The future of the Trolleybus Garage
-
As I mentioned in The Future of "Garaging"
I've been studying/following the Garage for a while now. We've also got some backlog'd discussions in the Sekret Nomination Talks, but gist of it is that the Garage is more about Tone than Topic. A place to be politically incorrect and have fun, often about politics. New membership is still restricted, but it will be open and clarified soon.
Today, I'll offer those clarifications.
The Trolleybus Garage was an interesting place for me to learn about.
The first impression was that the garage was this terrible, awful, no good, rotten place, and that the Internet would be a better
place without it. While I'm sure many members (especially Trolleybus Mechanics) would violently agree with that assessment, there is a bit more depth than that.Once you get past the nostalgia, the lore of "garaging" flamewars, the politics, etc., it's actually a pretty decent outlet to have fun with politically sensitive or incorrect topics. The garage is a place to lampoon the never-ending stream of insane news, torch strawmen with over-the-top flames, spew opinion like the talking heads on cable news, and otherwise act in ways that might ostracize you amongst coworkers, friends, or family. All, with the normal pendantry and sarcasm we've come to expect on the forums.
I've written up what I've come to learn The Trolleybus Garage so that new members can understand it, and I've codified some of the guidelines nearly everyone have been almost always going by. I've also made two administrative changes: no more downvoting, and membership to the Trolleybus Mechanics group is actually invite-only now, which I thought it was before.
The Trolleybus Garage
The Trolleybus Garage is a restricted-access category intended for regulars to troll eachother on topics, most of which are politically sensitive or incorrect. It's not a serious place, and nothing said in here should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean you can't have serious discussions, but that's just not the norm. If you'd like to have a serious and civil discussion, then consider the Civil Salon intead.
General guidelines
- A Trolleybus Mechanic uniform is required to troll in the garage. Only regular members can become a mechanic, and only after mandatory mechanics training will they be given the uniform.
- When members put on the Trolleybus Mechanic, it often acts as a caricature on top of their existing forums persona. How mechanics express themselves in the garage is often a performance art of sorts, not unlike how real internet trolls behave, just not so anonymously. It's only a place for regulars, after all.
- There are limits to what's appropriate in the Garage. In addition, this is not a place to attack other mechanics, it's a place to have fun trolling.
- If you find yourself getting angry by what another mechanic said, either because it feels too extreme or it feels like an attack, then just ignore it. Or, flag it for moderation. But remember, it's just a troll. Don't respond.
- If other mechanics aren't responding to your trolling, then you need to try something else. You're being ignored because you're not being fun, or worse, you've crossed a line.
- Just saying things like "fck you asshole" or "eat sht and die" is not funny, and you're either angry or not trollish, and the mechanic's uniform doesn't look good on you.
- When you leave the Trolleybus Garage, you take off the uniform. No one is a mechanic outside the garage, and everyone is expected to always act appropriately in other categories.
Breaking these rules (inside or outside of the Garage), may not only revoke your Garage access, but the community as a whole.
Becoming a Trolleybus Garage Mechanic
Not everyone is cut out to be a mechanic. It's easy to get offended, and to offend others, but that's just not what the garage is about. Instead, it's about acting offended and acting outraged at the state of the world, while you're probably being paid to sit on the toilet at your work, from a smartphone more powerful than supercomputers from the 90's.
The first requirement is to be a regular member of the community, and regularly participate in discussions. After that, you can apply to join the Trolleybus Garage Mechanics group, and a senior mechanic will begin the training process. It's mostly just reviewing a collection of existing topics/replies with acceptable (and unacceptable) trolling, and will give you an idea of what to expect in the Garage, and how you're expected to participate.
-
@apapadimoulis Thanks for the effort you're putting into all that. I'm not sure what the end result will be, and whether I'll like it, but I appreciate the work you're doing.
Just to get the ball rolling, I'll just say that there is one significant change "hidden" (not really, it's in plain sight) in your description, compared to the current state: you're basically saying that shouting matches and hurling insults is no longer OK (unless it's done in a somehow obviously trollish way).
