Support NeoGAF

[injurai]

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A lot of people use the word almost exclusively for black people and they don't even realize that they do it. This is an example of casual racism, because you can't really call someone out on it because then they become defensive and use the argument that "thug" isn't a racist term. In which they are absolutely correct, but it doesn't change the fact that that's the way they were using it. I'm not talking about you specifically, and if you used it for people of all races than that's a different matter.

I know you were making that point. Thug isn't racialized, but the individual sees more blacks fitting the bill to be called a thug than whites. Thus the frequency of blacks being called thugs indicates casual racism as expressed through the word thug.

But do you see my point? Because it can be coded language, there is the pitfall of people trying to decypher it and paint the user of that language as casually to ostentatiously racist. The best you can do is point out that a word has become coded and hope the person is honest. If they really are racist, or have some sort of ignorance or bias they may need to confront. It will reveal itself more apparently eventually. But seeing people marked prematurely and stonewalled over a perceived leveraging of coded language is frustrating. And that extends beyond just racial examples. It extends into an array of topics.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's sometimes weird to see some posters (Opiate) criticize outrage posting while other times arguing that logical, rational posts do not influence people at all... It's like... you're spending a good deal of time arguing about how arguing is useless and fruitless, lol.

 

[LouisaFerre]

I see it on pretty much every forum and it often disgusts me more then the actual stance that people have on an issue. It just comes across to me like there aren't enough people around in any community I find that genuinely want to understand the way other people think. Honestly when I see an argument going in that direction I just want to avoid it since I don't think it'll actually lead to anything worthwhile.

 

[staticneuron]

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A lot of people use the word almost exclusively for black people and they don't even realize that they do it. This is an example of casual racism, because you can't really call someone out on it because then they become defensive and use the argument that "thug" isn't a racist term. In which they are absolutely correct, but it doesn't change the fact that that's the way they were using it. I'm not talking about you specifically, and if you used it for people of all races than that's a different matter.

How can you possibly know this unless you witnessed the individual performing such a biased behavior? How would you know that they weren't doing it on purpose?

It's sometimes weird to see some posters (Opiate) criticize outrage posting while other times arguing that logical, rational posts do not influence people at all... It's like... you're spending a good deal of time arguing about how arguing is useless and fruitless, lol.

Anyone that can type with their hands and fingers in Vulcan pose have earned the right to do what ever they want no matter how logical or illogical it may be. Chances are it will be logical because Vulcans are logical.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

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've come to the conclusion a while back that extremists (either intentionally or reactively) like to move under the cover of shocking situations to do their dirty work of going beyond the pale and largely getting away with it due to those circumstances (the Charleston shooting is a prime model for this). Getting called on it is rare as they're hiding behind the majority, especially tweezing out a more nuanced rebuttal (which is just as likely to descend into off-topic hair-splitting).

It's alot more civil here than on other venues (scenes of faith-in-humanity squelching horror lemme tell you), but even so, I find myself willfully staying out of controversial topics here as I just don't want to risk dealing with that mudslinging broadside or see the random potshots period.

Hell, I wish it was all inarticulate "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!", really.

 

[NewGame]

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."?

I don't mind people posting their opinions but I don't see how profanity and hating the police is any different than 'gaystation for gays' or 'XBOX SUX!11'

And this isn't just for offencive or angry posts, this is also apparent in the miiverse where every other post is 'yay' or 'i won!' or 'check out dis picktur of link i draw'

Positive or negative this sort of stuff really dilutes conversation and doesn't lead anywhere. I mean it's okay in some threads like 99% of e3 threads where everyone is incoherently screaming and mashing their head against the keyboard in some epileptic fit of euphoria because that's what e3 is about up until the servers crash.

 

[Whiteblade999]

Quite a few things:
-Transgender discussions, why do people get so upset over this? The solution to the issue is obvious and I can't fathom why anyone would be against it other then they simply want to deny someone happiness.

-Pedophiles. Not the ones who molest children, the actual people who happen to have a sexual attraction to underage persons. You say something, people assume you mean something else and immediately go into full on defensive mode. Its a pretty rough curse and the people need a damn support network.

