The politics forum is changing!
- Thread starter Kotchanski
- Start date
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
This is all fine in principle, except for the part where the OP is expected to provide links to support both sides of the discussion:
a) Sometimes it's hard enough to find one decent link to support a topic, especially on more obscure stories that are not necessarily headlines in the popular media, or stories that are just breaking.
b) Sometimes a thread is based on something purely informational, and doesn't even suggest two "sides", though it may spark debate related to the topic back and forth.
c) I see no reason why the OP should not be able to express a clear point of view and present sources to back it up. I do not agree that it should be incumbent on the OP to dig up sources to support opposing viewpoints. That should be the responsibility of those debating the point.
There are many posters who never present sources to back their claims, and say things like "I'm sure you guys can find such and such if you look for it". It's a classic evasion and deflection technique - often the sources don't exist because it's mere opinion based on pure fiction, or they only exist on suspect and propagandistic sites and blogs. My response to them is, "You need to do your own damn homework, it's not incumbent on us to prove your case." I strongly believe that; posters need to provide their own citations and sources to prove their arguments, otherwise, as Bbucko says, they're just talking out of their ass. Which is often the case.
Bottom line, don't require the OP to provide sources to opposing viewpoints which may not even exist, and if they do, are not valid. Although well intentioned, this is not practical. It goes way too far, and will certainly eliminate the creation of many potentially interesting and informative threads.
As far as restricting links to 'hate sites' and the like, maybe because I am not really familiar with these I don't really see the need. I ended up on a Neo-Nazi site once by accident researching German artists of the '30's and '40's, but I didn't bother looking at any of the propaganda there. I personally don't have a problem with linking to almost anything; I can always back out if I'm offended. The one exception for me would be something that is blatantly and unexpectedly gorey. I had a 'friend' throw up an image of someone who had their head blown off in Iraq once, and though I immediately looked away, I still have that disturbing image seared in my mind. I really don't want to see anything like that again without being warned, and I would personally support a restriction in that regard.
If others have a problem with 'hate sites', whatever they may be, I also don't have a problem with a restriction. I'm guessing there's not much if anything there to support a valid argument anyway. Big HOWEVER: it is a freedom of speech issue, and I think it is a dangerous and slippery slope when anyone starts arbitrarily deciding what is and is not a valid source. If you have this restriction, you need to be very careful that it is reserved for only the worst of the worst. Personally, I would prefer to let the readers decide what is valid, with advance warning where appropriate. We are all (mostly) adults after all.
Last edited:
It's already against the ToS to post racist content and linking to hate sites is such a small step away from actually posting the content, that I have no problem whatsoever seeing it as a violation. I don't see it as a freedom of speech issue either. This is a privately owned site and as such the owners can impose whatever restrictions they want on speech. Yes we can simply turn away for those sites or such content. I'd rather fight back and forbid them.
^ Like I said, I don't have any personal experience with the phenomenon, nor do I have a problem if others see the need for a restriction. Where I do have a concern is if someone starts deciding a source is not valid because it's too biased to the left or to the right - DailyKos vs. Fox for example. I know it's not the same level of Free Speech here that's enshrined in the Bill of Rights, nor does it need to be. But I don't support erring too far on the side of 'political correctness' either. Hence my suggestion these restrictions be reserved for the "worst of the worst".
Jeez Vince, I wasn't suggesting you were. In case you missed it, I said twice in two posts, that if we have this restriction, we need to be very careful that it is reserved for only the worst of the worst." I also said twice in two posts that I have no problem with restricting 'hate sites'. The point is, somebody has to determine what constitutes a 'hate site' vs. one that might be considered archly conservative, perhaps with links within to sites that have articles with a subtle racist, sexist or homophobic subtext. And yes, I've seen exactly such a site sourced here, and no one made a peep.
It may seem obvious to you and to me, but as we've been discussing in another thread, these decisions are ultimately subjective. Someone has to decide what sites are out of bounds, and the question is, where exactly do they draw that line. As I said, it has the potential to be a slippery slope. Personally, I prefer that if a line is drawn, it err on the side of offensive vs. political correctness, biased vs. balanced. Even though that goes against my political leanings, it is in line with my belief in freedom of expression.
My example of Fox vs. Kos was deliberately intended to illustrate a case where the lines were drawn too tightly, although we have seen plenty of people on either side of the left/right divide protest vehemently when those exact sources were used. My caution was not directed at you, but at 'the deciders', and was prompted by this:
So the questions remain, what is an obvious 'hate site' (or a 'respectable' source for that matter), who decides, and what are the criteria?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
Since Maxcok asked for examples, I'm going to ask (I can't force anyone to comply at this point in time, so this is not an admin demand) that people please not post to hate sites within this thread (breaking my own rule of "OP doesn't own the thread" lol)
Should this become a part of the conditions for posting within this forum, I would ask that at that time people with specific sites in mind forward them via PM to myself and they will be reviewed by the team so that they can be added to a list which would become part of the guide put in here.
