Why can't we have good faith discussions?

Why can't we have good faith discussions?

Other urls found in this thread:

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

We can, just not here.

Generally this is because "trolling" gets sublimated into actual ideology, leading to good faith discussors being labeled as trolls.

Besides, it's not as good for rapid succession dopamine kicks of having your post get a bunch of replies. As such this becomes a dance of one-upsmanship in which even good-faith actors attempt to annoy the shit out of certain classes of strident trolls.

>he wants to argue in good faith and not purposely construct strawman and commit logical fallacies and watch somebody get butthurt and squirm in their long winded attempts to refute it

That's an eggcelent observation

You, sir, are the reason Veeky Forums should have an entry fee.

Same reason we can't have good history ones.

>sir

Red what

We need a /rel/ board for that.

faith itself disallows good discussion

you even have it
or you don't

not much to discuss about

good faith
noun
good faith

honesty or sincerity of intention.

Good faith as in religion or faith as in actually having a conversation about things with each other?

As in bona fide

Something awful has an entry fee. The quality of their boards is usually pretty high too.

[spoiler] I bought an account a long time ago for the veterans/military forums [/spoiler]

I don't want a boner ride.

STOP RUINING THIS BOARD. I JUST WANT TWO SECONDS OF QUALITY DISCUSSION!!

Because faith is personal and subjective. It can't be argued and compared in quality with other people's faiths.
>I think this
>well that's shit
>well I believe it
>ok fuck you
>I slightly believe the same as the first user
>implying my faith isn't the best

Religions on the other hand are a great topic of discussion, since they are codified, have historical precedent and practices as well as literature.

In all seriousness, there is a /pol/ presence on this board. /pol/ will go the way of /mlp/ sometime in the future, and balance will be restored. We'll be fine.

What even is /pol/?

The definition I think suits best is a loose coalition of alt-right people (alt-right being best defined as people who still align themselves to the further political "right" but don't follow the Conservative movement) that are united only through efforts of railing against the "establishment" and constant shitposting. Eventually, they will have a massive ideological clash on the board, culminating in many of the people within leaving /pol/ to form new chans or to begrudgingly co-exist together, which will lead to /pol/ gradually losing members as they splinter off or lose interest.

The more niche a board is the better the posting quality in MOST cases (exceptions like /jp, /mlp) but the.

Looking at the sticky

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere. General discussions about international culture should go on /int/.

> When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.

the former is constantly broken and the later no one really does. One user did an experiment where he constantly started fights on another board about one topic and one thing he noted is that when HE called the person a faggot and insulted him heavily the thread posters favoured him, when the other guy did it more it favoured him more. Also board culture and populace being a factor and Dunning-Krueger.

I knew I had read that before. thanks for posting it again so I could save it, friend-o

Because the anonymity of the internet brings out the depravity inherent to all mankind.

>leftard wet dreams in a nutshell
/pol/ isn't going anywhere, get used to it

I remember the Bronies saying this as well. Veeky Forums outlasts all of these uprisings.

>(((You)))

Because atheist shitposters and theist newfags

but could you imagine the amount of angry shitposting would go on there? it would have to be heavily modded

>Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.

I've heard /pol/lacks don't get dates.

They don't from what I know of one irl.

Nice guy aside from, well, the /pol/ stuff.

because mods delete threads like

A fun edgy meme board that became shit after it attracted stormfags that unironically believe the memes.

And I've never see their opponents address the veracity of what they have to say about race. Well, apart from that it's you know, racist.

Every time one of them shitposts here, it is explained what is wrong with the methodologies of the studies they post and so on.

I've seen numerous threads where /pol/ has been combated and btfo'd, they just label statistics and data that goes against their cause as invalid because of some reason or another, usually involving Jews or race-haters.

What is wrong with let's say the book the Bell Curve. Or the following article ...

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/

You. I like you.

Self advertisement? Pretty shitty my man.

>post link to something that isn't Wikipedia
>self-advertisement

What "btfo'dness" has there been towards the hereditarianism positions other than unfalsifiable "muh environment" arguments?

>posts his blog
>wtf is every source self advertisement