2
0

New theme for this site: "Civil Debate"


 invite response                
2020 Jun 2, 10:00am   3,078 views  169 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

I'm very tired of the hate in partisan politics, and want to have productive discussions with people of good will on how we can improve life in the US and around the world.

So no more pictures of Trump as an insane clown or talk of his being raped by Putin. That does not address his policies specifically and helps nothing. It just divides us.

And no more phrases like "liberals". That immediately eliminates the possibility of a liberal wanting to have a polite discussion of his point of view here. Again, it just divides us.

We need unity, not more division. E pluribus unum.

I'm just going to flag posts and comments I find to be stirring up hate and division. Don't worry, you'll know what that means, and the author will be able to click the "edit" button to see just what it was that got the post or comment flagged. It will be clear and fair.

Yes, it's a kind of censorship, but my hope is that it will make this site more useful to people of good will who really want to understand their fellow citizens and improve life. While the MSM routinely censors "offensive" ideas like the Red Pill theory, or our innate differences by sex and race, I'm not going to do that. All ideas are still open for discussion in a civil manner. The tag-line "Freedom to Offend" was not being understood as I intended. It seemed to be generating posts that were deliberately and angrily offensive.

Sorry if it seems like the food-fight is over. Everyone is still very welcome to have their say, just treat others as you would wish to be treated, including other political parties and public figures, and you'll still be able to make any point you want.

Comments 1 - 40 of 169       Last »     Search these comments

1   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 10:46am  

Patrick says
Yes, it's a kind of censorship, but my hope is that it will make this site more useful to people of good will who really want to understand their fellow citizens and improve life.


May I suggest a way of "deleting" posts?

Hide posts that you would normally delete, but allow the user to click a button to see the post. If there is a response to that "deleted" post, AUTOMATICALLY "delete" the response by also hiding it. In this way, you are effectively deleting the post and the entire thread, but allowing people to check to see if there is actually moderation, or if it's actually censorship.

I have no problem with moderation, but censorship, I do.

I have frequently been censored myself on "news" sites, when I'm trying to explain a situation that was ignored in the "news" article - Syria was one. I've been vindicated on the Douma chemical attack - that never happened. Posts were simply deleted, even though I provided ample information for the reader to see how I can to my conclusion with references because I was actively taking apart the political propaganda that was being passed off as a "news" article. I was being politically censored.

BTW - this type of moderation doesn't exist anywhere - so if you like to patent it - go ahead.

And I agree, there's a lot of low quality posts here where people are just trying to rile up other people and where the post has no discernible reasoning and is an appeal to emotion. It's annoying, but it's easy to ignore after a point. Quite a few people do that - but they are almost universally ignored. Still, I wouldn't mind having a like minded person just get rid of them.

I don't block people as a matter of principle, but I wouldn't mind being able to ignore them on certain days because it's just gunking up the works.
2   krc   2020 Jun 2, 10:53am  

I assume if you are going to create a specifically anti-trump or anti-obama thread for "humor" it will be untouched? I assume if you don't like that topic - you wouldn't look at it? If someone posts other content to that thread (say anti-trump with pro-trump c) then that would be moderated?
3   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 10:55am  

@Patrick,

not that it is much of my business, but I do not think this is a good idea. If someone wants to talk seriously, he can do it here without any problems even now. I personally do not like most of Trump memes, but occasionally there is a funny one (1/50). I also do not like some of @AF's posts, as he has a strange trump-Putin fetish, but some of his offensive posts are quite entertaining and I enjoy reading them, even if I disagree.

No personal insults rule seems to be sufficient.
4   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 11:10am  

rd6B says
No personal insults rule seems to be sufficient.


Please consider my suggestion to see if you would like this solution.

In this way people who want moderation can have it, and those that don't don't need to see it. It could just be a site-wide button turning it on and off per user.

Surely you must be tired of the empty rhetoric that does go around? I've tried to engage a few times with people who simply despise Trump - which I cannot understand. He might be vulgar and pushy, but those are superficial character features - he's not taken us to a new war, he's tried to shut down two, he's exposed deep systemic corruption within our federal government (something NO OTHER PRESIDENT in my lifetime has done), has exposed the news media for the propaganda outlets they actually are, and is smart enough to let his enemies to just take more rope on to hang themselves. These are very useful accomplishments.

He's also withstood tremendous and unrelenting criticism. The man has one hell of a backbone. Nobody I know could have put up with that pressure and survived it. Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, Ross Perot - I'm certain they would have all crumbled. Hell, he took on the intelligence agencies, and won.
5   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 11:22am  

richwicks says
n this way people who want moderation can have it, and those that don't don't need to see it. It could just be a site-wide button turning it on and off per user.

