Politics, Religion, Social Issues Forum Closed (July 2021)

[yaxomoxay]

The number of equal and opposing complaints I've seen over the years that the moderators 'have a left wing bias' or 'have a right wing bias' is the clearest signal to me that they must be pretty even handed overall. The problem, as others have pointed out, seems to be that people have gotten used to expressing what would have been traditionally strong left or right viewpoints, but have come to think of as moderate in the context of a more extreme polarised political climate.

I want to be the first one to do this:

"I don't like the mods because they have a moderate centrist bias!"

here, I had to !

 

[Weaselboy]

My point was, would those two threads I mentioned be locked/forbidden? Hence back to my request for a link to the new rule posted here which describes unacceptable content.

Here is the relevant rule.

Off-topic posts. Off-topic posts will be deleted/edited. If you keep doing it see "Repeated problems" below. Posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Political News forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum. See the Rules for the Political News forum.

To your earlier question, a thread about COVID impact on an Apple Store opening would be fine I think as a long as the politics was kept out of the thread. There is currently a long COVID info thread in the Community section and it has managed to avoid politics and not be a problem.

But I don't see how much of a climate change discussion can be had without that pretty quickly veering into a political discussion.

 

[ericgtr12]

To your earlier question, a thread about COVID impact on an Apple Store opening would be fine I think as a long as the politics was kept out of the thread. There is currently a long COVID info thread in the Community section and it has managed to avoid politics and not be a problem.

But I don't see how much of a climate change discussion can be had without that pretty quickly veering into a political discussion.

I think it's more the perception and the way the default position is that it must be political. The same happens when a topic comes up for a gay person, or a black person. The color of one's skin or their sexual identity should not be political yet are always treated that way here.

Instead of just stuffing posts like this into a silo and penalizing everyone, staff can actually take the opportunity to put their foot down on what they will and will not tolerate. There would definitely be growing pains but in the end you're addressing the root problem, closing PRSI won't make people stop being racists or bigots, it'll just shift where they post IMO.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I guess the real question is, now that PRSI is gone, what are all the mods doing with all their spare time?

 

[yaxomoxay]

I think it's more the perception and the way the default position is that it must be political. The same happens when a topic comes up for a gay person, or a black person. The color of one's skin or their sexual identity should not be political yet are always treated that way here.

Instead of just stuffing posts like this into a silo and penalizing everyone, staff can actually take the opportunity to put their foot down on what they will and will not tolerate. There would definitely be growing pains but in the end you're addressing the root problem, closing PRSI won't make people stop being racists or bigots, it'll just shift where they post IMO.

I think that the issue is not the discussion about the topic itself, but the fact that those discussion tends to veer towards public policy discussions, which in turn end up being very political.

We can discuss about climate change - a topic I know little about - from a scientific point of view ("study X has proven that Y happens in Z% of cases") and there wouldn't be much of a problem, the issue begins the second that someone points it towards the public policy ("therefore we should do this to prevent that", "no, I am not willing to do so because ..." ).

 

[IllinoisCorn]

The number of equal and opposing complaints I've seen over the years that the moderators 'have a left wing bias' or 'have a right wing bias' is the clearest signal to me that they must be pretty even handed overall. The problem, as others have pointed out, seems to be that people have gotten used to expressing what would have been traditionally strong left or right viewpoints, but that they've come to think of as moderate in the context of a more extreme polarised political climate.

No. I've been dinged for some very ticky tack infractions. It's always by the same moderator. Always.

 

[cwosigns]

I think it's more the perception and the way the default position is that it must be political. The same happens when a topic comes up for a gay person, or a black person. The color of one's skin or their sexual identity should not be political yet are always treated that way here.

Instead of just stuffing posts like this into a silo and penalizing everyone, staff can actually take the opportunity to put their foot down on what they will and will not tolerate. There would definitely be growing pains but in the end you're addressing the root problem, closing PRSI won't make people stop being racists or bigots, it'll just shift where they post IMO.

I've been saying this for years. Articles like those that you mentioned get flagged for the PRSI forum (which was often a cesspool), and then no one could ever just have a conversation about it without the expectation that the discussion be political.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

This probably won't last here long. ?

I figured I would take my shot since the forum is going away.

 

[ericgtr12]

I think that the issue is not the discussion about the topic itself, but the fact that those discussion tends to veer towards public policy discussions, which in turns end up being very political.

We can discuss about climate change - a topic I know little about - from a scientific point of view ("study X has proven that Y happens in Z% of cases") and there wouldn't be much of a problem, the issue begins the second that someone points it towards the public policy ("therefore we should do this to prevent that", "no, I am not willing to do so because ..." ).

Yes, invariably they seem to go that way and that's the point. A great example is the Apple ad featuring black rappers, people were genuinely offended and went on tirades about it. It was an ad, nothing more, nothing less but it featured a culture that entitled people despised.

In these cases staff can jump in and say "absolutely no political discussion" and put their foot down. Maybe they have to clean a post or two and then it's done. Stuffing the post in a different trash heap or closing it is basically placating these people. They have the control to make these decisions if they choose.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Yes, invariably they seem to go that way and that's the point. A great example is the Apple ad featuring black rappers, people were genuinely offended and went on tirades about it. It was an ad, nothing more, nothing less but it featured a culture that entitled people despised.

I missed on that controversy, and to be honest I am glad I did.

 

[Apple_Robert]

The moderators, in my experience are all lefties (including Arn--leftie), got tired of hearing people on the right speak and just want silence them.

The Verge did the same (for a period, and then they let the comments section die out) and most other tech and lefty sites do this, because the exposure to right leaning opinions is "hurtful" (so they say).

I have not looked, but I hope there are clear rules posted for other forums, as sometimes Apple and politics are intertwined (anti-trust, pictures of Tim Cook with world leaders, etc.). I suppose anyone who voices a right or center right opinion on any of those issues in the comments of like a "news" piece will get hit with a ban hammer rapidly.

And maybe that is the idea all along, no?

I don’t care what political slant Arn and the staff may be. To me, that is immaterial. What is important is doing one’s best to properly adjudicate the rules when a post is reported.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I like how this thread is slowly evolving into a PRSI thread

 

[ericgtr12]

I like how this thread is slowly evolving into a PRSI thread

It doesn't have to. I see it more as a discussion about what is and isn't deemed appropriate when it comes to MR policies and moderation.

 

[I7guy]

It doesn't have to. I see it more as a discussion about what is and isn't deemed appropriate when it comes to MR policies and moderation.

The bottom line is the moderation is what the moderators have said it is. And sure a discussion of those policies is exactly what S&FF is for, but given some of the recent threads, I don't see those policies changing...as welcome as opinions of said policies are.

 

[Expos of 1969]

As a moderator on another forum and a participant on several, I understand the need for rules and their enforcement, but I think there is a balance between anything goes and heavy moderation. I got the impression that the rules here and the enforcement details were as complicated as case-law in the judicial system....

Well put. Reading some posts by certain mods trying to explain their action or non-action by quoting one or more rules was not only frustrating but highly entertaining. It should not have been either so that says a lot.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Thank you for proving the point.

Exactly. If someone has an opinion other than yours, SHUT UP OR IT'S POLITICAL. Also--BIGOT.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

The bottom line is the moderation is what the moderators have said it is. And sure a discussion of those policies is exactly what S&FF is for, but given some of the recent threads, I don't see those policies changing...as welcome as opinions of said policies are.

I love it. It is what they it is, so SHUT UP. Serf.

Never mind some of the explanations don't make a lot of sense.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

I don’t care what political slant Arn and the staff may be. To me, that is immaterial. What is important is doing one’s best to properly adjudicate the rules when a post is reported.

And if you think the moderators are "doing (their best) to properly adjudicate the rules when a post is reported" you'd be mistaken. If you think there is an even handed interpreting of the rules, you're wrong.

 

[cwosigns]

Exactly. If someone has an opinion other than yours, SHUT UP OR IT'S POLITICAL. Also--BIGOT.

Bees don't waste time trying to prove to flies that honey is better than ****.

 

[I7guy]

I love it. It is what they it is, so SHUT UP. Serf.

Never mind some of the explanations don't make a lot of sense.

There are a fairly comprehensive state of guidelines that MR has. The flip side is they could choose to moderate with a wing and a prayer as some other sites do, but that's not what MR has chosen to do. They never have shut any one up that I can see. Posters whose posts don't adhere to the rules get moderated. And in S&FF the staff allows discussions liberally.

But MR is under no obligation to change anything (yet they have over the years) because vocal posters want a change in rules, ideology, makeup of the staff/admins etc.

 

[arn]

Thread straying. I think this has run its course. We’ll do our best with this new system, and reassess as we go.

thanks for everyone’s enthusiastic participation