Please stop closing threads where productive discussion is happening

Timebandit wrote:

Maybe we should let the mods do their job as they understand it - and part of that is to make some judgment calls that you may or may not disagree with. Perhaps, instead of suggesting the mods quit rather than limit discussion, one should take a discussion to a venue where it's more welcome.

There's a line between what might be described as conspiracy theory talk and downright offensiveness and stupid remarks.  In certain unrelated threads where people say thoughtless shit they're normally asked not to post in the thread or the entire forum in certain cases.  The people who want to continue on with the conversation are generally not cut off entirely from doing so because someone intruded with stuff that has no place there.  I think people who want to have a bonafide conspiracy theory chat should be able to do so without being intruded upon, just like anyone else on any other topic.  Interlopers and agent provocateurs who come up with all kinds of outrageous things to say have their own agenda which should be separated out.

And who gets to pick who is considered the interloper, SJ? Who gets to decide what is opinion and what is agenda, and how is that not a fancy way of limiting discussion?

I was aware of the Boston bombing angle. The reason I haven't addressed it is that there are similar examples all over the place here - on numerous issues - of things that some people find insulting to the point of outrage. There is no sorting that one out, IMO.

Aside from some very clear lines, I don't see that judgments like that can be made on any grounds other than tone and personal attack, and even that is addressed unevenly. Policing for bad taste and holding strong opinions too? Good luck.

My only problem with anarchism is human nature. ;) I think we can say we've tried the tack where conspiracy theory threads are allowed and it has generally not gone well. Why keep doing something that doesn't work?

Sounds like democracy (ooops, I mean tyranny of the majority) to me. That's one way to boot the conspiracy theorists AND the anarchists out.

But by "who gets to decide" I wasn't refering to procedure, but rather saying that the notions of interlopers and agendas are entirely subjective.

But how is that a problem if someone has the choice to just not visit those threads? And saying that unpopular and challenging opinions should not be heard seems to be a bit of a contradition to the idea of alternative media.

Again, it seems to me the real problem isn't subject matter, but tone , and that any attempt to weed out ideas and opinions as not allowed is at least as partisan and biased as anyone being accused (though we certainly hear calls to close threads, accusations that people don't belong here, and ad hominem attacks enough on this board).

Yes, let's be careful. That should solve everything.

In theory I agree, TB. In fact, I share some of the same real concerns as you do.

In a practical sense though, I see that choice as having already been made to some degree. It IS the nature of this site.

And if I or someone else decided to make a big stink and demand that unverified claims and outright crap be barred, who do you think would wind up getting pilloried for it? This is as much a choice of the commons as it is of the administration.

If it were my website I might make some different choices, but this is not my website. Given that there doesn't seem to be too much concern for calling people on things which which have no evidence to back them up, the very least I think we should fall back on is the question of tone and personal attack.

And that, after all, seems to be the whole justification for shutting down these conspiracy threads in the first place (though others have been left open despite similar problems).

I should add, I run into that arbitrary wall less now than I did when I first signed up here, and I see that as an improvement. It might be kind of annoying assuming that people should have their own bullshit detectors polished and working in order to weed out stuff that properly belongs in the world weekly news, but at least it is an open forum.

Strangely enough, most of the totalitarian attitude these days seems to be coming from the peanut gallery, not the overlords.

(edit)

Cross posted.

Again, I agree in theory. And having done some of that complaining myself to no avail except being called a Nazi sympathiser for it (on one issue, not the only one where I see nonsense), I am a bit tired of it. And I don't blame the mods for all of it, because again, they aren't being paid, and if I had been subject to the same personal attacks they have I'd be tired of it too, and inclined to treat people like children. One would think the first lesson in a place that claims to be alternative is that you can't lay all the blame on the bosses.

So again, since we are never going to agree on those political issues - nor should we, IMO - the least we can do is focus on tone and personal attack.

No, I don't think so.  They don't want to involve the commons at all unless it's to finance their escapades.  I'm just pointing out that, like any institution, the administration sets the tone, whether they like it or not.

ETA:  It's a truth I discovered in my participation in an artist-run co-op, actually...

Except that none of the conspiracy threads have actually been about any of that.  It's usually a postulation of an absurd theory backed up with cherry-picked information that hasn't been critically assessed and liberally sprinkled with unfounded paranoia. Apply a modicum of critical thought and take a closer look at where this "alternative" information is coming from and you find it's largely from deeply unreliable sources.

There has not been one, single productive discussion out of any of it.  Catchfire was more than right to close the thread in question.

There's always the accusation that we haven't heard the "evidence" when we have read the links and the posts in the multiplicity of threads and it doesn't stack up. It's a distraction and a pain in the ass. 

If you want to indulge in conspiracy fantasies, can't you take it to a board that exists for the purpose?  There are lots of them.

