conservatives and "independents" that need to pretend nothing is truly knowable. They need that in order to justify not voting for filthy liberals to themselves, otherwise they would have to admit they are every bit as filthy and then some.

Philosophically, sure, nothing is knowable. Is that a peach you are eating or is it just an object executing its methods when your methods access them?

But that isn't what we are discussing here. We are discussing observable reality, behaviors we can predict with 100% accuracy, like gravity. Peer-reviewed studies vs. one lone scientist on the fossil fuel industry's payroll. If your objection to reality relies solely on perceived bias then your opinion isn't worth yesterday's Big-Mac now resting in the bottom of your gold-plated toilet.
What if a peer reviewed study agrees with that 1/20/100 lone scientists? Is the truth a consensus or facts?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
15,971
1,864
126
It's always conservatives and "independents" that need to pretend nothing is truly knowable. They need that in order to justify not voting for filthy liberals to themselves, otherwise they would have to admit they are every bit as filthy and then some.

Philosophically, sure, nothing is knowable. Is that a peach you are eating or is it just an object executing its methods when your methods access them?

But that isn't what we are discussing here. We are discussing observable reality, behaviors we can predict with 100% accuracy, like gravity. Peer-reviewed studies vs. one lone scientist on the fossil fuel industry's payroll. If your objection to reality relies solely on perceived bias then your opinion isn't worth yesterday's Big-Mac now resting in the bottom of your gold-plated toilet.
This is precisely what UC is talking about. You've already judged every argument, you've already determined that everything you believe is demonstrable fact, and anyone that disagrees with you is not simply stupid, but that they have to be silenced. Why do you need to control what others are allowed to say? Why do you so fear their ideas that you can't allow them to be voiced?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
This is precisely what UC is talking about. You've already judged every argument, you've already determined that everything you believe is demonstrable fact, and anyone that disagrees with you is not simply stupid, but that they have to be silenced. Why do you need to control what others are allowed to say? Why do you so fear their ideas that you can't allow them to be voiced?
You see, the trick is not to form opinions on anything until you research the facts. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
54,927
3,452
126
Since there are WAY too many words in the 600+ posts in this thread for my feeble elderly mind...does this "no personal attacks" restriction ONLY apply in P&N, or does it also bleed over into OT where we often have a plethora of stupid people who NEED to be told they're stupid from time to time?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
Since there are WAY too many words in the 600+ posts in this thread for my feeble elderly mind...does this "no personal attacks" restriction ONLY apply in P&N, or does it also bleed over into OT where we often have a plethora of stupid people who NEED to be told they're stupid from time to time?
I can't imagine that improbable EU regulations would apply to P&N and not OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
32,814
2,753
126
What if a peer reviewed study agrees with that 1/20/100 lone scientists? Is the truth a consensus or facts?
gain that depends...for example what if we are talking about climate change and on one side you have 1,000 scientists whp all agree that Climate change is real and provable.....
Then on the other side we also have lets say 100 scientists who all agree that climate change is s manufactured problem and then they also have what they call proof that is is manufactured.....
Who winz? or do we just agree to disagree?
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
or do we just agree to disagree?
I’m not saying yes or no on your example but yes this is what many need to do more often. You don’t have to "win", this is a place to discuss and sometimes you're not going to agree and neither are they. Just be civil and agree to disagree. The push to have to either convince them or else they need to be silenced and banned isn’t the way to go. Just because a "fact" gets posted doesn’t mean it has to be the end all be all, maybe that person disagrees with what it’s saying.

Just agree to disagree and realize that people do have differing opinions and that diversity of thought is what makes this place an interesting place to post in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,042
2,875
126
It’s not though. There’s a select few that claim it is, but that doesn’t make it true. Last time this came up there were quite a few posters of all stripes that came out and defended me. Whatever I post on here is my own actual opinions and not some devious plot to lie and troll you and argue in "bad faith".
My sense of it is that people aren't so interested in that your opinions are your own but that they are wrong about everything. That gets to be hard to explain. Naturally, this is my opinion. People have biases and sometimes we turn to each other for some sort of concensus. Rational people, for example, tend to see who else is rational based on some commonality of thinking, a sort of birds of a feather kind of thingi. In my opinion, again, most of those whom I feel fall into that category also have proplems with the things you say. For what it's worth...............
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
54,927
3,452
126
I can't imagine that improbable EU regulations would apply to P&N and not OT.
well...duh. My point being, P&N is singled out in the announcement...granted, a certain level of civility is expected in the non-social forums...but P&N and OT have always been sort of the Wild West...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
The things that have been said between myself a diehard Red Sox fan and my friends that are Yankee fans would turn some people's stomachs, based on posts in this thread but that doesn't change the fact that we are friends, although they are just delusional on their choice of a baseball team to root for.
Not sure if you're hate watching the game tonight but it isn't looking good...
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
well...duh. My point being, P&N is singled out in the announcement...granted, a certain level of civility is expected in the non-social forums...but P&N and OT have always been sort of the Wild West...
No argument from me.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
My sense of it is that people aren't so interested in that your opinions are your own but that they are wrong about everything. That gets to be hard to explain. Naturally, this is my opinion. People have biases and sometimes we turn to each other for some sort of concensus. Rational people, for example, tend to see who else is rational based on some commonality of thinking, a sort of birds of a feather kind of thingi. In my opinion, again, most of those whom I feel fall into that category also have proplems with the things you say. For what it's worth...............

Moonie you’re one of the ones that I respect on here. Most of the time I don’t know wtf you’re saying but that’s ok because it makes the forum fun. You’ve always come across as civil and don’t have to always "win" every argument or advocate for shutting down and banning those that you disagree with.

im sorry you feel I’m wrong about everything though, I don’t share that opinion but you’re entitled to your own opinions and I’m ok with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ichinisan

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
We are 25 pages into this thread and I’ll definitely say it’s been extremely interesting to read through. It started as a new rule about being civil towards our fellow posters but not allowing anymore personal attacks or insults which were killing this place. The owner made the right decision imo, this should be unnecessary but unfortunately it was.

Several posters simply couldn’t understand how they’d be allowed to converse and make arguments anymore. That to me was amazing, people thought the only way to disagree with someone was through vulgarity and insults. Maybe that’s just the aftermath of the place to exist in the state it did for so long but it’s fascinating and somewhat sad nonetheless.

From there though the conversation took a far more draconian turn. The rule was about no insults or personal attacks but the second half of the thread turned into people advocating silencing people because of their opinions. It was argued that now that we couldn’t insult each other there would have to be more regulation of what posters actually said because heaven forbid a user post something you think is wrong (even if you’ve told them they are wrong before). And then the push to regulate and moderate people’s psyche, if you are ultra super sure they are arguing in "bad faith".

Thankfully there were plenty who saw the danger in that and voiced their concerns. The discussion surrounding it was very interesting to read through, especially in regards to how things can be much grayer than they realized. It showed that some on here may not be open to hearing other opinions because of this strong conviction that things were black and white in their favor.

Overall a worthwhile read for those bored enough one day to do so. I certainly am enjoying the new more civil atmosphere. Im hoping that people can learn that there may be a diversity of opinions out there and it’s worthwhile to hear people out and discuss with them (after all this is a discussion forum) rather than looking for ways to shut down opinions and conversations.

:beermug:


Your continuing to discuss and call out mods and their directives will not end well for you.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,706
5,291
136
We are 25 pages into this thread and I’ll definitely say it’s been extremely interesting to read through. It started as a new rule about being civil towards our fellow posters but not allowing anymore personal attacks or insults which were killing this place. The owner made the right decision imo, this should be unnecessary but unfortunately it was.

Several posters simply couldn’t understand how they’d be allowed to converse and make arguments anymore. That to me was amazing, people thought the only way to disagree with someone was through vulgarity and insults. Maybe that’s just the aftermath of the place to exist in the state it did for so long but it’s fascinating and somewhat sad nonetheless.

From there though the conversation took a far more draconian turn. The rule was about no insults or personal attacks but the second half of the thread turned into people advocating silencing people because of their opinions. It was argued that now that we couldn’t insult each other there would have to be more regulation of what posters actually said because heaven forbid a user post something you think is wrong (even if you’ve told them they are wrong before). And then the push to regulate and moderate people’s psyche, if you are ultra super sure they are arguing in "bad faith".

Thankfully there were plenty who saw the danger in that and voiced their concerns. The discussion surrounding it was very interesting to read through, especially in regards to how things can be much grayer than they realized. It showed that some on here may not be open to hearing other opinions because of this strong conviction that things were black and white in their favor.

Overall a worthwhile read for those bored enough one day to do so. I certainly am enjoying the new more civil atmosphere. Im hoping that people can learn that there may be a diversity of opinions out there and it’s worthwhile to hear people out and discuss with them (after all this is a discussion forum) rather than looking for ways to shut down opinions and conversations.

:beermug:
Some people are not worth conversing with. Straw-manning their opponent comes so naturally to them they have absolutely no idea they are doing it and it is utterly frustrating to their opponent. There is no point even replying to a person that is incapable of engaging honestly because anything said will sail 10,000 feet over their head.

They add nothing to the forum and generally make the world a worse place to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
Some people are not worth conversing with. Straw-manning their opponent comes so naturally to them they have absolutely no idea they are doing it and it is utterly frustrating to their opponent. There is no point even replying to a person that is incapable of engaging honestly because anything said will sail 10,000 feet over their head.

They add nothing to the forum and generally make the world a worse place to exist.
So put them on ignore so that you don’t have to see their horrible posts. No one is forcing you to converse with them. Instead though it seems several on here have taken the approach that no one else should be able to converse with them either. It’s not enough to simply ignore them, they must be silence all together. You can find some discussion of that throughout the thread and it’s extremely draconian and illiberal, the way the People’s Republic of China would have a forum.

You brought up The idea of "engaging honestly" in your post and this has been another theme of the thread, the idea that you can somehow know the persons motives in their posts and that there may be sinister motives behind it when they aren’t "engaging honestly" or "arguing in bad faith". I can absolutely speak from firsthand experience that people can be wildly wrong about this, they think they have the other poster pinned but are way off base. I’m consistently called a troll or the whole honesty but all the time when the reality is that the things I post are simply my opinions just like every other poster on here has their own. And then when I ask why they called me that they say past history of constantly being dishonest but I highly, highly suspect they wouldn’t be able to find a single example. It’s just because sort of an attack mechanism to silence speech and a lazy way out of an argument.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
10,943
5,115
136
We are 25 pages into this thread and I’ll definitely say it’s been extremely interesting to read through. It started as a new rule about being civil towards our fellow posters but not allowing anymore personal attacks or insults which were killing this place. The owner made the right decision imo, this should be unnecessary but unfortunately it was.

Several posters simply couldn’t understand how they’d be allowed to converse and make arguments anymore. That to me was amazing, people thought the only way to disagree with someone was through vulgarity and insults. Maybe that’s just the aftermath of the place to exist in the state it did for so long but it’s fascinating and somewhat sad nonetheless.

From there though the conversation took a far more draconian turn. The rule was about no insults or personal attacks but the second half of the thread turned into people advocating silencing people because of their opinions. It was argued that now that we couldn’t insult each other there would have to be more regulation of what posters actually said because heaven forbid a user post something you think is wrong (even if you’ve told them they are wrong before). And then the push to regulate and moderate people’s psyche, if you are ultra super sure they are arguing in "bad faith".

Thankfully there were plenty who saw the danger in that and voiced their concerns. The discussion surrounding it was very interesting to read through, especially in regards to how things can be much grayer than they realized. It showed that some on here may not be open to hearing other opinions because of this strong conviction that things were black and white in their favor.

Overall a worthwhile read for those bored enough one day to do so. I certainly am enjoying the new more civil atmosphere. Im hoping that people can learn that there may be a diversity of opinions out there and it’s worthwhile to hear people out and discuss with them (after all this is a discussion forum) rather than looking for ways to shut down opinions and conversations.

:beermug:
Interesting take, but I'm afraid you've misread and misunderstood several things. First, you have ignored the fact that there are two new rules, not one. In fact, what you've done is conflate the two, because you don't understand that an ad hominem isn't always a personal attack. The ad hominem rule may be problematic to enforce, actually. And then there are the personal attacks which are not ad hominems because a poster has based his entire argument on his personal credibility which now can never be challenged meaning we in effect have to accept any argument entirely premised on poster's alleged personal observations and experiences which BTW happens semi-frequently around here.

Then there is the issue of mod intervention when someone repeatedly misstates a FACT in spite of repeated refutation. I notice the word FACT appears nowhere in what you wrote above but the word "opinion" appears several times because you refuse to recognize any distinction between fact and opinion no matter how many times it's explained to you. That the sun rises in the east and sets in the west rather than the other way around because the earth spins in a certain direction isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't a grey area either. Neither is the fact that water is wet, that the VP's name is Mike Pence, or that China employs more people in manufacturing than does the US.

