POTWR: Inaugural Address 2019

What types of threads are you most interested in?


  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m liking it so far. Congrats @Cubo de Sangre, the rules look fair to me and there seem to be some good choices in the poll. I’ll vote later. And thanks @Fawlty for keeping our president on his toes in an intelligent manor.

This sub (and the presidency) would be kind of boring without a little bit of thoughtful opposition right? Someone’s gotta make the President answer tough questions.
Even though he will be censoring on the basis of his own bias. He admitted that there is nothing objective about how he will go about selecting the topics, threads and posters. This is not good.

He can fix this if he lays out the objective criteria by which he will make his judgement. It is not that hard and he has people to help him if he can't. He can ask for help.
 
For consistency's sake you will have to lay out the criteria by which you will objectively decide what is or isn't accepted.

Not everyone will trust that you will be fair and impartial when it comes to topics and whether you accept them or not.

I added this to the OP. Ultimately I can't weed out topics if we don't have any. :D

EDIT: To be clear, potentially anyone can host a thread topic. Volunteers are needed for this little experiment to be the best it can be. Got a thread you wanna start that would be better under the proposed rule-set? Now's your chance. Let's hear those ideas.
 
Even though he will be censoring on the basis of his own bias. He admitted that there is nothing objective about how he will go about selecting the topics, threads and posters. This is not good.

You're welcome to join the panel of organizers. What viewpoint will you bring that we three collectively lack?
 
You're welcome to join the panel of organizers. What viewpoint will you bring that we three collectively lack?
Thanks for the invitation, but I have nothing to offer other than to insist that we need a mechanism of control, a constrain on the power, so that there is no abuse of it. As I said, transparency and criteria laid out for everyone to see.
 
Thanks for the invitation, but I have nothing to offer other than to insist that we need a mechanism of control, a constrain on the power, so that there is no abuse of it. As I said, transparency and criteria laid out for everyone to see.

The mechanism of control is the input of others. That's something that I can neither guarantee nor predict. But I can assure you I've put in an effort to solicit it from a variety of sources. Who all steps up remains to be seen.
 
If you really want to revolutionize the debate, @Cubo de Sangre , outlaw speaking in broad group generalizations like “Liberals are x” or “Republicans think y.” Make people talk in specifics, such as “Bernie Sanders said x” or “every GOP senator voted against y.”

As long as you are banning certain types of speech from your threads, you might as well ban the the types of speech that perpetuate truly useless narratives. To me, it’s more harmful to discussion when someone says ”liberals wants genders outlawed” than if someone calls me a twat.
 
If you really want to revolutionize the debate, @Cubo de Sangre , outlaw speaking in broad group generalizations like “Liberals are x” or “Republicans think y.” Make people talk in specifics, such as “Bernie Sanders said x” or “every GOP senator voted against y.”

As long as you are banning certain types of speech from your threads, you might as well ban the the types of speech that perpetuate truly useless narratives. To me, it’s more harmful to discussion when someone says ”liberals wants genders outlawed” than if someone calls me a twat.

Great. What's a succinct way of saying that?
  • Unless you have verified stats, don't generalize group behavior (eg. Liberals are X and Republicans think Y)
 
The "change my mind" option is popular early. Whose mind could we change on something?
 
If you really want to revolutionize the debate, @Cubo de Sangre , outlaw speaking in broad group generalizations like “Liberals are x” or “Republicans think y.” Make people talk in specifics, such as “Bernie Sanders said x” or “every GOP senator voted against y.”

As long as you are banning certain types of speech from your threads, you might as well ban the the types of speech that perpetuate truly useless narratives. To me, it’s more harmful to discussion when someone says ”liberals wants genders outlawed” than if someone calls me a twat.

The problem is not speaking in generalizations, and getting rid of such language is baby with the bathwater mentality imo. When people speak in good faith, using generalizations is simply shorthand. Republicans think y can be perfectly acceptable.
 
If you really want to revolutionize the debate, @Cubo de Sangre , outlaw speaking in broad group generalizations like “Liberals are x” or “Republicans think y.” Make people talk in specifics, such as “Bernie Sanders said x” or “every GOP senator voted against y.”

As long as you are banning certain types of speech from your threads, you might as well ban the the types of speech that perpetuate truly useless narratives. To me, it’s more harmful to discussion when someone says ”liberals wants genders outlawed” than if someone calls me a twat.

For a formal debate, I think this usually hurts a persons argument when they remain broad and don't staple down their assumptions with clear statistics or examples. Something one on one would require a person to really know enough information of the issue or they'd be doomed to do this. It's not always bad but usually what comes with it is a strawman argument of what group x thinks which isn't helpful.
 
It's not always bad but usually what comes with it is a strawman argument of what group x thinks which isn't helpful.

So is it a matter of creating a rule, or just hammering someone's poor logic when employed?
 
So is it a matter of creating a rule, or just hammering someone's poor logic when employed?

Makes it hard to determine unless we know which thread type. Like a convince me thread could even be based on a incorrect premise from the person being convinced. It's more or less useful based on what thread is employed.
 
Makes it hard to determine unless we know which thread type. Like a convince me thread could even be based on a incorrect premise from the person being convinced. It's more or less useful based on what thread is employed.

We can play it by ear. Keeping the rules general and tightening them up as needed works for me.
 
Seems odd that you are so intent on silencing people whose comments you don't like, given that you have always claimed to have the opposite point of view. Care to square that? Because you come off like a liar there. I think a 180 like this deserves an explanation.
{<jimmies}

You lost get over it.
 
When people speak in good faith, using generalizations is simply shorthand. Republicans think y can be perfectly acceptable.
It can be good faith shorthand to sloppy arguments, though. Unless something is truly tautological (and, therefore, barely requires being said) generalizations are usually technically inaccurate, and there is almost always a better way of phrasing a point (if you are making a point that deserves to be said and that you have the knowledge to actually be making).
For a formal debate, I think this usually hurts a persons argument when they remain broad and don't staple down their assumptions with clear statistics or examples. Something one on one would require a person to really know enough information of the issue or they'd be doomed to do this. It's not always bad but usually what comes with it is a strawman argument of what group x thinks which isn't helpful.
Same. But it’s not just “formal debate” that’s weakened by use of generalizations. It’s everyday thinking. There are posters on this site— and by extension, I’ve got to think voters in real life— who spend all their time arguing against points that no one has ever, to my knowledge, tried to make. Why? Because generalizations don’t require trifling details such as Who actually said this statement that you are raging against?
 
Last edited:
It can be good faith shorthand to sloppy arguments, though. Unless something is truly tautological (and, therefore, barely requires being said) generalizations are usually technically inaccurate, and there is almost always a better way of phrasing a point (if you are making a point that deserves to be said and that you have the knowledge to actually be making).

Same. But it’s not just “formal debate” that’s weakened by use of generalizations. It’s everyday thinking. There are posters on this sight— and by extension, I’ve got to think voters in real life— who spend all their time arguing against points that no one has ever, to my knowledge, tried to make. Why? Because generalizations don’t require trifling details such as Who actually said this statement that you are raging against?

I think this is partially what causes a lot of the polarity in the country. A lot of times, voters are talking past each other.
 
there is no option to say "i dont care" because @Clippy is and will be the one true President and first of the Andals, First of His Name, Kingslayer, Islandmaker, Botslayer, and Paper Combiner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top