Thread is is for discussing the long running debate about how we engage in politcal discussion. Covers name calling, positive enegagement, divisiveness, 'racist' concern trolling etc etc


It' is not a thread for name calling or making an issue about other posters. Argue as to why that's a good thing if you wish but dont do it.

Re. name calling

It's important to be able to point out hypocrisy in posts when it happens, and it's far easier/quicker to paraphrase part of the miscreant's original post than to search for it to quote him, and even easier/quicker to call him a name that encapsulates it, so I have no problem with name calling if it's evidence-based.

"Evidence-Based Name Calling"

has a ring to it.

There should be only one rule of discussions: Post Well. You can Post Well while insulting someone, it just means the post should actually include some content, be relevant to the topic, timely, and not tediously repeated ad nauseum. In other words, a good post should be minimally interesting or informative, and worth someone's time to skim. It should betray some minimal level of sentience and thoughtfulness. Alternatively, it better be funny.

The thread isn't really for how discussion should be modded although it's allowed as longs as it's not specific issues that belong in the moderation thread.

I have a lot of sympathy with your view and PC aside it's not far off what I think is best as well. There's a lot of detail in practice buried in your one simple rule that I wont delve into.

Except humour which is a very serious topic. I'm inclined to leave Foldn's post for example because he is imo being humorous. But that's because I know he has a high regard for you. If it was someone else then I might think they were just making a no content personal attack. In both cases I might be wrong and right or wrong, others might disagree.

Beyond the issue of threads degenerating or evidence being judged by the mods which is the primary reason we have the rules we do, there's pros and cons to constantly pointing out (perceived) hypocrisy.

As we started discussing in the trump thread, people change their views over time and maybe if someone now says something that hints at being more reasonable then they should be encouraged to move in that direction rather than try to tie them to something less progressive they said in the past.

Yes there can be value in pointing out hypocrisy but maybe it's overvalued because it's gratifying. Could also be that where it really has value is when pointing out the hypocrisy of public political figures - the people we give power over us.

The problem with both forums imo is that no-one is ever willing to argue in the abstract. There's no debating club.

If you offer a point of view then you are tarred with that particular brush and it is deemed to represent you thence forth.

Any little thing can be saved and stored up for future ammunition and name calling. If you want real debate then the insults should stop, and the scope of debate be limited only to what the individual has posted in that thread.

I try to sometimes but as you say it's difficult. There's also a related problem that far too much significance is placed on often very flimsy and highly contingent evidence.

Part of the problem it seems to me is that the culture has long been too much about doing politics rather than discussing politics. For the purposes of discussion it's best not to take sides.

That would be why you deleted MY post, which directly address the OP in a comprehensive way, right?

Because you flagrantly broke the rules Fly, you do know that don't you?

As I reminded people in the OP It' is not a thread for name calling or making an issue about other posters. Argue as to why that's a good thing if you wish but don't do it.

Your participation would be very welcome if you can manage that.

For the purposes of debate it's sometimes best to try (be forced?) to argue for the opposing side.

So racism is okay, but calling people racist is not.

I'm not sure we can force it but I agree it's a very interesting exercise to do publicly and very helpful to do as a mental exercise.

Politics could be run like euro soccer. Select posters can rover between P/v7.0, while others are exiled and re-admitted based on performance.

That comment was actually for you, and it gave me a nice chuckle. Hope you're doing well dude.

Iit may not have got reported if they had known that

It is as long as it's directed towards The Real Racists(tm).

I'm waiting for the discussion about discussion about discussion thread.

So is this the thread where we can talk about whether or not we can talk about other posters talking about punching kids in the face?

not when one side is so utterly depraved and evil that their viewpoints should not even be considered in civil society.

Heh, imo one of the things that got Trump elected is the strident, evangelical, shout-down-and-shame, social justice warriors. Willing to be inclusive of everyone except those whose views or ideas they deem odious. And they are absolutely, almost religiously, certain that they are 100% correct.

Dissenters or those who hold views that don't conform will be branded racists, nazis, or homophobes, outed, shamed and shouted down.

Like some kind of inquisition, every phrase, every throwaway line must be examined for purity, for no hint of prejudice, malice or dissent is permitted.

It's really quite nauseating to watch.

Who the **** are you to define what a civil society is?

You're not supposed to talk about talking about that.

A couple of points...

(1) There is always chatter about "productive" or "good" or etc. discussions. What there never is is discussion of what makes a conversation "productive", "good", etc. There needs to be a stepping back, and a meta-discussion needs to take place on this issue.

(2) If not mindlessly looping and derailing is determined to be a component of this "good", etc, then consider this:

The most destructive and recurring loop & derail is the never ending 'argument' about the proper use of the r-word. We have the two definitions: 'structural r-word-ism' -vs- 'secret heart r-word-ism'.

The worst case scenario is the status quo. As things are, if the OP uses the phrase 'structural r-word-ism', or the phrase 'secret heart r-word-ism', or simply uses the unqualified term 'r-word-ism'... well that opens the door to anyone else fatally looping y/o derailing the thread by changing the subject from the point at hand, into this mindless and never ending 'argument' about the one-true-only-official-definition of the r-word.

The following rules would both work 10000% better... (a) the r-word always means X, if you wanna use the other 'definition', you need to qualify. Note: it doesn't matter if X=='structural', or X=='secret heart'... it only matters that one is the default, and the other isn't. (b) the unqualified r-word is forbidden. Everyone needs to qualify.

Cliffs: if you mods flipped a coin, and made that side the default, this would be the greatest leap forward ever in Los Dos Politards.

LOL no. FYI: I don't do Facebook.

What I've just said above is very simple, and when we remove the highly emotional baggage surrounding the r-word, quite obvious.

Let's say were trying to have a "productive" discussion regarding various spectator sports. The most popular spectator sport in the world is sometimes called "Association Football", and typically called unqualified "football" by most of it's fans. However, in the US, the unqualified term "football" is typically referring to what is sometimes called "American Football", while Association Football is typically called "Soccer". In Australia, Association Football is also typically called "Soccer", American Football is often called "Gridiron", and unqualified "football", quite often shortened to "footy", usually refers to Australian Rules Football.

Let's further say we had a situation like we have here in Los Dos Politards regarding the two definitions if the r-word, and about 99% of the discussions regarding these various spectator sports were looped & derailed into an 'argument' about the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football".

In this scenario, it should be obvious that picking one default definition for the word "football", even if it was picked at random, would be better than the 99% looping & derailing inherent in the status quo.

I'm not pointing out etiquette. WTF are you babbling about?

Anyways, what you are doing now is called "attacking the arguer", and not "engaging with the discussion". You seem to think you can damage my credibility to discuss discussions so as my suggestions will be rejected without consideration, and even perhaps trying to shame me out of the thread. LMFAO @U !!!1!

Deleted most of the squabbling.

If you want to participate in this thread then don't use it as a !!!thread. Otherwise expect to get timeouts.