• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NeoGAF's Political Leanings

DKehoe

Member
Jun 19, 2007
4,873
551
1,125
As someone that’s on the left I actually like that GAF now leans more to the right than it used to. Actually getting the direct perspective of people on the right is really useful for broadening my understanding of a subject. It can be really easy to fall into the trap of only having those views framed by people who you might more typically agree with.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
My views on things come from a JW Christian perspective.

I'm pro-life but this world is what it is, and why limit women/families by forcing them to carry a child they can't care for or that will harm the mother or that was caused by sexual abuse/assault?

Jesus implored and taught us to love our neighbors (which means Everyone) and that the sick need care. So why not Medicare for All? After all, Jesus (and later some of his disciples) healed the sick and dying ... Aren't Christians supposed to be MORE Christlike? Because so-called Christian conservatives sure don't act like it. That's neverminding the whole "being no part of the world" which includes abstaining from government, military and police work.

There is also the parable of "give a man a fish, you feed him for a day... But teach a man to fish, you feed him for life"... I liken this to welfare and job training AND having a liveable wage. Why not use welfare in conjunction with job training? Right now it isn't. And job retraining as well... especially since that's part of The Green New Deal. Speaking of jobs...The minimum wage USED to be tied to inflation until the mid to late '70s or early '80s. Why not go back to that? Especially since so many jobs don't pay enough to pay the rent.

Jesus loved and respected women... This is shown throughout the Gospels of John, Luke, Matthew and Mark... I see a lot of liberals and conservatives not treating women with respect at all... Even women who fall into those camps.

There's so much more but, as I've always said on here, this more academic than a passion of mine. I have my thoughts on what would be better for people in this system of things. I may be wrong about how this system of things can work with those changes but the day that we're brought into the New World will be an amazing time!
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Miku Miku

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
OP paints a pretty convincing picture (of at least a limited time point). Having lurked here after the entire exodus, and having seen before/after, the current climate of the politics board has a fairly strong conservative lean. If criticism is to be given to ResetEra for being left wing, then it should be equally applied here. Pretending that this board is centrist at the moment is fairly delusional.
I have to disagree.

I will say it largely depends in the viewpoint of the individual looking, their definition of center. And also whether or not they can separate the internet world and physical real world.

On the internet everything is extreme. And the attempt is to make every issue binary. Its the Left and the Alt Right (already doesn't make sense lol). And a Fence Sitter, which means you are an Alt Right lover and therefore Alt Right.

You are either Pro or Anti Police. Pro or Anti Second Amendment. Pro or Anti Abortion. So saying you support Police and are thankful for their work. That you hold their actions to a higher standard than others and want transparency on what they do. And want accountability for the ones that are bad cops. But understand that most aren't bad cops. That makes you either Pro Police, Fence Sitter and that makes you Pro Police, ='s Republican/Alt Right.

But thats not true in the real physical world. That binary outlook can only survive in the Virtual World, where URL's are established in order to control space in mass. The closest thing in the Real World that has this internet way of operating is Church 🤔. But most don't go to church 7 days a week and spend hours there, checking in all through out the day.

But as far as GAF itself, it has no position other than you the individual poster can say whatever you desire. As long as you don't break the rules.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
There is no question that GAF is further to the right than Ree, but that does not mean that GAF is a conservative site. It is likely that you, like much of the internet for the past decade, have become accustomed to an Overton Window that has been skewed so far left that traditionally moderate opinions like sustainable immigration policy now appear to you as radical far right hate speech.



Why? One is a product of enforced groupthink while the other is a product of free thought and expression. They are not equivalent opposites. If certain ideas cannot compete, why should they be given affirmative action?

Below is an illustration of how I see the Overton Windows of GAF and Ree superimposed onto the political horseshoe. If you have spent too long in the Ree echo chamber and warped your mind, of course you will perceive GAF as being right wing, but it's not -- it's because you have gone so far left. GAF is a mix of left and right, but if you feel that one side is not represented enough for your liking, do something about it. There is nothing stopping you, but don't expect a free pass and a leg up because you see yourself as a political minority.

I'm so tired of you ideologically broken types who can only think in terms of equity of group outcome. GAF and the world in general owe you nothing.

You can shift that argument back onto yourself, as your political barometer may be miscalibrated. OP’s post has more credence, as it gives an actual snapshot in time with evidence (albeit limited).

With regards to feeling like a political minority, you’re off base. I have no dog in this race. I’m giving my opinion is all, as your echo chamber should be challenged as well.
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
You are either Pro or Anti Police. Pro or Anti Second Amendment. Pro or Anti Abortion. So saying you support Police and are thankful for their work. That you hold their actions to a higher standard than others and want transparency on what they do. And want accountability for the ones that are bad cops. But understand that most aren't bad cops. That makes you either Pro Police, Fence Sitter and that makes you Pro Police, ='s Republican/Alt Right.
I have to disagree about it being right leaning to want transparency with the police. I've listened to and read posts by people that act like the police can do no wrong. That there's no problem with bad cops and it's all the fault of BLM and those hippie progressives.

I've seen exactly what you've stated on the the liberal side with the conservative side telling the liberals they're cop haters.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,828
1,804
565
Norway
You can shift that argument back onto yourself, as your political barometer may be miscalibrated. OP’s post has more credence, as it gives an actual snapshot in time with evidence (albeit limited).

With regards to feeling like a political minority, you’re off base. I have no dog in this race. I’m giving my opinion is all, as your echo chamber should be challenged as well.
The evidence of the OP is basically nothing, if you've paid attention to the critique of it. It'd be the equivalent of seeing a gang of white looking people stealing something and then going "oh white people are thieves".
So, no, you're absolutely wrong. No credence at all, other than observing a few people doing something in a moment and then extracting that to a population.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
You can shift that argument back onto yourself, as your political barometer may be miscalibrated. OP’s post has more credence, as it gives an actual snapshot in time with evidence (albeit limited).

With regards to feeling like a political minority, you’re off base. I have no dog in this race. I’m giving my opinion is all, as your echo chamber should be challenged as well.
Look, we've already experienced a full year of "enlightened" members such as yourself who magically reappear after years of absence and give us your deep insight about what GAF really is.

We've seen this shtick before. I'm just an outside observer (with an axe to grind)! I'm just a lurker (who has returned to participate in meta-commentary).

It's not an unfamiliar act. Trying to claim "hey I have no dog in this race" as if that adds credibility makes it even more obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: plushyp

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
The evidence of the OP is basically nothing, if you've paid attention to the critique of it. It'd be the equivalent of seeing a gang of white looking people stealing something and then going "oh white people are thieves".
So, no, you're absolutely wrong. No credence at all, other than observing a few people doing something in a moment and then extracting that to a population.
As I stated in my post, It’s limited, yes. But it has more substance than the post I replied to.

Look, we've already experienced a full year of "enlightened" members such as yourself who magically reappear after years of absence and give us your deep insight about what GAF really is.

We've seen this shtick before. I'm just an outside observer (with an axe to grind)! I'm just a lurker (who has returned to participate in meta-commentary).

It's not an unfamiliar act. Trying to claim "hey I have no dog in this race" as if that adds credibility makes it even more obvious.
I add value insofar as I’ve seen the ebs and flows of political discourse on this site for 10 years, which is very relevant to this topic. Being a lurker does not exclude me from providing a dissenting opinion.

Unless you have something to add regarding my opinion, without insinuating that I have dubious motivations, I’m not interested in discussing this further.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Miku Miku

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
I have to disagree about it being right leaning to want transparency with the police. I've listened to and read posts by people that act like the police can do no wrong. That there's no problem with bad cops and it's all the fault of BLM and those hippie progressives.

I've seen exactly what you've stated on the the liberal side with the conservative side telling the liberals they're cop haters.
No I am talking about that whole statement. But that 1 thing in it makes you something.

As in someone can make a pretty large statement. And what people want to do is find any small or single thing in it that they don't like and label the entire post and poster in order to silence that poster.

So in the context of that example, not all Cops are bad makes you Pro Police. Pro Police makes you not Left. And now that label follows you around the site. And anything you say in the future that isn't like, that post will be used to discredit your opinion.

That was a very Old GAF thing.

And while saying something over and over doesn't make something true, if you are able to scare people from speaking up and defending that poster (to say that the comment isn't relevant in this discussion, or you are misrepresenting what they said) it is effectively true on that particular URL.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
Look, we've already experienced a full year of "enlightened" members such as yourself who magically reappear after years of absence and give us your deep insight about what GAF really is.

We've seen this shtick before. I'm just an outside observer (with an axe to grind)! I'm just a lurker (who has returned to participate in meta-commentary).

It's not an unfamiliar act. Trying to claim "hey I have no dog in this race" as if that adds credibility makes it even more obvious.
Lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not here for that. And remember that old members know of Current GAF first through what's said about it and then looking here.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
Lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not here for that. And remember that old members know of Current GAF first through what's said about it and then looking here.
Immediate accusations of "echo chamber", trying to dilute the credibility of members who've invested their time into the site after the Reeeexodus, calling people delusional with their first post after over a year of "lurking", mischaracterizing the criticism of ERA "for being Left wing" which is plainly untrue, and then backpedaling with "I have no dog in this fight", but I should give them the benefit of the doubt they're not here for that?

Nah. They're here for that. Lamel is welcome to stand up for their own behavior but we implemented a 50-post rule on Politics board for a reason. While Lamel doesn't fall under that rule of course, they are yet another tired example of folks returning just to stir drama up.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,260
1,873
540
Look, we've already experienced a full year of "enlightened" members such as yourself who magically reappear after years of absence and give us your deep insight about what GAF really is.

We've seen this shtick before. I'm just an outside observer (with an axe to grind)! I'm just a lurker (who has returned to participate in meta-commentary).

It's not an unfamiliar act. Trying to claim "hey I have no dog in this race" as if that adds credibility makes it even more obvious.
Now we are at the stage where we spy on people's profile pages to discredit them instead of just addressing what the person actually typed. That happens a lot on REEE. Its honestly surprising that two people feel that threatened by a completely polite post that merely states that he agrees with the OP. So threatened they have to make up some conspiracy about this guy being a REEE sleeper agent out to undermine us all with his polite observations. This is unhinged.

It could just be that he merely reads the site and doesn't comment, something the majority of readers do here and on every site on the internet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: <+)O Robido O(+>

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,828
1,804
565
Norway
As I stated in my post, It’s limited, yes. But it has more substance than the post I replied to.
Not really. If you saw the logic in it, then it lacks any substance to show anything that's interesting and it's more likely damaging to any inquiry of truth about what said person is trying to discover. If it's not clear and methodically, then a post like that has less substance than someone making an argumentation based on anecdotal observations. At least the latter is clear in its bias and will not attempt to push beyond what themselves can say, while the former is just misleading and logically dumb.
Do you think misleading statistics have more substance than an argument? "Oh, but it has more substance!" Really? Point out what substantive things it has told us. "There are more posts that I view as right wing at x specific point in time, therefore what exactly???" What substantive thing is it telling us without committing a logical fallacy?

So no, although @matt404au is the resident asshat that we love and hate (he's like Vegemite), his argument was more substantive in context of what he replied to than the OPs failed attempt at producing some meaningful statistics.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
Now we are at the stage where we spy on people's profile pages to discredit them instead of just addressing what the person actually typed. That happens a lot on REEE.
This is the internet. We are all strangers and we are all liars.

You aren't saying what you think you're saying when you point out that I sometimes double-check a user's history before I take what they say at face value. :messenger_smirking:
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
Immediate accusations of "echo chamber", trying to dilute the credibility of members who've invested their time into the site after the Reeeexodus, calling people delusional with their first post after over a year of "lurking", mischaracterizing the criticism of ERA "for being Left wing" which is plainly untrue, and then backpedaling with "I have no dog in this fight", but I should give them the benefit of the doubt they're not here for that?

Nah. They're here for that. Lamel is welcome to stand up for their own behavior but we implemented a 50-post rule on Politics board for a reason. While Lamel doesn't fall under that rule of course, they are yet another tired example of folks returning just to stir drama up.
I understand what you're saying

I am just saying we should attempt to see his post as non hostile. Especially if we want returning members to see the site for what it is since many have tried to misrepresent it.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
No I am talking about that whole statement. But that 1 thing in it makes you something.

As in someone can make a pretty large statement. And what people want to do is find any small or single thing in it that they don't like and label the entire post and poster in order to silence that poster.

So in the context of that example, not all Cops are bad makes you Pro Police. Pro Police makes you not Left. And now that label follows you around the site. And anything you say in the future that isn't like, that post will be used to discredit your opinion.

That was a very Old GAF thing.

And while saying something over and over doesn't make something true, if you are able to scare people from speaking up and defending that poster (to say that the comment isn't relevant in this discussion, or you are misrepresenting what they said) it is effectively true on that particular URL.
I see what you mean. Agreed.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,260
1,873
540
This is the internet. We are all strangers and we are all liars.

You aren't saying what you think you're saying when you point out that I sometimes double-check a user's history before I take what they say at face value. :messenger_smirking:
I am saying what I think. All my posts in this thread have been arguing my same personal theory of how forums erode and decline. I am saying we are at another stage of decline as a forum.

Not really meaning to pick on you specifically as you've never done anything but be polite to me. I'm speaking more generally about the entire forum, in that I think that profile sniping is a personal pet peeve of mine and something I specifically hated about the culture at REEE. I see nothing wrong with taking people at face value in this case. The alternative is calling this guy a liar for no good reason when he wasnt even rude.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
11,142
19,656
1,105
USA
dunpachi.com
I am saying what I think. All my posts in this thread have been arguing my same personal theory of how forums erode and decline. I am saying we are at another stage of decline as a forum.
It's certainly possible, but I don't see why that has anything to do with the particular political/moral lean of a forum, which is the topic of discussion here.

Unless you're implying that leaning Right wing is a symptom of decline.

Not really meaning to pick on you specifically as you've never done anything but be polite to me.
You literally said above (in your edited post):

Its honestly surprising that two people feel that threatened by a completely polite post that merely states that he agrees with the OP. So threatened they have to make up some conspiracy about this guy being a REEE sleeper agent out to undermine us all with his polite observations. This is unhinged.
It's certainly possible that I am unhinged. I have no idea if this poster is a sleeper agent or is trying to undermine us, nor have I implied anything of the sort. I said quite plainly:

they are yet another tired example of folks returning just to stir drama up.
I'm speaking more generally about the entire forum, in that I think that profile sniping is a personal pet peeve of mine and something I specifically hated about the culture at REEE.
Don't confuse "profile sniping" with "paying attention". If they were the first -- or even the 100th -- poster who returned to GAF only to immediately jump into Politics with metacommentary or highly-critical, highly-vague concern over GAF as a community, perhaps it would make sense for me to take them at face value.

But that's not the case. GAF continues to be inundated by concern trolling, just like the good ol' days. If you want to appeal to "the majority of readers on here and on every site on the internet", then surely we must also acknowledge the reality of the internet, that it is full of trolls and disingenuous contributors. The ratio of honest to disingenuous is impossible to say, so we have to accept people on a case-by-case basis.

I add value insofar as I’ve seen the ebs and flows of political discourse on this site for 10 years, which is very relevant to this topic. Being a lurker does not exclude me from providing a dissenting opinion.

Unless you have something to add regarding my opinion, without insinuating that I have dubious motivations, I’m not interested in discussing this further.
Providing a dissenting opinion doesn't exclude you from disagreement. And that's where you fall short: you offer your opinion and make your judgment, but you add no evidence to an already-flawed analysis of GAF's leanings.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
Not really. If you saw the logic in it, then it lacks any substance to show anything that's interesting and it's more likely damaging to any inquiry of truth about what said person is trying to discover. If it's not clear and methodically, then a post like that has less substance than someone making an argumentation based on anecdotal observations. At least the latter is clear in its bias and will not attempt to push beyond what themselves can say, while the former is just misleading and logically dumb.
Do you think misleading statistics have more substance than an argument? "Oh, but it has more substance!" Really? Point out what substantive things it has told us. "There are more posts that I view as right wing at x specific point in time, therefore what exactly???" What substantive thing is it telling us without committing a logical fallacy?

So no, although @matt404au is the resident asshat that we love and hate (he's like Vegemite), his argument was more substantive in context of what he replied to than the OPs failed attempt at producing some meaningful statistics.
I don’t expect a peer reviewed study conducted on this site - that would be ideal, but OP’s evidence is mostly limited by a narrow temporal range. You can criticize OP for mislabeling points as conservative/liberal, however I don’t see anything controversial in how he’s grouped his data points, as those are fairly common conservative/republican talking points. Overall it paints a relatively clear picture.

It's certainly possible, but I don't see why that has anything to do with the particular political/moral lean of a forum, which is the topic of discussion here.

Unless you're implying that leaning Right wing is a symptom of decline.


