Warning: Cracking Down On Low Quality Political Posting

[Emotionalmosquito]

Is coming at the trump shooting from this angle grounds to being deemed low quality? 

Is he wrong?

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, Emotionalmosquito said:

Is coming at the trump shooting from this angle grounds to being deemed low quality? 

Is he wrong?

Talking about security failures I would think is fine. It does look like the Secret Service dropped the ball quite a bit.

Conspiracies about insides jobs, no. That would require actual evidence, not just some internet basement theory.

[Raze]

Is something happening to this thread? Why do posts keep getting removed 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

Is something happening to this thread? Why do posts keep getting removed 

People can hide their own posts at any time. That is up them.

Mods didn't hide anything here.

Edited July 20 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Emotionalmosquito said:

Is coming at the trump shooting from this angle grounds to being deemed low quality? 

Is he wrong?

If its not conspiracy theories its okay.

Edited July 20 by Leo Gura

[BlueOak]

Leo this is in part your bias towards centrism and the limitation of speech counter to the center or current status quo.
So this will be my bias towards hearing all sides of a thing to understand them reflected to you, and a my usual mild kickback to authority. 

Maybe I am also resisting the natural evolution of the leftwing of politics to be more authoritative and organized, which is required. If we had more than a simple one-dimensional left/right definition of politics, then I'd see it more clearly.

First off I understand limiting simple posts that are repeated by a user with no attempt to connect them to anything but the person's experiential or worse second hand observations. That might be a bias of mine toward detail, though, so that might be an incorrect approach too.

This central space you and the moderators hold allowing for discourse, is also required to have regulations or a code, so all this highlights that it's a very difficult job for moderators. All I can advise is that if you feel something (an emotion comes up), check with another moderator first. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, you run a place I genuinely value here, but removing something doesn't often help the discussion. It can do if that thing is deliberately overly belligerent, inflammatory, or meant to be disrespectful to the people posting, but limiting ideologically held beliefs on the already correct forum for them is only going to give you a more limited representation of something. 

I have long been fed up with the Gaza topic. I understand everyone's position. I understand the limitations we all have to change anything because they are the fears of those involved manifested, and the wider world playing out there. I also understand how horrific it all is, even more so now with no substantial representation counter to the violence due to monied interests, and so I stepped way back from it. The materialistic nature of the world really has skewed everything as bad or worse than the 80's did.

We are always going through a shift. Not a dig at you, I also understand the more conscious of a thing you become how it can be irritating to address the same opinions over and over. Though if that thing is not represented how can it be addressed, even if the poster doesn't go away at all differently I DO, YOU DO, we and those reading benefit.

Thank you for this space. All the best.

Edited July 20 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

@BlueOak I hear your perspective.

I do want to be careful not to create a  echochamber.

[zurew]

I think increasing the standard is good. 

I would personally increase the standards much higher, because the quality of the conversations are generally horrible. I have seen discord servers that are much higher quality  than this forum regarding debates and conversations - and the reason is because they have much higher standards and they don't tolerate dishonest people and weaseling. If you make a claim and you are pushed on it, you either need to present an argument for it or you need to concede that it is just an opinion and be honest, that you don't really have a defense for it.

Regarding info sharing, and reporting on an event -  I would push people to use primary sources and not tiktok and twitter or instagram as a source where you have the best propaganda agents and where you have most people using jokes and irony all around the place and where you have info that goes through 2-3-4-5 filtering processes before it gets to you (not too long ago I got misinformed by one of these tweets and I shared that link here, but thankfully I got corrected on it).  Even with certain studies sometimes, people will share a twitter link that goes back to an article which just then goes back to the primary source. If you read the tweet's summary about the article, it will be wildly different from the article, and the article's summary of the study will be different from the content of the original study.

Also when you make a claim that someone said x or did x, you should be ready to provide the source for the claim when pushed on it, or if you can't, then again, take back that claim.  If you are too lazy to source your claims, then those claims are probably not worthy enough to be shared with other people.

Also it might be a good  idea to reward good behaviour (maybe taking away warning points or with a different approach) -  When someone concedes a point or when someone is honest and open about the limitations of their knowledge on a given topic or when someone is capable to  sign a probability to a specific arugment/claim or when someone  directly and honestly tells you how they could be persuaded or when someone is seeking clarity before he/she attacks your position or when someone can accurately represent your argument/view to the point that you can agree with his/her summary.

Creating an environment where people (at the very least) are socially rewarded when they engage in some good behaviour (in some behaviour that I listed above) , and creating an environment where people are punished for being dishonest or for not sourcing their claims or for not being able to defend a given claim,  would make this place much higher quality (imo).

