Suggestion for a separate Dumpster Fire for all Trump related discussions

[offgridk9lover]

Dysgenic smoothbrains dont need radicalization schools, nor do they have the mental capacity for any form of school

What makes them so dam obnoxious, so proudly ignorant.

Stupid is bad enough but proudly stupid, well it doesn't end well. Neo commies subverting the western world with their retardation.

 

[Dogdaddy69]

These fucking clowns have LITERALLY the entire rest of the internet to argue over whichever is their favorite commie or nazi, so force the idiots to take it anywhere else.

Ban ALL politics and religious bullshit and after, say, an INFORMAL 30 day grace period, start server wiping people who post political or religious shit here, regardless of where here.

And, while you're at it.......maybe it's time to re-think this site as a fucking safespace for trolls. It's TIME for some anti-trolling rules.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I think some people might be missing the point.

They say "don't talk about politics or religion at family table or at work"

It does make people fight.

But why? Because (most) people perceive it as an attack on their core identity.


Everywhere interaction is kept on the rails of polite etiquette is somewhere you can't distinguish the quality of character. Indeed the more sociopathic are often more skilled at maneuvering in such spaces.

I see it another way, turn the coin: Whoever can handle controversy with reason, respect, and honesty is a diamond in the rough. Friendship with such people is real friendship. Debates with such people are real debates.

This (and places like it) are the only place zoos can communicate, and if there is nowhere for the snakes and heroes to show their true colors...

 

[Bloit]

I think some people might be missing the point.

They say "don't talk about politics or religion at family table or at work"

It does make people fight.

Generally, the people asking not to discuss politics are the reasonable ones, because they know the others see it as a personal slight.
I'd be 1000% in favour of deleting any political discussion on sight.

But why? Because (most) people perceive it as an attack on their core identity.

That's such an American thing to say.
It's very American to make a political choice part of one's identity. Combined with the absolutely ridiculous 2-party system, that just results in people getting offended.

Everywhere interaction is kept on the rails of polite etiquette is somewhere you can't distinguish the quality of character. Indeed the more sociopathic are often more skilled at maneuvering in such spaces.

What the actual fuck? You need to be a sociopath to have a polite discussion about politics?

I see it another way, turn the coin: Whoever can handle controversy with reason, respect, and honesty is a diamond in the rough. Friendship with such people is real friendship. Debates with such people are real debates.

We're not talking about friendship here. We're talking about getting rid of all the political garbage.

This (and places like it) are the only place zoos can communicate, and if there is nowhere for the snakes and heroes to show their true colors...

You lost me there... Who are the snakes, and who are the heroes in this? How does any of this have to do with this being a zoo safe space?

 

[ShoutySuitman]

And here we see how this very thread is becoming a shitstorm just mentioning it...

In my opinion? Start swinging the hammer at people who make threads purely to attack/insult people, then delete those threads. Many of the political threads created are just screeching loonies who only want to argue for attention or to report people they bait anyways. Especially those with titles made for rage baiting people or actively insulting groups of people (See "Why (XYZ) Followers are Stupid" and "This Forum is Full of Fascist Pigs" as examples). Let alone someone who asks a question, doesn't accept an answer given on ideo-political grounds, and then fights for 5 pages over it- thus derailing their own thread while blaming others for it (you know who you are)...

The other half of the problem can be solved by swinging the hammer at people who repeatedly and rapidly false report others. Give false accusers the exact punishment their victims would have gotten, and then some, as should be the basic standard of law even in meatspace. That will quickly deal with false accusers/report spammers. They don't like something being said? They have the power to disengage from that conversation by walking away or using a magic little thing called the Ignore Button.

If I was going to say anything else on the subject? It would be to remind people regularly to not feed the trolls and warn/punish people who derail too frequently. Plenty of them out there, on both sides, most being new-ish accounts only here to start trouble. Especially in the Dark Humor thread which just became a "grandma's political memes from fakebook/twatter/reeeEEEEddit" one instead after a while because of them.

 

[MashaSobaka]

Let's open a DF where leftist libtards can constantly cry on each other's shoulders about why their lives are bad and why there's an end of the world, dictatorships and Nazis.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Generally, the people asking not to discuss politics are the reasonable ones, because they know the others see it as a personal slight.

The reasonableness depends on the goal and the scope.

Is it reasonable to never discuss a subject of great importance because people are so unreasonable on average?

That's such an American thing to say.
It's very American to make a political choice part of one's identity.

Maybe, but plenty of Europeans do the same thing whether they describe it that way or not. SimSexrets comes to mind.

What the actual fuck? You need to be a sociopath to have a polite discussion about politics?

I certainly did not say that.

I implied that sociopaths are advantaged in contexts where less than 100% honesty is required because they are expert liars.

The sociopath can expertly pretend to agree with people on controversial issues, find what they care about and pretend to care as well. That means if person A filters their conversations and contacts to only people who don't disagree with them they're going to more than proportional sociopathic suitors.

We're not talking about friendship here. We're talking about getting rid of all the political garbage.

I'm drawing a connection between the two.

Friendship is built on honesty.

Those who output 'garbage' at any hint of serious controversy do not have the foundation to form real friendships.

You lost me there... Who are the snakes, and who are the heroes in this?

Heroes in this context are the people who can attack arguments while respecting the person who made them, and can see their arguments and conclusions attacked without taking personal offense.

Heroes are honest and consistent. They don't pretend to be someone else depending on who they are talking to.