It is already here to some extent - if someone does not enjoy AF's profanities or other user's 10000 anti-trump memes, they can just block the user. I don't like the idea of hiding posts, as I usually scan the whole page and look for interesting parts of discussion. However, if users could "opt-in" this hiding of posts, that would be OK.
6   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 11:28am  

I suspect that if this new rule is implemented, the site will turn into a complete echo-chamber.
7   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 11:33am  

rd6B says
It is already here to some extent - if someone does not enjoy AF's profanities or other user's 10000 anti-trump memes, they can just block the user.


Blocking a user gives them free reign to spout nonsense.

If somebody is just talking complete BS - i.e. really trolling - a lot of people feel an obligation to correct them because people are naive, people can be tricked, and can believe false statistics or statements that are made with malice.

This is why I don't put anybody on ignore.

There's a few people that just scream like children - those posts can be ignored, but there are people who perniciously lie, sometimes you can't ignore that post. Sometimes people are just repeating something that is presented as a "fact" believing it's a fact when in fact it's not. That should be corrected, by somebody - people that just lie outright, you can't fix them, but you still have to point it out. It's kind of a duty.
8   🎂 Tenpoundbass   2020 Jun 2, 11:38am  

Why can't people just ignore people who they don't agree with?

It's simple enough.
In normal times with typical politcal debate, I don't mind a little trash talking from anyone.
But when the Red Guard is storming the White House trying to overthrow our Government it's time to put them on timeout for me.

I would be careful deleting stuff based on feelz. I mean I'm sure 80% of big tech's intention to Censor Conservative views, they were trying to do what you're saying here.
It's the other 20% that hijacked it, and used it to silence all Right leaning voices.
If these big techs were applying the same censorship to everyone equally it would be better, but they wont, and can't. Everything and Everyone is partisan, so eventually it will get to the point, where Left wing voices are going to say you give Right wing voices a pass. As what a right wing person may post, wont seem inflammatory to a sane person. In reality is tearing Liberal leaning people up in side to see someone post a Pro Second amendment article.
9   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 11:42am  

OK, I'm going to take off work this afternoon and just work on @richwicks idea. I don't think it should be as easy as just clicking a button to see deliberately inflammatory content, but it should be possible, so you all can have proof I'm just trying to keep things civil and not trying to block any ideas.

I'll reply to the other comments here in a bit. Need to escape the plague of gardeners next door making noise and dust and gasoline fumes.
10   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 11:59am  

Tenpoundbass says
Why can't people just ignore people who they don't agree with?


Because that's living in a bubble.

It's not very often now I experience this now, but there are times when somebody says something I disagree with, I engage with them, and I conclude I was wrong. I try to be very ready to admit my error when I am wrong - this is a humiliating thing to do at times, but it iteratively improves my thinking. I used to be pro-gun control until somebody pointed out to me that my anti-war stance conflicted with my pro-gun control stance - I was giving monopoly power over to the government which I was bitterly complaining about for lying us into the Iraq War. Although thugs with guns are a terrible thing to have around, the government is the biggest thug of them all and I should more readily trust the citizenry than the government. He was totally right and I was completely wrong.

The reason (I think) this happens to me more rarely today, is that I have admitted being in error many, many, many times.

Or maybe I'm just old and can't change my ways. Have to be aware that's a possibility too - that I've just become intransigent.

Anyhow, you can only really learn when somebody points out you're wrong and then takes the time to explain how you're wrong.
11   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 12:03pm  

Patrick says
OK, I'm going to take off work this afternoon and just work on @richwicks idea. I don't think it should be as easy as just clicking a button to see deliberately inflammatory content, but it should be possible, so you all can have proof I'm just trying to keep things civil and not trying to block any ideas.

I'll reply to the other comments here in a bit. Need to escape the plague of gardeners next door making noise and dust and gasoline fumes.


You could categorize content. For example:

Inflammatory
Personal insult
False information
Vulgar

Those are all lousy categories - but maybe a group effort could be made to come up with a better list over time.

Remember the KISS principle though - Keep it Stupid Simple.
12   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 12:05pm  

richwicks says
This is why I don't put anybody on ignore.

I don't block people either - if I think someone is not being serious and not being funny at the same time, I just don't read it. And sometimes we do have information coming from people we disagree with that helps us improve our thinking.
13   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 12:07pm  

richwicks says
False information

that is a slippery slope. For example, if I'd say "@Patrick has not stopped drinking cognac at breakfast", it may be a true statement but false for all practical purposes at the same time.
14   Onvacation   2020 Jun 2, 12:18pm  

Does this mean I cannot mock anyone for spelling and factual errors?
15   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 12:23pm  

rd6B says
richwicks says
False information

that is a slippery slope.


