Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A few months back, one of our members was quite upset because HuffPo won't let anybody post anymore without logging in through Facebook.
I often wonder how much the tenor of this place would change if people knew that their friends, family, business acquaintances, church family ... You get the drift. If everybody that you didn't want to hurt or offend could see your posts, would you even still be here?
We'd probably end up with a bunch of well-mannered members, and a few mentally ill people who couldn't do "normal" if their lives depended on it.
Have you seen FaceBook lately?
True, it's no USMB, but there's a LOT of hate and politics permeating even that watering hole on the information super-highway.
The internet is at an age where it's kind of like the wild-west with words and information instead of guns.
As if we needed more proof that attitude can NOT be legislated.
Political discussion would be a lot more productive if we could stick to dialogue on behavior instead of constantly bickering over beliefs.
Time will tell. Have you kids reached the stars yet?
Again, I don't see this being limited to political discussion. You can see it on sport boards, gaming boards, movie boards, philosophy boards, psychology boards, history boards, parenting boards, car boards...
It's really just a general trend. Moderators don't want people who are qualified, proficient, or competent on their boards. They want jokesters who rally traffic and put quantity before quality. Many moderators are also stubborn about their own personal beliefs, but that's secondary since moderators realize that beliefs can exist in many forms and they're trying to attract a diversity of beliefs to participate on their boards.
What's especially weird about this is sometimes, moderators claim they do this to be unprejudiced. They want the people to judge for themselves what's valuable, but it implicitly creates popularity contest values which are anti-intellectual since it's easier to appeal to simple stupidity than complex intelligence.
Have you seen FaceBook lately?
True, it's no USMB, but there's a LOT of hate and politics permeating even that watering hole on the information super-highway.
The internet is at an age where it's kind of like the wild-west with words and information instead of guns.
As if we needed more proof that attitude can NOT be legislated.
Political discussion would be a lot more productive if we could stick to dialogue on behavior instead of constantly bickering over beliefs.
Time will tell. Have you kids reached the stars yet?
Again, I don't see this being limited to political discussion. You can see it on sport boards, gaming boards, movie boards, philosophy boards, psychology boards, history boards, parenting boards, car boards...
It's really just a general trend. Moderators don't want people who are qualified, proficient, or competent on their boards. They want jokesters who rally traffic and put quantity before quality. Many moderators are also stubborn about their own personal beliefs, but that's secondary since moderators realize that beliefs can exist in many forms and they're trying to attract a diversity of beliefs to participate on their boards.
What's especially weird about this is sometimes, moderators claim they do this to be unprejudiced. They want the people to judge for themselves what's valuable, but it implicitly creates popularity contest values which are anti-intellectual since it's easier to appeal to simple stupidity than complex intelligence.
Your first paragraph I find totally untrue. We LOVE it when smart, articulate people post here. we love good discussion with well thought out points being made. What we detest are intellectually dishonest people who, after having their argument shot down in flames, ignore that fact and continue to press their opinion or non fact as if that conversation never occurred.
That we dislike intensely. We also dislike trolls. We try and keep them under control but on a board where the EMPHASIS is free speech, we have to give them some slack. We may not like it, but we should, so we do.
Again, I don't see this being limited to political discussion. You can see it on sport boards, gaming boards, movie boards, philosophy boards, psychology boards, history boards, parenting boards, car boards...
It's really just a general trend. Moderators don't want people who are qualified, proficient, or competent on their boards. They want jokesters who rally traffic and put quantity before quality. Many moderators are also stubborn about their own personal beliefs, but that's secondary since moderators realize that beliefs can exist in many forms and they're trying to attract a diversity of beliefs to participate on their boards.
What's especially weird about this is sometimes, moderators claim they do this to be unprejudiced. They want the people to judge for themselves what's valuable, but it implicitly creates popularity contest values which are anti-intellectual since it's easier to appeal to simple stupidity than complex intelligence.
Your first paragraph I find totally untrue. We LOVE it when smart, articulate people post here. we love good discussion with well thought out points being made. What we detest are intellectually dishonest people who, after having their argument shot down in flames, ignore that fact and continue to press their opinion or non fact as if that conversation never occurred.
That we dislike intensely. We also dislike trolls. We try and keep them under control but on a board where the EMPHASIS is free speech, we have to give them some slack. We may not like it, but we should, so we do.
I'm not going to discuss your board here since that's a personal attack.
However, I will say that one of the key attributes of opposing "qualification" is dictating what's "qualified". That is there is a brutal assertion of what's "smart", "articulate", "well thought out", etc. There is no explanation or justification involved. The process of logic that leads to results for syntactic reliability and consistency is completely, totally, utterly ignored. This allows for contextual prejudice.
In turn, the definition of what's "qualified" comes down to a cult of personality AKA "We like this point, so it's qualified. We don't like that point, so it's not." That is semantics come before syntax, so moderation becomes prejudiced towards the semantics it likes and against those it doesn't.
Another key attribute of opposing "qualification" is emphasizing free speech because it ignores discourse ethics. That is free speech can be exercised in a way which oppresses the free speech of others. Merely referring to free speech is an incomplete comprehension of rights. For example, there is also freedom of assembly. If someone expresses oneself to the point of impressing upon another (i.e. expecting to be proven wrong, ignoring how double negatives can become positives, telling people to learn from experience instead of allowing people to think before they act, putting possibilities before necessities such that someone's forced to assume a risk, using figurative language to compare people despite not consenting to be compared, etc.), then someone hasn't respected another's ability to express oneself. That is freedom of expression depends upon not being impressed upon, yet the impression one makes upon another makes the opportunity to exercise one's ability a matter of luck, not skill. Only those who were lucky enough to not be impressed upon enough to the point of disability would be able to express themselves.
Lastly, another key attribute is vague quantification AKA "give them some slack". While it's important to be forgiving and openminded since people can make honest mistakes and have creative ways of expressing themselves, it's also important to understand how people can exploit the system. Merely "giving them some slack" does not specify how slack is given, so that allows negligent rulings to be made towards unqualified people who abuse qualified people. Likewise, if qualified people expect unqualified people to be disciplined, rulings can be made that qualified people are being harsh and that they deserve to be disciplined instead.
Again, I'm not going to engage in personal attacks here. I'm just pointing out some problems.
Oh no----forums aren't always fair balanced or even factual ?
Oh no----forums aren't always fair balanced or even factual ?
No they aren't. They are about making money. Trolls and controversy equals traffic which equals dollars. A perfectly balanced and fair forum is possible. But it would be very boring and empty.
