Politics Forum

Mason Malmuth · #1 08-04-2006, 06:34 PM

Hi Everyone:

Here's what we plan to do concerning the Politics Forum:

1. We do plan to restart it, probably around the middle of August. But first we need to make sure that everything has calmed down and the posting can resume in a civil and courteous manner.

2. We do encourage vigorous debate. For instance whether the Israeli response was too strong is a fair topic, just like whether Hezbolah imbeds itself among civilians causing civiliain casulties is also a fair topic.

3. What we will not tolerate are posts designed to foment hate. These include posts, which are sometimes very politely written, that distort facts, create new facts, make references to very bad things that the poster quickly distances himself from but nevertheless leaves the idea out there, and often link to other sites that are clearly hate sites.

Our concern at Two Plus Two is that we have many young people (that is young compared to me) reading these boards who do not know or understand the history, and who could be misled down the road to hatred. Everyone needs to keep in mind that www.twoplustwo.com is a site designed to discuss poker and other forms of gambling. We are not designed nor do we have the capabilities to handle these other subjets as well as some other sites on the Internet. Thus if we error, we plan to error on the conservative side and make sure that this forum will not be a breeding ground for hatred. This will be the case whether you are pro Israeli, pro Palestinian, or pro some other subject.

So again, we do plan to reopen the Politics Forum, but we will wait until we feel that everything has calmed down. Expect to see it back up around the middle of August.

Best wishes,
Mason

flair1239 · #2 08-04-2006, 06:49 PM

Mason,

Then do not reopen the forum. The things you mention not to do are common in politics. People distort facts all the time, and suggest possbilities all the while distancing themselves from the ideas. Learning to recognise this stuff is a necessary step to becoming a "critical" thinker.

Also in this day and age with all the good information out there, being ignorant of history should not be a shortcoming that is accomodated.

My opinion is, if the forum is going to be heavily moderated... save yourself the headache and just don't reopen it.

The last thing you need is one more self-righteous primadonna threatening a lawsuit.

Mason Malmuth · #3 08-04-2006, 06:59 PM

Hi flair:

You make a very good point. We will definitely consider what you are saying before making our final decision.

Best wishes,
Mason

bkholdem · #4 08-04-2006, 11:13 PM

I think there should be a way to flag posters who repeadedly and knowingly distort facts. Sometimes people unknowingly state opinion as fact, if they are willing to follow up to questions about the legitimacy of their post then I think that is not a problem. Posters who engange in propaganda speech without reasonably answering questions posed to them are the problem (in my very limited reading of the politics forum).

I have found in my limited reading that the light of day and truth is shined on the bs posters. The problem is that they are not motivated to change propaganda posting and some people seem to enjoy struggling with them so they get reinforced for the bs posts they make. I am happy to just ignore them.

I would love to be pointed to a group of threads where someone distorts facts and the opposing side doesn't catch it and challenge it. If it is challenged and the original poster doesn't back up the claims, or follow up reasonably, I like to believe that even young people here can figure out that the original poster is bs'ing. That is educational, to follow a post and see how someone challenges 'facts' so that the truth is more closely revealed.

DVaut1 · #5 08-04-2006, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is, if the forum is going to be heavily moderated... save yourself the headache and just don't reopen it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heavily moderated is one thing; I think the forum could work wonderfully, even if heavily moderated. Having said that, I think this is a great caveat:

"If people could agree on the facts, we wouldn't need politics in the first place."

There's no politics forum (nor any person) anywhere on the internet (or in the world at large) that has a monopoly over the truth and the facts. As mentioned, we wouldn't need a Politics forum if 'the facts' we're clear and universally-agreed upon. I hope 'dishonesty' and 'fact-distortion' aren't what's moderated, as such a standard is nothing if not subjective.

RR · #6 08-04-2006, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then do not reopen the forum. The things you mention not to do are common in politics. People distort facts all the time, and suggest possbilities all the while distancing themselves from the ideas. Learning to recognise this stuff is a necessary step to becoming a "critical" thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody here is running for office. I think it is possible to discuss politics without engaging in politics. Just because someone runnig for office distorts facts there is no reason to repeat boldfaced lies just because many out there can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

DVaut1 · #7 08-04-2006, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then do not reopen the forum. The things you mention not to do are common in politics. People distort facts all the time, and suggest possbilities all the while distancing themselves from the ideas. Learning to recognise this stuff is a necessary step to becoming a "critical" thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody here is running for office. I think it is possible to discuss politics without engaging in politics. Just because someone runnig for office distorts facts there is no reason to repeat boldfaced lies just because many out there can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, have an especially difficult time discerning between truth and fiction, particularly in political discourse. Is there some secret to telling the difference between the two that I don't know about?

Even conceding that I have trouble separating truth from fiction, I don't feel that I need a third-party deciding what's 'truth' and what's a 'boldfaced lie' for me.

flair1239 · #8 08-05-2006, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then do not reopen the forum. The things you mention not to do are common in politics. People distort facts all the time, and suggest possbilities all the while distancing themselves from the ideas. Learning to recognise this stuff is a necessary step to becoming a "critical" thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody here is running for office. I think it is possible to discuss politics without engaging in politics. Just because someone runnig for office distorts facts there is no reason to repeat boldfaced lies just because many out there can't tell the difference between truth and fiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere on livescience.com, there is an article relating to how people percieve events being influenced by their own views.

I have also read somewhere that we tend to believe that people who agree with our views are more intelligent than those who have views to the contrary.

Anyway people have a vested interest in the validity of their own views. That means that they will go out of their way to make the "evidence" support what they believe. In other words they will cherry pick the truth. However, someone with an open mind, time, and intellectual curiosity can weed through the distortions and half truths and come to a reasonably accurate picture.

So with that said, I don't mind reading contrarian views.. even if they are smarmy and laced with half truths and manipulative prose. Mainly because if I stumble across something that moves me or gets a reaction... I am going to be reading on the subject from several different sources.

IF the forum is to be reopened , maybe there should be a sticky urging people to educate themseleves and a disclaimer warning of potential manipulation.

Also... not to rabble rouse.. but some of David's religion posts in the couple months before and after the opening of the philosophy forum... could have easily been misconstrued as hateful or condscending, by "religious" people. I don't think they were.. but I don't really have a dog in that fight.

With a topic like the Middle-East it is easy to interpret an opposing view as hateful... because well... that is what a lot of that conflict is centered around. So it is probably natural for people on opposing sides of that issue to figure that the other person is motivated by hate... even though that may not be the case.

Anyway, Mason... I really think you would be happier if you just kept the thing closed. It is just going to be a source of future problems and possible embarassment.

Mickey Brausch · #9 08-05-2006, 07:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some of David's religion posts in the couple months before and after the opening of the philosophy forum... could have easily been misconstrued as hateful or condscending, by "religious" people.

[/ QUOTE ]Agree.

I also understand that Sklansky back-pedalled a lot at the tail end of those hot disucssions. Maybe bad for business.

Mickey Brausch

bkholdem · #10 08-05-2006, 07:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, Mason... I really think you would be happier if you just kept the thing closed. It is just going to be a source of future problems and possible embarassment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could serve to be a source of personal growth. No pain, no gain. Through adversity we find strength, if we do not face challenges we do not improve, ... etc...