This thread is a good primer for this discussion. You’ll note that both tomndebb and Marley23 have the stated goal of improving GD; something regulars in GD would probably support.
What would you propose to improve the quality, vibrancy and diversity of discourse in GD?
*Please note, I’d like positive, forward thinking, constructive thoughts with no complaining.
Your thoughts?
Not a complaint, but I just want to say I like GD just fine the way it is.
Rants belong in the Pit. If a post serves no purpose except as an expression of hatred against another group, it serves no purpose in GD. I don’t believe it is that difficult to identify which posts are these.
Regards,
Shodan
Except that one person’s “expression of hatred” is often another person’s “reasoned thought process” or even “true belief”. Could you be more specific as to what you would describe as “expressions of hatred” to see if we all agree with you?
1) No indirect hate speech or group insults. I can’t say “tomndebb is an idiot”, but I can say “Catholics are idiots.” Neither will advance an intelligent conversation.
2) Hyperbolic statements cut way, way back. Comments like (and they are legion) like “Pro-life people only want to oppress women” don’t advance an intelligent conversation. You may passionately believe that, but it’s not likely provable.
By way of codifying this, a general rule might be, “If you can’t cite it, be circumspect about posting it.” (Circumspect, not “don’t post.” I don’t think you want to squelch all speech. Not all valid points are immediately citable)
3) Ease off the accusations or taunting. I think it’s an entirely appropriate to say “I think you’re being disingenuous”, but we often see “You’re ducking me” and the like.
This isn’t a hijack, but it is a little specific.
I am of the philosophical persuasion that words have no inherent meaning. None.
We attach meaning to them from our own experiences, biases and perception of the senders meaning, and context.
So “nigger” in the mouth of a young AA male joking with his friends will likely have a different meaning attached to it than “nigger” from the mouth of David Duke.
That said, more than a few Dopers have gone out of their way to make sure we fully understand their meaning when they say “Fundie.”
FTR, I don’t consider myself a “fundamentalist”, and wouldn’t care if I was called one. (Because the meaning I would attach to your use of the word was that you were an idiot)
Still, I think its pretty well understood that the word is used [contextually] as hate speech; a group insult. The SDMB wouldn’t suffer someone making comments about “faggots” or “homos” for very long.
The issue isn’t whether Shodan, or Friar Ted, or raindog, or ITR Champion, or kanicbird feel personally offended, but rather the board (and passive inaction by TPTB is tantamount to an endorsemet) is sending the message that certain people/ groups are not welcome here.
If that true, fine. Carry on.
If its not true, the hypocrisy needs to end.
I’m going to be primarily in read-only mode for this thread because I want to hear what people think, but we can’t read or moderate every post. We can only see what’s reported to us and what we choose to read on our own, so don’t take a lack of moderation on any post as an endorsement or a message - particularly any message other than ‘I don’t think this violates any rules.’
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.
My long-standing minority view on this matter is that even a semi-humorous mission of “fighting ignorance” and an abiding principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"would seem to dictate atheism or at least agnosticism as the Board’s official stance, and that all religious claims, even the most mainstream of religious beliefs, would be treated politely yet skeptically, tolerated within limits rather than endorsed or allowed to slide respectably along on “Well, that’s what I was brought up to believe” substituting for evidence of anything.
But I have gotten shouted down by means of an argument I don’t have much respect for, that of even atheist Dopers having loved ones whom they respect personally and whose religious views they’d rather not see diminished, disparaged, or even questioned. It’s like this Board says, “Yeah, we don’t endorse wacky fringe points-of-view, except when millions of people including my lovely old mom believe in them.”
It’s a no-win, majority-rules, chicken-shit argument, but it abides nonetheless.
ETA
tomndebb had a good thoughts about organic & non organic hijacks.
My only concern there is that some great threads have come from organic hijacks, so I’d reluctant to change organic hijacks.
But maybe a harder line on non-organic hijacks.
tomndebb on organic and deliberate hijacks.
And my thought is that, if an organic hijack would make a great thread then it should become a new thread in the appropriate forum, and I make this suggestion whenever possible.
Assuming this is a serious request, I mean this kind of thing -
All from this thread.
I very much doubt that most reasonable people would believe this to be the result of a “reasoned thought process”. It certainly may be an example of a “true belief” - many rants are this. Rants, however, belong in the Pit, not GD, as I mentioned.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see how new rules would help improve the existing GD, which I like just fine, though I support the idea of a new more-strictly-moderated GD2 forum, as AHunter3 proposes.
Heck, if anything, I’d like GD to be slightly more rough’n’tumble.
More a request for poster behavior than a request for a rule change.
If someone posts an idiotic content-free crazy OP, please feel free to vent against it with demands for cites and reasoning. The thread was crazy from the start so you’re not doing any harm.
But if someone posts something crazy or stupid in an otherwise interesting thread, please let it go. Just don’t respond at all. If you really need to, pit the person driving you crazy. But please don’t derail the discussion. Take a walk, pet the cat, get some work done, but you really don’t need to respond to every asinine turd some crank on the internet drops in a meaningful discussion.
I’d rather see the members of the board police themselves here, as making this a rule might lead to a lot of bad blood. But seriously, don’t respond to crazy people in sane people’s threads. Respond to them in their own thread or pit them if you must.
I’d like to see warnings for drive-by insults at specific groups, no matter who they are. Anyone dropping in to post something as pointless as “Conservatives are in favor of government, as long as it is used to hurt people,” needs to get a warning. It is not a contribution to any thread, and is really used only to inflame and insult posters reading the thread. It’s a commonly used tactic by only a few people, and such “just barely this side of the line” tactics should be allowed maybe once in a while, but not as part of a repeated pattern of behavior.
So, you want to be able to post in every thread where religion is brought up, and just drop the turd that religion is an invalid argument for any given position? Exactly what do you think this will acoomplish? That religion is a huge factor in shaping people’s opinions is a given, and hijacking every thread to try to point out its lack of validity is only going to serve to make this place less pleasant.
My problem with prr’s point of view on this is what you say, crazyjoe. There’s a difference between arguing the validity of religion and discussing religion. If you want to say that the “official” stance of the board is that god doesn’t exist, that’s fine…it’s a logical enough place to start. But there’s no reason I can think of that a board that purports to fight ignorance can’t discuss, say, the finer points of doctrine, without violating the “fighting ignorance” mission. Going into every thread about religion to remind everyone that the official board stance is that it’s all bunk seems counter-productive to stimulation conversation, if you ask me.
This. I’ve lurked for a long time and recently begun posting, and this is the only part of GD that really irks me. A passionate or funny one liner dropped into a thread occasionally, even if somewhat insulting, adds flavor to the board; continuously doing so only detracts from the threads targeted and the board as a whole.
Vis a vis theism, atheism is not “a logical enough place to start.”
Both atheism and theism are subjective beliefs. Both may have some root in objectivity (itself a slippery thing…) and how one chooses to interpret objective facts and data. There is also the question of authority; who one chooses to assign credibility to, who one essentially chooses to have a bias towards.
In any event, there is not enough objective data------in fact, no where close-----to objectively answer the question of whether there is a God or not.
The absolute irony is, if PRR advances that atheism (as opposed to agnosticism) should be the “Official SDMB Position” he’s displaying a strong faith; the kind of faith that blurs, and then merges, subjective beliefs with objective facts. “The assured expectation of things not beheld,” one famous writer penned.
Pot meet kettle.