Support NeoGAF

[freeofgreed]

Hey now, I thought we talked about bringing me up in a discussion where I'm not--







Oh.

I'll allow it.

Spoiler

Though you did misspell my pseudonym.

I don't have much patience for claims that an argument doesn't need to be made or supported simply because it's been done before and it's tiresome to do so again. As I said in another thread:

This is fair and something I've thought about doing.

How about the "Is it transphobic to not want to date someone transgendered?" thread. It's not really something that can have a rational argument.

Lol now you're opening up a whole nother can of worms. But I think the argument in that thread was that if you were attracted to someone and didn't know they were trans,then later found out and then just on that basis didn't want to be with them, then that can be considered transphobia. Not that i necessarily agree with it but it is a fair argument to make.

 

[ChouGoku]

when people tell me Christianity is being attacked at very high levels in America

 

[Fuzzery]

I think this is a good example as well.

If you could show that punishing criminals more harshly reduced crime overall or reduced recidivism rates or any other relevant statistic, then you could make a cogent argument that punishing criminals harshly is a good idea.

The statistics don't really show that, though, so most discussions of harsh punitive sentencing rely on moral outrage at how awful abusers and murderers and rapists are rather than empirical data.

To be fair, there's a lot of people who want to see people who do bad things suffer as much as they can

 

[THRILLH0]

I notice, just as much if not more often, "lol people get outraged by everything" as a substitute for a cogent rebuttal.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Who out there is creating their arguments from a state of nature? Is there anyone out there who comes up with all their arguments in a social and historical vacuum?

People like to imagine their positions are a product of reasoned and considered intellectual effort but the reality is that humans are rationalizing, not rational. If nothing else someone who makes an argument purely based on moral outrage is at least being honest about it.

You're just rationalizing being irrational.

 

[OttomanScribe]

You're just rationalizing being irrational.

It is turtles all the way down.

Seriously though, the idea that humans act and believe according to reason kind of died with Freud, surely.

 

[Red Mage]

Happens all the time on here. In fact, I once had to argue that treating people this way IRL when they say something racist, but the person didn't consider themselves racist, was a bad idea. People have an inherent reaction to being "attacked" for a belief or comment, and that is to become very defensive of it.

 

[Skux]

When it's moral debates you're always going to get people arguing like this because morality is subjective. Numbers and statistics aren't going to change what someone believes.

 

[ghst]

i've read it a few places that the more uncomfortable you are with an argument, the more you should engage with it. i'm not sure i entirely agree, but i can't help but find those who enter a debate only to argue a very comfortable viewpoint from a very comfortable station to be pretty weak characters who add little more than noise.

 

[Infinite]

I've seen this happen a lot here but I don't think it's due to th person not being able to make a sufficient counter argument I think it's mostly due to exhaustion. I've done this myself here a few times but nowadays when I see a post that was already addressed in some shape or fashion I mainly just ignore it.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think about this quote a lot:

You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason into.

I've often heard people complain that discussions here are not court rooms, and therefore the concepts of assumed innocence and standards of evidence are irrelevant. I've also often come across people criticizing an assumed motive behind a particular argument, as if that had any bearing on the quality of the argument. These are usually tactics that are adopted when the appeals to emotion and the "well it's just so obvious" responses fail.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Well, that's not a very good argument. Why is it morally wrong? Because it just is . It's gross and bad.

I think many people are motivated more by visceral disgust than by anything they could reasonably articulate. The reason this is a problem is that the exact same reasoning used to dismiss something like incest could be used against something like homosexuality: if we are willing to comdemn things because I personally find them gross and am viscerally disgusted by them, well then, plenty of people find the image of men having sex with other men to be similarly disgusting.

This is the problem, really. If you start letting arguments like this through the door, then lots of other arguments you do not agree with get let in with it.

Okay I see what you mean, if you can't articulate your morals with reason then that's clearly bad.

