5 ms·

To elaborate on your point - from the article: "They are comment-thread poison – men’s rights activists who act as if articles about women’s issues are their g

by _yosefk 11y ago

To elaborate on your point - from the article: "They are comment-thread poison – men’s rights activists who act as if articles about women’s issues are their gender’s single biggest problem, climate change deniers who will drag any conversation about energy policy into murky pseudo-science, and borderline racists for whom there is no issue that cannot be pinned on immigration (UK) or black people (US)." ...incidentally these are all people strongly opposing (perhaps to an extreme) some political positions of The Guardian. Not a single example of people strongly supporting (perhaps to an extreme) some political positions of The Guardian - these could never become "comment-thread poison."

fredley 11y ago
Those people are probably off being "comment-thread poison" trolls on right-wing websites.
- _yosefk 11y ago
  Probably "yes" in the sense that it's those websites where they're being labeled "comment-thread poison", probably "no" in the sense that they certainly do comment on left-wing websites, they just don't ever "derail the discussion" in the eyes of this moderator.
im3w1l 11y ago
Let's take this example > climate change deniers who will drag any conversation about energy policy into murky pseudo-science, That is activism using derailment and off-topic tactics. Not saying that that shouldn't be deleted. Just that it isn't trolling.
tinco 11y ago
Not a single example out of two examples chosen to be familiar to his target audience, it must mean he moderates with a strong bias. Great to have you in this discussion, did you realize you were drawing an exaggerated conclusion from weak evidence when you wrote your comment? Do you realize it now? Would you consider your comment to be one with an agenda as the author theorized or do you have a different motivation?
- _yosefk 11y ago
  Actually it's 3 examples, which I think is enough to show a bias towards one of two sides (c'mon, nobody chooses one side out of two 3 times in a row accidentally, and if he chose a side with equal probability for each example - yeah right - the result we got is a 1 in 8 event, so not a great support for that hypothesis), and as to "familiar to his target audience" - again, come on, his target audience will be familiar with their fellow extremists' arguments just as much as it will be familiar with the other side's extremists. As to what I think of my comment - I think it shouldn't be removed by a forum moderator, nor should your (IMO tremendously biased) comment be removed by a moderator, and neither comment constitutes "trolling" or "comment thread poison." A moderator removing either and doing similar things consistently is creating a forum I would not like to participate in either as a reader or a commenter.
  - tinco 11y ago
    > Actually it's 3 examples, which I think is enough to show a bias towards one of two sides (c'mon, nobody chooses one side out of two 3 times in a row accidentally, and if he chose a side with equal probability for each example - yeah right - the result we got is a 1 in 8 event, so not a great support for that hypothesis), That is a straw man argument, as you can see nowhere I claim that he chose his examples randomly. Quite the opposite as you quote directly, I think he chose his example to speak to his target audience. > again, come on, his target audience will be familiar with their fellow extremists' arguments just as much as it will be familiar with the other side's extremists. Perhaps, but this is a writing style issue. Anyway sure, it's a valid point you could ask of the writer to always perfectly balance his examples between minority and majority viewpoints of his readership. I don't think the "come on" is warranted though, do you really feel it's that obvious that the author should consider this instead of considering for example the sting the nice black/white examples that he uses give? As to what you think of your comment, I didn't ask what you thought about your comment. I asked whether you realized your argument was exaggerated. I didn't downvote your reply nor do I think a moderator should remove it. I was just curious as to why you would be artificially polarizing this discussion.
    - 11y ago

by _yosefk 11y ago

fredley 11y ago

Those people are probably off being "comment-thread poison" trolls on right-wing websites.

_yosefk 11y ago
Probably "yes" in the sense that it's those websites where they're being labeled "comment-thread poison", probably "no" in the sense that they certainly do comment on left-wing websites, they just don't ever "derail the discussion" in the eyes of this moderator.

im3w1l 11y ago

Let's take this example > climate change deniers who will drag any conversation about energy policy into murky pseudo-science, That is activism using derailment and off-topic tactics. Not saying that that shouldn't be deleted. Just that it isn't trolling.

tinco 11y ago

Not a single example out of two examples chosen to be familiar to his target audience, it must mean he moderates with a strong bias. Great to have you in this discussion, did you realize you were drawing an exaggerated conclusion from weak evidence when you wrote your comment? Do you realize it now? Would you consider your comment to be one with an agenda as the author theorized or do you have a different motivation?

_yosefk 11y ago
Actually it's 3 examples, which I think is enough to show a bias towards one of two sides (c'mon, nobody chooses one side out of two 3 times in a row accidentally, and if he chose a side with equal probability for each example - yeah right - the result we got is a 1 in 8 event, so not a great support for that hypothesis), and as to "familiar to his target audience" - again, come on, his target audience will be familiar with their fellow extremists' arguments just as much as it will be familiar with the other side's extremists. As to what I think of my comment - I think it shouldn't be removed by a forum moderator, nor should your (IMO tremendously biased) comment be removed by a moderator, and neither comment constitutes "trolling" or "comment thread poison." A moderator removing either and doing similar things consistently is creating a forum I would not like to participate in either as a reader or a commenter.
- tinco 11y ago
  > Actually it's 3 examples, which I think is enough to show a bias towards one of two sides (c'mon, nobody chooses one side out of two 3 times in a row accidentally, and if he chose a side with equal probability for each example - yeah right - the result we got is a 1 in 8 event, so not a great support for that hypothesis), That is a straw man argument, as you can see nowhere I claim that he chose his examples randomly. Quite the opposite as you quote directly, I think he chose his example to speak to his target audience. > again, come on, his target audience will be familiar with their fellow extremists' arguments just as much as it will be familiar with the other side's extremists. Perhaps, but this is a writing style issue. Anyway sure, it's a valid point you could ask of the writer to always perfectly balance his examples between minority and majority viewpoints of his readership. I don't think the "come on" is warranted though, do you really feel it's that obvious that the author should consider this instead of considering for example the sting the nice black/white examples that he uses give? As to what you think of your comment, I didn't ask what you thought about your comment. I asked whether you realized your argument was exaggerated. I didn't downvote your reply nor do I think a moderator should remove it. I was just curious as to why you would be artificially polarizing this discussion.
  - 11y ago