You're squabbling in the Roger Ailes thread in the other forum. Quit pushing your standards on the rest of us if you cannot live by them yourself, Chez.

Your credibility is relevant. If you want to come across as an expert, then that is the reverse ad hominem. Though ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy. Who you are, and your posting style is entirely relevant to this discussion, though chezlaw does not quite understand that and perceives it as squabbling. If ST/MD wants to boost his/her credibility on why they should be listened to on the meta discussion thread, then either they are committing a fallacy, and it's irrelevant, or it opens the door to the other side (which is apparently subject to Matrix-like deletion by ninja-chez). But, I will leave it at that.

Making it about the poster is allowed in P for some reason. This is a different forum with different standards.

Getting back on topic. I do think different approaches to discussion in different places is generally a good thing.

This part of the discussion is whether posters credibility should be brought into discussions.

There's disagreement about whether it should be or not but whoever (if anyone) is correct the rules have to take a side on that and participants have to manage within those rules.

I think what this misses is there's another usage of the word which is to be deliberately provocative. It relies on the misunderstanding and it's a political use with pros and cons.

Even if we could strictly enforce one meaning, it's not clear that we should.

I agree except it's not totally true. I've tried to argue for positive engagement as a productive part of discussion. Others have argued the reverse

First, LOL no. Second, relatively speaking here in Los Dos Politards, I am an 'expert'. But none of that matters. My suggestion makes (or doesn't make) sense even if I posted it using a new gimmick. Again, you are attacking the suggester, instead of engaging in a discussion regarding the suggestion.

So... if you ever actually feel like engaging in a discussion regarding my suggestion, instead of what you have been doing so far, riddle me this...

As a hypothetical, say over in SE, a significant number of conversation regarding Association Football, American Football, and Australian Rules Football were being looped & derailed by constant attempts to change the subject at hand into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football"... this would be of particular concern for those who wished to have "productive" conversations regarding any of these spectator sports.

Agree -vs- Disagree ??

We need to make a distinction here between intended definitions, and being provocative.

Being provocative is a legitimate and often effective rhetorical technique. Examples: "Meat is murder", "Abortion is murder". In most jurisdictions, butchering and aborting within certain parameters aren't crimes at all, never mind the crime of murder. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

If we had a hypothetical situation where a significant number of conversations regarding vegetarianism y/o abortion were being looped & derailed into a 'argument' about the one-and-only-true-and-official-definition of the word 'murder'... well then we'd have the same situation we have in Los Dos Politards regarding the r-word.

Ask yourself these Qs...

1. Do you feel the statement "Voter ID laws are structurally r-word-ism" is deliberately and inappropriately provocative?
   
2. Do you feel the statement "Voter ID laws are secret heart r-word-ism" is deliberately and inappropriately provocative?
   
3. If there was a sticky that stated "In this forum, the unqualified r-word is simply shorthand for "structural r-word-ism", would you feel the statement "Voter ID laws are r-word-ism" is deliberately and inappropriately provocative?
   
4. If there was a sticky that stated "In this forum, the unqualified r-word is simply shorthand for "secret heart r-word-ism", would you feel the statement "Voter ID laws are r-word-ism" is deliberately and inappropriately provocative?

You are missing my point.

It's not, and it never is, a matter of enforcing meanings. It's a matter of not letting a discussion, any discussion, get looped and derailed from the conversation at hand into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of this or that string of ASCII.

• We can have a "productive" discussion regarding Association Football/Soccer, say relegation in the Premier League, only so long as it doesn't get looped and derailed into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football".
  
• We can have a "productive" discussion regarding American Football/Gridiron, say the CTE epidemic, only so long as it doesn't get looped and derailed into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football".
  
• We can have a "productive" discussion regarding Australian Rules Football/Footy, say why the officials don't dress like pharmacists anymore, only so long as it doesn't get looped and derailed into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football".
  
• We can have a "productive" discussion regarding Structural R-word-ism, say segregated lunch counters, only so long as it doesn't get looped and derailed into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the r-word.
  
• We can have a "productive" discussion regarding Secret Heart R-word-ism, say discussing the personal racial animus of G.Wallace, only so long as it doesn't get looped and derailed into an 'argument' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the r-word.

See the pattern above?

I was talking about the meta-level above this. Positive engagement, as you are using it here, is a means toward some ends... that ends being characterized as "productive". What's behind this characterization, what's should be being "produced". That's my question.

I don't want to say any of it is inappropriately provocative and I don't have any issue on which way any word/phrase is used if it's commonly understood. The issue is that it isn't commonly understood - do you really think a sticky would settle that? and doesn't deliberate use of that misunderstanding have some pros as well as cons?

I just think we have to accept that provocation leads to good as well as bad outcomes. The bad part includes derails so the question in my mind for good content is how to handle derails. One part of that might be having rules about what causes derails, the other is rules about how to moderate derails once that occur.

It's not a misunderstanding.

No significant number of peeps who would attempt to loop & derail a discussion about, say the NFL draft, by trying to change the subject to being about the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word "football" are confused about what particular spectator sport the NFL perveys.

And no, the deliberate looping & derailing of any discussion, regardless of topic or technique, is never a "pro" and is always a "con". In particular, any discussion regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of any word is always a brain dead "con" and a "productive" discussion killer, regardless of what "productive" might entail.

Yes, a sticky would solve this problem, easily, and immediately.

How could it not? If the unqualified word "football" by default means Association Football... problem solved. If the unqualified word "football" by default means American Football... problem solved. If the unqualified word "football" by default means Australian Rules Football... problem solved. If use of the unqualified word "football" is forbidden... problem solved. In every case, everyone can still discuss anything they want. It's just this simple.

I am merely attacking the suggestion that you are an expert at something other than trolling.

lol the whole "calling out deplorables for being racist is what made me vote for trump" has been debunked a thousand times. nor does it make any sense at all.

so this does show that dont get the best information and you are terrible at logic.

and if someone holds deplorable points of view and advocates oppressing the rights of others then I do think they absolutely deserve to be shamed. sorry that you cant handle racists being called racist. perhaps I may suggest a safe space for you?

I'm not saying you're wrong but I have a very different vision of politics 7

I tried evidence-based name calling. Some get to call people more names than others.

This, folks, is why we can't have nice things.

There are people in this world who just don't understand things, and will keep telling you that you are the one who actually doesn't understand. Hilarious. It's best just to accept it than waste your time explaining it. Their minds are broken.

+1

When I first entered this forum I was exited to discuss politics. I quickly found out how angry and mean spirited many of the folks on the left are. I absolutely voted for Trump because I couldn't stand the thought of these miserable people being in power. I'm certainly not the only one. There would be no need for moderation if a few of these troublemakers were removed from the forum.

Hey Victor!

I would suggest taking a step back and getting some perspective. You need to consider that your view on things is simply wrong. I would suggest listening instead of responding from a learned emotional state. There are highly intelligent folks who can offer alternative ways to look at the world. If you truly listen you will have the capability to actually "consciously" decide what is right or wrong.

Bump @chezlaw

Perhaps discussing the following would help...

1. Why would you think a sticky might not solve this problem?
2. You mentioned: "doesn't deliberate use of that misunderstanding have some pros as well as cons?". I can't imagine looping & derailing a discussion having any 'pros' at all... unless you consider looping & derailing a discussion a 'pro' in-and-of-itself. Perhaps an example would help me understand your point. As in... we're having a discussion regarding, say, the NFL draft. Someone changes the subject to be the one-true-and-only-official-definition of the word 'football'. What possible 'pro' follows from this scenario?
3. Is there any reason you can think of that makes the contentious competing usages of the word 'football' in any way fundamentally different than the contentious competing usage of the r-word. Note: I'm not asking if mindless sports-talk squabbling is fundamentally different than structural r-word-ism. My question only relates to the semantic 'arguments' regarding the one-true-and-only-official-definition of this or that string of ASCII.

see, this is the difference between me and you. I dont go to others to form my opinions. I look at the facts, the real news, and use logic.

Sorry for the delay. This isn't a complete response to your previous post (more later)

The meaning of words is in their usage. People can point at a sticky or dictionary all they like but B is responding to what they think A means, not what the sticky says. A sticky can help but we can end up with exactly the same derail/looping except it will be about whether A is using the meaning in the sticky or not.

Yes there's a difference between F type confusion and R type confusion. F confusion is unintentional and symmetric. A & B are simply using different meanings in the same manner. it's all pointless frustration with maybe sometimes some humour.

R includes everything from F but:

a) Some might see political value in the derail/looping as a tactic to avoid an enaging debate happening. This is preceley because they consider enagagment in that debate a bad thing politically.

b) there can be an intentional asymmetry whereby A Rs B knowing that B will infer somethign that A denies they are infering. This assists with a) but is also a rhetorical method to play the man rather than the ball. Now it becomes about the politics of divisivness with all the associated pros and cons.

The racism word seems to cause no end of problems to people here, especially when applied to people identifying Muslims as a group for particular attention.

chez, where do you stand on the question of whether a set of measures aimed openly and detrimentally at Muslims is racist or not?

I usually use the word Islamophobia or say racism/etc, to avoid the common but much simpler derail of Muslims not being a race.

I generally use racist or racist/etc when I mean it's intentional. Otherwise I say thing like institutional or systemic racism, or I talk about racial prejudice and discrimination.

If a poster in P8.8 advocates discrimination against Muslims, does that make him/her racist?

Not at all.

The purpose here isn't to have a sticky decide on the one-true-and-only-official-definition of 'football' or the r-word. The purpose is to simply eliminate the "angle shoot" of playing off these contentious competing usages to loop & derail the discussion.

If, say, the sticky read: ITF "football", "Association Football", and "FB" refer to Association Football; "American Football", "Gridiron", and "USFB" refer to American Football; "Australian Rules Football", "Australian Rules", "Footy", and AUFB refer to Australian Rules Football.

With this sticky, anyone can unambiguously refer the spectator sport of their choice, everyone can save typing by using the abbreviations, and nobody can "angle shoot" the differences between the various usages.

This is where you as a mod need to step in. This is exactly the same situation as trying to "angle shoot" around the site wide profanity filter, or "angle shoot" around your PC rules.

Sure I can say I don't indent anything bad by my usage of the n-word, or by posting something you consider anti-PC. But the rules still remain the same... the n-word is prohibited regardless of usage, and what you consider anti-PC is prohibited regardless of what the poster in question claims his meaning actually was.

Of course.

Remember, going back, we are supposed to be optimizing some kinda as yet to described 'productivity' in these discussions. Regardless of how this 'productivity' is defined however, wilfully refusing to engage in the discussion, and instead intentionally "angle shooting" as above to loop & derail said discussion, simple has to rate as a zero on the 'productivity' metric.

Likewise, IRL it's sometimes possible to literally "shout down" a discussion as a tactic to avoid engagement in said discussion. This can be done in situations where the "shouter" doesn't feel engagement is that discussion is a good thing politically. However, just like "angle shooting" as above, "shouting down" simply has to rate as a zero on the 'productivity' metric, regardless of what metric is used.

In other words, it's a play to "attack the arguer", and avoid "engaging in discussion". Again, what possible metric of 'productivity' exists where this isn't a zero also?

I think if I had a sticky, insisting the official meaning of the word racist was say, the commonly used one - the one some some call the 'secret heart' then it would mostly just be ignored. And vice verca

Ok but how's that an improvement on containing discussion on what words like racist means. I'm not saying I'm strongly averse to the sticky idea but I still think it will come down to modding the derails.

Yes but attacking the arguer is the crux of the above discussion. The sticky wont stop people attacking the arguer. It will just seek to stop the derails that inevitably tend to follow - unless I'm missing something.

The question I was addressing is the political pros and cons of attacking the arguer. Are they part of the question of what is a productive political discussion?

Beyond that, I suppose it depends on what we mean by being productive in these discussion. Is any part of it to dopolitics rather than discuss politics?

No. You are still missing what I'm getting at. I'm most certainly not suggesting defining any official definitions.

I'm going to assume you used to play poker. What I'm talking about is akin to the string bet rule, or the big chip rule. Neither of those rules restrict a player's actions. All they specify is that in certain possibly ambiguous situations, this is what happened.

The purpose is to short-circuit certain forms of angle shooting, and to eliminate a whole buncha pointless squabbling. Again: the string bet & big chip rules don't define what a bet or raise are. The sticky I'm suggesting likewise wouldn't define the r-word or 'football'. All the sticky I'm suggesting would do is specify what happens in certain possibly ambiguous situations.

Didn't I already explain this... this is where you as a mod comes in. If the sticky said string of ASCII (S) is referring to what is sometimes called (X), and some poster starts in trying to loop and derail the discussion by changing the subject to the one-and-only-official-definition of ASCII string (S)... well then it would generally be up to some poster to report those posts. Then, if you agreed, you would start in on the warn/timeout/etc progression.

Again, exactly like anything else is enforced in all these stickies on 2+2 in general.

Uh, my idea about the stickies doesn't have anything to do with attacking the arguer. It's simply a way to stop the equivalent of poker "angle shoots" in these discussions, and a way to eliminate all sorts of pointless bickering.

These are exactly the kinda general questions about this 'productivity' we keep hearing about that needs discussion first. It's obvious putting the horse before the cart, and guaranteeing garbage-in-garbage-out, to makes rules promoting 'productivity' without figuring out WTF is meant by 'productivity'.

To answer the question about 'do'ing... no, I don't think so.

As for attacking the arguer, well, you gotta rule against attacking the arguer with name calling. What goal are you trying to accomplish with this rule?