 

[NewGame]

I notice this a lot with Offended-GAF. Sometimes here standing up and saying you're appalled and outraged substitutes for actually having a coherent thought.

It kinda peeves me when with all these police shooting stories people just one shot post "f*** da police" and leave; like some sort of hero who saved the thread.

I really like short, sweet one word replies to stuff but only if they actually enhance the topic not just stuff it with filler especially if the point has already been made far better and more coherently by others before them.

I mean isn't this why GAF removed all those shock news threads?

"Man rapes all children in orphanage and then burns it to the ground while kicking puppies to death"

I mean the entire thread is going to be instant message reactions, like those little emote voting icons on uninspired news sites

Happy - 0
Sad - 567
Angry - 1,324
Gross - 936
Awesome - 1
Meh - 42

Because really what else is there to say? Is there anything people want to do aside from scream and yell and throw rocks etc? Is GAF even the place to discuss this stuff?

 

[injurai]

I notice, just as much if not more often, "lol people get outraged by everything" as a substitute for a cogent rebuttal.

"I don't know how many people are the problem but I won't be one of them."

I know I've been part of the problem at times. I'm sure others know it too, but you'd never be able to tell when you need to.

 

[The Lamp]

I'm sure we've all seen this before -- if you haven't seen it, I'm confident saying you just didn't notice it. The central idea is this: sometimes, people don't have a reasonable or cogent argument to defend their position. They just believe the world should be the way they want it. So in place of an argument, they act shocked and appalled that another person could even suggest such a heinous thing. Without ever saying so, the intent is to shame the other person in to submission so they don't or cannot ask "well, okay, you think what I'm suggesting is very wrong and evil. Can you explain why more clearly and logically?"

The idea crosses all political spectrums; conservative religious people often rely on this technique, for instance. But I also see some proponents of civil rights use the same sorts of techniques (please note that this doesn't meant that all civil rights are stupid and bad, just that many people often can't explain why they are for them with any cogency). You can see posters of all political and philosophical persuasions sometimes respond to another poster using this technique: they won't and in many cases can't explain why the person they are responding to is wrong, so instead of even trying they just act disgusted or shocked that the question was even asked.

Have you noticed this phenomenon? Where and how do you most notice it?

I definitely notice it a lot, especially in morality related to religion.

I also notice it with gender stereotypes and norms. Boys "shouldn't play with dolls." Well why? "Because that's for girls." Well why? "IT JUST IS."

This type of situation regarding gender expectations was a source of a lot of teasing and frustration for me as a child. I liked playing with "boyish" things and un-"boyish" things and my family let me, but my family often got called out for letting me do that.

It became especially common in conversations about what is expected of a "man." Here in the South, I have been taunted for not being "manly" because I've never gone hunting or shot a gun (until April when I finally fired my first gun at a target practice).

 

[Metaphoreus]

It is turtles all the way down.

Seriously though, the idea that humans act and believe according to reason kind of died with Freud, surely.

Debating the validity of your argument requires first rejecting it's validity. Either we're really rational and can discuss it rationally, or we're really not and are wasting our breath.

 

[freeofgreed]

It kinda peeves me when with all these police shooting stories people just one shot post "f*** da police" and leave; like some sort of hero who saved the thread.

I really like short, sweet one word replies to stuff but only if they actually enhance the topic not just stuff it with filler especially if the point has already been made far better and more coherently by others before them.

I mean isn't this why GAF removed all those shock news threads?

"Man rapes all children in orphanage and then burns it to the ground while kicking puppies to death"

I mean the entire thread is going to be instant message reactions, like those little emote voting icons on uninspired news sites

Happy - 0
Sad - 567
Angry - 1,324
Gross - 936
Awesome - 1
Meh - 42

Because really what else is there to say? Is there anything people want to do aside from scream and yell and throw rocks etc? Is GAF even the place to discuss this stuff?