Snakes react to contradictory assertions like they were stabbed. They confuse character with beliefs and treat error (as they perceive it) as the result of an evil character.

They respond to 'attacks' with hate, and the worst reveal the perverted and insane fantasies about personal suffering and degradation.

The snakes do not take responsibility for their words or actions. They always find an excuse for their abuses. They rarely or never admit to being proven wrong or even to making a bad prediction or recalling something incorrectly.

How does any of this have to do with this being a zoo safe space?

Safe from what?

I am telling you exactly why I think freespeech aids safety, you can see who the bad apples are and thereby save yourself from the mistake of trusting them in any way.

 

[Bloit]

The reasonableness depends on the goal and the scope.

Is it reasonable to never discuss a subject of great importance because people are so unreasonable on average?

Yeap, I think it's perfectly reasonable not to discuss politics on a -zoo- forum.
There are plenty of other places to do so.

ESPECIALLY American politics. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about that clown show.

Maybe, but plenty of Europeans do the same thing whether they describe it that way or not. SimSexrets comes to mind.

The overwhelming majority of Europeans don't.
Trust me, I'm from the region.

I certainly did not say that.

I implied that sociopaths are advantaged in contexts where less than 100% honesty is required because they are expert liars.

The sociopath can expertly pretend to agree with people on controversial issues, find what they care about and pretend to care as well. That means if person A filters their conversations and contacts to only people who don't disagree with them they're going to more than proportional sociopathic suitors.

I see.
If a certain discussion is easier for a sociopath to have... Maybe there's something wrong with the discussion itself?

I'm drawing a connection between the two.

Friendship is built on honesty.

Those who output 'garbage' at any hint of serious controversy do not have the foundation to form real friendships.

I can be honest with people without being friends. I mean, I wouldn't call you a friend, but I think it's just basic human decency to respect another's opinion.

Heroes in this context are the people who can attack arguments while respecting the person who made them, and can see their arguments and conclusions attacked without taking personal offense.

Heroes are honest and consistent. They don't pretend to be someone else depending on who they are talking to.

Snakes react to contradictory assertions like they were stabbed. They confuse character with beliefs and treat error (as they perceive it) as the result of an evil character.

They respond to 'attacks' with hate, and the worst reveal the perverted and insane fantasies about personal suffering and degradation.

The snakes do not take responsibility for their words or actions. They always find an excuse for their abuses. They rarely or never admit to being proven wrong or even to making a bad prediction or recalling something incorrectly.

Meh, I don't think it's "heroic" to be able to have a normal conversation, but ok.

Safe from what?

I am telling you exactly why I think freespeech aids safety, you can see who the bad apples are and thereby save yourself from the mistake of trusting them in any way.

This being a zoo safe space does not mean we MUST discuss politics here.
If you need to see someone discuss politics before you can trust them, maybe do that in private...

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Yeap, I think it's perfectly reasonable not to discuss politics on a -zoo- forum.
There are plenty of other places to do so.

You won't meet zoos in those other places. It's more important to find zoos you can trust than randos.

ESPECIALLY American politics. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about that clown show.

It's a big forum. You don't have to go in there. You generally don't. Also, I have a good memory for online interactions, I know you can pick a fight without politics involved.

The overwhelming majority of Europeans don't.
Trust me, I'm from the region.

This isn't the place to debate that, but I do recall that there is talk of banning political parties. That doesn't happen without some very serious, emotionally rooted, political polarization.

I see.
If a certain discussion is easier for a sociopath to have... Maybe there's something wrong with the discussion itself?

That too is a mischaracterization of what I said.

I can be honest with people without being friends.

Not all honest relationships are friendships.
All (true) friendships are honest relationships. <- what I said

Don't invert my categorical statements please.

Meh, I don't think it's "heroic" to be able to have a normal conversation, but ok.

The hero is he or she who maintains virtue when many others do not. So it depends on whether a "normal conversation" has been made hard by the cultural condition and requires unusual virtue to accomplish. These days, in my opinion, debating politics does.

It is emotionally charged language, but that was why I choose the word (as well as snake).

This being a zoo safe space does not mean we MUST discuss politics here.

Again, don't invert the categories or shift the goalposts.

I said nothing about necessity. I claimed there was utility, and I further claim that there is no significant detriment.

As long as the rules are clear (and they have not always been), and enforced fairly (they have not always been) then the kind of people who get banned aren't the kind 'we' want contributing to the community outside the free speech area.

If you need to see someone discuss politics before you can trust them, maybe do that in private...

That's exactly where they can lie about what they believe to multiple people. It needs to be public.

It's very similar dynamics with the porn. If you don't let people publish, discuss, or request porn; then how would we know about the avalanche of people who keep getting banned for abusive porn and CP adjacent stuff?

There are things you can learn in a padded room through bullet proof glass and things you can't.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to zoocommunity, but that is a nice padded room for zoos to talk about all the safe things.

If that was all we needed, all we wanted, then zoocommunity would have 10x the traffic and zooville would have 1/10th.

 

[offgridk9lover]

Let's open a DF where leftist libtards can constantly cry on each other's shoulders about why their lives are bad and why there's an end of the world, dictatorships and Nazis.

They all ready have that, It's called Bluesky.

 

[WheezyBat]

Anyone taking bets on how long it takes this thread to become a new dumpster fire topic?

What’s the criteria? Is it a mod Call?

 

[saddlebum66]

Which side won then? Porn or purity?

Neither....both sides lost.