Gutwrench, how am I supposed to keep my promise, fulfill my post-liking obligations if you boycott?PRSI suffered a brain drain when I started my boycott.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why the politics section?
- Thread starter nouveau_redneck
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And yet, PRSI allowed two archenemies like @JayMysterio and @yaxomoxay (me) to engage in several respectful conversations, and even to work together on some crime related data and governmental documentation, something I'll never forget despite its simplicity and anonymity.
PRSI's tone is simple: we - the users that are always on PRSI - are not afraid of engaging in conversations that can be seen as uncomfortable by people that share your views. Yes, sometimes we end up in a corner of petty conversations, but many, many times we get exposed to the ideas of others and this is something to be celebrated.
I don't see why anyone would be upset by a "Trump Tweet [...]" title. Are we really at this point?
[doublepost=1557521334][/doublepost]
This x 100.
The quantity of documents (many of which are official documents) on PRSI is something unparalleled. Often, we are also pretty "brutal" in our requirement for sourcing one's assertions (one of the thing I love the most).
Last edited:
"And yet" sounds like you're taking exception to something I've said, and yet I can't see anything I've said that precludes the outcome you describe.
I can't help but feel I'm in a corner of petty conversations right now...
In the same way someone would be upset by having to scroll a webpage to get to their favorite forum. Or in the way someone celebrating being exposed to the ideas of others would be upset by another exposing that they'd rather not sort through threads they don't care about to get to information they feel is more relevant to the purpose of a site.
Thanks for this. I could've saved myself a lot of frustration today if I hadn't bitten on a "political" post. I rarely do it, but just couldn't help myself. If I couldn't see that stuff pop up on the edge of the forums, I wouldn't have bitten.
I DO typically tried to avoid frustrating discussions.
You can remove any forum posts showing up that you don’t want to see in “New Posts” just go to the top of the forums you don’t want to see and click “Ignore Forum”.
This entire post is ironically sort of representative of where things are in the US (and much of the world) these days - it's as though one side is living in a completely different universe. I've only checked PRSI occasionally, but top to bottom, 98% dumpster fire. The "sourcing" requirement you speak of are mostly comprised of literal "fake news" sites, blogs, etc. PRSI is a propaganda platform for spreading this bs.
People rationalize the 2% of success as being worth the 98% of failure.
So, you checked PRSI occasionally yet you’re able to discuss 98% of the sourcing top to bottom. Nice.
That's the kind of "debate tactics" that frequent PRSI. You rewrote what I said as something I didn't say (nor could be inferred by an informed person), and then attribute it to me.
It's garbage in, garbage out.
Uh, yeah... I know what I wrote... I'm the one who wrote it.
More of the same from you - you're now correlating two different statements that are not related. What you meant to do is take what you wrote and compare it to what I wrote, and then the differences would be clear... but you didn't want them to be clear because that would make you look bad.
Again, typical PRSI debate tactics. I guess that's just the level of forum discussions these days.
More of the same from you - you're now correlating two different statements that are not related. What you meant to do is take what you wrote and compare it to what I wrote, and then the differences would be clear... but you didn't want them to be clear because that would make you look bad.
Again, typical PRSI debate tactics. I guess that's just the level of forum discussions these days.
Last edited:
If you rarely visit a given section of a site, it is difficult to pronounce with confidence (or credibility) that it is a "98% dumpster fire".
Rather, if you had written something along the lines of that you rarely visit it because what you have seen on your visits is deeply unattractive and unnecessarily antagonistic, your stance, or argument, or statement, or position would carry a lot more weight.
Personally, - and I work as a political analyst in real life and used to be an academic where I taught politics and history - thus, politics is a passionate personal and professional interest of mine - I find myself visiting PRSI less frequently, not least because the quality of debate is underwhelming much of the time.
But, that is not an argument not to have the PRSI section.
Last edited:
At least you quoted the "98% dumpster fire" correctly.
You've substituted the word I used "occasionally" for your word "rarely". It was a completely unnecessary substitution, and they have two different connotations. This distinction is important because you're attempting to undermine my credibility by suggesting I haven't spent enough time in PRSI to have an informed opinion.
That being said, I obviously disagree with your assessment - for example, I don't need to spend a lot of time on Fox News to have an accurate picture of what it's about. If I skim through all the first page threads of PRSI on any given random day of May, and they're 98% dumpster fire, and then I do the same on a random day in August, and the same on a random day in October, and it's always dumpster fire, then yeah... dumpster fire. I can increase the frequency to once a month, or once a week, or once a day - that doesn't change the "results".
Though I would agree with your assessment of PRSI (and I have made similar points in other related threads), that wasn't the point of my post. If the point of my post was to explain why I don't frequent PRSI, then you'd have a point.
While you have taken me to task for failing to distinguish between your use of the word "occasionally" and my substitution of "rarely", when referring to the frequency of your visits to PRSI - a reasonable distinction to draw, - given that, I confess to no small surprise at your adamant insistence in using a precise number "98" when describing PRSI as a "98% dumpster fire".
My point - and I believe that also made by @yaxomoxay - and this is not mere scoring of debating points - is that I'm curious as to how you can quantify a given number, in this case, "98%" - when advancing a general argument, - how do you calculate it? - but - more specifically, I'm even more curious how you can attempt to argue by citing this number with an admitted frequency of "occasional" visits to the section of the site in question.
Logically, it doesn't make sense.
Now, I take your point that one doesn't need to immerse oneself in - for example, an example you cited, - Fox News to understand the nature (and draw conclusions about the tone, impartiality, and its credibility as a source) of the outlet. But, I would never attempt to argue that on the basis of a spurious - and subjective - statistic.
Last edited:
So this is now all about how I "adamantly" arrived at the "98%" number? Seriously?
You're not having a discussion in good faith.
So this is now all about how I "adamantly" arrived at the "98%" number? Seriously?
You're not having a discussion in good faith.
Please do not attribute motives or motivations to me; I could, with respect, make the same argument by way of reply.
You quibble over the distinction between the use of the words "rarely" and "occasionally" - which is a fair point - yet insist on using a number as a measurement about a matter that cannot be quantified. As a means of advancing an argument, this is somewhat flawed, I would submit.
In essence, my disagreement with your (initial) post on this topic boils down to three elements:
1: That PRSI is " a dumpster" section of the site; on this point, let us we simply agree to differ on that - a matter of normal discussion, debate, disagreement.
2. That this can be quantified. ("98% dumpster fire").
How does one measure 98%? This is not a serious argument. It would be a lot more logical to attempt to argue, or advance the argument that much - if not most - of what you read there when you visit is "a dumpster fire".
3. That this - such a figure, or statistic can be quantified when you visit the site "occasionally". That is not a credible argument.
Last edited:
I'm not the one who keeps changing the argument and suggesting I've said things that I didn't say.
You could have saved both of us a bunch of time by just starting with this...
Yes, we simply disagree.
"98%" is just another way of saying that, with few exceptions, I think the entire forum is a dumpster fire.
I don't think it's 100% a dumpster fire, I don't think it's only 80% a dumpster fire. I could have chosen 90% instead, but that doesn't "read" the same - it's precisely because the stated precision of an inherently arbitrary number that can't in reality be definitively quantified because it's an opinion, is understood by most as I intended it. If the how/why of the number itself was so critical to your understanding of what I posted, you should have lead off with that.
Every time I go into PRSI, I see a dumpster fire. That's my opinion, and I stand behind it.
If you believe there's a threshold of time/frequency spent in PRSI to have an informed opinion, feel free to share that. My experience is that there's a correlation between the more time you spend in PRSI, the less informed your opinion is likely to be.
Okay folks, I'm out. What a freaking waste of a Sunday.
You can defend your original statements behind the hyperbole argument, which could’ve been your original intent. At any rate, you’re making a judgement on an entire forum (regardless of % of “bad”) and the need for it based on what yourself defined as a limited knowledge of the forum (“occasionally”).
This is very different than saying that you took a look, glimpsed at the forum, and didn’t like what you saw.
Last edited:
You would think that people understood subjective probability. And it's more like 99% to be honest
I'm new here. Why is politics and Religion even a part of Mac Rumors? From what I can see most of those who engage in those forums pretty much argue with each other week after week. What does this have to do with Apple computers and software?
Here's a previous thread on the topic:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-the-politics-section.2168634/
It came up as the 5th suggestion in the "Similar Threads" list, below the last post of this thread.
I suspect others will add more suggested threads. There's no shortage of them.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-the-politics-section.2168634/
It came up as the 5th suggestion in the "Similar Threads" list, below the last post of this thread.
I suspect others will add more suggested threads. There's no shortage of them.
Because it probably gets the most traffic for the site.
Put the entire forum on your ignore list. That's what I have done but to answer your question, I suspect @Breezygirl is correct.
Agreed. They should just keep a forum about one of the world's largest and most influential companies apolitical.
From what I have seen, it's pretty much the same people arguing with each other week after week. At this point they know each other's political views, and pretty much take the same stance on every issue. So each new topic that arises the same people comment with the same points of view, and argue with the same people about their opposing views, which by the way never seems to change, at least from what I have read. Seems more like a form of therapy rather than a meaningful conversation. No one ever seems to change their mind or agree with a different point of view about anything in those forums.
For me I just blocked the entire topic. Some of the thread headlines are just plain silly and kind of distracting when you are trying to learn about the new Macbook you just purchased, or find out if it was a good deal or not.
For me I just blocked the entire topic. Some of the thread headlines are just plain silly and kind of distracting when you are trying to learn about the new Macbook you just purchased, or find out if it was a good deal or not.
Last edited:
Indeed.
After all, it is not as though one of the world's largest, richest and most influential companies has any say whatsoever in a number of significant areas of public policy.