Be nice and post in good faith and everything should be fine.

I would encourage you to give it a shot. It would help this forum a lot imo.

If it where a containment thread, the person being contained. Easy.

that does not answer in any way what i asked. Might i say it is a form of gasl... deflection.

You are asking the moderator to impose a standard where if a poster engages in any of the following, strawmen, gaslighting, logical fallacy, etc that the other poster have no means to call that out and identify it. They cannot use the words, strawman, gaslighting, logical fallacy, etc, nor can they use the descriptive words that would describe what they see being done

Like uke above you are asking for new moderation rules and when challenged to explain them you just go off on a completely unrelated direction.

And while browser might say 'you are under no obligation to reply to me', and i would never deny that, when you are pushing a point and position in conversation with me and you then refuse to answer the most basic questions and instead engage in deflection (I am guess you want that banned too?), that is something I have every right to note.

If browser is going to find 'no laggy and uke can do what they did but you calling them out on that is wrong', well good luck with this forum.

I may test the limits of that new rule and ONLY reply by quoting everyones posts and replying with complete non sequiturs as i did with Bobo above. Answers that are not applicable to the questions discussed because as it seems browser is asserting, not only is it fine to do that, but anyone who would call me out on it, would be in the wrong. At least if that is the conclusion he gives me re Uke, i will likely test.

For the record a person can post in good faith and this association to being 'nice' is not correct in the way you guys use it.

if someone is actively engaging in gaslighting, strawmen, logical fallacies, and i say they are, that is not a mean or 'not nice' to point out.

Certainly not you guys.

There is this constant refrain from posters like you that takes the form of '... proper debating structure and best practices have no place here in our debates because this is not a debate class...'

Here is an excerpt of a university debate class "Debate Class best Practices"


I have no issue if you guys want to read the above and say "I am not doing any of that. When i debate people in forumland I believe in:

- not providing relevant points
- Not providing any proofs or data
- no ones opinion are any good nor do experiences matter and who cares about data
- i'll never use comparisons and don't care to illustrate my point



If that is what you want to do, you be you Boo.


I, however will stick to using the proper structures of debate and that is why you see such contrast between me and my outmatched opponents here, so often.


So to answer your question as directly as possible each person gets to decide how they approach the debates and what terms they use and i have never tried to assert otherwise. But i do get this constant push, such as you have done here suggesting we proper debate structure should be used by me and i am making some error in doing so. So 'NO, you guys will definitely NOT set the terms' for me.

I mean you might try. You can appeal to browser for that rule too along with the litany or rules Laggy seems to be asking for which all protect dishonest ever being called out.

In a nutshell, I think anything that implies ill-intent on the part of another poster should typically be avoided.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is fine, because we all make mistakes. There is no suggestion of ill-intent.

Accusing someone of "gaslighting", on the other foot, implies ill-intent on the part of another poster. Unless you're a mindreader, I personally think it is best to avoid that.

"Strawman" is borderline imo. Better imo to just say "you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position." No reason to assume ill-intent.

Bottom Line: I would like to discourage us all from using terms that imply that the person we are engaging is lying or being disingenuous. Pointing out mistakes in reasoning and/or understanding is great, because we all can learn from such instruction.

Hope that helps.

Why do you feel people involved in a discussion with you are "opponents"?

I very much like your excerpt from " Debate Class Best Practices"

Since it was just an excerpt, does that list include when it is and is not appropriate to accuse your adversary of lying or gaslighting?

I'm fine with following whatever guideline they advise on that point.

Because the two sides have opposing viewpoints. That is, they disagree about something.

So how's that working out for you here? How many people do you think you've convinced of anything in this forum?

So a Toothsayer type pushing extreme Trumpism positions. Saying Trump was perfect and at fault was Obama, and 'dirty', 'ungovernable' inner city democrats (read brown people) that we should avoid attributing or imply he has any ill intent? Is that your position?
I think you need to read the various logical fallacies. Many of them are quite accusing in a way a person accused might not see it as 'nice' and they might take offense to (ie. Hasty Conclusion fallacy "... a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts....")

If the person feels it is not nice to be accused of biased, insufficient and 'rushing to conclusions, and they take offense should we cease being allowed to call it out?

Why?

What is wrong with someone saying 'QP i think you are gaslighting me on that', and me replying 'well i disagree'.

Why are you so intent in removing those type of normal human interactions that happen in debate from this forum?



So this is just about 'control' mostly. Extreme language policing by those who can accrue the power (get the mod on side) to do so?

This obviously just seems about micromanaging others to an extreme intent by people who covet getting control over others. Would you disagree?

You want to get to the level where you are telling people to achieve saying 'basically the same thing' 'no to strawmanning', 'yes to misrepresenting me' but in pre approved language that YOU find NICER. Fair?

It all helps to understand YOU.

If is riddled with a lack of consistency (use these words that say basically the same thing but not the word you choose) and defensible logic and just seems like a backwards rationalization to an end point of being 'nice'.

'I want 'nice' so i will rationalize anything i need to get there'.


Hey if the mod wants to put this push for 'nice' over reason and logic such that 'using best practices from debate structure', ' and 'saying word X is wrong but explaining it in another way' is fine, et, etc, etc, and all these things people are calling me on and say9ing they are wrong and should be done away with then have at it.


I will still find my fun on this forum most likely. it would be interesting to see how others reply to a stream of non stop misrepresentation posts, etc they cannot call out as such, and must just engage as if good faith to be 'nice'. It will be an interesting experiment and test.

I think you misunderstand the intent.

The recognized phenomena in the social media age, is that some people (many people) enter these types of forums and chats seeking a safe space, echo bubble A place where they can confer with mostly like minded individuals who will not only be supportive of their correct and accurate positions but have their back (circle jerk with them) even when they are wrong, allowing them the pretense of being right. This leads to even the worse, fallacious, extreme positions being pushed not being countered , called out, or otherwise objected to due to general partisan alignment.

Others enter such spaces to speak truth the established partisan cliques, to interject facts to the consternation of that group, and to generally not be bullied or intimidated out of doing so.

I fall, far more into the second camp and thus my posting in the BFI thread, along with other people here generally well regarded. All of us whom you could have asked that same question of "How many people do you think you've convinced of anything.." when it came to their anti covid positions, pro Trump and hate Obama positions.


For you it might seem odd that anyone would think injecting facts and honesty into a place or discussion where they want to keep the echo bubble, is a thing to do, and you might think the only metric of value is how 'convinced' those others are.


When Toothsayer says "Trump has been perfect so far, and Obama is at fault' more than a year in to the pandemic and no one in that echo box will call him out on it but me, I do not care "...How many people do you think you've convinced of anything", when i call him out on that.

People within the circle jerk, tend to think the only thing of value is the circle jerk.

I disagree about a lot of things - sometimes irreconcilable polar opposites - with plenty of people. I don't consider them my opponents.

That is fine. You are entitled to use different language as you see fit.

I tend to call people I oppose on issues that we then choose to engage in debate about, my opponent on that issue. "Opponent' has not negative inference in the way i use it and only means 'one who is opposed in view'.


Would you like to control my use of that word? Is that what this line of questioning is about?

So you think this forum is an echo chamber? You are the sole dissenting voice among regulars here?

Oh it is definitely MOSTLY an echo chamber.

I have spoken at length to that, that the past deliberate divide when a few more right wing posters were pushed out in to the safe space in the BFI, leaving behind the more agreeable core of Centre Left and extreme left created two safe spaces were BOTH GROUPS allow their most extreme posters (extreme right in BFI, extreme left here) to dictate many or most of the positions that are allowable for speech or thought.


I had more than one person in the BFI call this politics forum a 'cesspool of group thing' or some such when they would refer to myself and a few other regulars here who would post over there.


The most extreme there, just as uke and Laggy are doing here, were constantly beseeching the mod to control our speech and silence our views there.

Do you see the pattern???

No. And I'm pretty sure I never implied either overtly or covertly that I wanted to. I'm just trying to understand why you choose to use the posting style that you have. Unlike others profess, I am unable to mind-read the intentions of others, so I ask questions.

