Moderation thread

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
That is not necessarily a subjective assessment (especially if the discipline in question is a hard science such as physics or mathematics).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's not a physics or mathematics board, but a politics board, then I fail to see how this is at all relevant.

Show me a 'world class authority' in the social sciences, and I'll show you someone whose faith in the study of social science almost demands that their authority be questioned, and often strongly so.

[MMMMMM]

I'll just add that I have many times been misquoted in a disparaging manner (usually via inaccurate paraphrasing rather than direct quoting). No doubt many others here can say the same.

Im my opinion, misquoting can actually be a worse offense than a direct insult: it can be less conducive to further rational discourse, and can be a more damaging form of mudslinging due to its indidious nature.

One unavoidable problem is that sometimes ideas are not expressed or understood with complete clarity, so that when another goes to reference those ideas, shortcuts or mistakes may occur. This could result in an unintentionally incorrect paraphrasing rather than a malicious paraphrasing. However both have occurred fairly often on this forum, and at a much higher rate than should be considered acceptable (to anyone).

In summation I would ask that all try their very best to be precise both when writing and when reading. This is just a good habit to acquire, anyway.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Since it's not a physics or mathematics board, but a politics board, then I fail to see how this is at all relevant.

Show me a 'world class authority' in the social sciences, and I'll show you someone who faith in the study of social science almost demands that their authority be questioned, and often strongly so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it is my guess that this offense occurred not on the Politics forum, but on another forum on 2+2.

I'd like to read the actual thread wherein it occurred.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, especially politically-correct types, might try to make you think the two actions are equivalent, but they aren't. Genuine debate on any topic cannot be rationally construed as an "insult".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Genuine debate is almost always insulting; so long as we take 'insulting' to mean something synonymous to 'hurtful', then good, genuine debate often ought to be insulting - so long as we admit objective truth exists, someone will invariably be hurt that something they genuinely believe to be true isn't necessarily so.

Perhaps you have a different definition of insulted - but I think so long as we establish that someone can be 'insulted' any time they are confronted with language or ideas 'meant to hurt', then I see legitimate debate as often insulting, and appropriately so.

Imagine Poster XYZ argues (I don't agree, but it's a legitimate argument to have) that Islam breeds terrorism. I can imagine many Muslims would be insulted by this - but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate debate, nor does it mean it should be moderated because someone was insulted by it.

In other words, the truth is often hurtful and insulting to parties who would rather deny it; and I don't think moderators are qualified to sort out what qualifies as truth and what doesn't - nor should they, even if they were capable! Taken to its conclusion, I'm quite happy to allow all sorts of hurtful, insulting debate even if it's untrue because of the benefits which emerge from it; those benefits being a community that leaves no stone unturned in it's search for a higher level of discourse and understanding. And as contradictory as it may sound, sometimes a higher level of discourse means some feelings get hurt, some people are insulted, and some toes get stepped on along the way.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's pzhon an expert on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, Nicky, but just how do you know that it isn't Cyrus who is the expert of reference here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now, clearly because Bruce seemed to suggest that this guy was a specialist in one thing, whereas Cyrus is a generalist with an outstanding knowledge of all things.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
.... ACPLayer, Cyrus, and the other 'liberal weenies" on this forum. Rarely, can they back up their statements with logic .... liberal Kool-aid drinkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave it to Felix to be a juvenile and turn a discussion about forum rules into another opportunity to disrespect liberals.

---------------------

See, it could be argued that in my sentence above I was attacking both Felix personally and his "debate" tactics. But I was not attacking his "argument".

Also, I believe that what Felix wrote (in the quote above) certainly did directly attack individuals.

According to the OP, we should both be edited/deleted/banned?

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, especially politically-correct types,

[/ QUOTE ]

Last point here...but the 'politically-correct types' which you rightly deride are the types of people who try to silence debate once it becomes insulting/hurtful for a party involved.

If you're serious about being critical of political-correctness, then you too should be critical of a moderation policy that threatens to warn/delete/ban when discussion becomes 'insulting.'

[SheetWise]

This would be a fair rule; you can call someone stupid, as long as they are saying stupid things -- but, you must stop calling them stupid after they stop saying stupid things. Here's how it would work, 1) I say something stupid. 2) You call me a pea-brained moron who's about a bubble-and-a-half out of plumb. 3) I reply, "Yes, that was stupid." 4) All insults must stop immediately.

[Cyrus]

Here are the rules, as posted by Matt Sklansky, in (get this) the Other Other Topics forum. I submit that the Politics forum is a tad more civilised already than OOT.

I also submit that until BruceZ decided to butt in and started excreting posts by the dozen about his "rules", not too many people had a problem whatsoever with QUOTE name-calling UNQUOTE, in the Politics forum.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Don't circumvent the profanity filter.
2) Do not post any pictures which can get a person at work in trouble. You may post links to such pictures, but be sure you provide a nsfw warning.
3) The other terms and conditions basically apply; no slander for example.
4) Posts which are considered to be over the top in the offensiveness category, whether they be due to sexuality, bigotry, etc.. will probably be deleted. The decisions will be left up to the moderators and myself and as a result there may be some inconsistency. I and other moderators will strive for leniency, however.
5) In this forum, where judgement calls are being made, I suggest you save any post you believe is questionable.
6) It is our policy here to encourage vigorous debate and even fun. However, it is also our policy to demand that people be respectful to one another. In other words, just try to show a little common sense and decency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough? Now get off it already.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot refer to one as a “stubborn mule who cannot see past the end of his wet little nose”.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still out of hankies, I see.