I can think of a quite a few instances and threads that would clearly break this rule, where the people involved are clearly not just trolling but truly personally involved in the "discussion." Sometimes it was just a shouting match between two people and I don't think it would change much if those had been quelled earlier (kind of like breaking up a fight between two drunks outside a pub usually doesn't change much about the mood of the pub). Some other are more long-running, widespread, and... removing them would certainly change something.
I'm not saying it would be bad, but I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly the current state of things.
-
@remi noticed that too. But I like the proposed changes. Except for disabling downvotes, but whatever.
-
-
Thanks for the feedback!
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Just to get the ball rolling, I'll just say that there is one significant change "hidden" (not really, it's in plain sight) in your description, compared to the current state: you're basically saying that shouting matches and hurling insults is no longer OK (unless it's done in a somehow obviously trollish way).
Ah, that's not exactly what I intended to communicate; to me, the fact that it's in the garage means that "shouting matches and hurling insults" is kind of par for the course because it's "obviously trollish" to some extent. And you're right, some members "get into it" more than they should (emotionally), but that's perhaps part of the fun of participating -- and if its not fun, then you shouldn't participate.
The line that has rarely been crossed in many years (and not by any current members) is what I'd consider an attack. Basically, a targeted messages/responses crafted in such that it causes mental anguish/torment, something like that. A hyperbolic example I've used somewhere else is crafting an insult based on a member's dead child.
I don't think any of us would actually want such members in this community, and if a member accidently crossed such a line, I think they would feel bad about it and probably even apologized.
Anyways this is what I'm hoping the training will cover. Examples of what's been okay, what's crossed the line, etc.
-
@loopback0 Disabling downvotes was explained in a slightly older thread:
@apapadimoulis said in The Future of "Garaging":
@HardwareGeek huh, so that's what happens! I thought maybe it would remove the button.
I just announced it a few mins ago, but my logic was that downvoting in the Garage has been almost exclusively used for unpopular opinions instead of extraordinarily low-quality replies. That's a bit discouraging, especially if you hold a minority view point, and I think we should encourage diversity in all things, including trolling.
-
@loopback0 that, and at least have the decency to hurl an insult my way
I think it'd be nice if upvotes in the garage were used to signal that they add to the experience of the discussion, which means expressing different viewpoints through hyperbolic statements, witty insults, and other trolling.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Ah, that's not exactly what I intended to communicate; to me, the fact that it's in the garage means that "shouting matches and hurling insults" is kind of par for the course because it's "obviously trollish" to some extent. And you're right, some members "get into it" more than they should (emotionally), but that's perhaps part of the fun of participating -- and if its not fun, then you shouldn't participate.
Well I guess it's good I brought that up, since clearly we're at least two regulars to have misunderstood you.
The line that has rarely been crossed in many years (and not by any current members) is what I'd consider an attack. Basically, a targeted messages/responses crafted in such that it causes mental anguish/torment, something like that. A hyperbolic example I've used somewhere else is crafting an insult based on a member's dead child.
I don't want to start naming names because this will turn into personal attacks or, guess what, a shouting match pretty soon, but I disagree. Without any effort I can remember several cases where to me that line was crossed. And I'm pretty sure that in some cases at least one of the persons involved (and maybe even both) still doesn't regret it. It's not a common occurrence, granted, but it does happen.
I guess the issue is, once you accept "trolling" insults, how do you differentiate between "trolling" and "real" ones. But anyway, unless you intend to very actively police the garage, this is probably a moot point as not much will change at all. And if you intend to police it (or have someone do it), then it's pointless to discuss abstract examples (apart from setting generic rules, like you did), since each and every case will always be different and judged on its own merit. Basically the difference between a law and law case -- and crucially the latter relies on a judge (or jury) which isn't the same as the law-maker, so a lot will depend on that as well.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@loopback0 that, and at least have the decency to hurl an insult my way
That'll happen anyway.
The whole point of upvotes and downvotes is to express the many forms of agreement/disagreement and I'm not sure how removing downvotes in the Garage achieves anything other than leaving a useless button behind.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@loopback0 that, and at least have the decency to hurl an insult my way
This.
There are some that downvote without any input as to why. I don't regularly downvote without letting someone know why.
-
@remi can you suggest how to edit the description?
Ultimately, the difference between "real" and "trolling" is in the eye of the insultee. Everyone has emotions, everyone has triggers, and those will be different for a lot of people. Sometimes they're reasonable, sometimes they're not, but feelings get hurt all the same. As long as everyone (insultees and insulters) acknowledges that, and maintain the discipline to walk away and/or recognize when a line was crossed, there will be minimal problems or policing.
But really, this is uselessly abstract, and diving into hypotheticals is probably even less productive.
My hope is that the "training" will serve as the actual cases and provide some examples of appropriate and inappropriate that abstract rules can't. So please share those cases with me (privately), at least for me to review.
-
@apapadimoulis Is the Garage actually a place for trolling though? I've used it as an avenue for actually honest discussion of current events, since it's the one place where I can do so without someone calling me a nazi.
Now, this may be just me being Finnish. But if I'm pointing out all the flaws in e.g. (edited)controversial topic of the day(/edited), and me not aligning with the (edited)opponent's(/edited) dogma first will get me called a right-wing extremist, then I just don't consider the discussion direct, honorable or honest.
Of course, it may be that I should be holding discussions in the Salon instead. Depends on whether brutal honesty is allowed there from here on. If not... Could we get a separate category "For people born before 1990" maybe?
EDIT: Removed actual controversial examples, to prevent conversation getting stuck on them.
-
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Basically the difference between a law and law case -- and crucially the latter relies on a judge (or jury) which isn't the same as the law-maker, so a lot will depend on that as well.
Can we setup a Garage Jury?
-
@Polygeekery said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@loopback0 that, and at least have the decency to hurl an insult my way
This.
There are some that downvote without any input as to why. I don't regularly downvote without letting someone know why.
In regular threads outside the garage there’s two ways to get a downvote:
- You’ve crossed a line, e.g. wrote something that doesn’t belong in this discussion and would at best be moved to the garage.
- You disagreed with Mason
Inside the garage (or some political/semi-political thread civil enough to survive outside the garage) you also get downvoted just to express (strong?) disagreement with the statement/opinion.
I never liked anonymous downvotes, but at least for 1) they make sense. IMO, for the garage-style downvotes they shouldn’t be anonymous.
-
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I don't want to start naming names because this will turn into personal attacks
I for one am not afraid to name names. The first person I want to call out is @Karla for her abuse of commas. Oxford commas have no place in any kind of discussion.
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
-
I also think that most people involved in the more heated and personal insults have given as good as they get. It usually takes a while to rub the denizens of the garage wrong enough that they will start to take things ordinarily and get that level of involvement.
It does happen, but when it does, it's seldom entirely undeserved. It'd be better if it didn't turn into long grudges, but alas, we're people and people do that. I can think of a couple of times when it's happened, but your the most part everyone is fairly civil outside the garage at least.
Currently there is an annoying formulaic trollfest going on in the garage, but eventually everyone will tire of the boring troll and get on with some fun trolling instead.
-
@topspin said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I never liked anonymous downvotes, but at least for 1) they make sense. IMO, for the garage-style downvotes they shouldn’t be anonymous.
I was all for downvotes being public too, but that's a good point - removing downvotes in the Garage removes anonymous disagreement. I'm all for that.
-
@DogsB said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I don't want to start naming names because this will turn into personal attacks
I for one am not afraid to name names. The first person I want to call out is @Karla for her abuse of commas. Oxford commas have no place in any kind of discussion.
I would of thought you would of named someone else first
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
I actually just (a few seconds ago) kind of alluded to that possibility in another post in the other meta thread. I'm not really defending the idea, but maybe it's actually worth discussing...
-
@apapadimoulis said in The Future of "Garaging":
I think we should encourage diversity in all things, including trolling.
That’s something that’d get you downvoted in the garage.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
can you suggest how to edit the description?
Not really, no. In part because I don't have clear ideas on what I would want it to say (let alone how to say it!), in another part because of
.But yet another part is that actually I kind of like what you wrote, even if it's a bit more restrictive than what we currently do, because I think that it's better to have a framework that allows tightening a bit if things become too heated one day, rather than writing something full of interpretative weaseling that could cause more harm than good if you needed to use it some day to reign in someone.
For a real world analogy, I'd rather have cops with guns who don't use them in most cases, than unarmed cops who stand by when a real violent crime happens because they can't act. It's a necessary evil in the sense that I would much prefer to live in a society where that's not needed, and I'm aware it can have its own downside, but I can't be blind to reality either. I would love the garage (and the rest of TDWTF) to be able to stand by itself, without any rules, but I also have seen how things can go wrong and require intervention.
Now I know that the same thing could also be seen as having rules that are not applied unless the Powers-that-be decide to (i.e. use the rules to abuse their power), which is bad, but I don't think what you wrote really goes that far (I mean, if you'd said "civil discussions only" and then let the garage go on and only act for one specific person then yes it would clearly be abusive, but that's definitely not what you wrote!).
Yet another reason is what we're both saying with slightly different words i.e.:
Ultimately, the difference between "real" and "trolling" is in the eye of the insultee.
But really, this is uselessly abstract, and diving into hypotheticals is probably even less productive.So spending too much time on the wording of rules is just useless bikeshedding. You've set out the rules, and we have a space where they can be discussed if need be, the real test will be the jurisprudence (i.e. how it gets applied). If and when people disagree with the jurisprudence, then it will be time to go back to the law and rewrite it.
-
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
I actually just (a few seconds ago) kind of alluded to that possibility in another post in the other meta thread. I'm not really defending the idea, but maybe it's actually worth discussing...
An give in to Blakey's internetpointzzzz rant in the end?
They're meaningless, but I do like the ability to upvote. Also, we'd break @Tsaukpaetra's bookmarking system and, I must admit, while not being quite so excessive I tend to upvote a lot.
-
@Polygeekery said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
There are some that downvote without any input as to why.
Well, I must confess that I sometimes do when I bumble into 10 pages of back-and-fro posts where some of them have really bad your-mom or your-wife jokes. We could do without those...
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
SJW dogma
I believe that when you are calling anyone's own views "dogma" in a clearly negative sense, you are trolling. (=Not constructively engaging in debate)
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@apapadimoulis Is the Garage actually a place for trolling though? I've used it as an avenue for actually honest discussion of current events, since it's the one place where I can do so without someone calling me a nazi.
Now, this may be just me being Finnish. But if I'm pointing out all the flaws in e.g. the critical race thory, and me not aligning with the SJW dogma first will get me called a right-wing extremist, then I just don't consider the discussion direct, honorable or honest.
Now I can't tell if you're just being Finnish or trolling now (
), but your "actually honest" is most definitely trollish, and certainly garage material. Using "«diminutive-term»" dogma" is an underhanded insult and the language of "pointing out the flaws in «abstract-idea»" is not a real discussion, it's masking an opinion in objectivity while strawmanning. You can only point out "flaws" in something when there's an agreed-upon standard of what is, and isn't a flaw -- and good luck finding an agreed-upon standard with social/societal concepts.Of course, it may be that I should be holding discussions in the Salon instead. Depends on whether brutal honesty is allowed there from here on. If not... Could we get a separate category "For people born before 1990" maybe?
If you'd actually like to discuss a topic, then I would love to moderate a discussion to help establish some guidelines. My rough idea is that it's not about debating (i.e. performances for an audience or scoring points), or even trying to persuade someone else. It's about recognizing that some people hold different viewpoint and asking questions to understanding those viewpoints while rationalizing your own viewpoints.
-
@marczellm said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
SJW dogma
I believe that when you are calling anyone's own views "dogma" in a clearly negative sense, you are trolling. (=Not constructively engaging in debate)
Sorry. I should not have used a specific group in the example.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@apapadimoulis Is the Garage actually a place for trolling though? I've used it as an avenue for actually honest discussion of current events, since it's the one place where I can do so without someone calling me a nazi.
Now, this may be just me being Finnish. But if I'm pointing out all the flaws in e.g. the critical race thory, and me not aligning with the SJW dogma first will get me called a right-wing extremist, then I just don't consider the discussion direct, honorable or honest.
Now I can't tell if you're just being Finnish or trolling now (
), but your "actually honest" is most definitely trollish, and certainly garage material. Using "«diminutive-term»" dogma" is an underhanded insult and the language of "pointing out the flaws in «abstract-idea»" is not a real discussion, it's masking an opinion in objectivity while strawmanning. You can only point out "flaws" in something when there's an agreed-upon standard of what is, and isn't a flaw -- and good luck finding an agreed-upon standard with social/societal concepts.Finnish. Or maybe just North-East European. And feeling very, very old. On a bad day. Part of why I keep mostly to the Garage.
Of course, it may be that I should be holding discussions in the Salon instead. Depends on whether brutal honesty is allowed there from here on. If not... Could we get a separate category "For people born before 1990" maybe?
If you'd actually like to discuss a topic, then I would love to moderate a discussion to help establish some guidelines. My rough idea is that it's not about debating (i.e. performances for an audience or scoring points), or even trying to persuade someone else. It's about recognizing that some people hold different viewpoint and asking questions to understanding those viewpoints while rationalizing your own viewpoints.
So, what's the correct category for debating, without personal insults allowed? I like debating, striving for greater knowledge Socratean style.
-
@remi something like that
This place will always be a volunteer-run community of willing participants, centered around software engineering. We're all here for each other's company, and the best form of moderation will always be self-moderation for the sake of the community. The staff (once expanded beyond just me... some day) will continue serving to guide what that means and step in if things get messy, while trying to keep the community thriving.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
So, what's the correct category for debating, without personal insults allowed? I like debating, striving for greater knowledge Socratean style.
I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "debate" (which is why I try to avoid that word), but if your intent is to expand your own knowledge and understanding through a sort of Socratic-style discussion of differing viewpoints, then that's what I envisioned The Civilized Salon would be.
The only thing it's missing is participants. As I said, I'd be happy to open up the halls of the Salon (or maybe it's open already
, I can't tell, I can see everything) and moderate. I won't participate, but I really appreciate this type of discussion, and I feel fortunate that I was able to discuss a ton of different viewpoints during my speaker days with other speakers from world. Many of us became great friends, despite fundamentally disagreeing on so many things, from guns to freedom of speech.
-
@marczellm Upon further thought, would that not be heavily dependent on context?
It is obviously in bad form here, I confess.
But in a debate where a point of view is, per the Wikipedia definition, "belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty", and the course of the debate clearly reveals the "undefended certainty" part, would it be against rules outside the Garage to point this out? That is, claim that the particular point of view is a dogma?
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
or maybe it's open already , I can't tell, I can see everything
It's not even visible, let alone open.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Upon further thought, would that not be heavily dependent on context?
For non-politically sensitive values of «diminutive-term», using "«diminutive-term» dogma" is fine outside of the garage. For example, "Dogma from the Cult of JavaScript" is great everywhere, and "keto diet dogma" seems apporpriate in the off-topic areas. But if it's politically sensitive, then it belongs in the garage.
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
But in a debate where a point of view is, per the Wikipedia definition, "belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty", and the course of the debate clearly reveals the "undefended certainty" part, would it be against rules outside the Garage to point this out? That is, claim that the particular point of view is a dogma?
Now it sounds like you are engaging in pendantry now, which I believe how this game is played
-
@loopback0 said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
or maybe it's open already , I can't tell, I can see everything
It's not even visible, let alone open.
Huh. Well, that explains why no one was participating.... then expect another announcement soon.
Maybe I'll even change the name. Any idea why it's called the "Salon"? Doesn't that mean a place where you get a haircut? I honestly thought it was "Saloon" for the longest time....
-
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
But in a debate where a point of view is, per the Wikipedia definition, "belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty", and the course of the debate clearly reveals the "undefended certainty" part, would it be against rules outside the Garage to point this out? That is, claim that the particular point of view is a dogma?
