Why is HL weaker than ktl???

[Blackking]

1) HL before the great migration wasnt as active as it is right now no, but it was far from

2) im not condoning what he said to you either. i think both of you are acting immature, and your exchange is symbolic of exactly whats wrong with HL.

3) i am far from perfect. but on the regular i am only hostile to you and the ghost of swagmar because you two are extremely disrespectful on the forums. everybody else im cool with.

truthfully speaking, I'm not known for ebeef. I can see if one of the other countless posters that I've ever interacted with could say that I've said one negative thing about them.. VVD on the other hand.. he lives that sh1t, we all know the deal.
I had a small back n forth w "swagmar" once, but he negged me every other day and wrote messages along with two other posters from sohh (can't remember the names).. during a time when I wasn't even posting. I mean these n1ggas were negging old post of mine, just to do it. I never even said 1 negative thing about them.

Not even my style, don't put me in that box leyeT,

I'm just sayin, you make a thread Spirit Science - Cosmic Connections, I make one about communicating with animals threw virtual machines.. they go no where. This thread is 11 pages...

On a real note however, all forums need a lil e beef, at least from the characters

 

[TrueEpic08]

There you go participating in the same massive overgeneralizations that have plagued this board for the past month. Everyone who is not pro-Obama paints everyone who is voting for him as people going above and beyond the call of duty to defend his honor. I don't even know if you participate in those "mainstream" discussions, but what you claim is happening is rare. So I find it disingenuous for you to point out where you think the discussion has wrong and where it should go without properly analyzing what is actually being discussed. No one on HL does what you said they do, that happens only in those debate threads (the presidential ones).

As far as you calling for a shift, the discussion you're talking about has been had on numerous occassions with the very topics you dismissed. The fact that during ELECTION season that it is more skewed towards the two main candidates is not something that should be seen as a negative. I can't co-sign you this time on that point.

No, I don't participate in those discussions most of the time, but they do happen quite a bit outside of those debate threads, and the second point of my bolded is pretty prevalent. If I'm overgeneralizing about the actual fact of the matter (and I don't think I am too much, as I've seen quite a bit of it over the past few months), it's because of an attitude where critique of him is benign at best and praise reaches worshipful levels at times. The fact that you wrote the bolded is a symptom of that attitude, which comes from a belief in the efficacy of the current political system and its agents.

On what I bolded from yours: That type of elimination of free discussion is ridiculous, and exactly what doesn't need to happen. Why shouldn't there be a debate on the efficacy of voting in a majoritarian democracy where the will of the people is essentially sublimated twice over, once with the electoral college (and I will say that I believe there was a recent thread than mentioned the need for an electoral college) and once with the election of a single leader, culled from candidates that are culled from the same extremely thin slice of the political spectrum. You'd think that the election period would be the perfect time to debate this, but that would interrupt the spectacle, right?

I will say that I could be wrong about specifics, though. I tend to stay away from those types of topics because what I've seen of them often arouse my disgust in these exact ways. But generally, I don't think that I'm that far off.

 

[No1]

No, I don't participate in those discussions most of the time, but they do happen quite a bit outside of those debate threads, and the second point of my bolded is pretty prevalent. If I'm overgeneralizing about the actual fact of the matter (and I don't think I am too much, as I've seen quite a bit of it over the past few months), it's because of an attitude where critique of him is benign at best and praise reaches worshipful levels at times. The fact that you wrote the bolded is a symptom of that attitude, which comes from a belief in the efficacy of the current political system and its agents.

Look, I consider you one of the brehs, but right now you're doing exactly what I've said numerous times makes me stop engaging with people. I don't have it in me to argue with people who argue for the sake of arguing. You don't realize it, but this is what you're doing because you're making a bunch of statements based on your personal feelings about how things should go but in doing so you're failing to accurately depict the way things are. Notice I didn't take issue with what you said about civility, I wish you were here when I was arguing against the entire board by myself and getting attacked on that issue.

