Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:00 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313

Link to compilations of previous threads on "Tired Topics"


In the name of fighting ignorance, and to be nice to new members with doubts about climate change etc, I recommend linking to a compilation of previous threads for each "Tired Topic".

~Max
  #2  
Old 01-01-2020, 06:16 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,540
There are descriptions of the topics in the new sticky. That seems rather comprehensive to me. My guess would be that if someone new starts a thread of these topics, the thread would be politely closed with an explanation, and no one gets hurt. As it should be, IANAM.

Last edited by bobot; 01-01-2020 at 06:16 PM.
  #3  
Old 01-01-2020, 07:50 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
If we are doing this, I nominate a sticky and a ban on further discussion of whether a twice elected President can run for Vice President because the 22nd Amendment only applies to being "elected" President, not succession by other means. Violation of this rule would be punishable by torture and then banning.
  #4  
Old 01-01-2020, 07:51 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
There are descriptions of the topics in the new sticky. That seems rather comprehensive to me. My guess would be that if someone new starts a thread of these topics, the thread would be politely closed with an explanation, and no one gets hurt. As it should be, IANAM.
A description of a topic is no substitute for a link to the actual discussions and debates. The board is effectively saying, "we've gone over these topics a thousand times before and there's probably nothing left to say". That's fine, but we could do better. To somebody new or unfamiliar with the topic, we could be even more helpful by saying "and here is where you can go and read the previous debates which should cover every relevant aspect of the topic".

~Max
  #5  
Old 01-01-2020, 07:59 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If we are doing this, I nominate a sticky and a ban on further discussion of whether a twice elected President can run for Vice President because the 22nd Amendment only applies to being "elected" President, not succession by other means. Violation of this rule would be punishable by torture and then banning.
You may not have noticed yet but "Tired Topics" refers to the new rules for Great Debates and Politics & Elections (f.k.a. Elections). Read them here: "New Rules for Great Debates and Elections – January 2020"

You can send a private message to a moderator if you want to add a topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
  • Adding to 'Tired Topics'. If you believe there's a topic that should end up on our 'tired of' list feel free to forward it to a moderator and we can discuss it in the mod loop. Adding a topic is also a very heavy lift.
~Max
  #6  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:00 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,540
Oh, I see. You want a repository of sorts. I didn't see that at first. So if climate change skeptic 2020 shows up, he gets pointed to previous threads?

Last edited by bobot; 01-01-2020 at 08:00 PM.
  #7  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:00 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If we are doing this, I nominate a sticky and a ban on further discussion of whether a twice elected President can run for Vice President because the 22nd Amendment only applies to being "elected" President, not succession by other means. Violation of this rule would be punishable by torture and then banning.
Those are maddening. Obama and Bill Clinton were relatively young while leaving office and I guarantee neither of them nor George W Bush want the job again. There’s a reason for the two term tradition and only very exceptional circumstances caused FDR to bypass it.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #8  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:06 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Oh, I see. You want a repository of sorts. I didn't see that at first. So if climate change skeptic 2020 shows up, he gets pointed to previous threads?
Yeah! We could have like a dedicated ATMB thread about the most informative debate threads on each tired topic, and then link to that in the rules.

I've tried looking up topics and debates on the Dope before. Not every thread with a keyword in the title is relevant. It's no fun sorting the wheat from the chaff and I always miss good threads, and it's slow going too.

~Max
  #9  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:13 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You may not have noticed yet but "Tired Topics" refers to the new rules for Great Debates and Politics & Elections (f.k.a. Elections). Read them here: "New Rules for Great Debates and Elections – January 2020"

You can send a private message to a moderator if you want to add a topic.


~Max
I missed that new rule. Thanks.

Can I give my 2 cents which will be summarily rejected? I disagree. So what if some guy wants to start a new topic about 9/11 denial? What's the harm? Let us do it all again and let the thread run its course. If a poster is tired of the topic, then don't post in the thread. Are the servers running low on space?

