[QuickTidal]

Kanese S, on 31 January 2020 - 06:42 PM, said:

I don't recall a mod telling me to cool it.

D, on 31 January 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 08:17 PM, said:

Again, I was not talking specifically to you.

If you're posting in the discussion board of this forum... then yes you are talking to the members of this forum. If you want to have a 1-on-1 conversation with someone, send them a PM or tweet at them or call them on the phone or something.

Scroll up: ^^ Here it is...

[Kanese S's]

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 06:45 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 31 January 2020 - 06:42 PM, said:

I don't recall a mod telling me to cool it.

D, on 31 January 2020 - 03:06 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 08:17 PM, said:

Again, I was not talking specifically to you.

If you're posting in the discussion board of this forum... then yes you are talking to the members of this forum. If you want to have a 1-on-1 conversation with someone, send them a PM or tweet at them or call them on the phone or something.

Scroll up: ^^ Here it is...

That's not really saying "cool it." I read that post as saying that anyone can respond to anyone in the discussion forum.

[Tiste Simeon]

Unless you're not talking to them, in which case don't contribute! ʅ(ツ)ʃ

[Malankazooie]

[QuickTidal]

Kanese S, on 31 January 2020 - 06:55 PM, said:

That's not really saying "cool it." I read that post as saying that anyone can respond to anyone in the discussion forum.

I mean quibble all you like, that seemed like it was D'rek saying everyone calling you out was right, and thus perhaps you should approach it differently if it wasn't your intent. That may not be "cool it" in so many words, but I doubt she commented for her health.

Look we're all trying to be gracious here and debate in good faith, so the whole outright dismissal (of Andrew Yang, without sources for your reply statement) and the "I wasn't taking to you" comments feel like a shutdown of the point of the discussion forum because you just wanted to have your say and nothing further. As to Yang, you used the word shill and then didn't back it up claiming that you felt like you were diametrically opposed to the individual who posted it so why bother.

You see the problem?

[Kanese S's]

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 07:13 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 31 January 2020 - 06:55 PM, said:

That's not really saying "cool it." I read that post as saying that anyone can respond to anyone in the discussion forum.

I mean quibble all you like, that seemed like it was D'rek saying everyone calling you out was right, and thus perhaps you should approach it differently if it wasn't your intent. That may not be "cool it" in so many words, but I doubt she commented for her health.

Look we're all trying to be gracious here and debate in good faith, so the whole outright dismissal (of Andrew Yang, without sources for your reply statement) and the "I wasn't taking to you" comments feel like a shutdown of the point of the discussion forum because you just wanted to have your say and nothing further. As to Yang, you used the word shill and then didn't back it up claiming that you felt like you were diametrically opposed to the individual who posted it so why bother.

You see the problem?

Not really.


It's no secret that Yang is a technocrat. Does someone also have to back up a statement that Williamson is new age, or that Biden is part of the establishment?

[QuickTidal]

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 31 January 2020 - 11:13 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Kanese S, on 31 January 2020 - 05:04 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 31 January 2020 - 08:40 AM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 08:47 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 January 2020 - 08:46 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 08:17 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 January 2020 - 08:14 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 08:02 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 30 January 2020 - 07:59 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 January 2020 - 07:37 PM, said:

It's interesting how the people complaining about "identity politics" are almost universally white men.

The author I was quoting is Alisa Valdez. (Not a white man.)

"Almost universally"? Not really. A majority of people who write articles complaining about it, yes, almost certainly. But polls indicate that identity politics (or at least major aspects of it, like preferring a candidate of one's own race/ethnicity or being opposed to cultural appropriation) is not popular among racial minority groups. For example:

https://www.city-jou...entity-politics

Funny how you think I was actually talking to you.

Here are some more prominent non-white-male critics of identity politics:

'Zadie Smith
Zadie Smith, 44, is a British-Jamaican writer whose novels delve into multicultural families. Married to an Irishman, she often teases whites as a group, but she also thinks identity politics — the tendency to form political alliances based on race, religion, gender or sexuality — has been harmful.

[...] An eminent linguist and literature professor at New York's Columbia University, John McWhorter is a sought-after commentator who has described himself as a "cranky liberal Democrat." [... He] has written that anti-racism has become a kind of fundamentalist religion that divides people and aims to destroy those who raise questions.

