Site organisation and "view posts" lists

34 Replies, 4364 Views

OK, here's a suggestion: we move the vaccination thread out of the hidden forum and into the "Other Topics" forum. We do this by adjusting the criteria in the guidelines, "d) Threads about non-psi-related science topics that are or easily become sociopolitically-related or sociopolitically controversial can and should go into this new, hidden subforum", to the effect that it is only when such a topic actually becomes sociopolitically controversial, or when one or more members of the forum are highly offended by the sociopolitical (or moral) implications of what is being or might be argued in the thread, that it is moved into the hidden forum.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Laird's post:
  • Doug
(2017-12-19, 12:43 PM)Laird Wrote: Linda, I'm not sure how carefully you've read the guidelines and understood their relevance, for example because you mention Pizzagate which is an obviously non-scientific topic, whereas the guidelines are instead concerned with scientific topics (including those which are or easily become sociopolitically controversial).

I was explicitly referring to those guidelines - "if it's a science topic rather than a sociopolitical topic".

Quote:Please be specific: you "don't see the problem", but more helpful would be for you to suggest, with reference to the current guidelines and their four alternatives for posting scientifically-related threads ("a" through "d"), which forum you think the vaccination thread belongs in, and how - if at all - you would amend the guidelines or their interpretation to that effect.

I thought it was okay in Alt Science ("b"), but Other Topics would have been the best fit ("c").

I don't think the interpretation or guidelines need to be amended. It clearly followed Ian's suggested test - "If you are unsure, ask yourself if the forum members who are not interested in non-psi political discussions or conspiracy theories would like to view these threads, and post accordingly". Forum members who are not interested in the hidden forum were the ones taking part in the discussion. And it wasn't likely to descend into a political battleground (historically it hasn't been an issue, and it didn't seem like anybody intended to take it that direction). You could have left it alone (or moved it to Other Topics) and stepped in only if it crossed those lines.

Linda
(This post was last modified: 2017-12-19, 01:23 PM by fls.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes fls's post:
  • Stan Woolley
Sounds good with the exception of "when one or more members are highly offended....". If the forum is democratic , then I suggest we ought to have a short period to vote in these cases. (A week?) One member can have a hell of an input by being offended by things.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 2 users Like Stan Woolley's post:
  • malf, Doug
(2017-12-19, 12:47 PM)Laird Wrote: Fair enough, but some people feel similarly about vaccines: that it's outrageous that the efficacy or safety of vaccines are questioned, and that it has the potential - if that questioning continues and snowballs - for many, many lives to be lost as certain diseases make a comeback.

Pardon me for stepping in here, but I think that you can easily distinguish the two. Much of the discussion which takes place around vaccines has some legitimacy, even if misinformation abounds about those details. HIV/AIDS denialism is quite different in that the arguments have no scientific validity at this point, so there isn't anything left but to turn it into a conspiracy theory discussion.

Linda
(2017-12-19, 01:26 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: Sounds good with the exception of "when one or more members are highly offended....". If the forum is democratic , then I suggest we ought to have a short period to vote in these cases. (A week?) One member can have a hell of an input by being offended by things.

Would the vote need a majority in favour of moving the thread or just a significant number of offended members?

(2017-12-19, 01:23 PM)fls Wrote: Other Topics would have been the best fit ("c").

OK, good. Given that view and the views of others expressed in this thread and elsewhere, it seems best to move the thread from the hidden forum to Other Topics. Thanks everybody for your input.
[-] The following 2 users Like Laird's post:
  • Ninshub, Doug
(2017-12-19, 01:26 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: Sounds good with the exception of "when one or more members are highly offended....".

I agree. I don't like the idea of the "right not to be offended".
(2017-12-19, 12:47 PM)Laird Wrote: Fair enough, but some people feel similarly about vaccines: that it's outrageous that the efficacy or safety of vaccines are questioned, and that it has the potential - if that questioning continues and snowballs - for many, many lives to be lost as certain diseases make a comeback.


Understood.

You're being fairly optimistic if you think this forum might have that sort of impact! I don't think anybody here is saying that 'all vaccines are bad', but I definitely think some questions should be asked in some areas. Even if they are saying that, it's only an opinion that's unlikely to snowball without something extraordinary happening.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
Maybe "offended" was the wrong choice of words, but in any case, there seems to be a consensus based on those who've spoken up that vaccine skepticism is not of the same putatively reprehensible nature as HIV/AIDS skepticism/denial, so I'm glad that to that extent we've resolved the issue.

Steve, I wasn't saying that this forum alone would have the effect of deterring hordes of people from vaccination, just that some folks want to squash any discussion, including on this forum, which might contribute to such a thing.
(This post was last modified: 2017-12-19, 02:34 PM by Laird.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Laird's post:
  • Doug
(2017-12-19, 01:32 PM)Laird Wrote: Would the vote need a majority in favour of moving the thread or just a significant number of offended members?


OK, good. Given that view and the views of others expressed in this thread and elsewhere, it seems best to move the thread from the hidden forum to Other Topics. Thanks everybody for your input.

I'd prefer a majority in favour of moving the thread.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stan Woolley's post:
  • Doug
Forgive me but isn't this a storm in a tea cup? Are we really discussing where subjects should be placed according to who might be offended? I'm starting to wonder whether we have far too many categories anyway.

Here's what I'm seeing: some will want to revisit the option of the totally open format where all subjects are open and allowed. Some will insist that they are being victimised by the moderators (Linda is especially adept at that kind of thing - seems like every forum she's been a member of has victimised her - even JREF).

Some of us didn't want conspiracy theories and politics included at all. Personally, I thought that Skeptiko went down the wrong path by allowing that stuff when it was originally a Psi talking shop. CT/Politics are covered by thousands of forums all over the world. Plus there are comments sections on all the major news sites and blogs. I have strong feelings about Trump, guns, etc., but I don't want to sully my other (Psi related) interests with them.

The problem when it comes to science is that there is bound to be contention about what should be included according to your worldview. Materialists will inevitably argue that psi has no place in a science debate for the same reasons they claim that ID has no place: it isn't science (see the Darwin thread for more on that). Again with skeptic vs proponent classifications: skeptics are only skeptical of things that don't fit their worldview. They are, of course, proponents of things that do. Likewise, a Psi proponent can also be a proponent for many aspects of scientific discourse. I tend to agree with the evidence for climate change, for example, and have grave doubts about demonising vaccines to the point that masses of people are denied them. But I don't agree that these things are subjects for this forum. Just my opinion, of course.

ID inevitably has to involve something beyond what is known as scientific or methodological naturalism so it does have a place here. I don't think the same can be said of HIV/AIDS or vaccines, interesting though they may be.
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
(This post was last modified: 2017-12-19, 08:31 PM by Kamarling.)

  • View a Printable Version


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)