We need a better way to argue in controversial, serious, sensitive topics.

[Speevy]

When I started posting at Resetera, the first thing I noticed was how polite and happy everyone was. Perhaps they were just happy to have a new forum. It was a chance at a new start with new moderators and administrators, and indeed the moderators and administrators continue to be very friendly and the users continue to conduct friendly, civil discussions on the whole. There is a wide range of interests and opinions and people treat the topics and users with respect and dignity in just about every topic.

However, there are a few select news items that are garnering negative, toxic commentary on a consistent basis. It's not that the user base is peopled by horrid individuals. It's just that these topics are so personal that people start forgetting their manners in favor of what they perceive as rational opinions. So one of two conclusions exists. Either we don't need such people, or we need a better framing device for our arguments.

Why? Well, after two paragraphs or beating around the bush, I'll say it. The way we discuss important issues like sexual harassment could use improvement. I'll bet there is not one of these topics about a celebrity being accused of this in which there isn't also red text somewhere. "Warned for victim blaming." "Warned for comparing women to this and such." "Warned for attempts to minimize the accounts of women."

These topics are so consistently catching bad arguments that it can't be an accident. I refuse to believe that there are so many horrible people posting here. So what's left is that we just don't really know how to disagree in these topics. People don't know what a civil argument looks like. People don't know how to strongly differ from everyone without themselves sounding overtly sexist, misogynistic, callous, or otherwise dismissive to a serious issue that affects people from all walks of life.

Am I wrong here? Is this something that is getting better? I only see it staying the same or getting worse.

I apologize if this topic isn't allowed. I'm not making commentary on moderation, just with the types of posts I've seen in certain topics, which I think it important to reflect on from time to time. Please close this topic if it's not something you feel belongs here. Thank you.

 

[SweetNicole]

I will say though that I did not intend this topic to criticize moderation, as stated in the first post. Those who have posted about this are going to get this topic locked, which is not what I wanted.

Click to shrink...

Thank you Speevy.

This is a good OP and we welcome a discussion on how we as a community can better handle sensitive topics and threads. However, we ask that you do not turn it into a thread where you complain about warnings you've received or otherwise make vague accusations against the staff. If you have any moderation questions we encourage you to contact a Mod or Admin directly.

 

[FrequentFlyer]

In my opinion, one way to improve the quality of overall discourse would be to not automatically always assume the worst of your discussion partner and act on that by throwing ad-hominems. Another problem is how many users barely (if at all) read the OPs, don't read any comments either, and just dump their drive-by hottake and eject. I just don't understand how that benefits anyone, yet it happens very frequently. As if those users think "Huh, maybe I can get the funniest hot-take?" and hope for being quoted with "This." or "LMAO, nailed it!" as many times as possible.

And I also find that often it helps, in a more heated discussion, to sometimes take a step back, read through the discussion again and think if maybe the tone was too hostile or the details not explained enough and then correct that.

 

[TinfoilHatsROn]

Simple OP, they ask for nuance without giving any themselves. These posters can't realize this about themselves. That's the internet though, sadly. They want to drop their 'controversial' opinion in a thread without engaging.

 

[scotdar]

That was predictable.

 

[Deleted member 2507]

I'm thinking bunch of dogpiling and straight shitposting could be avoided with interface upgrades: Force a delay (5-10 seconds maybe) between pressing "post reply" and actually being able to post it, plus updating thread while at it (in quick reply mode).
That way, people would see if their opinion was already stated, and/or force them to think about their reply for a moment.

Naturally this might hurt user experience though, and it doesn't solve pure idiocy. But it might alleviate some things.

(Or maybe like one XKCD comic suggested: Have a system read the user's post aloud to them.)

 

[Deleted member 22649]

I'm on ResetERA to participate in a couple of particular community threads. I read what's posted on Etc, but rarely post-- even on topics where I agree with the general sentiment, the level of rage is off-putting.

There was a thread yesterday about a violent assault against a black woman in a pizza place-- a horrible story, with a disturbing video accompanying it. That said, before we got to page 2, someone was arguing that all white people are racist and that the burden of proof is on them to prove that they aren't racist. I don't think there is a topic on which I have such an extreme opinion, so... I have nothing to say to that. I feel like the inevitable outcome is that such extreme perspectives are the only ones represented, with everyone else having been driven away. Maybe that's the idea?

 

[Linkura]

One possible solution is outright banning these people as opposed to giving them just warnings. I don't mind outright bans if they are used correctly. Just don't outright ban for borderline posts.

 

[Lat]

the issue that has came over here from the other forum is the dog piling. That discourages debate because if the mob doesn't like what it reads, you're gonna get buried without remorse. As what was stated in the locked thread, it's just better to not post if you are not posting as the majority of members.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I really liked LionPride's point in the other thread about how it's easy to forget that people saying stupid shit may just be ignorant instead of awful. I'm guilty of that one a lot, and it becomes a lot harder on the internet where people are arguing just for argument's sake. I can understand why people wouldn't want to put up with stupid shit regardless of where it comes from as well, but I think when you take a hostile attitude the original person is more likely to retreat into a defensive state where they eventually just start complaining about dogpiles and censorship because they have no other way of defending their opinions (assuming they were coming from a place of ignorance and not hate). And that shit's annoying and makes the forum worse.

 

[Bobby]

I refuse to believe that there are so many horrible people posting here.

Click to shrink...

Believe.

There's a ton of shitty angry insecure anonymous young men here, and there's more of an emphasis on "appearing fair" than there is on eliminating their presence.

It's on some level the same audience algebra tripping up twitter: You need large audience numbers to effectively monetize to any decent degree, and the best way to keep audience numbers high is to keep shitty angry insecure anonymous young men around. It's the easiest way, sure. They're an endlessly renewable resource, after all.

It's still GAF. Just because the URL changed doesn't mean any of the people did, or any of their 8-10 year (in many cases) histories got erased/wiped out. The naive belief that shitty people will out and be taken care of doesn't earn much weight, especially not when they can be denied access at any time and the only thing stopping leadership from doing so is the worry they'll "look bad" to the same unfair, insecure, angry young men who believe everything that happens to them is inherently unfair anyway.

If you can't trust in judgment as to who should and shouldn't be here shitting up threads with low-key racism, sexism, misogyny, and abuse-apologia; if you have to wait for these frustrated, sad dunning-kruger cases to trip over lenient, toothless rules for good-faith discourse somewhere around 10-12 times in order to "fairly" remove bad actors from the pool they can't stop pissing in, you probably shouldn't be manning the gates of the community you're supposed to be cleaning.

The problem here isn't the way people argue, it's the people. There's a lot of really shitty people here. It's 80% dudes, and a ton of those dudes are toxic, shitty men, the kind that are too scared and chickenshit to own their ugliness and fuck off to the spinoff forums and reddit substitutes we all know but can't name like Voldemort. The tone in which you engage with them isn't really the problem. Placing doilies on turds doesn't change the fact there's shit all over the living room.

 

[Lat]

One possible solution is outright banning these people as opposed to giving them just warnings. I don't mind outright bans if they are used correctly. Just don't outright ban for borderline posts.

Click to shrink...

that's what happened at GAF. Many hated that but yet you want it? I don't get it?

 

[FireSafetyBear]

Everybody needs this post bookmarked

"Attacks on victims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assault are not welcome in this or any other thread. This is also not a thread about the statistically tiny number of false accusations. Attempts to derail this thread into a discussion about women who lie, etc, will be moderated accordingly. This has been our policy from day one and should not require a reminder."

https://www.resetera.com/posts/3242508/

Click to shrink...

 

[LionPride]

There are people who say dumb things without knowing they are dumb

There are people who think that everyone should know things and if they don't they're terrible instead of just ignorant

People say shit without thinking

Or they think they have to respond, which they don't

Click to shrink...

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

One possible solution is outright banning these people as opposed to giving them just warnings. I don't mind outright bans if they are used correctly. Just don't outright ban for borderline posts.

Click to shrink...

The thing is what if one person thinks that some opinion/argument should be bannable, another one actually wants to have a discourse about it?

 

[fireflame]

I believ this thread is omportant and there is something essential that could be solved. I think one issue is that people came from so many different backgrounds, countries, with their own past,etc. It is hard to let this out, and in the political area, it can be easy to feel targetted.

One issue I have today is to trust people, and that includes political ideas. I tend to fel paranoid because I feel that anything can serve an other purpose than the one openly intended. There are cases where i am probably wrong andftoo paranoid, but i cant help feeling like that.

With twitterfor example ihave the feeling i face a tool that can do the best but also the worse. Promote noble ideas, but also target individuals. The crowd can fight for justice, but also sometimes be blinded.

I feel that overall Inrernet today is full of tensions which can give the feeling to walk on eggs about many things.

 

[Angie]

I would love to see one example in which someone felt they were unfairly banned or at least warned.

So we can better discuss this topic.

 

[TitanicFall]

It works both ways though. I've seen many people passing character judgements on posters that offer an opinion that they strongly disagree with. There's a lot of energy spent trying to paint those people as the bad guys that the original topic of discussion gets lost.

 

[G_Shumi]

I know what you mean, OP. I was in a thread about "growing out of cartoons" and stated my opinion on the matter. Someone then responded to my opinion with such personal attack and vitriol that I didn't even want to respond back because it felt like they were baiting me to have an argument with them.

It's something I've been noticing quite a bit with more sensitive subjects. And I sometimes like to see how the thread started on the first page and then jumping to the latest page to see where it went. It typically gets too argumentative and personal.

 

[rambis]

I think that this is such an issue in real life that their likely won't be a way forward here without the mods stepping in. People get very passionate about certain subjects and get real combative against any rejection of their POV what-so-ever. I wish so many people wouldn't take large broaching discussions personally.

I think mods getting in early and setting ground rules in these threads will help, like they do alot of the times, but I'm not one to put someone else to work either.

 

[Linkura]

that's what happened at GAF. Many hated that but yet you want it? I don't get it?

Click to shrink...

I'm talking not at the same level as GAF. GAF banned a lot of posts that were borderline. But there's plenty of posts I see here that are ban-worthy and all that happens is a warn or a one-day ban and they continue to shitpost along their merry way.

Everybody needs this post bookmarked

Click to shrink...

And yet, again, all most people get is a warning or a one-day ban and they learn nothing from it. There's no way defending sexual harassment or rape is an acceptable argument, and yet here we are.

 

[DreamMakers]

It's the dogpilling that is fucking disgusting if you ask me , I've been a lurker for a long time and only just made an account this weekend , but boy... it's so unfair. I've seen pages of just 1 person being quoted , and they end up with a ban in the end because they can't keep up with all the multi quotes.

 

[dmoe]

I welcome debates. The problem is I avoid posting in a ton of threads because I don't agree with 99% of the users here. And the previous forum banned you for having a different viewpoint. Because I don't get offended or think there is malice behind every action that someone does I'm labeled as phobic or whatever. And I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I think the mods so far have allowed both viewpoints and seem to be pretty fair.

the issue that has came over here from the other forum is the dog piling. That discourages debate because if the mob doesn't like what it reads, you're gonna get buried without remorse. As what was stated in the locked thread, it's just better to not post if you are not posting as the majority of members.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. I'm scared to post as I'm not in the majority. I think users just need to remain calm and hear others out before dogpiling.

As long as people are respectful people should be allowed any opinion they want. I would be scared to be a trump supporter on this forum. But we should allow everyone to have a voice just like the oppressed other classes we want to protect.

 

[Lat]

It's the dogpilling that is fucking disgusting if you ask me , I've been a lurker for a long time and only just made an account this weekend , but boy... it's so unfair. I've seen pages of just 1 person being quoted , and they end up with a ban in the end because they can't keep up with all the multi quotes.

Click to shrink...

yep. I hate it and it seems like it's completely unstoppable.

 

[Hoo-doo]

In my opinion, one way to improve the quality of overall discourse would be to not automatically always assume the worst of your discussion partner and act on that by throwing ad-hominems.

Click to shrink...

This. Everything gets amplified to the extremes on this board to the point it's becoming binary in a very hostile way.

For many issues you either agree with the outrage or you get shouted down with comparisons to the absolute extremes of the opposite side. That kind of talk fosters zero actual discussion, it only makes discussions needlessly heated and entrenched.

 

[bionic77]

Believe.

There's a ton of shitty angry insecure anonymous young men here, and there's more of an emphasis on "appearing fair" than there is on eliminating their presence.

It's on some level the same audience algebra tripping up twitter: You need large audience numbers to effectively monetize to any decent degree, and the best way to keep audience numbers high is to keep shitty angry insecure anonymous young men around. It's the easiest way, sure. They're an endlessly renewable resource, after all.

It's still GAF. Just because the URL changed doesn't mean any of the people did, or any of their 8-10 year (in many cases) histories got erased/wiped out. The naive belief that shitty people will out and be taken care of doesn't earn much weight, especially not when they can be denied access at any time and the only thing stopping leadership from doing so is the worry they'll "look bad" to the same unfair, insecure, angry young men who believe everything that happens to them is inherently unfair anyway.

If you can't trust in judgment as to who should and shouldn't be here shitting up threads with low-key racism, sexism, misogyny, and abuse-apologia; if you have to wait for these frustrated, sad dunning-kruger cases to trip over lenient, toothless rules for good-faith discourse somewhere around 10-12 times in order to "fairly" remove bad actors from the pool they can't stop pissing in, you probably shouldn't be manning the gates of the community you're supposed to be cleaning.

The problem here isn't the way people argue, it's the people. There's a lot of really shitty people here. It's 80% dudes, and a ton of those dudes are toxic, shitty men, the kind that are too scared and chickenshit to own their ugliness and fuck off to the spinoff forums and reddit substitutes we all know but can't name like Voldemort. The tone in which you engage with them isn't really the problem. Placing doilies on turds doesn't change the fact there's shit all over the living room.

Click to shrink...

While some posters might be bad people I also think a lot of people are just horrible writers and don't know how to express their opinions.

I can't determine what kind of person you are based on one bad past so we should give the vendor of the doubt unless they have a history of such behavior.

 

[scotdar]

I would love to see one example in which someone felt they were unfairly banned or at least warned.

So we can better discuss this topic.

Click to shrink...

Moderation has clearly stated that is not to be discussed. I personally feel that is part of the issue. Labelling and banning is not middle ground. It does not promote discussion or debate. It picks a side and just further promotes your with us or against us.

 

[Ferrs]

People need to stop getting offended when they get warned. If you read alot of thread both sides of discussion can go fine, but there's always someone that slips something (like, say as an example, downplaying sexual harassment) and gets a warning. Now he/she could stop a moment and reflect, but instead act like he/she has been personally hurt and start with the oooold and tireed "but but gaf" "but but new reset".

About how some people engage discussions... you simply can't change that. You either need to leave it to the moderation, or learn when to step out if you can't keep with it.

 

[Deleted member 835]

The real problem we have is that this forum is hugely populated by guys. So in sexual harassment threads we always have people going in with their view of the situation and not the victims. It's basically:

"Why didn't she say no"
"Why didn't she just leave"
"Why did she take this long to come forward"
" she may be lying as there are cases of false accusations"

Etc etc etc

This isn't just this forums problem this is a society problem. Men need to stop viewing sexual harassment of women from their own sexs eyes.

Add that to their are a few shitty people tbat have been let on at no fault of the mods/admins. It basically makes sexual harassment threads a mess.

You can say the same for racism threads as well, just change a few words

 

[MegaMan]

that's what happened at GAF. Many hated that but yet you want it? I don't get it?

Click to shrink...

Quite frankly that's what made it readable, too many forums let obvious bullshit slide and NeoGaf wasn't having it.

 

[Baked Pigeon]

I completely agree will the OP. Im not going to get specific on which topic or topics im referring to, but I really don't like that people are getting banned or warned for simply stating an opinion. It makes this place feel like the old echo chamber of the past. I don't know what the solution is, and im not saying i agree with the statements that are getting banned, I am just saying that I am in agreement that there needs to be a way for people to safely state their opinion without fear of getting banned.

 

[dragonchild]

There's definitely a trend to get silly around here that can't help things either. Just a glance at the first page and we got some real doozies like "Just bought a Oneplus 5t", "I hate gboard", "Why the Hate for Well Done STEAK?", "Who has the best FASTFOOD Burger!" and "Who makes the best french fries?". . . and I'll bet the food theme isn't a coincidence but just a bunch of people being silly and piggybacking off each other.

Which isn't something I'd get rid of, there's a time and place for people to just fart around, but my point is that it's very clear EtsetEra is not taken seriously at all by a number of members. That by itself is no sin -- the ToS doesn't put any thematic restrictions on OT threads -- but it's probably unhealthy to have this kind of neo-LUE atmosphere and politics in the same hangout area. At this point I'd rather split the OT side of this site into whatever you want to call "silly" and "not silly" so that mods can be more assertive in taking action against those who are here to either throw trash around or make everyone miserable. Not that the clownshow side shouldn't be on a leash, but there is such a thing as setting expectations and courtesy is a minimal requirement for civil discourse, so the pleas for nuance by shitposters can get a good ol' "bullshit" response if they go to the "not silly" side and start going all neo-Nazi on it. The clarity would arguably make the mods' job easier in trying to split hairs between opinion and shitposting, but it's also a soft quarantine of sorts.

 

[Rum Diet]

The main issues that prevent real conversation:

1. The dogpiling
2. Constantly claiming people are being "disingenuous" or "arguing in bad faith" (this is the only board i constantly see this used)
3. Assuming someone is (racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, etc) just because they're arguing in a gray area or for something they don't see as one of those things
4. Most threads are just hot takes and people joining in on outrage.

 

[krazen]

The thing is you can see people testing the waters or willfully ignorant.

I mean its kinda a dead horse to pop in an accusation post with 'WOMEN LIE TOO!' 'MEN GET ABUSED ALSO'. Its like, fucking duh. If that's where people are going to start their counter argument at that rudimentary level then why even have the discussion. We all know women can lie, we all know that there is a possibility the accusations might be false. These are arguments a 13 year old could put up, and I personally find it insulting...like ive never heard of a false rape accusation, or I don't know men get assaulted too.

But when people whip out those arguments with people that have dozens of unrelated accusations where even the biggest cynic would be hardpressed to prove the odds against them: your Cosbys, your Weinsteins, its more about derailing the thread.

Imagine I hopped in a post about lets say a complex geopolitical situation that involves fighting and im like, "KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD", even though I am right, im also in a best case scenario being a moron at that time for assuming that statement is adding anything to the argument and the people already discussing it haven't figured something like that out, lol

 

[megalowho]

Just gonna drop The Four Agreements again in here as well. I really do think it's a helpful starting point for marginalizing toxic dialogue on the internet and try to apply it as often as possible.

 

[Ogodei]

that's what happened at GAF. Many hated that but yet you want it? I don't get it?

Click to shrink...

I'd agree. GAF would just kind of spirit you away and unless other members knew you through an outside channel, we'd never really learn why unless it was obvious.

The system we have is pretty effective. Shoo people away from behaving badly without going all "summary execution" on folks. It's enough if it prevents some people from posting in threads that they can't bring themselves to behave well in: either they straighten up to participate in those conversations or they just ignore them in the future. Part of the learning experience of creating a harassment-minimized community is getting the populace to learn that not all conversations are for you.

The internet (in the general sense) cultivated this idea that everyone is qualified to speak on anything and that really led to a lot of the nastiness we see out there today.

 

[rambis]

It's the dogpilling that is fucking disgusting if you ask me , I've been a lurker for a long time and only just made an account this weekend , but boy... it's so unfair. I've seen pages of just 1 person being quoted , and they end up with a ban in the end because they can't keep up with all the multi quotes.

Click to shrink...

I don't mind arguing against a majority. The issue comes that moderation tends to take 1 vs many as the 1 automatically being the problem and taking action. It creates an environment that can make you scared to voice an opinion if its not the prevailing one being parroted throughout the thread.

 

[Lat]

I welcome debates. The problem is I avoid posting in a ton of threads because I don't agree with 99% of the users here. And the previous forum banned you for having a different viewpoint. Because I don't get offended or think there is malice behind every action that someone does I'm labeled as phobic or whatever. And I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I think the mods so far have allowed both viewpoints and seem to be pretty fair.

Exactly. I'm scared to post as I'm not in the majority. I think users just need to remain calm and hear others out before dogpiling.

Click to shrink...

it's especially concerning when a topic veers off track and suhddenly it becomes something familiar to you. For example; law enforcement. I come from a family full of LEOs but god forbid I try to talk in their behalf when the predictable dog piling will happen that they all kill minorities when we are a family of minorities. But whatever, ERA does ERA

 

[Raein]

I think there's just as much of the obnoxious "is this the hill you want to die on?" bullshit starting to brew here as from the old place. Personally I've always been of the opinion that you let people speak their peace, regardless of how bad/good you think it is. Engage them if you want or ignore them if you want. Unless they're completely derailing a thread, straight up promoting violence, hate groups, etc. then banning people because they've offended someone with their opinion is going to slowly trim the circle of allowable thought down to a smaller and smaller group of people patting themselves on the back for how egalitarian, high-browed and "correct" their views are.

 

[AYF 001]

One thing people need to keep in mind is that while a lot of people migrated here, there are likely a number of people who were rightfully banned years ago who made their way here under new names. If they just want to more subtly muddy the waters this time around, then we'll just have to be prepared to reiterate discussions that were considered settled elsewhere. If they haven't learned from their pasts, then I hope the mods here will repeat it to them.

 

[TinfoilHatsROn]

The real problem we have is that this forum is hugely populated by guys. So in sexual harassment threads we always have people going in with their view of the situation and not the victims. It's basically:

"Why didn't she say no"
"Why didn't she just leave"
"Why did she take this long to come forward"
" she may be lying as there are cases of false accusations"

Etc etc etc

This isn't just this forums problem this is a society problem. Men need to stop viewing sexual harassment of women from there on sexs eyes

Click to shrink...

It's like a broken record player with those 4 exact posts over and over every single sexual harassment thread.

So tiring to read.

People need to stop getting offended when they get warned. If you read alot of thread both sides of discussion can go fine, but there's always someone that slips something (like, say as an example, downplaying sexual harassment) and gets a warning. Now he/she could stop a moment and reflect, but instead act like he/she has been personally hurt and start with the oooold and tireed "but but gaf" "but but new reset".

About how some people engage discussions... you simply can't change that. You either need to leave it to the moderation, or learn when to step out if you can't keep with it.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. The same old tired defense.

 

[Volimar]

Just gonna repost my thoughts from the other thread without the reference to moderation here in case someone believes it's critical of the moderating staff.

I'm glad you made this topic because I've noticed the same. I've said it before but on GAF there seemed to be a habit of someone saying something stupid or contrary, getting called out by an individual, and then immediately being dogpiled for sometimes pages of replies. It usually ended with the person who made the initial remark getting a very questionable ban. It's as if it isn't enough for someone to be told they said something wrong, but everyone has to tell them that they did something wrong. How else can they feel morally justified if they can't beat it into someone?


This is supposed to be a discussion forum but lately it's a lot less discussing with than arguing and yelling at. Instead of people saying "I don't agree with that and here's why," they basically say "you're wrong and here's why you're an idiot for thinking that way" or even just "Wtf is wrong with you?"

I wish people would take the time to look at what someone is saying without taking it to the extreme polar opposite when it's not what they think. Everyone is busy ascribing secret intentions to others' posts instead of just taking them at their word.

We're still in the formative stages of what Resetera can become so I feel like we're fighting for the soul of the site. It shouldn't be this hard to have mature discussions about even controversial topics while maintaining civility and empathy for your fellow posters.

 

[Deleted member 176]

People need to stop getting offended when they get warned. If you read alot of thread both sides of discussion can go fine, but there's always someone that slips something (like, say as an example, downplaying sexual harassment) and gets a warning. Now he/she could stop a moment and reflect, but instead act like he/she has been personally hurt and start with the oooold and tireed "but but gaf" "but but new reset".

About how some people engage discussions... you simply can't change that. You either need to leave it to the moderation, or learn when to step out if you can't keep with it.

Click to shrink...

I mean, this is the big problem. A lot of people get enraged when they find out there's something they don't know or don't do well. It's that stupid "if you attack me I'll fight back 10x harder for no reason" mentality.

 

[Deleted member 4367]

People are much more open to discussion when it isn't their existence that is being threatened by the opposition.

 

[krazen]

Assuming someone is (racist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted, etc) just because they're arguing in a gray area or for something they don't see as one of those things

Click to shrink...

What grey area that people don't see? Just because its not mentioned doesn't mean that the nugget or wisdom isnt being factored in. Most of the time its a dumb hot take, like discussing a case about a drug company raising their prices a crazy amount a hottake of "drug companies need to make money too!" is insulting. Not because its right, but because it assumes everyone else is a moron, lol. Make a case about how do you motivate a company to push research forward and profits sure, but acting like everyone in the post doesn't understand basic capitalism, lol.

 

[Ferrs]

I don't mind arguing against a majority. The issue comes that moderation tends to take 1 vs many as the 1 automatically being the problem and taking action. It creates an environment that can make you scared to voice an opinion if its not the prevailing one being parroted throughout the thread.

Click to shrink...

I mean, (not saying directly to you because I don't know you), but maybe, sometimes, that opinion of the one person vs the world goes against for what this forum stands for. In that case of course a lof of posters and even moderation will not agree with it.

Yes, an unwelcomed opinion may exists.

 

[Angie]

Moderation has clearly stated that is not to be discussed. I personally feel that is part of the issue. Labelling and banning is not middle ground. It does not promote discussion or debate. It picks a side and just further promotes your with us or against us.

Click to shrink...

You don't believe it should have rules?
You believe anyone should say whatever they want? Even racist comments like I seen.

 

[Lysistrata]

The reality is this form of abrasive behaviour towards certain topics is not limited to resetera or any other forum. The anonymity the internet affords people sadly drives certain discussions into the ground. This in turn attracts the casual driveby, trolls, agenda engineer and shit stirrer type posts.
Other than padding your ignore list or not rising to the bait, just let the mods sort the wheat from the chaff and stay civil. Every angry reposte merely fuels some people.

 

[FrequentFlyer]

I think there's just as much of the obnoxious "is this the hill you want to die on?" bullshit starting to brew here as from the old place.

Click to shrink...

I agree and think the practice of "ban baiting" should be a warnable/bannable offense itself.

What also pisses me off is, for lack of a better word, "passive shitflinging". I.e. two or more users are having a heated argument, a third user comes in and doesn't engage with the discussion itself at all but instead just quotes the user s/he agrees with and posts something like "LOL preach brother!". As if it's somehow two teams fighting it out and you need to throw your hat in one camp by making such driveby nonhelpful remarks with no real content.

 

[Darth Vapor]

I'm on ResetERA to participate in a couple of particular community threads. I read what's posted on Etc, but rarely post-- even on topics where I agree with the general sentiment, the level of rage is off-putting.

There was a thread yesterday about a violent assault against a black woman in a pizza place. Horrible. Before we got to page 2, someone was arguing that all white people are racist and that the burden of proof is on them to prove that they aren't racist. I don't think there is a topic on which I have such an extreme opinion, so... I have nothing to say to that. I feel like the inevitable outcome is that such extreme perspectives are the only ones represented, with everyone else having been driven away. Maybe that's the idea?

Click to shrink...

Yeah. I've come to accept that this is just what message boards have become.

Some (a surprising amount) of the comments in "social issues" threads are just unbelievable so I don't really engage in conversation either. I mostly joke around with my RL friends that are familiar with this place about what goes on here.

I think there is room for improvement in moderation, there always is, but I don't blame them. It's the hundreds of folks that practically live here that are just in constant witch hunt mode. It's the same names every day, hour, minute. But that's fine, its just what this place is.

I don't really have any advice outside of stop making everyone you disagree with your mortal enemy.

With that said, there are some great communities here that are somewhat insulated from the serious topics.