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

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.

Alex seemed to believe he was taking principled stands. It's one of the reasons I feel no ill-will towards him despite my being banned.

I would offer the founders something of a counter-proposal, or rather an amendment:

1. Delete the Opt-In Forums.

2. Anyone who made posts - as they were invited to do - in those forums that did not violate prior rules should not be under threat of banning.

3. Our policies should be made clear to anyone joining. I myself would like some clarity on this because it seems right now that we would ban any Trump supporter should they reveal themselves? Anyone who takes the side of, say, Russian or Israel in current conflicts?

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


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


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


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.

It seems to me the difficulty here is your attempt to argue that Trumpism somehow isn't in the scope of "ordinary political opinion." I don't see how that's a rationally sustainable claim. The effort is to create the appearance of a reasonable policy by suggesting you aren't ruling out normal opinions--but you're doing this while maintaining that supporting the most salient and potentially most popular living politician (certainly among the most popular living politicians) isn't allowed. It comes off as bizarre and somewhat unhinged. It's a bit like opening a forum for the discussion of pies and then banning everyone who indicates a liking of apple pie.

I realize you think that there's a great deal of moral urgency in opposing Trump. But it seems to me a stronger case for opposition to other (more mainstream) politicians could be made or could've been made in the past, and yet, there still wouldn't be, or there wouldn't have been, a sufficient basis for arguing that supporting these politicians places one in an extreme (non-normal) political camp. For instance, George Bush and Dick Cheney are, as far as I know inarguably, responsible for more atrocities than Trump, insofar as they lied outright to start a war resulting in ~200,000 violent civilian deaths, and possibly more than one million deaths overall. Unfortunately this sort of thing is not too far from "business as usual" for the United States. But I'm yet to see anyone maintain that support for Bush or Cheney is so outside the realm of acceptable political opinion that supporters of either should be banned from discussions.

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

I find myself very close to the position of Sci.

At the founding of this Psience Quest venture, we had much more community involvement in its running. Notwithstanding the large amount of time and energy put in by Laird in the running of this site, I'd like to see it continue to have a community focus, at least as input into how it should be run and our direction.

I think I already said elsewhere that closing or locking the hidden forums would be a preferred option for me.

[Laird]

1. Delete the Opt-In Forums.

So far, there seems to be support for and no opposition to that anyway (closing them to new posts at least, that is, not necessarily outright deleting them, but you can clarify if you really mean and prefer the latter).

Reordering:

3. Our policies should be made clear to anyone joining. I myself would like some clarity on this because it seems right now that we would ban any Trump supporter should they reveal themselves? Anyone who takes the side of, say, Russian or Israel in current conflicts?

Anybody who supports the fascist agenda of the current US administration (which is inextricable from supporting that administration in general), Russia's unprovoked warmongering against Ukraine (which includes war crimes), and/or the Zionist project of violent dispossession, occupation, oppression, and genocide of Palestinians will be banned upon that support becoming known, which is incompatible with #2 below (reordered)...

2. Anyone who made posts - as they were invited to do - in those forums that did not violate prior rules should not be under threat of banning.

...because those people have already made known that they support one or more of those things.

[Laird]

@InterestedinPsi,

George Bush and Dick Cheney are/were war criminals responsible for brutal, unconscionable wars of aggression for which they should be / should have been prosecuted and jailed for life. Support for them in that context is support for serious harm in the context of this policy.

In that sense, they are no different in effect in terms of this policy than the current president.

Policy aside, in a qualitative sense the difference between them and Donald Trump (second administration) is that domestically they at least respected democratic institutions and the democratic transfer of power, and governed to some extent with the welfare of their citizens at heart. In other words, domestically, their administration had redeeming features that this one categorically does not.

Fascism is not new. We know how it goes. I don't need to point out the incredible harm that would ensue if the world's superpower descends into fascism.

As I wrote in the opt-in forums, I think the US institutions (and citizenry) will withstand the assault. That doesn't justify supporting it anyway. Deep, long-lasting damage will have been done even if democracy holds.

Regarding responsibility for atrocities, numerical comparisons like this are tawdry, gross, and beside the point, but I want to point out anyway that your claim is arguable, and the administration hasn't even finished its first year:

The dismantling of USAID, according to models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols, “has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children,” Gawande wrote. He noted that the toll will continue to grow and may go unseen because it can take months or years for people to die from lack of treatments or vaccine-preventable illnesses—and because deaths are scattered.

“We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed ‘public man-made death,’” Gawande wrote.

It's also worth pointing out that the current US president is not potentially the most popular living politician - not even in the USA.

Anyway, please let's drop the politics in discussing this policy going forward, to the extent that we can. Strictly, it belongs in the opt-in forums, at least while they remain open.

[Laird]

At the founding of this Psience Quest venture, we had much more community involvement in its running. Notwithstanding the large amount of time and energy put in by Laird in the running of this site, I'd like to see it continue to have a community focus, at least as input into how it should be run and our direction.

I very much from the start have supported community participation in decision-making, and have tried hard to act in accordance with that spirit, as I hope folk recognise. My role at the start was not so prominent given that I was only one of ten founders, albeit mostly responsible for hosting and software. It has only become more prominent over time as all but two others of them have left, and the remaining other two have become relatively disinterested and inactive, with nobody else stepping up (@Sci, admittedly, has put in a lot of work, and has just offered to take on a moderation role).

Nevertheless, the principle of excluding those who perpetrate or support serious harms is more important to me than the principle of participatory decision-making.

If that is unacceptable to the community, then alternative possibilities can be floated.

Hi, please delete my account ASAP. Thank you.

Can't see a way to self-delete. Please delete my account.

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.

Having political views you may not like should not be compared to a "crime" ~ that just feels a bit far. As I perceive it, people type words and post them ~ but that doesn't mean they've actively involved or participating in the system you oppose. There are so many on the internet that have opinions they share ~ and then do nothing more. I don't do anything, because I feel not only powerless, but because it just isn't for me. It's emotionally-draining, more and more, over time. I drift more and more from the toxicity of political discussion. (My spirit guides do ask me often enough if there's even a point to it, as I'm never happy afterwards, irrespective of how the political conversation goes.)

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.

And this is precisely why I perceive politics as toxic and invasive ~ it poisons every discussion I have seen online, and it causes nothing but needless conflict, and divides those that would otherwise agree, if not for the madness of politics.

The discussion of psychic phenomena should, in my opinion, wisely steer clear of politics altogether, as it is doing what I fear and despise ~ causing needless conflict, and dividing people, simply because they have different political views. This forum is better off just banning discussion of politics altogether ~ of Left or Right. But I can dare say we will find more agreement if the focus is instead on liberty vs authoritarianism ~ but even that can become toxic and awful...

The world is not black and white ~ it isn't divided into pro-Trump and anti-Trump. Politics is always messy and complicated, and it's rare in the real world that you will ever see people genuinely agreeing on the exact same set of political ideas. Many like Trump for some things, and dislike him for others ~ I frankly think you will find few that either hate or like him 100% in either direction.

Trump is oddly unique, if simply because he sparks such a strangely fervent outrage, in both directions ~ and that's why it is better to just silence such discussion before it begins, so people can remain in harmonious discussion of this forum's main goal: discussion of psychic phenomena, of which I find far, far more interesting.

Politics is toxic, tiring, demotivating, while discussion of psychic and paranormal phenomena is enlivening, thought-provoking and endlessly fascinating.

Can we just return to our roots, and wipe the slate clean? Innocent before proven guilty, as it were.

@Laird, with the above two comments please try and recognize the damage of such a sudden and confusing rule ~ even those who don't have the beliefs you don't like may find the rule discomforting enough to want nothing to do with the forum anymore.

It gives the, perhaps unwitting, impression that anyone can be targeted in future ~ for, essentially, thought crimes. Another reason I want less and less to do with politics.