I mean don't gun control and abortion and how Trump is evil fall into the same category?
  #10  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:31 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 794
It's not that hard to understand.
  #11  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:34 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I mean don't gun control and abortion and how Trump is evil fall into the same category?
No. The "tired topics" are ones about which there's not any sort of reasonable disagreement to be had. Gun control certainly admits reasonable disagreement, and Trump's evil--

hmm.
  #12  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:50 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,191
With regards to the section about Men's Rights Advocacy - if someone wants to argue that men are on the whole more disadvantaged than women, that is a tough sell, but it's pretty undeniable that with regards to some specific things, men can be at a disadvantage - for instance, the legal system often imposes heavier prison sentences on men than women for the same offense. Is that a violation of the "No men's rights advocacy" rule?
  #13  
Old 01-01-2020, 08:59 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
In the name of fighting ignorance, and to be nice to new members with doubts about climate change etc, I recommend linking to a compilation of previous threads for each "Tired Topic".

~Max
And you're going to do what with that information? Here are are just a few of the "debates" we've had about climate change, which helps to explain why it's become a "tired topic" -- and there have been lots more:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=716196
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=746728
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=552280
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=722483
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=725446
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=770602
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=819851
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=776306
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=755160
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=836619
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=885666
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=860302
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=869873
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=879119
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=521245
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=640268
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=271546
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=714352 [BBQ Pit]
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=699678 [BBQ Pit]

So are you going to read them all, taking into account that half of it is denialist garbage? The majority of posts like that (the first one and the last one being especially pertinent examples, from one of our more prolific and now dearly departed climate change deniers) are a waste of time, which is precisely why they're now being prohibited. If you really want to fight ignorance, I suggest instead you read the first two or all three of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Reports on climate change. There's a tremendous amount of material there, but each report also has a Summary for Policymakers (relatively short and easy to understand) and a Technical Summary (longer and more technical) as well as the free contents of the full report itself.

There is still, as JC noted, room for discussion on questions like mitigation -- what are we going to do about it and what will be the impacts on global agriculture and global economies. There may also be room for discussions of some aspects of the science -- for instance, there is a fringe group of some scientists -- not all of them climate scientists and some of them outright crackpots -- who maintain that the well-established consensus on the probable range of climate sensitivity is too high, and that therefore a doubling of the earth's CO2 may produce a lower temperature rise than currently projected. The vast majority of climate scientists believe they're wrong, but it's at least a semi-rational discussion.

Those are the kinds of discussions that may be worth having, but we very rarely have them. Mostly what we get is a series of ill-informed drive-by (often newbie) posters "just asking questions" and expressing the same doubts over and over and over again, and then either ignoring or failing to understand the answers. That's what makes climate change denial a "tired" topic. Of course there is room for reasoned scientific discussion and the climate journals are full of them. But the basic science about the overwhelmingly anthropogenic (human-caused) nature of post-industrial climate change has been settled science for a long time. Except in disreputable websites and the like, authored by crackpots and shills, it's pretty much generally acknowledged by virtually all climate scientists and scientifically literate individuals that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the dominant cause of planetary warming and that this effect is primarily detrimental to our well-being and to life on the planet in general, and destabilizing to global air and ocean circulation systems. So we shouldn't be arguing stupid discredited pseudo-scientific bullshit here, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I missed that new rule. Thanks.

Can I give my 2 cents which will be summarily rejected? I disagree. So what if some guy wants to start a new topic about 9/11 denial? What's the harm? Let us do it all again and let the thread run its course. If a poster is tired of the topic, then don't post in the thread. Are the servers running low on space?

I mean don't gun control and abortion and how Trump is evil fall into the same category?
"So what" is that it degrades the quality of the fora in question, and improving the quality of discourse here is the whole idea. The prohibited discussions are all conspiratorial bullshit that are not worthy to be on a board that aspires to quality.

I'm ambivalent about gun control and abortion discussions. They seem pointless, they seem to rehash the same points again and again, and they change no one's mind. At the same time, unlike climate change denial or 9/11 denial, they're not usually blatantly unscientific and stupid. Gun arguments often take the form of statistical arguments that can be twisted like pretzels or cherry-picked like, well, cherries, and science takes no firm position on the beginning-of-human-life aspect of abortion which is largely a matter of moral and religious belief and its balance against human rights. The main virtue of not banning these discussions is that there is often something new that comes to light.

I don't see any "Trump is evil" type threads except in the several omnibus threads in the Pit, which is a different matter. In the Politics and Elections thread, I counted 23 threads directly or indirectly about different subjects related to Trump on the first page alone. He does something new almost every day. It's totally silly to lump that it with, say, the ban on counterfactual climate change denial.
  #14  
Old 01-01-2020, 09:19 PM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
"So what" is that it degrades the quality of the fora in question, and improving the quality of discourse here is the whole idea. The prohibited discussions are all conspiratorial bullshit that are not worthy to be on a board that aspires to quality.

I'm ambivalent about gun control and abortion discussions. They seem pointless, they seem to rehash the same points again and again, and they change no one's mind. At the same time, unlike climate change denial or 9/11 denial, they're not usually blatantly unscientific and stupid. Gun arguments often take the form of statistical arguments that can be twisted like pretzels or cherry-picked like, well, cherries, and science takes no firm position on the beginning-of-human-life aspect of abortion which is largely a matter of moral and religious belief and its balance against human rights. The main virtue of not banning these discussions is that there is often something new that comes to light.

I don't see any "Trump is evil" type threads except in the several omnibus threads in the Pit, which is a different matter. In the Politics and Elections thread, I counted 23 threads directly or indirectly about different subjects related to Trump on the first page alone. He does something new almost every day. It's totally silly to lump that it with, say, the ban on counterfactual climate change denial.
Last summer when I suggested that this board was banning topics, I was told that I was crazy. Bone specifically said that we were permitted to talk about anything.

So, now, I guess, we are not permitted to talk about anything we want? It seems that a handful of things have been declared to be "correct" and thus unworthy of further debate. But then we have the "mens rights" and "no discrimination" stuff which can never be correct or incorrect, just a value judgment that they shouldn't be discussed.

It seems to me that this is no different than banning the suggestion that gun ownership is a collective militia right. It has been done to death, settled by the Supreme Court, and therefore any post which suggests that gun ownership in not an individual right should be off limits. It cannot be reasonably debated that is the law, no?

I have objected to this at every step because it serves no point, does nothing to fight ignorance, and just drives people away. How does it hurt the "quality of discourse" to have a topic that many don't wish to participate in? Just don't participate.
  #15  
Old 01-01-2020, 09:31 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Last summer when I suggested that this board was banning topics, I was told that I was crazy. Bone specifically said that we were permitted to talk about anything.

So, now, I guess, we are not permitted to talk about anything we want? It seems that a handful of things have been declared to be "correct" and thus unworthy of further debate. But then we have the "mens rights" and "no discrimination" stuff which can never be correct or incorrect, just a value judgment that they shouldn't be discussed.

It seems to me that this is no different than banning the suggestion that gun ownership is a collective militia right. It has been done to death, settled by the Supreme Court, and therefore any post which suggests that gun ownership in not an individual right should be off limits. It cannot be reasonably debated that is the law, no?

I have objected to this at every step because it serves no point, does nothing to fight ignorance, and just drives people away. How does it hurt the "quality of discourse" to have a topic that many don't wish to participate in? Just don't participate.
Respectfully, can you two move this into a different thread? Maybe the "Disputation and the Straight Dope" thread here in ATMB? Or even better, the new "New Rules 2020: Discussion Thread" thread in GD?

~Max
  #16  
Old 01-01-2020, 09:36 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,301
Should you wish to compile a list of the Tired Topics discussions you're more than free to do so. No one will stop you.
  #17  
Old 01-01-2020, 09:51 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
And you're going to do what with that information? Here are are just a few of the "debates" we've had about climate change, which helps to explain why it's become a "tired topic" -- and there have been lots more:

[...]

So are you going to read them all, taking into account that half of it is denialist garbage? The majority of posts like that (the first one and the last one being especially pertinent examples, from one of our more prolific and now dearly departed climate change deniers) are a waste of time, which is precisely why they're now being prohibited. If you really want to fight ignorance, I suggest instead you read the first two or all three of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Reports on climate change. There's a tremendous amount of material there, but each report also has a Summary for Policymakers (relatively short and easy to understand) and a Technical Summary (longer and more technical) as well as the free contents of the full report itself.
What I see you telling me is that among most well informed people there is nothing to debate (bar the counterexamples on certain aspects). What I'm saying is that uninformed people haven't necessarily reached that conclusion yet.

Here's the conversation I'm imagining:
Newbie: "I don't think climate change is real."
Board: "I'm sick of explaining why climate change is real. Don't bring it up again."
[Newbie thinks the board is biased and ignorant and a safe space for biased and ignorant people.]
versus
Newbie: "I don't think climate change is real."
Board: "We've covered this question at length, and the consensus is that it's real. Here is a good post explaining why it is real, there's also links to common questions and misconceptions. If you still have something to say, read these threads. If you still have something to say, send me a message and I'll consider reopening this thread."
[Newbie either reads the threads or gives up on the topic of climate change, or violates mod instructions and gets in trouble]
~Max
  #18  
Old 01-01-2020, 10:05 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Should you wish to compile a list of the Tired Topics discussions you're more than free to do so. No one will stop you.
The crux of my suggestion and the purpose of this thread is that such a list makes its way into the rule post.

I don't think it's a good idea to have me make the list personally. I am new and personally I haven't read enough threads on any of those topics to conclude that there is no discussion to be had. I'm okay with the rules because I blindly assume as fact that each of the topics is actually settled. I don't know the first thing about the ostensible arguments behind scientific racism, holocaust denial, minority discrimination, men's rights advocacy, 9/11 truthers, or climate change denialism.

Well, maybe the minority discrimination and men's rights advocacy. I might not fully agree with those topic bans but I'm not entirely sure what is considered to be under those topics. I might post in the discussion thread about that.

~Max
  #19  
Old 01-01-2020, 10:25 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
I suggested something very similar in the previous rules discussion thread. I think it would be pretty nice if you just had a little (well cited) summary of why these topics are not a matter for debate.

Not to be a whore, but a few pages of well cited bullshit takedowns might also help google hits.
  #20  
Old 01-02-2020, 07:44 AM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,962
If there's an interest from the mods, then I'd be willing to write a summary of the issues regarding climate change. Just let me know.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 01-02-2020 at 07:45 AM.
  #21  
Old 01-02-2020, 09:47 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,112
It's not the "tiredness" so much that gets to me but the "too lazy to Google" ones. (Something I have been guilty of. But I'm getting better.)

Take the latest thread on geographical anomalies. I like the occasional return of something like this. (Something I pointed out in the thread.)

Sometimes it's fun to revisit a topic.

I think it might be discouraging to new visitors to see a sticky or some such telling them not to start a thread on a long list of topics. Is there question new or old? Where do you draw the line? Etc.

Last edited by ftg; 01-02-2020 at 09:48 AM.
  #22  
Old 01-02-2020, 09:48 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,904
I think that if the point is "we've done this already, over and over again", it's nice to be able to point to that over-and-over. Not so much to have a new summary of issues written.
  #23  
Old 01-02-2020, 10:35 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,026
You could do both. A short summary and links to previous discussions. The summary explains why it's over and the old threads let people see how the discussion went.
  #24  
Old 01-02-2020, 05:12 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 21,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Is there question new or old?
Do they know how to spell "their"?
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 05:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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