Now it sounds like you are engaging in pendantry now, which I believe how this game is played
Well, no. I actually want to know whether it is permissible, in the course of debating the wiseness of a policy (not restricted to politics, mind), to claim that another participant's stated position is based on dogma. That is, whether the use of a currently negatively loaded term is in itself still allowed.
...Maybe it is pedantry after all. But it's still something that should be clarified for moderation.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@apapadimoulis Is the Garage actually a place for trolling though? I've used it as an avenue for actually honest discussion of current events, since it's the one place where I can do so without someone calling me a nazi.
Now, this may be just me being Finnish. But if I'm pointing out all the flaws in e.g. (edited)controversial topic of the day(/edited), and me not aligning with the (edited)opponent's(/edited) dogma first will get me called a right-wing extremist, then I just don't consider the discussion direct, honorable or honest.
Of course, it may be that I should be holding discussions in the Salon instead. Depends on whether brutal honesty is allowed there from here on. If not... Could we get a separate category "For people born before 1990" maybe?
EDIT: Removed actual controversial examples, to prevent conversation getting stuck on them.
As it has been used in the past, the Salon was not a place where Controversial Topics of the Day could be freely discussed. (There were problems over the specific example you edited out of your post.)
For the Salon to be useful, I think it would have to have pretty much the same rules as the Garage except no trolling.
On the other hand, I've had good and serious conversations in the Garage itself. Most of the Mechanics are pretty good at reading the room and can differentiate a low-trolling conversation from a high trolling one.
-
@marczellm @apapadimoulis Another question. And, now, this might sound like trolling, but please bear in mind that I'm not from U.S., so this is actually an honest question.
So, "SJW" is a negatively loaded term. But, I've been using it to refer to refer to proponents of the idea of social justice. Continuing to refer to them that way would be in bad taste, obviously. But saying "proponents of social justice" is long-winded. And, since it is part of the politics of the day, the political viewpoint does come up every now and then. Therefore my question is: Is there a non-negatively-loaded shorthand and/or moniker for this movement? Because it's not a political party, and thus does not have an official name, as far as I know.
-
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
I actually just (a few seconds ago) kind of alluded to that possibility in another post in the other meta thread. I'm not really defending the idea, but maybe it's actually worth discussing...
Not sure how much sense it makes in the garage, but the only way I could see the Salon actually working is if all kinds of votes were removed there. Votes encourage you to write something witty for the audience instead of something meaningful and on-topic.
-
@dfdub said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
I actually just (a few seconds ago) kind of alluded to that possibility in another post in the other meta thread. I'm not really defending the idea, but maybe it's actually worth discussing...
Not sure how much sense it makes in the garage, but the only way I could see the Salon actually working is if all kinds of votes were removed there. Votes encourage you to write something witty for the audience instead of something meaningful and on-topic.
Seconded. Leaving a downvote is kind of like disagreeing without explaining why. Like a hiss from the audience. In a debate, it is problematic. Upvotes are a form of ovation. again, not useful for debate.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I actually want to know whether it is permissible, in the course of debating the wiseness of a policy (not restricted to politics, mind), to claim that another participant's stated position is based on dogma.
Unless you're talking like literal Christian theology, claiming that another participant's position is based on dogma is lightly insulting and is not fostering productive discussion. It implies that the participant did not think critically about the position themselves, but instead are unquestioningly following some authority's power.
It's fair game in all places except the Salon. The goal in the Salon will be productive discussions. Instead, a moderator would use it as a training opportunity and say, if you believe that position is based on dogma, you should ask "what would change your mind?" or "if this were proved to be true, would it change your mind?"
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
And, now, this might sound like trolling, but please bear in mind that I'm not from U.S., so this is actually an honest question.
I'll take your word on it... for now ;)
So, "SJW" is a negatively loaded term. But, I've been using it to refer to refer to proponents of the idea of social justice. Continuing to refer to them that way would be in bad taste, obviously. But saying "proponents of social justice" is long-winded. And, since it is part of the politics of the day, the political viewpoint does come up every now and then. Therefore my question is: Is there a non-negatively-loaded shorthand and/or moniker for this movement? Because it's not a political party, and thus does not have an official name, as far as I know.
Well, "proponents of «abstract-idea»" is a meaningless descriptor for any group, because «abstract-idea» has no useful, concrete meaning. Like, what could "proponents of the idea of computer programming" possibly even mean? Software vendors? Enchanters of the One True Language (i.e. C#)? Children who play around in MIT Scratch?
I don't know the context in which you would use "proponents of «abstract-idea»", but if it were the Salon, I might say that your writing/viewpoints would be much clearer if you were more specific. Using that phrase to group someone and then disagree with them is a strawman, even if you don't intend it.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I actually want to know whether it is permissible, in the course of debating the wiseness of a policy (not restricted to politics, mind), to claim that another participant's stated position is based on dogma.
Unless you're talking like literal Christian theology, claiming that another participant's position is based on dogma is lightly insulting and is not fostering productive discussion.
Well, using it for "Christian theology" is also insulting. ( To me.
) Unless referring to specific scripture decreed a dogma by some specific sect.Which I guess goes toward showing that it's not likely to be constructive in use. Understood.
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
And, now, this might sound like trolling, but please bear in mind that I'm not from U.S., so this is actually an honest question.
I'll take your word on it... for now ;)
So, "SJW" is a negatively loaded term. But, I've been using it to refer to refer to proponents of the idea of social justice. Continuing to refer to them that way would be in bad taste, obviously. But saying "proponents of social justice" is long-winded. And, since it is part of the politics of the day, the political viewpoint does come up every now and then. Therefore my question is: Is there a non-negatively-loaded shorthand and/or moniker for this movement? Because it's not a political party, and thus does not have an official name, as far as I know.
Well, "proponents of «abstract-idea»" is a meaningless descriptor for any group, because «abstract-idea» has no useful, concrete meaning. Like, what could "proponents of the idea of computer programming" possibly even mean? Software vendors? Enchanters of the One True Language (i.e. C#)? Children who play around in MIT Scratch?
Does this not then apply to any and every -ism? It would be very tiresome to have to refer to specific examples of action e.g. when debating whether hedonism is unbiblical or not. (Convoluted example, but I thought an example is necessary.) Most ideas are abstract until an instance of implementation. And even then, the instance's representativeness is always debatable.
I don't know the context in which you would use "proponents of «abstract-idea»", but if it were the Salon, I might say that your writing/viewpoints would be much clearer if you were more specific. Using that phrase to group someone and then disagree with them is a strawman, even if you don't intend it.
Point taken.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Does this not then apply to any and every -ism? It would be very tiresome to have to refer to specific examples of action e.g. when debating whether hedonism is unbiblical or not. (Convoluted example, but I thought an example is necessary.) Most ideas are abstract until an instance of implementation. And even then, the instance's representativeness is always debatable.
Indeed, it does! Which is why one of the first goals of discussing opposing viewpoints in a place like the Salon should be agreeing on some kind of baseline definition of these words. In fact, it's quite productive, because it uncovers that your understanding of the word is different and you share a similar viewpoint, or you have such fundamentally different underlying viewpoints.
For example, my image of hedonism might be orgies while dry-aged ham right off the bone, and my definition of biblical might not include the new testament. And now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to get hedonistic.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
I don't know the context in which you would use "proponents of «abstract-idea»", but if it were the Salon, I might say that your writing/viewpoints would be much clearer if you were more specific. Using that phrase to group someone and then disagree with them is a strawman, even if you don't intend it.
I've been thinking about this. See my favourite "thinker" (=person whose speeches I watch on YouTube, and I think is pretty smart) is Jordan Peterson. He's very good at precisely quantifying his speech. ("<Specific researcher>'s research indicates", "I believe but I'm not sure", etc.)
And even he gets carried away sometimes and starts talking about "leftist liberal types". And I can't tell whether he's being sloppy, deliberately or accidentally, or he actually believes that such a clearly defined group exists.
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
while dry-aged ham right off the bone,
Is this what the kids are calling it these days?
