Rules update: new policy (#10) and its immediate implementation

[Ninshub]

I'm fully in support of Laird's views. 

There is the additional fact that since he pretty much runs this forum, he has to feel morally OK with what is allowed or not here.

I would also favor closing down the opt-in forums.

I'm fully in support of Laird's views. 

There is the additional fact that since he pretty much runs this forum, he has to feel morally OK with what is allowed or not here.

I would also favor closing down the opt-in forums.

I think the "sword" cuts both ways though - posters have to feel OK with posting.

It's simply unfair to have forums meant for political debate, conspiracies, etc and then banning people for making posts.

I doubt I can assist with the technical upkeep but if we need more hands I'm willing to be a moderator for the forums if we remove the opt-in forums, since I don't have any interest/inclination to see such posts here.

It's not necessary for support to be rabid and frothing at the mouth. Pseudo-rational, pseudo-measured support can in fact be more insidious, because it occludes moral clarity.

Nor is it necessary for any individual to be judged in the aggregate to be bad. All that's necessary is that they support a serious harm or its perpetrator(s). People are multi-faceted; even some brutal torturers return home to love and cherish their families.

Of course, what qualifies as a serious harm and/or support for it is a matter of judgement, but it is not arbitrary.

Invitation is not immunity. Analogously: if you're invited to a discussion and freely admit to a crime, "But I was invited to share my thoughts" is not a defence at your trial.

Ordinary political opinions are not cause for exclusion. Spouting "trickle-down economics" and "immigrants are taking our jobs" nonsense, although harmful enough, will earn you only contempt, not a ban, but when "your guy" crosses over into "round them all up without due process and send them to hell-hole jails overseas or newly-built concentration camps in swamps right here, destroy or cripple all government institutions and checks and balances and attempt to centralise power in yourself, attack and undermine the free press and your opponents, suppress all criticism through lawfare and threats, turn billion-dollar bribery into an open sport at the highest level, etc etc" and you continue to support him, then you've crossed the line.

Likewise if you're invited - given apparent historical support or at least tolerance for its figurehead - to condemn it and your response is (paraphrased) "But can we really believe it's actually happening?". In that case: be on your way too.

We live in a world of exploitation, oppression, warmongering, and creeping fascism cloaked in populism. Those will ultimately end, but only through our resistance. If you are not resisting, and instead siding with and giving cover to the exploiters, oppressors, warmongers, and fascists, then you don't belong here, nor in civil society in general. That this was not codified in our rules nor enforced until now is irrelevant; it is the right thing to do, more important than this board's activity and membership levels and ongoing viability.

Recognise and meet the moment, people.

I see no problem with the opt-in forums as a venue for sensible diagnosis of the world's political and scientific problems and how to solve them. In all honesty, these days sociopolitical progress is more important to me personally than discussions of parapsychology and consciousness. Given, though, that, historically, too many of their participants have abused the opportunity they provide, that, currently, there's barely any activity in our topical forums, let alone the opt-in forums, and that, as has been pointed out, they're not anyway topical, and were in the first place a sort of compromise to retain members, I personally would have no problem with their being shut them down: closing them to new posts but otherwise leaving them accessible as-is.

Let's see what the consensus on that turns out to be, especially among the other two remaining active founders.

Perhaps ~50% of the US population cannot post on PQ?

[Laird]

Perhaps ~50% of the US population cannot post on PQ?

38% and falling.

Perhaps ~50% of the US population cannot post on PQ?

And do we need to figure out the political positions of people we want to interview?

What if we interview them today and a month later their positions are no longer inline with the rules?

38% and falling.

Almost the entire US political establishment (Dem and Repub) is Zionist. (The UK political establishment is barely any better.) If an American simply "supports the Democratic Party" or "supports the Republican Party," is that person not allowed on PQ?

There's quite a bit of ambiguity in interpreting these sorts of polls and results change dramatically for trivial reasons. Trump's approval rating was at 37% in July and up to 41% in October, and has been as high as 47% in this term. So I stand by the "Perhaps ~50%" claim.

[Laird]

And do we need to figure out the political positions of people we want to interview?

We should at least make a basic effort to determine whether it's known that they perpetrate or support any serious harms.

What if we interview them today and a month later their positions are no longer inline with the rules?

We'd do what we're already provisionally doing with all existing interviews: leave them up, pending reconsideration.

[Laird]

Almost the entire US political establishment (Dem and Repub) is Zionist. (The UK political establishment is barely any better.) If an American simply "supports the Democratic Party" or "supports the Republican Party," is that person not allowed on PQ?

No, unless they're explicitly Zionist themselves.

It's a two-party system. For now, there aren't any other viable options. There are, for example, plenty of US progressives who support the Democrats given the lack of other viable options, but who oppose Zionism and those representatives who take AIPAC money, and wish for the party to be reformed in this respect.

There's quite a bit of ambiguity in interpreting these sorts of polls

Well, let's not quibble over the exact number in any case. It doesn't change anything.

We should at least make a basic effort to determine whether it's known that they perpetrate or support any serious harms.

We'd do what we're already provisionally doing with all existing interviews: leave them up, pending reconsideration.

But if they were simply a member of the American Republican Party?

It just seems like the opening post leaves very little room for allowing people of differing political views, and suggests that future changes to moderation policy could come at any time.

I can't help but recall this kind of shift in policy was when many left Skeptiko to come here.

[Laird]

But if they were simply a member of the American Republican Party?

Not all Republicans support fascism. Plenty of them are actively opposed to it.

It just seems like the opening post leaves very little room for allowing people of differing political views

My earlier comments apply re ordinary political opinions (trickle-down economics, etc).

and suggests that future changes to moderation policy could come at any time.

Change is always possible in almost any situation. Right now no further changes are planned though.

I can't help but recall this kind of shift in policy was when many left Skeptiko to come here.

It's of a kind only in the sense that it's a new top-down exercise of moderation. It's different in that that new exercise of moderation at Skeptiko was capricious and unprincipled.

I gave the other remaining founders the option of having me leave and them take over the running of the board if they were in serious opposition to this new policy. They declined. We're all aware of the risk.