@Nep Nep if ya don’t want an echo chamber for the right or left we gotta instill SOME kind lawful neutral standards
I offer and prepose using widely scientific, journalistic and academic standards for evidence
but if that’s too “left” and woke” Then I guess we can throw poo at walls and have people say all racial slurs and Qtard crap that ya want.
Again, that should be obvious that we ultimately would want news that isn't permeated in a political slant but that's not the point:
The point is that people SHOULDN'T be silenced based on the politics they have but whether or not their word and their character in terms of actually bringing in that truth matters.
A Debate isn't just getting someone to believe you, it's to allow them to see different perspectives and thoughts and to actually THINK, not just be some NPC for either side.
I don't believe shit that comes from Fauci not because of some random thing of me thinking on the Right, but of the fact the dude is a KNOWN fuckup since the AIDs Epidemic, but if there is a way that people can even remotely see eye-to-eye without trying to go into name slinging or trying to bring up politics rather than actually BE Adults, then you shouldn't engage in these types of discussions. This is exactly the problem with a growing amount of the population on BOTH SIDES.
No one cannot see into both sides and make their own judgment like humans and instead like NPCs.
That's precisely the problem when it comes to ANYTHING these days.
I hear both of you on this. We aren't about silencing dissenting opinions or enforcing a majority view on those to the point of socially ostracizing them from the section and its inherent culture that will emerge from these early baby steps. What we want are proper sources on claims, evidence, articles that are specifically PEER REVIEWED in scientific communities or vetted to a degree that they fit in such a capacity.
But throwing stuff into the vacuum and hoping it sticks on the wall without it being from a credible source is also insane to think as a good bandage.
My suggestion is the News section remains as primarily a conversational approach to real world politics, social issues, economy issues, religion, etc...but the proper debating goes into a sub-section which has to be treated extremely methodically and in such a clinical fashion to make your arguments stick and be cohesive. My initial idea for this place was to have one mod who has neither strong left-leaning or right-leaning beliefs, and the two main mods be politically opposites; one liberal/left wing, one conservative/right wing. Which helps further with rule enforcement because a tie breaker will always come down to the neutral mod when it comes to bans, warnings, etc...
Do you guys agree to this?
Do we need to take a consensus on what are permissible? Example:
@Makeoutparadise if IWD posts credible sources showing Covid-19 vaccines involving Pfizer or Moderna ones increase and have a corroboration/causation in causing heart related health issues in healthy young men and those are coming from credible sources that are not from crackpots like Alex Jones, you would agree that it isn't politically driven even if it follows their political ideologies on vaccinations not needing to be mandatory? In the same token
@Es_ if someone posts evidence showing why Covid-19 vaccines should overrule freedom of bodily independence because the group's welfare outweighs the individual with scientific evidence, would you concede even if you disagree, that the source is credible enough not be out of hand flat out dismissed?
If you guys can agree to this, we have progress and taken the first steps in achieving intellectual diversity that even if you disagree with someone's views, beliefs, and ideology, you know where they are coming from and not see that person as an enemy.
If not then this is going to be hard to escape having a less stressful environment.
