Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby chump » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:26 am

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Exausted Majority

Postby Sounder » Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:59 am

Most people want to and try to get along with everybody. Yet they are at a disadvantage in a world where divisiveness is a highly rewarded commodity. Accusations be flying, usually at the wrong targets.

Personally, I do not mind or fret about most elements of 'PC'. People should be more careful in how they address each other, although it would seem better if the care were internally generated rather than being externally imposed.

It is a positive sign that some left leaning folk are trying to recognize the effects generated and relations produced by (more extreme expressions of) this belief set and that of the general population.

I see the point made in the article where PC is seen as a way for white people to maintain a superior attitude. That is the way I have always seen it at any rate.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ss/572581/

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness, and race isn’t either.
Oct 10, 2018
Yascha Mounk
Lecturer on government at Harvard University
Demonstrator at pro-Trump rally for free speech
A man dressed as Captain America speaks to a demonstrator during the pro-Trump 'Mother of All Rallies'Zach Gibson / AFP / Getty

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.

Read: An optimist’s guide to political correctness

The study was written by More in Common, an organization founded in memory of Jo Cox, the British MP who was murdered in the run-up to the Brexit referendum. It is based on a nationally representative poll with 8,000 respondents, 30 one-hour interviews, and six focus groups conducted from December 2017 to September 2018.
More by Yascha Mounk

James A. Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian, the scholars behind the hoax
What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia
Yascha Mounk
America Is Not a Democracy
Yascha Mounk

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

Most members of the “exhausted majority,” and then some, dislike political correctness. Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. As one 40-year-old American Indian in Oklahoma said in his focus group, according to the report:

It seems like everyday you wake up something has changed … Do you say Jew? Or Jewish? Is it a black guy? African-American? … You are on your toes because you never know what to say. So political correctness in that sense is scary.

The one part of the standard narrative that the data partially affirm is that African Americans are most likely to support political correctness. But the difference between them and other groups is much smaller than generally supposed: Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Political tribe—as defined by the authors—is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

Read: The threat of tribalism

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.

There is, however, plenty of additional support for the idea that the social views of most Americans are not nearly as neatly divided by age or race as is commonly believed. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, only 26 percent of black Americans consider themselves liberal. And in the More in Common study, nearly half of Latinos argued that “many people nowadays are too sensitive to how Muslims are treated,” while two in five African Americans agreed that “immigration nowadays is bad for America.”

In the days before “Hidden Tribes” was published, I ran a little experiment on Twitter, asking my followers to guess what percentage of Americans believe that political correctness is a problem in this country. The results were striking: Nearly all of my followers underestimated the extent to which most Americans reject political correctness. Only 6 percent gave the right answer. (When I asked them how people of color regard political correctness, their guesses were, unsurprisingly, even more wildly off.)

Obviously, my followers on Twitter are not a representative sample of America. But as their largely supportive feelings about political correctness indicate, they are probably a decent approximation for a particular intellectual milieu to which I also belong: politically engaged, highly educated, left-leaning Americans—the kinds of people, in other words, who are in charge of universities, edit the nation’s most important newspapers and magazines, and advise Democratic political candidates on their campaigns.

So the fact that we are so widely off the mark in our perception of how most people feel about political correctness should probably also make us rethink some of our other basic assumptions about the country.

It is obvious that certain elements on the right mock instances in which political correctness goes awry in order to win the license to spew outright racial hatred. And it is understandable that, in the eyes of some progressives, this makes anybody who dares to criticize political correctness a witting tool of—or a useful idiot for—the right. But that’s not fair to the Americans who feel deeply alienated by woke culture. Indeed, while 80 percent of Americans believe that political correctness has become a problem in the country, even more, 82 percent, believe that hate speech is also a problem.

It turns out that while progressive activists tend to think that only hate speech is a problem, and devoted conservatives tend to think that only political correctness is a problem, a clear majority of all Americans holds a more nuanced point of view: They abhor racism. But they don’t think that the way we now practice political correctness represents a promising way to overcome racial injustice.

The study should also make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the affluent and highly educated people who call others out if they use “problematic” terms or perpetrate an act of “cultural appropriation.” But what the vast majority of Americans seem to see—at least according to the research conducted for “Hidden Tribes”—is not so much genuine concern for social justice as the preening display of cultural superiority.

