Podium rules and discussion thread

Quote from hsjpatman : I'm not so sure about this point.

Then you don't follow my posts that well......

Quote from JackHandey : I see your point, I really do. I guess there is a fundamental thing in me that nags me about it... That trying to think in the way that is required to, in order to see the argument from the other side, creates a certain level of cognitive dissonance. It bothers me to see something that I perceive to be so wrong, and in the previous case hypocritical, in using stereotyping to to imply racial bigotry, without direct evidence. Perhaps it would be better if we did place those that use such tactics to argue, that we consider ludicrous, on ignore. I envy you your ability to just walk away... It happens to irritate me, like an OCD person seeing a crooked picture.

Give it time Jack.
You've come a long way from that one-eyed militant you used to be when you first arrived.
Eventually, (someday soon I would hope), you'll have seen both sides of ALL of the continual rehashing here.
There aren't really that many basic issues debated, they are just couched in different news stories and framed with one slant or another by the OP to serve in furtherance of their particular bias.

A some point you HAVE been able to assimilate the other side's frame of reference, accepted those portions which MAY have some merit as maybe disagreeable but palatable, and even semi-acceptable in a tolerant society.
The rest you'll just and ignore as the blathering of unenlightened n00bs who haven't been through the whole process yet and come out the other side where I and many of the elder members - hopefully that will include you at some point - around here have.

I would add I owe Xnarg a great deal of thanks for opening that process for me. As my most skilled opponent in this forum, he did a lot for my ability to recall positions I once held and changed over time, and had forgotten how I felt when I held them.
I miss the angry bastich some days - even now.

Thank goodness for Elmer. If not for him & a couple more like him, there are times I consider this place a waste of time to visit anymore. We still enjoy a friendly poke in the eye back & forth with each other, but both of us understand how we came to be where we are and what each of us will never accept but allow others to cling to until they have acquired a little more experience.

Since I just found out it was never a rule, how about making a rule that if you start a thread, you must have a topic to discuss with it (and one that is not a trolling one). Even with news tabs, the podium should not be a news feed.

Quote from ASG : Since I just found out it was never a rule, how about making a rule that if you start a thread, you must have a topic to discuss with it (and one that is not a trolling one). Even with news tabs, the podium should not be a news feed.

was tried and proposed multiple times and always rejected

I think I'm getting over any tolerance I had for "So and so said this crazy thing" threads.

Who's with me?

Quote from Doctor_Wu : I think I'm getting over any tolerance I had for "So and so said this crazy thing" threads. Who's with me?

What took you so long?

Quote from Doctor_Wu : I think I'm getting over any tolerance I had for "So and so said this crazy thing" threads. Who's with me?

Here here! Especially from people that purposely say things to get attention.

Quote from ASG : Since I just found out it was never a rule, how about making a rule that if you start a thread, you must have a topic to discuss with it (and one that is not a trolling one). Even with news tabs, the podium should not be a news feed.

I think there is something to be said for this. And the topic is going to have to be more robust than "Do you think this is good/bad?"

Now, there's a balance to strike here... I always judge the rules against my own habits here, and I have been known to post articles that I think are interesting but these are few and far between, and beyond that they are off the beaten path type things and not generic news that most of us will encounter in our daily existence or via a trip to Drudge. So in that sense I think they are unique, and present more food for thought than the average news item. That said, I don't know that I always present a topic to discuss along with my articles, but I typically have something to say about it as the conversation unfolds. How do we strike a balance ASG?

You'd have to site an example of what you mean by articles you post. I think it goes with my opinion similar to what you just stated. If the article is about an event or person, there is not much to say beyond the article posted if there is no opinion to go with it. Most of what I've seen you post are columns or other analysis articles that go much more in depth than just a basic news story.

Quote from ASG : You'd have to cite an example of what you mean by articles you post. I think it goes with my opinion similar to what you just stated. If the article is about an event or person, there is not much to say beyond the article posted if there is no opinion to go with it. Most of what I've seen you post are columns or other analysis articles that go much more in depth than just a basic news story.

I see. So our problem is that the news is uninteresting w/o commentary. As food for thought, the news does not provide sustenance. We can go to the news for news... expecting the news to provide us with something fit for conversation is often expecting too much.

The news in and of itself is often w/o context. Another issue I see that connects into this is the 'agenda poster' who presents a random news story as evidence of some broad truth... democrats suck, republicans are BS, all cops are corrupt, all minorities are criminal, etc.

Quote from Doctor_Wu : I see. So our problem is that the news is uninteresting w/o commentary. As food for thought, the news does not provide sustenance. We can go to the news for news... expecting the news to provide us with something fit for conversation is often expecting too much.

That's why I think, as a general rule, non-columns should have some kind of opinion by the OP to go with it. Or, at the very list, the topic that the OP wants to talk about. "There's been a shooting" is not a topic. "Is there a way this could have been prevented?" is. This also goes with my "why I think adding a 'news' tab is dumb" line of thinking. Everything in the podium should be debate so there should be no seperate tabs.

Quote from ASG : That's why I think, as a general rule, non-columns should have some kind of opinion by the OP to go with it. Or, at the very list, the topic that the OP wants to talk about. "There's been a shooting" is not a topic. "Is there a way this could have been prevented?" is. This also goes with my "why I think adding a 'news' tab is dumb" line of thinking. Everything in the podium should be debate so there should be no seperate tabs.

Well... as with the articles I sometimes post, they don't all generate debate. Sometimes there's not that much to debate in any given story or commentary. But I see what you are saying. I would go further than you and suggest that "Is there a way this could have been prevented" while emblematic of an actual question that might be asked of a news story thread, is not a very strong topic. I view that as a kind of cop-out debate topic that people post just to throw up a news story... I'm not sure we're gaining a lot from that kind of thing.

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Well... as with the articles I sometimes post, they don't all generate debate. Sometimes there's not that much to debate in any given story or commentary. But I see what you are saying. I would go further than you and suggest that "Is there a way this could have been prevented" while emblematic of an actual question that might be asked of a news story thread, is not a very strong topic. I view that as a kind of cop-out debate topic that people post just to throw up a news story... I'm not sure we're gaining a lot from that kind of thing.

It sure beats "I wonder if a black guy did it."

Quote from ASG : It sure beats "I wonder if a black guy did it."

It does, but it asks a question that we are not well suited to answer.