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Indeed, it does! Which is why one of the first goals of discussing opposing viewpoints in a place like the Salon should be agreeing on some kind of baseline definition of these words.
As opposed to the Garage, where a sizable chunk of content argues the very meaning of words, I guess.
@marczellm said:
And even he gets carried away sometimes and starts talking about "leftist liberal types". And I can't tell whether he's being sloppy, deliberately or accidentally, or he actually believes that such a clearly defined group exists.
In the context of U.S. politics, both "left/right" and "liberal/conservative" pairs have a fairly well agreed-upon meaning. Not the same meaning as the dictionary definition. Nor the same meaning as they as used on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. But a definable meaning nevertheless. Based on this, I believe he is serious.
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
In the context of U.S. politics
But he's Canadian :)
-
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@dfdub said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
On a more serious note why not remove upvotes too?
I actually just (a few seconds ago) kind of alluded to that possibility in another post in the other meta thread. I'm not really defending the idea, but maybe it's actually worth discussing...
Not sure how much sense it makes in the garage, but the only way I could see the Salon actually working is if all kinds of votes were removed there. Votes encourage you to write something witty for the audience instead of something meaningful and on-topic.
Seconded. Leaving a downvote is kind of like disagreeing without explaining why. Like a hiss from the audience. In a debate, it is problematic. Upvotes are a form of ovation. again, not useful for debate.
Eh.
In the Garage, my interpretation of upvotes on my own posts is generally, "I appreciated that joke." Everyone could make their own post just saying "I appreciated that joke," but that wouldn't add anything to the conversation. So I say leave that button.
The downvote button, on the other hand, I generally interpret as "I disagree with you." Since I already know who in the Garage agrees with me and disagrees with me, that button doesn't add any value.
(Note that my own upvoting behavior does not 100% match with this definition.)
For non-Garage/Salon topics, I think both buttons are important. Consider a post that's borderline Garagey that's posted in General and gets a lot of downvotes and a couple flags for Jeffing. Probably more likely to actually get Jeffed than a borderline post that doesn't have the downvotes, right?
-
@apapadimoulis said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
The Trolleybus Garage is a restricted-access category intended for regulars to troll eachother on topics, most of which are politically sensitive or incorrect. It's not a serious place, and nothing said in here should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean you can't have serious discussions, but that's just not the norm. If you'd like to have a serious and civil discussion, then consider the Civil Salon intead.
I think you may be underestimating how often the discussions are really a heated debate versus a more tongue in cheek flamewar. Certainly the participants may derail into "Jane you ignorant slut" a lot but the feelings behind the topic are real.
The flamewars in the garage are often reflective of the recent presidential debate. The tempers were real and the discourse was genuine. And people tended to straw man unironically. And sure, when it stooped down to ad hominems there certainly was an element of self deprecation and self awareness, it still is rooted in an unironic "you are such a dimwit" thought involved.
In short I interpret your announcement as you having the impression the garage is a place where actors are role-playing as trolls, but in my experience it is a little more OOC than that.
ETA: And to be clear I'm not saying this is a bad thing. More a clarification of my own observations of the garage as I see it. The garage is a place for polarized and controversial topics thrown in with some straw showcasing some of the most extreme viewpoints (e.g. die cis scum and kill all men) with some popcorn as we all watch modern society burn down slowly.
-
@marczellm said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@acrow said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
In the context of U.S. politics
But he's Canadian :)
From the 53rd state, yes. (/joke)
More seriously, I had assumed that the same adjectives for political leanings would be used also in Canada. Is that not the case?
-
Personally, if there were a choice between public downvotes or no downvotes in the Garage, I would prefer the former. It's useful to have some way to indicate that a post crossed the line, or that a post was a null-value post that neither contributed to the discussion nor rose to the level of "good shitpost". But I can understand the impetus toward removing them.
-
@loopback0 said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
@remi said in The future of the Trolleybus Garage:
Basically the difference between a law and law case -- and crucially the latter relies on a judge (or jury) which isn't the same as the law-maker, so a lot will depend on that as well.
Can we setup a Garage Jury?
A Garage Kangaroo Jury?
Salon (gathering) - Wikipedia
