Lets try again.

a) is what I mean by a definition. it's saying that for the purposes of this forum the unqualified R word is defined to mean .... I like the idea but I've tried to explain what I think will happen b) might work better although there's just so many words/phrases that posters can use.

Have to come back to this but briefly:

1) Lets try starting with 'productive'. Not everyone is going to agree on this and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

2) I want to agree with it not being about doing politics but not sure I can totally. Political debate is a part of doing politics. Small compared to direct action but still a part.

3) The aim of the 'no making it about the posters' rule is primarily to stop the threads degenerating, becoming one sided and to offer an alternative to P. I also personally think it is a better approach to 'doing' politics but accept there are pros and cons to both. There's no reason why we can't have both.

But wait, why do you people want so bad to be nazis? I mean, besides all the obvious reasons.

But why not?

So much of the problem with the accusations is that people keep using it with different meanings in mind, and no one can ever be sure what the person is even talking about. Not only does defining these things save time but it allows people express honest viewpoints and limits the ability of each individual mod to take it on themselves to define the parameters of what's acceptable.

I wish the majority on the left actually agreed with your bolded statement. I think that they often do not want discussion, so they resort to advanced forms of shouting down.

It's not really relevant, but it is always good for a laugh to ask those who use the term 'the left' imagines constitute their 'the left'.

None of this nonsense matters in this discussion. We are discussion online discussions in these forums only, and not IRL discussions. It's not physically possible to "shout down" discussions here. Beyond childishly trying to lay imaginary blame for something that can't even happen here at an undefined 'the left'...

What is usually the cause of looping and derailing discussions ITFs is this changing of the subject to be a quibbling about the one-and-only-true-and-official-definition of this or that string of ASCII. Before you get started, it doesn't matter if it's 'the leftists', or the ACers, or even space aliens who do it. I've suggested a way to significantly reduce it from happening.

That is to simply have a sticky the specifies, for example, that the unqualified use of the word 'football' ITF refers to Association Football.

Do you have an opinion about this ??

Trolly: I understand the point of your suggestion, and I agree that it's useful to clarify terms like "racist", but I also don't think a sticky would actually accomplish much. Mostly because so many of the derails are not really the result of an honest misunderstanding in an otherwise genuine attempt to have a discussion on the topic. What's missing is usually the interest in the "discussion" part. Mostly people just want to post their opinions, and/or scoff at other people's opinions. And that's it. Conversations don't progress far enough for it to matter whether or not everyone is on the same page as far as definitions. You don't usually see very much back-and-forth on the substantive points, only the incredulous assertion of disagreement :P

TYVM

This. Of course.

That's why I keep bringing up WTF is supposed to be 'productive' in these discussions (which, BTW, chezlaw went in a direction there that I didn't anticipate, and will get to later). IMO, with only random exceptions, the only thing being "produced" is the conspicuous consumption of spare time by the participants.

Still, we're going to have rules here. That's the way it is.

So... since we're going to have rules anyways, why not have rules that tend to avoid the most tiring, repetitive, and brain dead of conversational killing dead ends? Sure, the same conversations might all peter out into other and different conversational killing dead ends. But at least they'd be different dead ends, and for a while at least, relatively new and novel.

I think it would be helpful if aggressively enforced, but, as chez said, I think people would ignore it. Derailing the conversation, combined with making an accusation/rhetorical flourish, is the politics they are doing, rather than discussing.

So, since I don't think it could be successfully enforced, I don't think it should be attempted. My solution is to try to always raise the question/define my terms.

OKVG. TYVM for your opinions. Again, I agree that's what's happening.

How about this: we all agree we aren't in general going to be having 'productive' discussions. Then, when the usual suspects start the usual whining about not being able to have 'productive' discussions... they can be duly taunted for being the fools they be.

To recap. The above quote references 'productive' dialogue. We ITT have abandoned that alleged concept ITF. Therefore such calls for 'productivity' are fair game for laughing & pointing.

No, I disagree. I am having some productive conversation with some people. I gave my solution for this specific problem as well. I tend to say "systemic" racism when I mean that. Because of my position, I may start saying "actual" racism when I mean that.

To comment more thoroughly on your proposal, I could not accept the rule option where racism always means "systemic" racism. I support many "systemically" racist laws, so many of my positions would supposedly be "racist" in that paradigm. The word is just too powerful to accept a rule that put me in that handicap. That I could point to the rule, and say, no, that's what we really mean. No, when I defend my being a "racist", this is what I really meant. That just wouldn't work for me. I feel the need to point out now that minimum wages are clearly "systemically" racist.

