I'll pull together a pareto of the feedback in here.
I'm curious on thoughts about Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.
From the feedback in this thread, it sounds like folks are happy with all tiers of disagreement, including the generally accepted as unproductive "DH0" tier.
Essentially correct but, your pyramid is upside down.
I too am controversial and do not per say adhere to popular main stream Views. I don't post on P&N to win popularity contests, I post in the hope that can influence forum opinion, and failing that, at least be the voice of reason that is proved right in the end. Meanwhile, anyone in my position has to have a thick skin, if I whimper out anytime questioned my patriotism to my country which is the USA, for calling a spade a spade, I would be a basket case by now.
But when some unnamed poster questioned my ancestry and accused me of posting from my condominium in Gaza, on absolutely an imaginary basis, I would hope forum moderators do some fact checking. and expose those rather obvious and unfounded lies.
Meanwhile I keep on undeterred, like I say, you have to have thick skin to post on P&N. While I still hope forum moderators would act against those who tell total baseless lies.
We are all entitled to our own opinion but I would hope forum moderators would draw some lines at viscous posters who attack other posters character based totally on their imaginary baseless lies.
So let me go on record once again, I am a third generation American with almost pure Scandinavian ancestry, I do not have a drop of Palestinian blood in me, and no I don't own a condominium is Gaza. But after some un named posters has leveled that attack against me countless times, why should I not expect endless repeats that I can simply best ignore.
But we are talking about improving the quality of Anand tech here, and don't moderators have a role in stopping baseless and imaginary lies and character assignation acts that will marginally improve the quality of discourse on this forum.
I agree.
When they throw complete lies about you personally is over the line as well as stalking.
When did personal attacks and stalking become allowed?
I agree.
When they throw complete lies about you personally is over the line as well as stalking.
When did personal attacks and stalking become allowed?
I'll pull together a pareto of the feedback in here.
I'm curious on thoughts about Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.
From the feedback in this thread, it sounds like folks are happy with all tiers of disagreement, including the generally accepted as unproductive "DH0" tier.
No, certainly not upon generalised and far too regular condemnation through to calls for violence upon Muslims.
The Stormfront analogy is quite apt.
This is an overtly US-centric site, and may sadly reflect the common bigotry of the day in that society. Properly, threads/posts demeaning of blacks and Jews often get quickly handled by moderation, but similar or even more violent attacks upon Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians get a free pass and thereby encourage the proliferation of Anders Breivik type extremist views and manifesto.
As has been said, fairly intelligent and moderate lurkers see that refuse and correctly choose to disassociate participation with a forum society that operates at such an immorally low level.
Is it bigotry to dislike a society that's repressive and violent? Specifically, I'm talking about the treatment of women and gays. If the lurkers you speak of think that women are inferior to men and should be kept as chattel then it's best they don't participate, as that issue is so fundamental as to preclude further discussion.
You reap what you sow.
One way to clear a reputation is to actually provide evidence of a statement if it will be controversial. Another is to not paint edge cases as a generalization.
My 2 cents on moderation here? Past few years it has gone to shit, personal attacks being banworthy used to be enforced (although its ALWAYS been blatently biased to let some get away with it.
Whoever does the the double standard is still in effect or not dealt with at all, I dont know if its favortism or plain laziness..whatever its cliquey inner politics that go along with AT)
The lame part is this place has become the techie stormfront, muslims, minorities and women are open season, this to me excludes posters from joining in creating a hostile enviroment. A failed strategy for open debate.
By letting haters have free reign here you are stifling more rational people you would want posting. In effect stifling actual free speech. Inclusiveness always wins out over a few showoff haters. But thats me.
The before mentioned logical fallacies be banworthy would be a dream come true. But I am not counting on it, mods are only human.
Wasn't there a thread where you claimed you had been burglarized and everything in your house stolen and it all turned out to be not true?
I agree.
When they throw complete lies about you personally is over the line as well as stalking.
When did personal attacks and stalking become allowed?
The issue is where do you draw the line between "free speech" and "enforcing fundamentals"? We have plenty of people here lacking in various "fundamentals", down the physiological level in some cases. Should they be banned or allowed to spew their warped mentalities?
I think the moderators do a fine job. A little ad hom never hurt anyone, as long as it's well thought out and properly worded
There is something I think hurts P&N but I'm not sure there is a solution. It's people who:
1) post a lot
2) same the exact same stuff every time
3) say only a few sentences
There is nothing wrong with any of those, but doing all 3 together, continually... what a waste of time for everyone.
I think the moderators do a fine job. A little ad hom never hurt anyone, as long as it's well thought out and properly worded
There is something I think hurts P&N but I'm not sure there is a solution. It's people who:
1) post a lot
2) same the exact same stuff every time
3) say only a few sentences
There is nothing wrong with any of those, but doing all 3 together, continually... what a waste of time for everyone.
As has been said, fairly intelligent and moderate lurkers see that refuse and correctly choose to disassociate participation with a forum society that operates at such an immorally low level.
Yeah, I don't care (haha) about any of that, but logical fallacies need to be stamped out. It can be educational for everyone here. Add a report logical fallacy button (haha). Offenders get 1 week vaca and their post is edited to point out the logical fallacy. This forum would be *so* much better. Maybe a pipe dream because it might take a lot of mod work, especially at first.Since you stated "not sure there is a solution", I wanted to let you know there are solutions but the preferred one is for members to censor at their own discretion by way of the "ignore member" feature in VB.
If specific members are fitting a profile that you find unworthy of your viewing then it behooves you to censor them on your end rather than having the mods censor them.
The lame part is this place has become the techie stormfront, muslims, minorities and women are open season, this to me excludes posters from joining in creating a hostile enviroment. A failed strategy for open debate. By letting haters have free reign here you are stifling more rational people you would want posting. In effect stifling actual free speech. Inclusiveness always wins out over a few showoff haters. But thats me.
You went over the top with your hyperbole. Over the years, if anything the forum polls have shown the majority of posters are left-leaning.
I dont think the issue here is that the forum is mostly conservative or mostly liberal.