(last thing we need is people using this thread to discover a new hate site to keep spewing from in the other threads)
Should this become a part of the conditions for posting within this forum, I would ask that at that time people with specific sites in mind forward them via PM to myself and they will be reviewed by the team so that they can be added to a list which would become part of the guide put in here.
(last thing we need is people using this thread to discover a new hate site to keep spewing from in the other threads)
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
a proposition that operationally would be fraught with difficulties
would citing something by Daniel Pipes, who is frank about militant Islam be deemed by some on the board as being citing to a "hate site"
likewise, say someone has taken a position about some of the issues surrounding "gay marriage" and cites to a site that substantiates that position, might some, who hold a contrary position, take that to be as invoking a "hate site"
even assuming, arguendo, that one could come to a consensus as to what a "hate site" is, what if the poster citing to it was unaware?
as has been pointed, in different styles, there are some who hold a doctrinaire position, and anything contrary to that doctrine is deemed to be engaging in "hate speech"
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
Firstly I'd never assume making the call on what is and isn't a hate site would be an easy task, and I've not said this is something that will certainly be included. I'm just bashing around the ideas and how I personally feel they would work best if put in as part of the final decision.
I can only base this on my opinion at present, but the difference between a regular site voicing it's opinion on gay marriage (since that was part of your example) be it for or against, and a hate site would be the method of delivery and the specific content.
Example:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be supported, I urge you all to vote against this. The bible teaches us that marriage is between a man and a woman, it is our believe it should remain as such. - Not a hate site, just an opinion many may not like or agree with.
Gay marriage is a sin, these disgusting queers should not be allowed to taint that which is the most holy of blessings bestowed on a man and a woman. - Would potentially be a tough call depending on the nature of the rest of the site (it is a forum and this is one mans opinion? Is this the opening statement on the front page? What else does the site go on to say?)
Gay marriage is fucking sick, anyone supporting or partaking in it should die a horrible aids ridden death - Hate site and anyone linking to it should be banned (again, my opinion)
Obviously the use of foul language and/or death threats doesn't make the call, but the over all content of the site, it's message and how it is delivered. A tough job in many cases will be had to determine it, but there are countless very clear cut cases to be found out there (I just had a quick look - thanks google) and if we can weed out at the very least some of them, then I believe we're taking steps in the right direction.
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
^yes, but they also activated post ratings and tweaked it so that any post with a negative 50% rating is automatically soft deleted.
On my site, we have a standing rule that applies to most anything (but especially images and political sources)...
When a member is in doubt as to whether the material he is about to post is within the boundaries of the rules of the forum, he has two choices... a) Don't post it at all and find a better source... b) PM an Admin for a judgment call BEFORE posting. (and you are then obligated to wait for a response, however long it takes, before posting that material)... The Admins may not always be perfectly consistent in what is and is not allowed, because our answers change according to the source in question, the tone of the thread to be created or responded to and the present overall mood of the forum.
Oh, and we also make it clear that just because an Admin let you post a certain source, that doesn't mean that the member now has carte blanche authority to post whatever he wants about the subject, or that we 'endorse' what is being posted. (on the rare occasion, we get someone who then gets on the boards and gloats that "even the Admins agree with my position, so f*** you loser!")... Such people who abuse our good graces feel the heat in a big way.
and for Aconitum's sake... We deal with these sort of inquires very infrequently (I hear something along these lines maybe twice a month)... Most sensible people know what is and is not going to be received well on the boards, and they stay away from the overly controversial crap... You could of course assign a mod to run the politiforum and have he/she well advertised as the go to person on such matters.... Furthermore, you may be thinking to yourself, "well I can think of a few people here who would nag us all day long wanting permission to post edgy sources"... And I would respond that this is a good thing, because the people who are most likely to troll and instigate flame wars are self identifying themselves for you.
On my site, we have a standing rule that applies to most anything (but especially images and political sources)...
When a member is in doubt as to whether the material he is about to post is within the boundaries of the rules of the forum, he has two choices... a) Don't post it at all and find a better source... b) PM an Admin for a judgment call BEFORE posting. (and you are then obligated to wait for a response, however long it takes, before posting that material)... The Admins may not always be perfectly consistent in what is and is not allowed, because our answers change according to the source in question, the tone of the thread to be created or responded to and the present overall mood of the forum.
Oh, and we also make it clear that just because an Admin let you post a certain source, that doesn't mean that the member now has carte blanche authority to post whatever he wants about the subject, or that we 'endorse' what is being posted. (on the rare occasion, we get someone who then gets on the boards and gloats that "even the Admins agree with my position, so f*** you loser!")... Such people who abuse our good graces feel the heat in a big way.
and for Aconitum's sake... We deal with these sort of inquires very infrequently (I hear something along these lines maybe twice a month)... Most sensible people know what is and is not going to be received well on the boards, and they stay away from the overly controversial crap... You could of course assign a mod to run the politiforum and have he/she well advertised as the go to person on such matters.... Furthermore, you may be thinking to yourself, "well I can think of a few people here who would nag us all day long wanting permission to post edgy sources"... And I would respond that this is a good thing, because the people who are most likely to troll and instigate flame wars are self identifying themselves for you.
Last edited:
Arguments in this forum get so heated that you either need to strictly moderate it, or delete the forum altogether.
Somethingawful.com has some of the most productive political forums on the internet, and have a pretty serious rule system:
The Rules of Debate and Discussion - The Something Awful Forums
I suggest following something similar, and ban repeat offenders. If you're not willing to do that, consider the subforum a lost cause or delete it. You can't have a serious discussion when both sides spend half the thread calling each other names.
Additionally, much of the posts on this forum are single articles that start the same rehashed argument. You could organize things into general topic threads, like "oil spill thread", "Obama sucks thread", "health care form thread", etc.
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I just reviewed the rules cited
inter alia, they require citation to a reference to back up a fact; so, if, as has happened here, someone with absolutely no background in economics takes issue with something i have stated, I would then be required to post a source that would explain the most rudimentary concepts of economics
rather than responding ( given that what I was stating rested on the basic understanding of economics) I chose not to respond
one can cite examples through the whole gamut of issues; I have had posters challenge statement regarding Islam, even though it was evident the challenger had never undertaken any study of the scholarship in that area, but, rather challenged from a doctrinaire position
sounds like a waste of time -- if one doesn't have the background to understand what I'm saying, why should they submit a post that would require i guide their research?
note that what I'm saying is not that I would hesitate to cite a source if the other poster is engaged and knowledgeable to begin with, and had something of substance to respond with
I shudder to think the massive undertaking if I were to have referenced something like the emergence of human consciousness, to relate a simple epistemological issue
inter alia, they require citation to a reference to back up a fact; so, if, as has happened here, someone with absolutely no background in economics takes issue with something i have stated, I would then be required to post a source that would explain the most rudimentary concepts of economics
rather than responding ( given that what I was stating rested on the basic understanding of economics) I chose not to respond
one can cite examples through the whole gamut of issues; I have had posters challenge statement regarding Islam, even though it was evident the challenger had never undertaken any study of the scholarship in that area, but, rather challenged from a doctrinaire position
sounds like a waste of time -- if one doesn't have the background to understand what I'm saying, why should they submit a post that would require i guide their research?
note that what I'm saying is not that I would hesitate to cite a source if the other poster is engaged and knowledgeable to begin with, and had something of substance to respond with
I shudder to think the massive undertaking if I were to have referenced something like the emergence of human consciousness, to relate a simple epistemological issue
Last edited:
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
A generally universal rule of any form of logical debate is that, "He who asserts must prove"... It is not the burden of your opponent/audience to find out if what you assert is true, the burden is yours to prove that what you assert is true... Lacking substantiating evidence in your argument, your assertion is rendered invalid.
In fact, the hallmark of a well conceived constructive argument is that it is capable of convincing a heretofore uninformed listener that your assertion is valid/true... In my experience, proclaiming that the listener must convince himself because you cannot, is one of the more embarrassing ways a speaker can surrender the point.
Last edited:
B_Nick4444
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Posts
- 6,849
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 107
- Points
- 193
- Location
- San Antonio, TX
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
indeed
and, as I stated, I actually have no problem with that, assuming that the questions relate to what I have stated
but to go back to the basics of a subject, or to respond to a simple-minded doctrinaire assertion where the poster evidently has never read anything about Islam, for example, is going to be an enormous expenditure of time, that will probably lead nowhere
I should not be expected to single handedly undo someone else's lifetime of ignorance
and, as I stated, I actually have no problem with that, assuming that the questions relate to what I have stated
but to go back to the basics of a subject, or to respond to a simple-minded doctrinaire assertion where the poster evidently has never read anything about Islam, for example, is going to be an enormous expenditure of time, that will probably lead nowhere
I should not be expected to single handedly undo someone else's lifetime of ignorance
B_talltpaguy
Experimental Member
btw... I deal with fallacious arguments causing problems on the websites I run all of the time... A poster will make some ridiculous claim, then a cadre of other members object and demand evidence, then the OP whines that it isn't their responsibility to prove their own assertions, and that everyone else should 'educate themselves' if they want to know what the assertion means... And I always tell them the same thing, if you can't back up what you say with some sort of reasonable supporting evidence, then don't say it in the first place... To which they often complain that this sounds too much like work or is annoying... To which I respond... "If you don't like the rules, then don't post here". Sometimes they leave, but most times they get with the program.
Like I said the other day, whatever changes the staff of this site makes to the politiforum, it is sure to piss off some portion of the membership, and will surely compel some number of them to stop posting in the politiforum all together... But I can promise you that for every jerk who leaves, rather than be forced to behave like a respectable adult, there will be 10 more people who will adore finding a forum that can accommodate such topics while being orderly and reasonable.
Like I said the other day, whatever changes the staff of this site makes to the politiforum, it is sure to piss off some portion of the membership, and will surely compel some number of them to stop posting in the politiforum all together... But I can promise you that for every jerk who leaves, rather than be forced to behave like a respectable adult, there will be 10 more people who will adore finding a forum that can accommodate such topics while being orderly and reasonable.
Last edited:
