Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Politics, religion, flame wars and the "Whimsy" sub forum-

Politics, religion, flame wars and the "Whimsy" sub forum-

Bert - 4-1-2016 at 11:07

Once again, I wish to apologize to all for habitually avoiding whimsy, missing or failing to correct departures from site policy and allowing continual flame wars thereby.

I have cleared a course of action with the site owner: To enforce the very specific "no politics, no flaming" requirement in whimsy, as given in the FAQ regarding topics.

Quote:

Forum Matters: discussion and announcements about the forum itself.

Legal and Societal Issues: discussions about popular perceptions of amateur science and legal issues that impair its pursuit.

Whimsy: absolutely any sort of discussion, apart from flaming or politics (which by hard experience is an invitation to flaming)

Detritus: locked and/or worthless threads are preserved here in a sort of electronic wax museum

I will move every thread I am aware of that violates this to detritus, and lock.

Any further threads that bring politics and flaming to this section (or any other) will be dealt with in this fashion. Members are requested to report any such on sight, and to please refrain from partisan considerations in so doing.

It's all there in the FAQ:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/madscifaq.html#2.1_Board_topic...

I know the rules were not enforced for quite a while. Sorry. If arguing politics and flaming is something you really want to do, there are endless other sites to carry on in.

arkoma - 4-1-2016 at 14:53

Kudos Bert

Etaoin Shrdlu - 4-1-2016 at 15:46

I can't say I'm disappointed.

I completely forgot that FAQ even existed. I can find it through Google, but is it linked from the forum anywhere?

careysub - 4-1-2016 at 16:27

Good to hear it Bert!

j_sum1 - 4-1-2016 at 17:01

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

My affiliation with this forum has ended. Truth cannot be spoken here.

Mmm. Ok.
Actually, I would rather you stick around and write up some chemistry. From what I can tell, you are rather good at it. I do have to search back a long way to find it though.

You and Blogfast25 can have another spit-fest if you like. But, if I understand Bert's intention here, it is to minimise that kind of thing. It is not reasonable for you to complain about ad-hom attacks and at the same time sing off remarks about blogfast's "utopianist delusion". As for the "constitution" remarks: surely it is up to the board admins and mods to interpret (and alter as they see fit) the terms of engagement on this site and to preserve the culture of this science forum. I don't think that is actually a constitution. But it is certainly not a matter of blogfast's interpretation of the rules. If he violates protocol then let the mods deal with that as they see best.

Good call Bert. We will lose a little but I think we will gain a lot more.

elementcollector1 - 4-1-2016 at 17:04

The wait is finally over!

Cannot wait to see this policy in action.

j_sum1 - 4-1-2016 at 17:20

Yeah, blogfast. I know you understand that. But RB wanted to debate the point and has inferred that this move is merely you getting a license to push your own agenda.

j_sum1 - 4-1-2016 at 17:36

Well, you really have two choices Rosco. Stay or go.
There are plenty of places where you can discuss your political views.
There are no other places that I am aware of where chemistry and scientific matters can be discussed in the way that they are on this board.

Texium - 4-1-2016 at 17:43

Your quote there is irrelevant being as it is contradicted by the FAQ page that Bert posted in the OP. He also stated that Polverone is in agreement with him on this issue. This site has a clear no-politics policy, and it will be enforced from now on. It's nothing personal against you. And to be perfectly clear, I'm not some minion of blogfast's. To be honest, I actually find him to be more frustrating to deal with than you are!

But please do stay if it is possible for you to avoid politics and post mainly about chemistry. There's plenty of other forums out there where you can get into political arguments. This is no longer one of them.

Polverone - 4-1-2016 at 18:59

It's hard to believe that I wrote that injunction against politics nearly 9 years ago and we're still having the same problems.

If someone were a rules-lawyering robot they might claim that calmly insulting different religions, political parties, dearly held ideologies etc. is fine according to the letter of the law, and it's people who can't argue back without anger who are really at fault. But everybody here is mere flesh and blood -- I checked! -- so this argument is hereby rejected by The Management.

BromicAcid - 4-1-2016 at 19:43

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

I can't say I'm disappointed.

