Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse

So your suggestion for getting increased diversity of thought in schools is to increase the diversity of the teachers?
Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense. But then the question becomes how do we convince, encourage, or incentivize more individualist thinkers(?) to become teachers and administrators? I'm sure none of us wants to force a person to take a job they don't want to take, but then what can we do? Perhaps some sort of affirmative action type deal? Perhaps change something about a particular school or schools, or maybe the education system as a whole, to make them more willing to want to join on board?

K, will definitely add that one to the list. Thanks for the clarification!

-Meta

 

I think people from all sides could stand to make more of an effort to understand one another.
Though of course the failure of some individuals to do so shouldn't ever be used as an excuse for others not to try.
Agreed?

-Meta

 

Ah OK, I got ya. Added your suggestions to the list.
BTW, I like both your suggestions here. I think the second option is something that we can actually all do right now as thread creators.
In fact, I sort of already do it myself occasionally. Sometimes, on certain threads (like the automation thread) if I want to keep the scope of the discussion limited and non-partisan, so that it doesn't fly all over the place, I'll add a note somewhere in the OP specifying particular things (such as partisan finger pointing) which should be considered outside the bounds of the discussion. That seems to help a lot, but if there were a link or template or something standard that could be like a one-click thing, that would make it a lot simpler for more thread creators to be able to do the same thing.

Some of that is actually how things worked on the old site.
On the old site, if a post was deleted, users could still see 'the remains' of that post along with the reason it was deleted.
But on this site it seems that once a post is deleted, a normal user can no longer see anything at all (as if the post never existed).
Though moderators can still see 'remains' and can view the entire post itself if needed.
This change actually caused a bit of confusion for a while.

Generally, warnings are how we communicate to users why certain posts were deleted. But sometimes there are back and forth off-topic or flame-bait-y conversations which we need to delete in bulk or posts which quote such conversation or another violation. I think that's where most of the deletes happen. Best way to avoid that scenario imo is for members to report violations as soon as they see them, rather than responding. <redacted> But if there's ever a question about something that's been deleted, we can help...just try to give us a link near the approximate location of where the deletion occurred.

-Meta

 

You ask the right questions here. I think this is exactly the reason that we have laws, courts, and law enforcement.

-Meta

 

Yea, and those mechanisms should be determined via a democratic process and then written down so that there is no confusion.

-Meta

 

It is if you want to be fair about things given a large and diverse society.

-Meta

 

The system we have now was decided upon through democratic means.
We occasionally make adjustments to it, also through democratic means.
Also note, when a judge in a court of law makes a decision, they base their decision off their interpretation of written law which was also decided upon democratically.
At its highest levels, our system (in the U.S.) consists of three separate but coequal branches of government. Judicial, Executive, and Legislative.
The heads of the Executive and Legislative branches are always decided upon democratically.

-Meta

 

Everything I wrote about the three branches was accurate.
Also note that in our system of governance, the three branches intertwine with one another.
While they are separate, no one branch exists in complete isolation from the others.
Again, the judicial branch relies upon democratically determined written laws for its decisions.

-Meta

 

Actually yes it is. Unless the two parties in question have entered into some private agreement amongst themselves, the judge in such cases basis their decision off of the law of the land.
Even in cases where a private agreement between the two parties does exist, the law of the land may at times supersede such agreements.
One simply cannot separate American judges from the written laws. It just doesn't work that way.

-Meta

 

Sorry, but you are wrong on this one.
A judge's decision/determination is based on an evaluation of the facts and the law.
A judge does indeed cite relevant legislation and statutes when giving a judicial opinion which acts as the reasoning for their decision.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/decision
https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+opinion

-Meta

 

What makes you say that?

 

That's what all legal adjudication is...disputes between people being decided upon by judges and or juries.
If party A sues party B, the facts and the relevant laws are argued by their respective legal representation.
A judge or jury then looks at those facts and how the law applies to them when making their decision.
They include relevant laws in writing, when drafting the judicial opinion.

https://segarlaw.com/blog/what-happens-when-you-sue-somebody/

....At least...that is how things work here in the U.S.

-Meta

 

BTW, for anyone interested, the first ranked voting thread has been posted!
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ranked-vote-what-is-the-best-smartphone.530505/

-Meta