That seems wrong to me, but I don't know if it's because I disagree with whatever argument you have to make about minimum wages, or because I disagree with you about what "systemic racism" means (and n.b. I tend to prefer the term "institutional racism", but I assume it makes little difference here).

I'm guessing, but it seems like you may be using the phrase to mean any law where there is any sort of disproportionality in impact between racial groups. But I don't think that's a very useful definition, precisely because -- given extant socioeconomic diffierences along racial lines -- you're going to end up referring to a lot of things as racism. Fortunately, I don't think that definition is what is usually meant by systemic or institutional racism. Disproportionate impact is an important legal principle, but the mere existence of any disproportionality is insufficient to establish "racism".

Just as an example, if you argue employment discrimination on the grounds of disproportionate impact, an employer can defend itself "by proving that the policy or rule in question is job-related and consistent with business necessity", so long as there is no reasonable alternative that has less of an impact. (see here).

The example also illustrates the idea that racism (beyond individual prejudice) entails necessarily the idea of harm. Disproportionate impact is a legal principle in discrimination cases primarily, where harm is assumed. By extension, if some social policy benefits the poor, and therefore benefits some greater percentage of black Americans than white Americans (but not therefor a greater number...), it doesn't follow that this policy is "racist". There is no harm.

So "systemic" or "institutional" or "structural" racism, or any of these ideas about "racism" that go beyond individual discrimination or prejudice, entail the idea of disproportionate impact, but also harm, and also some assessment of the necessity or justification for the structure that is causing the impact. Once you encompass all of those necessary factors, I don't see how minimum wage laws can be "racist", although they may have other problems economically speaking.

I think systemic racism is used here to show any disproportionate impact where there is greater harm to a disadvantaged minority. I am not, now, even trying to argue against that. Sometimes I like to call affirmative action affirmative racism, cuz it is, but I'm not interested in having that discussion now. That's a different question. For purposes of use of the phrase systemic racism, I can accept that we will only apply it to racism against a disadvantaged minority.

As to minimum wage laws, I showed in another thread (Trump?) how many, many of the poor are forced from working to unemployed when minimums are raised. I am saying that massively disproportionately harms black Americans and other minorities in America. Sorry for the tangent. It was just motivated out of my need to not be perceived as racist. I pointed out that a popular leftist position is massively "systemically" racist.

OK sure.

Can you share with us what you feel is being 'produced', what you feel characterizes a 'productive' conversation, what you feel causes conversations to be less than 'productive', and, in general, what you feel 'productivity' even means in this context?

This I don't understand in the slightest.

Perhaps you don't understand what I'm proposing. I am not proposing that any string of ASCII always mean this-or-that. I am proposing that certain strings of ASCII mean what the mean when properly qualified. When not qualified, and only in the context of this forum, they by convention mean X... or alternately cannot be used unqualified.

This is no way (a) limits the topics anyone can discuss, or (b) could possibly put anyone at any "disadvantage". As for the second point, I'm at a complete loss to even understand what possible "advantage" or "disadvantage" you can possibly be even be imagining here.

Maybe it would be helpful to answer these questions: (a) would you reject an agreement where the default unqualified usage of the word 'football' was determined randomly? (b) What possible "advantage" might attach to the outcome of such a random event?

I'd be fine with football being randomly defined (to one of two competing definitions). I am not ok with racism being defined that way. If I lost the coin flip and racism always meant "systemic" racism, I would not agree to that rule. I was assuming that I wasn't allowed to always qualify it, meaning the rule that "'racism' alone always means 'systemic racism'. 'secret heart racism' is the phrase to use when you mean old fashioned racism." If that was the rule, I would feel handicapped in the discussion. If a rule was "'racism' means old fashioned racism. 'systemic racism' is the phrase we use for systemic racism." I would be fine with that rule.

I think the same thing would be accomplished by posting in the sticky/forum rule that the preferred usages are (1) "systemic racism" and (2) "actual racism", "secret heart racism" "evil ****er racism" "[pick your term, cuz we'll never agree on it] racism. But it should not be a rule that is enforced with bans or any other discipline, imhumbleo. Maybe we are in agreement and I just misunderstood your original point.

Productive is hard to define. I'll take a crack at it though.

I think it is productive when you follow each other's argument. When you respond to each other, meaning I address your actual points, rather than just raising other points.

We have a proposition. A is a better policy than B.

I give 3 reasons for why A is better than B, call them reasons A1, A2 and A3.

You give 3 reasons for why B is better than A (could be just that A is not better than B, but let's assume you're supporting B), call them B1, B2, B3.

So far, everything is fine, we don't have to answer each other on the first response every time, though it might be nice if we did.

Then I respond with why B1 is wrong, in two reasons, call them NB1.1 and NB1.2.

You then respond with why A3 is wrong, etc., but you also counter NB1.1.

The above would actually be very productive. We are talking to each other.

This can go down many iterations, down many different paths of this outline (like essay outline) shaped discussion. At some point, we may discover differences in values, where we say, I value X more than Y. You value Y more than X, and that is what resulted in our different views on A and B, oh, and also on B2, and NB2.4, etc.

I'm seeking truth to the answer "What is the best political situation for us to implement right now?" That varies based on what "best" means. Do we all agree with John Rawls, etc.?

I'm sure there is more to productive than that, but that's my thought for now.

The rule wouldn't be 'defining' anything. Qualifying is always the option, or perhaps even required. All the rule would be saying is unqualified usage means X, or alternatively, disallow unqualified usage.

I still am at a complete and total loss by what you can possibly mean by 'handicapped' here. My befuddlement is at two levels...

1. All my proposed rule does is make a certain kind of "angle shooting" more difficult to do. It doesn't restrict in any way the topics that can be discussed. It doesn't restrict chatting about Association Football, or Institutional R-word-ism, or American Football, or Secret Heart R-word-ism, or Australian Rules. All it does is make "angle shooting" regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of this-or-that string of ASCII more difficult to do.
   
   As the underlying rule... don't loop and derail regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of strings of ASCII... is completely general, quite universal, and completely content neutral, I'm at a complete loss how it could ever be considered a 'handicap' by any imaginable 'side', and...
   
   
2. Riddle me this: If three slips of paper with "institutional", "secret heart", and "always qualify" were put in a hat, and before the winner was picked...
   
   would you consider yourself at a 'handicap' ??

I think the main problem with discussions is that people are too concerned with the written word. From now on we should just record hour long rants on a given topic and do nothing but listen to them all day.

My point is that's not what the term is generally understood to mean by people who actually use it.

responding to Trolly, I was thinking that you had as a possibility that "racism" always means "systemic racism." No one is allowed to say "systemic racism." It is already understood by rule that racism means systemic racism. If that rule was in the hat, I would be unwilling.

As you've presented it now (maybe I misunderstood originally), that I could always qualify it, I am fine with it.

Maybe I should just always assume they mean "systemic racist" when people call me a "racist." But, again, I see the problem with that. If someone writes, "you're a systemic racist," I may not even respond. I don't care. I already know that, and it's harmless. Now if someone writes, "you're a racist," they have found a way to piss me off. You mad bro? Yes. I believe in colorblindness. "Secret heart racism" is very offensive to me. I hate what those people believe. So, I cannot tolerate the possibility that I will be lumped with them.

OKVG.

No rule is going to stop trolls from stirring the pot. That said, I still *feel* my proposed rule would at least make it somewhat harder for them to do so.

If 'institutional' had gotten pulled from the hat, then you can, if you wish, simply just ignore the post. If 'secret heart' had gotten pulled, then you can go ahead and be pissed off. Few would blame you. If 'always qualify' had gotten pulled, you have the added option of helping facilitate the discussion by referencing the sticky, and nicely asking the poster to qualify.

Any thoughts on this Trolly?

Chez are you a kindergarten class teacher irl? Because that is the way you run this forum.

What you wrote is what I'd like to see as the goal or paradigm that these forums should aspire to. So, we're mainly in agreement I believe. I have a particular quibble however labelling what I'm thinking about 'productive', however.

To me, using the label 'productive' strongly implies something is being produced. In the context of chatting about politics, that something is often assumed to be changing people's minds. That is a completely different animal in my book.

To make a sports analogy... I'd consider a 'good' discussion about the DH to have the kind of coherent give-and-take you described, and to also flesh out the generally accepted facts regarding the rule (how exactly it works, the history of how it was adopted by one league and rejected by the other, the effects on the salary structure, etc). I'd consider such a discussion as 'good' regardless, and often even exactly because, neither side managed to change the other side's opinion.

I *feel* the forum rules should be designed to foster 'good' discussions, as described above. I *feel* the forum rules should not be designed to maximize changing peep's minds.

I agree with your caveat (to me its a caveat) that productive does not have to result in changing minds. We just want a good discussion, as I have described it. I'm also fine with calling it a good conversation, rather than a productive conversation.

So that said, what next? How do we get more good conversations, and more good conversation in all of our conversations?