-Universal Healthcare. Ok, you don't like Obamacare (I'm from the US, so that is what I focus on) because of anecdotal reasons. That is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is wrong is when you want to strip the millions of people enrolled and make the system collapse on itself because it slightly inconveniences you. I hear this on a regular basis and it sends me into a rage over how stupid it is.

-Abortion rights. A woman has the right to decide if she wants to pay for an abortion, end of story.

These things should be self-evident, but it always feels like I have to go around and around with them.

 

[legend166]

Quite a few things:
-Transgender discussions, why do people get so upset over this? The solution to the issue is obvious and I can't fathom why anyone would be against it other then they simply want to deny someone happiness.

-Pedophiles. Not the ones who molest children, the actual people who happen to have a sexual attraction to underage persons. You say something, people assume you mean something else and immediately go into full on defensive mode. Its a pretty rough curse and the people need a damn support network.

-Universal Healthcare. Ok, you don't like Obamacare (I'm from the US, so that is what I focus on) because of anecdotal reasons. That is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is wrong is when you want to strip the millions of people enrolled and make the system collapse on itself because it slightly inconveniences you. I hear this on a regular basis and it sends me into a rage over how stupid it is.

-Abortion rights. A woman has the right to decide if she wants to pay for an abortion, end of story.

These things should be self-evident, but it always feels like I have to go around and around with them.

I feel like you've just proven Opiate's entire point.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

The point at which an argument becomes emotional is when the focus shifts to righteousness. It has turned emotional because you're now talking about values. And insofar as you're talking about values, you're also discussing morality. And insofar as you're discussing morality, you're talking about emotions.

 

[Whiteblade999]

I feel like you've just proven Opiate's entire point.

So I made it too obvious ?

 

[The Maverick]

A lot of people in OT post like Interceptor does on the gaming side. Condescending, dismissive, and arrogantly blind. I think it's a skill, really.

 

[liliththepale]

There's a lot of this going on in the Whoopi Goldberg/Wes Anderson thread. The first post went against the grain and then like twenty people in a row jumped on him. Many of those were reasonably well articulated retorts, but some of the later ones were as uffish as "get out of here with this nonsense."

It's almost as if people think that not jumping on the dog pile somehow sends a signal that they support whomever is being attacked, so they better get their voice in so they can be seen as being on the right side.

 

[Arjen]

Well it's in almost every topic about a hot issue. If someone has a different view, it will get dogpiled with "wow" "joke post?" "are you kidding?" I like to see arguments from both side, no matter how much i disagree with them, but it seems those days are gone on this site.

 

[Transhuman]

Well it's in almost every topic about a hot issue. If someone has a different view, it will get dogpiled with "wow" "joke post?" "are you kidding?" I like to see arguments from both side, no matter how much i disagree with them, but it seems those days are gone on this site.

2 reasons for "gawp" posts:

-The person wants to post as quickly as possible in order to prove that they were outraged before everyone else got outraged
-The person knows it would take a lot of thought in order to articulate everything that's wrong with the post they're replying to, but wants to get a word in anyway

 

[blame space]

it's almost like arguing on the Internet is a waste of time.

 

[liliththepale]

-The person knows it would take a lot of thought in order to articulate everything that's wrong with the post they're replying to, but wants to get a word in anyway

I think it bears asking whether getting that word in is useful to anyone. As far as I'm concerned, it's definitely not. Perhaps it could be argued that the severity of the dog-piling mirrors the apparent severity of the transgression, but I don't think such attacks are conducive to conversation or opening up and learning.

 

[legend166]

So I made it too obvious ?

Well played, sir.

 

[Transhuman]

I think it bears asking whether getting that word in is useful to anyone. As far as I'm concerned, it's definitely not. Perhaps it could be argued that the severity of the dog-piling mirrors the apparent severity of the transgression, but I don't think such attacks are conducive to conversation or opening up and learning.

I think there's a nice balance of knee-jerk self-gratification and brainy book-nerd talk. Nothing wrong with not everything being serious.

