|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Oct 19, 2023 23:41:27 GMT -5
To the first two parts, got it, and got it. To the third part, no. I gave him a warning, and then I banned him earlier this week (can't remember if it was yesterday or the day before, but his last post was on the 17th), but he's been banned. Are you sure? Banned members usually show their title as "banned" but I'll take your word for it. As to the what you did, you were just arguing that what you did was an act of kindness which may inspire them to change their ways,. I don't know what your position is anymore, or why you'd even bring it up when people were simply asking for this one specific user to be banned, not how to deradicalize a hypothetical person or trigger the process. To the fourth part, I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of estimates vary but that 2 million DGUs were the high end of the estimate (I just checked and the high end is actually over 3 million, but for some reason I was thinking it was 2 million as well). They don't have to be that high to be worth considering and even on the low end it's still hundreds of thousands (from around 500k, to the lowest of the low estimates I've seen being 108k). But that's probably better served for discussion in the gun thread. Fair enough, I'll drop it and if you want to bring it up in the gun thread, go for it. I'm sure someone else will have a response for it. The issue here is, why do you think anyone would ever want to respond to you and show you any respect or engage with any of your sources or evidence, when you start your contribution to the conversation by ridiculing them? Regardless of how good you think the point you're making is, or how virtuous or logical your stance is in comparison to theirs, delivering it by being rude to someone isn't likely to illicit a reasonable response (or even a response at all). It seems like a catch-22 to disrespect someone and then accuse them of bad faith or ignoring evidence if they don't want to engage with you after that. I don't. But you've constantly said you're willing to look at facts or examine evidence, and then don't. Or you handwave it away. Or you simply declare it's not a good study, or that you don't trust it. You didn't offer explanations for why, and just carried on like they were debunked. The most galling example of this type of thing was insisting that the way the Secret Service keeps the president safe is because they carry guns, completely ignoring the fact that they go through extensive training to safely carry and use them, but more importantly, they take preventative measures first and foremost. They're constantly gathering intelligence, working with local law enforcement, and putting countermeasures in place to prevent threats. If carrying a gun made people safer, they'd be handing buckets of them out wherever the president goes, and at every single event, it'd be mandatory to carry at least one. And it wasn't your position that was bad faith, it was your unwillingness to address or interact with any explanation others offered as to why guns were basically the last resort, and the real work is done weeks or days before the president ever sets foot anywhere near the event. Similarly, your position on mandatory training. People keep pointing out that mandatory training would make people use guns more responsibly and safely, but I honestly can't remember you ever refuting this or offering an explanation beyond "no regulation allowed." Basically, all the reliable evidence we have suggests that guns, and more specifically good guys with guns, do not meaningfully make a difference in preventing or stopping crime. It's really only very biased surveys twisted and warped to fit a narrative that says they do. For example, the FBI has found that "good guys with guns" (as in, regular citizens not part of law enforcement or security. You're the only person who insists on defining it that way) only stop active shooters (not mass shootings) about 4% of the time. This is a tangent probably best left for the gun thread too, but others had great posts addressing the Secret Service bit which it feels like you completely ignored because it didn't paint guns in a good light. Can you see why I accuse you of bad faith? Especially when you either cherry-pick little parts from my post or completely miss the point? (Again, go look at the secret service discussion where I brought up the buckets of guns thing and you kind of ignored it or misinterpreted what I was saying) (Unrelated, but because it bugs me and is not a shot at you, illicit = illegal (more or less) elicit is what you're looking for.)
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 324
|
Post by skyth on Oct 20, 2023 8:39:50 GMT -5
On the accusations of 'bad faith' right off the bat. At some point, it gets really tiring to hear the same regurgitated debunked arguments that are not based in any sort of reality. It's really the gish-gallop form of bad-faith where the person acting in 'good faith' is expected to spend all their time investigating and debunking a stream of arguments from the other side that have been repeatedly debunked in the past...But the person spewing the arguments just keeps on rapid-pace presenting the same vein of arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 20, 2023 16:18:41 GMT -5
To the first two parts, got it, and got it. To the third part, no. I gave him a warning, and then I banned him earlier this week (can't remember if it was yesterday or the day before, but his last post was on the 17th), but he's been banned. Are you sure? Banned members usually show their title as "banned" but I'll take your word for it. As to the what you did, you were just arguing that what you did was an act of kindness which may inspire them to change their ways,. I don't know what your position is anymore, or why you'd even bring it up when people were simply asking for this one specific user to be banned, not how to deradicalize a hypothetical person or trigger the process. To the fourth part, I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of estimates vary but that 2 million DGUs were the high end of the estimate (I just checked and the high end is actually over 3 million, but for some reason I was thinking it was 2 million as well). They don't have to be that high to be worth considering and even on the low end it's still hundreds of thousands (from around 500k, to the lowest of the low estimates I've seen being 108k). But that's probably better served for discussion in the gun thread. Fair enough, I'll drop it and if you want to bring it up in the gun thread, go for it. I'm sure someone else will have a response for it. The issue here is, why do you think anyone would ever want to respond to you and show you any respect or engage with any of your sources or evidence, when you start your contribution to the conversation by ridiculing them? Regardless of how good you think the point you're making is, or how virtuous or logical your stance is in comparison to theirs, delivering it by being rude to someone isn't likely to illicit a reasonable response (or even a response at all). It seems like a catch-22 to disrespect someone and then accuse them of bad faith or ignoring evidence if they don't want to engage with you after that. I don't. But you've constantly said you're willing to look at facts or examine evidence, and then don't. Or you handwave it away. Or you simply declare it's not a good study, or that you don't trust it. You didn't offer explanations for why, and just carried on like they were debunked. The most galling example of this type of thing was insisting that the way the Secret Service keeps the president safe is because they carry guns, completely ignoring the fact that they go through extensive training to safely carry and use them, but more importantly, they take preventative measures first and foremost. They're constantly gathering intelligence, working with local law enforcement, and putting countermeasures in place to prevent threats. If carrying a gun made people safer, they'd be handing buckets of them out wherever the president goes, and at every single event, it'd be mandatory to carry at least one. And it wasn't your position that was bad faith, it was your unwillingness to address or interact with any explanation others offered as to why guns were basically the last resort, and the real work is done weeks or days before the president ever sets foot anywhere near the event. Similarly, your position on mandatory training. People keep pointing out that mandatory training would make people use guns more responsibly and safely, but I honestly can't remember you ever refuting this or offering an explanation beyond "no regulation allowed." Basically, all the reliable evidence we have suggests that guns, and more specifically good guys with guns, do not meaningfully make a difference in preventing or stopping crime. It's really only very biased surveys twisted and warped to fit a narrative that says they do. For example, the FBI has found that "good guys with guns" (as in, regular citizens not part of law enforcement or security. You're the only person who insists on defining it that way) only stop active shooters (not mass shootings) about 4% of the time. This is a tangent probably best left for the gun thread too, but others had great posts addressing the Secret Service bit which it feels like you completely ignored because it didn't paint guns in a good light. Can you see why I accuse you of bad faith? Especially when you either cherry-pick little parts from my post or completely miss the point? (Again, go look at the secret service discussion where I brought up the buckets of guns thing and you kind of ignored it or misinterpreted what I was saying) (Unrelated, but because it bugs me and is not a shot at you, illicit = illegal (more or less) elicit is what you're looking for.) Yes, I'm sure he's banned. I just checked some other banned users and it doesn't display a banned title for them either. That might have been an ETC thing. And I'm not saying what I did was an act of kindness, per se. The rest I'll save for the gun thread. I'll get to it eventually. And thanks in regards to illicit/elicit (seriously). I'll go back and edit it. I knew it didn't look right but the right spelling was eluding me.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 20, 2023 16:22:30 GMT -5
On the accusations of 'bad faith' right off the bat. At some point, it gets really tiring to hear the same regurgitated debunked arguments that are not based in any sort of reality. It's really the gish-gallop form of bad-faith where the person acting in 'good faith' is expected to spend all their time investigating and debunking a stream of arguments from the other side that have been repeatedly debunked in the past...But the person spewing the arguments just keeps on rapid-pace presenting the same vein of arguments. It's certainly frustrating but I wouldn't call it bad faith. The problem arises when either one side isn't aware that the arguments have been debunked, or when both sides of an argument view the other sides' argument as debunked (or at least problematic). I can certainly relate to how frustrating it is to be expected to spend a large amount of time investigating and responding to a stream of arguments.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 324
|
Post by skyth on Oct 20, 2023 16:43:41 GMT -5
The problem comes from the 'facts don't matter' crowd that often does this. This, it's pretty much labeled as bad faith immediately because in the vast majority of cases, it is.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Oct 20, 2023 16:54:09 GMT -5
The problem comes from the 'facts don't matter' crowd that often does this. This, it's pretty much labeled as bad faith immediately because in the vast majority of cases, it is. That's true. The 'facts don't matter' crowd are insufferable. It's challenging to even find a bit of common ground to start with.
|
|
mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 465
Member is Online
|
Post by mdgv2 on Oct 20, 2023 18:24:03 GMT -5
On the accusations of 'bad faith' right off the bat. At some point, it gets really tiring to hear the same regurgitated debunked arguments that are not based in any sort of reality. It's really the gish-gallop form of bad-faith where the person acting in 'good faith' is expected to spend all their time investigating and debunking a stream of arguments from the other side that have been repeatedly debunked in the past...But the person spewing the arguments just keeps on rapid-pace presenting the same vein of arguments. It's certainly frustrating but I wouldn't call it bad faith. The problem arises when either one side isn't aware that the arguments have been debunked, or when both sides of an argument view the other sides' argument as debunked (or at least problematic). I can certainly relate to how frustrating it is to be expected to spend a large amount of time investigating and responding to a stream of arguments. Don’t. Don’t care their arguments have been debunked.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Oct 21, 2023 8:23:13 GMT -5
Well, you agree below it's not an act of kindness. Affiliation with one of those groups is a major accusation that shouldn't be taken lightly. Neo-nazi aren't a clearly defined and organized group though. It's more of an ideology than a group, and he seems to share their believes…
|
|