Timebandit, do you agree that a definition needs to be recognized by all participants in a discussion for it to be a meaningful term in debate?
Please stop closing threads where productive discussion is happening
Wed, 2015-03-25 13:09
#152
Wed, 2015-03-25 13:20
#153
Timebandit
I think you'd like it to be different, but threads have never been handled that way. You can put something out there, but you can't dictate what people do with it. You might as well just have a conversation with yourself and not bother to post.
If you feel unsafe starting a thread that others might participate in, you probably shouldn't start it.
You will also note that I started the Charlie Hebdo thread. I deeply disagreed with a number of other posters, but I didn't call for closure or try to redirect the conversation. Once I hit post on a thread, it's up to the mods to do the cat-herding.
Wed, 2015-03-25 13:22
#154
Timebandit
Timebandit, do you agree that a definition needs to be recognized by all participants in a discussion for it to be a meaningful term in debate?
No. I think there are times where the definitions themselves should be subject to debate, especially when one poster wants to artificially restrict the definition in order to restrict and control the discussion.
Wed, 2015-03-25 13:38
#155
I think you'd like it to be different, but threads have never been handled that way. You can put something out there, but you can't dictate what people do with it.
I believe your understanding is incorrect. But I invite other Babblers to provide some input on this.
No. I think there are times where the definitions themselves should be subject to debate, especially when one poster wants to artificially restrict the definition in order to restrict and control the discussion.
You say "no", but in fact you are agreeing with me that certain definitions do need to be examined. In the case of the term "conspiracy theory", this is what I have been trying to do, as its current popular usage encourages a blanket dismissal of legitimate inquiry along with outlandish speculation. Do you agree that discussion about a Conservative conspiracy for election fraud in Canada should be dismissed along with moon hoax discussions?
Wed, 2015-03-25 13:56
#156
Timebandit
You say "no", but in fact you are agreeing with me that certain definitions do need to be examined. In the case of the term "conspiracy theory", this is what I have been trying to do, as its current popular usage encourages a blanket dismissal of legitimate inquiry along with outlandish speculation.
Yes, and I disagree with your contention that this is the case. As Smith has pointed out, the broader definition of conspiracy theory is something we already understand. I reject the notion that posting quotes and links from conspiracy theorists defending conspiracy theorizing as legitimate debate means that we should stop using the term for what it is: Unfounded theories of conspiracy when the evidence does not support them.
Do you agree that discussion about a Conservative conspiracy for election fraud in Canada should be dismissed along with moon hoax discussions?
That depends on the balance of evidence.
ETA: And in the end, it all begs the question - Do threads about well-documented conspiracy theories, like 9/11, Boston marathon bombing, vaccines that cause autism, vitamins that cure cancer et al belong here on babble? What does it do for rabble.ca to entertain these discussions?
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:03
#157
Yes, and I disagree with your contention that this is the case. As Smith has pointed out, the broader definition of conspiracy theory is something we already understand. I reject the notion that posting quotes and links from conspiracy theorists defending conspiracy theorizing as legitimate debate means that we should stop using the term for what it is: Unfounded theories of conspiracy when the evidence does not support them.
You are perfectly entitled to disagree, as is Smith. I have pointed out to him that the "broader definition" that he cites (and which he never delineates) is the definition that I am putting to question, because of its propagandistic origins and uses. Opinions and convictions are fine, but they are not a proper basis for intellectual debate -- do you agree? You can't simply assert that you know what's what, and others don't. Right?
As I pointed out to you, the sources you dismissed on that topic were from academic journals, whereas yours was from someone's personal blog. I think it's clear to anyone here who is the one rejecting credible information.
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:07
#158
That depends on the balance of evidence.
In the absence of debate, how would one determine the balance of evidence? How do we assess the evidence we have been given? We can each make our own determinations, but what happens when we don't agree?
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:07
#159
I concur with Timebandit's understanding of threads and their relatioship to the OP.
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:11
#160
Timebandit
Um, no. It was a blog that was based on the academic papers of the bloggers. It wasn't just a personal opinion blog. Source citations were provided, actually. As to the rest, asked and answered.
Catchfire closed the other thread, and what you're attempting to do is resurrect it here. I'm not into playing silly buggers with you now any more than I was then. If anything, this turn of the discussion only serves to illustrate that the conspiracy theory schtick is, as Lambchop sang, "the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends..." It's also the perfect counter to your claim of productive discussion - seriously, has there ever been a less productive discussion than this one?
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:13
#161
You have an FB message, TB.
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:17
#162
I definitely find it non-productive when I'm conversing with people who pretend to engage in debate, then don't answer questions, then go back to their hackneyed slogans and opinions.
To those people, I will suggest again: you are entirely free to ignore the thread. You are not free to derail the topic.
Wed, 2015-03-25 14:40
#163
Timebandit
I'm not derailing the topic, I'm discussing it and extrapolating from it. It's not your call whether I'm allowed to do that or not.
Wed, 2015-03-25 16:35
#164
I definitely find it non-productive when I'm conversing with people who pretend to engage in debate, then don't answer questions, then go back to their hackneyed slogans and opinions.
I can't imagine what that must be like. Time for some solemn reflection on my part.
Wed, 2015-03-25 17:05
#165
While I agree with some of what you are saying Jas, I have to disagree with the idea that by opening a thread you have any more right to its direction than anyone else. To think otherwise would seriously risk the functioning of the whole board. You can imagine when a topic comes up that people would rush to open their own threads to control the direction of ocnversation on a particular topic. It is bad enough that we have people trying reframe the start of conversation by opening threads -- the notion that you could control more than the opening post is scary.
Wed, 2015-03-25 17:07
#166
I had already said I had no trouble with that thread and did not understand closing it at the time. However there was a post in this conversation that was a start of an explanation. Someone pointed out that threads on conspiracies serve to damage the integrity or reputation of the board and reflect negatively on conversations here. I can see a lot of merit in that point of view.
This means that for me this thread is reduced to questioning a single judgment call made by a moderator to close a thread he thought was heading in that direction. While I may have a different opinion about where the thread was headed, I am seeing where the decision came from and a rationale. Reactions threads are supposed to provide an idea of why something happened and it looks like we have that..
We don't need to agree with each individual split decision to respect that such decisions do get made. We have the right to ask and this thread was created to do so and a conversation followed that provides not only an explanation but a lot of support for that explanation. People who disagree with the initial judgement call are still supporting the purpose behind that call and the reality that these calls are quick decisions that won't, by their nature, always be correct for everyone. So there is support for judgement calls and support for the moderator to make them. And this mechnism to seek explanation which in this case seems to have worked with a lot of participation.
Wed, 2015-03-25 17:09
#167
So back to the question itself -- should we discuss the issue of the chill the label of conspiracy theory has on other discussion? In fairness, I think this thread has done just that to the point where I am not sure there is anything left anyone can add. A lot of people participated. I am struggling to see what here is worth a challenge to the moderators on this -- espeically as they let this current thread just run its course. So feedback left, an explanation found, and an opportunity for anyone to say what they actually wanted to say on the topic.
Didn't we all get what we needed?
If not perhaps just say clearly what it is left that is outstanding. No point going over the disagreements again -- was something not said that needed to be?
Wed, 2015-03-25 20:45
#168
Time for some solemn reflection on my part.
As someone who has been banned twice now from Babble, that might be a good idea for you, Magoo.
Wed, 2015-03-25 20:54
#169
Obviously there's no getting around the fact that an open thread is an invitation for all sorts of nonsense.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:03
#170
Timebandit
Or that a nonsense thread is an invitation for all kinds of openness.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:04
#171
Obviously there's no getting around the fact that an open thread is an invitation for all sorts of nonsense.
Is it? I don't go and dump in threads whose topics I couldn't care less about. I just ignore them. I assumed that was kind of a universal netiquette.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:13
#172
Sean, I'm unclear on what your continued questioning of the purpose and existence of this thread is about. I have appreciated your input here but if you're tired of the conversation, why not just ignore the thread? I feel like I've explained several times now that I'm pointing out not a single instance but a pattern of moderation that leaves me, and I know a few others here, uncertain of what the moderating rules are.
As for the topic of the use of the label "conspiracy theory", if you feel there's nothing more to add, that's fine. I feel there's plenty more to add, and would like the freedom and safety to talk about it here in a dedicated thread because I feel it's important to a progressive understanding of the notion of false consensus and manufactured consent. This thread here is to make sure I am understanding the ground rules before I open such a thread, and I do need further moderator input on this.
