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

It's a weird situation we find ourselves in. Really political threads should never have been a thing on this website to begin with, obscure scientific topics and politics are never a good combination. Considering that if you make political threads, controversial opinions will be voiced, I would much prefer people get hit with some warnings, the threads get nuked and that be the end of it rather than removing people from the site entirely.

It does seem a tad unfair that even those of us who've financially contributed to keeping this site up have so little say regarding what seems to be something which has decisive ramifications.

It will be sad to see the active membership effectively reduced to the point it's unclear if there's a way to keep the forums going.

Even trying to recruit new members seems to enter into uncertainty as the new rule seems to be rather arbitrary. Today it seems it is okay to say you eat meat, but tomorrow this may no longer be the case?

Even trying to recruit new members seems to enter into uncertainty as the new rule seems to be rather arbitrary. Today it seems it is okay to say you eat meat, but tomorrow this may no longer be the case?

Indeed... language such as "serious harms", "systematically oppressive ideology" is rather vague on scope.

Even more concerning is the broad scope of "support" including "written or verbal expressions, whether publicly or privately, and whether on this board or elsewhere" is alarming. That has no scope at all, which further highlights the problem of thought crimes.

Language of "reformation" has an odd ring... of "reeducation" to it, I cannot help but see a parallel to...

And then...

Caveat: Deliberately excluded here - even though it is abhorrent - is support in the form of beneficial trade for the systematic oppression of animals in farming, entertainment, sport, tourism, and medicine, etc, only because almost all of our current members would be excluded if that form of support was included.

The fact that this is considered at all a "serious harm" and "systematically oppressive" behaviour, on par with the above, along with having a similarly vague scope is just as alarming.

It implies with its vagueness of scope that family farms are "systematically oppressive", simply because they are farming animals, to say nothing of how kindly or not the farmers treat their animals.

Animals in entertainment need not be oppressive either ~ think something like Steve Irwin or channels of animal welfare organizations who upload videos of their charges, not primarily for the sake of money, but raising awareness. Some of those animals look pretty damn happy. Goofy and silly even, which suggests that they are well-cared for.

Normally we seem to run with hardly any work for the moderator (correct me if I am wrong).

I wonder if we could run without a moderator as such, but with some rule that if 10 (say) established members felt action needed taking this would be put to a vote of all members. This would only work if no off-topic discussion were permitted.

I would also like to make a plea that no more members resign right now over this issue. I am one of those who may get banned here, and I really do not people to leave this forum on my behalf.

I tried to contact Enrique Vargas via old Skeptiko forum - seems it is still working, even if nobody is there!

I used a private conversation. Enrique is still registered as a member there, so he may get a notification. No guarantees, of course.

I asked him if he may return if situation here changes - say, "Rule #10" is no longer active...

Unfortunately, Max_B is not on Skeptiko, so no way to contact him there...

In any case, I'll respond substantively again, but if you continue to be hostile and unreasonable, then this will be my last.


We don't have to. It's not in dispute that all three have committed serious harms. The question of whose are worse is incidental and not relevant to the policy. [Edit: incidentally, I'm not even claiming what you say I'm claiming. The tangible harm done to mankind by Bush and Cheney especially in terms of lives lost and societies destroyed almost certainly is greater than that done so far by Trump. My point was a different one. I tried made it clear to you, but you seem to have missed it anyway.]


It's apparently not so idiosyncratic that you disagree with me, because you essentially agree ("More arguable than I realized, conceded").

I've responded to the rest in the opt-in forums given its political nature.

And evidently you cannot understand why your concessions re: Bush and Cheney entail unavoidably that your policy is stupid, arbitrary (given that you've both stated that it would be permissible for someone to express support for Bush and Cheney here, unlike Trump, and conceded that Bush and Cheney have done more harm; oh but my apologies, we're supposed to not only take for granted that things that aren't certain facts are so because Laird says as much, we're also supposed to accept Laird's prognostications of imagined future events as definitely accurate and add those into our harm calculus too!), and, most importantly of all, unreasonable.

I have no access to the private forum that you've conveniently moved this discussion into, nor will I continue the discussion there because you've moved it without justification. You can only act as if the move is justified because, rather ironically, you so badly fail to understand what I've written. I've carefully avoided arguing the political points as such, hence, among other things, I did not argue that Trump is (or isn't) a fascist, I did not argue that Trump was (or wasn't) involved in Epstein's sex crimes. Rather, I argued for the absurdity of your policy given how strongly contested such claims are, which is why they aren't acknowledged as simple facts in authoritative reference sources (which are to be distinguished from point-of-view-pushing journalism and news sites, for example), and yet you expect everyone else to take them as factual or effectively factual anyway. The interpretation and enforcement of the policy is fundamentally a matter of Laird's personal opinion and politics and the content of the point-of-view-pushing sources that Laird happens to favor at any given moment.

It's richly ironic that you complain of Trump's narcissism when your whole hysterical moralistic preening fit here is one massive exercise in stubborn, inflexible narcissism that leaves you completely deaf to what everyone around you is saying. Even more ironic is that it's exactly the kind of shrill censorious behavior that you've decided to ruin this forum with that makes people at large so despise those in your political camp and seriously incline to vote for the likes of Trump.

This will be my last post on this sorry website. I hope you feel good about sending your years of work on this place up in flames so you could feel like an ever-so-moral sanctimonious prig for a day or two.

And evidently you cannot understand why your concessions re: Bush and Cheney entail unavoidably that your policy is stupid, arbitrary (given that you've both stated that it would be permissible for someone to express support for Bush and Cheney here, unlike Trump, and conceded that Bush and Cheney have done more harm), and, most importantly of all, unreasonable.

I have no access to the private forum that you've conveniently moved this discussion into, nor will I continue the discussion there because you've moved it without justification. You can only act as if the move is justified because, rather ironically, you so badly fail to understand what I've written. I've carefully avoided arguing the political points as such, hence, among other things, I did not argue that Trump is (or isn't) a fascist, I did not argue that Trump was (or wasn't) involved in Epstein's sex crimes. Rather, I argued for the absurdity of your policy given how strongly contested such claims are, which is why they aren't acknowledged as simple facts in authoritative reference sources (which are to be distinguished from point-of-view-pushing journalism and news sites, for example), and yet you expect everyone else to take them as factual or effectively factual anyway. The interpretation and enforcement of the policy is fundamentally a matter of Laird's personal opinion and politics and the content of the point-of-view-pushing sources that Laird happens to favor at any given moment.

It's richly ironic that you complain of Trump's narcissism when your whole hysterical moralistic preening fit here is one massive exercise in stubborn, inflexible narcissism that leaves you completely deaf to what everyone around you is saying. Even more ironic is that it's exactly the kind of shrill censorious behavior that you've decided to ruin this forum with that makes people at large so despise those in your political camp and seriously incline to vote for the likes of Trump.

This will be my last post on this sorry website. I hope you feel good about sending your years of work on this place up in flames so you could feel like an ever-so-moral sanctimonious prig for a day or two.

Please do not leave the forum! If we are not careful we will ruin the forum utterly if people go on leaving the forum over this issue.

I am glad that a lot of people see the complexities of this issue, but if people keep on leaving, it reminds me of the last scene in "The life of Brian". A march of troops came in to try to save Brian on the cross, and then all committed suicide!

David

Enrique Vargas replied! Said he can return, if things change for the better here. Good we both are still registered on Skeptiko forum.

To be honest, I am not sure I'd feel comfortable posting in a forum where vague and subjective standards are enforced on a whim.

You never know when you will cross that invisible line, when you will become a target of ire.

Moderators are supposed to keep the peace ~ not enforce their personal views.

Just ban politics instead of the users. Some of those accusations don't even have meaning supporting evidence, as it is...

I agree with you, but please do not leave the forum - just bide your time in the hopes that things get sorted out.

David

[Ninshub]

I open that option up to the community as a whole. If the community rejects this policy but wishes the forums to continue, then it's welcome to nominate somebody to take over the hosting and software maintenance, and I'll help to migrate it, and then leave you all to it. Of course, you (@Typoz) and @Ninshub as the remaining active founders would have to be part of or at least endorse that collective decision too.

I can at the very least state that if Laird leaves, so do I. (At least as an "owner"-administrator-moderator, more than likely as a contributor too.) That's just how I am feeling about this things at this moment, as much as I have appreciated relating to the members here through all these years. Personal factors in my life and health have made me less able and inclined to continuing to have an active role in this forum - and those factors have had as consequences shifting interests. Psi hasn't disappeared from my interests but is often more in the background these days. Maybe that will change eventually.

I have a disagreement with Laird as to Valmar being included in the list of bans, as I don't think he shares the same history of socio-political statements that go beyond the pale, and I have enjoyed exchanging him a lot when I have. But my first priority has to go to Laird's tolerance and comfort in feeling able to continue. To Valmar: I'm sorry about that. I would hope Laird and you can get something fixed there. I'm open to being part of that conversation if need be.

From this point on, as Laird knows, I will be away for 48 hours and not able to respond or even likely visit the site. So decisions on this matter can potentially wait until then, hopefully.

To @InterestedinPsi and everyone else that considers leaving this forum:
Please don't leave the forum permanently before this whole issue has been resolved. I understand that you do not want to continue as members if this new policy are implemented but it are not clear whether it will be or not. Perhaps it will be decided that Laird will leave instead. I think we should all wait with leaving the forum until we have all reached an decision together about the forums future.