You literally said above (in your edited post):



It's certainly possible that I am unhinged. I have no idea if this poster is a sleeper agent or is trying to undermine us, nor have I implied anything of the sort. I said quite plainly:




Don't confuse "profile sniping" with "paying attention". If they were the first -- or even the 100th -- poster who returned to GAF only to immediately jump into Politics with metacommentary or highly-critical, highly-vague concern over GAF as a community, perhaps it would make sense for me to take them at face value.

But that's not the case. GAF continues to be inundated by concern trolling, just like the good ol' days. If you want to appeal to "the majority of readers on here and on every site on the internet", then surely we must also acknowledge the reality of the internet, that it is full of trolls and disingenuous contributors. The ratio of honest to disingenuous is impossible to say, so we have to accept people on a case-by-case basis.


Providing a dissenting opinion doesn't exclude you from disagreement. And that's where you fall short: you offer your opinion and make your judgment, but you add no evidence to an already-flawed analysis of GAF's leanings.
I have no “concern” over this community, I’ve posted in this particular topic because my experience is relevant to it.

I’ve been having a discussion regarding the merits of OP’s analysis with another user this entire time. You resorted to ad hominem in your first post against me. I somewhat understand your suspicion but it seems overly neurotic. You haven’t added anything substantive to the topic.
 
Last edited:

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
I wouldn’t say it’s a clear picture. That’s more confirmation bias.

It’s a handful of threads made by handful of posters. Not taking into account the vast majority of posters don’t post in politics.

Also your definition of echo chamber is different than mine. And echo chamber wouldn’t allow you to question if it’s an echo chamber, but you are more than free to do so. There is no enforcement of thought here. People not wanting to post on politics is by their own choice not through moderation .
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
I wouldn’t say it’s a clear picture. That’s more confirmation bias.

It’s a handful of threads made by handful of posters. Not taking into account the vast majority of posters don’t post in politics.

Also your definition of echo chamber is different than mine. And echo chamber wouldn’t allow you to question if it’s an echo chamber, but you are more than free to do so. There is no enforcement of thought here. People not wanting to post on politics is by their own choice not through moderation .
That’s true, it’s a snapshot of the politics board, which only has a handful of regulars to begin with.

Echo chamber was a general term I used regarding the Overton Window argument - much like how ResetEra may drown out certain conservative opinions and reinforce established dogma, that may have occurred with matt404 as well, on the opposite end of the spectrum. Which is why posting that image is overall irrelevant and unsubstantive; OP’s grouping of conservative vs. liberal is in line with typical talking points within those groups (in the USA).
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,231
3,159
1,400
Question (aimed at no one specific) - do you feel there are a lot of big left leaning stories that are not being covered?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Musky_Cheese

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,784
2,139
670
Canada
For a time there was nothing but those shitty gotcha OMB threads based around a terrible WaPo or NYT opinion piece. Those died off as threads because they didn't generate any discussion other than the usual confirmation bias and luigimario got banned and was responsible for a vast majority of them. Then people posted nothing but AOC threads and those died off because people spent the whole thread complaining about another AOC thread. Then we had rise of the trans threads with the same response. I feel like we get a decent balance now, if you take a snapshot at any particular time it could seem more weighted one way or the other and also dependant on the news cycle. The news cycle has been dead since the Mueller report, the left leaning posters don't engage in the investigation of the investigator threads, "OMG Drumph touched the queens back" don't play here so what news are people expecting to see?
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,291
816
880
Question (aimed at no one specific) - do you feel there are a lot of big left leaning stories that are not being covered?
I personally lament the Russia conspiracy and PeePee tapes leaving both mainstream media reporting and Orange Man Bad NPC comedian news shows.

I can see how 20 months of that has made a number of people feeling lost in the wind with no way to find solace.
 
Last edited:

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
Question (aimed at no one specific) - do you feel there are a lot of big left leaning stories that are not being covered?
For a time there was nothing but those shitty gotcha OMB threads based around a terrible WaPo or NYT opinion piece. Those died off as threads because they didn't generate any discussion other than the usual confirmation bias and luigimario got banned and was responsible for a vast majority of them. Then people posted nothing but AOC threads and those died off because people spent the whole thread complaining about another AOC thread. Then we had rise of the trans threads with the same response. I feel like we get a decent balance now, if you take a snapshot at any particular time it could seem more weighted one way or the other and also dependant on the news cycle. The news cycle has been dead since the Mueller report, the left leaning posters don't engage in the investigation of the investigator threads, "OMG Drumph touched the queens back" don't play here so what news are people expecting to see?
Good question

Good post
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,231
3,159
1,400
Good question

Good post
He covered what I was going to get at pretty well. The news cycle is mostly Trump now. The Democrat debates are starting soon. The candidate pool should get smaller and we will start to see more policy ideas. Right now I’ve only seen policy outlined by Warren, Sanders and some from Biden (which we have threads for). There’s been some general ideas from a few others. Then we have tons of candidates that aren’t doing much or polling well.

After that we have the primaries and the election itself. There should be more topics to bring up soon.
 

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
He covered what I was going to get at pretty well. The news cycle is mostly Trump now. The Democrat debates are starting soon. The candidate pool should get smaller and we will start to see more policy ideas. Right now I’ve only seen policy outlined by Warren, Sanders and some from Biden (which we have threads for). There’s been some general ideas from a few others. Then we have tons of candidates that aren’t doing much or polling well.

After that we have the primaries and the election itself. There should be more topics to bring up soon.
Yeah. And also how there has been push back from the members on politics for the continuous AOC Threads, the Trans Threads, low effort OP's...

Ultimately it rings hallow for me when the criticism is handed out as if it speaks for GAF as a whole, and while many of the question raisers aren't posting threads at all
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,828
1,804
565
Norway
I don’t expect a peer reviewed study conducted on this site - that would be ideal, but OP’s evidence is mostly limited by a narrow temporal range. You can criticize OP for mislabeling points as conservative/liberal, however I don’t see anything controversial in how he’s grouped his data points, as those are fairly common conservative/republican talking points. Overall it paints a relatively clear picture.
You don't need a peer reviewed study (and this has nothing to do with peer review), you require any actual methodology at all and your conclusion have to be derived by what your inquiry can answer. It's just all circular, lacking any foundation for whatever a "conservative talking point", "republican talking point", "liberal talking point" is and how one will approach it.. It paints no clear picture at all and repeating that doesn't make it so. More so it approaches things binary, which even further begs how he deduced what a X point is.

It's like going into a black neighborhood, noticing someone stealing and going "oh well, guess black people are thieves". And pretending there's any substance in that, pretending that "Overall it paints a relatively clear picture". And pretending that anyone should take them seriously, because "oh I don't see anything wrong with that". That's the kind of misleading and false data you see from white supremacists with their pseudo-science.
 

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,569
1,828
555
Austin, TX
NeoGAF is essentially a marketplace of ideas right now. What's important is that moderation isn't picking winners or losers, but instead enforcing a rule set that only governs the way posters engage with one another. The simple truth is that a far left board like Reset can not be sustained without squelching all disagreement because those ideas are losers and will never stand up to scrutiny or plain common sense.

This doesn't mean the opposite is a right leaning board. It just means people seriously arguing that women can have penises are fucking mental. The left needs to go back to focusing on welfare, being anti-war and pro civil-liberties, then they can start winning again. The bizarre turn towards authoritarianism has only happened because it's the only way post-modern ideas can succeed in the open marketplace of thought. You don't need to be a genius to second guess a system that claims one of the Obama kids is less privileged than Trailer Park Johnny with the cracked out parents in the boonies.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
You can shift that argument back onto yourself, as your political barometer may be miscalibrated. OP’s post has more credence, as it gives an actual snapshot in time with evidence (albeit limited).

With regards to feeling like a political minority, you’re off base. I have no dog in this race. I’m giving my opinion is all, as your echo chamber should be challenged as well.
You have completely sidestepped the main point, which is that Ree enforces a particular political viewpoint, while GAF does not. Whatever political consensus, if any (and I would dispute that there is one), on GAF has evolved naturally without top-down moderator intervention. Thus, your assertion that GAF is equal-but-opposite to Ree is completely off base. Moreover, you would have to have a completely blinkered view to come to that conclusion, given that explicitly racist posters like FullTilt18, Squigglefizzle, montgomery, Supreme Allah, hargwood are permanently banned (and that's just from the last few months), while we have open communists like @MB1 freely posting. We also regularly make fun of our trans-obsessed friend, Antoon, so his anti-trans views are a minority. Explain to me again how we are right wing?
 
Last edited:

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
You have completely sidestepped the main point, which is that Ree enforces a particular political viewpoint, while GAF does not. Whatever political consensus, if any (and I would dispute that there is one), on GAF has evolved naturally without top-down moderator intervention. Thus, your assertion that GAF is equal-but-opposite to Ree is completely off base. Moreover, you would have to have a completely blinkered view to come to that conclusion, given that explicitly racist posters like FullTilt18, Squigglefizzle, montgomery, Supreme Allah, hargwood are permanently banned (and that's just from the last few months), while we have open communists like @MB1 freely posting. We also regularly make fun of our trans-obsessed friend, Antoon, so his anti-trans views are a minority. Explain to me again how we are right wing?
It has evolved naturally yes, however you're assuming that it evolved without bias for and/or against certain viewpoints. This is not the case, as a major portion of the left-leaning posters removed themselves from the community during the exodus, to the point where this board is a minuscule percentage of GAF's original userbase prior to everything going haywire. Thus what you perceive as a normalization of political discourse is inherently biased as it arose in a biased environment.

With regards to the bold, the OP does a convincing job of painting a snapshot in time to showcase the conservative lean on the politics board. Expanded to include a larger time range, I suspect the distribution will remain similar.

You don't need a peer reviewed study (and this has nothing to do with peer review), you require any actual methodology at all and your conclusion have to be derived by what your inquiry can answer. It's just all circular, lacking any foundation for whatever a "conservative talking point", "republican talking point", "liberal talking point" is and how one will approach it.. It paints no clear picture at all and repeating that doesn't make it so. More so it approaches things binary, which even further begs how he deduced what a X point is.

It's like going into a black neighborhood, noticing someone stealing and going "oh well, guess black people are thieves". And pretending there's any substance in that, pretending that "Overall it paints a relatively clear picture". And pretending that anyone should take them seriously, because "oh I don't see anything wrong with that". That's the kind of misleading and false data you see from white supremacists with their pseudo-science.
As I've stated multiple times, OP's analysis has its limits, but he also clearly presents his categorization. Comparing this situation to racist stereotypes of black people is an amusing straw man, as nowhere have I stated that the conservative lean is negative, just that it exists vis a vis content posted on the politics board. I also have not extrapolated it to the entirety of the userbase.

At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. I find value in OP's analysis, and you do not.
 
Last edited:

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
3,659
5,851
755
At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. I find value in OP's analysis, and you do not.
You find value because it supports your preconceived notions - not because it has any ounce of merit.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
It has evolved naturally yes, however you're assuming that it evolved without bias for and/or against certain viewpoints. This is not the case, as majority of the left-leaning posters removed themselves from the community during the exodus. Thus what you perceive as a normalization of political discourse is inherently biased as it arose in a biased environment.