Regarding the direction of conversation within threads started here, most OPs of most threads here and on many other discussion forums serve the function of setting those parameters. I'm not sure how this is new information for you and two others here.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:15
#173
Sean, I'm unclear on what your continued questioning of the purpose and existence of this thread is about. I have appreciated your input here but if you're tired of the conversation, why not just ignore the thread? I feel like I've explained several times now that I'm pointing out not a single instance but a pattern of moderation that leaves me, and I know a few others here, uncertain of what the moderating rules are.
As for the topic of the use of the label "conspiracy theory", if you feel there's nothing more to add, that's fine. I feel there's plenty more to add, and would like the freedom and safety to talk about it here in a dedicated thread because I feel it's important to a progressive understanding of the notion of false consensus and manufactured consent. This thread here is to make sure I am understanding the ground rules here before I open such a thread, and I do need further moderator input on this.
Regarding the direction of conversation within threads started here, most OPs of most threads here and on many other discussion forums serve the function of setting those parameters. I'm not sure how this is new information for you and two others here.
I was encouraging you to put directly what your "ask" was. I could see the same disagreement repeated many times and I was hoping there was something specific that perhaps could help you get what you need.
Now you have clarified that this is a generalized complaint about the moderation. There have been many before and I have been involved in some. They never end well. You will have to accept the place as it is or ask something specific that you might get support for. Ultimately, the support you will need the most, if you are looking for a change, is that of the moderators. Better to look to what you like about the place and try to focus any pushback on something that might change. So I hope you will ask specific things-- like if you want the ground rules to be clarified, sounds fair enough, why not ask that directly?
As far as my saying I thought everything had been covered -- that was becuase there is nothing new being said-- why not just go for it if there is more? -- write out what you want to say on this that you have not already said -- certainly you have attention here. Of course avoid specific examples as you know the response will be negative. This is better than continuing the same disagreement over and over.
I am sorry to disagree with you so strongly on the question of an OP setting perametres -- that is not how I see it as I think that would be very negative. The OP introduces the topic with an opening comment and that is it. As long as the response follows on that thread somehow the OP does not have any control, rights or direction over the course of the conversation. These conversations are collective not individual ownership. I am certainly sorry you feel this way. We have had this debate before back in November. These threads are not mini-blogs controlled by the opening poster -- they are conversations collectively owned by the community. And that is why there is a consensus that one should reply to an existing thread if possible before opening a new one. This is the diffrence between mini-blogs and a community forum. You can set up a miniblog somewhere and you can even speak about it here and link to it. Anything posted on your blog you can manage but the conversation here you can only reply to as you wish-- in the same way everyone else does.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:18
#174
Or that a nonsense thread is an invitation for all kinds of openness.
That's what we're trying to accomplish over at the niqab thread anyway. There's is a valid argument though in assessing findings that say this discussion 'over here' constitutes a productive one and should be left alone to continue, and a finding that another discussion constitues an embarrasing waste of time and is summarily shut down.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:22
#175
Obviously there's no getting around the fact that an open thread is an invitation for all sorts of nonsense.
Is it? I don't go and dump in threads whose topics I couldn't care less about. I just ignore them. I assumed that was kind of a universal netiquette.
No but the invitation is there if we're talking about open threads. It's not like you always ignore them.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:25
#176
So I hope you will ask specific things-- like if you want the ground rules to be clarified, sounds fair enough, why not ask that directly?
Again, I'm unclear on what your confusion is, since I've pointed out several times now which posts contain my direct questions.
I am sorry to disagree with you so strongly on the question of an OP setting perametres -- that is not how I see it and I feel strongly about that as I think that would be very negative. The OP introduces the topic with an opening comment and that is it. As long as the response follows on that thread somehow the OP does not have any control, perametres, rights or direction over the course of the conversation.
That has not been what I've observed here, so I do disagree with you. Isn't it great we can disagree? I'm also not saying that other angles can't be explored on a topic but, in this case, when the topic is about the rhetorical use of the term "conspiracy theory" and we have posters coming in and still using the term uncritically and pejoratively, that to me is disrespectful, if not ignorant, of the topic. In that sense it is a deliberate derailment, as TB basically admitted to, expressly because she didn't agree with my premise. I encouraged her to argue her point, but she declined to. Having then been given two opportunities to participate in a way that wasn't disruptive, and declining them both, the right thing for her to do then would be stop commenting. Have her say and leave it alone.
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:31
#177
No but the invitation is there if we're talking about open threads. It's not like you always ignore them.
