I'm not talking about Father Richard Rohr at all... as I made abundantly clear: — Agustino
Okay, I agree with that fundamentally. However, how do we decide what is and isn't off-topic? For example, in the Father Rohr thread, talk of women's underwear is off-topic - clearly. But is talk of New Age off-topic? Clearly, to my mind, it depends on how the thread evolves. If "New Age" is off-topic, then it should have been deleted the first time it appeared in that thread (and that wasn't even one of my posts in fact). There was a discussion going on in that thread about New Age long before I actually commented on it. So if a thread is like a river, then that river has sub-streams which come and join into it. What I said belongs to a sub-stream - it's not directly relevant to the video, but neither is it completely irrelevant to the topic. To someone who has watched the video, they could say "uhh I think Rohr is New Age", or "I don't think Rohr is New Age", and then they could discuss what bearings, if any, New Age has on Rohr or whatever they want.Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. — unenlightened
I'm not talking about Father Richard Rohr at all... as I made abundantly clear: — Agustino
But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread — unenlightened
Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. The thread linked above illustrates this. But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread, nor about the state of modern politics. Rather, I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — unenlightened
For the record, I've now excised Agustino from the discussion. — Baden
I think we all know what a shit-storm looks like. — Baden
I'm not wanting to start a campaign here, — unenlightened
Your moderating response to this thread illustrates that fact, and in so doing illustrates the very danger I was trying to indicate — unenlightened
I think your action was premature as a clamp down, and overly tardy as routine; it makes it more difficult for me, and probably others, to speak to the subject freely. — unenlightened
So, what does a shit storm look like, and how can we all avoid contributing to them? — unenlightened
I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — unenlightened
This duty is only reasonably overturned if the thread-originator vanishes. — mcdoodle
What constitutes "vanishing"? If the originator must be present in order that the thread topic be followed, then why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator? If that originator believes a particular post is not conducive to good discussion concerning the stipulated subject, then notify the poster to stay out, or start a new thread. That's common practise by some already. — Metaphysician Undercover
Anyway, I consider your OP to be about something beyond that. As you said yourself:
I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — Baden
Much ado about nothing it seems to me.... — Thorongil
We never had a lot of women members, either here or there.Again compared to the old site, for example, I think this place is uncongenial to women. I see that as a failing. — unenlightened
Don't read or post about what you don't like or aren't interested in. It's very simple. — Thorongil
"If you don't like it, go somewhere else." I don't like this attitude, and I don't find it interesting, but if I ignore it, I legitimise it. It's very simple for someone who is unbothered by bad behaviour, and to an extent it is good advice to ignore it, up to a point.Don't read or post about what you don't like or aren't interested in. It's very simple. — Thorongil
But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.
The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically. — Hanover
I don't like this attitude, and I don't find it interesting, but if I ignore it, I legitimise it — unenlightened
But I think I know why. You'd like to be able to wield the power to delete and ban whatever and whomever doesn't meet your own subjective criteria for being "likable" and "interesting," — Thorongil
Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty. — Thorongil
It's rather a shame you don't take your own advice and stop reading my posts — unenlightened
That's the thing with trolls, they won't stay under their own bridges, but have to invade everyone else's with their contradictory and hypocritical comments. You have no insight, nothing to say on the topic, but here you are again making your usual dismissive and vacuous remarks. You do understand that what I am doing here is troll baiting, don't you? — unenlightened
It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. — Benkei
It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. But maybe unen can clarify.
Value judgments over other people's characters generally don't help. — Benkei
Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty. — Thorongil
I wanted to read your posts in this thread, so I've responded. — Thorongil
How can one have a sensible conversation about anything with this sort of nonsense littering up the thread? — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.