With regards to the bold, the OP does a convincing job of painting a snapshot in time to showcase the conservative lean. Expanded to include a larger time range, I suspect the distribution will remain similar.
What bias? Make the claim, provide the proof. You speak of bias then claim that OP’s particular snapshot in time is a representative sample of the board at large. I look at the front page of politics right now and see a thread about black people succeeding in America with a link to CNN; a thread about local government in Compton; a locked thread about race relations in America that skewed right and was borderline racist; a dragonfart thread about spurious claims of indigenous genocide in Canada; a thread about laughing at the way Trump speaks; a thread about Biden’s climate change plan; and a bunch of non-partisan news articles. What exactly are you complaining about? It seems to me that OP’s snapshot was carefully timed so as to capture the board at its greatest conservative ebb, which you are then taking as bonafide data and assuming are temporally consistent. Very dishonest imo, and highly suspicious when you show up after a year and a half just to provide metacommentary, expecting us to just take it at face value when we’ve seen and dealt with it dozens of times before.

Moreover, when I point out that there is no moderation bias and anyone is free to post what they want, you shift the goalposts and claim that the culture could only be what it is because of bias. But of course! Why didn’t I think of that? You’re like a flat earther — your view is consolidated and no amount of evidence will change it, but when cornered you make up your own unfalsifiable evidence. Par for the course with you types in current_year. If there’s any bias here, it’s your own as, once again, you have sidestepped key points and continued to push a pre-conceived narrative.

Here’s what I think you’re really doing: I think, like OP, you’re bitter and resentful that your ideas are no longer fawned over without being questioned critically. I think you can only thrive in an environment that silences opposing viewpoints because your own don’t stand up to scrutiny. I think it’s likely that you’ve been raised in a participation culture that has taught you that your ideas are of equal merit no matter what and you’re only capable of thinking in terms of equal outcomes as a result. I think that, because you’re now observing a platform that provides equality of expression, i.e. freedom, you feel oppressed. I think you’re weak and, like Arkage, attempting to dismantle a social hierarchy that no longer coddles your soft sensibilities and malformed opinions.

Most of all, I think we’re done here.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,828
1,804
565
Norway
As I've stated multiple times, OP's analysis has its limits, but he also clearly presents his categorization. Comparing this situation to racist stereotypes of black people is an amusing straw man, as nowhere have I stated that the conservative lean is negative, just that it exists vis a vis content posted on the politics board.

At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. I find value in OP's analysis, and you do not.
It has its limits like observing a single instance in time something, like viewing someone doing something and then concluding to a larger population doing something. That's literally what it is ("hey there's x amounts of threads I've categorized as conservative in this nonsensical binary system at x point in time, hey that means the forum leans conservative"). It serves nothing. It's no strawman, it's the logic that the thread purports. Without even going into the problems with categorization, it doesn't say anything about the forum as a whole, nor the forum users as a whole nor about the spread of threads, it can only say: "at x point in time I noticed on subforum y on page 1 a greater amount of threads that lean towards y [binary exclusionary ideological category], thus it was so at that time". You could easier find me agree to a conservative lean based on my anecdotal experience, than agreeing with it based on terrible statistics. Fucking inductive reasoning gone wrong.

There's no "agree to disagree". It's "can you take a snapshot of a neighborhood and then assume that's relevant information about how the neighborhood is at any other point in time or some lean in what the neighborhood is?". If no, then the problem with this analysis is obvious and that's without the problems of categorization in some binary system and the consequent reductionism that entails.
 
Last edited:

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
What bias? Make the claim, provide the proof. You speak of bias then claim that OP’s particular snapshot in time is a representative sample of the board at large. I look at the front page of politics right now and see a thread about black people succeeding in America with a link to CNN; a thread about local government in Compton; a locked thread about race relations in America that skewed right and was borderline racist; a dragonfart thread about spurious claims of indigenous genocide in Canada; a thread about laughing at the way Trump speaks; a thread about Biden’s climate change plan; and a bunch of non-partisan news articles. What exactly are you complaining about? It seems to me that OP’s snapshot was carefully timed so as to capture the board at its greatest conservative ebb, which you are then taking as bonafide data and assuming are temporally consistent. Very dishonest imo, and highly suspicious when you show up after a year and a half just to provide metacommentary, expecting us to just take it at face value when we’ve seen and dealt with it dozens of times before.
Nothing.

Moreover, when I point out that there is no moderation bias and anyone is free to post what they want, you shift the goalposts and claim that the culture could only be what it is because of bias. But of course! Why didn’t I think of that? You’re like a flat earther — your view is consolidated and no amount of evidence will change it, but when cornered you make up your own unfalsifiable evidence. Par for the course with you types in current_year. If there’s any bias here, it’s your own as, once again, you have sidestepped key points and continued to push a pre-conceived narrative.
I've been very reasonable in acknowledging the specific scope of OP's analysis.

Here’s what I think you’re really doing: I think, like OP, you’re bitter and resentful that your ideas are no longer fawned over without being questioned critically. I think you can only thrive in an environment that silences opposing viewpoints because your own don’t stand up to scrutiny. I think it’s likely that you’ve been raised in a participation culture that has taught you that your ideas are of equal merit no matter what and you’re only capable of thinking in terms of equal outcomes as a result. I think that, because you’re now observing a platform that provides equality of expression, i.e. freedom, you feel oppressed. I think you’re weak and, like Arkage, attempting to dismantle a social hierarchy that no longer coddles your soft sensibilities and malformed opinions.

Most of all, I think we’re done here.
Oh brother, calm down.

It has its limits like observing a single instance in time something, like viewing someone doing something and then concluding to a larger population doing something. That's literally what it is ("hey there's x amounts of threads I've categorized as conservative in this nonsensical binary system at x point in time, hey that means the forum leans conservative"). It serves nothing. It's no strawman, it's the logic that the thread purports. Without even going into the problems with categorization, it doesn't say anything about the forum as a whole, nor the forum users as a whole nor about the spread of threads, it can only say: "at x point in time I noticed on subforum y on page 1 a greater amount of threads that lean towards y [binary exclusionary ideological category], thus it was so at that time". You could easier find me agree to a conservative lean based on my anecdotal experience, than agreeing with it based on terrible statistics. Fucking inductive reasoning gone wrong.