Fair enough. Just asking as both Laggy's and uke's seems directly at trying to seize control of peoples word usage, if they can convince the mod.

it is very common that people in the extremes (left or right) seek to control speech and thought. the main cancel culture techniques on the left (ganging up on people and calling them versions of '...ist") for saying anything that the hive disagrees with, is just that. On the far right they use terms like groomer and pedophile to try and drive people away from engaging and speaking on issues.


it all leads to the same end point, of how can we stop people from identifying what we are doing, calling us out, or otherwise registering the4ir objections? How do we take control of the vaiours town squares where discussions may happen .

With a new mod some are trying to push that here and to see if they can get the Mod to bite.

Lol. The forum Rules bar personal attacks, so unless you consider that "seize control of peoples word usage" then just lol. My claim is that the kind of nonsensical, flippant accusations of gaslighting that you've just demonstrated in this thread are exactly the types of personal attacks that should be considered under Rule 1. It is hilariously inept to think that not buying into your poor framing somehow meant I was intentionally deceiving you and it appears you've convinced nobody - most importantly our mod - that I was actually gaslighting. And this conversation is a great illustration of why making those kind of empty personal attacks with no substance just turn the entire conversation into a debate about your personal attack as opposed to the substance.

My suggestion is to just post in good faith. It really is that easy. People aren't out to deceive you hiding under every rock.

I'm not sure. Is your example meant to be one where someone pops that non-sequitur into this thread, or is it meant to be an example of a post made in a thread that was actually about LGBTQ issues?

I'll note this in no way dealt with anything in my post you replied to.

I would think anyone who has a concern about the use of gaslighting would have the same concern about that statement, of course (not because that statement is what I understand as gaslighting, but because it also assumes malicious intent). Very few people (one or two?) are asking for an outright ban of it, and my suspicion is that those who are, are only doing so because they've gotten tired of the excessive and at times incorrect use of this kind of accusation, and believe banning it may be the only solution - I think that if we actually found a way to greatly reduce those accusations, they would be fine with them. But I don't want to speak for others; perhaps I have that wrong.

I wonder if you can see the massive difference in that statement as opposed to "gaslighting" or "this is the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for (your) own advantage". The latter two assume intent; the former does not.

There are a couple of issues with accusations of gaslighting/lying/arguing in bad faith. They assume malicious intent, so of course they will often be seen as personal attacks. But the much more important issue, IMO, is where it takes the debate. When you say someone is gaslighting, many responses aren't going to be about the point(s) they made, but instead about whether it was gaslighting - we're into a debate about the person's intent, which except for in rare cases neither side is going to be able to prove, and we're derailed from the issue at hand. If you say "that summary is grossly misleading", now the response will be about the content of the post itself, which is quite germane to the topic at hand.

That's not to say no one should ever be called out for bad faith posting. But it should be pretty rare, and only for the most egregious cases where it's hard to assume anything else. None of us are mind readers, and I don't have a lot of faith in our ability to know everyone's intent behind every post they make, so I try to assume people are posting in good faith and I respond as such. I believe the cost to me the times I've done so when it was actually a post made in bad faith is fairly low, and certainly much lower than if I approached things a different way and derailed threads with bad faith accusations.

Now, someone could say to me that this will be too difficult to police, too hard to draw the line of what an "egregious case" is, etc. And they'd be right in that there is no easy answer here. But it seems we have a moderator who is willing to give it a try, so I think we should be as well.

The problem with your post though is that my post was not nonsensical and flippant and i do not think those words are 'nice', so Laggy please tell uke to stop using them.


I called out, cited and provided explanation that demonstrated in fact what you were doing was attempting to gaslight. HEck you still have not even tried to answer the question and prove the point and are not saying you will not and instead are trying to hide behind... what did Laggy say again is the acceptable WORDS... oh ya, this is an attempt to misrepresent my position, which is ok to say, but just don't call it gaslighting. lol.

Why don't you just prove me wrong and shut me up?

Heck I will give you a week of me not posting, and thus blissful silence if you can prove something you claim is 'so easy' to prove. So will you take up that challenge and do something that 'so easy' instead taking far more time telling me why you will not?

Prove Laggy (who even agrees) posts with "...an over zealous religious stand point...."


You and i have disputed this point over whether it is 'easy' or not, to simply go through a persons posting history and prove an assertion like that, if the person was to say 'cite or ban'. You have claimed it is EASY to do so and does not take the time i say it could in many instances. So prove it. Build the case, quickly in easy in as many citations as is needed to establish that.


(inb4 uke again pretends i am saying he or Laggy disputes that as more gasl... errr... 'attempts to misrepresent my position')

(happy laggy, I am using your words?)

Once again, i am befuddled as to why this LGBTQ issue keeps coming up as if contentios.

I cannot follow these replies but i am certain they are not genuine.

(still not seeing it?)



Browser is making the argument upthread, that people can (and i know they can) just hit reply to your posts and reply with a complete non sequitur or distortion (as uke did) because we cannot stop them doing it.

I agree with that. BUt i do not agree then that you could not call me out for being dishonest, disingenuous in my approach, if i was trying to make it look like you had said something , that i was replying to that you did not.

browser has said, again,. it is perfectly fine to do, again with the rationalization, i cannot stop him doing it.

I am not trying to stop him doing it. I am reserving the right to label it APPROPRIATELY as gaslighting or deception when he does it.

Yes, of course I'm seeing it, I just wanted to know if that was your point. It's not what most people would call gaslighting, but I don't think that's important - it's still an obvious attempt to derail/troll, is done with malicious intent, etc. But none of it really addresses what I've said in either of my posts.

Edit to add: Also, that's such an obvious troll that the last thing I'd do is reply and feed said troll. I'd be hitting the report post button, and I expect it would be gone quickly if a moderator is around.

So as I do, you think using the definition of the word is the same as using the word. Good.

So do not call someone a liar and do not say any form of 'what you are saying is untrue'?? Even if you know it is untrue engage with it as if true without using those type descriptions as the Talking News Shows did for years with Trump supporters and most now admit was a big mistake. Is that what we are looking for here?



Curious what you might think of Laggy's whole list of acceptable and banned words since he is making the big push here?

Laggy has suggested this as adequate wording "...you're misrepresenting my position.."

So if i say that to you, Bobo, and you reply "aren't you just accusing me of lying by another means" and i reply "yes" do those words also go on to the banned list as that is not nice?

What if i say I will no longer use gaslighting but instead I will say 'rsncoah$5%haa' which is my substitution for gaslighting? Ban that too?



is the idea at it base line distillation simply that if honest offered evaluations are not nice, simply say nothing or go along with the person stating the perceived dishonest thing as if it is accurate and true?



I am not following you here as they all seem to assume intent?



simple question(s) Bobo.

Do you think gaslighting happens in politics and political debates, especially amongst partisans defending their sides?


Everything you say above is equally applicable in the real world. Calling out Rand Paul has argued exactly what you are here as did Ron Johnson argue a form on Meet the Press this weekend. Kelly Ann Conway would applaud your position.

Do not call it out, as ultimately that is not nice, as you are assuming Rand Paul, Kelly Ann Conway, etc intent.

YES, YES... In debate if we assume someone's intent, we should be able to call it out.

Or are you going to reply, that I am misrepresenting you as you are OK with some just not others as if you HOLD THE LIST when and to whom it is appropriate to call out, and those it is not. That Bobo decides appropriateness and not QP.

I do look forward to your clarifications because what i see above is 'it may be ok sometimes... while this argument keeps getting pushed it is wrong for me'.

Sure i wanted to make is so obvious it sticks out like a sore thumb and everyone can understand exactly the tactic at play.

uke is far better at it, than to do that. Subtly works best when making an "obvious attempt to derail/troll" which means taking an element of what was actually said and then using that to reply to nothing that was said.

Heck even Browser having examined it admitted uke was not replying to me. He just says 'he is not obligated to' which i agree with.

But when uke DOES REPLY and does so with an "obvious attempt to derail/troll", I get to call him out for that.

So outside of you, there are no disagreements in this forum?