Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[Derideo_Te]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

The CDZ was intended to be a forum where the thread author could direct and have some control over the discussion. There is absolutely no rule that you or anybody else has to go into the forum, open any thread, or participate in any way. If you don't like the topic or the rules for the thread or the way the thread is being handled, then simply do something else. This is not rocket science. The CDZ was not designed for you to dictate how it has to be done any more than it was designed for me to dictate how it has to be done. You should know by now how I participate on a message board. You have made it perfectly clear that I am unacceptable in every way. That's fine. I understand that. All you have to do to avoid being offended by me and my posting style is to not participate in my threads. Start your own threads and set them up as you think it should be done. Simple. Problem solved.

For starters your "posting style" is well within what is acceptable in the SDZ and I don't recall ever posting any criticism of how you post. What matters is what is factual and provable and what is false and hearsay. That relates to content rather than style and that is entirely different to how one posts. Everyone has their own style and it reflects their personality.

Unlike you I don't take legitimate criticism personally. I accept when I am wrong, apologize and move on. Furthermore I not "offended" by you and it is fallacious to claim that I find you "unacceptable in every way" since I have never made any such statement.

At worst you appear to be misguided and misinformed IMO. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy participating in your threads. Yes, you do get upset with me when I correct what you have posted and you make snarky remarks that are outside your own OP bounds but that is all just part of the fun.

Let's face it, if we all agreed with one another this place would be boring and we would rather go outside and watch the grass grow. Instead we get to spar with each other and try to make our points and positions clear. We might be on opposite sides of the political aisle but that doesn't make either of us "bad people".

One more thing. Let's cut out the attempts to "censor" who can post what and where. I have no more control over what you post and where you post than you have over me and what and where I post. If we end up butting heads then sobeit. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I have no animosity towards you personally. In fact I have no animosity towards anyone here at USMB. I come here because I enjoy the interactions and that is all there is to it.

Peace
DT

Oh sure, bringing up again and again your belief that I accused you of spamming--(I didn't)--is proof positive that you don't take criticism personally. As is your frequent objections to the rules I post or the definitions I use, and uncomplimentary characterizations of me if I don't accept your point of view. Including your repeated assertions that I can't take personal criticism. Well, in my thread that disallows personal criticism, I don't allow that toward me or anybody else. So you'll have to believe whatever you believe when I object to it.

I'll let the rest of your post be judged as to whether my perspective is all off base. I can tell you that a number of members have asked me what happened to tick you off and have you gunning for me, so I am pretty secure that I haven't been reading or interpreting that wrong.

I will continue to suggest those who don't like me, who don't like my topics, who don't like my rules, etc. just find somebody else's thread to play in or start your own more to your own liking. We'll all be much happier I'm sure.

Peace.

Newsflash: I only mentioned your fallacious "spamming" ad hom in this thread since it was pertinent. That is the only time that I have even mentioned it since you did it. (It was Ravi who used it against you in your ad hom thread.) Check my posts if you don't believe me. So no, I don't take you lying about me personally. Instead I just reported you for violating your own rules! I enjoyed that little irony at your expense.

As far as the opinions of others goes that is utterly irrelevant. That you feel the need to be reassured that it is just me being mean and nasty to you says volumes. I don't give much credence to those who always fallaciously resort to "appeals to authority" that have no actual substance.

And yes, you just proved me right when it comes to legitimate criticism. You always take it personally and I don't so that is not my problem.

Have a nice Easter Sunday.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?"

More like "political debate." Where there's structure and rules with x minutes of response to specific questions. In effect, a phoney debate which is more like a joint press conference.

 

[dblack]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

That's not what I'm referring to. Many posts are of the form "I ain't gonna happen, so we might as well shut up about it." Or, "The Court said, I believe it, that settles it". They add nothing to the discussion. I can't imagine why these posters waste their time with such pronouncements, other than to shut down discussion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

That's not what I'm referring to. Many posts are of the form "I ain't gonna happen, so we might as well shut up about it." Or, "The Court said, I believe it, that settles it". They add nothing to the discussion. I can't imagine why these posters waste their time with such pronouncements, other than to shut down discussion.

Amen.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Having participated in a number of these...

...

Anarchism is soooo boring. stop pretending your view of freedom of speech is rational

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And too many are incapable of focusing on a topic and discussing it. They simply can't separate the topic from the one who is discussing it. They don't understand ad hominem and cannot avoid using it. Or they just simply want to spar via personal insult and aren't really interested in doing anything else.

I also think some people are deliberately trying to shut down discussion of ideas they don't like.

Basing a "discussion" on a canard and expecting no one to expose it is unrealistic.

Equally so is excluding the intentions and motivations behind the topic of the "discussion".

And most unrealistic of all is demanding that the OP be excluded from any legitimate criticism.

So a "discussion" based on a falsehood that no one is allowed to expose or legitimately criticize is not a "discussion" at all. Instead it is merely a bunch of dittoheads all nodding in unison to the same fallacies.

For the record here is the dictionary definition of the term discussion.

Discussion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

discussion
noun dis·cus·sion \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

: a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something

Full Definition of DISCUSSION
1
: consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2
: a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

Examples of DISCUSSION​

1. 1. The class was involved in a heated discussion about politics.
   2. I hope to have a discussion with them about the matter soon.
   3. After much discussion of the plan, the idea was rejected entirely.
   4. During the period under discussion, the town grew in size.
   5. The smoking ban is a major topic of discussion these days.
   6. The article is an in-depth discussion of his theories.
   7. The first chapter includes a discussion of childcare issues.

For the record I was accused of "spamming" by an OP in the SDZ for providing links like the one above that clarify any misunderstanding as to definitions of terms being used by the OP in those threads.

Go figure!

How about moving on and stop trying to moderate everyone else?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Having participated in a number of these beta threads it is becoming apparent that there was an ulterior motive behind giving the OP the right to dictate arbitrary and unreasonable "rules".

I am specifically referring to post #6 in the Guidelines thread. The author of that post wants to have the right to censor valid criticism under the transparent guise of dictating arbitrary definitions and have the mods act as enforcers.

That fits the definition of censorship IMO.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Looks like we have some classic examples of what this OP addresses.

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....​

Example #2

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Special GOP Clown Avatar Thread

This is a thread for people to comment on the greatness of GOP clown avatars. The question for debate is:

Are GOP clown avatars better than sliced bread?

Rules for this thread:

1) Only people who enjoy the clown avatars may participate. If your feelings are hurt by GOP clown avatars, please refrain from whining here.

2) Every response must include the words "GOP clowns" and "sliced bread".

3) No clowning around is permitted.

Debate............NOW!!​

Both examples restricted free speech to a limited subset of posters.


Example #1 is still in the SDZ.

Example #2 was arbitrarily moved to the Rubber Room without any comment explaining why it was a violation of SDZ rules.


How is anyone supposed to know what SDZ "rules" are allowed and which are not unless there are clear rulings on what is and is not allowed.

As I recall Coyote stated that humor was allowed. Now it appears that it isn't.

What would happen if I started an SDZ GOP Candidates thread with the following OP Rules;

Rules for this thread....

You must must oppose all conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have Republican, conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Democratic Party and/or Liberal hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for debating the glaring flaws of the Republican Presidential Candidates by only those who actually oppose them....​

Would that be allowed? Inquiring minds want to know!

theDoctorisIn
AngelsNDemons
cereal_killer

 

[Statistikhengst]

Having participated in a number of these beta threads it is becoming apparent that there was an ulterior motive behind giving the OP the right to dictate arbitrary and unreasonable "rules".

I am specifically referring to post #6 in the Guidelines thread. The author of that post wants to have the right to censor valid criticism under the transparent guise of dictating arbitrary definitions and have the mods act as enforcers.

That fits the definition of censorship IMO.

USMB states that it encourages free speech but what we have here is an attempt to impose censorship by the OP on anything they cannot support. (Since I cannot provide the links in the OP I will add examples clearly demonstrating this to be the case in subsequent posts if needs be.)

Having posted here for almost 2 years I greatly appreciate how USMB supports free speech to the point of allowing even some of the most odious and offensive things to be posted. However what I am seeing here is a slippery slope that is teetering on the brink of censorship.

If the OP can stipulate a rule that nullifies any and all criticism of a vital component of the "structured discussion" topic then that is no longer a debate, it is just a platform to preach a dogma without allowing any valid counter arguments to be made without incurring the wrath of a potential infraction from the moderators.

Here are the "OP Rules".

