Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Meta777, Jul 25, 2018.
Oh, also... credit for the sub forum idea should go to @Seth Bullock and @Lee S
I think the closest options to that would be B and M.
B. Avoid Binary Thinking and Partisan Finger-Pointing
M. Embrace Respectful Disagreement/Learn More About Your Rival
There are better ways of putting a spotlight on misinformation.
If someone says something wrong, and you go out of your way to make them feel extra bad about it,
it may help them learn their lesson, but more likely it'll just lead to them fostering negative feelings towards you,
until they get to thinking that you're a bad teacher, and are then less willing to consider anything you might have to say in the future.
This is part of what creates the division in our country. And besides, didn't you yourself say that verbal bullying was bad?
If you're going out of your way to, not just correct someone, but to humiliate them, then that is the definition of verbal bullying.
Agreed! And hopefully, we can do both!
according to the American founding fathers, lawful duels were apart of meaningful civil discourse.
civil comes from civilisation, and england is where American civilisation originates.
if freedom of speech is unable to be honoured on any forum, lobbying duly elected representatives for duel legislation is required.
Agreed! Couldn't have said it better myself.
BTW, you should cast a vote. Option E. Reduce Partisanship by Improving Our Election System[2-Summary]
seems to be right up your alley.
That's precisely why I push so hard for us to replace Plurality election systems with Ranked systems like Ranked Pairs or Instant Runoff.
If we want people to care about the middle again, we should change the system so that the middle actually has a fair shot at winning.
A fix to gerrymandering would help as well.
It does, but I don't see a way to vote.
To vote, just list the options/their labels out in your order of preference,...
You don't have to rank them all, but the more options ranked, the more chances your ballot has to impact the final results.
To vote for anything not on the list, just add it into your rankings list as a "write-in".
How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse?:
A. Focus on Discussing Issues that Matter (As Opposed to Hot Topics)
B. Avoid Binary Thinking and Partisan Finger-Pointing
C. Create Focused Threads With a Clearly Defined Issue Targeted Towards Finding Solutions
D. Have a Sub-forum Specifically Geared Towards Discussing Ways To Improve Discussion
E. Reduce Partisanship by Improving Our Election System[2-Summary]
F. Break The U.S. Into Two Separate Countries
G. Create a Highly Moderated Sub-forum With Stricter Rules
H. Call a Liar a Liar and a Dummy a Dummy
I. Agree to a Shared Set of Fact Verification Methods
J. Create and Enforce Stricter Rules on the Site as a Whole
K. Impose Maximum Daily Thread/Post Limits
L. Label Certain Threads as Serious Discussion Where Insulting Posters Are Ignored
M. Embrace Respectful Disagreement/Learn More About Your Rival
N. Repeal Sunshine Laws
O. Offer Individual Rights Constitutional Law Class Along Side Postmodern Civil Rights Class
P. Designate Partisan Free Threads and or Forums
Q. Reinstate Fairness Doctrine/Equal Time Rule for the Media
R. Split Forum into 3 Sections. Standard Section, Higher Civility Section, and Section where Civility is Not Required
S. Add Masters Forum: An Exclusive Invitation Only Sub forum with Higher Standards for Civil Debate
T. Allow Things to Continue On As They Are Uninterrupted (Status Quo Option)
U. Don't Feel Qualified/Knowledgeable Enough To Vote In This Poll
V. No Strong Feelings One Way Or The Other
Here are some examples:
You don't have to format it exactly like we did,
just as long as I can tell what your order of preference was.
Oi, oi, oi! Please think again.
I'm a teacher too, and my own First Commandment is: avoid sarcasm.
There are many good reasons not to denigrate, insult or humiliate even the stupidest, most malevolent, most ignorant of your students.
For one, you have a privileged position, as the teacher. You're in the position of power. It's not a debate between equals. So you have to restrain yourself. And remember that your ignorant student is young, inexperienced -- he or she has not had the years of education and experience that you have had.
In a debate forum like this one we're all probably pretty insensitive, hardened bruisers, but students are vulnerable. You can do real psychological damage to them..
For another, it's not the best way to refute someone. Yes, it's pleasant to get everyone laughing at some stupid person, but ... how many of them are laughing because they're persuaded by your argument, and how many because they just want to side with Power -- not just yours, but the power of the laughing majority?
We want to teach our students to stand up for their ideas, even when they're unpopular. The 'tyranny of the majority' is the most insidious tyranny of all. You need to always say to your students, "This is what I believe, but ... I could be wrong. You must decide for yourself." If your politics are correct, then, in the long run, getting young people to think for themselves is far more effective than convincing them (or seeming to) of the correctness of this or that point.
For a third, you lose all chance of persuading the person you've denigrated and ridiculed. They will become not just an intellectual opponent, but a personal enemy. You will cement them into their wrong belief. People don't change their opinions on the spot. You want to plant seeds of doubt, and if the person you're arguing with hates you, that's almost impossible to do.
This is sometimes hard for a teacher to do ... I understand that. I tutor kids in mathematics, and sometimes, when I pose a question, the answer I get is so obviously wrong ("If it takes two cups of sugar to make 3 cakes, how many cups of sugar will it take to make nine cakes?" "Uh ... 2/3?" ) that I have to consciously control my facial expression so as not to reveal my disbelief that anyone could be so dense. Anyway, they're not dense, usually, just mis-educated by a system that rewards rote learning rather than deep understanding.
But I've heard over and over again from my tutees about maths teachers who have ridiculed them and put them down in front of the class ... and it does NOT help learning. It makes them hate and fear the subject.
One exception: if you're pretty good, and enrolled as a student in a 'hard-core' subject, like university physics, then passing a course from a notoriously sarcastic prof can be a mark of pride, like surviving Marine Boot Camp. I still recall a physics professor who yelled at me, for some dumb order-of-magnitude error I had made involving air pressure and friction and force, "What?!!!, [MY SURNAME], the wind can't blow away boulders!" But he could get away with it because he wanted us to be perfect, the same way your DI is hard on you in Boot Camp because he wants you to be able to make the other guy die for his country and not have you die for yours.
If you just must refute someone in a way that also shows them up as stupid -- to do as George Bernard Shaw said that Trotsky did in political debate -- not only cut off his enemy's head but then hold it up to show that there are no brains inside -- there is usually a way to do it using subtle irony, too subtle for your opponent to understand but comprehensible to the intelligent reader. But only in a debate forum, not in a classroom.
This is not goody-goody soft-headed liberalism. It's smart teaching.
Um yes. They are doing exactly what the Russians want them to do. It took about fifty years. But it seems to have worked.
Well certain posters do seem to think that's what a forum should be for.
But based on the votes that have come into this thread so far, that isn't a majority opinion.
Something like that has been suggested, although before its been suggested that such a forum would be an optional sort of thing, as opposed to forcefully sticking posters there who can't follow the rules of the regular forum. Option R of the poll is sort of a combo.
But anyways, I believe both Falena and the site owner have voiced opposition to those sorts of ideas and have indicated that nothing like that'll ever be implemented here at politicalforum. One of the problems with having a free-for-all (that's what I call it) type sub-forum is that sludge that gets flung around in there can leak out into the main forums. Someone gets their feelings hurt in a forum like that, and then next thing you know they're out in the main forums holding vendettas and bringing it up in unrelated threads.
And on top of that, like some posters have pointed out, if certain people really want to sling poo at each-other so badly, there are forums out there which specifically cater to that type of posting, so if they don't like moderated forums like this one, why exactly are they sticking around? They are free to go to one of those civility-not-required forums and sling away.
You should check out Single Transferable Vote (STV), aka, the winner of the Gerrymander Ranked Vote.
It doesn't quite make for a parliamentary system, though there are certainly some similarities.
Like Ranked Voting, of which STV is a form of (just for electing multiple congress folk instead of a single candidate),
STV tends to lead to more moderate candidates getting elected (as opposed to just having a mixed variety of less moderate reps).
BTW, you should also check out Ranked Voting (assuming you haven't already).
Particularly the following two types:
Instant Runoff, a fairly straightforward and simple form of Ranked Voting which is easy to understand.
Ranked Pairs, a Condorcet form of Ranked Voting which is slightly more complex, but also completely eliminates the possibility of spoilers, making for somewhat of a "perfect" voting method when it comes to accurately representing the views of the voters and encouraging moderation.
In fact, there's a whole series going on using Ranked Voting to make decisions on different issues here on the site.
This thread is actually part of the series. But there are a bunch more past, current, and future votes:
Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread (includes schedule: See Bottom of Post)
Yep, been promoting IRV for years. I’m a member of FairVote.org here in Minnesota.
Hadn’t heard of single transferable vote. I’ll have to look into that.
Just for fun, people interested in alternative voting systems need to look at The Arrow Impossibility Theorem if you're not already familiar with it.
BTW, here are the votes I have recorded so far.
Spoiler: Votes So Far
S,Factual Knowledge Sub-forum for Posting Commented Source Links
K,Right/Left Score System
S,G,I,J,Additional Logic Screening For New Posters
If you don't see one in there that looks like yours, please let me know. Thanks!
Also, last chance to vote BTW, for anyone who still wants to.
Will be posting the results latter tomorrow.
Just moderate the existing threads, warning once and suspend the ability to post for an incrementally longer period for each successive warning accumulated resulting in banning permanently at some point.
If we can't discuss issues staying on topic with intent to acquire acceptable solutions we're simply wasting our time as the threads eventually devolve into denigrating one another based on something not even related to the threads topic.
You know another site made the news the other day. A site that promises no filters. In the first 24 hours yesterday they picked up 16,000 new members. That is a HUGE JUMP. I come from a site of 1.7 million and they would see that as huge. The future of sites are not more restrictions on speech but less.
That's what Lincoln said..
Separate names with a comma.