Timeline for Why are answers that basically say "right wing illogical bad, left wing rational good" allowed to exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2021 at 19:22 | comment | added | user76284 | @Peter-ReinstateMonica Your comments simply expose your own irrationality. For example, the "bleach" thing you allude to literally never happened. | |
| Oct 31, 2020 at 13:48 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 22:27 | comment | added | user4012 | @JJJ - My expectation is that either it will be shot down - OR, people will lawyer in "well, Trump said X, so that's evidence for all Republicans being anti-science" - that was EXACTLY what happened in this very post. Skeptics would have called it out as original research employing faulty logic :) | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 13:09 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @user4012 yea, I think a blanket ban on original research is a bit too much. I think off-the-cuff partisan generalizations could be deemed off-topic, while we could still allow them if they are backed up by references. I know that's only a baby step, but I think baby steps are a good way to introduce rules gradually, allowing some time to reflect on each step. I'm just not sure how to start the discussion or to what extent the broader community is in favor of revisiting the rulebook. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 12:00 | comment | added | user4012 | @JJJ - my first approach would also be to revisit the rulebook. Unfortunately both the Meta consensus and the mods is that this sort of stuff is well within the lines on the rulebook. My other recent Meta answer attempted to apply Skeptics-inspired rulebook and was not eactly met with rousing support :) Ironically the only public support to it was for HNQ bullet :) | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 2:08 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @user4012 well your approach seems to be to control the audience. My approach would be to revisit the rulebook. Surely we can find a set of reasonable rules that when applied consistently can help make posts less partisan. Other sites have some of those rules as well (Skeptics, IPS), but surprisingly politics leaves most of it up to moderators' judgement. To judge fairly, I think it's best to have rules that makes it clear where the line is. Right now, the line is with the CoC, but many other sites have opted for stricter guidelines aimed at the needs for their site. | |
| Oct 30, 2020 at 1:58 | comment | added | user4012 | @JJJ - I appreciate the good will to discuss, but I have given up on this site ever not being left wing propaganda tool by now. Opting out of HNQ may make enough of a difference, but that won't be happening. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:26 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @user4012 well, I agree with your broader point that the site should be fair to different sides of an issue. As I said, I'm happy to have a discussion on how we can make it fairer, but I also think the steps that you proposed (here) are too drastic. Maybe a discussion in chat would be helpful to discuss this a bit less formally? | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:19 | comment | added | user4012 | Until then, offensif shit like this will stay and be reinforced and defended, while my answer that dared to say something as controvercial as "most US professors are left wing and a large amount of millenials like socialism (citation to the poll included)" gets deleted because it butthurt some liberal who doesn't like truth to be stated when backed up by facts. | |
| Oct 29, 2020 at 16:19 | comment | added | user4012 | Sorry but in my experience, the mods aren't going to do anything unless and until (1) something major blows up unfavorably; or (2) SE forces them to act - and SE clearly would be super happy if entire network was a cesspool of Twitter like extreme progressives patting each other on the back over how virtous they all are; or (3) there's a critically large group of right wing users balancing left wing flags with equal amount of right wing flags. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 15:29 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @Peter-ReinstateMonica yea, the problem I see is that it's not backed up by references. Of course there is some truth to it, but it would be much better if those stronger claims were backed up by convincing (which is quite subjective) references in the answer. The difficulty is that there's no hard rule to require references, so there's a line somewhere on which statements are fine without references and where it starts to get problematic. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:25 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @JaredSmith yea, I think the answer to that will depend on what your expectations are. This platform can work well to learn about politics, including some level of partisan perspectives. This platform cannot solve broader societal problems. At most, it can be a tool to get some understanding of the different perspectives on some issues, but that's about it. An exodus as you describe is a real possibility, and as you argue that will hurt this platform. I think some more guidelines could help prevent that, but you shouldn't overestimate my / the mods' influence in this either. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:17 | comment | added | Jared Smith | @JJJ fair enough, I just worry that it isn't going to go anywhere, and business as usual will continue. This creates a feedback loop that I will dub the "Fox News Effect": a slight pro Left bias will trigger a conservative exodus. Emboldened by the lack of pushback the worst elements of the Left will start to increasingly dominate the conversation here and it will degenerate until it reaches Twitter-levels. The conservatives who leave first will be the worst and they will go to an alternative platform making it even more Rightist and it will worsen. Then there won't be a conversation at all. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:08 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @JaredSmith yea, I'm not really sure where we should start. We could create a meta post, or maybe even a chat room to get some discussion going. In the end, I think it's important that whatever rolls out has enough support in the community. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:02 | comment | added | Jared Smith | @JJJ I get that, and agree for what it's worth, but since that conversation isn't happening right now what steps are we taking towards having it (besides this conversation we're having right now)? What do you and the other mods and the high rep users going to do about it in the mean time? | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 12:55 | comment | added | JJJ Mod | @JaredSmith I get what you're saying, but to solve that, I think we need a community-wide discussion on how to deal with such edge cases in a more concrete way. It's difficult to draft such rules, but I think they can make things fairer on answerers (you know what guidelines your post will be measured against) and for mods (it's clearer where the line is so there are more cases where we can make a confident decision). Even with those rules, there will be judgement calls, but hopefully they'll be a smaller number of exceptions. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 12:46 | comment | added | Jared Smith | ...it just feels like when you (for some definition of "you" that includes more than just JJJ) have to make a judgement call, and you frequently do, that judgement call is over time lopsided in favor of the Left. Maybe it's because the site as a whole leans left due to the demographics. Maybe it's because individual people making that call lean left. Whatever. Doesn't matter. And I'm not even a Republican! If I, a person who is just trying to uphold honor in dueling, perceive the state of affairs as biased how much worse is it for people that are actually Right-wingers? | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 12:46 | comment | added | Jared Smith | I don't care that the standards are what they are, or the merits of this specific case, my issue is that this case highlights that the standards are applied in what I perceive as a discriminatory manner: edge cases with a Right-leaning slant are edited/deleted and edge cases with a pro-Left slant get a "our hands are tied here" non-response. And this is (again, in my perception) statistical, not deterministic. I don't think that there's any cabal of high-rep users/mods who go around deliberately promoting a double standard (and I get the bind you're in being caught in the middle).... | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 22:43 | comment | added | user4012 | Here's proof for you: The last comment on that answer out and out says (while agreing with the answer): "anti-intellectual response from the Right". THAT is what the answer TL;DRs to most people reading it. | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 22:14 | comment | added | user4012 | Of course, it seems exactly what was predicted would happen. CoC is used subjectively when one group of users is offended by anything up to banning and suspending users, and ignored when another group of users is offended to the point of refusing reasonable edits. | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 22:12 | comment | added | user4012 | What I object to is very specifically to the line of reasoning of "people object to the masks because of general dislike of reason and science". That is not just "upsetting". That is slanderous. | |
| Oct 20, 2020 at 18:34 | history | answered | JJJMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |