If everyone would speak to each other as if they are sitting in the same room as opposed to sitting behind the safety of their monitor; I think THAT would solve a LOT of problems.
Hey, octopus, the point of this thread is to gather opinions on improvements from non-Elections/GD posters. Can you explain why the fuck you think you should be the biggest contributor to this thread? I’m all ears, old buddy. All ears.
You too, Velocity.
Moderator Note
- This isn’t the Pit. Treat others with respect in ATMB.
- Do not tell others what they can and cannot post.
TroutMan and Ambivalid have expressed my principal frustrations with the political side of GD. I would add that there are a handful of posters of all stripes who do not appear to be there other than to tear other posters down or frustrate debate with disingenuous argument. The OP asks for solutions. I have none other than perhaps more stringent moderation, which taxes available resources. And there seems to be this silly notion that just because a poster uses polite language he or she can’t be an asshole and as such hasn’t violated a board rule or norm. That needs to be addressed because it’s false. Polite jerks can be more insidious than the loud ones, and they need to be called out.
I tend to drop out of threads when the snip-and-respond techniques become too, well, snippy. That style, to me, is all about scoring points. People parse an argument into 15 points and nitpick each one. Who has time to counter nitpick? It’s a hydra, with every counter being cut in two and each half nitpicked again.
Thanks, LHOD. I’m the person who originally inspired this thread, and I appreciate someone caring enough to ask for my opinion.
The bottom line, as I said in the other thread, is that people should be kind. That means not dismissing any person as a person, just challenging their opinions. Calling someone a homophobe or a racist is not debating. Asking them about the origins of their specific opinions, or what might change them, or challenging them makes for interesting discussion. I have often found that when I try to ask a genuine question in a debate, I am completely ignored. Earlier this week there was a discussion involving abortion, and I started typing up a post asking a question about someone’s opinion. But then I realized it was pointless, because people would rather call each other names.
I do not believe that there is any rule change that would help to solve these issues. Things will only improve when posters come to GD and Elections with good intentions, share their opinions honestly without attacking those they disagree with, and ignore the posts from provocateurs instead of engaging.
Thing is, I don’t think the people you are thinking about would speak to each other at all in the real world. Or, at least, they wouldn’t discuss these types of topics. The higher civility of real life comes with the consequence of ideas not being discussed at all.
I stumbled on this myself when I realized how the reason I don’t have problems getting along with people in real life vs. this board is that I don’t discuss any of the things I say here at all. The only deep topics that I ever talk about in real life are the innocuous ones that don’t matter.
The anonymity of the Internet is both a blessing and a curse. It means people can be more open without consequence, but it also means they can be meaner without consequence. Figuring out how to moderate the latter without unduly impacting the former is a hard problem.
What about when the very opinion being discussed dismisses your worth as a person? What if the very point up for debate is fundamentally unkind to a whole gender or race or continent worth of people? What then?
Then you still challenge the opinion. You talk about your value, and the value of other people like you. “He’s being mean, so I can be mean to him” is the debating tactic of a toddler.
I understand that you are frustrated and angry about some people’s horrible opinions. So am I. But I have no interest in participating in a discussion in which “you’re just a big meanie” is the argument. I was asked why I don’t participate in GD or Elections, and what might make me participate. I’m interested in solutions, in understanding other points of view and seeing how my position might be adjusted or compromised. I"m interested in learning about how other people think and why. Those are the things that would bring me to GD or Elections.
I don’t think GD is improved by requiring posters to debate/defend their value as human beings, or debate the relative value of other human beings.
I would endeavor to make GD a relatively ‘politics free’ zone, and change Elections to Politics to take up that slack. I’d also push for more IMHO topics to be upgraded to GD. In IMHO we have topics like the root cause of Obesity, Gender as a social construct, the future of Phones which are more primed for lengthy debate/discussion than what kind of plant or cooktop to buy.
A big part of the reason I signed up here almost 10 years ago was to participate in GD. And I did for a little while. But you find out real quick that most debates are going to boil down to a few people who have a lot more time and energy than I do for this. And that’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes it results in good, well informed discussion that’s worth at least reading through. But usually it’s just people being loud.
I believe it’s been tried before in GD, but it would be really cool to hold an ACTUAL debate. You have a moderator, a proposition statement, an opposition statement and rebuttals. And then the debate is over. You’d probably need a separate but related thread for the peanut gallery. I’m sure it would be difficult to organize, but fun to see. Am I wrong it’s been done before here? Was it too big a pain?
To reiterate the suggestion I made a decade ago:
a) The existing standard GD thread type should continue to exist, unimpaired. Life as usual in those.
b) A new thread type within GD should be supported in which a subject or topic is formally identified, a finite and specific number of partisans/participants are also formally identified, and the thread itself has one or more designated referees (who may be but need not be SDMB Moderators). The referee would rule on assertions being entirely off-topic, replies not addressing themselves to questions posed, on whether a question asked or a point raised has already been asked or raised, etc, but would NOT proclaim a “winner of the debate”. The referee would only serve to keep things steered to the agreed-upon subject matter. Aside from the identified participants, others could post their agreements or responses to what the participants have said, but would be asked not to reply to each other or to introduce anything new.
Disclaimer: I’m not a “non-great-debater” but a fairly regular participant, and hence not the target population from which the OP is soliciting opinions here.
I’m sure it’s your *privilege *to think that’s an acceptable way of running things.
I think having to defend my existence or worth is fucked up.
Calling a racist a racist isn’t “being mean”. Debate isn’t served by prevaricating.
And when it’s naked bigotry they’re espousing, that’s what would keep me out, and what does keep women out, and that’s the status quo.
I thought this thread was about what would make it *better *for more people?
In another thread, LHOD saw my comment that I no longer feel comfortable participating in political discussions on this board. He said he might start a thread asking people like me what would make them start participating. This is that thread, and I have given my answer.
I am not telling you that you can’t keep calling people racists. I am saying that if you and others from both sides continue to use name calling as a debate technique, that will prevent me from participating in the debates.
Oh, and I am a woman, and a committed feminist. I still don’t find it productive to call people misogynists rather than engaging in civil discussion about the issues.
Hell, no. I love IMHO, and the reason I love it is that I can share my opinion and hear the thoughts of others without having to take a position and defend it with cites. We’re just talking, as people do. I have learned so much more in IMHO than in GD. IMHO vs GD is not based on the seriousness of the topic–it’s based on the style of discourse. If everything about gender or social dynamics gets “upgraded”, my favorite part of this board would be gone.
“Keep” implies I’m allowed to do so now, which is so not the case.
I’ll put you down for one Prevarication over Honesty, then. Since I’m the opposite, and we can’t both be satisfied, I guess we cancel each other out for this survey.
You’re one woman. The number of women who have outright said misogyny has caused them to leave is somewhat greater than one. You do the calculus on that…
If the style of discourse doesn’t change, nothing about GD will, but I get where you’re coming from.
Well, arbitrarily moving certain types of content out of IMHO won’t help change the style of discourse of GD.
You are providing a textbook example of the type of behavior that makes it unrewarding for me to participate in debates on this board. I was asked for my opinion. I gave my opinion. I am well aware that others do not share it. If they did, GD and Elections would be very different places, and I would be pleased to join in.
Telling me that my opinion is not valid because others do not share it is exactly the type of response that keeps me from participating.
I fail to understand how “That is a racist opinion and here is why” is less honest than “You are a racist”.
LHOD, I know you said that you might not participate in this discussion, but I hope you can see what it’s like for me to try to join in political discussion, and why I find it neither enjoyable nor productive.
Arbitrarily moving certain types of content out of IMHO would help change the style of discourse of GD if that meant IMHO posters would start posting in GD. That, of course, ain’t gonna happen unless the style of discourse of GD changes.
No small part of the problem is our, apparent, opinion of certain fora.
IMHO is dismissed as unimportant ‘water cool’ chit chat.
GD is arrogantly though of as the place for serious ‘debate’ about the ‘important’ issues of ‘life’ over cigars and port in the library.
The Pit is just stupid arguments at the pub that must turn into a brawl with bloodied noses.
CMC fnord!