But to your post, how can you say that your overgeneralization is legitimate because in SOME circumstances you feel that praise of Obama is at worship levels. I will dare you to find any such posts by a HL regular from the past week. You can go back two weeks if want. You won't find it. Even then I think your critique of Obama is off. But that's another discussion. Again, you're arguing for the sake or arguing by stating that "my argument is rooted in the belief of the efficacy of the current system." You had no basis to make that claim. So now let me explain to you what I meant. The fact that people are paying attention in a pivotal election is a net positive. The fact that they are paying the most attention to the major two candidates is better than them seeping into apathy and not paying attention at all. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

On what I bolded from yours: That type of elimination of free discussion is ridiculous, and exactly what doesn't need to happen. Why shouldn't there be a debate on the efficacy of voting in a majoritarian democracy where the will of the people is essentially sublimated twice over, once with the electoral college (and I will say that I believe there was a recent thread than mentioned the need for an electoral college) and once with the election of a single leader, culled from candidates that are culled from the same extremely thin slice of the political spectrum. You'd think that the election period would be the perfect time to debate this, but that would interrupt the spectacle, right?

I will say that I could be wrong about specifics, though. I tend to stay away from those types of topics because what I've seen of them often arouse my disgust in these exact ways. But generally, I don't think that I'm that far off.

What elimination of free discussion? What exactly are you talking about? I said that it's not a bad thing that most of the discussion has been skewed towards discussing the two main candidates recently and somehow you think that I'm for limiting free discussion? Mr. get criticized for not reacting to stuff quick enough moderator? Again, you're reading into what I am saying because you have a seasoned opinion that you believe in and you are copying and pasting into this discussion. Once again, the critiques that you brought up are legitimate but they have been interspersed across numerous discussions. The efficacy of the current system has been the subject of intense debates for weeks. The fact that you chose not to participate because the the thread title wasn't what you wanted it to be is more of an indictment on you than the board. So, yes, you are off.

What do you think is going on in all those threads promoting third parties? Were you even in the thread about the third party debates? But even more so, I've said this time and time again, people want to evaluate the current system time and again but rarely want to offer up solutions. A recent thread was literally me just shooting down this mystical belief that third parties are the cure right now (as a guy who is voting for some third party candidates).

 

[TrueEpic08]

What elimination of free discussion? What exactly are you talking about? I said that it's not a bad thing that most of the discussion has been skewed towards discussing the two main candidates recently and somehow you think that I'm for limiting free discussion? Mr. get criticized for not reacting to stuff quick enough moderator? Again, you're reading into what I am saying because you have a seasoned opinion that you believe in and you are copying and pasting into this discussion. Once again, the critiques that you brought up are legitimate but they have been interspersed across numerous discussions. The efficacy of the current system has been the subject of intense debates for weeks. The fact that you chose not to participate because the the thread title wasn't what you wanted it to be is more of an indictment on you than the board. So, yes, you are off.

What do you think is going on in all those threads promoting third parties? Were you even in the thread about the third party debates? But even more so, I've said this time and time again, people want to evaluate the current system time and again but rarely want to offer up solutions. A recent thread was literally me just shooting down this mystical belief that third parties are the cure right now (as a guy who is voting for some third party candidates).

Eh, I can admit the bolded. I feel that most of those topics would bore me, annoy others and not accomplish much, but maybe I should interject myself more if I want certain types of debates.

On Free Discussion: You explained it further up. I don't exactly agree with your point (is paying attention to a spectacle you don't believe in better than not paying attention at all. Is it the same? You're still perpetuating poisonous orthodoxy the same way), and I'd still write something similar to what I wrote earlier, but with a different connotation I'm willing to explain later if you're willing to read it (At work, pressed for time).

On Third Parties: A symptom of my point on free discussion. Why must it be limited to free parties or electoral democracy. Are there not solutions beyond that?

When I say free discussion, I really should say "free discourse" or "free thought," but I don't exactly have time to explain right now. I'll clarify in a little bit.

And if I'm overgeneralizing, it's not by much.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The former two would at least help with creating a more hospitable atmosphere. As it is right now, there are quite a few threads that either degenerate into worthless bashing and reductive positions, or begin from that point.

A more hospitable atmosphere would be better for HL, but it wouldn't attract an influx of posters for logical reasons I already articulated in this thread.

And with the fervor of election season, the god-like worship of a man who really hasn't done much for anybody that wasn't an upper-class white man and people trying to paint those who support his opponent on here as resisting some monolith hive mind, those negative qualities are magnified

You're going off on a bit of a tangent and not painting an accurate picture. There's been plenty of substantive discussion about Obama's presidency here. And while there are plenty of people who blindly follow Obama and don't criticize him, by the same token, there are also several posters who exist here to antagonize Obama voters; who diss him and frame any response that entails a defense of a decision to vote for Obama or any of his presidency with rhetoric like "Get Obama's dikk out of your mouth." There's people who will post threads about topics like NDAA, drone bombings, or the too-big-to-fail banks not to even discuss them substantively, but only to antagonize Obama voters.