I find topics like Measles in Disneyland!! to be silly and unworthy of progressive discussion. I didn't go into that thread and dump on or shout down the OP, then demand the thread be shut down. I made a couple of comments and left it alone. I did not view it as an invitation to go and start a conversation about pro-vaxxers, for example. See the difference?
Wed, 2015-03-25 21:35
#178
Or that a nonsense thread is an invitation for all kinds of openness.
Or that... ummm...
Wed, 2015-03-25 23:48
#179
Has anyone here ever actually been to disneyland?
Thu, 2015-03-26 00:36
#180
Timebandit
Yes. But Disney World was the real eye-opener.
Thu, 2015-03-26 00:46
#181
Time for some solemn reflection on my part.As someone who has been banned twice now from Babble, that might be a good idea for you, Magoo.
Don't encourage him. Just wait, everyone's going to want to be like the bad kids.
Thu, 2015-03-26 01:17
#182
TB which one is in Florida? Thats the only one Ive been to
Thu, 2015-03-26 05:24
#183
Timebandit
Disney World. Much bigger than Disneyland. :)
Thu, 2015-03-26 05:50
#184
I find topics like Measles in Disneyland!! to be silly and unworthy of progressive discussion. I didn't go into that thread and dump on or shout down the OP, then demand the thread be shut down.
Chalk it up as a declined opportunity then.
Thu, 2015-03-26 12:07
#185
Chalk it up as a declined opportunity then.
Well, I assume you're joking here because that would not be how we conduct civil debate, even about topics we dislike. Such behaviour, for obvious reasons, is not a standard for Babble, and if I were to behave that way I would expect to be censured. And this is the civil standard that I am, in part here, asking be upheld.
Thu, 2015-03-26 12:51
#186
For those new to analyses of how the media function in mass culture, here is a good intro to the topic, which includes some responses to critiques. This doesn't get into a discussion of deep state activities or the relationships between intelligence and media agencies. It's more just a primer on how propaganda works in democratic economies. Interesting, too, that an analysis that we take for granted today could have possibly generated any controversy 25 years ago.
THE PROPAGANDA MODEL: A RETROSPECTIVE
Thu, 2015-07-02 04:49
#187
I'd be in favour of summarily closing 'nonproductive' threads. Why does every release of bodily gas by the liberals and NDP merit a different thread? They constitute nothing more than party ads and spam. Or, if it's a free for all and we can create threads to our heart's delight, there shouldn't be a problem to create a separate anarchist thread for all occasions?
Thu, 2015-07-02 08:14
#188
The proliferation of Election 2015 threads is most certainly eye pollution.
Thu, 2015-07-02 09:01
#189
Yes, everything seems to require it's own political advertising banner in the form of a new thread title. Me, I'm thinking that if anyone really cares about the Liberals, the NDP, or, heaven forbid, the Conservatives, by now they should know where to go to find the latest and greatest party updates, which to my mind can easily be accommodated in one thread per party. So, there'd be an Elections 2015 forum, and then a thread for the respective party issues. Hell, why not create a thread for the Marxist-Leninists as well? That way it's like corking every bottle of magic elixir to avoid having the respective contents spill out everywhere to create an ungodly mess.
Thu, 2015-07-02 13:25
#190
Usually my morning chuckle comes from facebook.
Thu, 2015-07-02 13:39
#191
There are few more parties yet to have their respective threads.
Thu, 2015-07-02 13:44
#192
Natural Law is still around, no? Christian Heritage?
Of course that tedious little exercise doesn't mean people aren't free to open threads about whatever they want. After all, it's not like we have to cull in order to lure potential donors or anything.
Thu, 2015-07-02 13:56
#193
There should be no need to have multiple Christian Heritage or Communist Party of Canada threads if we can confine them and their issues to one thread. Likewise for everything else. If there isn't a Rhino Party anymore, maybe an interested party could be moved to create one out of a sense of nostalgia, I don't know.
Thu, 2015-07-02 14:35
#194
Because they don't count in the same way as the big corporate-controlled ones do. I'm sure that's completely in alignment with the mandate of this site.
Sounds like a plan, at the very least a plan for some mockery. You're sure you don't just want to ignore the threads you aren't interested in, SJ?
Thu, 2015-07-02 14:45
#195
What do you mean by 'a plan for some mockery.' As if that horse hasn't already left the gate a long time ago. As for ignoring, I do manage that in large part. It's really about the immediate sensation of wading through TAT. The mind can only blot out so many disturbing visuals from becoming images.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4