1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gap GuiltFollow

#127 Mar 04 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Mar 04 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


Losing scholar status curtails your freedom of speech...?
#129 Mar 04 2014 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


Lol, if not toeing the party line is toeing the Putin's party line, I don't think it qualifies as constructive criticism; that is just changing sides.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#130 Mar 04 2014 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I rarely bother rating anyone, much less Gbaji but ratings are just expressing an opinion on a post/opinion/whatever. I fail to see how expressing an opinion on a post equates to not valuing "free speech". Especially since everyone runs with posting filters off anyway.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131 Mar 04 2014 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
I rarely bother rating anyone, much less Gbaji but ratings are just expressing an opinion on a post/opinion/whatever. I fail to see how expressing an opinion on a post equates to not valuing "free speech". Especially since everyone runs with posting filters off anyway.


So much for conservatives valuing "freedom of speech," AM I RIGHT??
#132 Mar 04 2014 at 6:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This is one of those "Freedom of speech really means I should get to say anything without any negative reaction or repercussions from anyone" things, I assume.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Mar 04 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


Losing scholar status curtails your freedom of speech...?


To the degree that ratings have any effect at all, sure. The whole point of the karma system is so that by rating a post, you can indicate which posts you don't like. This somewhat assumes a desired effect of having the poster not post the same kinds of things in the future. So you encourage more of the same kind of post by rating them up, and discourage the same type by rating down.

The colors and titles associated with the account are part of the same system. You punish posters who post things the majority don't like with less desired titles/colors, even potentially to the point of making them disappear, while rewarding posters who consistently post things the majority does like.

This sort of system works well when rating is based on "useful versus spam" type posts. But when it's "I agree with what this person says" versus "I disagree with what this person says", then it does more or less become a vehicle to punish speech the majority doesn't like.

You honestly don't think people rate my posts down to punish me for posting things they don't like or agree with? It's not like I spam the boards, or cuss excessively, or post random offensive things at people. I engage in conversations, usually in response to subjects other people have chosen. But because I take positions which are not popular, I'm consistently rated down. What is that if not an attempt to squelch unpopular speech? What do you think people are doing when they rate posts?

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 4:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Mar 04 2014 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
To the degree that ratings have any effect at all, sure. The whole point of the karma system is so that by rating a post, you can indicate which posts you don't like. This somewhat assumes a desired effect of having the poster not post the same kinds of things in the future. So you encourage more of the same kind of post by rating them up, and discourage the same type by rating down.

The colors and titles associated with the account are part of the same system. You punish posters who post things the majority don't like with less desired titles/colors, even potentially to the point of making them disappear, while rewarding posters who consistently post things the majority does like.

This sort of system works well when rating is based on "useful versus spam" type posts. But when it's "I agree with what this person says" versus "I disagree with what this person says", then it does more or less become a vehicle to punish speech the majority doesn't like.

You honestly don't think people rate my posts down to punish me for posting things they don't like or agree with? It's not like I spam the boards, or cuss excessively, or post random offensive things at people. I engage in conversations, usually in response to subjects other people have chosen. But because I take positions which are not popular, I'm consistently rated down. What is that if not an attempt to squelch unpopular speech? What do you think people are doing when the rate posts?


So, people shouldn't express an opinion on the opinions you express by using a function of the forum because that hurts your freedom of speech...? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?


Edited, Mar 4th 2014 6:25pm by Belkira
#135 Mar 04 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Even his commentary on ratings is generic and overused.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 Mar 04 2014 at 6:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
So, people shouldn't express an opinion on the opinions you express by using a function of the forum because that hurts your freedom of speech...? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?


Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?

And btw, I'm not saying that you're not free to do that. Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it. I don't really care. Hell. Didn't even notice. But others did (and thought it was funny, so there's that). Ask yourself why that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#137 Mar 04 2014 at 6:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Even his commentary on ratings is generic and overused.


I can't remember the last time you posted anything in response to me that wasn't just a one line troll post, so maybe you should take care of your own kettle? I mean, if we're really supposed to judge posts on their usefulness versus trollish spam that is...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Mar 04 2014 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


Welcome to the club!!! All the cool kids are default by default!

RDD wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


You care waaaay too much. 'Twas years of abortion/religion/sexuality/RDM-melee arguing before I lost my Scholar. If you're going to be fake, might as well not participate. Of course you faked your scholar back the most recent time, but you should try just being yourself.
#139 Mar 04 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion.

