Yeah, this is a good point actually.
But this
is part of the problem
How is it a part of the problem though? Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I am talking about when you have known trollposters/erpers/generally people with extremly bad reputation and very consistent poor behaviour. Who have, in the general community lost alot of their credibility because of those reasons.
Even if they alt-post, in a majority of times, they are still the very same person and is just trying to make it seem like they are more liked than they really are, or that their opinions are.
Examples of this being the random characters no one ever heard about bringing up on the forums how they got “proof” that Rotgarde does bad stuff, and then oh look, it turns out it was someone who did geniuenly bad things/had a douchy behaviour that got called/out kicked from their guild and now hates the people they believe are responsible for it.(This happens like monthly on the forums and is always disproven.)
5 Likes
Look, if you have to resolve to huge ad personam to attack rather than addressing people’s opinions, then you’re reducing the value of what is being expressed - flattening an argument/opinion entirely on who expresses what. Thoughts and facts actually become less important, because all this time you are, in fact, looking at social circles, reputation and stuff like that.
It’s hardly disproven. It’s just people telling “X did bad thing” and others saying “no not true”, eventually no party has any definitive proof, and each one hangs around indefinitely.
1 Like
Yeah, but alt posters are just talking s**t to ruin the rep of Guilds they’ve been kicked from.
3 Likes
Despite making up 13 % of Argent Dawn’s population, alt posters account for 52 % of anti PCU forum posting
13 Likes
That’s impressive - there are a lot of forum alts on AD are there.
You didn’t get the joke, did you…
5 Likes
I’m still not really following you? I generally disslike direct personal attacks at people, and I do not think there is much reduction of value in calling out certain people who are deliberatly hiding behind alts with generally malicious intent.
As I said, the only times I see this being used geniuenly is in situations such as when a person is posting straight up fabricated stories about a party, and when you see who their character is, you know why, because of personal grudges.
Or in a few other cases where you had people post objectivly, some rather offensive things(Tubri posting style) while hiding behind an alt because they didn’t want flack/stand for those opinions.
Individual thoughts and facts are very important, and hiding behind altposts often disminishes that because a majority of time it is “I have this “X” fact, but I refuse to share it, but you should believe me.”
So far, when these kind of things has happened, quite alot of people have come out with proof of that stuff didnt happen and relayed information on the events in general, where the accusers often don’t.
4 Likes
Stories, hostilities which can be interpreted as grudges and when people don’t like each other’s post… So basically in any discussion on the forums?
Let’s use your strategy: from our past discussions I am aware that your method of arguing is to twist the truth of things you have barely looked into, then twist them some more to make them fit your point of view, and ultimately assume your version is correct. I know because I had proven you wrong with facts.
Therefore, since you suggest we should be looking at past credibility, I can’t trust your words, as I know you will just inflate whatever suits your boat.
That was quick.
Edit. As you can see, your current insight is completely disregarded.
1 Like
Kiki klack klack kliki kliki kliki
Kiki klack klack kliki kliki kliki
Kiki klack klack kliki kliki kliki
the dwarf loads his gun
Okay Kakio, bud. i wont be as merciful next time you’re around
2 Likes
Not really, most discussions are fairly civil.
Not at all my “strategy” nor my methods so I do not see where you are coming with this from? I do not twist any truths and I have pretty much always made it a point of mine to look into & be read up on things I participate in the discussion.
When have you done this exactly? In our past discussions that I recall, we have had a mix of agreements & disagreements on things and left it at “ok we share diffrent opinions, but that’s fine.”
There’s never been an instance where I had a discussion with you where I made some claim and you posted a definitive fact that I was wrong. If anything, it’s been more that I brought up a point and you went “Hmm, no I still disagree, but thats ok.”
This comes a bit out of the blue and I do not really know why? I’ve not had any personal beef with you as far as I am aware and despite disagreements I’ve thought you to be generally sensible, despite having seen other people writing you off for various reasons. I can kinda see their point now with this though, as you directly resort to making up straight up lies to suit your own agenda because you suddenly don’t like me.
No, I do not see it. What I see is that you apparantly disslike me for whatever reason and therefore consider me factually wrong and make up lies to make yourself look better?
I can see why people have been disregarding your posts in the past if this is how you go around doing things.
2 Likes
When we discussed about the scandals in the evergreen university you seemed pretty much uninformed for example, despite being very much focused on making a case, to the point that bringing up basic journal articles disproved your own claim.
Uh, it’s even easy to find:
Unpopular Opinions - #2944 by Aristion-argent-dawn (edited)
Why you think that? I don’t dislike you, I just disagree with your point of view.
Mind, this is why I claim this attitude is part of the problem. You react emotionally to my feedback, already assuming I am being unfair/bad towards you, on the basis that I believe something in your argumentative method is wrong. See? You’re not really looking at my feedback, you’re looking at how it makes you feel.
1 Like
I recall that discussion now when you posted it. The “basic” journal articles you brought up came from questionable sources particuarly garnering certain crowds of people. It wasn’t so much a “fact” as it was “I believe “X” therefore you are wrong” as is the case with alot of political discussions with certain people. The articles I brought up can of course be dismissed, but I would say otherwise.
Neither were facts. It’s also a little weird you clung onto that so long afterwards simply because I didnt agree with you on a political discussion & has since built up this worldview where I am some evil gremling scheming and twisting tales.