Ok this is a bit of a different situation. People have to remember that this is a forum where people post their opinions. Its one thing to respond to a user without a coherent argument, but if a poster wants to make a disparaging remark towards the police I think that's fine. How's that any different than someone saying "I like Kingdom hearts" or "I think Nintendo's press conference was awful."?

 

[UnPatriot]

Those who espouse secular liberalism, yet when confronted with situations which conform with secular liberalism, but contradict their cultural sensibilities, they become outraged....

Incest is a great example.

 

[Transhuman]

Discussions dealing with:

Transexuality
Racism
Homosexuality and Homophobia
Abortion
Gun Control

All suffer from this extensively. Frequently from both sides, no less.

Don't forget Paedophilia.

 

[Opiate]

It is turtles all the way down.

Seriously though, the idea that humans act and believe according to reason kind of died with Freud, surely.

Naturally? I definitely agree. Libertarians might not, however.

I would describe reason as a tool we can use to overcome our natural weaknesses as thinkers. We also can't lift 500 pounds, but with wheelbarrows, we're able to move heavy stuff around that we wouldn't normally be able to if we just tried to lift stuff "naturally."

Reason is a tool we superimpose on our thinking process to enhance it, the same way wheelbarrows allow us to lift more weight and cars allow us to move faster than we would if we relied on our natural state alone.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Debating the validity of your argument requires first rejecting it's validity. Either we're really rational and can discuss it rationally, or we're really not and are wasting our breath.

It is probably the latter, though I wouldn't say it is so much that people are 'wasting their breath' but more that it is important to recognise that reason is not really at the heart of any argument.

 

[lednerg]

I'm not saying it's a compelling argument, just one that might not be an appeal to emotion. I disagree with the bolded. The fact that capital punishment is coercive is a reasonable argument as to why it should not be outlawed.

Question: Do you think capital punishment should be outlawed?
Argument: No. It is an effective tool to coerce prisoners into revealing helpful information.

In the hypothetical Q&A up there, wouldn't we essentially be killing a prisoner for refusing to answer a question? That seems extreme.

The pro-capital punishment people who would bring that up as an argument are creating a false dilemma, that you can only get a confession out of somebody via the threat of death, and that you give that up by nixing the death penalty. Of course, between killing and not killing a prisoner, there are plenty of other avenues to try in terms of coercing them. Like you said, it's not compelling, it's rather poor. It's not an argument for that particular punishment as much as for offering a criminal a relaxed sentence or other benefit in exchange for information.

The arguments I'm talking about (when saying they boil down to appeals to emotion) are the ones which supposedly justify us killing prisoners in the first place. "Think about the victim's family" and so on. Then there's also false arguments, such as it being cheaper (it isn't) or that it deters crime (it doesn't).

 

[OttomanScribe]

Naturally? Of course, I agree. Libertarians might not, however.

I would describe reason as a tool we can use to overcome our natural weaknesses. We also can't lift 500 pounds, but with wheelbarrows, we're able to move heavy stuff around that we wouldn't normally be able to if we just tried to lift stuff "naturally."

Reason is a tool we superimpose on our thinking process to enhance it, the same way wheelbarrows allow us to lift more weight and cars allow us to move faster than we would if we relied on our natural state alone. Some apply this tool more frequently than others, however.

The human mind is a mess of cognitions; about ourselves, about others and about the world around us. The process off evaluating their validity is not so much one of figuring out which is the most reasonable, but rather a testing of one cognition against the other. We don't act rationally, we manage cognitive dissonance.

An intelligent person may believe something totally incorrect with more sincerity than one who is less intelligent because they have more cognitive capacity to justify their incorrect position.

 

[Opiate]

The human mind is a mess of cognitions; about ourselves, about others and about the world around us. The process off evaluating their validity is not so much one of figuring out which is the most reasonable, but rather a testing of one cognition against the other. We don't act rationally, we manage cognitive dissonance.

An intelligent person may believe something totally incorrect with more sincerity than one who is less intelligent because they have more cognitive capacity to justify their incorrect position.