No it wouldn't. Book burnings are free speech. Smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is free speech. Pooping on a flag is free speech. Waving photos of dismembered fetuses at passing cars is free speech. Rating down a post is perfectly valid free speech. Whether or not it's fruitful, who knows, but that's not the point here.

You're just being butthurt.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Mar 04 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:
Jeez I better stop posting constructive criticism in the Ukraine thread, and toe the party line or I might lose my hard earned Blue name too.


You care waaaay too much. 'Twas years of abortion/religion/sexuality/RDM-melee arguing before I lost my Scholar. If you're going to be fake, might as well not participate. Of course you faked your scholar back the most recent time, but you should try just being yourself.


I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.





Edited, Mar 4th 2014 7:46pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#141 Mar 04 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it.
And by "honest," you mean that line slightly upthread about doing it to hide the gospel truth that you preach and because they fear you?

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 7:43pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Mar 04 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care
I'll do my best
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#143 Mar 04 2014 at 7:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They could set me to Admin and I wouldn't even complain!


Well, go on...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 04 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
RDD wrote:

I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.


I do recall you making a post about you achieving scholar. In any case, no need to bring up that stuff... I'll save it for another timeSmiley: nod

Edited, Mar 5th 2014 3:24am by Almalieque
#145 Mar 04 2014 at 7:28 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Almalieque wrote:
RDD wrote:

I never had scholar before "this recent time" I am not sure what you mean by faked though. I don't click the the green or red arrows other people do. sh*t An admin could set me to sub default and I wouldn't care. People going to read what I post if they want to or not.

Nice to see you still can't catch those jokes as they pass you by (at least) 7 years of posting and still can't detect internet sarcasm /sad. Anyone who whines about "rating" is a ********* ******.


I do recall you making a post about you achieving scholar. In any case, no need to bring up that stuff... I'll save it for another timeSmiley: nod


Must have been since RCD, because RDD had no hope in hell of ever getting scholar. Hell at one point it was bouncing between subdefault and default.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#146 Mar 04 2014 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Congratulations on losing scholar, gbaji.


/shrug. People are afraid of the truth. So much for liberals valuing free speech I guess.


If it makes you feel any better, I've rated you up quite a few times before. Smiley: wink

It's kind of like pissin' into the wind though. One would think with such a high post count your karma would never really move.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#147 Mar 04 2014 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?

And btw, I'm not saying that you're not free to do that. Just suggesting that you be honest about *why* you're doing it. I don't really care. Hell. Didn't even notice. But others did (and thought it was funny, so there's that). Ask yourself why that is.


That's not how free speech works.

Let this stand for the record: If I ever rate you down, gbaji, it's because I didn't agree with you.

There. Now I can rate down with impunity!
#148 Mar 04 2014 at 7:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion.

No it wouldn't. Book burnings are free speech. Smashing Dixie Chicks CDs is free speech. Pooping on a flag is free speech. Waving photos of dismembered fetuses at passing cars is free speech.


Intent matters. If the intent of those things is to express an opinion, then it's free speech. If you burn books in order to make a point, it's free speech. If you burn books because you don't like what they say and you want to destroy them all so no one can read them, it's the opposite of free speech.

Quote:
Rating down a post is perfectly valid free speech.


I disagree. I've never liked (or used) the rating system precisely because IMO it's far more likely to be about popular versus unpopular speech than it is about useful versus non-useful (which is the actual stated purpose). We've all seen cliques form in various forums where those who are liked are rated up, and those who are not are rated down. For gaming forums, it's slightly better than moderated forums because at least then you don't have admins picking sides. But only slightly.

For off topic forums? It's relatively useless *except* as a tool to punish unpopular speech out of some desire to drive it away. True spam posts already get erased, so what's there to rate? I'm reasonably certain that most of those who rate me down repeatedly and consistently do it because they want me and my opinions to disappear from this forum. They don't want to be exposed to what I write, and they don't want others to be exposed either. That's absolutely about a desire to suppress ideas and opinions they don't like.

Quote:
Whether or not it's fruitful, who knows, but that's not the point here.