That is how it comes across when you base your entire story on me in a discussion that took place almost a year ago and where no hard-facts were presented, but simply you linking subjective & questionable sources to support your claim of “All PC is bad lol, racism is fine cus its just pc-babies with soft skin”(Paraphrasing with the last part, but the argument was -all- people involved in your examples where innocent victims, when they weren’t in actuality outside of certainly politically aligned websites and their own personal twitters)
Everyone will always react emotionally to everything in varying degrees unless they are litterally a robot. Emotions are part of everything we do and guide everything we are and think. This feels like a bit like the spchiel of “facts don’t care about feelings” that certain typical crowds tend to post when they want to disregard rather offensive remarks.
I was looking for your feedback and discussion, but you immediatly went for “well, you -always- twist things and is -always- wrong, so i can’t trust you” with your evidence of this being a post I completly forgotten since it wasn’t very memorable, where you and others argued that PC ruins the world and brought up some people who were “Innocent victims who got bullied!!” When -every- news source and information available on the information that -isn’t- a "Ilovetrump. org/ “alternativefacts. com” site claims otherwise.
Along with personal attacks.
Again, nothing of which is facts. So your own credibiltiy is massivly debunked.
1 Like
Aw heck what did I miss this time while I was working?
If you actually bothered to open the link and read my post you’d see. Your argument relied on a factual claim: Weinstein made racist remarks in his mail. I posted said e-mail. There was no racism so this was a case in which you were 100% wrong.
The other day I did correct another guy on a accident that happened years ago, it’s not that I am “clung up”, I just remember discussions, especially the first ones I have with people on the web. Our discussion happened to be easy to find on the forums, because no one writes about these people here, so searching for it was easy.
Tbh you thought I was out to get you everytime we had a disagreement on the forums. I discuss a lot on the forums with a lot of people. Do you really think I am so much focused on the person, or rather on the discussion?
I linked the e-mail, which is what we were debating.
See what you’re doing here - twisting truth again. The e-mail isn’t “subjective and questionable”, it was the core of what was being debated.
Its actually called a strawman and it’s usually indicative of those whose
Hmm… I’ve seen you twist posts to suit your point, are you sure you are not talking about yourself here?
1 Like
I usually don’t twist posts, no. It may have happened in a few cases sure, but as a rule you won’t find me doing strawmen fallacies.
Yes, exactly that’s why. Who defines who the “bad guy” is and if that person did something wrong should it be hold against said person on each argument they bring up? And where does that end?
“You said something 6 years ago so now you can’t participate in this!!”
“You said something 10 years ago so now your points are invalid in any situation!!”
What if you feel wronged (or the people you are with) and another group too? Who’s then the bad guy? You? Both? Who will give in? Nobody?
There are more points of view than black and white.
You mean like saying “you are X person, your post is invalid” on each and every post they do? No matter if their post is good or not? No matter if it has some value to it? Have seen it in this very thread.
This is exactly the problem I have with it. Why should it matter who the person is if their claims can be easily dismissed with proof (or no proof in the accusations case)?
What should happen:
Person A slanders person B. Now person B asks for proof. No proof is posted, so it’s dismissed.
What happens instead:
Person a slanders person B. Person B says: “YOU’RE XYZ PERSON SO UR CLAIM IS NON VALID ANYWAYS”.
Sure, haven’t seen that happen often though. But it would be useful for that. Though it’s still a question of “can I easily debunk their claims” or “I will just slander this person now because revenge”. And where does that end?
Though this I can agree on. If person A simply talks bad things about someone which is either not true at all or for the simple reason to damage their reputation then it’s pretty justified. A problem rolls in when person A is right and guild B just tries to cover it up.
What irritates me more is people who post “you’re so mad XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD”. I am not sure if this is trolling or if they really do think so. I heard once that seeing emotions through forum posts or chat over all is very very difficult. Especially if you can read it in an aggressive voice or calm voice. Can someone explain this thing to me?
2 Likes
The fact that has happen is enough to give less crediblity to your posts.
I opened the link, I read the email. I found it a bit racist honestly. As did many other people, hence why the campus had protests and this sparked a controversy. To summarize it: The school had a tradition to one day a year have the minority students take their classes off-campus to display their absent. Weinstein’s email was against a proposal to do that with the white students instead because he believed the minorities were forcefully opressing them with this or something. I found his statement and belief to be pretty racist, especially when I also took the time to read up on his statements about it afterwards as well as documentation from students who brought up that he had been doing shady/offensive things before simply for the sake of it under the guise of “but my free speech, think of the whites!”
Subjective of course, but I found it and him to be pretty racist, as did many others. The fact that you didn’t doesn’t make it a -fact- that you are 100% right and I am wrong. That you think so is a bit…weird and kinda disturbing honestly.
For the other arguments you brought up, it was in similliar veins. Your point/post was that in America, teachers and people are fired pretty much every day for “voicing their opinions” and fighting “pc culture” and then posted like 6 stories as examples of this. The one that was most debatable was the evergreen incident, the others were litterally “Teacher says incredibly racist/homophobic thing” and gets timed-out/fired with evidence of what they said.
Fair enough then.
I do not recall this either, but yeah it kinda seems like it with the way you word your posts about how I am according to you factually wrong in -all- my believes and opinions because I disagreed with you one time that an e-mail was racist.
Yes, and you claim a subjective opinion of the e-mail you have to be 100% indesputible fact that no one can question, when…it’s not really.
Not so much considering what we are discussing and how you are comitting to it.
If you wish to agree to disagee that is always fine with me, but I’d appriciate that you don’t take your own -subjective- opinions as cold-indesputible facts and that I am -always- twisting stories and words in every post I make simply because I disagreed with you on your -subjective- opinion.
1 Like