Guidelines

fwiw

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

​

 

​

 

Those are nice thoughts that feel very remote, sadly, from the internet.
All we need is someone to lead by example. Perhaps others would follow suit.

 

From what you wrote, you don’t think it can happen because of the nature of the Internet. But, the Internet is also a gathering of good voices, for example, yours, so this could be accomplished.

I do agree that there is a lot of nastiness on the Internet and people strive to be right rather than accurate.

What I’ve learned from your post is that you do have a sense this could happen, but it will take work and strength of character.

All that being said, leading by example seldom works these days.

 

Thanks. I think it could happen in at least small packets. Like a "gang of 8" here and there on the internet.

But there's what a EE might call an "impedance mismatch." If a poster, for example, just quotes some inflammatory column or conspiracy theory, the rules we're discussing mean I would sincerely try to digest the conspiracy theory and start by reading in back to the poster in my own words, perhaps even improving upon the presentation of said conspiracy theory. At this point, I fear I would have spent more time on the topic than the original poster may have spent on it. (In a worst case, but probably common enough case, scenario.)

So, now that I think about it, we're kind of close to that already. I know when there's a sincere poster based on posting history, and I try to afford that courtesy to those people, no matter their specific beliefs. I guess we all would argue over who deserves what assumed sincerity though.

 

I was trying to follow Os's formula

 

EDIT: They aren't Os's rules, per se. He was quoting an article from brainpickings (an interesting outlet to be sure), and I think those rules are the same recipe you learn in a mediation class. Listen, repeat back in your own words carefully, making sure the other party knows they've been honestly heard. Good rules.

 

I try not to be an ******* toward anybody

 

Right. You very rarely have ever posted dumbass things in the Astros Forum...yet there are still dumbass posts in the Astros Forum.

 

I hear you saying you don't try to be an *******.

Spoiler

Try harder, clap clap. Sorry, could not resist...

 

hey, what is the Ukraine Scandal Megathread? Is that a previous thread with it's title edited, or is it a merge of several threads.

 

All you need is to make d&d your full-time job. No one follows this for a reason.

 

made me think of D&D

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3407390

 

The Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump

can we get this with these threads?

• Ukraine scandal Megathread
  
• The Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump
  
• Impeachment live hearing thread Nov 13-14 2019

maybe these also as they're on the same general topic

• Was it legal for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?
  
• [Breaking] Whistleblower outed as partisan hack; fired from NSC for leaking
  

 

I think the ukraine scandal megathread should be seperate. Already enough going on there.

 

Didn't realize the D&D was THAT big a deal. Appreciate what you do here and wouldn't want your job for anything.

 

Mods anyway you guys can delete all posts prior to 2019?

 

ALL ... or just yours?