Expressing Your Opinion and Getting Digitally Lynched

[Synobun]

The argument is bankrupt on delivery. The people purported to be part of a roving Like gang targeting the isolated innocents of CFC disagree with each other frequently. Redefining disagreement as evidence of collective wind tunnels between their ears is just being salty that your opinion isn't the favoured one.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Participating in a dogpile with someone(s) doesn't necessitate that you never disagree with them anywhere else.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

some conservabros in here act like getting digitally dogpiled is something that only ever happens to them, because this site is some kind of leftist hivemind. that's just entirely untrue. I've gotten completely **** on for some of my controversial opinions. stuff like that is inevitable in online spaces, it's a fact of anonymity and group psychology. I think the correct solution for someone who doesn't want that would be to seek out some safe(r) spaces, and I mean that absolutely unironically. most messageboards, forums, comment sections and blogs are completely cesspools that any healthy person should avoid. cfcot is one of the nicer ones, trust me.

 

[Synobun]

Are you being dogpiled if, IRL, you enter a group of vegans and proclaim your love for meat, and they all disagree with you? Why should one's opinion be limited to one disagreement, forcing the rest into silence, when they would be more than okay with multiple people agreeing with them? Are likes in some way inferior to expressing support for an idea? Would one believe they weren't being dogpiled if the people liking posts disagreeing with them instead made their own posts painstakingly outlining how wrong they are?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't believe the claim is that having multiple people disagree and/or having people like other posts are the sole requirement(s) for something being labelled as a dogpile.

 

[BCheek]

Are you being dogpiled if, IRL, you enter a group of vegans and proclaim your love for meat, and they all disagree with you?

That's not really comparable to entering a political internet forum and offering your opinion. I would hope there's some diversity of opinion otherwise it's a rather boring exercise. The vegan group on the other hand is a very narrowly defined interest group with a clearly defined agenda.

 

[Synobun]

That's not really comparable to entering a political internet forum and offering your opinion. I would hope there's some diversity of opinion otherwise it's a rather boring exercise. The vegan group on the other hand is a very narrowly defined interest group with a clearly defined agenda.

Except there are defined groups within this "political internet forum." If you have six people in a thread about, say, abortion, and five of those people believe abortion is a right and the sixth does not, is the sixth person being dogpiled when they make their opinion clear and find that the five others are in disagreement?

 

[Kyriakos]

While CFC obviously is more to the left than other game forums I know, ultimately a lot of posters are closer to what is conservative in Europe, rather than left. Moreover, no two people are the same.
Maybe the issue is that the US is more radical (usually to the right) than Europe, so most euro posters come across as leftist.

 

[BCheek]

Except there are defined groups within this "political internet forum." If you have six people in a thread about, say, abortion, and five of those people believe abortion is a right and the sixth does not, is the sixth person being dogpiled when they make their opinion clear and find that the five others are in disagreement?

But there is no explicitly defined consensus on a political forum. Saying something contraversial according to some on CFCOT isn't at all comparable to crashing a vegan meetup to proclaim your love for meat. The only way your scenario would be similar is if the entire forum was narrowly defined as a pro-choice forum.

 

[Truthy]

I too hate dogpiling, but folks should be pragmatic. You're writing for an audience: the OT regulars. If you've spent much time here, you should know in advance what arguments are going to be an uphill battle. Don't expect to advance an unpopular opinion with ease. Prepare yourself for the uphill battle. Concede unimportant ground if you need to. Improve your reputation. Get on some people's good side in advance so they'll give you the benefit of the doubt or even back you up.

You can also avoid getting dogpiling by doing such things as: telling most of your interlocutors you don't want to be dogpiled, so you will reserve your responses for one or two posters of your choice. Ideally, select the one or two smartest and most respectful people you're arguing with to focus on.

About likes: I understand that one can resent the peanut gallery. But there's really not much use getting upset about how many likes your interlocutors are receiving.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Theres nothing wrong with consensus however I'd say that dogpiling someone when you aren't adding anything new to the conversation doesnt contribute anything to the discussion. If the intent is to berate someone or force a consensus with whom you disagree, that kind of behavior is really unnecessary. It makes this place rather hostile toward people who you may agree with strongly on a wide variety of other topics.

No one wants to hear "diversity of opinion" on whether trans, LGB, PoC and women should exist safely in America and to entertain anything other than an emphatic "yes" is tolerating and mainstreaming some seriously gross opinions

There are plenty of forums and internet safe spaces available for you to partake in your regressive views, don't bring it here

I don't want to post on a forum in which people can obliquely hint at the displacement of non-whites or the forced deportation of anyone who looks "foreign" and i don't want to tolerate what is essentially the thin end of a neo-nazi wedge.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's not really a response to what you quoted.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

That's not really a response to what you quoted.

The person in question has advocated for Ethnostates and the usual racist apologetics.

It's not so much a response as it is a condemnation of who and what they are.

 

[BCheek]

No one wants to hear "diversity of opinion" on whether trans, LGB, PoC and women should exist safely in America and to entertain anything other than an emphatic "yes" is tolerating and mainstreaming some seriously gross opinions

There are plenty of forums and internet safe spaces available for you to partake in your regressive views, don't bring it here

I don't want to post on a forum in which people can obliquely hint at the displacement of non-whites or the forced deportation of anyone who looks "foreign" and i don't want to tolerate what is essentially the thin end of a neo-nazi wedge.

In case you're unaware, you're not the gatekeeper of political discussion, so feel free to assign whatever insane labels to me you'd like and I'll continue to discuss whatever I choose to discuss.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The person in question has advocated for Ethnostates and the usual racist apologetics.

It's not so much a response as it is a condemnation of who and what they are.

Ah okay, ad hominem then.

 

[Synobun]

But there is no explicitly defined consensus on a political forum. Saying something contraversial according to some on CFCOT isn't at all comparable to crashing a vegan meetup to proclaim your love for meat. The only way your scenario would be similar is if the entire forum was narrowly defined as a pro-choice forum.

Oh, you're another literalist. That's boring. I'm not participating in that.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

In case you're unaware, you're not the gatekeeper of political discussion, so feel free to assign whatever labels to me you'd like and I'll continue to discuss whatever I choose to discuss.

I didn't assign any labels to you insofar as you outed yourself with your dogwhistle racist bs.

There's a difference between "political discussion" and open advocation of an ethnostate or forced deportation or/and subjugation of non-whites, if you can't grasp that then maybe you shouldn't be open about your beliefs or go to a forum where that sort of racism is tolerated and allowed.

Ah okay, ad hominem then.

I don't think this is the type of person you want to be defending, i'll ignore it this time, but let's not restart a pattern eh?

 

[BCheek]

Oh, you're another literalist. That's boring. I'm not participating in that.

That's fine. I'll take the W.

 

[Senethro]

Ah okay, ad hominem then.

Its not really an ad hominem to put a "Slip Hazard" warning sign beside an unfortunate spill.

 

[BCheek]

I didn't assign any labels to you insofar as you outed yourself with your dogwhistle racist bs.

There's a difference between "political discussion" and open advocation of an ethnostate or forced deportation or/and subjugation of non-whites, if you can't grasp that then maybe you shouldn't be open about your beliefs or go to a forum where that sort of racism is tolerated and allowed.

I don't ever remember mentioning an ethnostate, forced deportations, or the subjugation of non-whites. Perhaps I do support all those things, but in order for you to know I'd need to have a desire to engage with you before offering my opinion. The trouble is your behavior is so incredibly toxic that I suspect you'll never truly know.