Should we shut Civics 101 down?

[rogue06]

I voted for other, but admittedly if a solution is not effective, I would definitely be in favor of shutting down and prohibiting anything involving politics in the future. But there are a couple of suggestions I have in mind:

I've been monitoring the Civics section, and lots from what I am going to suggest is going to come from the perspective of a political theorist (being that is the field I studied, and continue to study in), and will derive from their modalities when debates take place. I also come from a background in seeing the discussions that take place within Youtube, from left-wing bread tubers to right-wing net-reactionary tubers.

Here are some guidelines I suggest that might improve the quality of the discussion:


- Explicitly state/frame a clear and precise point(s) to critique, defend, or discuss. Do not "report news".
- Interact with the points and source, do not derail the discussion, STAY on the subject. Take it to another thread if you want to touch upon an aside point.
- Do not bother to post if:

1. you won't be serious with the discussion. Quick-quips and utter insults will not be tolerated.
2. You are attempting to incite/provoke/villify opponents or vain-glorify your own side.
3. You have an a priori commitment convinced the argument/faction of your opponent is evil (siege mentality) and must be "refuted/abolished".

Here are ways in how these guidelines can be applied and moderated based on recent threads (as of the 23rd of December) I found and monitored.


For starters, any thread that begins with just a link or quoting large chunks of the article, and made even worse by asserting your point or deriding something as de-facto absolute truth, is already an indicator of someone not interested in a discussion, but to proselytize, ergo, a waste of time. " Threads like these are precisely the ones that have no place in framing a political discussion :


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...ury-department


Okay, news of espionage is being shared, all well and good, but what point is Liconafan trying to drive? An unsubstantiated assertion that "someone from the inside did it? It's plausible to argue (knowing how international espionage tends to function) that it was insider, all well and good again, but it's a shame Liconafan did not attempt actually substantiate such a point.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...n-fraud-claims
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...mps-last-straw


Again, just merely news reporting and merely deriding a side. Shunya could have stated as to how Barr's breakup with Trump constitutes an "unraveling", or provide a defense for Barr's decisions. It would have made the thread something discussible. Same with the second thread, it's just a mere link, no point being stated beyond the bare "end of the road" assertion.

These threads, are also fairly bad in framing, and yet could still be salvageable to make an interesting discussion :


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...t-hating-facts


Considering Hypatia's flippant disdain for an opponent (as showed in the wording of the title "Republicans hating facts), that does not reflect an honest and serious interest in interacting with the other side, only provocation. And that is a terrible shame. Anti-intellectualism within the ranks of the U.S. Republican Party and U.S. conservatives is a serious issue worth discussing, since there are complexities that resist bare black and white assertions. And it doesn't help the manner Cow Poke deflected the issue or Shunya's borderline-hateful assertion that American Evangelical Christians are an inherent cause of anti-intellectualism (reducing groups to monoliths is never a good idea). Electric Skeptic's contribution is probably the one contribution that was actually fairly substantial.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...t-s-sex-change


Seer's mere assertion of "disgusting", not a good sign. Pity. It could have been framed into a great point wether public health benefits should extend to those serving time in the form of sex reassignment surgeries, especially when considering that both Pro-sex Changers and Anti-sex Changers are legit tax payers. Seer did actually have a legit point to discuss and frame, a missed opportunity. CivilDiscourse is also spot on in calling out firstfloor's flippancy.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...17052-vaccines

To be fair, this one is actually quite friendly. It is just Esther reporting an interview revolving how long COVID-19 needs to render present vaccines useless. But I find it disappointing firstly by SeanD's out of nowhere comment regarding anti-vaxxers, and made worse by Shunyas out of nowhere self-vanitization regarding anti-vaxxers, both comments straight out of nowhere, poorly relevant on the subject, and prime example how derailments ruin discussions. Plus I think this thread is more appropriate in the Health section I think.



Now here are threads that are actually quite good and are quite appropriate to generate discussion, and actually give a good case to salvage the Civic's section.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...cilitate-fraud


Mountain Man actually did well in stating a point, according to the source he is using, he is claiming that the audit of Dominion machines points to electoral fraud. This one is more or less adequately framed, it allows for the source to be challenged or defended, the data interpreted, use of political and legal theories on what constitutes fraud etc. Mind you, I don't care much for Mountain Man's "siege mentality against liberals", but I acknowledge him for calling out Liconafan's attempt to derail the thread, and insure the discussion stays focused the subject, and demonstrating a certain modicum of seriousness.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...minating-covid


This one is one of the more amicable ones, Starlight arguing how the Kiwi government's policies lead to increased GDP and COVID's eradication in the territory, a very good framed point. And much to my surprise, there were good exchanges (both critiquing and defending) on the validity or invalidity of Starlight's points. One of the more exemplary threads.



https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...spike-in-cases


I loved this one in particular. CivilDicourse stated a clear point, substantiated it with a source, and best of all, is clearly open to discuss wether based on this should schools be reopened. CivilDiscourse was right to call out Gondwanaland's "argument by link" nonsense. Cow Poke at least also substantiated with a source to backup his claim as well.


https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...tical-strategy


Rogue provided a well substantiated case (and well interacted I might, add, none of this "citing whole articles" nonsense) and touching upon key sentences and quotes to drive home his point; Nancy Pelosi using her influence to delay urgent aid to advance her personal interests at the cost of the American people. An effective critique of Pelosi's modus operandi.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These are the ways I suggest can be used to actually improve the quality of the Civic section. I do recognize that it would require a higher level of moderation, especially to start filtering out those will tend to ruin the discussions, and a sharp criteria to detect posts that provoke cesspoolness and twitter-level exchanges. But I think that the manner one posts (name-calling, insulting, flippancy, non-seriousness, etc.) gives away the quality of a poster.

But admittedly, if this can't be reached, then I do agree that TWeb is better off not just shutting off the Civics section, and prohibit outright any mention of politics in all other sections. It would be a shame, especially considering those of us who are disciples of the Christ, we ultimately cannot shy away from the arena of politics where our interests are at stake, and we cannot shy away from inter-religious dialogue. In many ways, this forum is an opportunity to show the character of the Christ to all.


I want to give props to Starlight, CivilDiscourse, and Rogue06. By my reckoning, they tend to give the most substantial contributions in the discussions, and the more exemplary and consistent (as far as I can find) attitudes on how to approach the Civics section.

I woulda still given your thoughtful analysis an amen even if you said my thread sucked.

Interestingly, I do get grief from a couple of posters here whenever I don't post entire news articles (which I will upon occasion) because they claim I'm trying to hide something. One in particular seems to want me to provide a complete bibliography sourcing virtually every sentence demanding where I got every scrap of my information from.

[Andius]

So, I mostly like these ideas. I disagree that "reporting news" should be entirely eliminated as I think discussing current events is important and relevant but perhaps we could agree to limit that with relatively easy to follow guidelines. I posted the thread in question and offered little comment in the OP because if we can't even agree that Russia is behind the attack how can we discuss what should be done in response to it and how we should hope a Biden administration should engage with Russia going forward? Do you believe there is a way to get to a shared reality or are we just trapped with nihilistic postmodernism?

Oh, allow me to clarify. By "reporting news", I am specifically referring to thread openers that post a link, or copy paste a good chunk of the article, and not specifying wether you want to defend or criticize the article or a point made by the article. Oh I am all for involving a recent event and sharing the link reporting, especially if you opt to link it to some greater discussion or issue. In your case Liconafan, okay in your case, based on the wording of your opener, you are convinced that someone in the USA was also involved, great, that's actually a good point to argue and to frame the discussion and perhaps actually present plausible hypothesizes on who could have done it, cite past precedents of espionage that you know of, etc. THAT would be interesting, and would have made a great discussion.

I don't think a single thread of mine would qualify and I bet you think a whole lot of threads of mine would qualify. So that's a problem.

Oh I'd argue that they could! Just make a clear discussion point, and be prepared to defend it and see the exchange of ideas that come out of it. And based on your postings, I see you can give quite interesting exchanges man. It's all about proper framing to discuss. And I'd wager you can give an intriguing perspective from a Roman Catholic position (The one Church I tend to lean closest to ).

[Andius]

To be fair, I didn't call out Gond's "argument by link". I called out Shuny who dismissed Gond providing 4 links to back up an assertion made as "unethical." While you or I may find link-bomb's to be mostly poor style, they are not unethical.

Looking at it again, I do must admit that in the wider context of the discussion, Gond is actually backing up his statement. Most worrisome is Shunya's dismissal of the article Nature magazine, one of the more respected scientific magazines, and made more egregious when Shunya supposedly champions science.

I actually do agree that listing resources is not unethical, especially when they backup a point that you are making (I am a stickler for sources admittedly ). I admittedly come from Political science forums where link-bombing is highly frowned upon in exchanges, especially if you are not citing or interacting with the sources themselves. But looking at it carefully, you are right that Gond is in the right (4 sources actually are not bad by reckoning in terms of "link-bombing") and it is Shunya who is evading the point.

[Andius]

I woulda still given your thoughtful analysis an amen even if you said my thread sucked.

Interestingly, I do get grief from a couple of posters here whenever I don't post entire news articles (which I will upon occasion) because they claim I'm trying to hide something. One in particular seems to want me to provide a complete bibliography sourcing virtually every sentence demanding where I got every scrap of my information from.

When you don't include bacon, of course I will deem the thread sucky.
Yeah... posting up a source, and actually citing the relevant parts (I actually see that you do that quite often, it's very good), and that's not good enough? Good grief.

[Andius]

So how would you like a volunteer job as a moderator for Civics 101?

If the bacon is good (and a Civics still exists), aaa maaaaybaaahhh.

[CivilDiscourse]

When you don't include bacon, of course I will deem the thread sucky.
Yeah... posting up a source, and actually citing the relevant parts (I actually see that you do that quite often, it's very good), and that's not good enough? Good grief.

Its an evasion tactic. If the "ebemy" provides a link only, complain they didn't put the text. If the posted the entire article, claim they should only post the important parts. If the post only parts, claim they are cherry picking.

You have to realize, its not about the debate for some. Its about attacking and no approach is correct. If the approach is wrong,, yhen you don't have to address the point.

[Catholicity]

So how would you like a volunteer job as a moderator for Civics 101?

You want more inmates?

[Andius]

Its an evasion tactic. If the "ebemy" provides a link only, complain they didn't put the text. If the posted the entire article, claim they should only post the important parts. If the post only parts, claim they are cherry picking.

You have to realize, its not about the debate for some. Its about attacking and no approach is correct. If the approach is wrong,, yhen you don't have to address the point.

Well, all the more reason why a standard embraced by all is a must when engaging in a discussion, a precedent well established in academic or scholarly circles.

And you hit the point exactly, this nonsense of folks with their minds bent purely on attacking, and yeah, nothing to address when the approach is utterly wrong, aka, they have no interest in genuine dialogue. It showcases the bad faith an individual has.


And all the more urgent either we in Tweb better start placing stiffer standards in the Civics section or shut it down for good.

[Andius]

You want more inmates?

What could go wrong?

I'd bring good tacos, teehee.

[John Hunt]

I'm new to the website, and it wasn't what I expected it to be, but I hope this forum doesn't close. I'm interested in politics from a Christian perspective. I'm kind of banned from the "Christian only" ones, and from calling myself a Christian on the open more theological ones, because the moderator tells me that "You appear to be denying these three main tenets of faith: denying the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection being a real physical event" (in a private message).

I've always thought of theology as "the science of God," and, as such, sharing some of the characteristics of science; like being provisional, and coming to new conclusions as our knowledge and understanding develops.

As I understand it, the general consensus among serious, academic theologians, who devote their lives to studying the matter, is that the first Christians did not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or the Resurrection as being a real physical event. These were later developments (and in the case of the Trinity, centuries later), as Christians adopted the pagan beliefs prevalent in the Empire at the time (where pretty much everyone, apart from Jews and skeptics, believed in gods coming down to earth, having sons who sometimes ascended back to heaven etc - actually, believing in virgin births and resurrections was widespread around the world at the time - and moved from being a Jewish cult to one almost entirely gentile.

So the website policy seems to exclude serious consideration of theology, and large sections of the Church, from progressive evangelicals to Quakers.

[mossrose]

I'm new to the website, and it wasn't what I expected it to be, but I hope this forum doesn't close. I'm interested in politics from a Christian perspective.

You are welcome to post about politics from a Christian perspective in Civics all you want to.

I'm kind of banned from the "Christian only" ones, and from calling myself a Christian on the open more theological ones, because the moderator tells me that "You appear to be denying these three main tenets of faith: denying the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection being a real physical event" (in a private message).

I've always thought of theology as "the science of God," and, as such, sharing some of the characteristics of science; like being provisional, and coming to new conclusions as our knowledge and understanding develops.

As I understand it, the general consensus among serious, academic theologians, who devote their lives to studying the matter, is that the first Christians did not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or the Resurrection as being a real physical event. These were later developments (and in the case of the Trinity, centuries later), as Christians adopted the pagan beliefs prevalent in the Empire at the time (where pretty much everyone, apart from Jews and skeptics, believed in gods coming down to earth, having sons who sometimes ascended back to heaven etc - actually, believing in virgin births and resurrections was widespread around the world at the time - and moved from being a Jewish cult to one almost entirely gentile.

So the website policy seems to exclude serious consideration of theology, and large sections of the Church, from progressive evangelicals to Quakers.

The rest of your post seems to be arguing moderation (although some of it could have gone into Apologetics, where you are allowed to post), and as such, should have been posted in the Padded Room. I know that you didn't receive any warnings or points so you were not aware of this rule.

Now you are aware. If you wish to argue any moderation or decision of the staff, please complain in the Padded Room.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I reaffirm my reaffirm of my vote to shut down CIVICs.

There are an incredible number of news items that should be discussed but the best we can still do is OMB or not OMB.

[Faber]

I reaffirm my reaffirm of my vote to shut down CIVICs.

There are an incredible number of news items that should be discussed but the best we can still do is OMB or not OMB.

hear.jpg

[Sparko]

Well that problem will solve itself within the next month. The OMB is being shut down.

Then you can have Biden is a bad man threads to your heart's content. CPs already on it and Bidens not even president yet.

One can only hope. But I think Trump will be in the news for some time to come.

[mossrose]

Moderator Notice

Just a reminder that we are trying to keep this thread strictly as a discussion about whether we should close Civics down. Any discussions about presidents past and future can go to a myriad of other threads. So please do not talk about these things in this thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.