Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-26-2019, 08:29 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Yeah, I get ya.

Would it be fair to paraphrase it this way?

'What would make GD better for me? Nothing, because I don't want to have a 'debate' great or otherwise. I just want to have good conversations with people interested in hearing what I think about things.'

CMC fnord!
Well, I would add "and hear how others' experiences have differed from mine".

I was responding to the suggestion that we "elevate" some topics out of IMHO and put them in GD because they are too serious for IMHO, and that GD would be improved if those topics were debated there. I have zero problem with people starting threads in GD about the same topics that we discuss in IMHO, but if we are having a good discussion in IMHO, I'm not going to be happy if some mod "elevates" the thread to GD. The fora are different, not better.

I have other suggestions about GD. There's a lot I would like to change about GD, too. But taking the best of IMHO isn't it.

Also, was your tone snarky? Like "you're too much of a pussy to want to debate, so you want to hang out in the shallow end of the pool and chit chat. Why are you even in a conversation about GD"? Like, I sincerely can't tell. If it is, again, I wasn't making a suggestion about GD, I was defending IMHO.
  #52  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:02 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Well, I would add "and hear how others' experiences have differed from mine".

I was responding to the suggestion that we "elevate" some topics out of IMHO and put them in GD because they are too serious for IMHO, and that GD would be improved if those topics were debated there. I have zero problem with people starting threads in GD about the same topics that we discuss in IMHO, but if we are having a good discussion in IMHO, I'm not going to be happy if some mod "elevates" the thread to GD. The fora are different, not better.

I have other suggestions about GD. There's a lot I would like to change about GD, too. But taking the best of IMHO isn't it.

Also, was your tone snarky? Like "you're too much of a pussy to want to debate, so you want to hang out in the shallow end of the pool and chit chat. Why are you even in a conversation about GD"? Like, I sincerely can't tell. If it is, again, I wasn't making a suggestion about GD, I was defending IMHO.
In no way snarky!
(I do fear that there are too many posters that think GD is the open ocean instead of just the slightly deeper end of the pool and The Pit is a war zone when it's actually just a mosh pit.)

Personally, I like GD because, cribbing from Matt Dillahunty, I'm not interested in what you think I want to know why you think it. I want to demand that people support their opinions with facts. (Not that just exploring opinions doesn't also have it's charms.)



I've got a feeling that for a lot of posters the question of this thread is like asking "What would make the Game Room more appealing to you posters that don't want to play games?"

CMC fnord!
  #53  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:07 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,565
I really appreciate GD, when it's good. I learn a lot there, and I am glad there's a place with high standards for support. There are times when I participate--when it's a topic I know a lot about and, honestly, when schedule permits. GD is a commitment, and most of the time I simply do not have time to participate in the way that's expected, so I don't start. In IMHO, if I say my piece and disappear, it's ok. In GD, it either feels like I am giving the false impression I ran away in shame and defeat, or that I am a punk for asking someone to come up with a complex reasoned argument and then I just ghosted them.

My whole thing was just that if we treat meaty topics as "too good" for IMHO, we lose something else.
  #54  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:37 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
I post in GD and elections sometimes, but very rarely. Honestly most of my posting in elections is either to back someone else up briefly, or represent an opinion not commonly on the board that's not too outside the comfort zone. E.G. I'll represent the opinions of me and my far leftist younger, often queer, sometimes anarcho-communist friends with regards to, say, how leftists or younger people view certain candidates when there's a misconception that say... Harris or Buttigeig is all the rage among those pinko kids, but given I'd have no support on my side if I got tired I don't care to argue, say, anarchism because I'd just be fighting a 1vs100 game against both the Liberal and conservative sides of the board. That's fine, just a board political area.

Part of my other problem, again not something easy to solve, is my unwillingness to bring up certain topics because they require too much framework, or I have a resource like a video that provides a good baseline and don't want to debate the basics. I 100% understand why nobody wants to watch a 30 minute-1 hour video, or read an essay that takes 45 minutes to digest properly, especially when people like(d) to bomb boards with Loose Change and Zeitgeist, or some unscripted podcast of people mumbling at each other about their kids for half the runtime.

That said, it can be a bit tiring when you want to have a discussion about a certain viewpoint, but already know what the first 20 arguments are going to be and want to get to that part, so you find/remember a resource that addresses all 20 of those arguments, but then nobody will use that resource so you just get arguments 1-20 anyway and you go "well never mind then this wasn't very interesting to talk about I'm gonna just bounce." You could address them in your post instead of with a link, but often these resources have a month of writing and editing work and are just going to be better, easier to follow, more coherent, and better supported than whatever you're going to Frankenstein together in an hour, and know that even if you did someone is going to tl;dr it or only read paragraph 1 or microquote the whole thing and gish gallop you. Of course it's fine if someone has an issue with Section 3 Part A of the video/article you linked and want to talk about that, but at least now you're arguing about something on the same page rather than feeling like you're arguing to argue or babysitting people until they've stopped stalling/nitpicking, heard the whole framework and the interesting fulfilling part of the discussion starts.

Again, there's not a good way to solve this. I don't blame anybody for not watching a one hour video or reading a big article about antifa or whatever (probably more than once because if they have disagreements they'd have to go back, reread/watch part of it, quote, and then draft a response). But I just find my opinions on many things are just far enough from the board that I don't want to run 101 sessions for a few days to have a nice debate when I can just have a debate with someone who, even if they have a completely different political framework, is up to speed with the context on a different part of the internet.
  #55  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:41 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Also, I maintain IMHO is, most of the time, better GD. People can make arguments without getting hounded for cites, but people are more than willing to provide cites when they feel it will help. I've supplied quite a large number of resources and citations in gender threads in IMHO.
  #56  
Old 11-26-2019, 09:57 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
@Merneith
Don't include even dumb economic theories in your "scientifically proven wrong" list but other than tht, Inmade the same suggestion earlier.
I understand that economic theories, being theories, are eminently debatable but the results of the application of this or that theory is an observable phenomenon. In the case of supply-side economics, we have decades of observations supporting the state that it is a failed theory.

a) prosperity does not trickle down
b) supply does not create demand
c) tax cuts do not create jobs
d) the economy of the US performs better under Democrats who pursue other economic policies

therefore, I believe that the observable facts prove that the supply-side theory of economics is a failure.

This is what I mean when I say that we should be allowed to declare the truth of an a statement if the facts back it up.
  #57  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:04 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Regardless, I would strongly argue against such being on the "taken as a given" list.
  #58  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:12 PM
Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,900
The thing about good discussions is that they don't just happen. They need someone who can lead a discussion and set the tone. I think the best moderation on the net right now is at r/AskHistorians, a reddit forum that is famous for its draconian approach to moderation. Here's an article discussing their decision to ban holocaust deniers:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/07...hould-too.html

After years of moderating the website, they found that questions about details of the holocaust weren't being asked in search of honest answer. Instead, it was merely a platform that allowed them to sow doubt among non-experts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salon article above

But more insidious, more frequent on both our forum and the internet at large, is the technique known as “just asking questions”—in internet parlance, “JAQing off.” Designed to further Holocaust deniers’ aim of spreading their talking points, this involves (a) framing a denialist talking point in the form of a good-faith question and (b) calling for “open debate.” This lends itself well to the question format of our subreddit. Inquiries about what materials were used for gas-chamber doors, why early editions of Elie Wiesel’s Night don’t mention gas chambers, why the death toll of Auschwitz allegedly changed over time, or simply what proof there is for the Holocaust (discounting all testimony and postwar material) might seem innocent at first glance. They are not. They are designed to call often minor details into question and to create doubt among readers less familiar with the history of the Holocaust. Deniers want to provoke an audience into making the mental leap of “If this detail is suspicious, what else might be wrong?” This is a Trojan horse for a slide from denial into hatred. When we remove such contributions, what deniers will inevitably do is to call for “open debate” and sling accusations of censorship and violations of free speech.

In this endeavor, deniers focus on many minor and obscure details and leave out crucial context. It takes them little effort to formulate a wrong assertion, but it takes historians a long time and a lot of words to refute one. Our early attempts to engage on these points have shown that length and nuance do not play well on the internet and do not interest the deniers. The point of JAQing off is not to debate facts. It’s to have an audience hear denialist lies in the first place. Allowing their talking points to stand in public helps sow the seeds of doubt, even if only to one person in 10,000.
In the end Ask Historians decided to just outright ban holocaust denial questions because the damage of leaving holocaust deniers have their say was greater than just booting them and moving on.

Consequently, posting at AH doesn't involve repetitious argument about the same facts, argued in bad faith by dishonest posters.

The comparison between the Dope & AH is not exact. Their format is more question/answer than we have here. More like General Questions. But I think we would do well to insist on factual debate on settled matters of inquiry.
  #59  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:39 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,432
Less sniping. More Thunderdoming.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #60  
Old 11-26-2019, 10:42 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
The thing about good discussions is that they don't just happen. They need someone who can lead a discussion and set the tone. I think the best moderation on the net right now is at r/AskHistorians, a reddit forum that is famous for its draconian approach to moderation. Here's an article discussing their decision to ban holocaust deniers:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/07...hould-too.html

After years of moderating the website, they found that questions about details of the holocaust weren't being asked in search of honest answer. Instead, it was merely a platform that allowed them to sow doubt among non-experts.



In the end Ask Historians decided to just outright ban holocaust denial questions because the damage of leaving holocaust deniers have their say was greater than just booting them and moving on.

Consequently, posting at AH doesn't involve repetitious argument about the same facts, argued in bad faith by dishonest posters.

The comparison between the Dope & AH is not exact. Their format is more question/answer than we have here. More like General Questions. But I think we would do well to insist on factual debate on settled matters of inquiry.
This reminds me of a philosophy youtuber's diagnosis of fascist propaganda tactics in his [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQvideo on the philosophy of antifa[/url] (transcription mine):

Quote:
Fascist speech has very interesting consequences. Suppose I say the sentence "today is Wednesday," and I say it all the time, every day, even when it's not Wednesday. And I even today is Wednesday, say "today is Wednesday" at times today's Wednesday when it's completely in-today's Wednesday-appropriate. You may start to suspect I'm not actually talking about the days of the week. I'm actually doing something else with those words[...]

Well, a lot of fascist speech works in similar ways, the myths at the cores of fascism:
the bad statistics, the made up history, the really off the wall stuff[...] it doesn't really matter to a committed fascist how many times you sit down and debunk that. They keep today's Wednesday saying "today's Wednesday."

That's because it's not so much about the content, but the act of saying it. And that's how we spot propaganda. The job of propaganda isn't necessarily to convince anyone. Propaganda is a recruitment tool: it gathers and retains the people who understand the true message, and are willing to repeat it. It doesn't really matter to a committed White Nationalist how many times you sit down and debunk the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the world is secretly being taken over by Jews. Because when they say that, they aren't really saying that it's true. What they're saying is they want to persecute Jewish people.

And their audience are all running around trying to explain the days of the week saying "come on our talk show and explain your weird theory about the days of the week! Bring this idea to the free marketplace of ideas, that we may debunk it!" While some of their audience is going "oooooh, I get it... today is Wednesday!"

The Liberal love of free speech is a great thing, but it assumes that everyone is coming to the table in good faith and is willing to play the game, which fascists obviously aren't. [...] Because when we interview fascists or debate fascists, they're not really there for us, they're there for our audience. Whilst we're up there talking about the days of the week, there's a guy at the back of the lecture theater handing out pamphlets about The Wednesday Question.
  #61  
Old 11-27-2019, 09:03 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,596
I’ve in GD a few times but generally don’t stay. Too many people get entrenched in their position and refuse to actually look at the issues.
  #62  
Old 12-01-2019, 02:08 AM
Esprise Me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 190
My perspective may not be quite what you're asking for. My feelings on GD aren't quite "hell no," but I do realize I'm not there much. I tend to scroll through threads via New Posts, not even paying much attention to where a thread is located. I'm open to jumping into a debate. But it seems like most of the times I come across one, I look at how the title is phrased and who started it and I just... don't feel like having that level of conversation with that sort of person. I don't mean to suggest everyone there is a jerk, by any means. But looking at the forum now, it seems a surprising number of recent threads were started by people who have since managed to get banned. I'd love it if more of the many posters I really like here started more threads in GD, and I'd probably post in those threads, but I guess there's sort of a vicious cycle at work.
  #63  
Old 12-01-2019, 09:56 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,919
Stop catering to the far right so much, stop punishing people for arguing with them and driving away everyone else. And yes, being "even handed" by punishing people who are upset at being called subhuman or deserving of death is catering to the right. They depend on that definition of even handedness, it's part of how they take over forums and silence their opposition.
  #64  
Old Yesterday, 02:15 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
I used to be interested in reading or posting there. Moderators should promptly weed out personal attacks and futile jokes, which IMHO do not make 'great debates' material.
Please have a look the derisory comments in this current debate.
  #65  
Old Yesterday, 03:10 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by UY Scuti View Post
I used to be interested in reading or posting there. Moderators should promptly weed out personal attacks and futile jokes, which IMHO do not make 'great debates' material.
Please have a look the derisory comments in this current debate.
Did you report the posts in question?
  #66  
Old Yesterday, 04:53 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Did you report the posts in question?
I don't have to. There are three moderators there and the activity is anaemic. Routine surveillance should allow them to spot any deviation at once.
  #67  
Old Yesterday, 05:14 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Yeah, that's not how it works.
  #68  
Old Yesterday, 05:41 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yeah, that's not how it works.
Thank you for your opinion. I know both how it works and how it should work.
  #69  
Old Yesterday, 06:06 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by UY Scuti View Post
Thank you for your opinion. I know both how it works and how it should work.
So, you meant "I shouldn't have to" when you said "I don't have to". Well, that's true enough. Have you volunteered to mod, then?
  #70  
Old Yesterday, 06:17 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Have you volunteered to mod, then?
I have volunteered to make a contribution to this thread. My post includes a general suggestion and an example.
  #71  
Old Yesterday, 10:13 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,220
For me, it's when the thread topic is obviously intended to provoke. I know before clicking it's going to be partisan bickering where nothing gets resolved, or the OP will become convinced that dissenters are purposely trying to destroy him/her. There will also be numerous thread derails because some nit-picker has an issue with an extremely minor aspect of the topic, and the larger issue becomes ignored. At least with The Pit, there's no pretense of civil debate. It's like deciding whether Meet the Press or Jerry Springer is more entertaining.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017