And you, with your “just put up with having to defend your worth as a human being, minority”, are the same for me.
Where did i say it wasn’t valid?
I was saying it wasn’t convincing because it disagreed with several other women. Which is what GD is for - convincing others that your point of view is correct. Validity doesn’t enter into it.
Apparently neither will fly in GD so it’s moot, but I’d be equally happy doing the former version.
But this is not GD. This is ATMB, where I was asked to say what for me, personally would make this message board better.
For you to then say “You’re one woman” is completely invalidating. I know my opinion. I know what changes would be interesting to me.
So, after all that, we agree. If you’d be happy with calling out racist opinions instead of calling out people as racists, then you and I are on the same page. I don’t have any control over actual policy, but that’s the policy I’d like to see.
I’ve been here for about ten years. I have posted maybe a dozen times in Great Debates, and basically all of them would be in threads that I got to because they were linked to threads in other forums. I have spent very little time in GD over the years, and it’s fundamentally because I don’t enjoy the atmosphere in the GD forum. Some of this has been said, but in no particular order:
–Too many people talking past each other and not actually engaging with the ideas.
–Too much just-under-the-surface (and sometimes not-at-all-under-the-surface) hostility toward debate “partners.”
–Threads that move quickly and inevitably from the specific to the general (see Velocity’s post #18).
Regarding Elections: I used to participate in the Elections forum a lot, especially around the 2016 primary season. Lately I’ve been avoiding it, too, often for the same reasons. It feels to me that the Elections forum is devolving into the same kind of thing: too much interest in scoring debating points, threads turning very quickly from “What do you think of what Candidate X just said?” to “I support Candidate X come hell or high water/I oppose Candidate X with every fiber of my being,” and an atmosphere that seems increasingly shrill and unfriendly. Looks like I’ve had about four posts in the whole forum since August. FWIW, I don’t see this kind of change in the Game Room, or Cafe Society, or IMHO or MPSIMS, just in Elections.
As for fixing it. Oof. If the participants in this forum were my elementary school students, I’d talk with them about treating others with respect, and about what “community” means, and I’d emphasize that the point of the forums being not to batter others into submission but rather to exchange ideas, and I’d highlight a few examples of posts that tended to support the goals of the forum. And I’d monitor the discussions very closely and have individual discussions with those who were having trouble remembering the guidelines. --Which might work for kids. Not sure how it translates to people at the Straight Dope, however.
Anyway–you asked for the opinions of folks who stay out of Great Debates, and so here you go! Good luck.
But I like the difference. If we are talking about charter schools or college admissions in IMHO, I can share my anecdotes and listen to others. I learn there. I feel heard there. Move thebthread to GD and I might not even post because my experiences aren’t cites. And I won’t hear the stories I want to hear, the less-founded but still interesting opinions, because in GD, to make a claim is a commitment to defending it. In IMHO, we are just talking. I like that.
You’ve been on this board nineteen years. In that time, how many times have you had to convince someone that you have value as a human being before you could go on to discuss whatever the topic is?
For that matter, in the nineteen years that you’ve been inquiring of racists as to their racist opinions, have you ever heard anyone put up a reason that made you think, “yeah, that’s a good point.”
How many more years do you suppose you’ll need before you start to see the patterns?
What I think would improve things in GD - I would like to see the mods take a harder line on truth and lies. As a poster, I want to be able to call a lie, a lie. This is especially true regarding scientific fact. It is a scientific fact, for example, that global warming is a real thing that is really happening in response to real human actions. We should not have to prove this from scratch, repeatedly, in every thread in which the subject comes up. Ditto for vaccinations, the mental equality of people of different races or genders, the moon landing, the Russian attacks in the 2016 election, the flat earth and the failure of trickle down economics.
Some things are true and some things are not. Derailing threads by yet another argument about basic observable facts is not a debate, great or otherwise. It’s moving goalposts to avoid losing “points.”
I think the mods (and admins) should also put together a list of reputable sources and I mean honestly reputable - no including Fox news just to “balance” the “sides”. Like I said. Some things are true and some things … just are not.
Do you understand that this is ATMB, not Great Debates? That I was specifically asked for what would make me comfortable participating in political discussions, and that I offered my opinion as requested? That’s sufficient for this forum.
@Merneith
Don’t include even dumb economic theories in your “scientifically proven wrong” list but other than tht, Inmade the same suggestion earlier.
It is sufficient. You don’t have to defend your opinion. Don’t expect everyone to keep their opinion about your suggestion to themselves though.
Yeah, I get ya.
Would it be fair to paraphrase it this way?
‘What would make GD better for me? Nothing, because I don’t want to have a ‘debate’ great or otherwise. I just want to have good conversations with people interested in hearing what I think about things.’
CMC fnord!
Well, I would add “and hear how others’ experiences have differed from mine”.
I was responding to the suggestion that we “elevate” some topics out of IMHO and put them in GD because they are too serious for IMHO, and that GD would be improved if those topics were debated there. I have zero problem with people starting threads in GD about the same topics that we discuss in IMHO, but if we are having a good discussion in IMHO, I’m not going to be happy if some mod “elevates” the thread to GD. The fora are different, not better.
I have other suggestions about GD. There’s a lot I would like to change about GD, too. But taking the best of IMHO isn’t it.
Also, was your tone snarky? Like “you’re too much of a pussy to want to debate, so you want to hang out in the shallow end of the pool and chit chat. Why are you even in a conversation about GD”? Like, I sincerely can’t tell. If it is, again, I wasn’t making a suggestion about GD, I was defending IMHO.
In no way snarky!
(I do fear that there are too many posters that think GD is the open ocean instead of just the slightly deeper end of the pool and The Pit is a war zone when it’s actually just a mosh pit.)
Personally, I like GD because, cribbing from Matt Dillahunty, I’m not interested in what you think I want to know why you think it. I want to demand that people support their opinions with facts. (Not that just exploring opinions doesn’t also have it’s charms.)
I’ve got a feeling that for a lot of posters the question of this thread is like asking “What would make the Game Room more appealing to you posters that don’t want to play games?”
CMC fnord!
I really appreciate GD, when it’s good. I learn a lot there, and I am glad there’s a place with high standards for support. There are times when I participate–when it’s a topic I know a lot about and, honestly, when schedule permits. GD is a commitment, and most of the time I simply do not have time to participate in the way that’s expected, so I don’t start. In IMHO, if I say my piece and disappear, it’s ok. In GD, it either feels like I am giving the false impression I ran away in shame and defeat, or that I am a punk for asking someone to come up with a complex reasoned argument and then I just ghosted them.
My whole thing was just that if we treat meaty topics as “too good” for IMHO, we lose something else.
I post in GD and elections sometimes, but very rarely. Honestly most of my posting in elections is either to back someone else up briefly, or represent an opinion not commonly on the board that’s not too outside the comfort zone. E.G. I’ll represent the opinions of me and my far leftist younger, often queer, sometimes anarcho-communist friends with regards to, say, how leftists or younger people view certain candidates when there’s a misconception that say… Harris or Buttigeig is all the rage among those pinko kids, but given I’d have no support on my side if I got tired I don’t care to argue, say, anarchism because I’d just be fighting a 1vs100 game against both the Liberal and conservative sides of the board. That’s fine, just a board political area.
Part of my other problem, again not something easy to solve, is my unwillingness to bring up certain topics because they require too much framework, or I have a resource like a video that provides a good baseline and don’t want to debate the basics. I 100% understand why nobody wants to watch a 30 minute-1 hour video, or read an essay that takes 45 minutes to digest properly, especially when people like(d) to bomb boards with Loose Change and Zeitgeist, or some unscripted podcast of people mumbling at each other about their kids for half the runtime.
That said, it can be a bit tiring when you want to have a discussion about a certain viewpoint, but already know what the first 20 arguments are going to be and want to get to that part, so you find/remember a resource that addresses all 20 of those arguments, but then nobody will use that resource so you just get arguments 1-20 anyway and you go “well never mind then this wasn’t very interesting to talk about I’m gonna just bounce.” You could address them in your post instead of with a link, but often these resources have a month of writing and editing work and are just going to be better, easier to follow, more coherent, and better supported than whatever you’re going to Frankenstein together in an hour, and know that even if you did someone is going to tl;dr it or only read paragraph 1 or microquote the whole thing and gish gallop you. Of course it’s fine if someone has an issue with Section 3 Part A of the video/article you linked and want to talk about that, but at least now you’re arguing about something on the same page rather than feeling like you’re arguing to argue or babysitting people until they’ve stopped stalling/nitpicking, heard the whole framework and the interesting fulfilling part of the discussion starts.
Again, there’s not a good way to solve this. I don’t blame anybody for not watching a one hour video or reading a big article about antifa or whatever (probably more than once because if they have disagreements they’d have to go back, reread/watch part of it, quote, and then draft a response). But I just find my opinions on many things are just far enough from the board that I don’t want to run 101 sessions for a few days to have a nice debate when I can just have a debate with someone who, even if they have a completely different political framework, is up to speed with the context on a different part of the internet.
Also, I maintain IMHO is, most of the time, better GD. People can make arguments without getting hounded for cites, but people are more than willing to provide cites when they feel it will help. I’ve supplied quite a large number of resources and citations in gender threads in IMHO.
I understand that economic theories, being theories, are eminently debatable but the results of the application of this or that theory is an observable phenomenon. In the case of supply-side economics, we have decades of observations supporting the state that it is a failed theory.
a) prosperity does not trickle down
b) supply does not create demand
c) tax cuts do not create jobs
d) the economy of the US performs better under Democrats who pursue other economic policies
therefore, I believe that the observable facts prove that the supply-side theory of economics is a failure.
This is what I mean when I say that we should be allowed to declare the truth of an a statement if the facts back it up.
Regardless, I would strongly argue against such being on the “taken as a given” list.
The thing about good discussions is that they don’t just happen. They need someone who can lead a discussion and set the tone. I think the best moderation on the net right now is at r/AskHistorians, a reddit forum that is famous for its draconian approach to moderation. Here’s an article discussing their decision to ban holocaust deniers:
After years of moderating the website, they found that questions about details of the holocaust weren’t being asked in search of honest answer. Instead, it was merely a platform that allowed them to sow doubt among non-experts.
In the end Ask Historians decided to just outright ban holocaust denial questions because the damage of leaving holocaust deniers have their say was greater than just booting them and moving on.
Consequently, posting at AH doesn’t involve repetitious argument about the same facts, argued in bad faith by dishonest posters.
The comparison between the Dope & AH is not exact. Their format is more question/answer than we have here. More like General Questions. But I think we would do well to insist on factual debate on settled matters of inquiry.
Less sniping. More Thunderdoming.
This reminds me of a philosophy youtuber’s diagnosis of fascist propaganda tactics in his [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQvideo on the philosophy of antifa (transcription mine):