Conflating fact with opinion is not only logically incorrect. It's exactly what has gone wrong in this country. So few people respect facts anymore just as so few people respect science any more. I don't want to live in your world where everything is just a matter of opinion because God help us when facts don't matter anymore and everything is this wishy-washy, mealy mouthed grey area that you keep going on about, because then, anything goes. Genocide, forced sterilization, you name it. Think I'm exaggerating? The Nazis made up all kinds of false factual allegations about Jews, people believed whatever they were told, and look what happened. But in your world, all those allegations were just opinions of the Nazis, not lies. ANd therefore, they were irrefutable because only factual assertions can ever be truly refuted.

So far as the mod rule on this, it is not meant to punish opinions. We know this because Perknose said so. You're mischaracterizing what he said. And that's a FACT.

It's obviously meant for extreme situations so frankly I wouldn't worry about it unless or until it looks like the mods are going over-board with it. Frankly, I doubt we'll see it enforced more than once or twice a year.
 
Last edited:

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,355
126
Thank you for the response, it’s certainly interesting to discuss. I think many of you have hyper analyzed the rules way past the point and I’m sure intent of the head honcho that called for it. It’s just meant to inject much needed civility into this place.

As for the ad hominem thing I’m not sure I really follow. Simply don’t attack the person, focus on the topic itself. Just stop there, leave it at that. You don’t have to agree with them. You can let them know you disagree. Hyperanalyzing it beyond that seems to be creating problems where there aren’t any. Just be civil, it really is that easy.

For the part about fact vs opinion it’s been said by myself and others on here that those can blend at times, especially in politics. We are on a politics forum and yes politics are absolutely full of opinion. The world isn’t black and white. Facts aren’t always as they appear, and it’s easy to manipulate based on hints like c text to make the implications of the facts appear differently.

But even so who cares? If someone is posting facts or opinions or haikus or whatever that you don’t want to hear then simply ignore them. Press the button so you don’t have to see their posts anymore. Problem solved.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
32,814
2,753
126
Thank you for the response, it’s certainly interesting to discuss. I think many of you have hyper analyzed the rules way past the point and I’m sure intent of the head honcho that called for it. It’s just meant to inject much needed civility into this place.

As for the ad hominem thing I’m not sure I really follow. Simply don’t attack the person, focus on the topic itself. Just stop there, leave it at that. You don’t have to agree with them. You can let them know you disagree. Hyperanalyzing it beyond that seems to be creating problems where there aren’t any. Just be civil, it really is that easy.

For the part about fact vs opinion it’s been said by myself and others on here that those can blend at times, especially in politics. We are on a politics forum and yes politics are absolutely full of opinion. The world isn’t black and white. Facts aren’t always as they appear, and it’s easy to manipulate based on hints like c text to make the implications of the facts appear differently.

But even so who cares? If someone is posting facts or opinions or haikus or whatever that you don’t want to hear then simply ignore them. Press the button so you don’t have to see their posts anymore. Problem solved.
After all that you say - s8imply ignore them....
That is what Trump would have you do so that his agenda of hate and hurting people can keep on running amok!!
If it turns out that in these forums you will not be allowed to call somebody who keeps posting misinformation or twisting the truth or claiming observable opinion in order to keep posting these lies and falsehood then this forum would not be worth being a member! But i trust the Mods to do what is right, in the face off such adversity!!
Peace!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CHADBOGA

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,097
481
136
The ad hominem rule may be problematic to enforce, actually. And then there are the personal attacks which are not ad hominems because a poster has based his entire argument on his personal credibility which now can never be challenged meaning we in effect have to accept any argument entirely premised on poster's alleged personal observations and experiences which BTW happens semi-frequently around here.
This thread is way too long (and it's way too late) to dig it up now, but I think it was basically confirmed that it's personal attacks only and not ad hominem fallacies that are being banned. Based on interaction with @jpishgar earlier in this thread when I put forward an example of an ad hominem fallacy that couldn't reasonably be classified as a personal attack. He told me it would be allowed.

The confusing part is that an ad hominem fallacy that isn't a personal attack still falls under DH1. The example that I gave @jpishgar was DH1 and he said it was allowed. But the original post still says that DH1 is prohibited.

So there's some unfortunate ambiguity. Ambiguity is bad. Ambiguity means that rules have room for interpretation, which makes it hard to know when you've broken the rule. If only a subset of DH1 is prohibited, then the original post should reflect that. Likewise if all DH1 really is disallowed, it would be nice to have confirmation of that too, because in such a case perhaps one of us isn't properly interpreting what DH1 means and then that can be clarified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY