How Can The Forum Be Better? Your Thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[ren hoek]

You know Joe, this is sort of a pet thing of mine. But it'd be cool if footballguys signed on as a verified publisher in the Brave program. Wikipedia and archive.org are a couple other notable examples. I would like it for a couple reasons.

One is that I'm really curious how much the FBG domain has made off of Brave users after so many years. I would think its a significant chunk of change at this point but it's impossible to say. Two is that I'd love to support the site financially, however small, just by browsing the boards.

You could be forgiven for thinking I'm shilling and smoking crypto again. But it'd just be nice to see fbg involved in a sort of attention economy that I think is really neat. It would also be cool to direct my contributions toward the site.

No pressure of course; I know you've batted me down on this one before. But I do think it'd make the site 'better' as it were. That's my 'feature' oriented idea for the board, we contribute just by spending time here.

The other one, big shocker, would be finding a way to bring political discussion back. I cosign what Tim said. This was the one place i felt like i could have rich discussions on political stuff with people that I actually 'know'- and yet wouldn't know them from Adam if I saw them irl. That was always the cool thing about messageboards.

Like others said I know where you're coming from & I respect that. I just miss it is all, and wanted to throw my hat in with them.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

 

[Joe Bryant]

You know Joe, this is sort of a pet thing of mine. But it'd be cool if footballguys signed on as a verified publisher in the Brave program. Wikipedia and archive.org are a couple other notable examples. I would like it for a couple reasons.

One is that I'm really curious how much the FBG domain has made off of Brave users after so many years. I would think its a significant chunk of change at this point but it's impossible to say. Two is that I'd love to support the site financially, however small, just by browsing the boards.

You could be forgiven for thinking I'm shilling and smoking crypto again. But it'd just be nice to see fbg involved in a sort of attention economy that I think is really neat. It would also be cool to direct my contributions toward the site.

No pressure of course; I know you've batted me down on this one before. But I do think it'd make the site 'better' as it were. That's my 'feature' oriented idea for the board, we contribute just by spending time here.

The other one, big shocker, would be finding a way to bring political discussion back. I cosign what Tim said. This was the one place i felt like i could have rich discussions on political stuff with people that I actually 'know'- and yet wouldn't know them from Adam if I saw them irl. That was always the cool thing about messageboards.

Like others said I know where you're coming from & I respect that. I just miss it is all, and wanted to throw my hat in with them.

Thanks. I'm not very knowledgeable (ok not at all) on Brave. It's probably not something we'd be able to do partly as I have about 3 years worth of Tech work for our folks I'd like to have done this summer. LOL. Thank you for the suggestion on it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

 

[Dan Lambskin]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

Sometimes if I’m catching up in a thread I’ll make several posts instead of multi quote. Not a huge deal, more of a minor inconvenience

 

[gianmarco]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

Definitely. I'll get started on a pun, think of another one, and then I can't post it right away and anxiety levels go through the roof that someone else is going to post it first.

Or when I'm trying to post multiple responses on what to call people here and win a subscription only to find out someone else posted Footballguys before me and I just missed out because I needed to wait 17 more seconds to post.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sometimes if I’m catching up in a thread I’ll make several posts instead of multi quote. Not a huge deal, more of a minor inconvenience

Thanks. I think we're stuck as is for now but will keep an eye on it. Those bots making it difficult for everyone.

 

[Schmeabs]

If anything, create a separate music forum

 

[Scoresman]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

It does for me in the Horror movie countdown since I'll make many reveal posts in a row.

But I absolutely get why it's in place.

 

[need2know]

Less moderation

 

[Thorn]

I know that this is a matter of opinion, but it feels like the forum has gone from PG to G. The halcyon days of the Russian Bride Draft, Yoga Pants Thread, Blue and Orange Dots are sorely missed. I remember Joe said something to the effect of, he wants to be able to have people from his church read the forum, and not worry about their judgment. So I understand the reason for going more G-rated. But I don't like it, and in my view, the forum was "better" with that stuff than without.

Then FWIW, I don't see how the political forum can come back. Maybe if Trump loses? But even then, I think we've entered a new era where people so strongly identify with their political beliefs that they no longer "discuss" politics in any meaningful way, they simply signal for their "team." If there was some magic wand to wave that would guarantee actual discussion, I'd be all for it. There was some great commentary sprinkled amongst the noise. But I think that's a pipe dream in the current climate.

 

[Desert_Power]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

I get hit with it in the NFL game threads on occasion.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

If anything, create a separate music forum

I know this must be a tough time for you. Protip: scroll on by.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I remember Joe said something to the effect of, he wants to be able to have people from his church read the forum, and not worry about their judgment.

I don't recall saying that.

I live my life pretty publicly. I'm not hard to find.

Whether it's someone who shares my faith or someone who's a friend of mine or just someone who barely knows me, I've always tried to operate in a way I can be proud of. That's not "worrying about judgement" in my opinion. That's living intentionally and openly.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I don't recall saying that.

You did, or something akin to it.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Is there a way to disable the 30 seconds in between posts? I get it’s an anti spam thing but maybe it could be for posters with more than 100 posts or something

Not sure on that. It is a feature designed to limit bots I know. I don't think it's changeable on the time.

Does that often come up where you need to post super quickly after another post?

I get hit with it in the NFL game threads on occasion.

Yes, those are probably the most rapid fire threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't recall saying that.

You did, or something akin to it.

The search feature now is fantastic. There are 6 pages or posts where I mentioned "church" and I didn't see anything there with a quick look. But if you have a quote and link where I said that, please share.

I'm totally open to being wrong, (It happens frequently) but I don't think I ever said I was worried about someone from my church judging me.

I have always felt what I said above that I want to operate a business that is line with how I want to live my life. I've always tried to operate in a way I can be proud of. That's not "worrying about judgement" in my opinion. That's living intentionally and openly.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to clarify, I don't think I ever said I was "worried about judgement from church people". But I'm also open to being wrong there. I've said a lot here in 20+ years.

Regardless, I definitely don't think that now.

 

[Thorn]

And to clarify, I don't think I ever said I was "worried about judgement from church people". But I'm also open to being wrong there. I've said a lot here in 20+ years.

Regardless, I definitely don't think that now.

Apologies if that is not what you said/meant, that's how I remember you explaining why you wanted to do away with threads like the ones I mentioned.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to clarify, I don't think I ever said I was "worried about judgement from church people". But I'm also open to being wrong there. I've said a lot here in 20+ years.

Regardless, I definitely don't think that now.

Apologies if that is not what you said/meant, that's how I remember you explaining why you wanted to do away with threads like the ones I mentioned.

No worries at all. I only wanted to clarify.

 

[SWC]

i mean if its a church thing yoga pants are proof of gods love thats all im sayin take that to the bank brochachos

 

[Psychopav]

I think JB should have to use a picture of himself as his avatar instead of whoever that nerd is.

Wait...

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

 

[Judge Smails]

This will be unpopular and I already know it’s not going to happen but since you asked…I think you should bring the political forum back.

So you want to have regular timeouts again? Because that's what happened when it was active.

I think Joe made the right decision there. The politics forum was toxic despite the best efforts of some folks, and nuking it, combined with more active moderation when political comments were made in the FFA, actually reduced the toxicity of the FFA.

There are tons of other places on the internet to discuss politics, if you feel you must.

And for the love of God, if you do bring the Political Forum back, don't do it this year. I'm already nauseous thinking about what's to come. People underestimate the damage caused by the last debacle. It literally caused dissension in families that still hasn't been repaired. Pure destruction.

 

[Judge Smails]

Don't really have much to suggest. I think for what you are trying to have here it works. Do think embedded pictures would be cool but it's even more to moderate. Shark Pool still has good action and content. Maybe have a separate thread for all of Faust's updates. Appreciate them but the volume often takes up the first two pages. The FFA is not the same but we've been through all of this. It's a PG man cave without the Arizona Ron, Evil Grin or yoga pants type threads. I get it, but that was a draw. If this was my brand I'd probably do the same thing you did. Bigger challenge is getting new blood in without it becoming a boomer/gen x vs millenial/gen z type cesspool that is common on TikTok etc. At least here the aging FFA doesn't get blamed for all of the world's problems. Don't have the negativity here that exists elsewhere, which is refreshing. But we do need more posters starting threads. How can that be encouraged? A lot of the interests are covered - career, financial, food, drink, music, travel, health, family, spiritual. Just need more of them.

 

[higgins]

Paragraph breaks are a good thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And for the love of God, if you do bring the Political Forum back, don't do it this year.

LOL. Don't worry.

 

[supermike80]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

And no laughing face emojis.

 

[Van Dyman]

There was some great commentary sprinkled amongst the noise.

There was a lot of great commentary. I sorely miss it. I was usually able to just ignore the "noise" but I get why JB killed it.

 

[Thorn]

I don't recall saying that.

You did, or something akin to it.

The search feature now is fantastic. There are 6 pages or posts where I mentioned "church" and I didn't see anything there with a quick look. But if you have a quote and link where I said that, please share.

I'm totally open to being wrong, (It happens frequently) but I don't think I ever said I was worried about someone from my church judging me.

I have always felt what I said above that I want to operate a business that is line with how I want to live my life. I've always tried to operate in a way I can be proud of. That's not "worrying about judgement" in my opinion. That's living intentionally and openly.

I did search around and couldn't find anything. Somewhere in the corner of my memory I thought, around the time of announcing a moderation change, and I think it was the end of the Yoga Pants thread, you said something like, Joe Bryant isn't my user name, it's my real name. People in my community know me and this forum reflects on me. Then maybe a couple other sentences about what that meant for you in real life.

Does that sound familiar/close to correct?

Maybe my brain invented the church and judging parts? I'm guessing that was how I interpreted whatever you actually did say.

Regardless, apologies again, I wouldn't like it of someone put words in my mouth that I didn't say or mean.

 

[dgreen]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

If the bad blood had stayed contained to the PSF, that would have been bad enough. But, it didn't - the grudges spilled over into other areas of this place and (IMO) moderation became untenable.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I did search around and couldn't find anything. Somewhere in the corner of my memory I thought, around the time of announcing a moderation change, and I think it was the end of the Yoga Pants thread, you said something like, Joe Bryant isn't my user name, it's my real name. People in my community know me and this forum reflects on me. Then maybe a couple other sentences about what that meant for you in real life.

Does that sound familiar/close to correct?

That's the part I recall, and I don't blame Joe for stating that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't recall saying that.

You did, or something akin to it.

The search feature now is fantastic. There are 6 pages or posts where I mentioned "church" and I didn't see anything there with a quick look. But if you have a quote and link where I said that, please share.

I'm totally open to being wrong, (It happens frequently) but I don't think I ever said I was worried about someone from my church judging me.

I have always felt what I said above that I want to operate a business that is line with how I want to live my life. I've always tried to operate in a way I can be proud of. That's not "worrying about judgement" in my opinion. That's living intentionally and openly.

I did search around and couldn't find anything. Somewhere in the corner of my memory I thought, around the time of announcing a moderation change, and I think it was the end of the Yoga Pants thread, you said something like, Joe Bryant isn't my user name, it's my real name. People in my community know me and this forum reflects on me. Then maybe a couple other sentences about what that meant for you in real life.

Does that sound familiar/close to correct?

Maybe my brain invented the church and judging parts? I'm guessing that was how I interpreted whatever you actually did say.

Regardless, apologies again, I wouldn't like it of someone put words in my mouth that I didn't say or mean.

Thank you @Thorn Yes, that sounds exactly like I remember it. And it's how I see it today. With my real name on stuff and doing this as long as I have, my "work life" is pretty public for anyone that knows me to see. And I always want those to be in alignment.

It was the "church" and "judging me" that I objected to. And no need to apologize. Thank you for asking for clarification. All good.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

If the bad blood had stayed contained to the PSF, that would have been bad enough. But, it didn't - the grudges spilled over into other areas of this place and (IMO) moderation became untenable.

Unfortunately, yes. The PSF was always sort of an "overflow" for keeping the FFA as good as it could be. The goal was always doing all we could to keep this place the best it could be. If that meant cleaning out the political talk to another "room", that made sense at first. But you're right in it spilled over to here as well.

And again, lots of things were never seen by most of the public as they were deleted.

Bottom line: I do miss it but in the overall picture, we're by far better the way it is now.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

While reading through some of it, it seems rather obvious who was who. It's still there in black/white. To me, this is the crux of the problem(s) here. It's fine to have rules. They have to be clear with clear/consistent consequences. That does not seem to happen here. One time the answer is to delete the comment. Another time is to give a time out. Another time its to do nothing. Another time it's to get rid of someone for good. Joe says we don't see everything that's going on. That's another problem, but for a reason different than you might think. Hiding stuff stifles or downright prevents empathy and understanding where thing are going. There's no way for the collective to thrive here if they can't empathize and be part of the solution. Yes, you can try this top/down approach, but it's not going to last and the forums will wilt away with time.

 

[Van Dyman]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

While reading through some of it, it seems rather obvious who was who. It's still there in black/white. To me, this is the crux of the problem(s) here. It's fine to have rules. They have to be clear with clear/consistent consequences. That does not seem to happen here. One time the answer is to delete the comment. Another time is to give a time out. Another time its to do nothing. Another time it's to get rid of someone for good. Joe says we don't see everything that's going on. That's another problem, but for a reason different than you might think. Hiding stuff stifles or downright prevents empathy and understanding where thing are going. There's no way for the collective to thrive here if they can't empathize and be part of the solution. Yes, you can try this top/down approach, but it's not going to last and the forums will wilt away with time.

PSF moderation is all water under the bridge now but I always thought instead of deleting posts it would have been better if the mods could have left them in place but edited to include a note saying what rule was broken. It might have helped others avoid the same mistake. I think the bottom line is this is a FF website first and foremost. The posting rate in PSF was sky high. To moderate it thoroughly and consistently would have required far too much effort for a FF business to bear, imo.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

There were threads that the OP would originally state their desire to keep things just on policy and to keep partisan hackery out of it. There also was a rule to keep comments on the topic and not the poster. Neither of those prevented some from doing what they wanted to do.

I think there was a relatively small number of posters whose only goal was to cause problems. Then there were some who weren't necessarily trying to cause problems, but their natural conversation style conflicted with the rules of the forum and the personality of other posters. And then there were people who were really good at having civil political conversations, but they just couldn't resist getting dragged into 10-page fights with someone in one of the above groups. And then there were a decent number of posters who were better equipped to have those types of difficult conversations without turning threads into the ugliness that is the typical political online discourse.

While reading through some of it, it seems rather obvious who was who. It's still there in black/white. To me, this is the crux of the problem(s) here. It's fine to have rules. They have to be clear with clear/consistent consequences. That does not seem to happen here. One time the answer is to delete the comment. Another time is to give a time out. Another time its to do nothing. Another time it's to get rid of someone for good. Joe says we don't see everything that's going on. That's another problem, but for a reason different than you might think. Hiding stuff stifles or downright prevents empathy and understanding where thing are going. There's no way for the collective to thrive here if they can't empathize and be part of the solution. Yes, you can try this top/down approach, but it's not going to last and the forums will wilt away with time.

PSF moderation is all water under the bridge now but I always thought instead of deleting posts it would have been better if the mods could have left them in place but edited to include a note saying what rule was broken. It might have helped others avoid the same mistake. I think the bottom line is this is a FF website first and foremost. The posting rate in PSF was sky high. To moderate it thoroughly and consistently would have required far too much effort for a FF business to bear, imo.

Feels rather simple, if your comment is directed at a person then punishment is X. If it's directed at topic play on. Been on many different places before coming here that use this approach with relative success. Don't need to reinvent the wheel. I'll also say that while the PSF is gone, there are plenty of threads here in the FFA (thinking specifically about my readings of the COVID thread) where this would rather easy to apply as well. Trying to hack out posts rather than dealing with the poster seems like a rather large self inflicted wound/problem.

 

[rockaction]

Feels rather simple, if your comment is directed at a person then punishment is X. If it's directed at topic play on. Been on many different places before coming here that use this approach with relative success. Don't need to reinvent the wheel. I'll also say that while the PSF is gone, there are plenty of threads here in the FFA (thinking specifically about my readings of the COVID thread) where this would rather easy to apply as well. Trying to hack out posts rather than dealing with the poster seems like a rather large self inflicted wound/problem.

It is not simple. This is incorrect and will never happen. The problem is that politics has become mostly Marxian/identitarian these days. In other words, it is necessary to discuss the person rather than just the proposal. It was started long ago with the phrase "the personal is the political" in the seventies. It was a Marxian/feminist argument about power/dispossession. It has come to dominate all of politics.

There is no discussing the political divorced from the personal anymore. It is either identity or motive that needs addressing. I hope that helps. If you don't understand this, then I don't know what I can do for you. I understand what you're saying. It isn't possible. There is a dialectic going on that hinges on the personalization of policy debates. Personal identity is inherent in almost all of it.

 

[rockaction]

Slippery slope is almost never a fallacy anymore. Ad hominem has been neutered. It has all changed, and not for the better.

 

[rockaction]

Before people seek an explanation about what I'm saying it would wise to Google "the personal is political" and read the Wiki page. Then apply it to almost any identity class - race, gender, class, trans, queer theory, colonization, immigration - and see if you don't notice a theme.

There is barely any policy debate that doesn't include the personalization of the debaters or the groups it represents.

TIA for doing that before you respond. It will cut down the responses by about tenfold if you do.

 

[Psychopav]

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slippery slope is almost never a fallacy anymore.

It never was.

 

[rockaction]

Slippery slope is almost never a fallacy anymore.

It never was.

Informal?

It’s not like modus ponens or tollens, but I was taught it as a fallacy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Slippery slope is almost never a fallacy anymore.

It never was.

Informal?

It’s not like modus ponens or tollens, but I was taught it as a fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are really just empirical arguments. It's impossible for an empirical claim to be fallacious. It might be wrong, but it will be wrong for empirical reasons, not first-principals-of-logic reasons.

 

[rockaction]

Slippery slope is almost never a fallacy anymore.

It never was.

Informal?

It’s not like modus ponens or tollens, but I was taught it as a fallacy.

Slippery slope arguments are really just empirical arguments. It's impossible for an empirical claim to be fallacious. It might be wrong, but it will be wrong for empirical reasons, not first-principals-of-logic reasons.

Right. Deductive and inductive reasoning. We learned both in logic. It’s listed as a fallacy all over the place and that’s also how we were taught. Tu quoque, argumentum ad baculum, etc.

I think you’re being too technical and exacting. Both are taught at elite universities under the rubric of logic. I understand the difference. If you have a quibble, it should have been raised in about the 18th century, bro.



Peace

 

[rockaction]

There’s also this, which is fun. If you’re getting at 20th century developments, then proceed apace. Don’t ask me. I wasn’t the one correcting or explaining.

Deductive and Inductive Arguments | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[rockaction]

By the way, I’m aware of empiricism’s limits. Hume destroyed the notion of certainty in empirical arguments, and especially ones regarding morality. They’re still scrambling to reify the whole human notion of morality as objective (moral realism) and not completely relativistic and subjective. They’ve done so, but it’s extraordinarily technical.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Feels rather simple,

I hear you. And maybe it would have been in the hands of a more skilled person. In my experience, it was not simple for me.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Been perusing your Political Forum off and on for the last couple weeks. The only way I'd ever even consider opening it back up is if two things happen:

1. The parties both are able to present actual policy proposals we could discuss/compare/contrast.
2. A stringent rule here of keeping comments on the topic and not the poster.

I don't see #1 happening anytime soon and there seems like an unwillingness to do #2, so it should probably stay closed for good.

And no laughing face emojis.

This for sure. I used one myself (I thought carefully) laughing at myself a while back and it wound up offending. They are tricky at best.