I know. This is why nothing should truly be blocked.

The list was merely a set of examples, not suggestions I gave. It would take sometime to create a reasonable list of categories.

Something that would be "false information" would be if I said something like:

The United States was justified in bombing Iraq back in the 1990's because the Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in Kuwait by stealing their incubators! They're subhuman scum. Here's proof:

www.youtube.com/embed/LmfVs3WaE9Y


Well it turns out that girl is lying. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. Her testimony is false and she was given acting lessons by Hill and Knowlton, a "PR" firm (read propaganda).

There's very little possibility that nobody in the intelligence agencies knew who she was, and unlikely that most of congress didn't quickly become aware of her true identity. That was propaganda not produced for congress, but for us. It's my favorite example of how the government lies to the population and it underscores just how long blatant dishonesty is used to trick the American population into supporting a war.
16   WookieMan   2020 Jun 2, 12:37pm  

I don't dislike rich wicks idea at all. I tend to side with rd6B though. Reacting to a moment in time where tensions are high to change the entire structure here might be premature. Shit will settle down soon and we'll be back to the same old trash talking and in some cases conversations/debates.

Part of the problem is the trollish behavior. The repetitiveness without context or content of meaningful value. "Well I'm X party, but cops are bad and racist." Okay, but you know X party created systems and rules to allow cops to stay on the job that are bad and racist, right? "I'm X party, cops suck cock biscuit." Awesome, glad we could have a conversation...

I actually don't think the personal attacks are all that bad and sometimes they're truly funny. It's when you run into a wall of someone that doesn't want a discussion. Or they want to argue about how to have a discussion and not facts being presented. I think that's probably the next biggest problem. "Here's x, y and z, please let me know what is wrong with what I'm saying." "What? You want me to look it up for you princess? Figure it out." Okay, great conversation.

Those are my biggest beefs and I think I make it obvious when I get pissed with the behavior. Admittedly I sometimes feed it.
17   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 12:40pm  

krc says
I assume if you are going to create a specifically anti-trump or anti-obama thread for "humor" it will be untouched? I assume if you don't like that topic - you wouldn't look at it? If someone posts other content to that thread (say anti-trump with pro-trump c) then that would be moderated?


The key is whether the post or comment has good will or not.

It's possible to be funny without being mean.
18   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 12:43pm  

Patrick says
The key is whether the post or comment has good will or not.

its in eye of beholder
19   rdm   2020 Jun 2, 12:47pm  

Patrick says
The key is whether the post or comment has good will or not.


Well that is a totally subjective standard. From my experience the moderators on this site definitely trend to the right.

I have been more or less able to post as long as it is 100% impersonal on anti Trump posts. On occasion I slip up and use the word "you" and usually II am flagged. Ok except the rightist posts are left alone. And when I flag them they return unscathed. So given current moderation This seems like the site will only move further right, perhaps that is the goal?
20   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 12:54pm  

rd6B says
No personal insults rule seems to be sufficient.


We disagree about that. What happened under the no personal insults rule was pretty predictable. People just divided into sides and the vitriol kept growing.

I was OK with it for years, but lately it grated on me more and more to be a platform for animosity. People who disagree with the MSM narrative of !RACISM! are definitely being censored and I was happy to make a place for those people to go, but that's only one level of resistance to being trapped and exploited by our owners.

The next level is to unify against our owners. We are deliberately being divided by the media so that we cannot possibly threaten the unethical business and lobbying practices of oligarchs.
21   marcus   2020 Jun 2, 12:59pm  

Are you not entertained ?
22   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:00pm  

rd6B says
they can just block the user


Not many people use blocking, they want to see everything anyone else can see. Especially anything that might be about their own comments.

I asked a friend who used to work at Facebook about how they prevent flame wars, and he said they don't have to, because people will quickly unfriend anyone who is being deliberately insulting. Sadly, that does not work on an anonymous forum. It really does need to be anonymous here because people can easily lose jobs when the powers that be get alerted to unorthodox opinions.

I thought about just letting each user moderate his own thread, but that doesn't do anything about the division.
23   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 1:02pm  

Patrick says
The next level is to unify against our owners.


Yep. People need to understand that it's not Democrat versus Republican - it's us versus the government.

Bricks were being left out in areas where protests were being done and in several cities so it's coordinated. Who is doing that? Why can't any security cameras pick it up? Nobody has been detained for doing this - isn't that odd? You mean in all these cities that have just been attacked, not ONE had a cop driving around to run into a group of people just piling up bricks in the middle of the night?

The people doing this are stooges for our owners and the police appear to be ordered to stand down.

And something else - this is an example of a conspiracy. A group of people are doing this, they are coordinating, the police never catch them in the act, and no video is ever made of it being done. That's a group effort.
24   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:02pm  

rd6B says
I suspect that if this new rule is implemented, the site will turn into a complete echo-chamber.


You may be right, but I don't see exactly why. If people know they are likely to get a civil response, they may be more likely to really debate.
25   Bd6r   2020 Jun 2, 1:05pm  

Patrick says
People just divided into sides and the vitriol kept growing.

I think, given that we have more right-leaning Patnetters, new rule will turn site into a complete echo chamber/circlejerk where everyone will be in 100% agreement on everything.

Patrick says
eople who disagree with the MSM narrative of !RACISM! are definitely being censored and I was happy to make a place for those people to go, but that's only one level of resistance to being trapped and exploited by our owners.

The next level is to unify against our owners. We are deliberately being divided by the media so that we cannot possibly threaten the unethical business and lobbying practices of oligarchs.

Having an echo chamber will not help this, as now we at least occasionally listen to "the other side" which sometimes is not really "the other side".
26   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:05pm  

richwicks says
Anyhow, you can only really learn when somebody points out you're wrong and then takes the time to explain how you're wrong.


I agree. It's hard to admit you're wrong, kind of humiliating. But one should actually thank anyone who took the time to prove them wrong in a civil way. The civility is essential to getting people to listen.

When the argument against your point starts out extremely hostile, all listening shuts down and nothing is accomplished. It's just human nature.
27   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:11pm  

richwicks says
Inflammatory
Personal insult
False information
Vulgar


Yes, maybe a drop-down of reasons would be good.
28   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:12pm  

rd6B says
richwicks says
False information

that is a slippery slope.


Agreed there too. The global warming debate would just degenerate into each side blocking all opposition as "false".
29   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:13pm  

Onvacation says
Does this mean I cannot mock anyone for spelling and factual errors?


Right, don't mock them. There's no point other than to be cruel.

It's OK to correct them, in fact it's a good deed if you're nice enough about it.
30   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 1:15pm  

Patrick says
I agree. It's hard to admit you're wrong, kind of humiliating. But one should actually thank anyone who took the time to prove them wrong in a civil way.


Haha. I think that's asking a bit much! Humiliating enough to be shown to be incorrect, even worse if you have to thank them for pointing out you've been a dummy for a decade especially since you were arguing the wrong side of it for years. It's the "Oh sh!t - I've been filling people's head with propaganda for years!" moment.
31   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:16pm  

richwicks says
Well it turns out that girl is lying. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. Her testimony is false and she was given acting lessons by Hill and Knowlton, a "PR" firm (read propaganda).

There's very little possibility that nobody in the intelligence agencies knew who she was, and unlikely that most of congress didn't quickly become aware of her true identity. That was propaganda not produced for congress, but for us. It's my favorite example of how the government lies to the population and it underscores just how long blatant dishonesty is used to trick the American population into supporting a war.


This is exactly the kind of manipulation by our owners that I hope we can all help expose and be unified against.

Trump doesn't kill babies either. The MSM is doing exactly the same thing now that they were in the lead up to the Iraq war - lying to the public for political reasons.
32   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:20pm  

WookieMan says
Part of the problem is the trollish behavior. The repetitiveness without context or content of meaningful value. "Well I'm X party, but cops are bad and racist."


What is the right response to that? Some people are trolls and some people are just repetitive. I know I'm repetitive about outsourcing to China and insourcing illegals.

I think trolling may fall under "lack of good will". Trolling is really designed to make people angry, to cause suffering.
33   marcus   2020 Jun 2, 1:20pm  

Richwicks idea or a variant might be good.

Another thing you might do is have a list somewhere of articles that are interesting. Hear me out on this. You used to do it in a way that was too labor intensive for you, and I get that under the current system we can share articles, but what if every time someone posted a link to an article (or editorial ) they liked, in a "new post" it went to a list somewhere, and people could upvote or down vote the artcle (one vote per person), on that list. Maybe some other way members could get an article moved up, if they really thought it was good and important.

The affect would be to promote reading that both sides like. Think about it. Although, I'm pretty sure right wingers outnumber lefties, and also probably more alt accounts of right wingers, so the downside is it could make the site more of a Trump Cult echo chamber (all the top articles would be stuff right wingers like) I don't know, maybe some other proprietary ways of not letting it get overly gamed by the political unbalance of the forum.