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. Yes, I agree, we are not naturally prone to reasonable thought processes. I am suggesting that reason is a tool we can superimpose on these natural thought processes to enhance them.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. Yes, I agree, we are not naturally prone to reasonable thought processes. I am suggesting that reason is a tool we can superimpose on these natural thought processes to enhance them.

I guess I am disagreeing by saying that 'reason' isn't really a thing, at least in the way that most people conceptualise it to be. There is no 'natural' versus 'unnatural' thought processes so much as there are some which are more rationalised than others. Many of our thought processes will never require any rationalising because they will not be challenged.

However certain positions will be, and when that occurs it isn't reason that steps up to the place, but rather rationalising, we will form the argument for the position rather than the other way around.

 

[Metaphoreus]

When it's moral debates you're always going to get people arguing like this because morality is subjective. Numbers and statistics aren't going to change what someone believes.

I think this gets a couple of things wrong. First off, I think most people reject the idea that morality is subjective. (I certainly do.) People have different beliefs about morality, but that doesn't mean they really believe that each person is subject to a different set of moral rules. If a person did believe that, he or she wouldn't try to hold others to his own moral rules and we'd just let each person do whatever he or she wants. It seems to me that most of us agree that we're each bound by the same moral rules, and arguments over morality are merely attempts to identify what those moral rules are and how well each of us conform to them.

Second, every thought about reality--even those we characterize as "knowledge"--is a belief. So being a belief does not protect a thought from correction through numbers, statistics, and other argumentation. It's certainly true that we do try to insulate many beliefs from such correction, but that's a cognitive error to be guarded against, not an inevitability to which we must resign ourselves.

It is probably the latter, though I wouldn't say it is so much that people are 'wasting their breath' but more that it is important to recognise that reason is not really at the heart of any argument.

I think you're describing the cognitive errors I mention above. But if we really can't reason, and are just rationalizing our way to preconceived conclusions, then I don't see how you can avoid the result that we're wasting our time discussing this. Even if I come to agree with you, on your view, it won't be because you've persuaded me, but because I've--by some other, nonrational cause--decided to agree with you.

 

[Opiate]

I guess I am disagreeing by saying that 'reason' isn't really a thing, at least in the way that most people conceptualise it to be. There is no 'natural' versus 'unnatural' thought processes so much as there are some which are more rationalised than others. Many of our thought processes will never require any rationalising because they will not be challenged.

However certain positions will be, and when that occurs it isn't reason that steps up to the place, but rather rationalising, we will form the argument for the position rather than the other way around.

There definitely is a "natural" thought process; heuristics, for instance, are an example of a well documented form of natural human thought processing.

It is definitely true that people tend to reach a conclusion and then work backwards to justify it, but this process can be consciously overridden. This is where much of science comes from, for instance.

We're way past postmodernism now, where every thought and opinion is equal.

 

[OttomanScribe]

There definitely is a "natural" thought process; heuristics, for instance, are an example of a well documented form of natural human thought processing.

What is an example of an 'unnatural' thought process? My point wasn't that there aren't 'natural' thought processes, but rather that there is not a distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural'.

It is definitely true that people tend to reach a conclusion and then work backwards to justify it, but this process can be consciously overridden. This is where much of science comes from, for instance.

Is it? I thought the whole point of the scientific method was to limit the 'conscious' part, to ensure that there is no 'reason' present?

We're way past postmodernism now, where every thought and opinion is equal.

Are we? I don't know if I'd really characterise postmodernity in that way.

 

[Crumpet Trumpet]

reason and evidence stans do the most. "evidence" provided without any historical context can indeed be racist and agenda-pushing and worthy of emotional outrage, especially when it's something as simple-minded as "[sociopolitically disadvantaged minority group] DOES commit the most [heinous crime] tho"

 

[Kinitari]

Who out there is creating their arguments from a state of nature? Is there anyone out there who comes up with all their arguments in a social and historical vacuum?

