coastalfalcon61 said:Well, I think that’s how it works in theory, but unfortunately, in real life with actual people, it doesn't really function that way. Very quickly, the arguments tend to get replaced by unnecessary and exhausting attempts at outsmarting one another, or through belittling, insults, and provocation...
Maybe two machines could carry out a debate using pure logic without emotions taking over the conversation, but humans just aren't built that way, I suppose.
There is also another aspect to consider here. If there is a specific space where a group of people share common interests or hold similar views on a topic they enjoy discussing, and then people with opposing viewpoints show up, those original members will likely stop sharing their ideas and start avoiding that space altogether because others will begin mocking them, trying to prove them wrong, or simply dismissing them.
That is why I feel the right approach might be to open a dedicated skeptic or contra sub-sub-forum within certain sections. Maybe even one general skeptic/contra sub-forum for the whole Forum, which would then contain skeptic sub-sub-forums for every topic—ranging from Politics and Health to Religion, History, and so on. And perhaps we could let the Contras themselves moderate it, just to avoid a situation where the "opposing camp" is moderated by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them and holds completely different perspectives on the matter.
In that way, everyone would have their own freedom of expression within a community of like-minded people, and I imagine the moderators would end up having less work to do too.
Even though I am an atheist and an outspoken opponent of religion, I still believe that religious people on this Forum have an absolute right to their own peaceful corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. I guess the point is just to allow everyone at least that minimum amount of freedom and peace.
Meaning.
The skeptic sub-subforums.Providing a platform for "opinions"—or whatever you want to call this misinformation—is dangerous. Because these ideas are so unconventional, they can be harmful from an educational standpoint. In certain cases, like when it comes to health, they can actually be fatal.
Separating posts filled with such "opinions" and "information" into their own section sends a clear message: don't just take what's written here at face value. It’s a hint that you actually need to verify these claims instead of blindly accepting them as truth.
An example of a solid reason to open it.
Skeptics.In one sub-forum, there was a sudden surge, for instance.
On the sub-forum regarding the Corona pandemic. All those "opinions" and "information" coming from the sidelines.
(At least regarding the subject matter) the relentless, gullible, and irresponsible users on this Forum..
A "
Contra sub-subforums.By their very name—let alone their intended purpose—they can't possibly make any sense.
To what exactly? On the "contra" sub-forum...
To go against.I?
Some post published on a regular sub-forum? Fine, whatever...
But...
And then what? The one we chose to go contra against in that manner,
He’ll show up on the Contra sub-forum just to try and debunk our position.?
I think...
The "contra" sub-forum was created for one specific reason: to give that user some peace on the main board. It exists so they can state their claims without being constantly picked apart by everyone who disagrees. 🤷
And why on earth would any rational person walk out of a room just because a claim was made, only to go around "contravening" that very same claim against the walls of some other room?
coastalfalcon61 said:Maybe we should just establish a general skeptic/contra sub-forum across the entire Forum. We could then nest specific skeptic sub-sub-forums under it for everything—Politics, Health, Religion, History, and so on.
And there it is—an even better idea at this point. 🙂
coastalfalcon61 said:And that’s exactly why you hand moderation over to the Contras. It prevents the "opposing camp" from being moderated by someone who disagrees with them or holds a different perspective on the matter.
That way, everyone would enjoy true freedom of speech within a community of like-minded people. Plus, the moderators wouldn't have nearly as much work to do.
What "opposing camp"?
If those proposals actually pass, you won't find anyone from the opposing camp left on this Forum.
There will only be.
Subforums i Sub-forums Like-minded people. Looking at it. (quoting you):
"
We should probably add some skeptical sub-forums for every topic, from everything to... Politics, Health, Religion, History, etc."
coastalfalcon61 said:... even though I'm an atheist and a vocal opponent of religion, I believe religious people on the Forum have an absolute right to their own quiet corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. The point is to grant everyone at least that minimum level of freedom and peace.
Religious users can simply make their threads
"their own quiet corner where no one attacks their arguments."
If their topic is legitimate (and if such a topic is opened in the appropriate section
*), then they can discuss the subject in peace, provided they strictly stick to the subject matter itself.
(
*such a quiet corner was precisely what the newly opened sub-sub-forum '
theology and religious practice' was intended for)
In short, there will certainly be peace in threads covering topics such as
proper mass etiquette (when to kneel, when to stand, etc.), advice on preparing for sacred rites, descriptions of necessary liturgical procedures, and so on... Basically, topics that are generally
not debatable, since we are talking about 'rules of service' or membership protocols and similar matters...
