• 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

Musky_Cheese

Community Liaison
Oct 23, 2016
6,057
9,921
905
As someone has already pointed out "What major news stories don't have threads"?

-The majority of GAF wanted Politics out of Gaming and Off Topic. Majority of NeoGAF doesn't post in Politics. So if you were going to make any generalizations about NeoGAF and its Political thinking, it would be GAF doesn't want to talk Politics.

The biggest change when looking at Old GAF to Current GAF is Political posters interactions outside the threads they just argued in. High percentage of interactions in a Political thread don't follow people to other threads.

Just my 2 cents
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
11,861
17,254
1,250
Australia
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.


This quoted section in particular.

Maybe you skipped the first two sentences and just liked the rest of the post. I dont know honestly.
You have misunderstood the issue if you think it’s simply about left vs. right. You quote me saying that groupthink is enforced on Ree and not on GAF and you somehow think that’s a left vs. right argument? What? Not enforcing groupthink is apolitical. There is equal opportunity to speak your mind and post from whatever political position you want. Whatever unequal outcomes you may perceive are irrelevant. I can’t say this any more clearly. OP is the one who came in with the complaint that GAF is too right for his liking while refusing to be the change he wants to see. I’m saying that GAF is neither left nor right; it simply is. Meanwhile, the dope you’re defending can only look through a binary left vs. right lens and is instantly dismissive of any arguments to the contrary.

Furthermore, your definition of courtesy is busted. You would rather someone skirt around the TOS and behave dishonestly than get called a trigger word. Like I said, think about the perverse incentives that creates. You know what’s actually discourteous? Fleeing to Ree in October 2017 then coming back more than 18 months later to provide metacommentary without participating in the new community first. If your neighbour fled to the mountains to join a cult then came back a year and a half later to tell you that you’re living your life wrong without so much as cracking a beer with you first, would you pay him any heed?
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
1,260
1,873
540
Forgive my formatting errors.
Im on my phone and this is impossible.

matt said:
I can’t say this any more clearly. OP is the one who came in with the complaint that GAF is too right for his liking while refusing to be the change he wants to see. I’m saying that GAF is neither left nor right; it simply is.
That's a fine counter-argument to the OP. Encourage left leaning posters to make more threads. That's fine.

Personally, I have never thought thread frequency leaning one way or the other is the problem. I think its the constant insults and dogpiling that leans mostly one way that gives people the impression this site leans right. If people are nicer to each other, I dont think many people here care if you lean left or right.

matt said:
Meanwhile, the dope you’re defending can only look through a binary left vs. right lens and is instantly dismissive of any arguments to the contrary.[\quote]

And now you insult him again. And he's not instantly dismissive of anything. Almost instantly he acknowledged the people criticizing his assertion. He even went further than me and said he understands why people may be suspicious of someone posting after being absent. He acknowledged every counter-argument you guys brought up in a polite way, and even conceded on some of your points. Nothing about it is dismissive, so again, I am left wondering why you feel the need to massively exaggerate what he's said to make him look bad?

matt said:
furthermore, your definition of courtesy is busted.
I didnt give you my definition of courtesy. If you want to know what mine is, its just the basic definition in the dictionary. Any honest poster here can admit calling someone a dope, bitch, and implying that they're lying is not courteous.

you would rather someone skirt around the TOS and behave dishonestly than get called a trigger word.
Is dishonesty against the rules here? Who is being dishonest and what proof do you have?

like I said, think about the perverse incentives that creates.
You're going to have to explain it if you want me to get your argument here. People who follow the TOS but you perceive to be dishonest creates what? Lay it out for me.

matt said:
you know what’s actually discourteous? Fleeing to Ree in October 2017 then coming back more than 18 months later to provide metacommentary without participating in the new community first. If your neighbour fled to the mountains to join a cult then came back a year and a half later to tell you that you’re living your life wrong without so much as cracking a beer with you first, would you pay him any heed?
Honestly this is the most offensive and entitled part of what you've said. I figured I could just appeal to people to stop insulting each other since we have a pretty good community here, but that has clearly failed. You literally have an entire philosophy justifying acting aggressive and rude to people to prevent the "weak from usurping the strong;" somehow convincing yourself that being rude and unnecessarily insulting is a form of good. It blows my mind.

But on top of that, the entitlement you display in thinking new posters have to "have a beer with you" before they are allowed to post in politics threads is the height of celebrity poster forum rot. No one owes you anything Matt. Its not a good justification for being rude to him. This guy can post anywhere he wants and say whatever he wants as long as he doesnt break the TOS. Marketplace of ideas right? Why would you think you have any right to insult and smear people because they didnt hang out with you first? Maybe he's just read the forum and not posted?

The TOS are supposed to be enforced to protect the least liked posters here. Popular posters dont really have any problem saying whatever they want. Its posters that people dont like that anyone concerned with a healthy forum should watch. If the TOS are upheld for them, then its a healthy forum. If they constantly get dogpiled and insulted repeatedly and nothing happens because theyre not popular, then the rules are a joke.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssolitare

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,195
4,523
785
Just to add some thoughts. The “left” these days is suffering from the No True Scotsman fallacy in that they are enforcing a rather unhygienic and frankly disgusting ideaology on themselves as a means of finding ideological purity. Unless you follow them on the social justice outrage du jur, and be an “ally”, you are ostracized from the “left”. Like the stanky, sweaty ass of a commando going Scotsman, it has polluted the air across the Internet making most websites outright insufferable bastions of social justice virtue signaling oneupsmanship.

If anything this site is left leaning libertarian, but we don’t put a gag on the right cause, being libertarian we believe in free speech and tend to abhor authoritarian purity seeking moderation.
 

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Jun 8, 2004
4,484
502
1,775
Is this substantial lean a problem? Is it a de facto echo chamber, albeit not a mod enforced one? Or is this fine and just how the free marketplace of ideas works? If it is a problem, what are possible solutions beyond me and scant few others pulling the weight for the other 50% of American political views?
I don't know if it could be defined as a problem or not. What percentage of active forum goers come to the politics section? This section more so reflects the opinions of those who can be bothered to put an opinion out into the ether. For all we know, this sub forum could be populated by a comparatively small group of highly opinionated people talking among themselves, while others avoid it like the plague.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,827
1,803
565
Norway
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.
If you mostly agree, then you have to throw it out, unless you are just claiming at x time more threads of Arakge's self-interpreted binary category Conservative was present, than the Progressive category. In which, I'll say, "oookay... and that's pretty useless".
You're fumbling with your words.
The problem of categorization is secondary (but there are numerous problems, including reductionism. A binary category should be exclusionary., making sure that you're not lumping things together that don't belong, reducing the complexity to suit your own preferred categories), because the whole thing itself is a fallacious hasty generalization. Meaning when you say "I think it serves its basic purpose well" you're not really understanding or you're skirting around the argument as @matt404au has said.

If I've written the results, then you have to accept those realities, meaning your discussion can't go beyond what the scope of what the data says. Otherwise any claim you make suffers from dissonance in regards to the data you're backing it on, because your conclusions don't follow from the premise.