People like to imagine their positions are a product of reasoned and considered intellectual effort but the reality is that humans are rationalizing, not rational. If nothing else someone who makes an argument purely based on moral outrage is at least being honest about it.

But I don't think this is fundamentally the problem. We base our opinions always on the things we know and feel already... It would be impossible to do anything else. The problem comes in when the foundation of our opinions is weak, and were unable to articulate anything but the simplest scoff to a strong argument against it. I think it's healthy to share your opinion and ideas, based on whatever, but if they are challenged, you should either be able to articulate a response or reconsider your position. I think everyone is capable of both, no one has never had their mind changed.

 

[OttomanScribe]

But I don't think this is fundamentally the problem. We base our opinions always on the things we know and feel already... It would be impossible to do anything else. The problem comes in when the foundation of our opinions is weak, and were unable to articulate anything but the simplest scoff to a strong argument against it. I think it's healthy to share your opinion and ideas, based on whatever, but if they are challenged, you should either be able to articulate a response or reconsider your position. I think everyone is capable of both, no one has never had their mind changed.

I'm not speaking out against discussion at all. Or against people backing up their opinions.

But I am saying that even those who change their mind don't do so out of reason, but rather one set of cognitive biases overriding another.

 

[AlexMogil]

I don't think it's possible to ask what situations are subject to this: it is all subjects. Whatever outrage you can think of major or minor from abortion to Jake Lloyd's goatee are subject to indignant outrage to the point of the inability to articulate a coherent reason.

I'm interested in the why, too.

Is it because Twitter has become a standard of conversation with 140 characters littered with catchphrases?

Is it because sites like Tumblr have given a voice to the once voiceless, which is positive - people with similar lives can converse about their struggles. But the negative - the need for constant affirmation of likes and reblogging creates a bit of an echo chamber and robs people of their ability to think of any other side of a conversation.

Is it something as simple as people on mobile devices don't feel like typing?


I'd take it a step further: too often have I seen people give an attempt to give an answer to a question - even an easy one - but just can not avoid shitting on the asker with a judgement.

"Eggs have been found to have significant benefits to health if eaten in moderation. Of course you wouldn't know that because you are so stuck up the cholesterol consortium's ass that you can't be bothered to look up that single piece of data."

Absurd example, sure, but I think the tone is correct. Why do you have to do that?

Reddit sucks, I get it, but sometimes I think they have the *theory* of upvoting correct: if the comment contributes to the conversation it gets upvoted. It doesn't turn out that way of course, it gets all hive mind-y and popularity contest-y.

I dunno. Is there a way to have a conversation that isn't in real time that can get past this? What you're asking is for everyone to have the same background and basic grasp of a situation as well as asking every user to read and understand very post in a thread before posting AND take every poster's personality into account.

Not to mention the perceived value of a neogaf account. Wouldn't want to get banned, better toe the moderation line.

 

[Arksy]

There definitely is a "natural" thought process; heuristics, for instance, are an example of a well documented form of natural human thought processing.

It is definitely true that people tend to reach a conclusion and then work backwards to justify it, but this process can be consciously overridden. This is where much of science comes from, for instance.

We're way past postmodernism now, where every thought and opinion is equal.

Because the scientific process forces a ground up approach to answering questions.

Naturally? I definitely agree. Libertarians might not, however.

I would describe reason as a tool we can use to overcome our natural weaknesses as thinkers. We also can't lift 500 pounds, but with wheelbarrows, we're able to move heavy stuff around that we wouldn't normally be able to if we just tried to lift stuff "naturally."

Reason is a tool we superimpose on our thinking process to enhance it, the same way wheelbarrows allow us to lift more weight and cars allow us to move faster than we would if we relied on our natural state alone.

