There’s a handful of us wanna-be talking heads who spend a lot of time in Elections and Great Debates. There are also a fair number of people whose expressed opinion of these forums is Oh Fuck No. I know it’s seen as a lot of pissing contests, snide up-to-the-lining, and pointless bickering.
Which is a shame, because otherwise political discourse in the modern world is so respectful, thoughtful, and productive.
But what I’m curious about is, current folks in these forums, why do you love it, and how would you make it better? O WAIT NO. That’s not what I’m curious about AT ALL. We’ve all yammered endlessly about that.
Instead, I’m curious about folks who might have interesting opinions about elections, or about other forum-relevant subjects, but who find the current culture of those forums sufficiently repellent that they don’t post there. What changes would be interesting to YOU? How could the culture of those forums change such that you’d become interested in posting more there?
I’m not sure I’ll have anything else to say in this thread, but I’m interested in seeing responses. I encourage other GD/Elections regulars to join me in reading but not posting (and definitely not arguing) in this this thread.
Frankly, there are a number of people on both sides I’d like to see be basically banned from those forums. Far too many threads become either pile-ons or endless back-and-forths and then those disputes continue to metastasize into other threads and other forums.
Don’t misrepresent others arguments either directly or in the form of a question. Recognize opinion as opinion and cited facts from reputable sources as cited facts from reputable sources. If a poster finds a particular subject emotionally perilous exercise the self-control to avoid it entirely instead of arguing from a very emotional point of view. Recognize that the background and life experience of different folks means that different ideas are going to have different meanings. That’s not to say that different folks are natural authorities on a subject just that what looks like a terrible terrible terrible concept, word, or idea might not be perceived that way by another. One person’s life long baggage or education for that matter shouldn’t be a constraint on another’s freedom of expression.
Anyways, I can discuss any topic and not be too bothered by it if folks don’t misrepresent what I actually say. That is a pet peeve of mine and it’s far too common here and shouldn’t be tolerated. Imagine trying to have a mature debate on truly contentious subjects on this board. Topics such as age of consent, euthanasia, eugenics, medical rationing, acceptable tactics in an insurgency, differences of religions, declawing cats, etc aren’t really possible here because of the lack of good faith and maturity.
Finally, recognize when so-called brigading, even the minor amount that happens here, occurs and don’t penalize the one or two who appear to be posting disproportionately because they are arguing against 8-12. Now that said, I don’t see how any of this can be implemented. The best one can hope for is moderation that has clarity, consistency, respect for written rules and precedent, and most importantly integrity with no bias.
There are a few reasons. First, I think there is too much tolerance for opinions that include the oppression or denigration of others. As you noted in TubaDiva’s thread, there is a difference between conservative views on things like budget spending/military/2nd Amendment rights, versus the views rooted in misogyny, racism, homophobia, and classism that seem to have become identified as conservative views by some. Of course, those posters holding those views don’t see them as oppressing anyone, so any change in moderation will be seen as an attack on conservatives. I tend to think it would be a net gain, but we’d lose some of the good conservative voices too. There’s not a 100% win with any approach.
The other reason I stay out of GD is the nature of debates I see there. I fully recognize that this is my perception, fueled with a good bit of confirmation bias, and it’s not fair to describe every thread/post in these terms. But it’s enough to keep me out.
Every GD thread I read seems to be primarily people trying to score points. I don’t see posters coming in with an open mind. The only reason anyone reads the opposing view is to identify weaknesses and find errors in statements that can be used in a counterattack. When the goal is “points”, there’s little attention to persuasive arguments, and no admission of any doubt or gray areas. It’s all black and white, and “gotchas” proving how stupid the other person is. Debates shouldn’t be about trying to get under the other person’s skin, but every one in GD seems to devolve into that.
How do you debate differences in outcome without people claiming some form of bigotry? How do you debate minimum wage laws without claims of classism? Those are attacks on the poster and not an intellectually honest debate tactic.
Sure if the debates were limited to marginal differences such as 4.5% vs 5.25% tax rates on soda you might not have personal attacks manifest… But, I wouldn’t bet on it. The solution is to forbid personal attacks and steer the debate to focus strictly on the merits of the idea. Maybe explore motivations behind the idea. But to label a particular idea or even worse the one advocating for a particular point of view intrinsically bigoted is counterproductive.
How is there to be any “debate” on topics like LGBT, etc. that won’t involve - well, two sides? If, for instance, you have one side that supports the participation of trans athletes in cis-women’s sports events, and one that feels that it shouldn’t be allowed, and then you say, “We need to ban that side for being transphobic” - then, well, you’re left with only one side. The debate has been killed off for lack of participants.
While I fully acknowledge that there may be times that are exceptions.
If it’s in the form of a question, by definition, it isn’t a ‘misrepresentation’.
An honest interlocutor should be overjoyed with the opportunity to expound on, and clarify the limits of their position.
I would expect that all of us can tell the difference between over the top, ridiculous, slippery slopes and over the top, but possible, slippery slopes that need to be guarded against.
Remember what I said about no admission of gray areas, everything must be black and white? Obviously, I’m not saying that all topics involving controversial topics are off limits. There are real challenges to defining the lines where something shifts from the allowable “can trans athletes fairly compete with their gender” to off-limits “gays are a travesty against nature.”
We all have an opinion on where that line should fall. I certainly agree the first is a valid topic. I would hope you agree the second is not OK. But you and I will most likely disagree on where it should fall between those two. I think it needs to be adjusted a little from where it is today, you might not.
That’s a worthwhile discussion. Jumping immediately to “you’re left with only one side” is the kind of poor debating technique I mentioned in my first post.
I am wary of any forum where one party to a conversation is allowed to make disingenuous or bating comments, but I can’t respond by directly accusing them dishonest tactics or arguing in bad faith, no matter how well I go on to substantiate my position against them, for fear I may be warned, suspended, or ultimately banned.
A combination of these and a few lesser items. I never spent a ton of time there but these days it mostly isn’t worth a read beyond the first page of any thread. the debate quickly gets lost in some cross between a food-fight and “Jane you ignorant slut”. These days, sometimes, its hard to tell the difference between it and the Pit – just cleaner worded rants and pile-ons. Honestly I can learn more in IMHO and GQ and with time being limited I just usually skip it.
This is at the heart of why I don’t post much in GD. I don’t find threads that try to achieve validity of position based on soundness of argument. I find two sides attacking each other, with neither side being even slightly open to having their position impacted by the other sides argument, soundness be damned. So I find the GD forum a pointless, useless waste of time.
All this being said, I don’t have any ideas as to how to change this culture of “you’re not wrong, you’re EVIL” that permeates GD. Im not clear as to what set of rules could be implemented that would somehow magically cause posters to debate only in good faith with a willingness to learn new facts. That seems like what is needed to make GD what it was intended to be.
I think a big part of the problem is, as this board has seen it’s poster numbers decline over time, the posters who’ve remained have become so accustomed to arguing with the same posters, over the same issues, over and over and over again, that we’ve become numb to anything the other side might say. Because we already heard what they will say or what position will be taken, before the first post is even made.
This has the unintended effect of repelling many potential new posters who may be thinking of posting. Why would they want to just bicker with dickheads of the internet about the technicalities of their word choices in a sentence of their post when they want to debate the ethics of government intrusion into doctor/patient relationships?
What **Ambivalid **said. It would be nice to break GD out of its funk, but it’s become akin to trench warfare in WW1. You already know in advance what will happen if you try to emerge from the trenches.
Perhaps the only thing that would work is a concerted effort, by everyone, to avoid re-hashing old topics. Stay away from old, worn-out issues like climate change, abortion, gun control, etc. unless it’s a thread that truly has some different, new angle to discuss. More diligence in coming up with something novel or new.
But someone new will come along with a question on one of these for the reason these are big topics of debate. Its not a bad idea, but are they being started by the GD regulars or by someone new to the board?
If newcomers come along, we should just humor them. Let them ask what they will. Gradually, they’ll become jaded like the rest of us.
But what I find frustrating about some of the old-and-weary topics like abortion, gun control, capital punishment or whatnot is that, oftentimes, a Doper will want to explore one *particular segment *of that topic, or a *particular angle/aspect of that topic *only - but then that particular issue is immediately forgotten as the Dope once again dredges up back the 200+ pages of the general topic itself.
For instance, a year ago or so, there was a thread in GD about whether it is moral or not to execute a condemned man who no longer remembers his crimes due to dementia. The specific question was not about the death penalty, but rather, the ethics of punishing someone who can’t remember what he’s done to deserve punishment. But…instead of the thread focusing on that, it was immediately hijacked into becoming “yet another” thread about the death penalty in general, rehashing all that old stuff. That wasn’t what the thread was meant to be about at all.
Thanks. Again, Great Debate regulars, this thread isn’t intended to get your opinions: those would be great over in the thread JC linked. Specifically, I’m curious about the opinions of folks who don’t hang out there, on what changes would make the place more appealing.
I’ll ask again: if you’re a regular there, could you let this thread be a place where you read but don’t post?
I’m probably guilty of the tactic myself on very rare (emphasis on very rare) occasion. But as an example let’s say the discussion is immigration and person A proposes a limit on immigration and person B is just asking a question in the form of “so, you don’t like too many swarthy/brown/etc. folks in your country?” Questions like that aredeliberately misleading and derail the conversation.
