It is in FQ.
Just ask the mod there. I think his name is Chronos.
I could see it going either way. With Chronos’s clarification,
it is definitively the latter, to wit: Trump’s delusions or lack thereof are off topic. I have no issue with that moderation.
~Max
The wording of that hypothetical moderation looks perfectly appropriate to me too. But the neutral framing there is quite different from the wording actually used.
It seems to me that what Chronos did is no different from what the OP of this thread did in his title. And no one seems to see the title as a political jab.
And while I’m all for the mods being held to a higher standard when moderating, I think this is too far. The message itself is polite enough.
Plus I do think it is important for an ignorance fighting forum to remind people that Trump’s claims are false. So pure neutrality is not called for. So the issue is at most about wording.
But would a question about whether Trump’s claims about election-stealing are false be appropriate for Factual Questions? I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure not. Even if narrowly focused on the facts of the matter, the inherent charged political nature of the question would send it to Politics and Elections.
For similar reasons, I think moderation in FQ should err on the side of being scrupulously neutral on any factual matter that carries so much partisan political baggage. I’m not suggesting moderation should endorse the idea that it’s an unresolved question - just that it should steer clear.
Why not? There is zero factual evidence that the election was stolen. If someone has facts, bring them to the factual forum. “Is JFK dead” is a factual question. Too bad that it’s about a politician, it’s factual.
ETA: I understand that that’s not how it’s going to be here, but I say “Why not?” anyway.
Well then I’m curious. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Could @Chronos speak to this? Would a question like
Do Trump’s claims that the election was stolen have any basis in reality?
be allowed in FQ for a narrow discussion sticking to the objective facts and evidence? (Not that I’m planning to start such a thread!) If so, then I think that would change my opinion about the wording of the moderation.
Well, after the official results are cited the burden should be on the skeptic to present or cite a claim (and evidence!) against the official line.
~Max
I think because the question is inherently political and we have a forum for that.
I can see a case could be made if you want a discussion only about the facts and you don’t want any political sniping or commentary. In that case, FQ might be your best bet.
It might not be a very good thread, though. Because the facts are pretty easy to find and you can’t really talk about much else on the subject after the question is answered without getting political, and at that point you’re violating FQ rules. Also, “prove a negative” subjects are also not extremely conducive to discussion.
Frankly, putting that thread in FQ, regardless of your intentions, seems like a bad decision.
Another thing to consider is that people tend to frequent certain forums, and not others. I spend very little time in GD, for example. So asking a factual question about a political topic in P&E might give you a better answer (and discussion) than putting it in FQ. Same if you ask a question about video games or sports in the Game Room, or a question about food or pop culture in Cafe Society. Even if you want a “factual” answer, those forums will probably work better than FQ.
Yes, but it is also inherently factual. Again, I know it wouldn’t fly. But regarding the OP, facts is facts. We put a lying, delusional man in the Oval Office, and there is no reason that grown ass grownups should tiptoe around that. It, too, is a fact.
But that’s just it: you say he’s lying and delusional; why, then, should the claim in question be flatly labeled as one of Trump’s delusions? Couldn’t it be that Trump was simply, y’know, lying?
But it’s been long established that the logical and sensible reading of words is prohibited. Anyone would understand that a statement that “you are” is the equivalent of the weasel-worded “your posts imply that you are arguing…” After all, few of us know each other in real life and the only content we have to go by is peoples’ posts. Nevertheless, such elision is modable and warnable. Only the actual words of a post count. Post facto clarification is not accepted. It can’t be acceptable here either without creating a double standard.
I actually would prefer that threads like the OP would just be moved to IMHO. I thought it was a pretty good thought experiment, even if it may be short lived. Moving it to P&E just means I would have never seen it. If it turns into a heated debate, move it to P&E. If it’s just a few posters idly commenting on political stuff, just leave it alone or move to IMHO.
I never look in Politics & Elections because you can tell how every thread is going to end up just from the title. You can also guess pretty well who is going to post on which side. Basically, it seems to rehash the same stuff over and over.
I’ve seen it happen, surely you have too.
~Max
To be perfectly clear: It wasn’t intended as snark. I meant it in the sense that included “or lack thereof”. If a poster says “Trump is deluded”, they are discussing Trump’s delusions. If a poster says “Trump is not deluded”, they are also discussing Trump’s delusions. For comparison, a group of people debating whether unicorns exist are all discussing unicorns, including the members of the group on the “unicorns don’t exist” side.
Well, that’s not how your post reads at all.
Nobody in the thread before you had said anything about Trump being deluded or not. You were the first person to mention it.
People were discussing Trump’s belief that he won the election. You, and nobody else, referred to that as “Trump’s delusions” . Adding “or lack thereof” doesn’t change the direct meaning of what you said.
Except that nobody had mentioned “unicorns” in the thread before you.
So? If people were discussing discussing mythological horned horses and Chronos was the first person using the word “unicorn,” it wouldn’t make Chronos out of line.
People were discussing whether or not Trump believes he was elected a second time. Since he factually was not, said belief would by definition be a delusion. Hence Chronos’s gloss makes sense.
And, as he says, if you’re arguing that Trump doesn’t actually believe it, then you’re arguing that he’s not delusional, and thus it is still accurate to summarize that as being a discussion about Trump’s delusions. Just like people saying “horned horses do not exist” would in fact still be discussing the existence of unicorns.
I can’t think of any situation where those two phrases would be understood as equivalent. But what Chronos said is a fairly normal gloss. It’s not uncommon at all to leave out “or lack thereof” or similar language. His clarification is just that—a clarification. Not a change in the meaning of what he said.
What the mods don’t allow is saying X and then claiming you actually meant Y. And, even then, that’s pretty much only when it involves personal attacks or the like. I can’t say “I didn’t mean to call so-and-so evil, just their posts.”
That seems to go a bit too far. My whole point is that I’m not arguing that he “doesn’t actually believe it”; instead, I’d say that maybe he’s lying, but maybe he isn’t, because maybe he’s relaying a delusion he actually believes, but maybe not.
I’d sum that up with a “Trump’s claims are off-topic” instead of a “Trump’s delusions are off-topic” — a change I figure would sidestep the need for some later ‘or lack thereof’ discussion.