So you figure it's the proselytization factor that makes babble so damn attractive?

...and the idea that the movement can't go forward without recognizing the truth.

Problem with closing these down is that it IS arbitrary, specifically, 9-11, yet people can talk about other conspiracies which have no more evidence at all,and are even more absurd, and there is no problem with it.

I'd say that more accepted form of conspiracy theory - including disregarding real evidence because it is all supposedly a western media conspiracy - is far more of a problem. We see that from political issue threads to scientific ones.

So while I sympathize, I don't see that 9-11 discussion is such a big deal so long as it doesn't wander into every other thread, like some of these other conspiracy theories do. And I really don't see the distinction.

(except that I think the mods realize it would be a far greater shitstorm if they tried to rein in those other forms of magical thinking)

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I do see it as our business, though.  I've been coming to babble for a long time, and I suppose I feel a little ownership in it.  It's an evolving board, so i think our input is really important to that evolution.  :)

Timebandit wrote:

I suppose I feel a little ownership in it.  It's an evolving board, so i think our input is really important to that evolution.  :)

Yeah, and not like I still don't point out things now and then which are way over the line. If I really thought there was no point I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be saying this.

But you'd have a full-time job keeping on top of all of the delusional nonsense, with really no results to show for it. That, and the lack of serious discussion, is something I miss. And as I have said a couple of times, I can only guess that the mods have also thrown up their hands at some of that too.

Certainly I have no intention of getting apoplectic about it, and demanding we take our board back (a sentiment we have also been treated to a few times) because really, it's none of ours. While I know you aren't saying it, I have certainly heard enough talk like they do, and know who belongs here and who doesn't.

In this case I think it comes down to 9-11 being an easy target, as well as the reputation some of its proponents have for not shutting up about it, ever. As a theory it is hardly the most outlandish or offensive.

You know, jas, you might get a little more respect if you actually paid attention to the other posters. You started the thread on the basis of your opinion that a productive thread had been shut down. Apparently there are a number of other forum participants who don't agree with your perception that the discussion was productive, and we've moved onto a discussion of a certain brand of discussion. People have disagreed with you without accusing you of "bloviating". I'm sure if we are too off topic the mods will weigh in, although I think the conversation hasn't gone far out of bounds. You can't control every aspect of a thread nor can you prevent other posters from adding to and evolving from the initial post. We are also not obligated to agree with your point of view.

Not to mention all the macho Putinist stuff about Ukraine (and personally, I think there are a lot of far-right macho types on both sides there). It is so disconnected to anything I hear on the left here, whether moderate or far left, social-democratic, socialist or anarchist.

Timebandit wrote:

Apparently there are a number of other forum participants who don't agree with your perception that the discussion was productive, and we've moved onto a discussion of a certain brand of discussion.

I believe what was in contention was the definition of productive.  Productivity and ad hoc reasoning were given for shutting down 'conspiracy theory' discussions, based around a perception of what is considered productive and what isn't, what gets shut down accordingly and what is allowed to proliferate ad nauseum, ie: political party threads.  It's this disconnect that is at the core of the discussion from my perspective anyway, at least in terms of remarks people have made here regarding how certain conversations might play to the casual visitor, or site sponsor perhaps, vis-a-vis embarrassment over what is being said, or association of the site with unsavoury, discredited discussion.  I find it difficult to pick and choose, and I'm wondering how others find it less difficult in the context of all types of dubious political chit chat that is a routine feature hereabouts.

jas wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Also, I'm not specifying any particular conspiracy theory, I'm suggesting that we eschew the lot of them.

And because you see that as a logical statement is why I'm explaining to you that you don't understand the topic.

No, I understand it. I just don't accept your premise. IOW, it's possible to understand and still disagree with you.

Really, ODA? What was the topic again? Productive discussion as a condition for keeping threads open. If it all comes down to the decree of one person it is hardly discussion.

Now I can appreciate the frustration about the differences of opinion here, but we ARE talking about the topic.

Caissa wrote:

LMFAOROTF onlinediscountanvils. I'll grant you what you have written, however, that does not give jas control over the ebb and flow of the thread.

NFSNSO, Caissa.

jas wrote:

If I don't flag it, TB and a few others will continue to bloviate in here, derailing the topic.

This is why this thread exists.

I went back and re-read the first page, where all of this actually got hashed out.

As it happens, I agree with you that that closure was arbitrary and unnecessary. And my position that targetting certain conspiracy theories is also arbitrary and shouldn't be a priority is also in alignment with your position on this. I have said all this already.

But my opinion doesn't mean I am on for getting railroaded into another campaign to try to hold the mods to the will of some of the people. I am not on for that, and I explained why. And I think it is our disagreement on this unstated reason for the existence of the thread that is the problem, not the topic, which we HAVE been discussing.