I'm honestly not that bothered by excessively ridiculous. I engaged with Zorkman often enough and was cordial about it.

What I'm not understanding is why this is being proposed. Is there a gap that isn't addressed by the current Politics forum? So I guess I'm on Team Loki with the "solution looking for a problem" as the best initial reaction to this idea.

I'll hold off voting for now until you can help me better understand the rationale for this.

no respect for the thin purple line.

I just want to remind people who are interested in this thread, both pro and con, that I told you this particular discussion might be happening.

An increase in communication of those areas sounds welcome.

When I was in school back in the day, Current Events was my favorite class. That's where politics, culture and society happen.

The internet has plenty of places to politard. Not sure why so many people want to do so on 2+2, but I'd be staying far away.

All of that, especially the bolded.

voted bastard only because I saw that first and figured it was best but immediately regretted my hasty decision. Should ban OP.

Fixed Your Rules.

Mason Malmuth made it clear what he expects in a forum in this month's 2+2 Magazine. Get rid of the subjective qualifiers in your rules and you might have a chance of getting this forum off the ground.

Some German, but not Hermann Göring, once said "When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun." Something like that anyway. Words to live by, and the inspiration for this classic song:

Probably because culture is bigger than any one individual and also mostly invisible. Not unlike some kind of monster.

Hi-end culture could have a forum at last.

The best advice you can take WM is to ban Chez and ignore any suggestions he makes.

You would know nazi

WN wants to set up a salon but a salon requires invited guests and the occasional spectacle of the day. The mods would need to pre-screen participants bec adult, polite, and thoughtful commentary is what is sought and how to do that is a puzzle. I guess that checking posting histories and not inviting anyone whose posts regularly feature a bunch of *******'s would be a start.

I disagree. We have a lot to learn from it, as also from culture.

Same heh

It’s going to be a toxic cocktail of unchained-07 with a chaser of POGatics but whatever we all turn our heads when there’s an accident on the freeway

The main purpose of this post (and announcement) is to find that out.

I don't think the rules I've proposed amount to requiring "inside voices", although it's possible we don't understand the phrase the same way. The rules require people to post some content, but I think you can be "interesting, informative, argumentative, thought-provoking, or entertaining" in an outside voice. Fly is a good example of that. I'm having trouble with the idea that there are topics that "deserve" a wider hearing or with the idea that certain ideas get shouted down. That's not exactly how I'm thinking about this. I'm going to address eyebooger's post instead and hope it's helpful. If not, let me know.

Just to reiterate, the purpose of this thread is to determine whether or not this is a "solution in search of a problem". So I don't have much to offer on that front. The whole point for me is to get more information.

But I can tell you a little bit about my interest in the idea. This might be a good place to start.

To try to sum up: I am personally interested in discussing political and "culture wars" topics with people that I disagree with. I like the main politics forum, but I am sympathetic to the idea that it's a bit of an echo chamber. I think there's some value to being exposed to a wide range of opinions and I enjoy debating some of these topics with people who see things very differently than I do. That's why I liked PU/P7, and that's the majority of my content in that forum while it existed. I think there's an argument to be made that there's some value in getting people who represent a wide range of perspectives to talk to each other, but mostly I'm just personally interested in it.

The point of this thread is not so much to make the argument that people should want such a forum as to find out whether there's enough interest to reasonably support it as an experiment, and to try to solicit input from a wider range of 2+2 members than the ones who usually post in ATF threads about politics moderation.

P.S.A. I'm modestly drunk so if the above makes little sense ask me again tomorrow :P

Can you explain how something on 2+2 can get "shouted down?" The SMP brigade that infected unchained would argue this all the time but never give an example.

I've never made this claim as far as I know, so I'm a bit hesitant to try to defend it.

I think it's reasonable to think that people will be more or less hesitant to participate in a forum depending on the extent to which they believe they are facing an overwhelmingly hostile audience, or hostile moderation. Chips has a pretty good perspective on this, imo. But, my interest is not really to protect people from a hostile audience by force of moderation, and I tried to make the rules reflect this ("Be prepared for people to tell you what they think...").

The poster always has a choice about what they post. They continue to talk about the topic they fear is getting "shouted down" or they can post something else. If the number of people arguing against them is large perhaps they should look at the position they hold? They can only be shut up if they decide not to post any longer, no one can force them not to post.

I support it (didn't vote yet) on the basis of well named thinking it is a good idea. Can you tell me the right thing to click on in the poll, well named?

As part of the "SMP brigade" I am pretty sure I have never been shouted down. I've gotten bored at times, and have certainly had to deal with individual mosquitoes annoying me, but never shouted down.

well named, just to check on this new subforum, but will we be discussing free will and choice there?

If you can't figure out the right pole option you may not be qualified to participate :P

(it's the first one)

edit: Since i'm a compatibilist (h/t to zumby) I will be banning anyone who espouses libertarian ideas about free will. They may complain but it couldn't possibly make any difference.

Please count this post as a vote for it as I am unable to vote currently as I'm on the tapatalk app and just in case it gets locked before I do.

May God have mercy on your sole