THE QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Does an OP have the right to arbitrarily dictate what can be excluded from the chosen topic?
2. How can there even be a "structured debate" if there are arbitrary rules dictating what must be excluded?
3. Should the OP be allowed to invent their own unsupported and specious "definitions" of terms?
4. Can the OP change the rules to suit themselves as they see fit?
5. Will there be infraction penalties imposed for violating the OP's arbitrary "definitions"?
6. Does USMB really want to allow an OP to censor what can be discussed?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

Looks like we have some classic examples of what this OP addresses.

Example #1

Debate Now - Republican candidates discussion Conservative libertarian tea party only US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican candidates discussion, Conservative/libertarian/tea party only

Rules for this thread....

you must support conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have a republican in clown face as your avatar you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Republican, Tea Party hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for the debate of Republican Presidential Candidates from those who actually support the opponents of the democrats....I say that as a person who only votes republican because the libertarians can't get enough people elected to make a difference, perhaps Rand Paul will change that....​

Example #2

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Special GOP Clown Avatar Thread

This is a thread for people to comment on the greatness of GOP clown avatars. The question for debate is:

Are GOP clown avatars better than sliced bread?

Rules for this thread:

1) Only people who enjoy the clown avatars may participate. If your feelings are hurt by GOP clown avatars, please refrain from whining here.

2) Every response must include the words "GOP clowns" and "sliced bread".

3) No clowning around is permitted.

Debate............NOW!!​

Both examples restricted free speech to a limited subset of posters.


Example #1 is still in the SDZ.

Example #2 was arbitrarily moved to the Rubber Room without any comment explaining why it was a violation of SDZ rules.


How is anyone supposed to know what SDZ "rules" are allowed and which are not unless there are clear rulings on what is and is not allowed.

As I recall Coyote stated that humor was allowed. Now it appears that it isn't.

What would happen if I started an SDZ GOP Candidates thread with the following OP Rules;

Rules for this thread....

You must must oppose all conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs and candidates.....

If you have Republican, conservative, libertarian or Tea Party beliefs you cannot post in this thread...

If you are a known anti Democratic Party and/or Liberal hater, you cannot post in this thread.....

This thread is for debating the glaring flaws of the Republican Presidential Candidates by only those who actually oppose them....​

Would that be allowed? Inquiring minds want to know!

theDoctorisIn
AngelsNDemons
cereal_killer

Sure does look like unfair treatment of ONE of two threads that use very similar parameters.

Hmmmmm..... hmmmmmm ..... hmmmmmm....

 

[JakeStarkey]

It appears the far right reactioanries want a safe zone where they can groan, gabble, snarfle etc to their hearts' delight. OK. Let them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It appears the far right reactioanries want a safe zone where they can groan, gabble, snarfle etc to their hearts' delight. OK. Let them.

"snarfle"??

SNARFLE!!!

(I love it!!!)

 

[Derideo_Te]

It appears the far right reactioanries want a safe zone where they can groan, gabble, snarfle etc to their hearts' delight. OK. Let them.

But why should the groaning gabble-snarflers have all the fun?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I mock this forum.

For your sake, I do not give a detailed description of what I mean by the word "mock".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, it seems to me we would know where all the "usual suspects" are at any given time.

 

[cereal_killer]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

 

[LoneLaugher]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

Whatever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

 

[Statistikhengst]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

OMG, who put the brilcreme in yer wheaties, dude?

 

[Statistikhengst]

It appears the far right reactioanries want a safe zone where they can groan, gabble, snarfle etc to their hearts' delight. OK. Let them.

But why should the groaning gabble-snarflers have all the fun?

Yes, the pantooker-wuzzlers also want to have their fun!!!

 

[cereal_killer]

I suppose I need to remove the sign on the SDF that stipulates that all members MUST participate in this forum whether they like it or not. I knew that would cause a problem.

New rule folks. If you don't like structured debate and feel its censorship you no longer have to use this forum. We'll begin creating a ton of other forums such as Politics, Current Events etc to keep everyone happy.

We will be adding many other forum sections as we go along. We haven't decided if we are going to implement a guideline that stipulates members must participate in every section we create. The "Don't like gardening? Too bad!! You must post in here!!" guideline does have a certain appeal to it. We'll keep you posted....

OMG, who put the brilcreme in yer wheaties, dude?

I don't eat Wheaties, they're bad for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]