Does the politics forum encourage hostility.

P. Breathnach

It seems that discussion of what one might want of a politics forum also engenders hostility.

MungBean

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It seems that discussion of what one might want of a politics forum also engenders hostility.

Like I said before theres hostility attached to every discussion but you'll notice that the mods here keep it from getting personal though (for the most part). In the politics forum thats not possible as it is now where its pretty easy to get personal by attacking a view/ideology or party support as a means of attacking posters within the rules.

Whether thats changeable or not though I dont know given the nature of politics as pointed out. I'd say it would be by discouraging attacking a support base to invalidate a party policy and encouraging discussion on the policy itself instead. But others disagree that it would be possible, some disagree that theres an issue at all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dashboard_hula

MungBean wrote: »

I'm just saying perhaps the atmosphere in the politics forum isn't very welcoming of people who haven't got their beliefs set in stone, have a thick skin and are primarily interested in attacking others or protecting their own ideological views.

I tick all of those boxes (screeching ideological shift around the age of 26, can take paint off the walls when criticised), and I'm not seeing this atmosphere you state is prevalent in Politics. I root around those forums daily and have a very high lurk to post ratio. I have never felt hostility or negative pressure to prove my points. I have, I admit, been put off discussions because of the very high standard of discourse in the forum and the reluctance to been seen to be thick or ill-informed, but that's my own lookout, and I'm sure I'll get over it.

Political discussion is difficult to keep calm, reasonable and dignified even in the most neutral and comfortable of environments (sorry Dad), so how can it be reasonably accomplished on an internet forum without moderation standards so strict it cuts off the flow altogether?

And what's wrong with "attacking" (although I think that words a little strong) a particular ideology or party viewpoint? If Party X makes Proposal Y and the proposal is a direct result of which way they swing, then if you're going to disagree with the idea, don't you also by definition disagree with the basis for it? And shouldn't you be allowed to do that?

LoLth

So, to get back to the original issue posted and hopefully avoid the personalisation of the discussion (hint)

Would it be fair to say that Mungbean, you perceive an unusual level of hostility, aggression and "attacks" in the politics forum and you believe that this level of hostility is not covered by the charter because the level accepted is too high in your opinion? Which means that, even though the mods are enforcing the charter, its a case of too little too late because the damage is done long before action is deemed to be required?
(sort of like the law where it is illegal to commit suicide but not to attempt to commit suicide)

One argument here is that, this is your perception of whats allowable and whats not. Other users might have a higher tolerance for argumentative language and not feel that it is inappropriate. Some might even say that whenever anyone argues an ideal or an ideological issue there is going to be some very argumentative language used and to cut out that language completely would mean killing all hope of constructive discussion (is that not a complaint we see regularly of the Religion category? that you cannot discuss because you cannot disagree or use arguemtnative language/tone in posts dealing with core tenets or beliefs of the forum being posted on, is this not similar to the Soccer forums rule on the superthreads?)


SF most likely do have some economically illiterate supporters as do FF (I think thats been proven!) and FG and any political party. I would also venture that many political Parties also have actual illiterate supporters, that doesnt mean the party cant issue a written document or read an oppositions written proposals. Attacking the support base is not a valid criticism of a political party imho and the party should be criticised on its political actions and intentions instead. For example, I dont disagree with the BNP because it has nationalist extremist supporters, I disagree with the BNP because they have nationalist extremist policies as demonstrated historically and in their current literature and proposals. Whether or not it is allowed in the politics forum, I would appreciate if users could restrict your political arguments to the appropriate forum and not drag them across to feedback. (ie: Feedback is not the place to post criticisms of SF or any other political party for that matter, what is under discussion here is the manner in which political discussions are held).

Dr Galen

Mungbean probably won't be replying, well not using that username anyway as it seems he has been banned...

MungBean

LoLth wrote: »

So, to get back to the original issue posted and hopefully avoid the personalisation of the discussion (hint)

Would it be fair to say that Mungbean, you perceive an unusual level of hostility, aggression and "attacks" in the politics forum and you believe that this level of hostility is not covered by the charter because the level accepted is too high in your opinion? Which means that, even though the mods are enforcing the charter, its a case of too little too late because the damage is done long before action is deemed to be required?
(sort of like the law where it is illegal to commit suicide but not to attempt to commit suicide)

That would be a fair summary yes. Someone can post something that can be an insult or provocative statement designed to illicit a response and to mock or attack posters by directing it at a party support base or the party. Its not a breach of the rules, the mods will step in after it spirals out of control to try and calm the situation. But there would be no situation if the discussion was limited to the topic raised and not allowed to be turned into handbags by people who only have enough interest in the issue to inform everyone how much contempt they have for the people voicing it.

One argument here is that, this is your perception of whats allowable and whats not. Other users might have a higher tolerance for argumentative language and not feel that it is inappropriate. Some might even say that whenever anyone argues an ideal or an ideological issue there is going to be some very argumentative language used and to cut out that language completely would mean killing all hope of constructive discussion (is that not a complaint we see regularly of the Religion category? that you cannot discuss because you cannot disagree or use arguemtnative language/tone in posts dealing with core tenets or beliefs of the forum being posted on, is this not similar to the Soccer forums rule on the superthreads?)

I understand the argument but I dont think it would kill constructive discussion I think it would kill/lessen the hostility of the argument and push people to be more constructive and less insulting in their responses. Personally I dont think its about having arguments as such or shouting down your opponent, its about discussing the subject matter. Of course people will always disagree and some arguments will get heated. But I think that less tolerance to arguing for the sake of it or discounting the argument without discussion based on your view of who's saying it or who supports them.

In regards to other forums its easy to say that it may well be the other end of the spectrum with some people concerned over their ability to express themselves in discussions but there's no denying that if it was the opposite in Religion or Soccer those forums would not be of the level they are now. I have posted in the Rugby forum quite a bit (hope its enough to comment nodin) and its similar to the Soccer forum but a bit more tolerant. There is still no tolerance of attacking people through what they believe personally. And discussion are mostly constructive discussions on the topics at hand. You get the odd person bringing up munster/leinster divides and accusations of bias but they are not tolerated and because of that the discussion is on rugby itself, the games, the tactics, the players and never about the validity of the fans views.

Now I'm not saying Politics is Rugby and that Political discussion should be void of any questioning of the core beliefs or ideologies of posters/supporters but in the interest of actually keeping the discussion constructive would it not be better to limit the discussion of the support base or ideologies to threads created to examine those things and allow threads created to examine policies examine and discuss the policy.

MungBean

Dr Galen wrote: »

Mungbean probably won't be replying, well not using that username anyway as it seems he has been banned...

A little misunderstanding.


Or perhaps an orchestrated attempt to silence me ?

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Or perhaps an orchestrated attempt to silence me ?

Criticising Politics is problematic, we've got friends in high places.

Dr Galen

MungBean wrote: »

A little misunderstanding.


Or perhaps an orchestrated attempt to silence me ?

The Manchurian MungBean perhaps?

:pac:

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

Just writing it off without some sort of back up or links is a bit ignorant tbh. Even link to a previous thread or something. The problem is has a high chance of creating noise and not any type of quality.

Yeah, but whats doing more to harm decent political debate?

People popping up to claim immigrants get free cars for the nth time or treating those views with the contempt they deserve? Not all views were created equal and they dont all deserve equal respect. That "immigrants getting free cars" or "my mate heard that so-and-so gets a free such-and-such" are considered below contempt - to the point where thread locks and user infractions are written into the charter for even voicing them.

Some views havent yet been considered *that* awful, but that in itself doesnt mean theyre considered valid, reasonable or correct. Its up to the person voicing that view to defend them against whatever criticism is launched against them. Lazy, poorly argued criticism is easily handled by an equally dismissive point.

On the other hand - I would say the Politics "theme" on posting style is variable. As Mungbean has noted, some posts get roughly handled, with responses that arent always polite, friendly and informative in tone. Most days, "tone" of posting isnt a concern - you're expected to roll with the punches (as Mungbean has been advised so far). Every now and then "tone" suddenly becomes a problem. This might be seen as flexiability, or indecision. Were Mungbean to shrug, get on with it and roll with the punches, he might find the response a little chaotic.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, but whats doing more to harm decent political debate?

People popping up to claim immigrants get free cars for the nth time or treating those views with the contempt they deserve? Not all views were created equal and they dont all deserve equal respect. That "immigrants getting free cars" or "my mate heard that so-and-so gets a free such-and-such" are considered below contempt - to the point where thread locks and user infractions are written into the charter for even voicing them.

Some views havent yet been considered *that* awful, but that in itself doesnt mean theyre considered valid, reasonable or correct. Its up to the person voicing that view to defend them against whatever criticism is launched against them. Lazy, poorly argued criticism is easily handled by an equally dismissive point.

On the other hand - I would say the Politics "theme" on posting style is variable. As Mungbean has noted, some posts get roughly handled, with responses that arent always polite, friendly and informative in tone. Most days, "tone" of posting isnt a concern - you're expected to roll with the punches (as Mungbean has been advised so far). Every now and then "tone" suddenly becomes a problem. This might be seen as flexiability, or indecision. Were Mungbean to shrug, get on with it and roll with the punches, he might find the response a little chaotic.

There is a clause in the charter addressed at hearsay and "some man in the pub told me" posts, similarly with the Dublin Convention and "why don't they claim in the first country" type posts. If somebody is repeatedly posting false information when links have been provided, it can and has been acted on.

There's a line between acceptable abuse and banter and just downright ignorant and pettiness. I'd expect a certain amount of banter, no problem, its part of politics and if taken in the right way creates a conducive environment for debate. The other side is a couple of posters I wouldn't really entertain a debate with, not because they don't have good points, just half their posts are made up of personal insults and off topic stuff on a consistent basis and it gets boring after a while.

MungBean

Even rolling with the punches is tough and at times it seems the best thing to do is avoid a thread altogether.

I dont want to single any posters out but I'd like to just show a thread if thats ok and just ask people to have a look at it and see what you think of it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056446675

First off is the OP a valid political topic ? To me it isnt, its about insulting a person. Name calling, accusation and just throwing digs at a person and their party for no other reason than to throw insults.

Secondly you can see the reaction it gets, more name calling and petty attacks. Actual discussion drown out with "petty nonsense" (to quote the mod).

Even after two mod posts trying to keep it in hand it still continues. I'm not saying the mods did anything wrong, in fact they were aware of it and posted asking to quit the crap but it persisted.

Why ? Because the tone was set from the outset by allowing the OP and the people who posted in line with that didnt do anything wrong it seems. Its accepted, a mod may try to keep order but he really cant if the posters know that their posts are valid and post in line with whats generally accepted in the forum.

I'd agree with Sand that not all views will be treated equally but theres unfriendly or blunt rebuttals and then there's outright hostility and contempt for the sake of hostility and contempt. Popping into a thread to tell everyone you think such and such is an idiot or just to make a show of how much you dislike a person, party or peoples views to me isnt political discussion.

But there's little that can be done but shrug and attempt to roll with the punches. Hard to know whether your rolling with the punches though or taking bait most of the time.

southsiderosie

Actually I think the Politics forum on Boards is relatively civil compared to other political sites, especially considering that comments are not pre-moderated.