A bit of an impasse on some SRP topics?

[Chief]

Are we reaching a point where people are butting heads over and over on the same point, neither side willing to just agree to disagree?

Each refutation of the same point gets more and more strident until one side or both blow up spectacularly?

As an Admin, I've done that and it isn't a good look. Even worse as I have the power to banish or harshly punish people unfairly. Apologies to those who have borne the brunt of a temporarily short fuse.

Are new members walking in, seeing wall-to-wall grudge-matches and leaving, depriving us of new connections and thoughts on issues?

Are we just aiming to bludgeon each other with our point rather than explore issues as a community?

If we can't agree, do we just accept that we might end up with different threads on the same topic, and agree to behave ourselves on threads started by "the other side"?

 

[Malifice]

Its definately more about cheerleading than about reasoned debate on topics.

Pretty much 90 percent of it seems to be feature two camps; one camp screaming 'leftist' and the other screaming 'fascist' with nothing of substance being hashed out in the middle. People are so welded onto their own views that rebuttals are simply handwaved away with more flagwaving of the same position, rather than a critical examination of ones own views.

So perhaps reflective of a Reclaim rally rather than an actual informed, reasoned and modertate debate on the issues.

Its definately on the increase. I dont know if thats just a reflection of whats happening in broader society or what.

 

[Gough]

Half of the threads have turned into a debate on Islam, and I'm yet to see that finish well on this board.

 

[Malifice]

Half of the threads have turned into a debate on Islam, and I'm yet to see that finish well on this board.

Im trying to weed that out as best I can man. Ive tried a few different strategies. Barring babysitting the boards 24/7 its a hard one to deal with.

 

[WA ROO]

If we can't agree, do we just accept that we might end up with different threads on the same topic, and agree to behave ourselves on threads started by "the other side"?

Would that include the clique?

 

[M Malice]

i peruse most threads on the SRP board, although politics meh.

never ending circle work really particularly the threads i mainly contribute to,"the god question" "irreligion" and "explaining evolution and natural selection", no minds are going to be changed on BF that is for sure. i think the debates on these 3 threads are in the main conducted in a respectful fashion.

 

[Chief]

Would that include the clique?

There's a clique?

 

[WA ROO]

There's a clique?

First 3 replies to this thread are from members of the clique,you know the rest of the members

 

[Chief]

First 3 replies to this thread are from members of the clique,you know the rest of the members

I can understand that some people gravitate to the opinions and posts of others. To people who don't agree it can feel like you're being ganged up on.

 

[Malifice]

5 posts in, and we've already had a mention of Islam, cheerleading and accusations of a lefty conspiracy.

Heh.

 

[Chief]

Inferno Jab Jiska Malifice I wonder if there is any value in having a moratorium on certain words like "bigot" and "leftist" to take some of the heat out of some threads. Force people to think around those words so they don't fall back on them?

 

[Gough]

Fun could had with the swear filter.

 

[Malifice]

Inferno Jab Jiska Malifice I wonder if there is any value in having a moratorium on certain words like "bigot" and "leftist" to take some of the heat out of some threads. Force people to think around those words so they don't fall back on them?

Im broadly OK with it. That said, I do think that bigoted or racist arguments should be called out for what they are. OTOH, people are a bit too quick to see a critical argument and lead with accusations of bigotry or racism.

Im not a racist but... arguments should be called out for what they are, but genuine critical examination of issues of race and so forth are fine by me.

 

[Chief]

Fun could had with the swear filter.

Replace "leftist" with "Gough".

 

[Gough]

If the cap fits...

 

[Taylor]

Should you be disarming the vocabulary of already impoverished people?

It is a discussion of mostly ignorant contributions, guided by feelings and fear or feelings and hope but both perspectives are either as valuable or non-valuable as each other.

I think it is in the interest of the board to continue allowing anyone to contribute at any level of a discussion, clicks and impressions after all.

The online world is heavily weighted in favor of certain groups of society and I think we should be more inclusive to those outside those groups, rather than reinforcing each other as we tell them their opinions are unfounded and harmful.

Perhaps we need to set up a "Why?" campaign. Whenever someone posts something someone is opposed to they ask the "offender" to explain how they came to that conclusion. I feel that if we understand each others contexts we will understand their contributions better, treating them with more respect.

 

[Chief]

Brilliant.

 

[skilts]

Generally, I think the behaviour on these boards is a lot better than that of other, similar sites I've been involved with, both here and overseas. It is a concern that certain posters might be 'put off' by the strident and angry posts which appear on here. Alternatively, equal numbers might be enthralled by such encounters.

Chief, has there been a significant drop off in numbers of new members, or an increase in people opting out? Do you have any data supporting that people are leaving the site because of errant behaviour by posters?

I do often read posters who refuse to post on the SR & P board because of what they see as a preponderance of digital manipulators. I guess this thread is, or should be, specifically addressing that too. Despite this, the SR & P seems not to suffer from a lack of participation. An accusation which could be levelled at it is that there is a paucity of new ideas for threads (I share the blame here). If some way to increase the breadth of topics discussed could be found it might be that the contentious issues like racism, Islamism, the god question and terrorism will be given a more appropriate (lower) level of participation and importance.

Whatever happens, I think it unlikely that there will be a decrease in the number of angry people on here. I think that's part of the internet society we have created. People write things on here they'd never say to anybody's face. Weird as that may seem, we are operating in this other, different world.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Having the sub-boards and mega-threads on topics doesn't help. For example if you want to discuss a specific incident that has occurred somewhere in the world it's either buried in a 75,000 page generic "Terrorism" or "Feminism" thread or it's buried on a sub-board that most people don't get as far as visiting.

 

[telsor]

I've walked away from SRP a number of times, intent on not returning due to the balance between abuse and debate being, in my view, heavily on the side of the former. I also think this tends to be a self reinforcing thing as I know I've joined in far more than I would say I do elsewhere, and I dare say I've been worse on recent visits as I just slip into the spirit of the place too easily (and recognising that in myself inspires me to leave even quicker...I don't like myself for doing it).

I tend to come back if I'm either very bored, or more likely when something particular has come up, which most recently was the election...Although I will say the election thread was pretty good, although it fell off a bit towards the end as news slowed and 'discussion' fired up more.

I like Tayl0r 's idea for a "Why" campaign, and I'd couple that with a very low tolerance for 'playing the man' (maybe tying them together...e.g. You can call me a racist, but only if you have a VERY solid WHY behind that accusation).

Of course, a lot of this would force the mods into being judges of the validity of arguments, to a far gretaer degree than is currently the case, which is both unfair on them, and would inevitably lead to (even more) accusations of bias, etc.

 

[telsor]

Having the sub-boards and mega-threads on topics doesn't help. For example if you want to discuss a specific incident that has occurred somewhere in the world it's either buried in a 75,000 page generic "Terrorism" or "Feminism" thread or it's buried on a sub-board that most people don't get as far as visiting.

Catch-22

Without sub boards and mega threads, that specific incident will be on page 2 so quickly it'd never be found anyway.

I agree that mega threads are a problem though, because they tend to force the debate back to the same dynamic and make it harder for new ideas/information/events to bring new/fresh life in.

 

[CM86]

OK, I'm going to try and just post as the opposite to my views and stance.
Not trolling, but wearing the shoes of 'the other side' for a few steps.


I won't be anti- women. I'll be anti-feminism... while considering all feminists to be women.

 

[Procrastinator35]

There's Way too many atheists....A plague of em in fact....So much for footy being a religion.....Bloody tribalism.

 

[coerced]

It seems to me that most impasses on Bigfooty and the broader political debate have to do with social and cultural issues. That's where the heat is: how you feel on religion, sexuality, gender, etc. Appropriate a position on that based on how you feel towards those things, become a member of the political tribe that broadly agrees with you, and fight the other tribe.

This looks like one of the best divide and conquer strategies for political discourse. Keep those politically engaged squabbling over culture wars that, even if you do 'win', it provides minimal meaningful change to their lives.

 

[Malifice]

Im certainly happy for suggestions to enable intelligent reasoned debate more fertile ground to occur.