Politics thread removed. Reason why.

[RedCowboy]

Censorship kills the fun, kills creativity and limits learning, that said we don't want the guy who loves the thing most of us hate promoting it all day long in every thread, so we do need some rules.

So as an honest political conversation has proven a fruitless search over years of observation, I think maybe we should ban politics beyond where they intersect with current events in such that current events and happenings of importance can be shared at a basic " hey look at this " level, but not turned into a political debate.

It will require everyone making an honest effort to share clean information without political embellishment, time will tell if it's possible as so much of what we find online and in the news cycle is already politically biased.

 

[Ears and Eggs]

I think the only way this has any chance of working is if any and all personal attacks are immediately deleted. This is how these discussions tend to go to hell. Not picking on anyone here, just in general these days with politics being so polarizing, all too often it just ends in a shouting match. I think in general this forum has done better than average in that regard, as a scientifically minded community.



The problem of misinformation is a separate and very difficult one to deal with. Even multi billion dollar tech companies with thousands of employees are struggling to know where to draw the line. It is simply impossible for the moderators to be able to make a judgment on every possible issue. Some issues are obvious (Is the Earth round?), but others do not have one answer (What is the correct solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?). The mods simply cannot be experts on everything.



I think some level of misinformation is just an inevitable part of the internet and social media. When everyone has a voice, some will post misinformation (either intentionally or not). Honestly trying to police that would probably result in too many false positives and do more harm than good by just silencing speech.



If you think someone has posted misinformation, it's probably better to not directly engage them, but to just post what you think is right. In these polarizing times, that one person is probably so entrenched in their views that there is nothing you can say to change it, but you might get through to others who are reading and have not quite made up their mind yet.

 

[Eidetical]

Personal attacks are examples of just one logical fallacy. I wish moderators could just as quickly identify strawman (whataboutism) and red herring argument diversions, and punish the offenders appropriately. Just sayin'. That's what would keep me civil and on topic.

 

[julianthedragon]

The problem is that mods will still choose, intentionally or not, to enforce rules that lean even gradually toward their own political beliefs. Maybe we can pay attention to what Elon does about twitter. Not saying to follow his every move but he has been fairly transparent about wanting content moderation that is fair for both parties, and met with reps from each this week

 

[Ears and Eggs]

Personal attacks are examples of just one logical fallacy. I wish moderators could just as quickly identify strawman (whataboutism) and red herring argument diversions, and punish the offenders appropriately. Just sayin'.

Ideally this would be the case, but we really would need a moderator that has specific experience in this area. I can do my best getting rid of personal attacks, but I am simply not qualified to be a proper debate moderator.

The problem is that mods will still choose, intentionally or not, to enforce rules that lean even gradually toward their own political beliefs. Maybe we can pay attention to what Elon does about twitter. Not saying to follow his every move but he has been fairly transparent about wanting content moderation that is fair for both parties, and met with reps from each this week

Yes, I generally like what he is doing, but it is much harder for a small forum with only a couple mods to achieve this. Ideally you'd have a larger moderation team with people from all sides of the political spectrum that would decide as a group, but this isn't really possible on this small a scale. I do my best to keep my personal views out of moderating decisions, and have generally been very hands off about the old politics thread, but the mods are human, so there will always be some subconscious bias.

 

[RedCowboy]

Personal attacks are examples of just one logical fallacy. I wish moderators could just as quickly identify strawman (whataboutism) and red herring argument diversions, and punish the offenders appropriately. Just sayin'. That's what would keep me civil and on topic.

I see this strawman argument used where people just don't want to think or rather they don't want to have their easy answers they have been programmed with challenged.

An example would be when someone says : Cars kill people and killing people is bad, therefore cars are bad and we should get rid of cars...... now don't challenge my perfect logic or strawman, boogieman, buzzword, racism, racism, racism.

Sometimes what we call a strawman is just another way of making a very valid and worthwhile point.

p.s. If a persons logic is so fragile that it folds under the weight of a strawman then maybe they should question it.

-----------

I think the only way this has any chance of working is if any and all personal attacks are immediately deleted. This is how these discussions tend to go to hell. Not picking on anyone here, just in general these days with politics being so polarizing, all too often it just ends in a shouting match. I think in general this forum has done better than average in that regard, as a scientifically minded community.



