Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse

Christians might remember this

"If you call your brother a fool you are in danger of hell fire."

But few do or the Book of James.

 

@Meta777, if you can't understand that calling a liar a liar or a dummy a dummy can be chicken soup for the soul of civil discourse, you might as well be howling at the moon.

Say what you will about my threads, they tend not to get derailed; and I daresay my genial willingness to signal in one way or another that I'm not open to idiocy has something to do with that.

 

I would be happy to agree on even simpler terms, like the definitions of words. In the last election and even before, the candidates were tossing around different numbers for unemployment rates. All of a sudden it became acceptable to use whatever number you wanted and just call it "real unemployment". The same could be said of more complex items, but it is incredibly difficult if even the basic terms can't be agreed upon. Threads can get started with someone claiming that unemployment is at 40%, so it is hopeless from there.

Likewise, the OP should be held to a higher standard of truth. I like the solid but basic rules in Current Events.

 

Fact checkers are usually accurate because that is their job. Like any other job if you mess up you lose credibility

 

Great, here's how to start to remedy that in this little corner of the internet, and great news, you yourself are situated to effect some of the changes you advocate in the OP:

1. Start proactively and not only reactively enforcing the Current Events and U.S. and World News thread creation rules more strictly. Tabloid type headlines and partisan blogs aren't really proper sources for current events or world news, are they? A HUGE chunk of the threads in those subs are not legit current events or news at all. Polls, for example, are not "current events or news." Neither is commentary from a media talking head. In addition, start deleting and -infracting- flagrantly false thread titles that aren't reliably evidenced in the OP.

2. Start proactively and not only reactively enforcing rule 11 with respect to thread-starting in the Opinions and Beliefs sub. "Gotcha" type "foregone conclusion" flamebait neener-neener threads with no room for discussion make up about half or more of the OPs posted in this sub. "See this is why X is evil and sucks, and anyone who disagrees is a Z who is evil and sucks too" is -not- the start of any kind of meaningful opinion or policy discussion. These types of threads are going SOUTH right out of the gate. Legitimate policy opinion threads are drowned out and quickly pushed down the page by pure garbage threads. OPs that plop a link and then their only added "opinion" is this is bad and everyone who doesn't agree is bad should be insta deleted, infracted, then banned. It's quite simple really, the rough, and not strict format for a proper discussion thread:

"Recently <source> reported on X specific policy. My opinion is Y because of reasons A, B and C. What do others think?"

Would seem to be intuitive, yet posters are allowed to post pure, one-sided flamebait threads here with abandon. If a mod can read a thread and not be able instantly to see the thread's topic and how a productive discussion could result, then that's a 90% insta delete... without it having to be reported.

3. Start proactively and not only reactively enforcing and infracting off-topic one liner derail spam. "That's because X is a Nazi" is not constructive discussion, "X is a liar" is not topical. There is a significant contingent of posters, some long-time posters, who have been inexplicably allowed to post empty, one-liner, off-topic, flaming derail after derail, well over 50-80% of their post volume. Whose aunt, uncle, niece, nephew are these posters such that they are allowed to post in this manner... for years?

4. Start proactively and not only reactively enforcing the duplicate thread and topic rules. No need to link the original thread on the same topic or even merge, just delete and infract. If members can take the time to make a thread, they can take the few extra seconds to check the first couple of pages of the two most traveled subs for preexisting threads on the topic.

5. Some "topics" with partisan connotations have been overdone here. Posters who continue to post such "usual suspect" flamebait threads should be infracted and then banned.

6. Impose thread and post limits per day, say 2 threads and 20 posts per day. This would go a long way towards solving several of the above problems.

Do even some of these suggestions and watch the tenor of discussion change here near instantly. Or continue the status quo and this forum is basically a joke of a political forum with little meaningful political discussion.

 

One possibility would be for someone to start a "Serious Discussion Thread" and then just ignore posters who stress insults. After a while they would leave.

 

IMO you leave out a major factor--the deliberate perversion of our major media into propagandizing outlets by their moneyed controllers.

 

Well it wasn't really set up for the same purpose, and I mentioned it just to say that it is technically possible. On the site I'm thinking of, there was an open forum covering lots of topics that all members could take part in. There were a few private forums. These were for trusted, longstanding members who wanted to be able to talk about things with certain other members of their choosing. The administrator didn't permit very many of these. I seem to recall that there were only a few. But when the administrator gave permission for a member to have a private forum, then it was that member who was the gatekeeper. Forum members who were not in the group could see that the group existed on the main menu, but they could not view its contents.

What I am suggesting is similar, but different. I would prefer that a moderator controlled the sub-forum, not a member. This would eliminate the headache of people claiming unfairness by letting Sally have their own forum but not John, etc, etc. And the purpose would be to satisfy the members who wanted a tightly controlled place free of childish insults (direct or implied), graffiti, deflection, derailing, and where respectful interaction is actually required to stay in it. Unlike that other site I'm thinking of, I wouldn't mind if all the PF members could view its contents, but only the permitted members of the sub-forum could post in it. It would not be the place for one sentence responses, passive-aggressive insults, and condescending dismissal of a point of view. Instead it would be a place where we (left, right, and middle) worked to understand each other better and where we sought to find solutions to problems, or at least elements of those solutions that we could agree upon. In a way, we would be doing what our own Congress refuses to do.

The key would be the moderator. That person would have to be stringent on the rules. If he wasn't, the place would just be no different than the rest of the forum.

By the way, PF is a good forum. I don't mean to run it down. There are other places on the net that are just free-for-alls - one big classless food fight. This is a pretty good place. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't hang around. But the mods give a certain amount of leeway to the members that does lend itself ... well, to partisan bickering, veiled insults, and going off-topic. Apparently, there are people who like it that way. And if they like having that leeway, let's just keep the "open to all" forums moderated at the level that they are, which, compared to other sites, is pretty good.

But if you want to limit the discussion, say, to finding a solution to health care, and if you really want to hear serious ideas, and if you want to respectfully disagree and receive a respectful argument back to your points, then the moderation is going to have to be stricter.

I just read Sanskrit's reply to you. He makes a lot of good points. An alternative to creating the sub-forum I have suggested would be to tighten up on things in the whole forum.

Seth

Ignoring the trolls is always the best way to fight them. They are attention-seekers, and if you don't give it to them, they lose.

However, this place is a little bit like a public park. We pay for it. We donate to PF to keep it going. So I paid for those park benches, and I am not going to allow people to carve "F you" into them or spray graffiti all over the restroom walls.

Seth

 

He just didn't want to get bitten.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

One is the rejection of the Socratic method and adoption of critical theory on college campuses.

Another is the continual lowering of the bar on what is taught and expected of students. Reductions in math, economics, and civics courses are happening.

Colleges are not preparing our students with real world skills in basic skills necessary to get jobs.

Colleges are more about profit than in teaching skills and knowledge.

Many years ago our colleges were about fighting FOR rights and free speech. Now they're about shouting down any non-conforming ideas.

Colleges need to focus on teaching healthy debate, exposure to wide ranges of ideas and opinions, teaching skills that actually equate to marketable skills, and doing it in a way that doesn't load entire generations of students in crippling debt.

 

1. Focus on diversification of thought - One cannot truly have a belief system that is not challenged and tested. College should be a constant environment of Socratic debate.
2. Develop a curriculum that is in line with the demands and needs of employers
3. Teaching life skills classes: Budgeting, involvement in local government, volunteerism, personal responsibility, teamwork, time management, social media usage
4. A deep dive into the cost of colleges and funding
5. Reexamination of tenure to ensure the benefit is not abused (tough subject)

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

I talk to college students quite often.

One of the most distressing things about attempting to have a conversation with them is that they generally have poor listening skills, and have a poor ability at explaining their ideas.

 

And write shorter posts! (Ducking)

 

You sound just like every person from the previous generation!

 

Of course, that's because the young don't have the world experience of the preceding generation.

However, combined with that lack of world knowledge is the belief that they should aggressively shout down opposing thought.

That is a dangerous combination, because it means they won't be able to learn from their mistakes.

We have an entire generation that is being taught to reject examination of their beliefs, and to do it with violence.

 

I don't think there is anything to be done about improving society. I think that we are on a never to end downward spiral. There are too few people left that respect others. Most are spoiled children, regardless of their age.

I don't think the education system can be fixed either. We are now in the third generation (my guess) of ineffective and even harmful philodophies of education. The teachers who taught our current teachers learned from activist teachers. Now we're getting this crap:

https://humaneeducation.org/blog/2011/7-resources-for-integrating-math-and-humane-education/

I am not optomistic.

 

Again, that is just what our parents said to us. Yep I heard that my generation was being taught to reject examination of that believes. Yep I heard the exact rhetoric that you’re using. I think these young people have more worldly knowledge than you and I have as they have experienced violence like we didn’t

 

Typical behavior of the right. They blame the messenger’s because they don’t like the messages that They are hearing
You don’t even know what the current teachers or teaching. I am sure you are not aware of the curriculums but after all they’re educated so there must be a threat