Ideological Balance in WE&P

That would be the same end twice.

As you have illustrated by example.

The more common pattern is for observations of fascism - very often a perfectly appropriate label for characteristics of US political issues - to be greeted with deflections via bad faith (or seriously naive and ignorant) invocations of Nazis and Holocausts and jackboots and Godwin.

The pretense that a misrepresentation of substance is a slight exaggeration of rhetoric or parody.

And the concomitant tolerance of misrepresentations of substance, in actual posts, as a rhetorical technique and basis for personal attack.

That kind of bad faith response, which you have engaged in, is a problem - my guess would be that it kills more initially substantive discussions around here than any other single factor - but I see no way for moderators to do anything about it at this stage.

Actually calling one's opponents "Nazis", or espousing significant identification with the Third Reich of Germany in 1938 (or that "sort of discussion"), is only sporadic around here, and mostly a doing of the wingnut righties in their attempts to dump the media confusions of the US propaganda battle - say, conflating socialism and fascism - unto the forum.

Which brings up a second axis of ideological balance - a balancing of reasonable, good faith behavior among the adherents of the various ideologies present.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something, something, Burt Ward

The problem as I see it is that some people don't like being identified according to their behavior or the policies they advocate. And sometimes it's just a fallacious dodge; I've been accused of Stalinism, which isn't so much offensive to me for the emotional load as it is ridiculously counterfactual—I use Stalin as an example of what happens when "liberalism" makes a "hard right" turn. To the other, if someone wants to make a reasoned argument of how my policy outlook for America and humanity equals Stalinism, I'll be happy to give it my full consideration, as I would hate to stumble into that realm.

And therein lies a microcosm of the problem. Some members in the past have advocated rape, defended and exploited racism, or otherwise conducted themselves in a manner that, quite clearly, they abhor the description of. Such issues even led a moderator recently to suggest and enforce that accusations of racism, intellectual dishonesty, and trolling should be off-limits in public debate. I doubt that "policy"—such as it is—will stand, as it appears to have been enforced once since its invocation, and that with at least the appearance of self-interest (e.g., shielding oneself from such an accusation).

In considering the question of whether accusations of bad conduct are equivalent to profane insults (5 yes, 9 no, 2 other, by the vote), some interesting—and, in my opinion, viable—suggestions arose. One was the difference between conduct and identity; that is, one might make a racist argument, but what is the point at which that person can be identified as a racist? Another is the fairly obvious expectation that such accusations should be backed with some explanation and evidence.

The first, of course, presents a certain problem. Persistent questionable conduct identified as such will eventually lead someone—often the accused—to connect conduct and identity. That is, eventually, someone will view the accusation as saying the person is a racist (or fascist, or is intellectually dishonest, &c.). Of course, after a while, those who repeatedly document and accuse the conduct will skip to the chase and just call the member a racist.

But these are the sorts of problems that arise with certain analogies, parallels, and other comparisons. Some comparisons carry a certain sting that some hope to inflict, and others do not wish to endure. The substantive question is not one of resentment, but whether that sting, or underlying insinuation, can be supported.

One need not intend to advocate fascism, racism, or any other despised outlook in order to accidentally invoke its form. In these cases, rhetorical parallels and comparisons can serve an illustrative purpose: If we apply the particular as a general rule, this can be the result. But it is telling that many who receive such a sting are so quickly prepared to denounce the accusation as more definitive. Sometimes, combined with persistent behavior, these rejections contribute to what emerges as a nearly undeniable pattern.

On both sides of that line, the rule should be to think before you speak (or, as such, write). Those who accuse should disclaim the boundaries in advance; and all should take a moment to consider the implications of the philosophies they espouse. Certainly, we all have limits. Few who advocate democracy as purely the will of the people are prepared to take that principle to the point of anarchy. But what is the outer boundary of application? If that limit seems arbitrary, capricious, or self-interested, one must recognize that others will perceive that variability and, more often than not, assess it negatively.

To consider myself again: I am aware of why some accuse me of racism. From my perspective, this is simply a matter of history, as skin color still coincides significantly with certain outcomes. The basic accusation is that I would demand more of white people than nonwhites in resolving social justice. Or sexism, as I would demand more of men than women. But in American history, white, Christian males have traditionally enjoyed certain advantages of law and custom, and these are what must be either sacrificed or bequeathed to others in order to achieve equality. To the other, I perceive an aspect of racism in those whose solution to inequality is the perpetuation thereof; to them, the only fair resolution to those advantages of law and custom is to leave them intact—to counter their effects is racist, sexist, or otherwise supremacist.

And for some, when supremacism becomes the definition of equality, there really isn't much to say other than to point out the absurd contradiction.

