In my (brief) time as a mod I have several times closed a thread with the phrase ‘This serves no purpose.’ I’m tempted to do so about this one but - as it involves me - I don’t feel I can.
This breaks my longstanding ‘never reply to letters to the editor’ policy (hard learned, that) but I do feel a need because, hey, I love you all so much.
In my original mod note for Der Trihs, I mentioned that the post in question was unhelpful and didn’t promote debate. I stand by that statement. That sort of rant is childish and does nothing to move to greater understanding. It is also deeply disrespectful of others and the board as a whole.
Look, I accepted the job of moderator not for the money, nor for the swag (I haven’t even received my coffee mug!) but because I feel a great loyalty to the SDMB. Wholly accidentally, I discovered a place where people - by and large - behave like adults. Leet speak is not tolerated, an unsupported statement can be challenged with a request for citation and that request respected and so forth. On the Internet that’s rare thing and I value it.
That’s why one of the things I hope to control is argument that indulges in hateful statements or fallacy. Der Trihs original statement did both and I tossed him a note about it. I will do it again if needed and I’ll do it to others on both sides of the aisle who believe that their role is to be hurtful and unhelpful. Won’t matter if you’re right or left on the political spectrum, be a jerk and get called on it.
I developed this habit during my endless times as a questioner, moderator and eventually a candidate in political debates. I have done a godawful amount of televised debates up to the level of US congressman due to my work in media. One thing I learned early is that thing will spiral out of control if I don’t keep a firm hand. This has led me to - notably - cut off a mic on my own congressman (whom I supported!) and facing down a Tea Party question wearing a gun when I was the only democratic candidate to respond to the groups invitation.
I did not warn Der Trihs for his post following my note because - in my opinion - it was more nuanced and subtle and respectful than his previous one. That decision is mine and mine alone and I make no apologies about it. Heck, I think I even mentioned it in the thread in question.
I believe the best in people. I try very hard to do so. Because of that I believe that no one HAS to be a bomb thrower in Great Debates. There are certainly ways to deliver the same message that continue to be polite and help to move debate along. It’s a fine art to conveying that you think someone is a bastard without actually saying it and I encourage all to work on their rhetorical skills. It’ll make GD more entertaining, at a minimum.
“The crude man is the one without compassion. The crude man, by his actions, forces others to be direct.” I read that in a book, though I forget the title. It’s words to live by. I want to see the nature of the discussion in Great Debates raised to the point where we don’t have the same 20 or 30 people yelling at each other all the time. It pushes people away - me, for one - and limits points of view and discussion.