I like the thought that reason is a tool. I don't know how much I agree that humans are irrational or rational though. I think that's a weird argument. Maybe we should accept that all standard human behaviours are rational and work backwards. I'm not going to profess that our brains are logically perfect or that our brains don't lead us astray but if our brain is working on a faulty logic system, but the decisions it makes are logically consistent (that is to say logical given illogical boundary conditions), is it still "irrational"?

On the topic (apologies for any of my typical philosophical derails)...I think it's the open and multi-member system of the internet which amplifies this effect. The effect is clearly a logical fallacy (both a straw man and a false dilemma, the whole "you're either with us or against us" effect that this causes)....has the effect of seemingly pitting you against the entirety of civilisation whereas it may not actually be the case.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think people should be able to articulate their points. At the same time I feel like homophobia/racism/sexism etc. are perfectly deserving of being met with ridicule and disgust especially if they're directed at a certain person, and that the burden is often placed on gay people, minorities, women (in those instances) to explain why they deserve better treatment. We expect them to be better than their oppressors, but why?

There are more nuanced political issues than that which are boiled down to "Obamacare is gonna kill grandma!" but man it's not my job to explain to someone who's racist why they're such an asshole.

I know that's not what you're suggesting in the op, just ranting

 

[Metaphoreus]

But I am saying that even those who change their mind don't do so out of reason, but rather one set of cognitive biases overriding another.

What do you mean by "cognitive biases"? Because if the "cognitive biases" are really just ideas compared with each other in a rational way, then you're just describing the process of reasoning.

160 characters

What is this witchcraft? Twitter Gold?

 

[thefit]

It happens here all the time especially from posters with an agenda to get someone else banned sometimes its personal sometimes its a group of posters from a specific OT attacking posters from another OT. Its very apparent and blatant too because you can see a pattern of dog pilling over and over as they begin to quote the person they want gone and never really have a counter argument other than the usual stupid gafism like "dead", "I can't even..." "something.gif" and most times the mods are suckers and fall for it, sure sometimes its warranted but those people that live to do these white knighting all day here then get a sense that they are right all the time and that their world view and opinion is correct absolute.

 

[Delta Assault]

That Chinese dog eating thread.

Somebody's whole argument was that it was "just plain wrong in my eyes."

 

[AlexMogil]

What is this witchcraft? Twitter Gold?

oops thanks #onmobile

 

[injurai]

That Chinese dog eating thread.

Somebody's whole argument was that it was "just plain wrong in my eyes."

At the same time, where do we place the entry of discussion. Sometimes I think people just passively comment on what their belief is to show support for their camp. Then people jump on them for not formulating a rigid empirical sociopolitically correct argument. People demand them to answer for their stance, and will drag them through the dirt to shame them for their less than academic contribution.

 

[Croll]

What do you mean by "cognitive biases"? Because if the "cognitive biases" are really just ideas compared with each other in a rational way, then you're just describing the process of reasoning.



What is this witchcraft? Twitter Gold?

If an objective qualifier - cause/effect, true/false, good/bad - can't be associated with those ideas can they be compared in a rational way?

 

[freeofgreed]

It happens here all the time especially from posters with an agenda to get someone else banned sometimes its personal sometimes its a group of posters from a specific OT attacking posters from another OT. Its very apparent and blatant too because you can see a pattern of dog pilling over and over as they begin to quote the person they want gone and never really have a counter argument other than the usual stupid gafism like "dead", "I can't even..." "something.gif" and most times the mods are suckers and fall for it, sure sometimes its warranted but those people that live to do these white knighting all day here then get a sense that they are right all the time and that their world view and opinion is correct absolute.

This is extremely passive aggressive and not even really related to the topic. Also I highly doubt mods give 2 fucks about what other posters think before banning someone.

 

[OttomanScribe]

What do you mean by "cognitive biases"? Because if the "cognitive biases" are really just ideas compared with each other in a rational way, then you're just describing the process of reasoning.

Cognitions rather than ideas, and they aren't compared to each other in a 'rational' way. What defines a rationalist approach is the idea that people's appraisal is defined by the merit of different positions in relation to each other, as opposed to their relationship to a central object, namely the self.