David Frum: Every culture appropriates

For the millions upon millions of Americans of all ages and all races who do not follow politics with rapt attention, and who are much more worried about paying their rent than about debating the prom dress worn by a teenager in Utah, contemporary callout culture merely looks like an excuse to mock the values or ignorance of others. As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don’t term it right you discriminate them. It’s like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don’t know. But if you don’t know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

In a democracy, it is difficult to win fellow citizens over to your own side, or to build public support to remedy injustices that remain all too real, when you fundamentally misunderstand how they see the world.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Elvis » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:31 pm

Anyone trying to reframe another member's legitimate speculations about acts of terror and political crimes as siding with proponents or apologists of rightwing violence can expect to be suspended.


This declaration is based on legitimate member complaints. Enough is enough.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:38 pm

To avoid mistrust of our in-house authoritarians, wouldn't it be best to cite such an example as demonstration of such behavior necessitating this new rule?

Also, if our mods are asleep and miss such an actuality as you've described, wherein one actually is espousing such profoundly offensive views most here would find objectionable, are we to simply alert our mods that such behavior is being engaged in without publicly and politely sharing our condemnation of the offender's views?
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby chump » Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:00 pm

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Elvis » Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:17 pm

Iamwhomiam » Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:38 am wrote:To avoid mistrust of our in-house authoritarians, wouldn't it be best to cite such an example as demonstration of such behavior necessitating this new rule?


First, we mods are authorities, not authoritarians. Do you see the distinction? We're granted authority to maintain a balance of everyone's desire to express themselves with the principle that investigation into deep politics should not be ridiculed, arbitrarily dismissed or suppressed (with the established prohibitions on sympathetically linking hate sites, etc.). Authoritarians simply enforce their own expression (which is not happening).

An example might be if I told you to "shut up and go back to your wanky conspiracy thread" or if I falsely conflated a statement you made with you being a "Hitler fanboy." That doesn't mean everyone has to walk on eggshells, it just means that our retorts need to be honest. Also, there is a cumulative effect; by habitually using these rhetorical smear tactics, a poster may be marking themselves for enforcement.


Also, if our mods are asleep and miss such an actuality as you've described, wherein one actually is espousing such profoundly offensive views most here would find objectionable, are we to simply alert our mods that such behavior is being engaged in without publicly and politely sharing our condemnation of the offender's views?


This is up to individual members. Some send Alerts, others PM a mod directly. The difficulty for the mods is when we get messages saying, "If you don't ban or do something about ________ ruining the board, I'm outta here!!" They may have a legitimate gripe but we have to balance that with the broad view that competing interpretations of events should be heard. So the task becomes moderation of competing views when they're expressed in terms designed to stifle discussion.

Rigor matters, intuition counts.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Jerky » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:32 pm

I assume this "K-mart" fellow was smacked with a week or so's ban-time for this flagrant transgression of the board rules?

Jerky

km artlu » 01 Oct 2018 03:56 wrote:True, Elvis. But what if:

- Moderation vowed exceptional rigor going forward.

- That rigor were applied to a posting limit per person of x posts per day. (5?)

By rough estimate such a restriction would have no effect at all on the majority here. (80 - 90%?) It would however have a profound effect on those few with an apparent affluence of leisure time available to them, coupled with a zeal for disseminating Mockingbird media and an apparent devotion to the New World Order agenda.

There’s no question that such a policy would promote more robust discussion and a renewed diversity of subject matter. One could even hope to see some long-absent names return and class the place up again. They left for a reason, you know; in droves.

I hold very little hope for this proposal. I post it as an alternative to mourning a loss in silence.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Jerky » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:42 pm

I think a response like this one goes a far way towards proving Peartree's point, and serves well as Exhibit A in terms of explaining why and how the thuggish, bullying likes of B.S. is in a position to be able to boast of "never being banned" on this forum, despite his demonstrably execrable behavior towards SLaD and others over the years.

Jerky

Elvis » 11 Sep 2018 04:53 wrote:^^^^ I think this is a good thread to hash out these issues, rather than interrupting other threads with drawn-out off-topic sidebars.


peartreed wrote:In particular I was referring to your unnecessary parroting of Wombaticus Rex and JackRiddler just to pile on and repeat their words

peartreed wrote:you don’t need to repeat contrary, controversial forum member opinions and echo insults simply to board the bully bandwagon.



I understand why B.S. is upset with these remarks. Noting agreement with other posters does not constitute bullying, it's not a "bandwagon."


WHO AGREES WITH ME?! :jumping: :wink
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2130
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby peartreed » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:26 pm

It is now evident that the two most prolific post contributors on this forum are currently banned. The reasons and rationale for that banning are obscure and clearly contrived for that purpose. Other members who have long resented the volume and proliferation of posts by these members have openly complained and lobbied behind the scenes in private messages for moderators to take action.

Now a third member has been banned for a month for daring to object to similar group criticism, intimidation tactics and moderator admonishments over points of issue or contention in unpopular opinion posts. Minority positions get targeted.

In recent exchanges there has been an evident group effort to gang up and accuse the banned members of rule violations and disruptions to justify the banning, but the fundamental excuse to do so is mostly an arbitrary call by one moderator alone. It would be more fair if several moderators issued a group consensus decision and avoided the accusation of highly subjective, personal criteria motivating the ban.

What emerges is a pattern of group pressure on the victims of the bans, as well as on the moderators, to create and enforce new rules and violations customized for each case. The target is most often a minority, or a minority view, or simply unpopular. When that is called for what it is – bullying – there is very strident denial and defense. But no amount of denial, diversion nor defense disguises discrimination.

Gossip has become the guideline for administrative action and its justification.

This forum needs to return to the higher standards of mutual respect, rigor and rational inquiry that were enjoyed in its original founding and early operation by Jeff Wells. That Rigorous Intuition attracted a diversity of membership and messaging that was uniquely insightful, supportive and tolerant of the very diverse member views and perspectives on issues of the day – and the personalities. It was that variety and uniqueness of member dynamics that gave the place ongoing vitality, interest and value.
User avatar
peartreed
 
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby chump » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:42 pm

Phew…

This is typically, simply my opinion: I particularly approve with (only) this portion of Peartree’s partisan proclamation:

…That Rigorous Intuition attracted a diversity of membership and messaging that was uniquely insightful, supportive and tolerant of the very diverse member views and perspectives on issues of the day – and the personalities. It was that variety and uniqueness of member dynamics that gave the place ongoing vitality, interest and value…


I don’t bitch about anybody - probably because I peep a bunch of prima donnas, and personally don’t care for shoveling shit to decipher some dump… So I discern that Elvis deserves a sliver medal for mediating this mess o’ megalo/ego-maniacs.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Elvis » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:01 pm

This forum needs to return to the higher standards of mutual respect, rigor and rational inquiry


And there, perfectly stated, is the precise motivation for my recent moderator actions.

Not because of any imagined cabal's dark plots to suppress anyone's views.

If a member is unable to respond to other members without habitually and disengenuously resorting to aggressive and dishonest re-framing and twisting of their words into inflated strawmen designed to smear, insinuate false meaning, avoid the real questions and disrupt discussion (all forms of bullying) — then perhaps RI is not the forum for them.

Or — maybe they could just not do that shit. :idea:
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Elvis » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:16 pm

Let me just say, I'm the one doing the work here. On all your fricking behalf. For whatever reason, I have no help. I do not look forward to seeing Alerts, but if I don't respond to them, they don't get responded to. Inevitably someone will be unhappy, no matter what I do or don't do. I'm not even happy, ffs. And I get plenty of messages from both "sides" of this controversy (including members who do not post regularly), but in the minds of some, one "side" constitutes a dark conspiracy of suppression while the other "side" is merely appealing to justice. I go to the trouble to take the time—my time—to respond and communicate, often at length, with Alert senders and PM'ers from both "sides." I don't have to do that. And it's disheartening when someone just ignores everything I write to them and replies again (and again) telling me I'm a gangstalking dictator hell-bent on permanently banning SLAD and "silencing" anyone who "disagrees" with me, blah blah blah and other horseshit.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:37 pm

We love you Elvis! Hang in there!
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby liminalOyster » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:06 am

Elvis » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:01 pm wrote:If a member is unable to respond to other members without habitually and disengenuously resorting to aggressive and dishonest re-framing and twisting of their words into inflated strawmen designed to smear, insinuate false meaning, avoid the real questions and disrupt discussion (all forms of bullying) — then perhaps RI is not the forum for them.


This right here is the pith essence of the most basic (and "non-partisan") caveat that direly needs to be appended to this board's rules.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:09 am

.

Second JR's (and LiminalO's) comment(s) above.

For the record, I've never issued an 'alert' to a mod -- don't even know how to do it; had no communications with Elvis (or 82, assuming he's still monitoring activity) on or around the timeframes of any of the recent suspensions. Never 'lobbied' a mod for anyone's suspension.

There's no 'cabal'. It's another specious claim.

Tough to take on mod duties here. Volunteering spare (or not so spare) time, often thanklessly -- given the occasional hollow accusations flung their way -- so remaining members can continue tilling their virtual gardens to an increasingly dwindling (though clearly dedicated/apparently captive) audience.






(Edited/downsized for brevity)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests