I agree with chillrob.

Name-calling and trolling make up at least half of the posts in this Forum. That's the well-established "norm" in this Forum. And that's exactly why almost all threads in this forum are almost unreadable.

I'll say it one more time (this time with feeling): Engage the argument, not the arguer.

I have some bad news for anyone who thinks democracy can be saved by cleaning up this forum.

Re the trans thread: We tried having a thread on CRT but it was locked so we had to settle on trans. It isn't meant to single out trans people it's just that lots of issues happen when society decides to replace sex with something that isn't real. The original thread was mostly focused on sports but that issue has been beaten to death.

This Forum in a nutshell:

The Woke Mob of Pea Brains can basically post whatever tickles their fancy. Blowback against said Pea Brains gets you called homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc. etc.

Most of my infraction points accrued in my earlier perma-banned account were for sharing biblical views on homosexuality.

Democracy died decades ago.

I would just like to see the trolling stop were someone's reply is Derp Derp derp

Its realistically a Left leaning board

There is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly, the thread exists at some level because the community has a clear, continued, years long interest in discussing trans issues. I think it would be a huge mistake to come in and decide that one of our more active thread (or, err, four threads) needs to be closed. Recall my advice to listen to the community and not imposing your own views.

Secondly, trans issues are a very important issue in politics, and I think silencing discussion of trans issues would be a huge mistake. Take Florida's Don't Say Gay laws, or any number of families in the US where young trans kids aren't safe to come out to their parents or friends. We shouldn't join in this silencing. Yes trans people are a small segment of society, but we should stand up for small minorities, especially ones that suffer as trans people do (ex consider their suicide rates) and the sheer degree of attacks against trans people in bills and rhetoric around the country is appalling. A lot of value in the thread has been small evolution in how people perceive and frame trans issues and these are important questions we should embrace and not silence.

Now you are correct on two points. Firstly, the specific OP is quite poor. Previous versions started with more appropriate OPs and it would be fine to "reset" it to a new OP if you care. Just don't silence the topic.

Additionally, you are correct that some people have unfortunately used this topic to attack trans people, something our previous mod was mostly unwilling to moderate at an individual level. However, the response of silencing the entire topic because some people will do transphobic trolls is giving the transphobic trolls precisely what they want and silencing the topic for those who might learn and grow on these crucial issues.

The final question about "what about multiple threads" and "why just trans issues" are ultimately about the level of aggregation. Sure, we could have multiple threads about trans issues, or threads about LGBT people more broadly. Fine. However, I actually think the one thread on trans issues is the right level of aggregation because there are quite a number of sub issues that are interrelated and splitting into several threads is awkward, but they are specific enough to trans people that don't necessarily fit into a generic "minorities" thread or something. But ultimately, this is the level of aggregation the community has settled on and I think you should just leave it be.

I should be perhaps clear that I care about not silencing trans issues an order of magnitude more than I care about tone policing which again an order of magnitude more than LC in the mod thread which was just the first example. So if you want to ignore all my comments but the trans one, that is fine.

But I think you are making a mistake here. Look, everyone including me probably agrees with the spirit of not having insult-ridden flame threads, and for myself as you might already be able to tell from my prose far rather a worthy opponent able to challenge my logic than someone sniping personal insults. And I certainly agree with you that if someone is just insulting while not not being able to make actual points or rebut the opponent, this is bad. So I'm on your general side. I just think the types of examples you are giving here indicate a level of micro tone policing that goes too far. Firstly, "stupid" is extremely mild, to the point that if you are banning this as an insult I think we are left with a sanitized colourless conversation. Secondly, your example wasn't "you're stupid" it was a "stupid assertion" and contrary to your implication I think there is a different from labelling a specific argument as stupid and a person as stupid. Personally, I think it is useful to identify which of someone's assertions you find reasonable and which you find, well, stupid. If the level of tone policing is such that one is having to carefully make sure that even extremely minor colour focused on someones arguments or arguments and not the person then this is just....inauthentic.

And, I suspect, ultimately ineffective. This is politics. Politics is contentious. It is contentious in society; it is contentious almost all places it exists on the internet; it is contentious here. But the problem isn't really that people use words like "stupid assertion", it's quite a bit more fundamental than that, and banning things like "stupid assertion" doesn't really get to the core of the problem. People just side-step the linguistic demands.

I think what my actual suggestion on this front is to lead by example and not by fiat. If you want the tone of the forum to substantially change, ok maybe try and limit the most egregious and extreme instances of tone by fiat, but mostly lead by example of coming in and making great arguments with the tone you want to set yourself, generating interested threads with interested OPs yourself, be the change you want to see in the forum.

uke-master: just to be clear, I didn't say anything about silencing any discussion related to the transgender community. I agree that this is an active and important discussion topic that many people have strong opinions about. So I don't know why you seem so concerned about me coming in and silencing discussions about these topics. The thought of shutting down those discussions never entered my mind.

Rather, I'm seeking user input as to why previous threads were closed, and how a thread titled Transgender issues came to be created, and whether these discussions are best facilitated using threads that focus on a particular topic rather than have all topics involving the transgender community in a single thread. I appreciate your feedback that you feel that a single catch all thread is the best way to go. I've noted that, and will add that to any other input other users care to give me.

I would like to address something you bring up often, and that is your concern of me coming in and imposing "my" desires on the forum rather than maintaining the status quo. I don't have a predetermined agenda that I plan to force upon everyone, with the caveat that we will adhere to the site wide rules set by the owners. There is no special cutout for the politics forum to ignore the required rules just because politics can be a very passionate topic for many people. So for example, personal insults are not allowed on this site. This forum has many posts filled with personal insults. Those types of posts will not be permitted to remain up, regardless of whether or not certain posters are fine with them, or the community has "settled" on them being OK. The status quo in this regard is unacceptable and will be changed.

On other "style" issues, like should we have a single catch all thread on various topics, or have individual threads that address a single topic, I don't have an interest in imposing my view just because it's my view. Rather, I want to hear from as many posters as possible to get a feel for what they think has worked or not worked in the past, and why they think it has worked. Then I will add my own experiences as both a long time forum user and mod and make a decision as to how we will handle that topic going forward. And if that proves to not get the desired results, we will try again.

As I said, the input of our posters, and particularly our regular posters, carries a lot of weight. But there are other considerations and perspectives to consider. In particular is the perspective of the visitors and lurkers who view our forum but don't participate. On any given day there are usually more of them viewing than members that are active posters. Why don't they join in? This forum covers many topics that affect everyone and most people have strong opinions about. How do we grow the numbers of posters? First, we need to have discussions that are easy to follow. Visitors and lurkers won't make the effort to sift through a bunch of off-topic stuff to read the posts that pertain to the topic at hand. And second, they won't post themselves if they believe they are going to be personally attacked or ridiculed for their opinion. Currently our forum does not do a good job in this regard. So whether the "community" has settled on this deliberately or just sort of drifted into it, it will need to change if we hope to grow our forum. Together ee should be able to come up with wqys to make our forum more attractive to others.

Paranoia from past experiences plus that was the first thread that you decided to single out for discussion. Seems reasonable.

Excellent. As you can appreciate, this particular issue has a long history of people trying to silence it both generally in society (Don't Say Gay laws etc) and specifically on this forum. So I'm touchy on this one, particularly when you single out only THIS issue among all the threads on the forum. But I'm glad to receive this commitment that this topic is an important one to continue.

I can say that Tame deuces previous cited reason for closing the thread was due to a large amount of "thinly veiled transphobic trolls", and the sense I got was he wasn't particularly energized to deal with those people doing thinly vieled transphobic trolling and instead wanted the whole thing gone. But since the community kept talking about it a fairly random offshoot became the OP. I definitely think editing the existing OP or starting fresh with a new thread is a better approach. Maybe in time there will be a critical mass to support many threads, but I don't think the momentum is there yet.

As I noted earlier, nobody is suggesting a carve out for the broader forum rules. But it is up to the mods here to interpret those rules in the specific context of this politics forum and one can be quite a bit more stringent or less stringent. For example, contrast Rule 1 and your claim. Rule 1 makes very clear the distinction between attacking a person and attacking a specific post or argument. Yet you claim there is "no difference" between calling a person stupid and calling an assertion stupid. I both disagree and note that this is going above and beyond Rule 1.

I chose that thread because it seemed to have a history of controversy (it is on version IV) and I wanted to learn more about the background. But the question I posed, and sought input on, is not whether or not transgender discussions should be silenced. It was whether they are best discussed in individual threads based on a particular issue versus intermingling posts on several issues in a single thread.

PICK THE MOST APPROPRIATE CLOSING SENTENCE:

A. So I don't know why anyone would suggest that I want to silence the discussion.

B. So I don't know why anyone would stupidly suggest I want to silence the discussion.

B ofc but I'd go with 'idiotically'.

Here's my feelings about the use of words like stupid irt referencing someones argument as well as their person. Poster A states his position. Of course, we won't allow someone to respond with "you're stupid". But what about saying "that's stupid"? At first glance that appears to avoid the problem of personal insult. But in reality, it is a distinction without a difference. Who, other than a stupid person, would put forth a stupid position? If the person doesn't realize a stupid position is, in fact, stupid, then he must be stupid. And so on. An insult is an insult, and the person will take it personally whether you call him stupid or his position stupid.

But the other issue is, why use a term like stupid idiotic, etc in the first place? Especially in an area like politics, with polar opposite positions, each side has essentially considered the other side's reasoning and found it to be lacking. So each side believes the other side's arguments are stupid to start with. Using insulting terms like stupid does nothing to advance the discussion, but often raises the temperature.

If you think someones position has flaws, simply point them out. Or counter them with your own points. Nothing positive comes from calling the other persons ideas stupid. And no one in the history of internet forum posting has ever responded to "your idea is stupid'" with "oh yeah, you're right". So be nice.

I appreciate honest feedback, no matter how ****ed up it is.

Do synonyms like "derp" fall in the same bucket?

I'll have to look that up. My internet slang game is weak.

It's a derogatory term for mouth breathers.

People should temper their expectations. I don't think it is possible to do a noticeably better job modding this forum than t_d did. I mean, sure, it will make lagtight happy if he is allowed to call people sodomites, and it will make uke happy if every modding decision related to the trans thread is explained in gory detail, and it will make Luckbox happy if he is allowed to argue that 9/11 was an inside job and various school shooting were false flag operations.

But moving the forum in those directions obviously won't be universally popular.

ICWYDT.

As for derp, almost every definition I found had the word stupid in it. So while I would have to see how it was used in a particular post, my feeling is it will usually fall into the not nice category and should be avoided.

I actually agree with nearly everything you've said and am looking forward to you helping bring more civility and meat to these discussions, but I don't agree with this line. Sometimes smart people say stupid things, either because they're stupid on that topic, they had a lapse in thinking, they are trying to push towards some other position that isn't well supported, or they are just trolling. I think it important to be able to call out bad arguments without attacking the arguer.

This all reminds me of the pearl clutching when Clinton said “basket of deplorables”.

Exactly. This is why Rule 1 on the forum is a good one, it draws a bright line between attacking a person and attacking a specific argument. I think it is a mistake to blur the distinction. People are sometimes going to make good arguments and bad arguments, and it is important to be able to clearly adjudicate between these. While not doing personal attacks is a good general idea, I think worrying about labelling a specific argument stupid as part of a critique is just way too sensitive imo.

In practice this is close enough to true in forum dialogue that it may well be correct to mod as if it is true.

But it isn't true. Clever people, do, believe and argue stupid stuff all the time. It's a very interesting topic because rationality isn't the goal of most people, satisfaction is the goal of people and satisfaction & being rational do not align that well for most people. This is politically important as pointing out that things are not true (and even stupid to believe) is often completely missing the point while making matters worse because it is, as you say, in practice usually meant and/or taken as a personal attack.

I'm certainly willing to reconsider my position as more input comes in. But as you stated it is important to differentiate between good and bad arguments. And I agree. There are lots of words you can use to do this. A weak argument; a factually unsupported argument; an illogical argument. Stupid,otoh, is a lack of intelligence; slow minded; obtuse. Is it really necessary to use a term like that to describe an argument you disagree with? Do you really think people will separate you calling their position stupid without taking it personally?

I have my doubts. And my experience leads me to believe almost everyone takes it as an insult. But I'll keep an open mind on it and see how it is used.

Most of the arguments and disputes here don't involve logic and intelligence as much as they do ideology and worldview, so I'm not even sure how much people's intelligence is even called into question-- sometimes for sure of course, but better to be called stupid than an evil gaslighting liar.