 

[freeofgreed]

At the same time, where do we place the entry of discussion. Sometimes I think people just passively comment on what their belief is to show support for their camp. Then people jump on them for not formulating a rigid empirical sociopolitically correct argument. People demand them to answer for their stance, and will drag them through the dirt to shame them for their less than academic contribution.

Yes this. I feel that sometimes we get too caught up on making Gaf like a courtroom that we forget that it's a forum first and foremost. And as a forum it's a place where people post their opinions and those opinions don't necessarily have to lead towards a debate.

 

[KingK]

I think its related to people putting unrealistic expectations on the posting habits of others, some dudes just post on wrestling-Gaf or check the board in the mornings to read the world's headlines, not everybody reads the 32 pages of some comment someone made about civil rights, so the more "casual" posters tend to fail to grasp the tone of the board and post the stuff that others see as morally reprehensible when its probably just some carefree random posting.

Obviously its not their fault and its unfair that their comments are frowned upon when there is no malice in there, but I cant say its becoming more prevalent in sub groups or its happening more often, hell I still remember when Evilore banned the Amazon Sales guy because he posted something that was a little too close to advertising, the guy made a mistake but it was futher exacerbated by him not realizing there was a pretty big controversy regarding game journalism corruption two days before.

Yeah, i think there's a tendency to view all ignorance as willful ignorance or veiled hostility/opposition. You see this a lot in controversial threads that get to be 20+ pages long.

There will usually be a core group of posters who've been following the entire thread, and really have thoroughly and logically argued and explained their side. Eventually though, they sometimes just substitute explanations for outrage because it understandably gets tiring having to repeat the same argument. Usually there's also a poster or two who are actually being willfully ignorant after receiving valid explanations. The problem is that someone new may enter the thread, read the first page and last page (neither of which contain the thorough explanation), then post something at odds with the thread's consensus without searching through the two dozen pages in between. These people are then immediately met with outrage and hostility without an argument against what they said because "it's already been explained." Then the poster just gets defensive.

I don't think it's really fair to assume that anybody unwilling to read through two or three dozen pages of a thread is being willfully ignorant and even if a poster is suspected of that, i think we should always try to engage in good faith, if nothing else than for the sake of people who may be reading without posting, who your argument might still reach. I do understand how tiring and frustrating it is to constantly rebut a point that, to you, seems obviously wrong though.

 

[JDSN]

It happens here all the time especially from posters with an agenda to get someone else banned sometimes its personal sometimes its a group of posters from a specific OT attacking posters from another OT. Its very apparent and blatant too because you can see a pattern of dog pilling over and over as they begin to quote the person they want gone and never really have a counter argument other than the usual stupid gafism like "dead", "I can't even..." "something.gif" and most times the mods are suckers and fall for it, sure sometimes its warranted but those people that live to do these white knighting all day here then get a sense that they are right all the time and that their world view and opinion is correct absolute.

What, that sounds bad, any links?

 

[KHarvey16]

Just to throw out another thing that you see a lot of - people assuming that a conclusion being correct validates the method and/or reasoning used to come to that conclusion.

 

[thefit]

This is extremely passive aggressive and not even really related to the topic. Also I highly doubt mods give 2 fucks about what other posters think before banning someone.

Really?

 

[freeofgreed]

Really?

Really, what?

 

[thefit]

Really, what?

You really feel that way? You sound like a nerve has been hit taking it really personal even if it wasn't directed at you.

 

[freeofgreed]

You really feel that way? You sound like a nerve has been hit taking it really personal even if it wasn't directed at you.

I'm actually getting that same vibe from you. Nothing in your post really affected me, I was just pointing out that It didn't seem relevant to the convo at hand. Also I made a post earlier about how in those situations it's better to point them out in the threads they actually occur as opposed to passive aggressively bringing them up in other threads such as this.