Ideological Balance in WE&P

Unless one is a little delusional, its quite clear who these agents are. Pointing out, critiquing, resisting and sometimes condemning the chronic, endemic and IMO evil MILITARISM, which saturates the worldview and thus actions of the self appointed leaders of the free world, is undoubtedly a noble cause. These nations, again, IMO are treading the path of Barbarism. The future good of mankind is impossibly achieved by guns and bombs. The glorification and waging of WAR in the name of PEACE is the biggest lie of the last two centuries.

Look to the top of the food chain, not to the pawns who are employed in furtherance of agendas. Why would a nation, in no way realistically threatened, feel the need to saturate the globe with military bases at great expense, intervene without invitation in the internal affairs of other nations often by military force, and pursue a futile foreign policy of global domination? All this expense and overreach at a time when economic and other substantial domestic issues are neglected? :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll explore this further in a dedicated thread, if your interest is sincere. I would suggest starting a thread in Human Science or Ethics. I think it would be an interesting discussion, but we're veering off topic here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What exactly is going on this thread?
Does someone have a roadmap to peace?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agree with quadra here: nail down this hope. Too general as implied.

 

I'm inviting you to participate in forming a consensus on how we can elevate the quality of discourse in WE&P, so that there is less ideological tribalism/chest-thumping, and more thoughtful exchange of observations and analysis of current events. This will require a good deal of independent thinking to arrive at some clear steps that we can agree to take in the near future.

I'm keenly supportive of the suggestion that we better define and enforce our rules about staying on topic. It is typical of demagoguery to divert discussions into well-rehearsed ad-hominem patterns that reinforce shallow thinking. I expect that if as a community we agree to be more exacting about adherence to topics under examination and discussion, then insincere or ideologically-motivated disruptions will be mitigated. I'm not going to embark unilaterally on changes in moderating style and policy without some expressed consensus on what to do and why.

There are further ways conceivable here, and a consensus to form in order to proactively raise the quality of discourse in WE&P above superficial repetitions of ideological talking-points and buzzwords. In my experience, structured interaction can be liberating in the sense that collective attention is focused on getting somewhere, instead of just mingling casually and forming cliques. If a ground-breaking evolution within this community really does interest you, don't expect me or others to do the conceptual and organizing work for you. If you expect this sort of change to be handed to you from some sort of authority or leadership, then you really just don't understand the present situation, and it would be better for you to keep out of the way- at least until you are provided with direction by whomever you consider your leaders and peers.

Or, do some independent thinking about how we can break out of the deep ruts of political discourse and dominant worldviews that restrict our perceptions, stunt our imaginations, steer our interactions, and interfere with our collective problem-solving here and in the world at large. Then make a useful suggestion that we can consider together for the purpose of developing the quality and insightfulness of WE&P discussions into something much more worthwhile than the drive-by mudslinging that is all too common in political life.

 

I think the on-topic rule is good...but then again people almost instinctively draw parallels. How to say what a good parallel is? How about permitting related parallels but not parallels to those parallels? No debate on the parallels themselves, excepting as it relates to the original? Sorry, I don't have many suggestions right at the moment.

 

I think that if we developed policy and culture whereby if the conversation drifts, thoughtful members sidestep into another thread. Thoughtless participants are shunted into other activities of their own choosing outside of SciForums. Such conventions could (as I imagine them) become as accepted, routine, and intuitive as shifting lanes to pass on the highway: Necessary for orderly traffic; not subject to debate once the benefits of certain conformity is understood.

So long as a certain critical mass of regular participants understand the imperative for courteous posting, a lot of the policing can be among peers: One does not have to be a moderator to suggest that spin-off discussions be taken to new or existent and more-appropriate threads. When the diversions are deliberate attempts to divert a discussion into chest-thumping or tribalism, then I suggest it's best to report the behavior to the staff, if the staff is unresponsive or not present in real time.

People who are deliberately diverting conversations are unlikely to respond positively to peer suggestions, and instead will often need to be either ignored or commanded to cease disrupting. A weakness in our present guidelines is that consistent and recognizable limits on how much straying from topic is permissible is still vague. Personally as a moderator, I allow more latitude if temporary diversion of a discussion is good-natured. A brief diversion is not so disruptive, or likely to derail a discussion if it does not convey personal antipathy.

So (I must fly now) thinking while typing with some haste, what i have to contribute here is that our future guidelines should include some stipulation that ad-hominem diversions will be scrutinized more harshly than brief asides that are of a friendly tone. This is not to be confused with "political correctness", or the avoidance of offending any conceivable mentality. We should avoid antagonizing the people we interact with here, because this is SciForums, not Jerry Springer.

 

word up hype
sci aint generally in the business of browbeating its members to conform some nebulous utopian fantasy of enlightened discourse. this here is some organic shit and we get the forums we deserve.

as far as offtopic goes....let em. sci outta not get dragged into a needless conflict. a nudge and reminder should be the extent of its interference...

..and thats why. deciding and challenging what is, should be left to the participants of that discussion not some mod that just happened to drop by to condemn shit as offtopic

 

Nearest thing to a good idea?

In my lifetime, I've known some people who resent the suggestion that they are not creative. And well they should; some of them, at least, create astounding ways of missing the point.

No, that's not aimed at you.

So you say, we're offending you—
What's wrong, is it soemthing we said?
Look at you squirming,
Hey, you're sweating too;
At least know I know you ain't dead.

(Twisted Sister)​

But one of the things that leads people to such criticisms is the idea that there is only one context. This first struck me back in the music wars of the 1980s, when one couldn't offer a criticism or commentary without being denounced for practicing Satanism, threatening good people, or whatever. Hell, even stupid, clearly useless humor that was created for the sake of making someone laugh at its stupidity was criticized as being a literal statement. Think of Twisted Sister, called before the U.S. Senate. Think of 2 Live Crew; Luther Campbell was actually prosecuted for the content of Nasty as They Wanna Be.

Tipper Gore. Al Gore. Bob DeMoss. Dave Roever. Bob Larson. The list goes on. Hell, Bob Larson once blasted Anthrax for "Misery Loves Company", a song off the State of Euphoria album. The phrase, "I'll kill you!" was taken as some kind of literal threat, or advocacy of murder. The guy apparently couldn't read the liner notes to figure out they were doing a musical version of Stephen King's Misery. Styx, to this day, loves to ridicule the California legislature for denouncing the song "Snowblind" as Satanic. Seriously; it's a freakin' anti-cocaine song.

My point is that parallels, analogies, allegories, and metaphors are always dangerous in the eyes of certain beholders. King Diamond, Marilyn Manson, Ozzy Osbourne? Okay, yeah, so King's a Satanist, but who cares?

Twisted Sister's 1982 commentary on rock and roll censors attends to that strange and insistent pseudo-literalism that suggests there is only one way to perceive a piece of art, and that way is however the would-be censor construes it.

Unfortunately, it's the twenty-first century, and those attitudes aren't dead. Far from it, in fact. Rather, it's a thriving outlook in our political culture. And it's alive and well here at Sciforums, too.

Within our community, almost every analogy is subject to Godwin's Law—It's too extreme!—or some sort of stick-in-the-ass interpretive demand that suggests its failure to exactly fulfill all the circumstances of the real-life issue it compares constitutes renders it insufficient, offensive, or otherwise unfair.

To the other, like I said, those "uncreative" people are often very creative. Bob Larson, to work consistently with an example, based his denunciation of Dio's "All the Fools Sailed Away" on a heavy edit of the lyrics in order to draw certain literary juxtapositions closer to one another and make them appear darker and more menacing to his chosen audience. Yeah, that snip job took some effort.

Coming back more directly to the question, there are no good parallels, analogies, metaphors, allegories, &c. at Sciforums. That is, there will always be one tightwad somewhere who is so dedicated to the fight that nothing one says will be sufficient. And if there is no apparent problem or weakness in a statement, they'll make one up. And, yet, we are somehow expected to take these people seriously. Or, at least, respectfully. That is, after the hundredth swing and miss, we're still not allowed to say, "You know what? Fuck off until you get a clue."

And that's the way it goes; we protect the clueless in part because we must.

Members and moderators alike need to recognize this situation, and accept that there simply is no redemption to be found in certain instances. String, for instance, called me out on one of those occasions last weekend, and it's hard to suggest he doesn't have a valid point. So, no, I wouldn't claim I am above the need to learn this lesson, but in the end, we need to simply ignore the people who can't deal with any context outside their own private literalism.

And until we do, there really are no good figurative statements.

Nor I. Indeed, as we cannot tell those folks who just can't handle the least bit of figurative speech outside their personal boundaries to simply fuck off, the nearest thing I can offer to a good idea is that we should dig deep and find it in ourselves to simply leave the pathetic tightwads to themselves and find some way to go about carrying on some manner of intelligent conversation with those who can sustain such manners of discourse.

I know. Not much, is it? Like I said, the nearest thing to a good idea I can offer.

 

absolutely not
some folks might not know better
however, others might...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ban
for feeding trolls

 

indeed
there is a reason why some tards can persevere in sci despite out best efforts. they have no shame, are fanatical in their convictions and impervious to rational alternatives.

deny these tightwads the one thing they seek...an audience

 

i see
you want to kill off sci

garcon!
the fucking gallows please

 

Quite right. Execute that monster before he strikes again.

 

One individual has a penchant for starting duplicate threads each with a new grandiose headline. It basically is a form of spamming and it should result in an immediate perma ban...as it is not like this individuals has not been banned before for many offenses.

 

PM me the name(s).

/sharpening steely things

But seriously, I don't like abrupt purges of people who have long been given some latitude. I often give latitude to members who well represent the memes impacting our lives that are scarcely rationally defended or justified in any context of discussion and debate. Our lives are influenced by many stupid arguments that don't thrive in daylight, although proponents may feign dismay and insult at being removed from intellectually-sincere discussion.

I want first for us to clarify the rules, and apply them in a way that everyone has an equal chance to roll with the changes. That accomplished, we can begin issuing infractions for repeatedly introducing lame threads; repeated lame arguments will narrow the options of the worst repeat offenders down in due course toward the gallows, where all you rabble can gather to ogle a more orderly and predictable execution.

I am begging you to work toward a consensus on sharpened forum rules- clear language in the WE&P rules explaining new policy, and a clean start for all concerned before there is another suspension or banning there. Those of you howling for blood will not have to wait all that long for satisfaction- even if (with approval from all the way upstairs) we had a general amnesty for all of Sciforums. I personally take no pleasure or comfort from near-term bannings, and I wish that we would first advance the general understanding of what conduct is not permissible, and then begin allowing the worst offenders to swiftly accrue demerits toward suspensions and banishment.

"Trolling" is a term similar to a lame opening post: It is a vague buzzword subject to wide variation of interpretation. I would prefer specific rules prohibiting inflammatory and emotionally-provocative thread titles; prohibiting opening posts that are extraneous or disruptive of reasoned examinations of current events; prohibiting the superficial promotion of a political message without demonstrated willingness to stand behind the message or thesis introduced, in a way that is respectful of the intelligence and good faith of this community.

If we can first post some suggested language for refined WE&P rules, allow a short period for the staff to edit and ratify the changes, and then implement clearer guidelines with equal opportunity for all members to comply (or not, and face the consequences) then I expect some meaningful change.

If we just repeat the cycle of banning under a static rules regime, I expect that each time the dust clears we will return to much the same WE&P environment as we are experiencing now. The first a perma-ban I'm keenly interested in, is an end to the unqualified use of the word "Troll" in accusing any member here- it's another example of a lame, poorly-defined thesis. It is much too vague a term to use as an indictment pending sanction, and so I would very much like to read some suggestions of more specific rules than don't troll. We don't need a rabble and the raising up of looming ban-gallows in WE&P ATM IMO- We need a constitutional convention.

 

Could agree to that; haven't really seen much blasting of the word "troll" except an outbreak involving one poster on here, but eminently reasonable.

 

hype
you said..."superficial partisan lamer thread"
its not that i disagree given that......but could you elaborate?
i mean, i want my $19 mil back. plus interest. plus fines..

 

Thank you for the above example from a "superficial partisan lamer thread". I would like to encourage the revision and formulation of rules that would clearly prohibit such posts, while still allowing for a broad spectrum of views in WE&P. I am appealing for a modification to rules that would make sanctioning such a post more predictable for contributors, and more clear-cut for moderators (especially for so hesitant and inexperienced an arbiter as myself). I've highlighted the parts of the present rules that seem most pertinent to me. I invite you and others interested to help draft a specific rule or two that would clearly prohibit the post above, while still not stifling opinion from the political camp of the member quoted above, which is sizeable and significant in USi and world politics.

I think Plazma has done us a great service formulating the above rules. I am asking that we participate in drafting some revision to the rules in WE&P in the interest of "ideological balance" and a higher quality and quantity of participation.

As a new moderator, it has often not been very clear-cut to me, how to consistently sanction posts such as the example Gustav gave above, citing a clear violation. Here in this thread, I would like to encourage and gauge interest in an initiative to revise the rules so that they more clearly define the specific type of posting exemplified above. @Buffalo Roam, I do not wish to single you out during this process- as I have already said, I'm not interested in unilateral change here.

Please say so here if a revision/clarification of the WE&P rules appeals to you. For actual suggestions of revised rule language, we should adjourn to a thread dedicated to collaborative drafting, and also keep in mind that none of such work will be binding until site administration approves it. Whenever I review the standing rules, I can see that they do express the intention to keep lame posts out. I'm just wondering if we can make a few adjustments, that would impact the example above without causing a drastic policing crackdown that would discourage recognizable segments of the political spectrum from participating here.

 

True enough, but in my estimation the bigger problem comes from the other end: posters who advance parallels/analogies/metaphors/allegories/etc. in bad faith. There's a reason that the sensitivity to Godwin is so high here, and it's that there are a considerable number of energetic posters who do little besides go around comparing everything they disagree with to the Nazis (as well as a few other hated groups, depending on context).

And to that point, I also observe that the point where a community can start to make real discursive headway seems to coincide nicely with the point at which they become reflexive and ironic enough to consistently steer away from Godwin territory. The sort of discussion wherein people go around seriously calling political opponents Nazis is a joke - the sort wherein participants defuse/preempt such escalations with jokes along the lines of "you know who else was a vegetarian and a fan of the VW Bug..." is the serious one.

 

Fascism is alive and well in the USA. If fatigued from facile comparisons with Nazi Germany to the point of not appreciating this reality, we have learned nothing from most bitter history. To dismiss the danger for reasons of aesthetics or intellectual stamina is bullshit.