Author Topic: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum  (Read 2342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11593
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2019, 01:01:55 PM »
How interesting that a supposed "Free Speech" advocate is stumping for shutting down a sections of the forums because not everyone agrees with them.
Well, that's a fair characterization.

Yeah, but that's why I put quotes around "Free Speech".
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3041
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2019, 01:34:15 PM »
Or it could be that some people would prefer to stop arguing things that cant be settled with science and think the forum would do better by focusing more on that as the rogues do.  At least thats how I read the OP. Nobody is actually advocating to shut anything down at this point in time, its an evolving discussion. 

Its interesting to me that people would incorrectly characterize the thread in such a way. Avoiding negative combative political comments like that would seem to be the actual underlying point of the thread.
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5932
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2019, 04:44:26 PM »
How interesting that a supposed "Free Speech" advocate is stumping for shutting down a sections of the forums because not everyone agrees with them.

I'll never understand why some otherwise reasonable, friendly people turn into raging sanctimonious blowhards on the Internet when it comes to politics. Some people will even stoop to personally maligning ostensible friends whose politics are 99% in agreement with their own. It really sucks to be on the receiving end of that kind of vitriol.

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9108
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2019, 05:13:13 PM »
cant be settled with science

Policy Analysis and, "What is real?," issues are rigorous.  And our political culture needs more rigor.

Easy example:
  • Expected versus actual policy outcomes
  • Mismatched policy goals and policy preferences.
Applied to Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed:
  • Expected vs Actual Policy Outcomes:
    • Advocates believe:
      • delays age of first sex
      • reduces pregnancies and STDs by extension
    • Research shows:
      • no delay in age of first sex (PDF)
      • it increases teen pregnancies and STDs (article)
  • Mismatched Policy Goals and Policy Preferences:
    • Advocates think they're combating teen pregnancies, STDs and sex.
    • Advocates are de facto promoting teen pregnancies and STDs with no effect on sex.
What Skepticism/SGU stresses is mutually exclusive with this sort of cock up.  And you can find similarly compromising defects in a great deal of Republican and Democrat policy.

I see 'skepticism' as a set of behaviors bundled as culture, intended for a general audience.  Those behaviors, if introduced to political culture writ large, would do a lot of good.  So I see it as appropriate that the fans' social media (but not the show) dips its toes into (ever contentious) politics.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 05:16:10 PM by Soldier of FORTRAN »
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline Nosmas

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2019, 06:10:06 PM »
How interesting that a supposed "Free Speech" advocate is stumping for shutting down a sections of the forums because not everyone agrees with them.

You could have gone with a slightly less subtle post and just said "Hey, let's argue!".
Providing yesterday's solutions to today's problems, tomorrow!

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7373
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2019, 08:02:14 PM »
The problem, SoF, is that the most important political questions are not about what is real, but what is desirable.  They are fundamentally values-based questions, and are wholly unadressable science.

The example you used, for instance, is such an example.  People who support abstinence-only sex ed do not do so because they think it is more effective; they do so because they think that abstinence is the only moral sexual practice to teach. Any claims for its effectiveness are merely motivated post-hoc rationalizations. You can not argue most people out of an abstinence-only position based on its lack of effectiveness because evidence of effectiveness is not why they support the policy.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9108
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2019, 10:28:30 PM »
they do so because they think that abstinence is the only moral sexual practice to teach.

Which raises the question: If your values merely dictate harm, of what value are they?

You get to say, "I am good at my values," and that's it. 

Bit of an aside, but that's the question led me to abandon Libertarianism.  It's great for social issues but you can't fit economic and policy issues inside that framework. It's too restrictive.  When I found myself between a rock and a hard place, I got out by adopting new frameworks.  How many other people might do the same?  How many do you even need before changing the group averages which most people are just blithely following?
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7101
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #82 on: June 11, 2019, 12:36:58 AM »
they do so because they think that abstinence is the only moral sexual practice to teach.

Which raises the question: If your values merely dictate harm, of what value are they?

You get to say, "I am good at my values," and that's it. 

Bit of an aside, but that's the question led me to abandon Libertarianism.  It's great for social issues but you can't fit economic and policy issues inside that framework. It's too restrictive.  When I found myself between a rock and a hard place, I got out by adopting new frameworks.  How many other people might do the same?  How many do you even need before changing the group averages which most people are just blithely following?

You get to say more than "I'm good at my values." All values come with opportunity costs, by definition: values are a key aspect of how we assess the worth of one thing as greater or less than another thing. If my values put physical and mental harm reduction at top priority, abstinence programs are stupid. If my values put corruption of the soul at the apex I will behave quite differently. Two people with these different values will each see the other doing obvious harm with no real benefit.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7373
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #83 on: June 11, 2019, 01:31:41 AM »
Which raises the question: If your values merely dictate harm, of what value are they?

You get to say, "I am good at my values," and that's it.

This statement assumes the primacy of your own values.  You value the prevention of STIs and pregnancy (which you correctly see as harms) over the things like chastity, moral purity, etc. (which I would guess you don't see as harms or see as far less important harms).  I assure you that I sympathize with you, there. But those values are not scientific or even objective truths: they are our subjective values.  Those with different values might very well say that our efforts to prevent STIs and pregnancy cause far greater harms than they prevent.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18921
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #84 on: June 11, 2019, 02:50:00 AM »
The problem, SoF, is that the most important political questions are not about what is real, but what is desirable.  They are fundamentally values-based questions, and are wholly unadressable science.

