Skip to main content

View Diary: Fear and Loathing at Daily KOS (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No arguement about CT's needing to be stopped (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    If someone puts forth a theory (and not just an opinion), facts do need to be verified.

    I was commenting not on his specific behaviour, but that of some commentors as of late. It sometimes seems as though some people have had a bad day at work and just wait to vent at night on this site. Every diary I put out is an opinion looking to open a dialogue; all too often a great deal of hatred and name-calling ensues instead.

    "The less time you have, the more you need to use it wisely." - Cpt. Avatar, Starblazers

    by DeathDlr73 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:47:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. Not stoppped. Banned. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, CathiefromCanada
      If someone puts forth a theory (and not just an opinion), facts do need to be verified.
      You are not correct. Kos has made it very clear - conspircay theories are not supposed to be countered by facts here - they are not to be debated at all.

      Doing so is a bannable offense.

      Diarist WAS warned. He even said so in the diary - he got an HR and and an explanation by an experienced user.  Given the lengths Kos went recently to to get rid this very topic of bullshit talk a warning should not have been necessary in the first place. You may argue that it is sometimes hard to draw the line - but when Kos writes a diary to clearly label a topic CT, it's not difficult at all.

      But instead of backing off diarist doubled down, revenge-HRed the user warning him (a big no-no in itself), and continued his argument.

      ______
      "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

      by cris0000 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:36:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Relatively new here -- is there an OFFICIAL (0+ / 0-)

        definition of a conspiracy theory?  At least from my background (applied behavior analysis, cognitive psych., neuropsych., phil. of science), I'd think that'd be a difficult thing to do well enough to serve as a clear behavioral guideline, unless it was just a list provided by Markos.  I would think that the lack of a clear definition would also lead to an "official" version of history for the site that would deaden discussion.  For example, would I be able to quote Greg Palast, whose work is usually dismissed by conventional journalists as so many "conspiracy theories"?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site