Edited July 20 by zurew

[r0ckyreed]

I agree with increasing the standards. There is only so much flat earth, red pill, and Trump that a mind can hear before it starts losing IQ. Im tired of the low quality BS posted on here. If you aren’t conscious, then go to Reddit and Twitter. People posting suicidal stuff need to be on Betterhelp and not on here. This isn’t a psychward. This is a philosophy academy.

Edited July 20 by r0ckyreed

[Yimpa]

Here’s an excellent example of what low quality posting looks like:

 

[Merkabah Star]

3 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Here’s an excellent example of what low quality posting looks like:

 

No one is posting like that here. 

[Merkabah Star]

10 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

There is only so much flat earth, red pill, and Trump that a mind can hear before it starts losing IQ. Im tired of the low quality BS posted on here

Show us where these types of posts exist? They dont exist. 

[Myagooshki]

On 7/19/2024 at 7:22 PM, Merkabah Star said:

It’s not like people here are MAGA trumpers. It’s a very moderate counter to the left side of US politics. For the  sake of conversation and topic flow it shouldn’t be snuffed out entirely, where people have to tread on egg shells. 

Conscious politics should be mature enough to withstand moderate takes on any topic. Stepping back from emotional reactions of left and right is the way. One sided only, is just that, one sided and not conscious politics. 

I wouldn't consider supporting Trump or stating that he has done beneficial things to be "Trumpism" in the same way that Q-anon might be, or ardent insistence that the 2020 election was hacked.

[Applegarden8]

Thank you for this post. All I want to say is that I despise Hasan Piker.

[Yimpa]

10 minutes ago, Applegarden8 said:

Thank you for this post. All I want to say is that I despise Hasan Piker.

Jeez, his birthday is in a few days…. ya couldn’t wait to say this? 

[Yimpa]

On a serious note, this post should be pinned.

[DocWatts]

16 hours ago, Myagooshki said:

I wouldn't consider supporting Trump or stating that he has done beneficial things to be "Trumpism" in the same way that Q-anon might be, or ardent insistence that the 2020 election was hacked.

Problem is that a 'moderate take' on Trump basically necessitates downplaying or excusing his calls to political violence and his bevy of illegal behavior.

There's no world where the Jan 6 insurrection and Project 2025's plan to turn America into a Christian theocracy 'aren't a big deal'.

Conservatives who reject MAGA extremism are welcome here.

[questionreality]

The standards should be equally applied equally, regardless of your political position/take. What I see, is for example people who are Anti-MAGA get a pass, just because they have the "right" take, while a lot of the times still posting something of low quality that just repeats same old mantra, without any substance.

It would also be helpful if you could provide some characteristics of what you consider to be a "high quality" take.

 

I consider a high quality take to be a constructive argument, a political position that is well though out without emotional attachment. Sometimes a high quality take, can also be a constructive question, which leads to a higher quality of an answer from a person involved in a discussion.

For our example, just calling Trump a "devil" and not actually bring examples of policies, and what he has done in 4 years that was damaging would be a low quality take imo. This type of rhetoric is also dangerous, as it creates an echo chamber and people just repeat like parrots, without thinking for themselves. This in turn destroys their critical thinking, even if they have the "right" takes so to speak.

Most importantly, is that it would be in the best interests of this forum if the owner/mods would be neutral, and not show their biases towards a particular political side/position/candidate. This would encourage critical thinking, and not create echo chamber as it is happening now.

[numbersinarow]

Agree with @questionreality

When you single out Zionism or Trumpism instead of giving a concrete rule that applies to everything/everyone, you're being biased full stop.

And while this bias is happening, other parties promote genocide and oppress people.

[Thought Art]

I’ve reached a point where with politics I can’t even say anything… it’s too complicated. I am not an expert but I know I know little. 
 

To discuss politics is often to engage in conflict with others due to the nature of it at this stage of human development. 
 

To discuss these subjects on this forum adequately requires a lot of maturity, self reflection, education, etc. 
 

Some people on the forum are rooted to a certain position or perspective whether they realize it or not. These people can’t have conversations openly because of they did that part of them they cling to would die. 
 

Lot’s of us are simply to immature to gain deep understanding if these political issues. It’s also unclear to me what conscious communication of these issues should look like in practice given the reality that we find ourselves in. 
 

Each person comes to the forum with a unique database of information sources, survival concerns, biases, maturity, levels of wholeness and development…. So, we end up with conflict. 
 

Im not sure 

Edited July 23 by Thought Art