Additionally, we must recognize that our neighbors at Sciforums are human. No scientist knows everything. No social scientist is omniscient. But many perceive a disparity when the data of science or social science are countered with basic sentiment. The latter is a comfortable position to defend: simply demand of the other a perfection that the one has no intention of—nor, by the nature of the argument, any viable route toward—providing. This, needless to say, irritates some who might well understand that one believes in the principle, but cannot compel the other to explain why in any terms forming a rational argument. Back and forth, and so on, until each are convinced of the other's intellecutal dishonesty.

Which brings us to good and bad faith. I don't think I need to waste your time with more words on that count, though I often wonder who around here doesn't understand the connection.

Thus, I might simply conclude that in the end, we need a bit more good faith around here, and that can be achieved with the slightest bit of compassion. Of course, nobody can force another to be compassionate, and that's the problem. As we often say, Sciforums is only what its members make it; meanwhile, the question remains what the moderators and administrators are supposed to do in order to improve the users' experiences while not simply squashing underfoot the ideas we, personally, find distasteful.

Or something like that. Sorry, there was a two-hour interruption, or something like that, in the latter third of the post. I lost my train of thought.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Go find someone else to pick a fight with. Or, better yet, stop picking fights entirely.

It's noteworthy that both yourself and hypewaders immediately redefined "calling opponents Nazis" down to "observations of fascist patterns in US politics." One can perfectly well observe fascism without calling anyone a Nazi, no? And the distinction is highly salient, in this context: the term "fascist," loaded as it is, is nowhere near the hyperbolic discussion-ender that "Nazi" is. There's the whole genocide aspect, for one. The Nazis were facists, but not all fascists are genocidaires.

Meanwhile, the instances of posters actually calling opponents (or whoever) "Nazis" typically have little to do with actual political fascism. They tend to lean much more on the genocide aspect, than the rightist aspect as such.

Oh? Anyone want to place bets on the statistics of Nazi comparisons in the WE&P fora over the past, say, 6 months? I'd be willing to bet that instances of "Israel=Nazis" handily outnumber the instances of "Bush=Hitler" (or even, "US politics=fascism", absent any specific Nazi invocations), and present with a frequency that is considerably greater than "sporadic." They're a near-daily occurance, at least when certain posters aren't inhibited by sanctions.

Honestly, I'm at something of a loss as to how you and Hypewaders are talking right past that aspect. Certainly, it is the one that was uppermost in my mind when I wrote that post - and if you guys thought I was talking about left wing critics of US politics discussing fascism as such, well... I'd apologize for not having been more careful and clear, if I weren't convinced that the misinterpretation was driven by agenda and hostility. Are you unaware that I have advanced criticisms of rightwing tendencies of US politics in terms of fascism myself, and defended similar sentiments of yours? I'd presumed that particular bit of context was understood, by yourself if not by the general membership (some of whom have remarkably short memories in my experience).

But more generally, any piece of rhetoric that uses loaded terms must cope with their inherent tendency to emotionalize the discourse. Typically, such is exactly the goal of their employment - the point is to produce propaganda, and avoid rational analysis. Indeed, loaded terms are the hallmark of propaganda, and so anyone who employs them (no matter their intent) opens themself up to suspicion of propagandism, typically in direct proportion to the frequency and strength of the loaded terms used. This holds no matter how "accurate" or "correct" the terms might be, in the literal sense, because the defining characteristic of loaded words is exactly that their import lies primarily outside of the literal definition. They are codes for vast interrelationships of political values, worldviews, philosophies, etc. A poster interested purely in reasoned analysis and discourse should, then, eschew them entirely (except as objects of analysis, of course). But of course that's no fun - and we'd just read carefully-edited policy whitepapers if that's what we wanted. And there's also the concision angle.

So the question is, what is the realm of their proper employ? I've already indicated that certain terms are so loaded as to be inherent discussion-killers, almost regardless of what's done with them (hence, Godwin's Law). But apart from that, what is an appropriate strategy for walking the line between vanilla analysis and craven agitprop? There seems to be a supposition that they can be rightfully employed as "hooks" or "accents" to pique reader interest or, in the sophisticated case, cause them to re-examine assumptions out of a desire to avoid association with emotionally-negative categories. But those orders are tall and taller, respectively - and I doubt very much that even the most skilled rhetoritician could accomplish the second feat in an open, anonymous forum in a way that wouldn't eventually leave him embroiled in an endless personal battle with whatever small percentage of readers are especially sensitive to whatever catch-terms are being used. And even in the simpler, easier case of "spicing up" analysis, it's a difficult line to draw, and tends to backfire horribly when done wrong. And, unlike with broadcast media, it's not good enough that the level of juiciness simply be calibrated to be passable to 95% of the population in this context - posts stay there forever, in black and white, and so the 5% that over-react are practically guaranteed to pick up on it and escalate accordingly.