The example you used, for instance, is such an example.  People who support abstinence-only sex ed do not do so because they think it is more effective; they do so because they think that abstinence is the only moral sexual practice to teach. Any claims for its effectiveness are merely motivated post-hoc rationalizations. You can not argue most people out of an abstinence-only position based on its lack of effectiveness because evidence of effectiveness is not why they support the policy.

I don't think anyone in the forum advocates Abstinence Only sex education though.
The Politics forum has been criticized for not being evidence based but at least in the case of Sex Ed, the discussion aligns with the evidence.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5932
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #85 on: June 11, 2019, 06:10:15 AM »
The problem, SoF, is that the most important political questions are not about what is real, but what is desirable.  They are fundamentally values-based questions, and are wholly unadressable science.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most important political questions really are about what is desirable, that still doesn't make them unaddressable by science.

Science can be used to determine the effectiveness of any applicable policy, so long as the desired consequences are based in reality.

If the desired consequences aren't based in reality or the desires are ignorant of real-world consequences, then the problem is not science, but having unrealistic desires in the first place.


People who support abstinence-only sex ed do not do so because they think it is more effective; they do so because they think that abstinence is the only moral sexual practice to teach.

People who support abstinence-only sex education generally do not care much about the true outcome. If they cared about the truth, they would acknowledge that abstinence-only sex education is not effective.

The problem is, the people who support abstinence-only sex education do not really care about reducing teenage pregnancy; they're mostly concerned with teaching their religion.

That has nothing to do with the effectiveness of science in making political decisions.

According to the US Constitution, our government is not in the business of teaching religion anyway.


Any claims for its effectiveness are merely motivated post-hoc rationalizations.

Post-hoc rationalizations are not science, thus they're irrelevant to whether science is effective in making political decisions.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 02:36:09 PM by John Albert »

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9108
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2019, 09:36:23 AM »
You get to say more than "I'm good at my values." All values come with opportunity costs, by definition: values are a key aspect of how we assess the worth of one thing as greater or less than another thing. If my values put physical and mental harm reduction at top priority, abstinence programs are stupid. If my values put corruption of the soul at the apex I will behave quite differently. Two people with these different values will each see the other doing obvious harm with no real benefit.

Well, I didn't realize consider the wildcard option because what are you even going to do with those people?  They just need to be dragged along into modernity by everyone else.

In my mental model, it basically looks like:
  • Admit failure and move on somehow
  • Denial/delusion
  • [Wildcard Option] Hell yeah, fuck em'
This statement assumes the primacy of your own values.

To an extent, yeah, and quite deliberately.  If a value system prioritizes something like a nebulous definition of 'moral purity' over actual concrete and apparent human suffering, and it's immune to consideration thereof, then I don't know what to do with them.  They just need to get dragged along into modernity, basically.

Quote
Those with different values might very well say that our efforts to prevent STIs and pregnancy cause far greater harms than they prevent.

But how often are values 100% of the problem?  I mean, if it were then why are billions upon billions of dollars spent every year on tricking poor people into blowing their brains out into my mutual fund portfolio?  See: Propaganda concerning the mechanics of taxes, minimum wages, regulations, etc.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 09:46:17 AM by Soldier of FORTRAN »
If global warming is real then how come I just felt this chill down my spine?

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10237
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #87 on: June 11, 2019, 01:12:41 PM »
Funny story, I actually received abstinence sex education when I was in high school. I don't know if it should be called "abstinence-only"; I received a normal, secular sex-education both in middle school and high school. But then, there was an extra sex-ed program after that; that program was abstinence-only and somewhat overtly Christian.

I don't know if it had an effect on me. I was already explicitly an atheist at the time, and other than vaguely bringing religion to class, I can't say I was offended, per se. If anything, we have already past the point (more than a decade ago) where most American teenagers are not sexually active before age 18, and that trend is continuing. I think it is fine to tell people that there is social pressure to convince them to be sexually active, and that if they stop and think about it, they would rather not.

Also, in impoverished parts of America, apparently there actually are women that literally just want to get pregnant for welfare and/or child support. I've met plenty of them around shelters and such; thankfully, not for very long. Breeder culture is actually part of the design of society in places like that.  That, on it's own, should put the "Fear of God" into you. Having sex is arguably more dangerous than driving a car. And unless you have mob connections, there isn't insurance to cover you either.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10237
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #88 on: June 11, 2019, 03:00:58 PM »
The places where people feel called out for not following the party line and think they are being unfairly accused of being Nazis or whatever are almost exclusively in the General Discussion and Skepticism / Science Talk sections of the forum (with a healthy side dish of Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine)

If you are talking about the threads I think you are referring to (other than LCHF), those were basically political threads but not in the politics board.

By the same token, I enjoy seeing the carbs vs. fats thread turn into a argument of political/religious proportions, since it gives us something else to think skeptically about.

At some point I thought about making a meta-politics thread: to discuss the forum politics of the politics board itself, personal gripes over discussion style. Lingering arguments or threads that don't really seemed settled (rather than having spillover). And, OTOH, maybe threads/issues that people feel were decisively answered and politics threads that were constructive.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8614
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: A proposition: Close the Politics sub-forum
« Reply #89 on: June 12, 2019, 10:25:44 PM »
If I remember, some day I'll post a screenshot of my "Show unread posts since last visit" screen to illustrate how many threads there are about US politics. I never seem to remember until I've read all the threads.
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

 

personate-rain