Site organisation and "view posts" lists

[Laird]

I thought the distinction between what got hidden or not was based on whether the discussion was "heavily sociopolitical" rather than scientific.

Not "the discussion" but "the topic", and not "rather than" but "as well as". I would have thought it to be a matter of fact that threads on the topic of vaccination "are or easily become sociopolitically-related or sociopolitically controversial"? These are the criteria in Ian's as-yet unopposed guidelines.

Cold fusion and Intelligent Design are okay, vaccines are not?

Intelligent Design fits perfectly under the criteria stipulated in the guidelines:

"b) Threads about science topics that relate indirectly to psi, spirituality and metaphysics (cosmology, evolution, possibly others) can and should go into the Alternative Views on Science subforum. (E.g. threads about intelligent design.)"

The old cold fusion thread in "Alternative Views on Science" was started before these guidelines were written. Strictly, by the guidelines, it belongs in "Other Topics": "c) Threads about non-psi-related science topics that are not heavily sociopolitically-related or sociopolitically controversial can and should go into Other Topics. (E.g. cold fusion.)".

I find that I cannot guess as to which subjects are on the naughty list.

I'm not sure why. It's spelt out pretty explicitly in the guidelines.

Would it be possible for you guys to share the list with us? That seems like the easiest solution.

There is no list - and I think you understand that it would be nigh on impossible to create a comprehensive one. If you have an issue with the guidelines or their interpretation, I would encourage you to explain what it is and how you would like it remedied.

Please don't forget that, like any other member of the forum, you have an open invitation to join the hidden forums and continue your vaccination discussion there.

Fair enough. I think you're happy though that discussion of HIV/AIDS has been moved into the hidden "Non-Psi-Related Scientific Controversies" forum?

In any case, I'll keep in mind this feature request of yours and if motivation allows will see if I can hack it into the MyBB core/plugin code. And of course if anybody else wants to do that in the meantime, then please go ahead.

HIV/AIDS denialism was a special case for me, because I think that trying to persuade people with a life-threatening condition not to take effective medication is beyond the pale. I class it with the advocacy of paedophile activity and Holocaust denial. (Actually, I'd have preferred it not to be on the site at all, but obviously other people feel differently.)

I don't think the suggestion about new posts is relevant if conspiracy theories are going to be in the hidden part of the site. I just thought I'd make it clear I hadn't actually been asking for the vaccine discussion to be moved, considering that after the HIV/AIDS discussion I was accused of having said all sorts of things that I hadn't.

Not "the discussion" but "the topic", and not "rather than" but "as well as". I would have thought it to be a matter of fact that threads on the topic of vaccination "are or easily become sociopolitically-related or sociopolitically controversial"? These are the criteria in Ian's as-yet unopposed guidelines.

I didn't think so. And apparently neither did the thread starter or the other participants in the thread who aren't members of the hidden forum. It hadn't become sociopolitically controversial when you decided to step in. It was almost exclusively a science-based discussion to that point. I thought we were following those guidelines, so was surprised to discover that you did not think so.

Pretty much any topic can become sociopolitically controversial and heated in theory and in practice - psi, cold fusion, evolution, cosmology, etc. The difference between what gets your label or not seems to be which topics historically became so on the Skeptiko forum, and which topics the management or their friends aren't in favor of.

Intelligent Design fits perfectly under the criteria stipulated in the guidelines:

"b) Threads about science topics that relate indirectly to psi, spirituality and metaphysics (cosmology, evolution, possibly others) can and should go into the Alternative Views on Science subforum. (E.g. threads about intelligent design.)"

The old cold fusion thread in "Alternative Views on Science" was started before these guidelines were written. Strictly, by the guidelines, it belongs in "Other Topics": "c) Threads about non-psi-related science topics that are not heavily sociopolitically-related or sociopolitically controversial can and should go into Other Topics. (E.g. cold fusion.)".

Again, Intelligent Design and cold fusion only seem to fit because they were given as specific examples. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to guess beforehand what was meant by those descriptions, and I can't tell what makes them different. They both are potentially sociopolitically controversial.

I'm not sure why. It's spelt out pretty explicitly in the guidelines.

You may think so, but I think this is only because you know what you have in mind. To those of us who are not in on the secret, it's confusing.

There is no list - and I think you understand that it would be nigh on impossible to create a comprehensive one. If you have an issue with the guidelines or their interpretation, I would encourage you to explain what it is and how you would like it remedied.

I think that the way it was interpreted by the vaccine-thread starter, and by those of us participating in the thread, is reasonable. That is, if there is no historical precedent for it becoming a thread that eats the forum (like 911 or global warming), if it's a science topic rather than a sociopolitical topic (vaccines vs. Pizzagate), and conspiracy theories are kept out of the thread ("influenza vaccination is a eugenics program"), I don't see the problem. This keeps it from becoming sociopolitically controversial, while still allowing for interesting (and relevant) discussion. I say "relevant" because understanding the scientific process is also applicable to discussions of psi. 

Please don't forget that, like any other member of the forum, you have an open invitation to join the hidden forums and continue your vaccination discussion there.

But the point is that those of us who aren't in the hidden forum, but were participating in the thread, prefer science-like discussions, not CT discussions where throwing out insults and accusations ("you're an idiot" or "are you a Pharma shill?") counts as "schooling" your opponent.

Linda

But the point is that those of us who aren't in the hidden forum, but were participating in the thread, prefer science-like discussions, not those discussions where throwing out insults and accusations ("you're an idiot" or "are you a Pharma shill?") counts as "schooling" your opponent.

Credit where it's due Linda.

I thought you'd be quite happy with the thread being moved. I was wrong. 

I'm also sorry if my suggestion has created an opportunity for people to try to make trouble for the moderators.

[Laird]

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).

That is, if there is no historical precedent for it becoming a thread that eats the forum (like 911 or global warming), if it's a science topic rather than a sociopolitical topic (vaccines vs. Pizzagate), and conspiracy theories are kept out of the thread ("influenza vaccination is a eugenics program"), I don't see the problem.

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'd be interested in the opinions of others on this too. This forum is not a dictatorship, and (these) guidelines are open to revision via discussion and consensus.

[Laird]

HIV/AIDS denialism was a special case for me, because I think that trying to persuade people with a life-threatening condition not to take effective medication is beyond the pale. I class it with the advocacy of paedophile activity and Holocaust denial. (Actually, I'd have preferred it not to be on the site at all, but obviously other people feel differently.)

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.

I don't think the suggestion about new posts is relevant if conspiracy theories are going to be in the hidden part of the site. I just thought I'd make it clear I hadn't actually been asking for the vaccine discussion to be moved, considering that after the HIV/AIDS discussion I was accused of having said all sorts of things that I hadn't.

Understood.

Credit where it's due Linda.

I thought you'd be quite happy with the thread being moved. I was wrong. 

If I didn't like the thread or where it was positioned, I wouldn't have participated in it.

Although, apparently, rather than simply ignoring stuff I'm not interested in, I'm supposed to make a fuss about it and stir up trouble for the moderators.

Linda

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.

That's a fair point, and I'm sure it could be argued that in principle this is similar to HIV/AIDS denialism. However, although I don't know much about the anti-vaccine arguments, my impression is that they have a lot to do with concern over possible side-effects. Such concerns seem less intrinsically unreasonable to me than actually denying that HIV is responsible for AIDS. And of course, in practical terms, HIV/AIDS denialism is believed to have cost huge numbers of lives in Africa.

I'm also sorry if my suggestion has created an opportunity for people to try to make trouble for the moderators.

Or to try to wind up other members of the forum.