Sure. But what do you think would be the "fruitful purpose" in the minds of those rating posts down? They want me to stop posting my opinions and post things that they agree with instead, right? That is the sole reason to rate any post. What is that if not an intent to eliminate speech? I agree that it's not fruitful in my case, mainly because I don't care about the ratings. But here's the point. That approach does work on everyone who does care. And I think it's pretty clear that some posters on this forum do actually care about their karma score.

And I know for a fact that there are a number of posters/lurkers on this forum who agree with me, but are literally afraid of posting their opinions because they don't want to suffer the negative backlash that would result.

Quote:
You're just being butthurt.


I didn't even notice, so that's a bit strange to say.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Mar 04 2014 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
gbaji wrote:
So what? The people making minimum wage +$1, and minimum wage +$2, minimum wage +$3, etc are as well. What's the point? You don't honestly think there's some conspiracy out there where millions of employees are paid just a few pennies over minimum wage so that the employer can say "I pay more than minimum wage" do you? Let me link to a personal income wiki. Look at the "income distribution" chart. It divides each line into $2.5k/year blocks. And while the percentage in each block does decrease as the numbers get higher, it's a relatively smooth change over time. It's not like there's this mass of people making just over minimum wage.
The point is that people near minimum wage are affected by minimum wage increases. The closer you are to this, the more you are affected. Your argument was saying that only people making exactly minimum wage are affected, which is ridiculous. Employers aren't paying people slightly over minimum wage to make a statistical point either, they pay slightly over minimum wage to try and keep employees slightly longer at sub standard wages. Amusing straw man though.

Quote:
How do you objectively measure "working as much as they can"? Also, this puts us in the strange position of creating a measurement that increases the number of "people in need" by raising the bar to which we grant the free thing. So if I decide that everyone earning less than $30k/year deserves food stamps, now your measurement says that if an employer isn't paying someone more than $30k/year, they aren't paying them enough.
that's fair, lets say full time then. 40-60 hours a week. The rest of your sentence is correct, except that you're painting the line where someone gets food stamps as arbitrary which it's not.

Quote:
That becomes completely circular. Someone is picking an arbitrary number at which they think is "not enough" for someone to make, setting food stamp conditions to that, and then that is used to "prove" the initial assumption (that it's not enough pay).
It's not circular at all. No one is picking a number for food stamps in order to somehow justify food stamps, that's another straw man. The number is picked using the standard of how much money is needed to support yourself and your dependents with lodging and food. If you come up short, food stamps are there to help compensate. This criteria is also a good point at which to say, if you're working full time, you shouldn't be below this number. There is no circularity at all, you determine a number that people need to live, and move forward to multiple conclusions, one is that people who make less need food stamps. The other is that someone working full time should be over this line.

The rest of your rhetoric is just that. I think a company needs to be responsible to it's employees. Taking advantage of them to squeeze out the maximum profit is unethical. Profit is fine, but there should be a responsibility to ensure that someone who works for you full time, especially for an extended period of time is able to take care of themselves, which is in the lower tier of our economy, often not the case. Your argument has merit, but falls apart when a company has too much power and unbalances the relationship. At such a point, when they can start taking advantage of the employees, there needs to be laws that step in and prevent this from happening. This has been so clearly illustrated over and over again, that the concept that labour laws somehow hurt the workers in the long run is ludicrous.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 8:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#150 Mar 04 2014 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Expressing an opinion via free speech would consist of you responding to what I post with your own opinion and/or viewpoint, and thus engaging in useful discussion. Responding by pushing the rate down button just says "I don't like what you said, and I want it (and you) to go away". That's kinda at odds with free speech, isn't it?


That's not how free speech works.


Of course it is. If the community tars and feathers anyone who says that Bach is better than Beethoven, that's going to tend to suppress the speech of anyone who thinks that, isn't it? More to the point, that is precisely why they are doing it. Just saying "well, that's just a consequence of stating your opinion, but you're still free to express it", kinda misses the point. The entire point is to scare away the next person who might dare to say something the group disagrees with.

And that's entirely about suppressing free speech.

If a group of teens made fun of another teen for wearing a pro GLBTA t-shirt, would you just dismiss this as a consequence of the his free speech? Be honest with your answer.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#151 Mar 04 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
If a group of teens made fun of another teen for wearing a pro GLBTA t-shirt, would you just dismiss this as a consequence of the his free speech? Be honest with your answer.



"Made fun of," yes. Beat the **** out of him, no.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 292 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (292)