GLORIOUS OFFICIAL IWAKU ELECTION 2016 THREAD | ALL OTHER THREADS INFERIOR

[Hecatoncheires]

HEY FUCKERS, I HEAR THERE'S AN ELECTION HAPPENING SOON.

So lemme get out ahead of this, before General Chat turns into Iwaku's own version of The Purge.

Y'know, more than it fucking is already.

Politics threads tend to go to hell in a hand-basket faster than you can scream "HITLER WAS RIGHT", and with this current election cycle that's never been more true. At the end of the day, we're a roleplaying forum and we really don't need politics coming into spoil everyone's nice time: this is a place folks come to for escapism, after all, so having the election cycle chase them here is less than ideal.

BUT WAIT, I'M NOT FINISHED.

At the same time, we also don't want to go laying down blanket statements about what you can and can't say on Iwaku. Goes against that whole "flexibility of speech" thing we have written down somewhere that @Jorick and @Astaroth keep yelling at me about whenever I suggest we just ban all of you and have done with it. With that in mind, we're gonna try and find ourselves a middle ground solution that allows folks to have their say without the entire forum descending into a clusterfuck of angry, bipartisan bullshit.

Again, more than it already is.

SO HEY, YOU GOBSHITES WANNA TALK ELECTION 2K16?

YOU DO IT IN THIS THREAD AND THIS THREAD ALONE.

To prevent me from rambling, lemme bullet-point how this is gonna work:

• WE'RE KEEPING THINGS LIGHT. NO BIG RANTS ABOUT HOW HILLARY'S A FUCKING LIZARDWOMAN AND/OR HOW TRUMP IS HITLER 2.0.
• We're keeping shit civil, too. Discussions are cool, but if you start slinging insults about (or, given how you fuckers tend to work, passive-aggressive sniping) you will get spanked.
• Any overtly rant-like/insulting/snipey posts will get edited by our lovely security team to be more user-friendly. We will insert butterflies, rainbows and other nice suggestions so you all maybe calm the fuck down or something. You'll know they've edited a post cos it'll be all red. Like the blood of our enemies.
• Gary Johnson is my husbando. You can't have him. He's mine.
• Seriously. Mine.

Hopefully that clears everything up about the purpose of this thread. Now go fucking kill each other.

Or don't, actually. I think that's why I got asked to write this.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's still a healthy practice to look at the situation for yourself before letting another persons impression plant an unconscious bias. Or at the very least, double check their sources and don't take their claims verbatim. otherwise you open the door to being fed false info and being none the wiser.

And note I said that the title was fear mongering, I made no claim on the content or arguments within the article. And maybe it's just me and how I prefer to get my news, but I feel that people should persuade their audience through arguments and sources, not getting them scared on the introduction.

 

[Hellis]

It isn't fear mongering when It is true Gwazi. IF you understand a single bit of legislative language and have a single care for those that aren't in your position of privilege, you'd be scared reading that. That right there, is the legislature floodgate to allowing free and open discrimination towards any and all people you do not agree with sexuality wise.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Remember that all I did was suggest people read the law themselves.
I gave no opinion on the law itself one way or the other.

 

[Hellis]

Remember that all I did was suggest people read the law themselves.
I gave no opinion on the law itself one way or the other.

You also called the Headlines/Article name for fearmongering. In doing so, you imply that the content isn't as bad as it makes it out to be. Which is why I am calling you out on it. You cannot call something fear mongering without reading the and analyzing the content. TO do so is extremely dishonest towards the work of the journalist and those affected by this future proposal of legislature.

 

[Kagayours]

@Hellis @The God Emperor Trumpwaku

If I may step in here: I think I see where both of you are coming from, and I think the miscommunication happening here is that Gwazi wasn't referring to "fear-mongering" in the sense of "this issue isn't as bad as people say it is, but everyone is trying to make it look like the Worst Thing EverTM". He meant it in the sense of "this headline was phrased in a way that frames the bill in a negative light." Which may very well be justified. Gwazi never said that the bill wasn't an awful thing -- just that he advocated for people to read the bill itself before reading people's opinions on it. Which, as a general practice, is good advice. The same bill could've also been framed as a positive thing, if a conservative journalist wanted to spin it that way.

Also, just because a bill is framed in a negative light, doesn't mean that one would always agree that it's a negative thing if one actually read the bill. In this case, it would make sense to say that the bill is a bad thing. But, it's still possible that some other bill that actually isn't as bad as it sounds, could also be phrased in a negative way that makes it sound worse than it is. And Gwazi was only advocating that people read the actual bills because of all the cases that are more like the latter. It's better to read the bill itself rather than assume the journalist is right in saying that a bill is awful -- is what I'm assuming Gwazi's argument was.


The way I see it -- all Gwazi meant to say was that "news articles can spin things", which is true, and that it would be better to base any further debate about whether the bill is good or bad, off of the actual bill, rather than an article about it.

 

[Hellis]

Gwazis language was from the start negative and dismissing towards the entire thing. Not once does he address the content, but focused on the title and went "you should read the bill". By which he plants the assumption that people who are alarmed and discussing it haven't. He did not add to the conversation by posting a raw link to it, he just made dismissive statement. This kind of internet rhetoric is extremely common on the internet and it is getting on my nerves.

And then it turns out he is the one who didn't read the article, making his little post all the more damning. I know full well what he mean. He avoid to actually address the bill but find it important to try and attack "Fear mongering" without reading the context. Which, again, is a harmful and damaging stance to take. It does no good but cast doubt on something you haven't even read and the credentials of a person you never before encountered. This is a trend that among others, the Alt-Right have made into a tactic to attack journalists. The actual, trained and studying, researching, factual journalists. SO I am calling him out on it.

Either he works on contextual comprehension and sharpens his rethoric where this is not a issue. Or people like me will find it fit to call him out. Discussion is important. And we have let the discourse be to stagnant and overtaken by quacks like "Sargon of Akkard" and "Factual Feminist" who provide agressively slanted views with cherry picked statistics and little understanding to their contextual value. We have allowed the Alt-right and all the "Youtube Liberals" to blame everything on "Political Correctness" and "Media Manipulation" when we actually find out they are shock full of racism and sexism. The Right has always favored the tactic of accusing others for problems they cause. They did it with obama. They will do so with whoever takes over after Trumps mess. They deflect, (Much like trump does), by flinnging shit at people who criticize them. They complain about safespaces and thin skin, claiming free speech is sacred. Yet when critized, when challenged on their views, they will shout you down. They will make their own "safe spaces" where anyone who fundamentally disagree or call them for what they are, are pushed out.

Trump did one good thing. He shoved Leftists everywhere it is time to stop being complacent.


Note. I did not just call Gwazi alt-right, or a "Youtube Liberal". But He does like to blame things on political correctness, he did with this election.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

He did not add to the conversation by posting a raw link to it

So instead of listening to random journalists on this defence act, let's actually look at the source.

Alt-Right

Alt-right

The Right

I get calling everyone you disagree with this is a nice buzzword.
But please don't assume someone cannot be on your political side has to have your same sensitives, triggers or values.
Left VS Right are Political leanings. Not Social Justice, not Political Correctness, not Authoritarian VS Libertarian.

Note. I did not just call Gwazi alt-right

*Looks above*
Except you did. :P

 

[Legens Legentis]

Either he works on contextual comprehension and sharpens his rethoric where this is not a issue. Or people like me will find it fit to call him out. Discussion is important. And we have let the discourse be to stagnant and overtaken by quacks like "Sargon of Akkard" and "Factual Feminist" who provide agressively slanted views with cherry picked statistics and little understanding to their contextual value. We have allowed the Alt-right and all the "Youtube Liberals" to blame everything on "Political Correctness" and "Media Manipulation" when we actually find out they are shock full of racism and sexism. The Right has always favored the tactic of accusing others for problems they cause. They did it with obama. They will do so with whoever takes over after Trumps mess. They deflect, (Much like trump does), by flinnging shit at people who criticize them. They complain about safespaces and thin skin, claiming free speech is sacred. Yet when critized, when challenged on their views, they will shout you down. They will make their own "safe spaces" where anyone who fundamentally disagree or call them for what they are, are pushed out.

You seem to be doing quite a bit of shouting down yourself.
To the notion that political correctness is not stifling free speech, I would like to direct your attention to The Triggering. The event was organized as a fair discussion of how political correctness affects others, and following it the students of Amherst University labelled the college's Republican Party as a hate group. The FIRE organization does a splendid job of analyzing cases where both the left and right place limitations on free expression.

No one is denying that racism and sexism are real threats, but they're not exactly the only problems at large.

 

[Kagayours]

Gwazis language was from the start negative and dismissing towards the entire thing. Not once does he address the content, but focused on the title and went "you should read the bill". By which he plants the assumption that people who are alarmed and discussing it haven't. He did not add to the conversation by posting a raw link to it, he just made dismissive statement. This kind of internet rhetoric is extremely common on the internet and it is getting on my nerves.

And then it turns out he is the one who didn't read the article, making his little post all the more damning. I know full well what he mean. He avoid to actually address the bill but find it important to try and attack "Fear mongering" without reading the context. Which, again, is a harmful and damaging stance to take. It does no good but cast doubt on something you haven't even read and the credentials of a person you never before encountered. This is a trend that among others, the Alt-Right have made into a tactic to attack journalists. The actual, trained and studying, researching, factual journalists. SO I am calling him out on it.

Either he works on contextual comprehension and sharpens his rethoric where this is not a issue. Or people like me will find it fit to call him out. Discussion is important. And we have let the discourse be to stagnant and overtaken by quacks like "Sargon of Akkard" and "Factual Feminist" who provide agressively slanted views with cherry picked statistics and little understanding to their contextual value. We have allowed the Alt-right and all the "Youtube Liberals" to blame everything on "Political Correctness" and "Media Manipulation" when we actually find out they are shock full of racism and sexism. The Right has always favored the tactic of accusing others for problems they cause. They did it with obama. They will do so with whoever takes over after Trumps mess. They deflect, (Much like trump does), by flinnging shit at people who criticize them. They complain about safespaces and thin skin, claiming free speech is sacred. Yet when critized, when challenged on their views, they will shout you down. They will make their own "safe spaces" where anyone who fundamentally disagree or call them for what they are, are pushed out.

Trump did one good thing. He shoved Leftists everywhere it is time to stop being complacent.


Note. I did not just call Gwazi alt-right, or a "Youtube Liberal". But He does like to blame things on political correctness, he did with this election.

All I'm saying is that Gwazi made a general statement about something that is good practice to do when reading news articles about proposed bills, and that it was interpreted as being a comment about this bill in particular, which I don't think is what he meant.

Using the term "fear-mongering" can mean dismissing something as a non-issue, when it's said in response to something specific. Gwazi was only referring to the fact that the title of the news article was negatively-spun, and that it's good to read the bill itself and form an opinion off of it that way, than to let a journalist's opinion of something color your opinion before you even know what the bill is. That doesn't mean that the journalist in question is unqualified to have an opinion -- it only means that it's better to form your own opinion by first reading the bill, and then giving a journalist's interpretation of it a fair hearing.

And, yes, there are times when news journalists mis-represent a bill or leave out important details that could change one's view of it. Hence why reading the actual bill is, in general, a good practice to be in the habit of. That might not have happened here, but, again, Gwazi was only giving general advice.

I agree that perhaps it would've been wise of him to read the article first -- especially since the article does link to the actual bill, like you said -- but I still think that Gwazi hasn't done much harm in stating general advice, and I think you might be over-reacting a bit in calling him dismissive and all that.


Besides, how is it dismissive to suggest that people read the actual bill? All that does is open up discussion centered around the bill itself rather than an article about it. Gwazi offered a suggestion to make our discussions about it more productive by focusing on the facts at hand, rather than allowing our judgement to be clouded by an already negatively-framed article. But that doesn't mean that we can't still interpret the bill itself as being a bad thing. I know you said that reading the actual bill isn't all that necessary in this particular case, given that the article does a good job of summarizing it -- but, at worst, that just means that Gwazi's suggestion is just sort of... neutral, not really helping or harming anything. I certainly don't see it as dismissive, though.


Again, I think this is all just a misunderstanding. I understand why throwing around the term "fear-mongering" can be seen as dismissive in a lot of contexts, so I can understand why you interpreted it as such. But I don't think that's what Gwazi was trying to do. And I think he was trying to make a general statement that was interpreted as something more specific, which I think is where a lot of the problem here lies.

 

[Vars]

All I'm saying is that Gwazi made a general statement about something that is good practice to do when reading news articles about proposed bills, and that it was interpreted as being a comment about this bill in particular, which I don't think is what he meant.

Let's just stop right here.
Gwazi made an assumption the article was BS (or at least BS-y enough to skip it entirely) and said "Let's look at the source."

But had Gwazi taken five seconds to look at the article instead of dismiss it, he would've noted that:
- The very first sentence of the article links to the source (starting with the second word)
- The very thing he quoted is also quoted in the article
- The article also explains pretty well how it's not fearmongering (lists examples of similar things happening before.. with sources)

In what way does Gwazi's post contribute to the discussion in a positive way? Maybe I've got blinders on, but his motivation seemed obviously negative and discrediting.

Yes, articles do have a slant, every article usually does. But you should at least give it a good skim before rushing in to discrediting it. I mean, given what part of the source he quoted-- it proved the title of the article true (as well as the byline)!

This is the article for reference, since it's back on page 29

How I interpreted Gwazi's post was that he thought the article was BS but he didn't fully understand the text of what he quoted, since it agrees with the article linked.

 

[Kagayours]

In what way does Gwazi's post contribute to the discussion in a positive way?

I already said it didn't do much to contribute to this particular discussion. All I said was that it was good general advice, since not every news article does a great job at representing the bill that it's talking about (even if this one does). I also already acknowledged that, yeah, it would've been smart for him to read the article, since the fact that the article does link to the bill makes his comment sort of pointless in this particular discussion.

Which means that the worst thing that he did was make a post that doesn't really help or hurt the situation. His comment might not have added anything to the discussion, being kind of redundant and all, but I didn't see it as inflammatory or aggressive. It's just kind of neutral. Any arguments about the bill would be the same with or without it.

All I was trying to say, is that I think Gwazi made that post with good intentions -- trying to share a good general practice -- but it was interpreted as being dismissive, because it was interpreted as him making a comment on this particular bill/article when, in actuality, he wasn't trying to say anything about this bill in particular (as he's already stated).

I'm not saying that Gwazi is 100% right and Hellis is 100% wrong. And I did say that Gwazi should've read the article before commenting. I just think that Gwazi's getting a much harsher reaction than he deserves, and that I don't think he meant to sound dismissive about anything. And when I thought I knew where the disconnect was happening (Gwazi suggesting a good general practice that was interpreted as a comment on this specific bill), I wanted to say something in an attempt to defuse the conflict. I thought I could tone down the hostility levels just a touch by explaining where Gwazi seemed to be coming from.

Call him lazy for commenting without reading the article, if you must. That's probably fair. But to insist that he's being dismissive about the issue, and contributing to a "trend that the alt-right have made into a tactic to attack journalists"? That I don't think he really deserves. But, I do understand why Hellis interpreted his post that way. And, because I felt that this conflict stemmed from a simple misunderstanding, I just wanted to explain what I believed to be the problem, and perhaps diffuse the situation. That is all.

 

[Vars]

@Kagayours Fair enough.

 

[Jorick]

Alright folks, this thread has served its purpose. We're back to normal rules where you can make threads for political talk and we'll come break up arguments with force if things get out of hand. I know you'll all miss the political slashfic edits, but you'll have to move on with your lives and hope that one day, just maybe, @Kitti will write a whole story out and post it for us all to enjoy.