Zone1 "How to Disagree," by Paul Graham

[Hector12]

I usually avoid copying and pasting an entire essay written by someone else. Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" is worth being read by every poster on an internet website that features controversial discussions.

If I was the admin on a website that featured controversial discussions, I would have a three strikes and you're out policy. For the first use of name calling there would be a warning. The second offense would result in a suspension. The third offense would result in banning.

Calling someone a racist would be regarded as name calling. A criticism of a race should be accepted, or refuted with an explanation of why the criticism is not true. On many websites suspensions and banning are not explained. I would have a thread in which I named offenders, and their offenses.

I feel presumptuous criticizing any aspect of the U.S. Message Board. This is my favorite website. The reason I like it so much is because I am allowed to express my opinions, as long as I do so courteously.

That is enough of my ideas. I hasten to present Paul Graham's. To save space, I will post a website to Graham's brief but brilliant essay. Please click on it, read it, and think about it. The internet should be a place to present facts and ideas, not salacious and frequently obscene adolescent taunts. Feelings are find, but facts matter.

How to Disagree

File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[Hector12]

Of course, "Feelings are find" should be written "Feelings are fine." Feelings are not really debatable so debates should be restricted to facts that can be documented, and insights that emerge from the facts.

 

[luiza]

I usually avoid copying and pasting an entire essay written by someone else. Paul Graham's "How to Disagree" is worth being read by every poster on an internet website that features controversial discussions.

If I was the admin on a website that featured controversial discussions, I would have a three strikes and you're out policy. For the first use of name calling there would be a warning. The second offense would result in a suspension. The third offense would result in banning.

Calling someone a racist would be regarded as name calling. A criticism of a race should be accepted, or refuted with an explanation of why the criticism is not true. On many websites suspensions and banning are not explained. I would have a thread in which I named offenders, and their offenses.

I feel presumptuous criticizing any aspect of the U.S. Message Board. This is my favorite website. The reason I like it so much is because I am allowed to express my opinions, as long as I do so courteously.

That is enough of my ideas. I hasten to present Paul Graham's. To save space, I will post a website to Graham's brief but brilliant essay. Please click on it, read it, and think about it. The internet should be a place to present facts and ideas, not salacious and frequently obscene adolescent taunts. Feelings are find, but facts matter.

You need bright people with a solid background and good manners for this system to work . Definitely not at USMB .

 

[there4eyeM]

There are those who are always in at least the top three.

 

[Hector12]

You need bright people with a solid background and good manners for this system to work . Definitely not at USMB .

There are a few of us around.

 

[elektra]

You are only a little bit right. Many people would not participate if things were kept perfectly dry, without color.

I want to see peoples emotions. I want to see who they call racist. I want to see their bigotry and hate. Certainly that hate and bigotry, the name calling gets out of hand. That is what the mods are for and that little report button.

some people are pretty out of control, ban them, but a message board heavily moderated becomes a pretty boring medium for discussions

let people have the freedom to express themselves, right or wrong, with good moderation, not with tyrannical moderation.

Mods here are the best I have seen on any board, and the current mods are much better than the mods who were here when this message board was created

 

[jwoodie]

Of course, "Feelings are find" should be written "Feelings are fine." Feelings are not really debatable so debates should be restricted to facts that can be documented, and insights that emerge from the facts.

Does that include being offended?

 

[Hector12]

Does that include being offended?

If I expressed my feelings every time I have been offended by JoeB131, those expressions would fill this website. I try to respond calmly to his abuse.

 

[Hector12]

You are only a little bit right. Many people would not participate if things were kept perfectly dry, without color.

I want to see peoples emotions. I want to see who they call racist. I want to see their bigotry and hate. Certainly that hate and bigotry, the name calling gets out of hand. That is what the mods are for and that little report button.

some people are pretty out of control, ban them, but a message board heavily moderated becomes a pretty boring medium for discussions

let people have the freedom to express themselves, right or wrong, with good moderation, not with tyrannical moderation.

Mods here are the best I have seen on any board, and the current mods are much better than the mods who were here when this message board was created

I would like for name calling, insults, and obscene words to be prohibited. The only things that should matter are facts that can be documented, and insights that can logically be derived from those facts. A poster's expressions of anger should be recognized as evidence that the poster recognizes that he is losing the debate.

 

[elektra]

I would like for name calling, insults, and obscene words to be prohibited.

I am against censorship, yet at the same time there needs to be some control. Not many if any message board survives if you censor all speech some people do not like.

The only things that should matter are facts that can be documented, and insights that can logically be derived from those facts.

A poster's expressions of anger should be recognized as evidence that the poster recognizes that he is losing the debate.

A member's, a user's, comment either has fact or not. One's anger is not evidence other than the person is human.

You can not dictate no swearing or anger, just as you can not dictate that anger means one lost the debate. All it really proves is the other person my be an obstinate prick.

 

[Hector12]

If I expressed my feelings every time I have been offended by JoeB131, those expressions would fill this website. I try to respond calmly to his abuse.

JoeB131 is a waste of computer memory. He accuses me of hate, but he admits that he hates me. He accuses me of being a neo Nazi, but it is he who hates Jews, and favors censorship and thought control.

On several occasions I have expressed my admiration for the Jews, my respect for Judaism, and my love of Israel. I am in favor of the free expression of facts and opinions, even his. All I ask is the opportunity to respond to his abuse, but it is tiresome to keep answering the same adolescent taunts. .