"Troll thread" -- let's hash this out.

[randomrogue]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, you've missed the boat entirely, wrong on every point. That's to be expected since everything you said was speculation, based on the presumption that republicans are inherently not the equal of liberals. I think that's also why so few real conservatives (I'm not one) post here.
I think this concludes my contribution (tiny as it was) to this section. I never did find it very interesting.

Motion for ban if you keep doing this. Stop whining and contribute something.

 

[waggy]

Right. If I claimed to be an Orthodox Jew following the dietary laws in the old testament, you could point out my hypocrisy in loving cheeseburgers, bacon, and especially bacon cheeseburgers.

It doesn't matter that it's "speculation" whether Jews of the time would punish me. The bible says one thing, I visit Wendy's to do something else.

Luckily I'm an agnostic, so a single cheese with bacon and fries is not against my religion.

and it shouldn't be against anyones religion. i think jews and islam would be far happier if they had a good breakfast with bacon and a bacon cheeseburger for lunch!


yummm

 

[cwjerome]

Frankly I think the intention should be disregarded entirely. Whether they are sincerely questioning, being critical, or trying to provoke a response, you can still answer the question honestly and completely using facts and well supported argument and prove their suppositions wrong if you don't like them (and they are counter-factual). Whatever their reason, the the appropriate way to react to the thread is the same, should you choose to react at all.

Totally disagree with the bold and think that line of thinking, in a nutshell, is really the main problem with overall civic/political discourse in America today.

To make a complex issue short, knowledge is the model of governance and building knowledge takes reason. When you reason well you reveal the universe. Reason demands all the things that are in short supply in today's discourse, which is full of things that hurts reasoned thinking. Our republic is a partnership in reason and something republican in nature means sincere deliberations and open discourse. I'll just point to Congress as a microcosm of society as a whole in the utter failure in these respects.

The critical reflection and independent, principled judgement reason demands is severely degraded by the insincere and inauthentic dialogue that dominates. People start with opinions and seek facts to rationalize them and practically everyone is scripted to act and say certain things, not saying anything of consequence and only regurgitating the same themes and same memes they head on radio or a blog or their party. We are cynical, factional, narrow, and because of this our motivations are mostly to boost ourselves, trash the others, and basically play the role of pawns. These toxic characteristics destroy reason and real discourse and replace it with negativity, polarization, and superficiality.

Think of it as a small working group of 12 people. If most everyone is honest, sincere, understanding, independent, and reasoned then the group may go on to make great decisions, come up with extraordinary solutions, and do great things. On the other hand if half are posturing, dividing, pessimistic, disingenuous, and partisan... ie, they are unreasonable, then the group will wallow and accomplish little. Think of society as a very large working group.

Most people today are belief oriented (not knowledge oriented), and if you are belief oriented, then you cannot be free. I'd like to think that the motivations of those in DC will lean towards a sincere, knowledge oriented exchange of ideas, and make for a more reasonable forum.

 

[Abraxas]

Totally disagree with the bold and think that line of thinking, in a nutshell, is really the main problem with overall civic/political discourse in America today.

To make a complex issue short, knowledge is the model of governance and building knowledge takes reason. When you reason well you reveal the universe. Reason demands all the things that are in short supply in today's discourse, which is full of things that hurts reasoned thinking. Our republic is a partnership in reason and something republican in nature means sincere deliberations and open discourse. I'll just point to Congress as a microcosm of society as a whole in the utter failure in these respects.

The critical reflection and independent, principled judgement reason demands is severely degraded by the insincere and inauthentic dialogue that dominates. People start with opinions and seek facts to rationalize them and practically everyone is scripted to act and say certain things, not saying anything of consequence and only regurgitating the same themes and same memes they head on radio or a blog or their party. We are cynical, factional, narrow, and because of this our motivations are mostly to boost ourselves, trash the others, and basically play the role of pawns. These toxic characteristics destroy reason and real discourse and replace it with negativity, polarization, and superficiality.

Think of it as a small working group of 12 people. If most everyone is honest, sincere, understanding, independent, and reasoned then the group may go on to make great decisions, come up with extraordinary solutions, and do great things. On the other hand if half are posturing, dividing, pessimistic, disingenuous, and partisan... ie, they are unreasonable, then the group will wallow and accomplish little. Think of society as a very large working group.

Most people today are belief oriented (not knowledge oriented), and if you are belief oriented, then you cannot be free. I'd like to think that the motivations of those in DC will lean towards a sincere, knowledge oriented exchange of ideas, and make for a more reasonable forum.

Taking all of that as true, I don't see how that changes my point. When confronted with inauthentic, insincere speech, you really have three choices. You can avoid it, just walk away from the situation which adds nothing and changes nothing. You can lash out at the purported inauthentic speaker which adds nothing and changes little. You can respond as though they are authentic, address the points in an intelligent matter and move the discourse forward in which case the the response will be the same as if they had been a serious presenter. Inauthentic posters gain power in communities like these through you following their script.

Suppose for example, to use this fiasco, that the Jesus thread was in fact a troll thread. What happened? The OP set up the thread, the other side followed the script, and what was the result? Since nobody bothered to counter the proposition the OP presented, they just lashed out instead. it made it look they were unable to counter it and the OP was correct. If it was insincere, you played right into their hand by not responding in an intelligent thoughtful manner.

That brings me back to my original point, the best thing you can do whether they are trolling, whether they are criticizing, or whether they are merely inquiring is respond in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

 

[cwjerome]

Taking all of that as true, I don't see how that changes my point. When confronted with inauthentic, insincere speech, you really have three choices. You can avoid it, just walk away from the situation which adds nothing and changes nothing. You can lash out at the purported inauthentic speaker which adds nothing and changes little. You can respond as though they are authentic, address the points in an intelligent matter and move the discourse forward in which case the the response will be the same as if they had been a serious presenter. Inauthentic posters gain power in communities like these through you following their script.

Suppose for example, to use this fiasco, that the Jesus thread was in fact a troll thread. What happened? The OP set up the thread, the other side followed the script, and what was the result? Since nobody bothered to counter the proposition the OP presented, they just lashed out instead. it made it look they were unable to counter it and the OP was correct. If it was insincere, you played right into their hand by not responding in an intelligent thoughtful manner.

That brings me back to my original point, the best thing you can do whether they are trolling, whether they are criticizing, or whether they are merely inquiring is respond in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.

I suppose, but that's a very hard thing to do sometimes and creates a lot of chaff to sift through. To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's an uphill battle to weather the assaults of the simple minded. In a perfect world, in theory, reason and facts and pretending insincere posts are authentic can overcome the nonsense, but that can be extremely difficult to do in certain situations... just look at P&N. Not impossible, but it takes a ton of effort for little payoff. That's why I like the concept of DC to pre-weed out the most blatant nonsense, encouraging easier and deeper discussions without having to deal with as much BS. I would rather have an honest exchange than prove a hack wrong. If we are to allow trollish threads, why bother with DC when we can have P&N?

 

[JEDIYoda]

If we are to allow trollish threads, why bother with DC when we can have P&N?
*

There are many things about this forum that is so very different from P&N....

But what is trollish to you is not trollish to the next person.

There were other reason for DC being formed and I can tell you that none of them were to get away from the trollish threads that abound...in fact that has never really been an issue...so why now?? Feelings hurt? Would you be complaining if it was a thread that was totally opposite from this one? Umm probably not..because it doesn`t affect you!!

 

[cwjerome]

There are many things about this forum that is so very different from P&N....

But what is trollish to you is not trollish to the next person.

There were other reason for DC being formed and I can tell you that none of them were to get away from the trollish threads that abound...in fact that has never really been an issue...so why now?? Feelings hurt? Would you be complaining if it was a thread that was totally opposite from this one? Umm probably not..because it doesn`t affect you!!

Huh?

I haven't said any thread in DC has been a troll thread. I am expressing a view that OP motivations generally matter when it comes to good discussions because being open and honest about exchanging ideas serves a more useful purpose than trolling and hackery.

Complaining about what? Feelings hurt about what? What doesn't affect me? Your post makes no sense to me.

 

[ivwshane]

Huh?

I haven't said any thread in DC has been a troll thread. I am expressing a view that OP motivations generally matter when it comes to good discussions because being open and honest about exchanging ideas serves a more useful purpose than trolling and hackery.

Complaining about what? Feelings hurt about what? What doesn't affect me? Your post makes no sense to me.

I read your the same way he did so maybe we missed your point.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html?_r=0

It is hard to believe that a phrase as dry as “epistemic closure” could get anyone excited, but the term has sparked a heated argument among conservatives in recent weeks about their movement’s intellectual health.

The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase “epistemic closure” has been ricocheting among conservative publications and blogs as a high-toned abbreviation for ideological intolerance and misinformation.

Conservative media, Mr. Sanchez wrote at juliansanchez.com — referring to outlets like Fox News and National Review and to talk-show stars like Rush Limbaugh, Mark R. Levin and Glenn Beck — have “become worryingly untethered from reality as the impetus to satisfy the demand for red meat overtakes any motivation to report accurately.” (Mr. Sanchez said he probably fished “epistemic closure” out of his subconscious from an undergraduate course in philosophy, where it has a technical meaning in the realm of logic.)
...

David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, argued at frumforum.com on Friday that the problem was not media celebrities, but rather conservative intellectuals.

“They’re the ones who are supposed to uphold intellectual standards, to sift actual facts from what you call ‘pretend information,’ ” he wrote, quoting a friend. “Rush Limbaugh isn’t any worse than he was 20 years ago. But 20 years ago, conservatism offered something more than Rush Limbaugh. Since then, the conservative elite has collapsed. Blame them, not talk radio.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-rncs-incredible-election-autopsy.php?ref=fpb

There’s been a long running debate on the intellectual right about whether the GOP suffers from “epistemic closure,” a condition in which conservatives block out all dissenting voices until eventually their own arguments sound nonsensical to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. The RNC report concludes this is a real and growing problem.

“The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself,” its authors write. “We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue. Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us.”

If you feel DC is one sided and just exists to denigrate Republicans maybe the problem is not the kind of discussion you are venturing in to but the kind of discussion you are moving away from.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What can't be factually proven are things like how the Republican party would react to Jesus were he alive today, how Jesus would react to the Republican party today, what Donald Trump might do in the presence of Jesus, which party is truly more devout, etc. All you can do is draw inferences and have opinions. Which is fine. But they aren't facts, so stop telling people to respond to that thread with fact based evidence.

That's a reasonable point, but I saw those questions as rhetorical. It seemed pretty obvious that the crux of the OP in that thread was to ask if Christian Republicans really act in a way consistent with what Jesus preached, not to actually debate how Trump would react if Jesus actually showed up.

Motion for ban if you keep doing this. Stop whining and contribute something.

This is an open meta-discussion thread about the forum. Providing his opinions, even if I think them poorly supported, is a contribution here. Nobody will ever be disciplined solely for providing their opinions, especially in a thread like this.

 

[cwjerome]

I read your the same way he did so maybe we missed your point.

No problem, I'll recap:

My post #42 stated the thread in question was not a troll thread and mentioned it can be hard to decipher motivations but we should normally try to assume an OP is sincere.

My post #53 goes into what I think is a problem is discourse today in general, and on an internet forum where people are superficial, inauthentic, and factional. I tie this back to motivations, and how DC will be better than P&N by limiting troll threads and such to encourage a better exchange of ideas. I am basically elaborating on why motivations matter in discussions.

My post #55 disagrees with the idea that any troll post can simply be defeated by reason. I believe it can be very hard to do, wastes time, and ruins threads. That's why I like DC, because the idea is to limit that stuff... otherwise, it's just another P&N.

I'll say it again, the only actual thread I've mentioned is that Jesus one in post #42, and I said it was not a troll thread. Everything else has been musings on discourse in general. So I have no idea what Jediyoda is talking about.

 

[Agent11]

I think it's pretty obvious that there are examples people taking hostile tones and abusing the spirit of a civil debate.

 

[spittledip]

I think you are correct about questioning ones motives but I think that this sub forum was setup to debate people on the topic rather than their motives (which is not the case in P&N). Basically, in my opinion, everyone posting in this forum should be given the benefit of the doubt.

We don't disagree.

 

[spittledip]

The thread in question was not a troll thread, I'll take his word that it was sincere and yes it's often hard to be honest about things when it's someone with a clearly opposite view of yours pointing it out. It can be hard to trust the motives when a topic skirts the edge of a circle jerk. I wish someone would have countered the premise with substantial reasoning instead of complaining about the topic. For better discussions in the DC, I think you have to make an effort to assume good intentions in others and act accordingly to foster a decent climate for discourse. If you are quick to assume hackery and trolling in others, it'll be hard to have any deep conversations particularly about delicate or taboo subjects. I would hope the motives here are more informational and arguing ideas than scoring cheap points for your side or against the other. I can't stand political proselytizing.

Yeah, pretty much. I think repubs and conservatism and Judeo-Christian values have been against the ropes so much lately, it is hard to not feel persecuted- people just react. Also it probably is important to consider that P&N is just a click away, so any expectation that people will be able to just leave their feelings at the doorstep is naive at best.

 

[jackstar7]

So would any one of the folks calling it a "troll thread" like to reconsider that description?

As the flowchart posted somewhere in this board lays it out, if you're not interested in possibly having your opinion changed, then you're not interested in a discussion to begin with.

 

[Greenman]

So would any one of the folks calling it a "troll thread" like to reconsider that description?

As the flowchart posted somewhere in this board lays it out, if you're not interested in possibly having your opinion changed, then you're not interested in a discussion to begin with.

No thanks, it was a troll thread. I don't know why you think that further discussion would change that. That may not have been the intent, but it was the result. How could it be otherwise?

I've never seen the flow chart you speak of, but if it can convince me that a bunch of atheists speculating on the words and actions of Christ as pertains to the Republican party 2000 years after his death has some value, then it's a Jim fucking dandy flow chart, and I need to see it.


I really need to stop posting in here, while banging my head on the wall is entertaining, I get tired of the squishy sound.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No thanks, it was a troll thread.

Three days later, you're still repeating bald claims with no arguments and no responses to the arguments presented to you.

You seem to define "trolling" as "someone posting something I don't like". In which case, as I said before, this isn't the place for you.

 

[Agent11]

I've never seen the flow chart you speak of, but if it can convince me that a bunch of atheists speculating on the words and actions of Christ as pertains to the Republican party 2000 years after his death has some value, then it's a Jim fucking dandy flow chart, and I need to see it.

Winner.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Motion for ban if you keep doing this. Stop whining and contribute something.

Yes...we should ban Greenman for expressing his opinions. But why stop there? This kind of attitude exemplifies a very ugly side of DC.

 

[Agent11]

The thread that this topic is discussing may have been intended to start a serious discussion but it escalated to blanket generalizations of republicans as hypocrites within the first page.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes...we should ban Greenman for expressing his opinions. But why stop there? This kind of attitude exemplifies a very ugly side of DC.

It's also a really tiny side of DC, and one that, I'll remind you, I specifically spoke out against.

The thread that this topic is discussing may have been intended to start a serious discussion but it escalated to blanket generalizations of republicans as hypocrites within the first page.

If anything about that thread makes Republicans look bad, it is their whining about its existence.

There were a couple of reasonable arguments against the OP's premise. But most of the response from people on the right has been attempts to get the thread shut down rather than argue that they are right and the OP was wrong.

That topic is a legitimate one for discussion. Topics will not be censored because they tread on anyone's sacred cows, at least not as long as I am associated with this project.

And the final irony is that all of the people complaining about this supposed "troll thread" are active in P&N, where far more inflammatory threads are posted on a daily basis.

 

[jackstar7]

I've never seen the flow chart you speak of,

Here you are (stolen from someone else on the board who posted it, but I cannot find whom):

Any time you decide to post an argument that you actually want to discuss, I'll be very excited to read it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is the OP's idea of "discussion":

If Jesus were alive today nobody would know who he was.

Indeed. "You're not Jesus, Jesus was white!"

While his intital post could have possibly been construed by some as legitimate, he shows his true colors here.

 

[jackstar7]

This is the OP's idea of "discussion":



While his intital post could have possibly been construed by some as legitimate, he shows his true colors here.

That's fair. There IS no place for humor.

This interenet is known for its serious business.

Of course there's no way to be sure Soph was joking, because what you quoted can easily be read as serious, obviously.

 

[Greenman]

Three days later, you're still repeating bald claims with no arguments and no responses to the arguments presented to you.

You seem to define "trolling" as "someone posting something I don't like". In which case, as I said before, this isn't the place for you.

You believe that it was a valid thread, that there was something to be learned from it. I believe it was speculation from a bunch of people with little knowledge of the subject.
There was no new insight into the words of Christ, there was nothing to be learned from it, there were no new "facts" uncovered.
The point was to try to demonstrate the disingenuous nature of the republican party, and to demean those that align themselves with it. That makes it a troll thread.

As to your final statement, I completely agree with you, this isn't the place for me. Do us all a favor and take my name off the list, that way I won't be tempted to ever respond again should I find myself sitting here with nothing to do.