And if we're talking about the issue of attracting more posters, the pro-Obama stuff certainly isn't repelling anyone. This is a pro-Obama site overall, and most people in other forums support Obama. The most traffic KTL ever saw was on election night 2008, and HL does numbers on DNC and debate night and is sure to on election night this year, so that just proves what subject matter does attract outside posters.

It seems you're just airing out your personal gripes, and your opinions are valid, but that is separate from the issue of why people don't post here.

The latter, no (I CAN say that with confidence). People believe in the political spectacle with ruthless fervor, so eliminating that would make it too inaccessible for them. I'd just like to see something more exterior to the normal stream of thought, like what voting (that is, the populace voting in a majoritarian democracy) has actually done to change the flow of society, rather than just exchanging elites to whom we give power to direct our lives as they see fit.

Bruh, we've had several recent threads about the efficacy of voting, should people vote at all, and should they vote for 3rd parties and they were robust discussions and did huge numbers. There's certainly not a lack of that here. You probably missed those threads.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

1) HL before the great migration wasnt as active as it is right now no, but it was far from

Yet all the other subforums were fully active. Gee, I wonder why that was?

3) i am far from perfect. but on the regular i am only hostile to you and the ghost of swagmar because you two are extremely disrespectful on the forums. everybody else im cool with.

Nevermind the fact that you're blatantly contradicting yourself by making exceptions for posters you choose to be hostile to, but you are disrespectful in threads at times. Maybe you don't think about what you're typing before you hit submit, but you routinely type long diatribes where you say generalized insults and name-calling to everyone in the thread who disagrees with you. You're acting all self-righteous, but you're being a bit hypocritical.

And you NEVER let an argument go. Every time I have a argument with you, I eventually just stop responding because I know you're going to until infinity even though both cases are clearly made. This one will probably be no exception.

 

[TrueEpic08]

A more hospitable atmosphere would be better for HL, but it wouldn't attract an influx of posters for logical reasons I already articulated in this thread.



You're going off on a bit of a tangent and not painting an accurate picture. There's been plenty of substantive discussion about Obama's presidency here. And while there are plenty of people who blindly follow Obama and don't criticize him, by the same token, there are also several posters who exist here to antagonize Obama voters; who diss him and frame any response that entails a defense of a decision to vote for Obama or any of his presidency with rhetoric like "Get Obama's dikk out of your mouth." There's people who will post threads about topics like NDAA, drone bombings, or the too-big-to-fail banks not to even discuss them substantively, but only to antagonize Obama voters.

And if we're talking about the issue of attracting more posters, the pro-Obama stuff certainly isn't repelling anyone. This is a pro-Obama site overall, and most people in other forums support Obama. The most traffic KTL ever saw was on election night 2008, and HL does numbers on DNC and debate night and is sure to on election night this year, so that just proves what subject matter does attract outside posters.

It seems you're just airing out your personal gripes, and your opinions are valid, but that is separate from the issue of why people don't post here.



Bruh, we've had several recent threads about the efficacy of voting, should people vote at all, and should they vote for 3rd parties and they were robust discussions and did huge numbers. There's certainly not a lack of that here. You probably missed those threads.

The second bolded: Eh, likely. I just haven't seen them around since I started paying attention. But I could've just missed them. All I'm asking is why not now, but that might be for another thread.

The first bolded: I might have over generalized about the former. But I do see quite a bit of it. The latter were partially covered under the "Romney the Underdog" category. Not that type of critique (not even really critique). I'm talking about more substantive critique, which I occasionally see, but not as much. I just feel that the more ardent Obama supporters tend to dismiss what could be seen as legitimate criticism as illegitimate quite a bit (not THAT much, but enough for me to notice). But that's nothing that some other people on here don't do more of.

And I believe that I said in the last thing that you quoted that pro-Obama debate attracts people. I just think that having such a pro-Obama segment, and actually, just those who ardently believe in the efficacy of our current system of government in realizing the desires of the populace in general (which extends to third-parties), isn't exactly healthy (and this is what I meant by "free discourse," not any disrespect to @BarNone as a mod, who's been fine).

But like you said, all of that's off topic, and I'm tired. Just move this to another thread or something if you want to pursue it.

 

[No1]

Eh, I can admit the bolded. I feel that most of those topics would bore me, annoy others and not accomplish much, but maybe I should interject myself more if I want certain types of debates.

On Free Discussion: You explained it further up. I don't exactly agree with your point (is paying attention to a spectacle you don't believe in better than not paying attention at all. Is it the same? You're still perpetuating poisonous orthodoxy the same way), and I'd still write something similar to what I wrote earlier, but with a different connotation I'm willing to explain later if you're willing to read it (At work, pressed for time).

On Third Parties: A symptom of my point on free discussion. Why must it be limited to free parties or electoral democracy. Are there not solutions beyond that?

When I say free discussion, I really should say "free discourse" or "free thought," but I don't exactly have time to explain right now. I'll clarify in a little bit.

And if I'm overgeneralizing, it's not by much.

I'll be up all night doing work, so I'm around. As far as being bored, I said that last month that sometimes the same repetitive topics bore me. I'll admit that I miss some trolling sometimes because of it. But to your point about free thought, I, nor is anyone trying to limit the confines of the discussion. When I respond to people who bring up opposite opinions it is to critique their solution and push them to go beyond.

As far as it being better than they're paying attention to nothing, yes it is. How can one critique the current system if you don't even fully understand it? How does one conquer one's enemy without understanding one's enemy's objectives? And in the short term, one side is probably better for you than the other. I've said this before, but the problem with people is that they talk about these issues in these ideological terms and forget about pragmaticism and actual policy-making and that changing something doesn't happen in a day.

Those who advocate tuning out the major parties are being ignorant of the realities of the situation. You take short term victories that you can get from the curreny system while working on modifying it and getting long term goals. I just think it's a cop out to not pay attention.

 

[ROFL_GUY]

 

[Gallo]

I think we should try to refrain from bringing up personal information (real names, pictures, etc) or people's family in a serious manner. I understand joking around, but some people go overboard. And by some people, I also include myself in that.

I'll be doing my part in refraining from doing that from now on. It adds nothing to the discussion and is cowardly. I apologize for the times I have done it in the past. I am but a human and commit petty mistakes sometimes.

Peace.

Don't become a b1tch bro. That's what these pandas like Blacking, leyet, meach, Trueepic, and ROFL want. You're a marine, you know how real men debate - we call each other names, sometimes it ends in a nice scuffle and fist fly. A little banter online is nothing and these pandas can't handle it. fukk em.

 

[Serious]

Call me crazy, but I'm going to go out on a limb and state that there are billions of intelligent people that don't believe every theory you believe in regarding this subject

Bro I didn't even know there are billion intelligent people.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

1) HL before the great migration wasnt as active as it is right now no, but it was far from

2) im not condoning what he said to you either. i think both of you are acting immature, and your exchange is symbolic of exactly whats wrong with HL.

3) i am far from perfect. but on the regular i am only hostile to you and the ghost of swagmar because you two are extremely disrespectful on the forums. everybody else im cool with.

this is the reason I really don't post here that much anymore. Its really tiring getting called a "c00n" simply because I don't march lockstep with Obama. Episodes of high level intellectual discourse in these forums are very few and far inbetween.

 

[Gallo]

Not being a member of the old forum gives me a different outlook on things, that you and others may not see. The insults and cliques are a turn off for people such as myself.

For example: I see a topic I might be interested in and click on the link, once I get inside the thread it's just a bunch of y'all insulting each other about unrelated shyt, or shyt you know about each other from the old site. I'm just gonna leave the thread and not comment. This has happened to me plenty of times, and I'm sure it's happened to others.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

this is the reason I really don't post here that much anymore. Its really tiring getting called a "c00n" simply because I don't march lockstep with Obama. The level of intellectual discourse in these forums are very few and far inbetween.

Bruh you call people c00ns more than anyone in HL/KTL. Let's be serious for a sec.

 

[Gallo]

11 pages, probably more than half of the posts dedicated to a beef that contributed to deleterious discussion in the sub-forum, in a thread about deleterious discussion in the sub-forum....causing more deleterious discussion in the sub-forum.

Well, most of the threads on here now are about mainstream politics, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that reality TV entertainment (honestly, the main social function of the political spectacle) and banal insults are the flavor of the day here. But I would think that a supposedly constructive inquiry would understand this.

What the heck do you expect panda? It's like going to the hood and expecting to see doctors and lawyers living in the projects. This is a hip hop site that regularly interviews porno stars on its front page. You're in the hood of the internet bro. "But but but but HL should be different!!!!" No it's not different - most of the posters here are probably in there late teens, unemployed and barely have a HS education why would you expect anything else you panda? If it were anything else it wouldn't be a hip hop site.