 

[Principate]

The point at which an argument becomes emotional is when the focus shifts to righteousness. It has turned emotional because you're now talking about values. And insofar as you're talking about values, you're also discussing morality. And insofar as you're discussing morality, you're talking about emotions.

Nah it shifts when it becomes personal, it doesn't have to be righteous for someone to have an irrational input in an argument, greed, ego, pride all lead, to irrational arguments. You see it plenty within the scientific community.

People seem to forget that Albert Einstein, stated God does not play dice with the universe, essentially denouncing quantum physics. He held the position because experiences he had up until have moment had formed that perspective that's true of all of us.

Objective fact is objective fact but interpretations vary wildly.

 

[Earthpainting]

This is a fascinating subject, because it's one of those things what you can be unknowingly guilty of. I'm rather curious now on which subjects I do it.

I feel like the sentiment comes from an appeal to other people's authority on the subject at hand. There are people you just trust on certain matters, because you think they are more equipped to have a more informed opinion. This authority can be delegated off to a religious higher power, to a clergyman, a parent, a teacher, a doctor, dietician, a friend or politician. There is only so much you can keep yourself informed about, so you make mental shortcuts by outsourcing some of your opinions and beliefs to others. I liken it to my relationship with my car mechanic. I know absolutely nothing about cars, so I have to take his word on anything car-related. Luckily the subject of cars is nothing I am invested in too deeply, so I don't mind having my authority figures questioned in this field. I can imagine that for moral matters, it can get pretty rough.

Another fun angle is the polar opposite. Rather than outrage, empty moral rationalisations to defend the status quo are just as common. In this case the moral authority is just society at large. You'll see this often when dealing with the subject of alcohol, or gun control. On the gaming side you often have plights of more gender or racial representations in games met with a circular discussion of "why" and "why not"?

 

[Maximus.]

I do agree that in threads about racism, gun rights, abortion, etc. there are posters that just cannot explain their stance. I find in general in a lot of threads, that posters stick to a side of an argument, but are completely unwilling to look at both sides of an argument. It's like they ignore everything you say or just think you view is stupid and continue to repeat their view. I try and be logical and factual with my arguments, but I find a lot of people do not do that. Some people may hate a company for no reason other than some preconceived idea, yet they love another company that is doing the same thing. They cannot see the similarities and cannot explain why one is better than the other. When faced with resistance, it's like a child having a tantrum, unable to think reasonably. They wait for group support and stick with well others agree, so you're wrong! Tends to kill the great debate.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Diet.
It's not a moral argument at all.
Stop labeling food as good or bad.
Stop fad or extreme diets.

Follow the science based evidence.

 

[Ikael]

Yulin's dog meat festival.

Nevermind that we subject cattle to the same (or worse) treatment, since we're talking about dogs people just loose their shit since for us westerners dogs are faithful companions rather than a source of meat.

Therefore, we don't demand an "humanitarian" treatment of these animals, but rather than the Yulin people stop eating dogs outright (petitions for ending the festival). Yes, quite a logical argument we got here, folks. Better enjoy our slaughterhouse-born hamburgers with a dash of magical moral superiority and righteous indignation sauce. Urgh, can't stand this attitude.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I know you were making that point. Thug isn't racialized, but the individual sees more blacks fitting the bill to be called a thug than whites. Thus the frequency of blacks being called thugs indicates casual racism as expressed through the word thug.

But do you see my point? Because it can be coded language, there is the pitfall of people trying to decypher it and paint the user of that language as casually to ostentatiously racist. The best you can do is point out that a word has become coded and hope the person is honest. If they really are racist, or have some sort of ignorance or bias they may need to confront. It will reveal itself more apparently eventually. But seeing people marked prematurely and stonewalled over a perceived leveraging of coded language is frustrating. And that extends beyond just racial examples. It extends into an array of topics.

Do you not see how racist your post sounds? (Note: if I misread this, please indicate so, and how.)

 

[KHlover]

Well it's in almost every topic about a hot issue. If someone has a different view, it will get dogpiled with "wow" "joke post?" "are you kidding?" I like to see arguments from both side, no matter how much i disagree with them, but it seems those days are gone on this site.