In short: there are manifold ways that any particular point can be made, and so persisting in strategies that have amply shown themselves to produce negative discursive results amongst their target audience (polarization, personal attack, hurt feelings, etc.) indicates bad faith and a preference for fighting over respectful discussion. Let's all bear in mind that people are hard-wired to respond to hostility by hardening their positions and displaying hostility, and this implies that it's insufficient to simply be factually correct. A good poster also needs to be empathetic. A "correct" agitator is not necessarily preferable to an "incorrect" agitator, and may in fact be far more malign (the level of surety and self-righteousness tends to produce unparalleled bastardry - the incorrect ones tend to be amusingly inane).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very well said.

 

No. I did not do that. I "redefined" nothing taht you posted. I did this:

That's a direct response to your assertion, that calling people Nazis was a common and significant problem on this forum.

I said that false and bad faith accusations of having called people Nazis are far more common - a directly relevant point, involving no "redefinition" whatsoever.

And by correcting you, in that matter, I intentionally redirected the implications of your approach, and in particular opposed your status as reliable evaluator - the destructively bad faith posters around here are people you defend, not ones you attack, for the most part. The category includes you, of late.

Too late, eh? You don't get to pick a fight, and then tell the other person to stop. You can ask, politely and honestly and after apologizing.

All strategies for arguing in opposition to certain posters here,

and all strategies for arguing certain viewpoints or even making certain factual observations

elicit those "negative discursive results" - often quite flamboyant.

As long as these "negative discursive results" are tolerated, they will be employed as the normal and conventional style of response by these posters who have come to habitually favor them, and by many in opposition to these particular viewpoints or dislikers of these observations who have picked up on the standard styles of response in those arenas.

The question becomes, then, of the various ranges of "negative discursive results" which will be tolerated - these ranges are not equivalent, currently, with some posters owning a blank check on continual invective and bad faith and repetition of insult, and others subject to warnings and disciplinary measures for quite tame and honestly meant postings, or even uncomfortably pointed observations directly relevant to a thread, or - absurdly - misunderstandings and misrepresentations of their posts.

A standard of moderation that would include having moderators grow up and get a clue would be difficult to establish, eh? Best try another tack.

 

*Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

*However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons. (wiki)

The odiousness of the distorted Godwin's Law

 

The obvious response to that being to eschew "arguing in opposition to certain posters here" in favor of advancing ideas as such. The two pursuits frequently diverge rather sharply. One common, pernicious flaw in anonymous internet discussion is the empowerment of opponents on the basis of how easy they are to argue with, rather than how good of advocates they are. This quickly leads to debased, infantile interactions.

Similarly, posters who over-politicize their interactions with others rapidly develop difficulties in distinguishing "arguing in opposition to certain posters here" from advancing ideas and agendas as such. The obverse of that coin is intellectual abuse masquerading as legitimate political speech, and the reverse is a creeping paranoia and persecution complex. We've seen where that leads.

Not that I endorse the assertion in the quote, mind you.

I cannot say that I agree that there is a generalized problem with that, above and beyond the "arguing in opposition to certain posters here" category.

It goes without saying that all standards of governance worth establishing present myriad difficulties.

Not a response to said difficulties that I expected to hear coming from you, I must say.

 

But getting back to the thread title: the important issue isn't the "balance" part, but the "ideological" part. The ideological composition of the modship shouldn't matter, because mod activity should not be ideological in nature (or even, politicized at all). I realize that's a tall order, but the point is that "balance" is a counterproductive measure to the extent that it increases politicization.

 

If that is possible.

But as noted (in the second phrase of the conjoined pair, the one you omitted), it is not possible when arguing certain points of view, or advancing certain ideas, to avoid generating personal hostility and abuse on this forum. For example: Billy T had not addressed you, or anyone really, when you went spla on his post back when - he was "advancing ideas as such". Neither had SAM when you included her posts in your response generating category.

It's not essentially generalized. Its continual source is a fairly small number of habitual abusers, characterized by a distinct lack of self-awareness and a common political agenda. That they have - for a very long time now, beginning before I joined this forum (I was greeted by them, memorably) - set and established the tone here, is indeed unfortunate.

Pretending that this faction of posters is other than they are, or will behave other than they ever have, has wasted enough of my time - it works much better for me to acknowledge what's going on simply and plainly, and post accordingly. That has proven to give me the most room for advancing ideas as such, independently of the unavoidable noise factor.

If you don't like the resultant hostility and abuse, cease contributing to it, and cease excusing or encouraging its direct sources. They are not good natured and well spoken around here, and cutting them yet more slack will not make them so.

That is true if the balance you seek is along an inherent ideological axis of belief. If the balance is along a behavioral axis, with all the ideological factions adhering to common standards of behavior, it would decrease politicization by reducing the relative behavioral privileges of ideology.

 

I do not agree, obviously.

But surely you can see where such a premise - accurate or otherwise - is dangerously self-serving. And so it is no surprise that it is exactly the justification invoked by every troublemaker here, for as long as I can recall.

 

This just in!

Political Cartoons Post Count

• Tiassa = 137
  [*]pjdude = 35
  [*]Madanthonywayne = 19
  [*]killjoy = 13
  [*]S.A.M. = 6
  [*]cowboy = 5
  [*]Buffalo Roam = 4

Tiassa OBVIOUSLY has the highest post count.

How did that happen? I suspect right-wing bias.


Oh, is this thread about something different??

Gosh, I couldn't tell.

 

I had alot of time on my hands. I really want to be a part of this interesting dialog.

 

Hey, that's great, but ....

If it's not too intrusive, might I ask what your actual point is? I mean—

—hey, that's great, but I admit I don't get what you're after here. I mean, I don't think you're suggesting that the failure to delete my contributions to that thread equals some sort of bias. But what I can't figure is just what it is you're trying to tell us. Or suggest. Or whatever it is you're trying to contribute.

 

Who? What?

I don't think anyone is trying to delete anything.

I was just saying. I thought this was about ideological balance. Certainly the Political Cartoons thread is well on its way to liberaldom.

 

Potentially self-serving.

Depending on the goals of that self - what it is that the self-server would "serve". My impression is that you are making a couple of self-serving assumptions of your own, along that line - projections, is what they appear to be. Leading to:

Well, no, it is tangentially similar, but you must have noticed the numerous troublemakers (no matter how you recognize them) who regard the entire forum or majority of respondents as stacked against them, who regard all objection or counterargument as another example of their being harassed or picked on, etc. They seem more common, to me.

That would be the first caveat. The second would be the troublemakers who are oblivious to the issue entirely.

And there's a third: the distinct possibility that somebody's right, and somebody else is wrong, in making otherwise similarly (from an abstract logic pov) formed observations or arguments.

In that line, I will refer you to a claim you once made, that you could find posts from me "just as egregious" as one I quoted, and by implication the examples easily found in many threads of what I regard as trouble.

I don't think you can. I am quite sure you can't merely by clicking on any thread in which I post extensively and scrolling a bit. Try it.

 

Because Gustav wasn't explicit enough

I can see how the topic post—

"i refer to the current moderation of course"​

—could have confused you.

Oh, right. Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your dealings with emergency services.

 

Hence the danger - it takes something approaching superhumanity to resist the hazards presented by such a viewpoint. It is - literally - a license to abuse with impunity, and on a political basis at that. It isn't difficult to anticipate the likely result, nor appreciate its self-reinforcing nature (not that we lack for data on that count, but we really shouldn't even need it).

Not really. Human nature + above-mentioned hazards = bad outcomes, pretty much regardless of how admirable anyone thinks a poster's intent is (let alone, their own opinion on that count). Which is why support for them always comes down to a question of tolerating nastiness out of political solidarity. Hence the political alignment of supporters/critics (and consequent reinforcement of the self-serving perceptions). That sort of corrosive division is exactly The Problem, as I see it - and please note that it is not localized in any particular political subset of participants. The salient distinction here is between those who will tolerate misbehavior out of political solidarity, and those who will not.

And, just as with factual correctness, noble intent typically worsens bad outcomes through its reinforcement of the self-righteousness hazard. Those who go down that road cynically may be nastier, but they don't tend to last long.

Being right and meaning well only pays off if you also have humility, at least when it comes to interacting with other people.

Outside of cranks in the science forums, I wouldn't agree. I'm sure they crop up in WE&P now and again, but doubt that they last much longer there than they do in Physics & Math (or any of the various other fora where I've witnessed similar behavior). But anyway, that's just a slight variation on the granting-oneself-a-license-to-misbehave theme, wherein the hostility is less selective.

Issues in WE&P tend to center on posters fixating on some supposed political cabal (or individual), whom they feel is behaving in bad faith (either outright harassment, trolling, or the plain old verbal aggressiveness that has long corroded community here). The point is not that said entities don't exist, but that the fixation is counterproductive - it is, in fact, exactly what sustains said entities, drags the fixated down to what he perceives to be 'their' level, etc.

There's no point in being right if you are unable to get across to interlocutors due to the hazards of self-righteousness. In that case, correctness (or, really, surety) is just another club for beating opponents over the head. In which case, everyone ends up just as wrong as they were to begin with, and the only difference is that they're that much less willing to communicate meaningfully in the future, especially on the question they've been abused over.

Also note the common tactic of dragging threads off onto tangents wherein one feels more sure of correctness, the better to club enemies with.

All of which is a great strategy if what one wants to do is cultivate and maintain a host of permanent ideological enemies to battle with. As far as changing minds goes, it's a total loser. Including the minds of disinterested onlookers - there's nothing like page after page of personal hectoring and petty argumentativeness (often about inconsequential tangents) to cause reasonable people to write off the participants and tune the fuck out.

This is a question of perceptions, obviously.

So if you're suggesting I attempt to disabuse you of your self-image by compiling some kind of list of offenses and presenting an argumentative essay around them, then no thanks. Can't see what good that could possibly accomplish. You may, in fact, recall that my point in saying that was to highlight the reductiveness, aggressiveness and dishonesty of publicly characterizing and judging other posters on the basis of a few cherry-picked examples (and especially, examples produced in the context of a hostile interaction with the would-be judge of character). It's a hostile tactic, good only for breeding further hostility.

If you're suggesting that I made that claim without having already observed such, amply and routinely, then you demonstrate a worrisome willingness to discount negative perceptions of your behavior. I think I've made the nature of my complaint about as clear as it's going to get by now, so if you aren't interested in taking it under sincere consideration, then I see nothing to be gained through further argumentation.

 

Not at all, nothing of the kind: as you would have picked up from the "evaluator" language and other aspects of earlier posts, if you were as carefully observant as you claim.

I just think that by the evidence - not only of my own stuff but other posters' - you aren't all that good at the evaluation part.

Your take on a couple of BillyT's postings was just silly, for example, and you seem basically clueless about what countzero is and has been doing.

It beats being wrong and meaning ill, humble or not. Especially the meaning ill part.

I haven't noticed well-spoken and good-natured "interlocutors" having any trouble with simple arguments and declarative sentences - in agreement or not. They can argue against without personal insult, they can read and follow arguments, etc. The others can go piss up a rope - really, they've been cut plenty of slack around here. What's the point of attempting to "get across" to them? Will we earn the privilege of not being called names and abused? Will they cease dumping wingnut sewage on the forum and demanding "proof" for its removal? Unlikely.

Localized? No. Locally predominant and characteristic? Yes. It's a tactic, and it's not everybody's tactic.

Not really. Try it - use your own perceptions, but pay attention, in light of:

Well, I wasn't. Obviously. I mean, reread the post - nothing like that in there.

So from whence cometh that kind of comment, eh? The third or fourth of its type in thisdiscussion. Not from the claimed careful observation etc.

 

Point 1: That is because the mods allow you: to make things up, accuse others when they don't agree with you, constantly post trash, make others answer your questions while allowing you to refuse the same, allow your threads to stay while others start similar type threads that get closed. Yes, joe why on earth should you ever complain about moderators?

And yes, I am in part referring to the Impeach Obama thread. On that thread you have continued to get away with calling me a liar of which isn't true, accusing me of not answering your question when I have all the while refusing to do the same, attributing a statement to me that I never made and still accuse me of lying. Yes joe, why on earth would you ever complain about moderators?

A thread was closed because of Ideological Balance, but upon further objective review it was no different than some of the threads you have started and were allowed to post.

In General

There is no ideological balance here.

I am actually fine with that. My beef is with the idea that the other side has a different set of posting rules than do the ideological favorites. In short, you are allowed to say things that if I or someone similar can't without being warned or banned. My only other issue is that some mods will allow salty language or exchanges and others will hound on specific posters when they are doing no different.

Sandy got banned forever for doing the same things joe does all the time. Why is joe's doing it different than sandy?

I, myself, have received warnings and have been banned for doing the same thing joe and others like him have done.

Again, I appreciate that this forum belongs to someone, and I applaud that person for having a forum. I can appreciate that there are certain rules the forum wishes to have. I can even appreciate the fact that ideologically speaking I am in the minority here by a great margin. Nor do I think that the owner of this forum have to provide a ideological balance. My issue is that if you are allowing both sides to contribute and knowing that things are going to be testy at times, there needs to be balance in how warnings and bannings take place, as well as specific behaviors regarding exchanges and threads.

 

in other words you make a specious claim in attempt to argue why you should be allowed to break the rules when ever you want.