I'll take full responsibility for the bold above. My bad.

The rest of this is a crazy paranoid rant.

There are no substantive differences between Alta and Baja, besides Baja has the exiles and about 10% of the traffic. That's it. Nuevo Baja isn't designed for anything. It just is. Most of this is an absurd ad hominem attack on tomdemaine. The overriding concern... as always with FoldnDark... is 'tribalism' and conspiracies.

There are structural problems with P that have lead to the bubble that it is and has been for years. Namely, the rules are blatantly and openly enforced in a non content neutral fashion, allowing for merciless trolling and personal attack on posters who diverge too far from the group think, while banning that minority who respond in turn.

This is, I assume, much of why Chezlaw agreed to mod this forum as a more well balanced alternative where posters with diverse opinions can argue on an even playing field. I don't agree with all of his PC rules, or opinions, but between him and Well Named (I don't know much about Who's Next), this forum is far and a way better modded and much less of a bubble than P.

No. This all crap. When you say 'structural problems', exactly what rules are you yapping about? When I've asked you for examples of these non-structural problems, all I get *sounds of crickets*. If you're whining about the r-word, you are a flat-out disingenuous troll. If you're not whining about the r-word, WTF bias are you accusing peeps of having?

You are claiming there is "bias" and "groupthink" that peeps "diverge from". That's all crazy paranoid conspiracy theory. We've played that game too. You know, the who, where, how, why kinda game. It didn't turn out so well for you.

LMFAO no. Dude, who's the peep around here with diverse opinions... would that be you?... or would that be me? I'm telling from experience, you are wrong.

Besides, this forum has the exiles. *mic drop*

I think the most ironic thing about the P forum is so many of them almost universally reject the idea there is anything out of the ordinary or wrong with the last few years of social justice activism on campus, and will gladly condemn the actions of a few mobs and Mao-like shame circles captured on video, proclaiming it's "just a few dumb kids" nbd or whatever, but they are blind to how similarly they act to those "dumb kids" when confronted by ideas they disagree with passionately.

Okay, but also to be clear, when you do this you are essentially doing what it is you accuse me of, namely discounting my posts because you perceive that I am on the opposition "team".

I'm not trying to make an argument about any specific case, I find it more interesting to discuss the theory.

I'm really just trying to get a more complete picture of your position so I can argue with it or, possibly, agree with it.

So, we agree that it is sometimes to B's benefit to stop A's speech. However, the example you gave is a bit on the extreme end; incitement to violence is speech that is illegal even in the USA, and we both agree that is a good thing.

Do you agree that there are less extreme positions where it would be to B's benefit to stop A, even where A's speech falls short of being illegal?

For example, if B is a civil rights activist and A is a supporter of apartheid, do you agree it would often be to B's benefit if he were able to prevent A from giving an argument for apartheid to a public audience?


I agree net neutrality can be unfair to companies in some cases, but I think that is a price worth paying.

Yeah, this isn't really how it works.

Because 0.1% is too high?

Whenever you want. In fact, I get the feeling you already have.

Since you are clearly not a liberal, you will not fail us here right? Define minimal.

I mean, obviously you agree that there is a point at which it is too high right? If an innocent, unarmed black person had a 50% chance of dying in any police encounter, we would both agree that was too high, right?

If we agree on above, then we agree that there is a threshold at which it is no longer "too high". Since defining this threshold is where liberals fail, we are in luck, because we have you. Where is the threshold, nomaddd?

Wow. Went for the kill early.

I don't think I'm discounting your posts. But I'm sure I've made that mistake in the past to some who seem to come at me with the misplaced passion of a thousand suns, sure.

No, this is where we must be in disagreement. I don't think forcibly stopping the spread of noxious ideas helps anyone, least of all those targeted by them. That practice neither confronts nor defeats those ideas intellectually, leaving those who hold them to keep them and typically hold to them tighter, allowing them to feel as though they and their ideas have been unjustly oppressed, which is true.

Even if the ideas and those holding them are successfully suppressed temporarily, they are at best driven underground, where they will be allowed to fester unchallenged, and at worst, they will be amplified by what has been named the Streisand Effect, where attempts to suppress an idea only draw more attention to it, and the censuring party appearing weak and villainous for resorting to physical force instead of being confident in their ability to intellectually confront the ideas in question, or if ridiculous enough, allowing them to fall on deaf or unfriendly, mocking ears.

Furthermore, as Mill points out, the censors have robbed themselves of the ability to re-examine and better understand why their opinion and values they hold so close are in fact true and wise, sharpening their intellectual swords, as is often said, and reaffirming the core reasons behind why their beliefs are morally and intellectually sound.

Well, as you know, TheDuker has done demographic studies of who posts where. So we could, in a relatively straight forward and uncontroversial manner, sort peeps into three lists: (a) those who predominantly post in Alta, (b) those who post regularly in both, and (c) those who predominantly post in Baja.

So, let's say hypothetically, some peeps wanted to have a "constructive conversation" regarding your above stated positions. First, of course, they'd need to chat out what to do with posters on list (b). Posters like me, who live in a bi-national city, and thrive on the borders. They would end up with a finite and particular list of about three dozen Politards.

The next point of business would be to try to puzzle out WTF the above three bolded comments above. Why is "campus" mentioned? Is there some important distinction between on campus -vs- off campus activism that FoldnDark here is trying to get at here? If so... what might that be? If not, then why did the fool slip that word in? Does he get paid by the word, or something. Why should we care about how 'gladly' some peep does his condemning? What different does it make how 'passionate' some peep's disagreement is?

This all reeks of emotional gibberish. But in an effort not to unintentionally 'strawman' FoldnDark, due diligence would be needed to clarify that conjecture.

The next order of business, would be to get down the nuts-n-bolts of clarifying the 11 bonded parts above. After that, they'd need to agree on a way of assigning the above ascribed alleged positions to the various Politards selected above.

Good luck with all that, FoldnDark, good luck !!!1!

Fine, fair enough.

Sure, but my point is not that B can convince A that A is wrong. Perhaps A is a very persuasive speaker. Perhaps B feels that it is likely that if A is able to speak to a large audience, some significant portion of that audience will be convinced of A's ideas.

Sure, but these all seem like consequences of unsuccessful attempts to suppress A's speech. If we presume that B will definitely be successful in preventing A from speaking, then it would seem these objections would not apply.

Sure, but just because you establish some plausible benefit to B of allowing A to speak, that doesn't imply that it is overall the correct choice. You have to demonstrate that those benefits outweigh the possible downsides.

If you're not confident enough that your ideas are correct to be able to persuasively defend them against other, competing ideas, then what makes you so certain your ideas are correct?


I'll leave you to imagine a society where B is always successful preventing A from speaking. I doubt that society is better for any letter of the alphabet.


I'll offer as exhibit A: Modern Western Civilization. You could show me a place where B has a better shot.

You know what people can do reduce police corruption? Vote on local elections for candidates that support your policies. Protesting is sexy, I know, but its kind of ignorant when you looking at voter turn out.

You are pointing out the difference of .0004%. vs .0009%.

It's a disproportional result.


Poverty:


10% vs 30%

It's a disproportional result as well.

Cop's aren't the cause of the disproportional result.

The issue is, that difference is the only reason you care.

Protesting is scary to modern authority.

[My bold]

Demonizing people that you personally disagree with (especially in the field of politics) is a powerful tool and propaganda ploy. Once done ‘the other’ is also dehumanized, thus is easier to justifiably manipulate, castigate, look down on, and further shown to be of inferior human stock or worthiness. Such people perhaps do not even deserve the same rights has those “in the know” or that do the demonizing. And in addition, any followers/supporters are therefore also unworthy and a hoard of similar sub-demons.

The racetrack of demonizing is at times like a hidebound circular dirt track, but mostly it is a free-for-all road race that goes in multiple competing directions, depending on the insular belief system people are prone to hold and the confirmation biases that keeps them on track. And yet no one claims they personally are driving a single vehicle on the racetrack or in the road race - Pure souls all*. I find this a bit too convenient and trite to be believable. The word disingenuous also pops to mind.

You may wish to reread your initial post (#2111) and see what your secret pure heart tells you. And please don't tell me or post about it, I have no interest in knowing, nor should anyone else. On the other hand, it is probably more useful of your time to read a good book, and spend less time posting, and thus purify your soul. This book is excellent (the person who wrote is most remarkable):

The_Consolation_of_Philosophy


* I enjoy driving in the demonizing free-for-all road race using this wonderful vehicle:

the-new-vanquish

Counterpoint: Zeno, nobody gives a **** about your opinion. You are neither intelligent in general nor well informed on literally any subject! People laugh about you behind your back and have for your entire life.

What steps have you taken lately to remedy that situation?

I'll be honest here, I do not know. With that said, I'm not the one raising the issue. The people trying to convince me this is a big issue (I'm not talking about just here), are using some absurd arguments. Like pointing to the disproportional rate blacks get killed by cops, as if that is an indication of racist cops. Poor people will get killed by cops becasue they are more likely to be criminals (because they are poor, and lack opportunity). Guess who is disproportionately poor? But you want to tell me the reason for the disproportion is because of cops? NO!

Not only that. If the rate was racially proportional, cop killings would not register as an issue to most folks who are talking about cop killings.

Even further, you look at the voting in local elections and see dastardly results, but you want me to take your protest seriously? NO!

Start talking about the issues honestly, then I'll start giving a damn. Until then, take your burden shifting ass away from me, as I'm not the one raising a stink here.

nomadd the cops also seriously mistreat the mentally ill. Just a headsup. You probably should care.

I gotta better question: Is there some reason why SMP is the land that logic forgot? FoldnDark has the same problem. Everybody can't be wrong.

If it's a bad tactic for any faction to demonize, then there must exist another faction(s) for which demonizing is a good tactic.

It's like worrying about lightning striking.....and hurting or killing me.

FYP. Zero sum tards gonna zero sum tard.

It's kind of amazing how a species chock full of horrible morons literally living in kill-raping tribes managed to iterate large portions of itself completely out of that kind of behavior to form modern civilization... and how supposedly-educated dunces are still so eager to hop on the express train backwards.

Fool, it is a zero sum game.

Not a game.

Lol, everyone hates you, fly.