Agreed, reading through the first few pages of pretty much every hot issue topic is a waste of time because of all the dogpiling occuring. Also partly the fault of the posters with dissenting opinions though, the posts made on the first page usually don't exceed one line and predictably come off as very inflammatory.

The dissenting posts which support their opinion with sources etc. usually come later in the thread and while still being harshly argued against at least will get more detailed posts in response rather than the "Joke post"/"Account suicide?"/... bullshit you'll see on the first page.

Another interesting observation I've made is that some of the posters who usually post from the side of the majority in OT can't argue for shit once they're in the position of the minority (not calling out anyone here, but maybe some of the users recognize themselves) with their opinion. I found this to be especially noticeable in the "Is Witcher 3 sexist?" and "Diversity in Witcher 3" (thread titles paraphrased here), where once people disagreed with their notions those posters started throwing around accusations of racism/misogynism/xenophobia (in many cases blanket accusations) pretty quickly without getting into detail what part of the reasoning of the opposing member they actually disagree with.

 

[John Kowalski]

I think it's perfectly fine to object on moral and/or ethical grounds if you recognize them as moral and ethical concerns.

Frankly it's way better than outright rejecting an opinion because the opiner isn't able to capably argue his point with excellent diction.

 

[Walpurgis]

There's a lot of this going on in the Whoopi Goldberg/Wes Anderson thread. The first post went against the grain and then like twenty people in a row jumped on him. Many of those were reasonably well articulated retorts, but some of the later ones were as uffish as "get out of here with this nonsense."

It's almost as if people think that not jumping on the dog pile somehow sends a signal that they support whomever is being attacked, so they better get their voice in so they can be seen as being on the right side.

I did this to you the other day. You made a post about the government having our best interests at heart and I responded with something condescending like "what am I reading".

2 reasons for "gawp" posts:

-The person wants to post as quickly as possible in order to prove that they were outraged before everyone else got outraged
-The person knows it would take a lot of thought in order to articulate everything that's wrong with the post they're replying to, but wants to get a word in anyway

I think this is accurate. In the case of the post that I made the other day, I wanted to direct the flow of the conversation by pointing out that "there's something wrong with this post" early assuming that other posters would back me up and do the explaining for me. You are right that it would have taken some thought and time to articulate why I disagreed with the post but I was lazy. I sort of feel like there is on some topics there is a "neogaf" and there is the other. If I have "neogaf" on my side, getting the first hit in is tempting and easy. It's a nice feeling to have people back me up on an argument, even when I haven't really made anything that could be called an argument to begin with.

I feel like that we as posters are conditioned to have sense for certain rules on neogaf, the way things work. I've noticed in some threads someone early on states something that might be controversial but others chime in and agree with them. As the thread progresses, people start to talk about the "shameful first page" with disgust. In general, it is usually easy to tell how "neogaf" will react to something and if I can tell that "neogaf" will be on my side, then these "gawp" posts become tempting. I'll try to stop.

Note: When I say "neogaf", I mean exactly what everyone else who uses that term means - not a person but the majority.

 

[Mandelbo]

Might be a little OT, but the thing I personally find irritating is the tendency to reply to the subject at hand or another poster in an overly snarky fashion. The Seinfeld thread from a few weeks ago is, I feel, quite a good example of this, particularly in the first few pages. I admit I haven't read through the entire thing, nor did I post my thoughts there, but replying like that only seems to serve to inflate the poster's ego and gives the impression that they're talking down to those who disagree with them, rather than add to the debate.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I think that it quite often happens in threads which revolve around something that's morally in a gray area or sometimes possibly even morally not wrong at all, but still legally wrong.

That's quite a general statement of course, but as a recent example there was the thread about the 19-year-old having sex with the 14-year-old girl who lied her age to be 17. Some posters really seemed completely oblivious to the bigger picture and couldn't articulate at all why it was wrong for the guy to do it but still concluded that it was a horrible thing to do. When confronted with questions such as how far are you reasonably supposed to go with checking the other person's age and what if the person has fake ID, some of them backed on the wall saying things like "well don't have sex then, it's a risk you take if you have sex and if you do it and fail to see that the other person is minor then it's your fault regardless of how well she lied about it and hid her real age".

This is a fascinating subject, because it's one of those things what you can be unknowingly guilty of. I'm rather curious now on which subjects I do it.

--

Yep. I think I generally do a good job of it, and I extremely rarely post any one-liners, and almost never quick reactions (threads are filled with them anyway, so there's really no point), but still, it'd interesting to see my posts from the perspective of another person.

I do know that sometimes I haven't explained myself thoroughly enough when discussion has risen, but I think that most such times it's things like I've had to go to sleep and then the next day I haven't bothered to continue anymore.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There are times when I encounter an argument online (mental illness denial in particular) where it makes me incredibly angry, but I spend so much time IRL articulating why it's wrong, that I have no energy to do so online. In that case, I just end up giving a "fuck you" post and I feel that is appropriate for exceptionally dumb posts in this area.

 

[SoCoRoBo]

Scott Heath has been writing on something similar with regard to political correctness recently: http://induecourse.ca/on-the-problem-of-normative-sociology/

"Often when we study social problems, there is an almost irresistible temptation to study what we would like the cause of those problems to be (for whatever reason), to the neglect of the actual causes. When this goes uncorrected, you can get the phenomenon of “politically correct” explanations for various social problems – where there’s no hard evidence that A actually causes B, but where people, for one reason or another, think that A ought to be the explanation for B. This can lead to a situation in which denying that A is the cause of B becomes morally stigmatized, and so people affirm the connection primarily because they feel obliged to, not because they’ve been persuaded by any evidence."

It's worth a read, because he provides what is probably the best workable (and non-partisan)definition of political correctness that I've read: an incorrect explanation of the causal factors of a problem where deviation from that line of argumentation is met with shaming tactics which conflate criticising the politically correct explanation with dismissing and minimising the problem wholesale.

It's more of a macro-level analysis of how debates are conducted, but I think that impulse to defend the party line is similar to how it works out in a lot of discussion threads on here. I would agree, as a rule, that posters who do a low-value low-effort 'how could you be so wrong' or 'lol okay bro' posts probably lack a good justification for their dismissal; usually if you can identify why an argument is wrong you want to draw that out and explain why it's wrong in detail. It's something that was drilled into us in law school, that either rhetorical questions or short dismissals are usually the flimsiest part of any argument.

 

[teruterubozu]

It happens all the time in a court of law. Lawyers hone their craft in appealing to people's emotions.

 

[Opiate]

It's sometimes weird to see some posters (Opiate) criticize outrage posting while other times arguing that logical, rational posts do not influence people at all... It's like... you're spending a good deal of time arguing about how arguing is useless and fruitless, lol.

That's an interesting point, and it really depends on the context.

Saying something is logically invalid or a poor argument does not necessarily mean that argument isn't persuasive to most people.

For example, when Stem Cell research was being discussed during W. Bush's presidency, he banned the research and then held up a baby to show how test tube babies are real people and that this stem cell research jeopardizes their lives.

I think that's a very logically unsound argument, but I think it's highly persuasive nonetheless. It is an unfortunate truth that robust, logically sound argumentation is not necessarily persuasive to hoi polloi.

 

[esms]

I find myself biting my tongue sometimes as my views that are for/against certain subjects are too controversial.

And this is the sad end result of this phenomenon.

The truth is GAF isn't a "hivemind." It's a forum with a diverse set of individuals with a wide variety of opinions. The problem is that many of these dissenting voices have been driven away from posting in topics that they are passionate about because they don't want to endure an onslaught of ad hominem and one-word dismissals.

On top of this, this person, if they decide to post, can easily walk straight into a thread derail, which, as I understand it, is when a topic becomes about the views of a particular poster rather than a discussion of the topic at large.

If this hypothetical poster does end up getting banned, it can look to others that the poster in question was banned for their opinions/beliefs, which leads to even less participation from the dissenting.

A memorable example to me was Metaphoreus getting driven out of the Illinois RFRA thread by people who were inferring quite a bit into his argument.

 

[teruterubozu]

And this is the sad end result of this phenomenon.

The truth is GAF isn't a "hivemind." It's a forum with a diverse set of individuals with a wide variety of opinions. The problem is that many of these dissenting voices have been driven away from posting in topics that they are passionate about because they don't want to endure an onslaught of ad hominem and one-word dismissals.

On top of this, this person, if they decide to post, can easily walk straight into a thread derail, which, as I understand it, is when a topic becomes about the views of a particular poster rather than a discussion of the topic at large.

If this hypothetical poster does end up getting banned, it can look to others that the poster in question was banned for their opinions/beliefs, which leads to even less participation from the dissenting.

A memorable example to me was Metaphoreus getting driven out of the Illinois RFRA thread by people who were inferring quite a bit into his argument.

Yup. The problem is there is a distinct bloodlust for thread/post backfires lately, more so than ever since I started here.

 

[Mandelbo]

A memorable example to me was Metaphoreus getting driven out of the Illinois RFRA thread by people who were inferring quite a bit into his argument.

Have you got a link for this? I'm interested in reading the discussion.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Frankly, my issue is with the other way around, where the need for an "objective" and "coherent argument" turns into an ugly amount of rationalizing for things that don't deserve that amount of caping.

 

[injurai]

Do you not see how racist your post sounds? (Note: if I misread this, please indicate so, and how.)

I was detailing the case in which "thug" would stand in as a racially coded word. Namely when it is the expression of racial bias, used to form more strongly barbed language when referring to black without being explicitly racist. That instance should sound racist because it is, but I'm merely describing it not endorsing it. I can see where I maybe wasn't clear enough.

 

[esms]

Have you got a link for this? I'm interested in reading the discussion.

Here you go.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1017949&page=1

 

[Metaphoreus]

Here you go.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1017949&page=1

Note that it really only went to crap in the last 100 or so posts. The rest of the thread was just standard back-and-forth.

 

[BPoole]

On top of this, this person, if they decide to post, can easily walk straight into a thread derail, which, as I understand it, is when a topic becomes about the views of a particular poster rather than a discussion of the topic at large.

If this hypothetical poster does end up getting banned, it can look to others that the poster in question was banned for their opinions/beliefs, which leads to even less participation from the dissenting.

This has happened to me both in OT and on the gaming side. I always took annoyance with the fact that none of the people posting one word responses to my opinions or calling me names did not get banned even though they were contributing to the thread derail just as much as I was by having my post quoted 10 times on the same page and drawing even more attention to it.

 

[Opiate]

It's really hard, a as moderator, to decide what to do in "thread derail" situations.

If someone comes in to a thread and says something outrageously sexist, that post will probably get lots of responses and significant conversation. We don't blame those who respond, however -- we blame those who made the sexist comment in the first place. If I say something like "Women all belong in the kitchen" and then 20 people respond to my post, the moderators aren't going to blame the 20 responders for the thread derail.

But at other times the statement may be more innocuous. In that case, the responder may be to blame, not the other way around.

It's up to us as moderators to decide who is "to blame" when a topic seems to shift focus, or if any moderation is necessary at all.

 

[YoungFa]

I get sometimes responses like that here and I dont like it. Really takes the fun out of discussing and testing your own views.

 

[Palette Swap]

This might be tangent and has probably been pointed out, but I think a lot of it stems from the kind of negative argumentation we see here (and everywhere TBH).
A lot of arguments aren't "I think proposition 1 is right because 1, 2 and 3" but rather "I think proposition 2, which is the opposite of proposition 1, is wrong because 4, 5 and 6", which eventually devolves into "proposition 2 lol".

Except very often, proposition 2 is a view few people hold, if any, and as a result, everyone is arguing past each other, debating fictive or minority positions.
This leads to conversations with a diverging dynamic, where the goal is more to be right than to reach a consensus. I'm mentioning consensus in the broadest sense here, ie the result of a conversation where you can tell positively why people hold one view or the other.

I'm writing all this and am very likely very guilty of It, but it would be interesting to see different, positive and cumulative dynamics at work.

Also, damn you for mentioning Monty Hall, Opiate, I've been trained for this and 15 years later, it's still a strain on my brain to accept the solution.

 

[JMDSO]

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.

This happened to me and I was juniored for it. I used the term 'white trash' to describe what I always understood as 'white trash' and I was called racist for it. And people actually agreed with me, it wasn't some unanimous outrage over the term.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

I've noticed I go with my morals initially but I can justify my positions if prodded.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I think it's more that many people get tired of seeing the same points argued over and over, especially if they are made in poor faith, and get tired of demonstrating why they are wrong when a little research would go a long way. It takes a lot more time to deconstruct a bad argument than to hastily construct one. In those cases, though, it might be better to simply ignore them and not engage it. The same old arguments will get trotted out for years--decades, even--and while frustrating, there's no point banging your head against a while dealing with those that do not want to humor the possibility that they could be wrong.

I feel a lot of people who are socially liberal may suffer from this, myself included. They've thought about, and came to conclusions about ideas and problems that most people probably don't get much exposure to. Racial issues may get a lot of exposure and discussion here on gaf, but in the outside sphere? It doesn't come up as much.

You cannot really expect everyone to have a solid, well formed opinion on certain issues, or for it to even matter to them at all, just because you've thought about this issue a lot because you've been exposed to it or even if it affects you on a daily basis.

I think it's worth pulling out both of these comments because I think they're both correct and both intrinsic to why internet threads in general don't go anywhere. I understand that it gets tiring to have to rebut the same sorts of arguments, especially when they often seem to be made from places worse than ignorance...

...yet ultimately I see people snapping at those arguments or piling on as jackasses. They've turned their experience into the experience, their social group into the norm, and themselves as the center of their own universes, and if you start automatically addressing everything from that perspective, you are shutting out those who do not come to the discussion with that knowledge.

No doubt you're going to get bad-faith comments and baiting jerks. And some days you aren't going to be able to put together the best defense of X, and the person who is asking about Y is going to be just as unreasonable for not doing some research and soul-searching of their own before asking dumb questions. But what is really the alternative? "I'm right, you're wrong"-levels of self-satisfaction that only divides and antagonizes others.

"This is moral and I'm right because it's so self-evident" is the worst attitude you can take to anything you care about. Human history is example enough that there has never been a consistent or unchangeable attitude to our world and the people in it. If we had a time machine we could pluck up some abolitionists and see how happily they'd coexist with some white supremacists today.

 

[Nabbis]

Every time someone shits on banks, i take it as the axiomatic course of action. Just look at these fuckers. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/20/us-banks-forex-settlement-idUSKBN0O50CQ20150520

I feel that by this point there is nothing to be gained by coherent arguments.

 

[Fenderputty]

Some arguments are mode wholly from a moral perspectives. Abortion is a good example. Arguments usually devolve into a discussion on when the fetus becomes a child because both sides argue from moral perspectives. It's morally correct to protect a woman's body on the liberal side and it's morally correct to save a life on the pro-life side. People end up shouting these moral perspectives because it's impossible for the two sides to agree on when a fetus becomes a child.

 

[staticneuron]

Yulin's dog meat festival.

Nevermind that we subject cattle to the same (or worse) treatment, since we're talking about dogs people just loose their shit since for us westerners dogs are faithful companions rather than a source of meat.

Therefore, we don't demand an "humanitarian" treatment of these animals, but rather than the Yulin people stop eating dogs outright (petitions for ending the festival). Yes, quite a logical argument we got here, folks. Better enjoy our slaughterhouse-born hamburgers with a dash of magical moral superiority and righteous indignation sauce. Urgh, can't stand this attitude.

Agreed, I don't ever feel like eating dogs, but I also do not feel like eating moneky, shark, alligators, snails, frogs, grasshoppers, scorpions and ants. I don't pass judgement on those who do unless specific creature in question was endangered.

I think that is a great example.