A Korean-American, Wesley Yang is the award-winning author of The Souls of Yellow Folks: Essays. [...] described identity politics as "a beguiling compound of insight, partial truths, circular reasoning, and dogmatism operating within a self-enclosed system of reference immunized against critique."'

There are many more....

https://vancouversun...ty-and-religion

Again, I was not talking specifically to you.
And tokenization is kinda... not really new? It's basically the political version of "I can't be racist, I have a black friend!"

It's hardly tokenism when polls indicate that more Black, Latino, Native, and Asian Americans oppose identity politics (or at least its extreme forms) than support it.

If you'd like to try to find a statistical analysis of what percentage of articles or forum or social media posts critiquing identity politics are by white men, have at it. Perhaps the numbers will indicate that it really is 'almost universally white men', but I doubt it would be as high as, say, 99%. And there are many, many other prominent examples. Including Andrew Yang.

Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill.

What a sterling rebuttal citing sources as per Azath's request

His referencing of Yang signals that we're too fundamentally opposed to reach any sort of resolution.

Also, yes, Andrew Yang is a technocrat. I don't see why something that obvious needs a source.

"I don't see why something that obvious needs a source."

"I didn't do the crimes but you don't need to see the evidence that exonerates me because you shouldn't need it".

I don't think these are the threads for you, kiddo.

[D'rek]

Also... what is so wrong with being a technocrat?

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

[Obdigore]

Maark Abbott, on 03 February 2020 - 08:44 AM, said:

"I don't see why something that obvious needs a source."

"I didn't do the crimes but you don't need to see the evidence that exonerates me because you shouldn't need it".

I don't think these are the threads for you, kiddo.

Trying to denigrate someone by calling them kiddo?

Perhaps the thread is not for you.

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

Kanese's first comment was "Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill". That's the main thrust of the conversation around "You need too cite things and source it".

Anything they said after that is not at issue.

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

Kanese's first comment was "Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill". That's the main thrust of the conversation around "You need too cite things and source it".

Anything they said after that is not at issue.

I'm not sure hes a Shill, but he is a 'tech-bro', like Zuckerberg and Musk, and to an extent Gates, who think tech can fix everything.

While I'm all for increased technology, and actually for experts in positions of power in the government, technology by itself doesn't fix much, and certainly isn't going to fix our current unsustainable capitalist society unless we somehow push past scarcity.

[Kanese S's]

D, on 03 February 2020 - 02:07 PM, said:

Also... what is so wrong with being a technocrat?

Being from the Bay Area... everything. Silicon valley has turned this place into a hell pit.

[Kanese S's]

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 04:26 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you're just swinging your opinion around like it's some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don't say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

Kanese's first comment was "Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill". That's the main thrust of the conversation around "You need too cite things and source it".

Anything they said after that is not at issue.

I'm not sure hes a Shill, but he is a 'tech-bro', like Zuckerberg and Musk, and to an extent Gates, who think tech can fix everything.

While I'm all for increased technology, and actually for experts in positions of power in the government, technology by itself doesn't fix much, and certainly isn't going to fix our current unsustainable capitalist society unless we somehow push past scarcity.

Exactly. I don't want the people who ruined the place where I live in charge of the government. The tech economy here has delivered enormous wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of reducing quality of life for the many.

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 04:26 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

Kanese's first comment was "Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill". That's the main thrust of the conversation around "You need too cite things and source it".

Anything they said after that is not at issue.

I'm not sure hes a Shill, but he is a 'tech-bro', like Zuckerberg and Musk, and to an extent Gates, who think tech can fix everything.

While I'm all for increased technology, and actually for experts in positions of power in the government, technology by itself doesn't fix much, and certainly isn't going to fix our current unsustainable capitalist society unless we somehow push past scarcity.

If you think that everyone is running around with this information in their heads without context, you're wrong. The point is, don't make blanket statements in the discussion forum expecting that everyone is going know what you are talking about. Because not everyone knows all of that.

I don't care about the particulars, or if the eventual term technocrat is correct...I was defending the notion that Apt stated that without context, it was inflammatory with nothing to show for it. It was a shutdown term...because the conversation was never "Who Andrew Yang is and how that's somehow worthy of shutting down mention of him"...it was "Andrew Yang, a POC, dislikes identity politics"

Kanese S, on 03 February 2020 - 05:00 PM, said:

Exactly. I don't want the people who ruined the place where I live in charge of the government. The tech economy here has delivered enormous wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of reducing quality of life for the many.

You see how far we got from the actual football here? This WHOLE thing stems from you saying that white dudes complain about identity politics exclusively...and someone challenged that with POC who dislike it as well...including the example of Andrew Yang.

That's it.

You've now taken it to "Reasons I Don't like Andrew Yang" instead....none of which have the slightest thing to do with the notion that POC might not like identity politics.

You chose to say that the example doesn't count because of things you believe about Andrew Yang...which is your purview, but what it has to do with this conversation is beyond me.

Like someone saying, "cheese is an example of a milk product"...and you saying "I don't like cheese. It gives me gas though"

Like what?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 February 2020 - 07:23 PM

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 07:18 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 04:26 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 02:45 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 02:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 31 January 2020 - 11:12 PM, said:

the point is you provided nothing to back up what you said. This is the discussion board...so YES you need to do that. Otherwise you’re just swinging your opinion around like it’s some well known written in stone fact.

Back yourself up. Cite sources of an inflammatory statement. Or don’t say it. Simples.

Did you just claim that correctly labeling Yang as a technocrat is 'inflammatory'?

https://www.merriam-...ary/technocracy

I'd label him more as a 'tech-bro' myself, someone who thinks technology will magically solve problems, ignoring the plethora of social issues that need to be addressed. Honestly he is very much 'reddits top voted comments as president', which is an interesting, if misguided experiment.

Kanese's first comment was "Andrew Yang is a silicon valley shill". That's the main thrust of the conversation around "You need too cite things and source it".

Anything they said after that is not at issue.

I'm not sure hes a Shill, but he is a 'tech-bro', like Zuckerberg and Musk, and to an extent Gates, who think tech can fix everything.

While I'm all for increased technology, and actually for experts in positions of power in the government, technology by itself doesn't fix much, and certainly isn't going to fix our current unsustainable capitalist society unless we somehow push past scarcity.

If you think that everyone is running around with this information in their heads without context, you're wrong. The point is, don't make blanket statements in the discussion forum expecting that everyone is going know what you are talking about. Because not everyone knows all of that.

I don't care about the particulars, or if the eventual term technocrat is correct...I was defending the notion that Apt stated that without context, it was inflammatory with nothing to show for it. It was a shutdown term...because the conversation was never "Who Andrew Yang is and how that's somehow worthy of shutting down mention of him"...it was "Andrew Yang, a POC, dislikes identity politics"

So you're saying you aren't an expert on something, and thus when someone else has a different opinion than you doesn't link 15 articles for you to peruse, they are 'inflammatory'? I mean I guess my point here is correctly labeling someone as a technocrat, who is clearly a technocrat, isn't inflammatory nor does it require a source. It's also something you could investigate before writing angry messages about how you can't post stuff like that. I mean I remember the huge blow-up about drive-bys from a couple months ago, and I don't see any changes to the posting requirements in the DB Forum.

Since you apparently don't like to do your own research, let me go ahead and give you some light reading about Andrew Yang, and who and what he is.
https://quillette.co...ratic-populist/

Then you are welcome to come back and discuss his policies, and where they both shine and fall short.

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

So you're saying you aren't an expert on something, and thus when someone else has a different opinion than you doesn't link 15 articles for you to peruse, they are 'inflammatory'?

I'm saying it's inflammatory if it's not backed up. "Andrew Yang is a Silicon Valley shill" all by itself is not helpful, explanatory, or pertinent to the conversation at hand.

And no one asked for 15 articles. One would be nice though.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

I mean I guess my point here is correctly labeling someone as a technocrat, who is clearly a technocrat, isn't inflammatory nor does it require a source.

Expecting that everyone knows the intricacies of 'why a person would be labelled that' is some sort of universally known constant is not on. As I said, I really don't care about the accuracy or lack thereof to the statement. I care about the fact that it was offered up with nothing to back it up or explain it and how it pertains to the comment that Andrew Yang dislikes identity politics.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

It's also something you could investigate before writing angry messages about how you can't post stuff like that.

Firstly, it was Apt who commented about it. I merely supported him, repped him the point back, and added my own two cents. There were not angry. They were matter-of-fact.

Second, it's not on me to "investigate" someone else callout of a famous individual's character and how it pertains to the topic at hand. Why on earth should I need to venture off on my own and read al about this dude and how his stance on identity politics my be related or not? Kanese thinks it pertinent? Great. Tell me why.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

I mean I remember the huge blow-up about drive-bys from a couple months ago, and I don't see any changes to the posting requirements in the DB Forum.

We are not on about 'requirements'. This is basically common sense with regards to discussions on the more serious side of the forum. I don';t really think it's offside to ask that people source stuff that is meant to pertain to the topic, which is might be insider baseball. I don't know the first thing about Yang...that's the point.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

Since you apparently don't like to do your own research, let me go ahead and give you some light reading about Andrew Yang, and who and what he is.

Why is it on me to research someone else's statement on the discussion forum? And I'll repeat what I said above: I don't know the first thing about Yang...that's the point.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

Then you are welcome to come back and discuss his policies, and where they both shine and fall short.

I'm not sure how else to put this. I don't care about his policies. I don't. Like not even a little bit. All I care about was the fact that a blanket statement was issued in the thread which seemed out of nowhere, and Apt challenged it, I supported that challenge because it seems like only fair to explain yourself here when you make a statement like that, and I repped Apt back for the downvote becuase that felt way offside.

I said my bit. I'm cool with that.

EDIT: It seems like your fight is with Azath as they mentioned Yang to begin with? Not sure. It ain't me though.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 February 2020 - 08:24 PM

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 03 February 2020 - 08:22 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

So you're saying you aren't an expert on something, and thus when someone else has a different opinion than you doesn't link 15 articles for you to peruse, they are 'inflammatory'?

I'm saying it's inflammatory if it's not backed up. "Andrew Yang is a Silicon Valley shill" all by itself is not helpful, explanatory, or pertinent to the conversation at hand.

And no one asked for 15 articles. One would be nice though.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

I mean I guess my point here is correctly labeling someone as a technocrat, who is clearly a technocrat, isn't inflammatory nor does it require a source.

Expecting that everyone knows the intricacies of 'why a person would be labelled that' is some sort of universally known constant is not on. As I said, I really don't care about the accuracy or lack thereof to the statement. I care about the fact that it was offered up with nothing to back it up or explain it and how it pertains to the comment that Andrew Yang dislikes identity politics.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

It's also something you could investigate before writing angry messages about how you can't post stuff like that.

Firstly, it was Apt who commented about it. I merely supported him, repped him the point back, and added my own two cents. There were not angry. They were matter-of-fact.

Second, it's not on me to "investigate" someone else callout of a famous individual's character and how it pertains to the topic at hand. Why on earth should I need to venture off on my own and read al about this dude and how his stance on identity politics my be related or not? Kanese thinks it pertinent? Great. Tell me why.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

I mean I remember the huge blow-up about drive-bys from a couple months ago, and I don't see any changes to the posting requirements in the DB Forum.

We are not on about 'requirements'. This is basically common sense with regards to discussions on the more serious side of the forum. I don';t really think it's offside to ask that people source stuff that is meant to pertain to the topic, which is might be insider baseball. I don't know the first thing about Yang...that's the point.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

Since you apparently don't like to do your own research, let me go ahead and give you some light reading about Andrew Yang, and who and what he is.

Why is it on me to research someone else's statement on the discussion forum? And I'll repeat what I said above: I don't know the first thing about Yang...that's the point.

Obdigore, on 03 February 2020 - 07:49 PM, said:

Then you are welcome to come back and discuss his policies, and where they both shine and fall short.

I'm not sure how else to put this. I don't care about his policies. I don't. Like not even a little bit. All I care about was the fact that a blanket statement was issued in the thread which seemed out of nowhere, and Apt challenged it, I supported that challenge because it seems like only fair to explain yourself here when you make a statement like that, and I repped Apt back for the downvote becuase that felt way offside.

I said my bit. I'm cool with that.

EDIT: It seems like your fight is with Azath as they mentioned Yang to begin with? Not sure. It ain't me though.

I'm not going to respond to most of this, because I think we both see where each other are, but I just wanted to suggest that if someone makes a statement you either don't agree with or don't understand, you don't claim they are Inflammatory or Insane or many other words you didn't use but could have.

Perhaps just say 'I don't understand why you think this, can you please explain'. It accomplishes a better effect, keeps heads cool, and urges that person to post reasoning that can generate discussion.

Hopefully you can understand where I'm at with that. I just find the reaction from a bunch of people to that statement as more attempts to shut down conversation.

[Macros]

I feel like this all ties back into the meta discussion thread.

It's seems like we're in a circle jerk of 'NO YOU' based on an argument about an artist.