• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Political threads/forum

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
We just need an area where we can have political disagreements, and behave as .. gentlemen .. for lack of a better term, sorry Justin Trudeau.. Such an area should be free from trolls, and those looking to incite people or the mods through shit-posting and personal attacks... We can achieve that by self-moderation, which I think is the goal here.

I'm asking you to consider what I'm saying, because I definitely want you, specifically, to be in these threads as an intelligent poster whom I have a great amount of respect for.
I get what you're saying, man. I really do. I am just very skeptical that the bolded sentiment can occur in today's political climate. Despite the fact that the words "polite" and "political" stem from the same root, the two terms have very little in common nowadays. And while there are certainly a great deal of intelligent posters on the site who have much to offer in terms of political opinion, I am still skeptical that civility will ultimately prevail. I hope I'm wrong, I truly do.

As you stated, I'm a libertarian so, with some exceptions, I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Which means I'm attacked by both the left and the right. Hell, maybe that makes ME a perfect candidate to be a mod for this group! LOL!
 
I get what you're saying, man. I really do. I am just very skeptical that the bolded sentiment can occur in today's political climate.

I'm very skeptical that it can actually occur in any political climate. A lot of the problems here go back well before Trump, and there were a lot of political message boards that got combustible during Obama and Bush. Shit, if there'd been these kinds of forums during the Reagan Presidency, it would have been open warfare. And even the most reasonable people are sometimes going to be emotional and have bad posting days because that's what people do.

So either you exclude a lot of people, or you develop thicker skins.
 
We just need an area where we can have political disagreements, and behave as .. gentlemen .. for lack of a better term, sorry Justin Trudeau..

Human People of Gentleness is the preferrred nomenclature, Gour.

Thank you.
 
I agree on much of this, I'll briefly go through where I would adjust:


Here are my thoughts:

1. Minimum length post and maximum length posts: This limits responses from people that would normally just come back with a snark retort to something. This also includes just posting tweets or news articles without any thought from the person posting them. If you can't write a few good sentences about the tweet or article you are posting then it's not worth posting.

Do we really want maximum post lengths? I mean... c'mon man, you're killing me.. :chuckle:

But seriously, I've never seen an informative post that was too long.. Sometimes someone will ask what seems to be a simple question, or will make a simple observation and state it as evidence to a case; and the retort can be exceptionally complex. Just think of the socioeconomic arguments for and against "basic economics" like supply-side economic theory. One argument (supply/demand, trickle-down) is exceptionally simplistic and easy to convey; however the retort is nuanced, complex and requires both detail and often evidence if it's to be believed.

So I think limiting post-lengths to an arbitrary maximum might curtail more nuanced and detailed reasoning, as to favor of brevity over precision and detail.

With that said, the forum already imposes a maximum post-length of 20,000 characters; so, there's already a hard-limit to a single-post.

Totally agree about minimum post length though.. Minimum post lengths however, are a great idea.

Posts that are too long can stymie discussions because it's hard to break them all down and things can get lost.

I'm not what the proper lengths for a min or max post would be, but it's a thought.

Indeed.

3. No limits on where you can post articles from. Something from CNN isn't necessarily more true than something from Breitbart. If it's a crappy article or a good article it can stand on its own merits.

I want to be clear; I'm not suggesting posting from Breitbart be bannable; I think that'd be ridiculous.

However, I also don't think it's a reasonable expectation for us to turn the political forum into our own mini-version of Snopes. So when people post from Breitbart, and someone responds by point out "that's not a credible source," I don't think that should be seen with astonishment.

If someone wants to use Breitbart as their primary source of information; that's on them. But everyone else should also have the ability to point out that certain outlets have no credibility.

And if, conversely, someone were to say "CNN is anti-Trump, do you have another source;" I don't think that would be at all outlandish.

So it goes both ways.

4. Nearly no limit on topics discussed: if we are serious about this we have to be open to any topics. But obviously a topic can be shutdown if it is made with an agenda in mind (example topic "Why do Republicans hate minorities?")

There are certain topics that I don't think can make a comeback here on RCF; for reasons we've already discussed. I can't envision having a productive conversation on this forum about "race," or if Muslims are inherently dangerous, etc. There's just zero evidence such a conversation can work, let alone is worthwhile having.

5. No personal insults. Things get heated but we have to keep discussions sane. I can't call you dumb or vice versa. It get harder to determine with implications so we'll let the mod figure out if someone is being hostile without directly stating an insult.

Agreed.

6. No Running to Ben. Don't be a whiny snowflake.

Agreed...

7. This isn't really a rule, but I'd like for people to acknowledge this isn't a game. This is not debate club, no one is keeping score at home. You are not trying to win an argument, you are just trying to present the ideas you have. We are all flawed so our ideas therefore cannot be perfect, so if we approach this as a way to exchange ideas as opposed to a competition I think we'll be better off.

I somewhat agree with this, but in some other ways I don't. I discuss topics in the form of debate because the point is to test ideas and the veracity of both the counterpoint as well as my own opinions.

Debates, discussions, whatever on RCF have influenced my opinions.. For example, I'm more pro-immigration than I used to be, I'm now pro-legalization of marijuana, and I've openly questioned my views on gun rights here quite recently and really hope to hear from others about their opinions.

So, while some may wish to just post their ideas; personally, I'd prefer to discuss and test those ideas to see if there is any merit to them.

So, I'd like people to understand that attacking an idea isn't attacking the person who put it forward. It's just one way of critically assessing a point of view or an opinion; and it's not meant to be construed as devaluing the person who holds that opinion.
 
I'm very skeptical that it can actually occur in any political climate. A lot of the problems here go back well before Trump, and there were a lot of political message boards that got combustible during Obama and Bush. Shit, if there'd been these kinds of forums during the Reagan Presidency, it would have been open warfare. And even the most reasonable people are sometimes going to be emotional and have bad posting days because that's what people do.

So either you exclude a lot of people, or you develop thicker skins.

The Iran Contra thread would have been crazy.

Casper Weinberger, man. Palest man ever.
 
@The Human Q-Tip

I apologize.
I guess I'm not understanding the "Invite-Only" phrase. It was presented as non-negotiable and it has meaning to me that others apparently don't share. But I'll put that out of my mind and see where this leads.
I probably won't want to be a part of where this is going but I will withdraw and let everyone else proceed under a tone they are more comfortable with.
Again, I apologize.
 
I'm assuming you can make it invite only to post but not to read.

Think this is the way to go based on how this thread is going (open - read, closed/invite only - posting?)
 
I

I am one thousand percent fine with letting people know they're just being closed off intellectually or myopic or irrational. I just think the words racism and bigotry carry a lot of weight and have a huge stigma. like a lot of people throw the words around way too freely so even if the offender IS guilty, they're shut down by the accusation because "they've seen this tactic before"

David. I can't answer for everyone, nor am I the spokesman on behalf of Muslims by any means.

My soon to be wife is Muslim, and I personally don't think you said anything that I'd consider racist or offensive.

Just my two cents.
 
David. I can't answer for everyone, nor am I the spokesman on behalf of Muslims by any means.

My soon to be wife is Muslim, and I personally don't think you said anything that I'd consider racist or offensive.

Just my two cents.
This sort of discussion is complex and even your well intentioned words bring up a debate that no one can successfully defend and everyone looks bad defending. It alerts everyone ij the thread to offer their two cents and some want to just start shit, others can simply be wrong but theyll fight you to the death avout it and everyone jumps in.

I really do appreciate your sentiments, but this is, or at least was, another absolutely awful component to the discussions.



And to qs point, ideally, you can just have the wherewithall to ignore this and everything else you're realistcally going to have to put up with in these discussions and that is the right answer. But, ya know, I just don't feel like it . Im trying to learn and discuss ideas, not endure a practice in masochism. I can learn elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I know I've said some offensive stuff in these threads before. To anyone I have offended in the past, I am sorry. If I'm included going forward I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
@The Human Q-Tip

I apologize.
I guess I'm not understanding the "Invite-Only" phrase. It was presented as non-negotiable and it has meaning to me that others apparently don't share. But I'll put that out of my mind and see where this leads.
I probably won't want to be a part of where this is going but I will withdraw and let everyone else proceed under a tone they are more comfortable with.
Again, I apologize.

No problem -- it's in the past.

If it is a completely open forum that any person can enter, then all sorts of people who haven't agreed to the "don't whine to Ben" ground rules could read the forum, and then whine to Ben. If you can only enter the forum after agreeing to ground rules, then it is much easier to enforce/police, and there would be a much smaller group of people able to complain about the content.

In other words, we can't preserve the forum by keeping problems "in house" if the general public can wander in and out of the house at will.

I do think some others would prefer a more selective approach as to who could participate. I really don't have an issue with that if they take initiative on their own to go to Ben with that. Free country and all that, and it's not my place to tell them "you can't do that."

But I've also stated that I won't have any part of that if that's what happens.
 
I very very very very very very very very very much disagree. :) That would seem another arbitrary needless control.

Perhaps you're right; I mean, if someone says something that is succinct and to the point, they shouldn't be penalized for it.

However, we really must avoid (1) hit-and-run posting, (2) shit-posting, (2) over-use of memes, (3) swipes and passive aggressive snarkiness, (3) reliance on the thread as a safe-deposit box for off-the-wall tweets and articles sans commentary.

I mean, I'm not calling for a hard-and-fast rule, since, as you point out, a small post could be insightful; that's absolutely true. I'm just saying we should strive to avoid posts that don't offer much.

Not a rule insomuch as just a suggestion of standards. Like "please put down the toilet seat" rather than "don't piss on the floor."
 
Perhaps you're right; I mean, if someone says something that is succinct and to the point, they shouldn't be penalized for it.

However, we really must avoid (1) hit-and-run posting, (2) shit-posting, (2) over-use of memes, (3) swipes and passive aggressive snarkiness, (3) reliance on the thread as a safe-deposit box for off-the-wall tweets and articles sans commentary.

I mean, I'm not calling for a hard-and-fast rule, since, as you point out, a small post could be insightful; that's absolutely true. I'm just saying we should strive to avoid posts that don't offer much.

Not a rule insomuch as just a suggestion of standards. Like "please put down the toilet seat" rather than "don't piss on the floor."
How do we define shit post?

Reddit defines it as "low effort post"

I'm all for literally everything you just said. I just don't know how we get there
 
I'm assuming you can make it invite only to post but not to read.

Think this is the way to go based on how this thread is going (open - read, closed/invite only - posting?)

There is an add-on to XenForo that allows this. I'm actually looking into it to see if it could be used for our needs and I'll purchase it for the forum if that's the direction everyone wants to go.

This would be my preferred approach as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top