There's no "agree to disagree". It's "can you take a snapshot of a neighborhood and then assume that's relevant information about how the neighborhood is at any other point in time or some lean in what the neighborhood is?". If no, then the problem with this analysis is obvious and that's without the problems of categorization in some binary system and the consequent reductionism that entails.
This is all based on our anecdotal experiences; OP attempts to categorize it in a certain way and I agree with his categorization. I've repeatedly stated there are weaknesses in his analysis, but also strengths. At this point, perhaps you should conduct a full assessment of every topic on this board and then return to report your statistically significant or insignificant findings.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
Nothing.



I've been very reasonable in acknowledging the specific scope of OP's analysis.



Oh brother, calm down.



This is all based on our anecdotal experiences; OP attempts to categorize it in a certain way and I agree with his categorization. I've repeatedly stated there are weaknesses in his analysis, but also strengths. At this point, perhaps you should conduct a full assessment of every topic in this board and then return to report your statistically significant findings.
Once more sidestepping points you can't contend with and cherrypicking what you want to respond to. Very dishonest. I suggest you go back to your hugbox because you're struggling to form a cogent argument.

 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
5,979
1,557
1,485
As someone that’s on the left I actually like that GAF now leans more to the right than it used to. Actually getting the direct perspective of people on the right is really useful for broadening my understanding of a subject. It can be really easy to fall into the trap of only having those views framed by people who you might more typically agree with.
This is what every voter should be saying.

Listening, and learning vs screaming and fighting.

I lean left of center a smidge,(or in the sane universe I once lived in I did)but now it seems I'm damn near alt-right for believing in progress, but at a slow pace, as humans tend to deal with change better when it's a slow process, not one day everything is different, and I'm the enemy.

Progress is important, and it's how we as a planet have come this far. Flipping over every single magazine rack in a day, and calling it a humpback whale is not only crazy, but way to fast.

You end up with chaos.

Slow and steady, with conversation, cigars, and a nice port.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
Once more sidestepping points you can't contend with and cherrypicking what you want to respond to. Very dishonest. I suggest you go back to your hugbox because you're struggling to form a cogent argument.

You decided to resort to ad hominem, so the discussion is over with you.

Apologies for violating your safe space.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: brap

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
What's surprising is after this whole Evilore scandal, people are coming out and blaming the OT and its strict moderation against bigots as the reason GAF just crumbled. Like, what? The OT had nothing to do with this nonsense. I'm sorry if people had their feelings hurt being "dogpiled" for their unsupported opinions and beliefs, but the OT was always about "nut up or shut up" with evidence. It seems like there were a lot of people who couldn't help being challenged in that way. Quite frankly the persecutory delusions that people display about how they have been mistreated in OT showcase a very misguided view in which they simply seem upset that they can't say anything and everything. Yeah, you can't say stupid bigoted shit on this forum, and shouldn't get upset when you get called out on it. In short, the discussions on OT were generally fine. That's not the reason GAF is in the shitter right now, let's make that clear.
I got curious about your last time posting after reading this thread. Seems you like a more strict form of moderation. Did you ever get the discord invite you requested?
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
I got curious about your last time posting after reading this thread. Seems you like a more strict form of moderation. Did you ever get the discord invite you requested?
Sadly no, and DBS was definitely less fun because of it.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
You decided to resort to ad hominem, so the discussion is over with you.

Apologies for violating your safe space.
Playing the victim, like clockwork. Learn what ad hominem is before you go throwing around accusations of it as a criticism shield. My insulting you is related to your dishonest behaviour as an interlocutor, namely sidestepping points that you cannot refute and cherrypicking what you want to respond to. The insults are unrelated to your arguments, whatever they may be.

Wikipedia said:
It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.
You have not violated anything. My entire point is that GAF is not a safe space. It's clear that you cannot operate outside of one, however.
 

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,828
1,804
565
Norway
This is all based on our anecdotal experiences; OP attempts to categorize it in a certain way and I agree with his categorization. I've repeatedly stated there are weaknesses in his analysis, but also strengths. At this point, perhaps you should conduct a full assessment of every topic in this board and then return to report your statistically significant findings.
There's no real strengths in his analysis, as pointed out. It tells us literally nothing interesting. Even @matt404au anecdotal experiences are more reliable. And he's an Aussie that claims he doesn't drink. And he eats Vegemite.

Really, you don't need to assess all the topics on the subforum. You just need a randomized selection of an adequate sample size from a relevant timeframe, but even that only tells about number of topics that fall into your categories and not anything about the people participating, nor anything about their value nor anything about the general users. That's without the problem of a binary approach to political categories.

If you'd just said "In my experience there are, in the context of a binary understanding of political affiliation based upon a reductionist view of American politics, more conservative supporting threads than liberal supporting threads.", then I might agree with you, but not based on what's in the OP. It tells none of that.
 

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
Sadly no, and DBS was definitely less fun because of it.
I don't know if we still have a very active DBS community here anymore. I am guessing that DBS has to do with "Dragon Balls". I only watched the show once, and that was on accident. I suggest you start up a thread or use the search function to see if there's an active one now. These guys in the politics section are too feisty. They require proof and "receipts" and whatnot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,342
31
750
Playing the victim, like clockwork. Learn what ad hominem is before you go throwing around accusations of it as a criticism shield. My insulting you is related to your dishonest behaviour as an interlocutor, namely sidestepping points that you cannot refute and cherrypicking what you want to respond to. The insults are unrelated to your arguments, whatever they may be.



You have not violated anything. My entire point is that GAF is not a safe space. It's clear that you cannot operate outside of one, however.
You yourself cherry picked a handful of threads to refute mine and OP's opinion, but in an even more haphazard and selective manner than OP did, who you insinuate waited for the right time to make his post to unfairly paint the board as conservative. Then in the last paragraph of your post, you decided to write my life story based on 3 or so posts of interaction.

There is no honest discussion to be had there. I'll engage with you like a normal human being if you extend the same courtesy. Other users have not had any problem engaging my points at face value (ex. RokkanStoned). Regardless, I've clearly struck a nerve, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.

If you'd just said "In my experience there are, in the context of a binary understanding of political affiliation based upon a reductionist view of American politics, more conservative supporting threads than liberal supporting threads.", then I might agree with you, but not based on what's in the OP. It tells none of that.
I would mostly agree with this statement yes, however we disagree on how reductionist we believe his analysis is. In this case, I think it serves its basic purpose well. What you've summarized in the bold is the "results" section if a scientific paper, while I have written out the "discussion" section in my posts, which naturally leads to editorialization.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
You yourself cherry picked a handful of threads to refute mine and OP's opinion, but in an even more haphazard and selective manner than OP did, who you insinuate waited for the right time to make his post to unfairly paint the board as conservative. Then in the last paragraph of your post, you decided to write my life story based on 3 or so posts of interaction.

There is no honest discussion to be had there. I'll engage with you like a normal human being if you extend the same courtesy. Other users have not had any problem engaging my points at face value (ex. RokkanStoned). Regardless, I've clearly struck a nerve, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.



I would mostly agree with this statement yes, however we disagree on how reductionist we believe his analysis is. In this case, I think it serves its basic purpose well. What you've summarized in the bold is the "results" section if a scientific paper, while I have written out the "discussion" section in my posts, which naturally leads to editorialization.
No, dumbass. I didn't cherrypick those threads -- I demonstrated how easy it is to paint a particular picture of the political leanings at any particular point in time. I did the exact same thing as the OP you are so vehemently holding up as bonafide data.

You came in here, waved your dick around, had your biased assumptions refuted, sidestepped said refutations, continued pushing more biased assumptions, got insulted for it, then played the victim. You play your game of false civility while reserving the right to play the victim when you are rightfully insulted. You are the one failing to engage as a normal human being because your definition of normal has been distorted to act as a criticism shield. If you are engaged politely and then proceed to sidestep and cherrypick, expect to get insulted.
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,260
1,873
540
No, dumbass. I didn't cherrypick those threads -- I demonstrated how easy it is to paint a particular picture of the political leanings at any particular point in time. I did the exact same thing as the OP you are so vehemently holding up as bonafide data.
He has said about 10x that he acknowledges the data is flawed. He literally just said that it's more than zero data, which is the most minimal claim one can even make. And then after that extremely mild mannered and small claim that he made, he immediately acknowledged that it is flawed data. He did this in either his first or second post. And then he's done it over and over again. Nothing he's doing here is vehement in any way, and he already conceded and acknowledged what people challenged him on. A while ago. He's been called a bitch, insinuated that he's a liar only here to sow discord instead of having genuine opinions, a dumbass, and he hasn't insulted anyone back in any way and has followed the Terms of Service here perfectly.

Why keep exaggerating what he said?
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,256
1,250
Australia
He has said about 10x that he acknowledges the data is flawed. He literally just said that it's more than zero data, which is the most minimal claim one can even make. And then after that extremely mild mannered and small claim that he made, he immediately acknowledged that it is flawed data. He did this in either his first or second post. And then he's done it over and over again. Nothing he's doing here is vehement in any way, and he already conceded and acknowledged what people challenged him on. A while ago. He's been called a bitch, insinuated that he's a liar only here to sow discord instead of having genuine opinions, a dumbass, and he hasn't insulted anyone back in any way and has followed the Terms of Service here perfectly.

Why keep exaggerating what he said?
Because, as I have repeatedly said, he keeps sidestepping arguments to the contrary and continues to suggest that GAF an equal-but-opposite echo chamber to Ree. Why do you ignore that he hasn't addressed the main point, which is that groupthink is enforced on Ree and it is not on GAF? Why do you focus only on trigger words?

Claiming it's "more than zero data" is meaningless if what he's referring to is flawed or just plain wrong. In fact, it's worse than zero data. I can suck my thumb and stick it in the air and make a prediction and call it more than zero data. Moreover, his first post since 26th October 2017 is metacommentary on the state of GAF and we are to assume that he's here just as a totally neutral observer providing totally neutral feedback? Why should we grant any credence to what he says if he doesn't have the decency to first participate in the community before criticising it?

I suggest you go and re-read the entire chain and this time try to read between the lines because you seem to have just as blinkered a view as he does, which is just bizarre at this point. Stop focusing on the insults and focus on the behaviours that precipitated them. That's the entire problem with the false civility that you and so many others subscribe to these days. Human socialisation and communication are more nuanced than a black and white TOS can address, especially in the absence of body language and tone. While the TOS is there as a form of constitution, it also requires interpretation. What you are trying to do by enforcing black and white interpretation of it is to strip any context from moderation. Think about the perverse incentive system that creates.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: ArchaeEnkidu

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,260
1,873
540
Why do you ignore that he hasn't addressed the main point, which is that groupthink is enforced on Ree and it is not on GAF? Why do you focus only on trigger words?
Because people having left or right political opinions doesn't bother me at all. Being left or right is irrelevent as long as people can speak to each other with the most basic level of courtesy.

Ironically, you liked post #230 up above that says the same thing.

NeoGAF is essentially a marketplace of ideas right now. What's important is that moderation isn't picking winners or losers, but instead enforcing a rule set that only governs the way posters engage with one another.
This quoted section in particular.

Maybe you skipped the first two sentences and just liked the rest of the post. I dont know honestly.
 
Last edited: