It seems worth reminding―
Change the site name from SciForums to TrumpAndPolitics?
Anyone? Anyone?
Haha!
I was wondering where the science content had gone...
You;d think that The Destroyer of All Reason would promote more scientific discussions in public fora, not least for the ban on EPA researchers tweeting.
For God's sakes...
Sciforums to Philosophy Forums would be more accurate...well Crank Forums would be most accurate but Philosophy Forums would do.
―that Sciforums is what its members make it. To the one, sure, I know that sounds trivial, but, to the other, that's kind of the thing.
• Force of Will as "Democracy" ― One of the first moderators installed once upon a time was charged with responding to complaints of profanity. Over time, the membership simply won out by sheer force of will; we kept cussing.
It's hard to account for all the history; once upon a time, for instance, we had a rule against drive-by posting, and these days it seems just futile. We have for years said this and that about a "science site", and the "scientific method", but at the same time allowed and in many cases encouraged and even specifically protected vicious and irrational discourse because, well, you know, Politics is politics, and not a "science". And while it's easy to sympathize with the need for diversity, this is also how communities legitimize
#AlternativeFacts. And, well,
Religion? That's an interesting question, but rejecting the existence of God is pretty much the shape of "rational" discussion about religion at Sciforums. Consider the idea that inventing new definitions of words to replace existing definitions in order to make one's argument feel easier to recite and sound better stylistically is ... well, okay, how is it
not fallacious, inappropriate, or otherwise wrong? Suffice to say we have certain conditions by which it is permissible to waste people's time with such potsherds.
Say what we want about diversity; there are reasons we've kept this irrationality and vice around over the years. Part of it is the fact of human tendency. Part of it is the fact that it's a discussion board with a long history of ridiculous bickering. And part of it is simply political and other such sympathies.
A practical point worth making is that in the beginning, Exosci and then Sciforums was largely driven by various iterations of the Religion subforum. And it's true, we actually used to have enlightening discussions ... y'know ... every once in a while. After we Americans spun up our war machine, World Events and Politics became more prominent. None of us actually know the real statistical profile today, but at no time has this community made proper science its primary focus.
For instance, say what I want about the quality of discussion, and it's true that even as a moderator I have my reasons for getting down in the mucky trenches with people, but in the end it's still anyone's choice to post as they do. There is no rule that says I must answer, respond to, or otherwise attend the people who annoy me. Indeed, if I reserve myself from discussion with them, I would have better leverage to put on my mod hat and simply start throwing those people out for deliberate misbehavior.
But that's never really been how we do things.
And the problem can, if we keep our descriptions general enough, be the same as it ever was. Nobody needs to go trooping down to the Fringe forum to pick a fight with the potsherds, but they do. Nobody needs to bother responding to the potsherds littering the science subfora, but they do.
We put up with a certain amount of irrationality and bullshit because, historically speaking, we have been expected to. That standard was never particularly well or firmly inscribed; it can become problematic.
Meanwhile, though, if I take my green hat off and look at our topic poster, or the next guy in line, or the next one, what are they or anyone else doing to create the "science content".
But it's true; even I know that dispassionate threads and posts written with an eye to technical accuracy and communicating to intelligent interest instead of base passion pretty much chases the audience away.
And there is an old circle that looks like a trap in effect; we all take part, and we all have our reasons, but our participation pretty much delegitimizes a certain amount of our subsequent complaint.
The longer answer has always been that it's any one person's choice to attend, respond, otherwise, or not. This is, of course, a largely unsatisfactory standard, but it's the one we've got.
†
The other day someone filed a complaint, and for the most part it was just another complaint. But while the complaint noted certain bullshit, it went about throwing some of its own; it didn't just complain about a member's behavior, it went out of its way to promote another. And, you know, maybe in a discussion of some natural science this other is a fine contributing poster, but the guy I know has a weird fixation on delegitimizing all women everywhere, and goes through incredible stages in which he can transcend fury and become coldly sniffy. It's astounding to see, but think of self-defense. Nobody would say you don't have the right to decide when you're in danger such that you are compelled to defend yourself, right? I mean, I live in a country where we can shoot people to death for rummaging a rubbish bin, or asking directions, or simply being black. And these scared-to-defending-myself explanations pass muster. But a woman? Well, this person, allegedly one of our most reasonable members, would say
he, in accosting her, gets to decide how she should feel. And why? Apparently in order to preserve the custom of hitting on random women.
The only reason that manner of bigotry passes muster is that the staff often feels stayed, functionally expected to handicap discussions in order to not silence voices in the discussion.
One of the implications is that member contributions have become so poor that we must lower our standards. And we have been doing that, as a matter of policy, for over a decade. Think of it this way:
If I know that X is inappropriate, then I must take no action, because in knowing X is inappropriate I necessarily invoke vested interest. Thus the expectation has been that if someone posts something, say, racist or sexist, you are supposed to engage reasonably and rationally. Like virtually any such outlook, this one lacks any functional address of the prospect that one pushing such inappropriate material is not interested in rational discourse.
And if you say this feels like running 'round in circles, I won't disagree.
Still, though, it's a long way from where we are to any manner of "science site" or whatever that platitude was about our overriding respect for the scientific method. And I can point my finger at the Administration, but it only ever offends them. And even as we go back and forth about those issues, one factor will remain constant:
Sciforums is what its members make it.
