TropicalDingdong

joined 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago

And I think its more important to not engage in the act of trolling than it is to police language around trolling. When they engage in the activity of trolling, we need to do so. We can soften our language around it so things 'seem' nicer, but this is just fussing at the edges. Fundamentally, if we see or identify trolling behavior, people engaging in bad faith; simpering at the edges about who called what is to derail the point that someone is acting in bad faith (even if they aren't aware of it).

We have a moral responsibility to not give charity to those in violation of good faith, and that is far more important than civility. A civil society isn't possible when we fail to uphold the social contract.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

So here is the original post again:

I think it would be good to put a definition for what trolling is that the community can agree upon. I also think there are many users who don't recognize that the behavior they are engaged in is a form of bad faith trolling.

Because they have the agreement of the majority, they make a tacit assumption that they are acting in good faith. I think Bishop 2012, "This is why we can't have nice things at scale" is a good starting point for understanding how this kind of group think bad behavior emerges.

For example, user is engaged in an almost permanent state of sealioning. Its like, actually a bit amazing how they do it. And I don't think they are doing so in intentional bad faith (or at least, they don't think of themselves as engaging in bad faith behavior), in spite of the fact that they are almost perpetually trolling. Its that a cultural norm of abuse and trolling has been established in an effort to diminish specific views people disagree with.

Because of this, I think there is only so far a "trolling" ban can take us, because fundamentally, to not be trolling (or engaged in some other kind of bad faith argument/ behavior), you actually have to engage with the points the other party is making, on their terms. If we want better discussions here, we have oblige a set of cultural norms that make that possible in the first place, the principal of which would be to attack the other persons argument and evidence, not their person. To stop the abusiveness and trolling, we actually have to shift the culture of the community, because right now, the majority of the community is not engaging in good faith, and and they probably don't know that they aren't. I think if we could come up with a short list of maybe 8-12 examples of the major fallacies and types of trolling to pin to the side bar, keeping in mind that most users probably aren't aware they are engaged in them, call people out on them when we see it, and stand up a few points above the rules teaching people "how" to engage in good faith, we can try to reset the cultural norm to actually be make arguments that are grounded in fact and evidence based where possible, and that this would go a long way to increase the overall rate of civility.

At no point did I call them a troll. I said that they were engaged in trolling behavior.

Now when they gave us that nice example, I think at that point calling them a troll is fair game, because they now positively engaged in the behavior that was previously identified as trolling.

And yes, I did call them out as a troll in the second response, because, well, thats what they were doing. In doing so, they made the central thesis of my first point self-evident: They aren't aware of their own behavior. They went right into their trolling behavior; as such they are a troll. There is nothing wrong with calling something by its name. If we're going to be more concerned about the manner in-which we call out bad behavior than we are the bad behavior itself, well we've lost the thread entirely at that point.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (5 children)

If he can show me it, I'd be happy to address.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago

I posted my data. It was pulled from 538 and I made the figure. It was taken from the 2-3 weeks prior to the 2020 election to give us the the best idea to how different polling was to observed reality. If you have data you can post it as I have done.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago

After all, life on Earth began in caves,

Citation please?

 
 

Key figure:

 

The federally appointed monitor tasked with overseeing the United Auto Workers, Neil Barofsky, is ratcheting up his conflict with UAW President Shawn Fain, announcing another investigation into the union leader who rose to national prominence amid the successful “Stand Up Strike” against the Big Three automakers.

Yet newly unveiled documents suggest Barofsky’s pursuit of Fain has less to do with concerns over union self-dealing and more to do with the politics of Israel-Palestine.

Barofsky was appointed in 2021 as the result of the Department of Justice-led consent decree put in place in lieu of prosecution of the union itself for rampant corruption, following prison sentences for two consecutive UAW presidents.

 

Some major Democratic donors have told the largest pro-Biden super PAC, Future Forward, that pledges worth roughly $90 million are now on hold if President Biden remains atop the ticket, according to two people who have been briefed on the conversations.

The frozen contributions include multiple eight-figure commitments, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the situation. The decision to withhold such enormous sums of money is one of the most concrete examples of the fallout from Mr. Biden’s poor debate performance at the end of June.

Future Forward declined to comment on any conversations with donors or the amounts of any pledged money being withheld. A Future Forward adviser would say only that the group expected contributors who had paused donations to return once the current uncertainty about the ticket was resolved.

 

Key quotes:

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) met with President Biden Thursday night to relay the sentiments of the House Democratic Caucus regarding his reelection bid, as concerns grow within the ranks about the incumbent’s ability to beat former President Trump in November.

The meeting — revealed in a letter to colleagues Friday morning — came after Jeffries spoke with a large swath of House Democrats in the two weeks since last month’s debate, which prompted concerns about Biden’s viability at the top of the presidential ticket. . The meeting took place after Biden’s high-stakes press conference that evening, a source familiar told The Hill.

Jeffries said he passed along the “full breadth” of thoughts he heard within his caucus.

 

Not sure if this violates rules, but this is breaking news and the primary source. Local news video.

17th house Democrat calls for Biden to step down. Post NATO-news conference, 6:30 Pacific Time

 

Key quote:

Even from behind bars, Steve Bannon’s message is clear: Republicans want Joe Biden to stay in the presidential race. Why? Because they know it will be better for Donald Trump.

In an email interview with Matthew Boyle from far-right Breitbart News, the former Trump adviser was asked what he made of the Democrats sticking with Biden amid widespread criticism of the president’s performance in last month’s debate and the calls for him to drop out of the presidential race.

“So we got the candidate we want … and the country is stuck with a nonperforming cadaver,” Bannon replied.

 

Key quotes:

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is working furiously behind the scenes to put pressure on President Biden to reconsider his place at the top of the 2024 ticket, according to a number of Democratic lawmakers familiar with her efforts.

The Speaker emerita is talking to a broad swath of House Democrats — from front-liners in tough districts to hardened veterans with institutional clout — to pump the brakes on the notion that Biden should definitively be the party’s nominee heading into November, these lawmakers said.

Pelosi has not said Biden should exit the race, but the lawmakers said she harbors deep concerns about Biden’s ability to defeat former President Trump, and she’s fighting to prevent the party from rubber-stamping Biden’s candidacy before there’s a broader discussion about the potentially damaging consequences of that decision.

Note: This is a "breaking" story, as in, its been leaked and is just now showing up on multiple outlets.

 

Key quotes:

President Joe Biden and his campaign are insisting he will stay in the 2024 race, despite a rough debate last week in which he looked feeble and struggled to complete his thoughts several times. With Democrats increasingly unsure that Biden should remain the party’s nominee, the conservative Heritage Foundation is pledging to try to block the Democratic Party from replacing Biden on the ticket in key swing states.

In a June 21 memo, the Heritage Foundation astutely predicted that Democrats might wish to force out Biden “if he freezes at [the] debate.” Noting that “the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state,” the memo says: “There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful."

 

Key quotes:

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most influential voices in President Biden’s sphere outside of his family, sent a rare public signal Wednesday morning that suggested she is trying to nudge him to consider dropping out of the election.

“It’s up to the president to decide if he is going to run,” she said on MSNBC. “We’re all encouraging him to make that decision because time is running short.”

Pelosi sandwiched her comments between praise for Biden and his record. But Pelosi is notably careful and calculating in her public comments and well aware that Biden has repeatedly and forcefully said he has already made that decision. She spoke on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Biden’s favorite cable news show and the same venue where on Monday he gave one of his most defiant declarations that he would remain in the race.

 

Key quote:

Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), a vulnerable House Democrat, is calling on President Biden to step aside in the 2024 race, becoming the eighth lawmaker in the lower chamber to publicly urge the incumbent to withdraw.

Ryan — who represents New York’s 18th Congressional District — told The New York Times in an interview published Wednesday that he does not believe Biden is the strongest Democrat to take on former President Trump in November.

“I’d be doing a grave disservice if I said he was the best candidate to serve this fall,” Ryan told the Times. “For the good of our country, for my two young kids, I’m asking Joe Biden to step aside in the upcoming election and deliver on the promise to be a bridge to a new generation of leaders.”

view more: next ›