12

A Flag for Blatant Contradictions

Posted by deleted 2 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: Feature Requests
58 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I think if someone consistently makes contradictory claims that we should be able to flag their comments as an alert to others that it is on our radar. If I walked into the gulch and saw some of these remarks and thought they were typical for this gulchonline place I'd hit the pavement. There has to be a way of letting new comers know that certain things are not okay with the bulk of objectivists in here and I don't want to scare the shit out of people the minute they land. People find their way here to get AWAY from that kind of non thinking.....


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 2 years, 8 months ago
    Precisely. There's enough nonsense out in the day to day dealings with sheeple. This is the one place where logic, thoughtful discussion, and rationality are supposed to trump the rest of the ridiculousness. Away, foul ignorance!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 2 years, 8 months ago
    yes. I am tired of going through every single bad comment and showing the evidence. posters do this on purpose. keep you chasing while they are spreading lies. this site should come up with a basic scientific method. I propose that there are a number of scientists in the gulch, and producers who can come up with simple methods for vetting Bullshit. I nominate Jbrenner and jan and also my husband db and OA. you nominate whomever you want-but I am done spending quality time chasing down junk science and philosophical lightweights. Let's create a 5 point method. we vote on it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Zenphamy 2 years, 8 months ago
    I thought admin had already given the poster and 'hide' option?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 8 months ago
      Is this a paid feature. if so I should we establish my paid account. I let it drop when my credit card number changed.

      Having these ilogical or anti Objectivist comments a different color would not be less helpful to me. I would rather be able just to ignore them. My complaint with them is signal to noise ratio.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Zenphamy 2 years, 8 months ago
        I GOT IT, I got it! PICK ME, oh pick me!!

        You're a failed Turing test.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 8 months ago
          huh? I don't understand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Zenphamy 2 years, 8 months ago
            I know, and that's sad.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 8 months ago
              If you want to explain, I'll give you the benfit of the doubt that you're not just being mean-spirited.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Zenphamy 2 years, 8 months ago
                IMHO, you're comments and replies are so often off topic of the position or individual you reply to, and so poorly composed or thought out that they are extremely confusing and very often contain contradictory statements from other comments you've made on other threads and some of us find it difficult , even impossible to understand or reason out what point(s) you're attempting to make or contribute. Particularly as they might apply to AS, AR, or objective thinking.

                You often remind me of the person that walks in on a conversation about a topic that he knows little or nothing about and rather than listen, tries to participate as if he does have some knowledge.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 8 months ago
                  "You often remind me of the person that walks in on a conversation about a topic that he knows little or nothing about and rather than listen, tries to participate as if he does have some knowledge."
                  I can't stand this behavior, esp in large meetings. Some people feel the need to talk just to talk, repeating points that were just made, etc. It's possible for me to do it about public policy because I don't follow it that closely, but I try damn hard not to make assertions outside my area of knowledge.

                  I may be guilty of jumping into a conversation that I perceive as "some politician used an inappropriate word; Yay! Let's talk about how other politicans can use that to advance their career." I may jump in saying this is a bunch of crap instead of digging in to see if there's something deeper under the juvenile serface.

                  Please ask me, in another thread if it makes sense to avoid tangents, if I'm saying something confusing or contrary to objectivism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  KSilver3 2 years, 8 months ago
    I'm new here, so take my opinion for what it's worth since I haven't earned any respect yet. However, I'd be concerned with any method to exclude someone's point of view simply because a few people clicked a button. I could easily see that process leading to some serious "group think" issues. Bad ideas can still lead to positive growth simply through the thoughts and discussions needed to prove that they are bad ideas. How many wasted days and prototypes did Hank go through before landing on Reardon Metal.
    I am also fearful of CG's idea of having certain areas where certain words or thoughts aren't allowed. A very slippery slope.
    I think anyone with the intellect to seek out this site also has the intellect to see the idiocy in certain comments. That being said, obviously if someone is being disruptive for its own sake, a moderator would have the ability to ban them since it is there site.
    I just wonder how Dagny would have reacted if Galt had said "you either agree with me, or you're dead to me". Galt believed in his own persuasivness enough to feel he could prove his direction was the right path.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 years, 8 months ago
      Can we please stop with the Dagny comparisons...MemberC is NO dagny... And can we stop pretending like this is was some sudden reaction...this has been going on for over a year with memberc... we've tried and tried and tried and NOTHING in his comments ever changes toward objectivism. He's poisoning the gulch well IMO. And no, I disagree that new members can see through his comments... first impressions can run people off.
      If some are seeing this as an overreaction then perhaps consider that you haven't been reading all of his comments for the last 18 months.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  KSilver3 2 years, 8 months ago
        LetsShrug- I certainly wasn't comparing MemberC to Dagny. I haven't even figured out who memberC is yet. I am just saying that I would hope in an intellectual exercise, which is what I see this site as, we wouldn't exclude anyone's ideas simply because they haven't come around to agreement. If your comments are true that he has been disrupting things intentionally for over a year, than I would certainly think my comments about the moderator being able to ban someone would apply.
        I agree that first impressions could run someone off, so if the person involved is being that pigheaded about things, and has been for years, I understand the idea of getting rid of someone like that.
        If all you say is true, this person is certainly no Dagny. Dagny was my first crush, so I wouldn't want to sully her good name.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 8 months ago
    One thought I had was to add an “ignore” feature where people can choose not to see someone's posts.

    Regarding the inconsistency flag, many (maybe most) discussions involve people thinking the other person holds two contradictory propositions. The interesting part is working out why that is. Do they disagree fundamentally, e.g. one person is anti-objectivist and thinks “good people put others' interests ahead of their own” or do they disagree on some fact or reasoning. It seems to defeat the entire purpose of a discussion website if every time we see something that doesn't sound right we click a button instead of discussing. It's basically a second downvote button.

    Another thought I had is to have Categories where certain ideas can and cannot be discussed. For example, religious people wanting to discuss how religious people can be objectivists could have a Category where criticizing the very notion of religion or religion and objectivism is prohibited. There could similarly be a Category for people who accept religion is incompatible with objectivism. People wanting to discuss how to support/oppose candidates could have Category where criticizing the idea of supporting/opposing candidates. The point is to keep people from being distracted by tangents if they don't want to be. The hard part with this idea is keeping the number of Categories manageable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo