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
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.
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.
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
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: “[THREAD=887710]New Rules for Great Debates and Elections – January 2020[/THREAD]”
You can send a private message to a moderator if you want to add a topic.
[quote=“Jonathan_Chance, post:1, topic:845726”]
[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
~Max
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?
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.
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
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?
It’s not that hard to understand.
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.
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?
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/showthread.php?t=819851
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=836619
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=885666
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=860302
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=869873
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879119
ITT: FXMastermind presents his evidence that climategate was scientifically meaningful - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board [BBQ Pit]
I'm sick of this Global Warming! - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board [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.
“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.
Respectfully, can you two move this into a different thread? Maybe the “[THREAD=885910]Disputation and the Straight Dope[/THREAD]” thread here in ATMB? Or even better, the new “[THREAD=887713]New Rules 2020: Discussion Thread[/THREAD]” thread in GD?
~Max
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.
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
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
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.
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.