|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 21, 2022 12:51:37 GMT
If any of my remarks were judged to be in violation of the 'additional rules' I'm sure they would have been removed already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 21, 2022 12:58:46 GMT
The problem is when someone defines the parameters of debate to exclude replies they disagree with...... You have also used several playground jibes yourself on this thread, the latest being "resident proggies" The point is, many of us appear to be struggling to stick to the letter and spirit of the law of the Mind Zone, including yourself But I don't have any powers to exclude any replies I disagree with; only the Mods can do that. What I do have though is the choice whether or not to respond to replies I consider to be banal, insulting, irrelevant or juvenile. Or to block persistent offenders.
If 'resident proggie' is judged to be a playground jibe and deserving of moderation, then surely calling another member a Nazi is just as much.
Yes I think everybody is still getting used to the stricter rules, but my feeling is that the forum will be much the better for it in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 21, 2022 13:03:48 GMT
The problem is when someone defines the parameters of debate to exclude replies they disagree with...... You have also used several playground jibes yourself on this thread, the latest being "resident proggies" The point is, many of us appear to be struggling to stick to the letter and spirit of the law of the Mind Zone, including yourself But I don't have any powers to exclude any replies I disagree with; not what i wrote |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2022 13:08:36 GMT
I suggest a set of gentleman's rules for this -
To exclude an area of conversation that might normally be considered quite related to to the op's topic, the OP has to fully concede the point for the purposes of the conversation. Any sneaking in of this contended stance, as consequence or premise, dissolves the limiter. This follows the pattern of some forms of debate in which a singular and narrow issue is taken in isolation or one side has to defeat a position defined by another. For instance, Dan can't have conversations about the Nazi's atrocities excluded and then attempt to sneakily conclude that they didn't really happen or weren't that bad or use a potentially contended quality of them to support anything.
One thing that strikes me is that, until the last few posts, Dan has not really explicitly outlined any position to argue with.
Until -
Dan Dare Wrote:
"You might well think that what we have today is every bit as totalitarian in its own way as the Third Reich's cultural policies, but I couldn't possibly comment"
That's a potentially Intriguing question - possibly out of scope though?
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 21, 2022 13:08:36 GMT
The problem is when someone defines the parameters of debate to exclude replies they disagree with...... You have also used several playground jibes yourself on this thread, the latest being "resident proggies" The point is, many of us appear to be struggling to stick to the letter and spirit of the law of the Mind Zone, including yourself
If 'resident proggie' is judged to be a playground jibe and deserving of moderation, then surely calling another member a Nazi is just as much.
hence why i drew your attention to the fact you have *also* been doing the very things you keep complaining about |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 21, 2022 13:09:36 GMT
The chief take away appears to be that some subjects are too emotive for the Mind Zone. The same thing will happen if/when someone decides to open a thread on Ukraine here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 13:31:23 GMT
Please don't mention the big U. We shall have exhortations of Putin's legs being blown off and murder most foul all over the place with deep abiding aggro and an atmosphere of internecine conflict.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 21, 2022 13:41:09 GMT
@mags: I think a strictly bounded proposition is an essential element for any sensible debate.
For example we might have a debate on the proposition that Winston Churchill made a wrong decision in 1940 in not negotiating Hitler's Peace Terms, but it would be impossible to have a sensible discussion on whether or not he was a racist.
Similarly it ought to be possible to have a grown-up debate on whether the Third Reich was a cultural desert without introducing its beastliness towards minorities into the proceedings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 13:44:41 GMT
I think the OP question is causing people to debate whether a racially or tribal or ethnically oriented culture or civilization is bound to create artistic desert conditions and if this is a necessary condition for these to exist. The answer is an obvious no. As can be revealed by the cultural deserts that are springing up all over in the wake of woke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2022 13:55:16 GMT
The chief take away appears to be that some subjects are too emotive for the Mind Zone. The same thing will happen if/when someone decides to open a thread on Ukraine here. This approach institutes a heckler's veto that can be used for everything (or arbitrarily) because there is no objective rule to limit it. The forbidden subject candidate list will grow as people want various narrow notions protected from isolated scrutiny and realise all they have to do is post emotionally enough to get their way. The mod team can then select from these candidates the notions they would like to see protected from this isolated scrutiny. Are we performing a Stanford prison experiment? It would be a bit ironic considering the subject of the thread. Keep smiling - As Auraelis reminds us regularly, its just text on the screen |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 21, 2022 14:48:43 GMT
For example we might have a debate on the proposition that Winston Churchill made a wrong decision in 1940 in not negotiating Hitler's Peace Terms, but it would be impossible to have a sensible discussion on whether or not he was a racist. There is no reason both couldn't be discussed - it's just one preposition implicitly has a somewhat narrower focus than the other. Bear in mind that the ' Churchill made the wrong decision' proposition has quite a bit of slack in it. You would have to add something like "would the lives of most Britons be better or worse now if.." , if you wanted it to be a bit tighter. However, even then, a lot of it is still going to be opinion / values. On the other hand, if someone defines racism in an op and then says he wants that definition of racism used to evaluate the proposition of Churchill's racism, then the latter proposition could be quite narrow. If the op doesn't limit things and the conversation is in mind zone, then a wandering discussion can happen and attacks on posters will / can be removed. That's my notion anyway. If we can make this work, it could be a lot of fun. One thing to bear in mind is, if you feel a op is gaming the system in a thread, nothing stops you making a second very pointed thread with a more realistic set of boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 21, 2022 15:31:34 GMT
''One thing to bear in mind is, if you feel a op is gaming the system in a thread, nothing stops you making a second very pointed thread with a more realistic set of boundaries.'' Ah, the apartheid solution.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 21, 2022 16:43:50 GMT
The chief take away appears to be that some subjects are too emotive for the Mind Zone. The same thing will happen if/when someone decides to open a thread on Ukraine here. This approach institutes a heckler's veto that can be used for everything (or arbitrarily) because there is no objective rule to limit it. I see where you're coming from, but given a heckler's veto and a white supremacists' charter, I know which I'd choose. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I agree it's difficult when there's 'no objective rule to limit it'. But this is true of many things. As far as I'm aware, there is no objective rule for identifying pornography. 'We can't define pornography, but we know it when we see it', is the approach the law takes. There's no objective definition of pornography to assist a jury, they have to use their best judgment. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 21, 2022 20:37:31 GMT
@mags: I think a strictly bounded proposition is an essential element for any sensible debate. For example we might have a debate on the proposition that Winston Churchill made a wrong decision in 1940 in not negotiating Hitler's Peace Terms, but it would be impossible to have a sensible discussion on whether or not he was a racist. Similarly it ought to be possible to have a grown-up debate on whether the Third Reich was a cultural desert without introducing its beastliness towards minorities into the proceedings. Why would it be impossible to discuss whether Churchill was a racist? If you consider various decisions and policy he was involved with you might say he was complicit in actions that could be considered racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 22, 2022 14:00:02 GMT
I don't know for when 'racism' first became part of the vernacular but I'm pretty sure it post-dates most of Churchill's alleged racist utterances and behaviours.
It never makes sense to insist that everyone views historical events through the prism of our trendy modern liberal sensibilities.
|
|