OR you could just color the links blue, tan, or red depending on the perceived bias (a second button that is part of the vote - some algorithm to determine left leaning right, or neutral). That way I could scan the list for top left leaning stuff, but also check out the most popular right leaning stuff.

That's what originally got me hooked on the site, it was the reading, the links. But it was also more about Real estate back then. But not nearly all. Just spit balling but I think it would be good to have other places to go on the site when TPB or AF are getting overly fiesty, not that it's not entertaining. If you can have enough good left side and neutral content (I know you think there is too much), it might balance out the site. Just some thoughts.

FYI I would probably down vote a lot of really SJW identity politics stuff, but would in some cases be sympathetic, for example now, defending the protesters rights. And how fucked up it is that we are in martial law. What the hell is going on ?
34   AD   2020 Jun 2, 1:24pm  

.

How can you simultaneously have civility with freedom to offend ? I thought both would be incompatible or mutually exclusive.

Some view the freedom to offend as being uncivil if not racist or "pro-Fascist". It just seems like you will have an arbitrary label as what is civil and uncivil.

I can see as far as setting ground rules like no name calling or personal insults against a poster.

.
35   richwicks   2020 Jun 2, 1:26pm  

marcus says
The affect would be to promote reading that both sides like. Think about it. Although, I'm pretty sure right wingers outnumber lefties, and also probably more alt accounts of right wingers, so the downside is it could make the site more of a Trump Cult hangout.


That could be fixed perhaps by categorization.

I really don't believe in the left/right paradigm - but most people do, so it could be categorized in that way.

Again, categorization is a difficult thing to do and I think it would require a group effort.

I'd also suggest, just keeping a list of articles that were referenced and allow them to be sorted in a completely random order, regardless of up/down votes. After all, truth by consensus isn't truth at all. Finding old articles is interesting anyhow. For example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/world/americas/what-happens-when-you-fight-a-deep-state-that-doesnt-exist.html

And here's a newer article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/opinion/trump-impeachment-testimony.html

I don't think it's very useful to read mainstream news since they constantly contradict themselves, don't make retractions, produce endless dishonest spin, and sometimes outright propaganda. But it's funny to see what they've said years after the fact:

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html

Everybody is on board for promoting a war - even "liberal" NY Times..
36   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:28pm  

marcus says
what if every time someone posted a link to an article (or editorial ) they liked, in a "new post" it went to a list somewhere, and people could upvote or down vote the artcle (one vote per person), on that list. Maybe some other way members could get an article moved up, if they really thought it was good and important.


I tried that with housing articles, and people didn't vote them up or down much. But it would not be hard to just have, say, https://patrick.net/links be a page of links extracted from the latest posts.

marcus says
Trump Cult


That's the kind of phrase I'm hoping to remove from the site. Lacks good will, stops all debate dead in its tracks. "Libtard" is about the same from the other side.
37   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2020 Jun 2, 1:28pm  

Freedom is not always civil. Don’t know if it’ll work.
38   marcus   2020 Jun 2, 1:30pm  

Playing around with algorithms, affecting that list, might be a little fun for you too.
39   Patrick   2020 Jun 2, 1:31pm  

ad says
How can you simultaneously have civility with freedom to offend ? I thought both would be incompatible or mutually exclusive.

Some view the freedom to offend as being uncivil if not racist or "pro-Fascist". It just seems like you will have an arbitrary label as what is civil and uncivil.


I'm pretty sure it happens all the time that people are civil yet be perceived as offensive by someone with an ax to grind.

Do men and women think differently? Yes, I'm sure they do, but that idea was so "offensive" to Google that idea got James Damore fired, even though he was nice enough in saying it.

And you're right, these are the very ideas that will instantly be labelled racist or pro-fascist. The MSM labels all opposition to illegal immigration as "racist" every day, no matter how carefully reasoned or politely expressed.
40   AD   2020 Jun 2, 1:33pm  

.

richwicks says
Everybody is on board for promoting a war - even "liberal" NY Times..


You don't understand how Trump is making the neoMarxists and globalists heads metaphorically explode when he goes after the ChiComs on trade, etc.

Just like their heads explode when Trump seals the border and reverses the Obama immigration policies.

You don't understand how much they want to get back to Obama 2.0 with a continuing "fundamental transformation of America". They want open borders, free passes to their ideological allies the ChiComs, gun confiscation, welfare state, a weakened Pentagon that is just a social experiment, etc

Trump is in their way, and his supporters are the American Left's target.

.

Comments 1 - 40 of 169       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions