Yes, I know. I've been to Georgia and California, the only thing they have in common is the crappy weather.
You will, though, find the same kind of people anywhere provided you're looking for them, what differs is saturation. You will find left leaning liberals in, say, Texas. But they will be far fewer than in, say, Cali.
Same is true for Europe. Cultural differences ain't what they were 50 years ago. Traditions and old habits change rapidly, especially since people move across the continent freely.
It does scale pretty well. But mostly 'cause the general level of intelligence is pretty high and entry is by invitation only. That alone makes a lot of moderation redundant because someone of the crowd knows you well enough to vouch for you, and you usually do not want to piss that person at the very least off.
I'm currently trying hard to remember an occasion where we actually banned someone. Over the years we have asked a few individuals to maybe abstain because it doesn't look like they would be welcome, or maybe they could adjust their behaviour to be more socially acceptable. Some changed, some left, but I really can't remember a time when we had to actually terminate the access for someone.
It's the only system that is troll-proof. If, and only if, you have a long standing history of level headed admin decisions. What makes or breaks this system is basically whether the "residents" are happy with the way the admins handle it. Because only then you'll have "residents".
And of course we had our share of people who wanted to test the rules and see how far they may go. In the end, we usually waited for the regulars to complain about their "rules testing" before we went and gave them a sound spanking, that way we didn't even have to react to the whining about being "unfairly" treated for something "minor": They got their response from the regulars.
That makes it usually a lot harder to argue against. Because now they're not getting "unfairly" treated by the admins, the other board users tell them in no uncertain terms that they're not wanted. And, more important, that the users side with the admins, not the trolls, which basically disarms any attempt at staging a "revolt".
So a meaningful discussion isn't even possible, it's more a child of its time: Everyone simply throws his opinion into the ring and nobody gives a shit what anyone else is posting.
People want LESS violence in their sports? What magical feelgood land did that statistics come from? If anything, people want MORE violence in their sports.
How do they balance that threshold? In my experience, a lot of people consider it already "bad attitude" and "obnoxious behaviour" if someone dares to have a diverging viewpoint.
Mostly because people don't know what a discussion is about anymore. They learn "arguing" from afternoon tv talkshows where people yell at each other, repeating their phrases over and over without listening to the other side. Or from political "debates" where little gets debated, where the two parties are talking at each other but not to each other, because their rhetoric is aimed at the viewer. Because the viewer is who they wish to convince.
When was the last time you actually saw a real debate? Or have been in one? Where two parties present their diverging propositions, discuss the various aspects, actually address the objections and arguments of the other party instead of trying to hammer their own agenda home and in the end maybe even arrive at an agreement both parties can exist with?
This kind of argument died out. But this is the only kind of argument worth having. I cannot grow from simply hammering my argument into you. Yes, you will maybe regurgitate my argument if I sufficiently browbeat you into submission, but how does this validate my argument? Or even tell me of its veracity, validity or general applicability? I don't get any kind of feedback how "good" my argument or position really is. How should I improve it? How should I grow?
Likewise, if I notice that whoever I try to engage in a meaningful discussion with is only trying to hammer his agenda home, I shrug and leave. There is nothing to be gained from this. Again, I get no information how good the arguments are if my concerns, questions, objections and counter arguments get brushed aside with thought-terminating cliches.
That works if, and only if, the community doesn't allow taking the discussion to the meta-level. I actually mod for a board that has very simple rules:
1) Admins are right. In any and all cases. 2) Yes there are rules. Read them. Heed them. Try to skirt them and test their limits and you'll meet rule 1. 3) Yes, people know that. No need to point it out to them.
This requires a few things, though. First of all, VERY mature and level headed admins, and a generally mature board audience that prefers discussing actual topics over board politics. And your admins should be able to out-argue any troll they encounter.
Of course if you have people who think they have any "rights" on your board because they bothered to register, have a low subscriber ID and/or a few thousand postings done, you should maybe point out that the board is owned by someone and that he, and he alone, says who gets to write on his board. Don't like it, go make your own, with blackjack and hookers for all I care.
Such statements, given to trolls that try to incite a "revolt", usually end in "Online boards are no democracy. They are tiny dictatorships. And the main difference between them and real dictatorships is that you're free to leave whenever you want to. In your particular case, we'd really prefer if you did".
(Usually we make that decision easy for him by kicking him off)
Actually I'm white, but we've had enough of that racist bullshit a while ago in my home country. I don't need to be reminded of that shit, the world already keeps reminding me enough as it is, thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
So ... kill all Muslims to fight global warming? Is that your message? Or why do you conflate them?
I also recommend reading about what levels of CO2 are toxic to humans, because I don't give a fuck what plants need if I'm dead.
Yes, but for the vast and clear majority of earth's history, humans didn't want to survive on its surface. Including 50 million years ago.
But then again, we also have not even been around for even a sliver of geologic time. Like the old joke says
Planet 1: Dude, you look horrible, what's going on with you?
Planet 2: I have homo sapiens
Planet 1: Ah, don't worry. It will pass.
I think I have the perfect guy for that job. He's experienced with delivering, spreading and repeating that kind of information.
No, but I'm OK with hunting thousands of millions of people trying to escape the waters for fun and profit!
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
And I bet they were also the ones they interviewed. Damn those foreigners with their crazy ideas.
As a comedian said lately "I need money, not an occupation. I can keep myself occupied just fine, no need to help me there!"
Yes, I know. I've been to Georgia and California, the only thing they have in common is the crappy weather.
You will, though, find the same kind of people anywhere provided you're looking for them, what differs is saturation. You will find left leaning liberals in, say, Texas. But they will be far fewer than in, say, Cali.
Same is true for Europe. Cultural differences ain't what they were 50 years ago. Traditions and old habits change rapidly, especially since people move across the continent freely.
It does scale pretty well. But mostly 'cause the general level of intelligence is pretty high and entry is by invitation only. That alone makes a lot of moderation redundant because someone of the crowd knows you well enough to vouch for you, and you usually do not want to piss that person at the very least off.
I'm currently trying hard to remember an occasion where we actually banned someone. Over the years we have asked a few individuals to maybe abstain because it doesn't look like they would be welcome, or maybe they could adjust their behaviour to be more socially acceptable. Some changed, some left, but I really can't remember a time when we had to actually terminate the access for someone.
It's the only system that is troll-proof. If, and only if, you have a long standing history of level headed admin decisions. What makes or breaks this system is basically whether the "residents" are happy with the way the admins handle it. Because only then you'll have "residents".
And of course we had our share of people who wanted to test the rules and see how far they may go. In the end, we usually waited for the regulars to complain about their "rules testing" before we went and gave them a sound spanking, that way we didn't even have to react to the whining about being "unfairly" treated for something "minor": They got their response from the regulars.
That makes it usually a lot harder to argue against. Because now they're not getting "unfairly" treated by the admins, the other board users tell them in no uncertain terms that they're not wanted. And, more important, that the users side with the admins, not the trolls, which basically disarms any attempt at staging a "revolt".
So a meaningful discussion isn't even possible, it's more a child of its time: Everyone simply throws his opinion into the ring and nobody gives a shit what anyone else is posting.
I pass.
People want LESS violence in their sports? What magical feelgood land did that statistics come from? If anything, people want MORE violence in their sports.
Does anyone know of anything good to come out of Imzy?
Hopefully a lesson for VCs.
How do they balance that threshold? In my experience, a lot of people consider it already "bad attitude" and "obnoxious behaviour" if someone dares to have a diverging viewpoint.
Mostly because people don't know what a discussion is about anymore. They learn "arguing" from afternoon tv talkshows where people yell at each other, repeating their phrases over and over without listening to the other side. Or from political "debates" where little gets debated, where the two parties are talking at each other but not to each other, because their rhetoric is aimed at the viewer. Because the viewer is who they wish to convince.
When was the last time you actually saw a real debate? Or have been in one? Where two parties present their diverging propositions, discuss the various aspects, actually address the objections and arguments of the other party instead of trying to hammer their own agenda home and in the end maybe even arrive at an agreement both parties can exist with?
This kind of argument died out. But this is the only kind of argument worth having. I cannot grow from simply hammering my argument into you. Yes, you will maybe regurgitate my argument if I sufficiently browbeat you into submission, but how does this validate my argument? Or even tell me of its veracity, validity or general applicability? I don't get any kind of feedback how "good" my argument or position really is. How should I improve it? How should I grow?
Likewise, if I notice that whoever I try to engage in a meaningful discussion with is only trying to hammer his agenda home, I shrug and leave. There is nothing to be gained from this. Again, I get no information how good the arguments are if my concerns, questions, objections and counter arguments get brushed aside with thought-terminating cliches.
A crime is a crime BECAUSE there are laws/rules against it. That's basically the definition of "crime"...
So... brothink instead of groupthink? Whoever fields the most friends is right?
That works if, and only if, the community doesn't allow taking the discussion to the meta-level. I actually mod for a board that has very simple rules:
1) Admins are right. In any and all cases.
2) Yes there are rules. Read them. Heed them. Try to skirt them and test their limits and you'll meet rule 1.
3) Yes, people know that. No need to point it out to them.
This requires a few things, though. First of all, VERY mature and level headed admins, and a generally mature board audience that prefers discussing actual topics over board politics. And your admins should be able to out-argue any troll they encounter.
Of course if you have people who think they have any "rights" on your board because they bothered to register, have a low subscriber ID and/or a few thousand postings done, you should maybe point out that the board is owned by someone and that he, and he alone, says who gets to write on his board. Don't like it, go make your own, with blackjack and hookers for all I care.
Such statements, given to trolls that try to incite a "revolt", usually end in "Online boards are no democracy. They are tiny dictatorships. And the main difference between them and real dictatorships is that you're free to leave whenever you want to. In your particular case, we'd really prefer if you did".
(Usually we make that decision easy for him by kicking him off)
Actually I'm white, but we've had enough of that racist bullshit a while ago in my home country. I don't need to be reminded of that shit, the world already keeps reminding me enough as it is, thank you.
No. It's literal. I'm fairly sure that whether you're allowed to sodomize some politician is a matter of money. Whores do it for money, after all.
It's not like stupidity accumulates more on one side of the fence. SJWs, religious nutjobs, it's all good.
Greece is as similar to Germany as Hawaii is to Texas.
They're both broke but Texas is staying afloat by leeching Hawaii dry while pretending to "save" them?
Don't worry, you can have it just the other way 'round too.
$BADTHING happens
See, Trump is teh evilz.
$GOODTHING happens
That's just a spillover from when Obama was still in office.
It's about time you people learn that it doesn't fucking matter what idiot you put at the helm, they're ALL crooks!
When in the past 16 years weren't you?