The problem of misinformation is a separate and very difficult one to deal with. Even multi billion dollar tech companies with thousands of employees are struggling to know where to draw the line. It is simply impossible for the moderators to be able to make a judgment on every possible issue. Some issues are obvious (Is the Earth round?), but others do not have one answer (What is the correct solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?). The mods simply cannot be experts on everything.



I think some level of misinformation is just an inevitable part of the internet and social media. When everyone has a voice, some will post misinformation (either intentionally or not). Honestly trying to police that would probably result in too many false positives and do more harm than good by just silencing speech.



If you think someone has posted misinformation, it's probably better to not directly engage them, but to just post what you think is right. In these polarizing times, that one person is probably so entrenched in their views that there is nothing you can say to change it, but you might get through to others who are reading and have not quite made up their mind yet.

Well said, if someone makes a point you don't agree with you should post what you think is right, we can't be so emotionally sensitive that a persons counterpoint is seen as a personal attack, not unless we are to let whoever complains simply have their way.

 

[Eidetical]

"Sometimes what you call a strawman is just another way of making a very valid and worthwhile point."

That's a red herring.

 

[RedCowboy]

"Sometimes what you call a strawman is just another way of making a very valid and worthwhile point."

That's a red herring.

That's an excuse used to avoid a valid and worthwhile point.
Who's to say what you label a " red herring " is correct ?
It's often just a way for someone with a weak argument to try and shut down the person challenging their view.

 

[RedCowboy]

Red herring = a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

I disagree with your assessment.

Strawman = an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Well now, isn't that convenient, who's to say what you label a strawman is correct ?
Any deviation from your pre conceived logic, you may simply call a strawman.
Again I believe this is often used as an excuse not to think about someone else's viewpoint.

 

[julianthedragon]

this is now the meta politics thread

 

[RedCowboy]

meta = after or beyond

After politics, beyond politics...... I suppose so.

Just FYI I had become sick of the politics thread, it was mostly just one other person and myself and the conversation was spin, spin, spin to the point I asked for the politics thread to be closed 2 days ago because the dishonesty was sickening, I felt it had become a waste of my time and I like many others felt it didn't really belong here anymore, that was my feelings on it.

In a way I feel wrong because of free speech, but this is a laser hobby forum and we don't really have free speech here as it's privately owned.

 

[CurtisOliver]

I’m sorry. But how is deleting my thread, and creating a new one a good idea? The debate has already started even over the discussion of a new thread. I sorry to say I told you so. But the spilling of debates on the main forum has already started. Good luck LPF with whatever you decide to do about it. You’ve just deleted the bandaid and now the wound is going to start spilling out on everything else. Creating a new one after deleting the old one makes no logical sense whatsoever. You should have just kept it in vet section and moderated it like it should have been in the first place. Ground rules on the thread and site rules were in place. I’m not a mod. So it isn’t my job to pipe up and tell people to behave.

 

[julianthedragon]

meta = after or beyond

Also meta as in self-referential, a thread for talking about how we talk about politics

 

[Ears and Eggs]

Trying to police snowman and red lobster arguments is going to be more complex than just deleting personal attacks as it is potentially more subjective. If someone with real debate/debate moderation experience wants to try, then by all means, but it's gonna be difficult with what we have now.



Only *real* debate I've ever been in was in high school and I was supposed to be Napoleon. No idea why I was chosen for this role, hinting I have Napoleon Complex maybe? LOL!

Either way I had no idea what I was doing, messed around and got kicked out the debate and class. I did get to walk around the school dressed as Napoleon, so still overall a win though.

 

[RedCowboy]

Also meta as in self-referential, a thread for talking about how we talk about politics

It's impossible for me to see someone saying something I feel is wrong, harmful even and not take up the fight, but this is a laser site and I am not posting politics in this thread, I will respond to what is said and if in responding to what is said that is somehow called politics, then the blame lay with the post I was compelled to respond to....... otherwise I am to keep my mouth shut and let others say any wrong thing....no.

 

[Eidetical]

That's an excuse used to avoid a valid and worthwhile point.
Who's to say what you label a " red herring " is correct ?
It's often just a way for someone with a weak argument to try and shut down the person challenging their view.

Nice try. I've made my point.