01 dec 2022 om 14:58Update: 28 minuten geleden The police intervened on Thursday at a demonstration by farmers in front of the province of Overijssel in Zwolle. Three arrests have been made. A tractor that was in the way has slid away. Mayor Peter Snijders of Zwolle has issued an emergency order prohibiting farmers from… Continue reading Police intervene in...
Imagine someone doing the same on /c/china, constantly posting right-wing BS articles and spreading manipulative falsehoods. They would have been either banned a long time ago or the lemmygrad hivemind would be up in arms trying to get them kicked off the platform.
Just blocking someone individually is not sufficient to deal with this.
Do you have a specific criticism of the article? Because the person I was replying to does not, and only comments mindlessly on every yogthos post, going so far as to call an official EU website “anti-EU propaganda,” which is why I mentioned they should just…block yogthos. They are adding nothing to the forum with copy-pasted non-criticisms.
Having an actual criticism, refutation, or response is a different matter. Though I see that rather than a particular refutation, you yourself just posted a different article without elaborating what about it you wanted to direct our attention to.
I did read it, though, and it was an alright article (though from a Trotskyist website, I do appreciate you attempting to find sources from a socialist perspective). I just don’t see what exactly yogthos did wrong by posting this other article. He posts from a wide variety of sources, especially since he kept being told that he only used very left sources.
The thing is…he almost never posts commentary. It’s just the article. He didn’t offer any opinion or statement on it. Just put the article here. So I’m wondering what’s wrong with that, or how it demonstrates any lack of knowledge (which you accused him of) of the situation. he didn’t write the article, right?
Indeed this specific article is only a very low quality (in fact auto-translated?) article that omits nearly all the facts that are necessary to understand these protests. Given the context of their other recent posts (and later replies), it was clear that the OP also does not understand the background of these specific protests and hence I linked an article that does explain it better in the hope that they would be willing to read and understand.
Since you claim to understand the background, why don’t you post better articles covering these types of protests happening all over Europe?
I actually appreciate the article you linked, I think it was a good article, I entirely agree with the points it makes. What stopped you from posting that article here. If I didn’t post the article I did, I would’ve never seen your article.
There are protests in France, Spain, Italy, Czechia, Germany, Netherlands, and lots of other countries last I checked. All of these protests are rooted in collapsing standards of living and economic strife that people are experiencing. This is all rooted in the economic war the west is waging with Russia, this is the basic fact that you refuse to acknowledge.
Seriously, you are bringing that argument again? These protests in the Netherlands by farmers are nothing like that. They are mainly about an environmental regulation impacting their business. Did you really read the article I linked?
Yes, seriously I’m bringing up the real world again. As I’ve repeatedly explained the economic war compounds all the other problems that were already present. There’s the liberal view that you evidently hold, that all these protests across different countries are all just spontaneous events with no connection between them, and then there’s the materialist view which says that there are underlying material causes for mass civil unrest in all these countries.
Capitalist system is failing in Europe, and this will ultimately lead to the fall of the current liberal ideology. The only question is whether it will be the left or the right that takes power when the liberal regimes start collapsing.
I still remember that one time you sent me an article to correct my “right wing bs” that literally made the points I make. Then you claimed that I omitted some context discussing the article and slinked away when asked what it is I omitted. Totally acting in good faith here buddy.
The problem is that you apparently always only read what you want to hear and not what is actually written in the article, and no matter how many times I repeat that you should read the article and stick to the facts you always continue with the same BS and/or try to change the subject when it is clear that you lost the argument. Obviously I will not have endless discussions with you when you always conveniently change the topic when your are losing the argument or are just trying to get the last word in like some spoilt child.
The problem is that you never address my point, and never make any coherent counterpoints of your own. You just keep repeating that I should read the article that I entirely agree with and that makes the exact same point I’m making. Then when I point that out, you start claiming that I omitted some context. What context did I omit, what of my points are you disputing. The only spoilt child here is you, and everyone here sees it.
No the problem is that you always (intentionally?) fail to understand my point as you are arguing against some pro-NATO strawman that only exist in your head and when the argument doesn’t follow that pre-scripted line of thought you try to change the subject.
You should really start practising to understand what you are reading, because apparently you have extreme confirmation bias and just selectively pick the parts you like from an article and discard the rest.
Blocking is just one of the many tools, and of course it’s just the last resort.
You could create or engage in community discussions about rules for the community - like what kind of content is wanted, what kind of posts are people interested in, and what guidelines could make posts better.
Within these rules, you can vote on a given post to mark a post as particularly fitting or interesting for the community (vote a post up), or unfitting or off-topic (vote down).
If these tools don’t work well enough in some cases for you, then the last reasonable option is to block the user. There’s nothing wrong with doing that.
Imagine someone doing the same on /c/china, constantly posting right-wing BS articles and spreading manipulative falsehoods. They would have been either banned a long time ago or the lemmygrad hivemind would be up in arms trying to get them kicked off the platform.
Just blocking someone individually is not sufficient to deal with this.
Do you have a specific criticism of the article? Because the person I was replying to does not, and only comments mindlessly on every yogthos post, going so far as to call an official EU website “anti-EU propaganda,” which is why I mentioned they should just…block yogthos. They are adding nothing to the forum with copy-pasted non-criticisms.
Having an actual criticism, refutation, or response is a different matter. Though I see that rather than a particular refutation, you yourself just posted a different article without elaborating what about it you wanted to direct our attention to.
I did read it, though, and it was an alright article (though from a Trotskyist website, I do appreciate you attempting to find sources from a socialist perspective). I just don’t see what exactly yogthos did wrong by posting this other article. He posts from a wide variety of sources, especially since he kept being told that he only used very left sources.
The thing is…he almost never posts commentary. It’s just the article. He didn’t offer any opinion or statement on it. Just put the article here. So I’m wondering what’s wrong with that, or how it demonstrates any lack of knowledge (which you accused him of) of the situation. he didn’t write the article, right?
Indeed this specific article is only a very low quality (in fact auto-translated?) article that omits nearly all the facts that are necessary to understand these protests. Given the context of their other recent posts (and later replies), it was clear that the OP also does not understand the background of these specific protests and hence I linked an article that does explain it better in the hope that they would be willing to read and understand.
Since you claim to understand the background, why don’t you post better articles covering these types of protests happening all over Europe?
I actually appreciate the article you linked, I think it was a good article, I entirely agree with the points it makes. What stopped you from posting that article here. If I didn’t post the article I did, I would’ve never seen your article.
Because you failing to understand that there aren’t “these types of protests all over Europe” is exactly the problem.
There are protests in France, Spain, Italy, Czechia, Germany, Netherlands, and lots of other countries last I checked. All of these protests are rooted in collapsing standards of living and economic strife that people are experiencing. This is all rooted in the economic war the west is waging with Russia, this is the basic fact that you refuse to acknowledge.
Seriously, you are bringing that argument again? These protests in the Netherlands by farmers are nothing like that. They are mainly about an environmental regulation impacting their business. Did you really read the article I linked?
Yes, seriously I’m bringing up the real world again. As I’ve repeatedly explained the economic war compounds all the other problems that were already present. There’s the liberal view that you evidently hold, that all these protests across different countries are all just spontaneous events with no connection between them, and then there’s the materialist view which says that there are underlying material causes for mass civil unrest in all these countries.
Capitalist system is failing in Europe, and this will ultimately lead to the fall of the current liberal ideology. The only question is whether it will be the left or the right that takes power when the liberal regimes start collapsing.
I still remember that one time you sent me an article to correct my “right wing bs” that literally made the points I make. Then you claimed that I omitted some context discussing the article and slinked away when asked what it is I omitted. Totally acting in good faith here buddy.
The problem is that you apparently always only read what you want to hear and not what is actually written in the article, and no matter how many times I repeat that you should read the article and stick to the facts you always continue with the same BS and/or try to change the subject when it is clear that you lost the argument. Obviously I will not have endless discussions with you when you always conveniently change the topic when your are losing the argument or are just trying to get the last word in like some spoilt child.
The problem is that you never address my point, and never make any coherent counterpoints of your own. You just keep repeating that I should read the article that I entirely agree with and that makes the exact same point I’m making. Then when I point that out, you start claiming that I omitted some context. What context did I omit, what of my points are you disputing. The only spoilt child here is you, and everyone here sees it.
No the problem is that you always (intentionally?) fail to understand my point as you are arguing against some pro-NATO strawman that only exist in your head and when the argument doesn’t follow that pre-scripted line of thought you try to change the subject.
You should really start practising to understand what you are reading, because apparently you have extreme confirmation bias and just selectively pick the parts you like from an article and discard the rest.
Sounds to me like you’re projecting here.
Yeah, trying again to get the last word in… I have been telling you the same for months now, just try to do some introspection.
Blocking is just one of the many tools, and of course it’s just the last resort.
You could create or engage in community discussions about rules for the community - like what kind of content is wanted, what kind of posts are people interested in, and what guidelines could make posts better.
Within these rules, you can vote on a given post to mark a post as particularly fitting or interesting for the community (vote a post up), or unfitting or off-topic (vote down).
If these tools don’t work well enough in some cases for you, then the last reasonable option is to block the user. There’s nothing wrong with doing that.