Discussion in 'Community' started by Outsourced, Feb 4, 2018.
I’m gonna go with “not everything.”
OK so moderating the Senate for 3 years, as well as being the person responsible for having it reintegrated to the JC (in spite of opposition the then-current mods, and in spite of support from Wocky), gives me really good insights as to why I say no to making it more exclusive on the basis of populist ignorance. What're you basing your position on?
My experience in the US politics thread has shown me that some arguments cannot be resolved if there is no basis of fact. I personally don’t care whether or not the arguments get resolved at all. I enjoy seeing how people think and process the news. But! A lot of time is wasted squabbling about what is and isn’t true.
If we tried this, on a temporary scale, maybe it would streamline the thread and promote discussion. I don’t really know, I’m pretty inexperienced here. I do think it is worth a shot though.
just start a restricted thread
Don't know if this has been posted anywhere else here, but here you go: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis
Believe it or not, I am a certified pilot.
@Alpha-Red if this were in the US politics thread, some wouldn’t find your source credible
Okay, who's going to make the Agreed upon sources in the Agreed upon sources in the Politics thread thread
Are you around @Diggy?
I was around diggy once. I don't recommend it
I'm not so sure that will happen. See some of the most recent discussion about facts and occurrences that have been recorded and yet are still being interpreted differently by some. If people believe that the Washington Post and The New York Times are "fake news", we won't be able to persuade them otherwise by limiting their sources.
I'm fine with banning blatantly racist/fascist crap like Breitbart and the Daily Caller, but I would be uncomfortable with anything beyond that. Any source can legitimately be called into question-- not for the facts they report, necessarily, but for the perspective they push. For example, would we really expect the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, to be honest about the effects of increasing corporate consolidation in the U.S., labor rights, the ridiculousness of offering massive handouts for Amazon's second headquarters, and the many other important things related to their hands-on owner's business interests? I think not.
So, we can post whatever links we like in the UK, European*, Australian, Asian and Middle East politic threads - but not the US one?
*Can a certain someone, who will not be named, maintain his perving over fascist French politicians?
Yeah, damn, Guy gets an Americentrism +1!
Everyone knows the only valid source is the Good Book.
Uh, this thread is about the U.S. Politics thread. The discussion about sources started there, prompted by one bigoted right-winger's views. And besides that it's obviously the most active politics thread by a wide margin.
It is about the mysterious Politics Thread, Guy.
Ok I'll start. No right wing sources are credible.
So, you want an echo chamber?
I was kind of joking to make the point that you really can't do that especially if you want the arguments.
Forgive me, @VadersLaMent