I completely forgot that FAQ even existed. I can find it through Google, but is it linked from the forum anywhere?

There are two forum FAQs, the one at the top of this page for the form software itself, and another on the main page of sciencemadness, you can get to it directly from here by clicking the "Back to [Home]" icon in the upper right-hand corner under your control panel link.

Regarding enforcement of the policy, it's a shame it was not continually enforced since the hammer came down those nine years ago. I remember at that time the spew of irrelevant political poison that had been filling whimsy began to overflow into the civility of the form proper. At that time it was no longer a matter of ignoring whimsy and concentrating on the rest of the forum and I can only assume it is once again reaching that tipping point.

Polverone - 4-1-2016 at 22:21

I should add: if you haven't seen Rosco Bodine contribute positively to this forum, you must not read Energetic Materials. It is still Rosco's top forum by post volume and he has shared countless references, experiences, and bits of informed speculation there. Rosco started emailing me in the very early days of Sciencemadness, anonymously, to share some excellent preparations he had refined as "Mr. Anonymous." I will always appreciate those gems he shared, especially in the context of the times where mass digitization of libraries and journals was still new.

I don't want to throw anyone involved in these contentious threads out of the forum. They all share a love for chemistry and allied topics, if not anything else. Of course I can't stop anyone if they choose to leave.

j_sum1 - 4-1-2016 at 22:49

This thread on hydrazine sulfate was the one I came across most recently. Rosco is stamped all over it. Extremely useful and interesting.
But, you are right. EM is not my playground.

franklyn - 5-1-2016 at 15:43

www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=64911

Etaoin Shrdlu - 5-1-2016 at 18:02

Can you and blogfast cut it the hell out now?

BromicAcid - 5-1-2016 at 18:49

Quote: Originally posted by Bert

I will move every thread I am aware of that violates this to detritus, and lock.

And now I need to avoid detritus as well! Where will it end?

I only see this really impacting less than a dozen people out of the ~7600 members that have posted.

blogfast25 - 5-1-2016 at 19:28

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid

And now I need to avoid detritus as well! Where will it end?

You used to be an avid reader of Detritus?

BromicAcid - 5-1-2016 at 19:31

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid

And now I need to avoid detritus as well! Where will it end?

You used to be an avid reader of Detritus?

InvertedPenis's Vulture thread is one of the Sciencemadness classics. How often do you see a person get deleted from the system only to have a glitch in their error make them unable to be deleted?

[Edited on 1/6/2016 by BromicAcid]

blogfast25 - 5-1-2016 at 19:55

Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid

What can I say? Classy handle, classy thread? 'Let it all hang out'? Nope.

Bweurk. I support free speech but it sure does produce some stinky turds.

Looks like 'Inverted Penis' just died of natural causes, I mean is this a survivable condition?

[Edited on 6-1-2016 by blogfast25]

annaandherdad - 6-1-2016 at 07:45

You've got to have regulation on any site open to the internet, or you'll have chaos. Worse than that is the fact that flame wars are totally unproductive. The great virtue of this site is how much real, useful knowledge and information it contains. There is no scientific library in the world that is comparable.

In my opinion rude behavior, ad hominem and/oir vulgar attacks should not be allowed, period. But Polverone seems to be saying that just prohibiting rude behavior, as the site policy has long done, doesn't work, and is too hard for the monitors to enforce. So prohibiting political discussions in general seems to be the next step. Personally I don't mind that.

I wonder if climate change can be discussed scientifically, or if it is too "political". Too bad, there is interesting science in climate change. I just read an interesting book on paleoclimate, and my niece just finished her PhD on the same topic.

Texium - 6-1-2016 at 07:49

There is a thread about climate change on this site that is supposed to be scientific and civil, however if it comes up again it will need heavy pruning as it descended into a flame war after bfesser left. It might be good to start a new one at some point.

blogfast25 - 6-1-2016 at 10:24

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

It might be good to start a new one at some point.

There is every reason to believe a new thread on ACC will soon descend into flames too. None of us here as far as I know are climate change scientists. inevitably political arguments end up being used.

And such a thread would almost immediately be plagued by the 'it's a HOAX!' crowd, who hold that to be 'objective truth' too.

'Let sleeping dogs sleep lie', I say.

mayko - 6-1-2016 at 11:55

I've had a post for that thread I've been sitting on for a while because the forum atmosphere has just been so noxious lately and I didn't want to inflame it further. The topic might be explorable under careful moderation for hate speech and disruptive shitposting, but I'm at the very least going wait a while for the current upheaval to renormalize, before (if) I kick that sleeping dog.

I'm in favor of not injecting (tangentially or not at all relevant) partisan politics into the forum, but I am somewhat confused about how this moderation is going to deal with the politics which home science are embedded in. We already have a dedicated subforum (Legal and Societal Issues) for these sorts of topics, and I think that those discussions are worth having - IF they can be had without turning them into skidmarks (like this one did: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=63653 )

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, as a contrast with recent nastiness. Again, I think the difference is between home scientists shoehorning discussion of far-removed issues into the forum, and the forum hosting discussion of (and organizing around) issues which impact home scientists, as home scientists.
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=18550

Thoughts?

blogfast25 - 6-1-2016 at 12:17

@mayko:

I doubt very much if topics like home chemistry regulation could ever generate near as much heat as more mainstream political conundrums (guns, religion, ME, ACC, gays, Israel, immigration, Trump, etc etc etc) ever could. Mild moderation should be able to contain any nastiness on these sorts of threads.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 6-1-2016 at 14:37

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

I doubt very much if topics like home chemistry regulation could ever generate near as much heat as more mainstream political conundrums (guns, religion, ME, ACC, gays, Israel, immigration, Trump, etc etc etc) ever could.

That's because we tend to agree on less regulation by virtue of being hobby chemists, and I've still seen people try to bite each other's heads off over drug discussions. If we merged sciencemadness with forums.officer.com there would be flame wars left and right.

Why we all can't refrain from calling names over other politics I don't know, but there you have it.

blogfast25 - 6-1-2016 at 15:14

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

Why we all can't refrain from calling names over other politics I don't know, but there you have it.

I don't think there's much of a mystery there, TBH.

In politics there's no such thing as 'objective truth', yet most of us feel passionately about this issue or that issue. That's a recipe for heightened passions to float to the top and fires to start.

Look also at sites specifically for political debate: many don't accept 'other side' views because of the inevitable back biting, bitching and flaming!

Texium - 6-1-2016 at 15:14

Legal and Societal Issues by nature will still allow political threads as long as they are strictly related to amateur science. That means if there is any tangent that goes off topic and into dangerous waters, it will be swiftly pruned. I'll be keeping a close eye on it when I'm online.

And if the climate change thread comes back (though I would recommend just starting a new one at this point), I will monitor it and prune it as necessary.

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2016 at 21:20

Living in an alternate universe will allow for denying the nexus between gun rights and other liberties and regulations on chemicals in light of the state security concerns about nefarious activities and what countermeasures are justified which has direct bearing on the liberty to pursue amateur science.

The terrorists have won. They have forced the imposition of "regulations" that destroy the liberty of everyone as a countermeasure against terrorism that won't work anyway, just like gun control won't work either. The criminals will be resourceful and get around every countermeasure, and only the law abiding will be affected by the regulations and interference and loss of liberty. The disruptive effect of terrorism and crime has resulted in governments of states being a "force multiplier" for the terrorists.

And what is the nature of the terrorists? Well you can't talk about that because that would be talking about a religion and that would be bigoted to just speak the truth about who is the problem ...oh that would be hate speech to speak the truth.

There is no "politically correct" or neutral way to describe reality so no one will be "offended". IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

People don't want to hear the truth because they can't handle it. Truth is too grownup a subject and must be sugar coated so the medicine can't be tasted, and the sugar content has to be increased and increased some more until all there is is sugar ........sugar.

I have seen this movie and I already know how it plays and ends. I have tried again and again repeatedly to factually describe the realities involved and it always gets the same denial and fruitcake kind of response that it is "politics" well duh.....of course it is, and the concern can't be discussed in its particulars while a zero tolerance policy about politics is the rule. No way can you have your cake and eat it too on this one .....but go ahead and try and try try again.

Good luck with all that. I already laid it out and stand by every word.

If I was wrong I would have said so a long long time ago. I am NOT wrong.

I suppose stating the truth is "politics" ????? Now what?

Texium - 6-1-2016 at 21:49

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

If I was wrong I would have said so a long long time ago. I am NOT wrong

Well of course you would say that. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

However, there is no "nexus between gun rights and regulations on chemicals." If anything about gun control comes up again even if it is as some sort of analogy to chemical laws, it will be moved to detritus. It is 100% possible to have a thread about laws affecting chemistry without mentioning guns once.

Rosco Bodine - 7-1-2016 at 07:00

I'm sure all of this may seem convoluted, but try to bear with me if you even want to try to understand. The following is not meant to be "political" but dispassionately analytical as a global sort of "intel analysis" from someone able to do this very thing in a verifiable (not "certifiable") way.

There is a perfect nexus between liberty in general and basic freedoms, the most basic of all among which basic rights you deny, which is the natural right of self defense, so that ideological view compromises the entire analysis and distorts perspective in a way the nexus that does exist is also denied.

Perception is reality ....surely it must be so in the alternate universe where it would be inconvenient to allow analyses of regulations for exactly what purposes they serve and examine the ideologies and strategies that are accountable. Many regulations are countermeasures meant to address actual dangers and so have factual basis that has validity, but the strategy is incorrect so the ultimate purpose is not realized and the collateral effect of unintended consequences is a cost to liberty that is worse than the threat meant to be addressed, which is not really effectively addressed, and the net effect may be counterproductive. That is more usual than unusual.

So in the alternate universe of course it is forbidden to correctly identify a nexus that does factually exist and is entirely obvious, and to identify correctly with a full bill of particulars any truth that would be politically incorrect and counter to the governing premise for that alternate universe that perception is reality.

Stipulated truths agreed upon by convention as a concensus proclamation are the "Big Lie" that becomes by wide acclaim "authorized truth" and it no longer matters what is factual reality among all those who agree to the stipulated lie, that becomes ideologically governed and proscribed truth, that is the fiat currency and coin of the realm where no gold standard for truth exists anymore. It is an ideological fiction, made for convenience, an expediency that is a "legal fiction" indulged for political reasons.

No illusion may be made subject to examination that will expose it being an illusion. It has been decided and proclaimed by the Supreme Authority that there is no nexus where factually a nexus does exist, so then the subject will be taboo and can not be discussed. And of course, once gone down that slippery slope of "taboo subjects" for protecting various illusions in the alternate universe, a growing list of "trigger subjects" will accumulate which are things not to be discussed because the facts about such subjects would expose the illusions held to be "sacred truths and precepts" in the alternate universe where perception is reality.

Absolutely then, truth becomes "politics" and one in the same.

Recognizing this simple nexus is exactly why I in a moment of clarity about what is afoot here just simplified it to observing
Truth cannot be spoken here ....because it is too "political" or too "offensive" or too "controversial" or too something ....it is never quite "right" or compliant in agreement with some view held "sacred" by another as "their truth" and their ideological correctness and political "correctness" that they hold to be "proper".

I try but can never be "the proper stranger" but am forever the "visiting alien" surveying it all from orbit. I have no "toxic world view" but often have a very wide angle eye in the sky view of a toxic world, like a remote viewer just watching from altitude.
If I'm in a bubble then it's one hell of a Hubble

like being on the outside looking in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CUcXH2wXlQ

So then the disagreeing person who cites different facts and observations and has a differing analysis must be a "trouble maker" for asserting a "truth" that differs from the "authorized" truth that is the proclamation of the Supreme Authority. I mean to make no trouble but only tell it like it is.

None of what I have observed over the course of time that is 3 or 4 times the entire lifetimes of those who would "correct" me about "reality" makes any difference ...what could I possibly know with all my "outdated views", I mean I am such a dinosaur and an anachronism, and I am so "unscientific" that I actually believe in an "imaginary friend in the sky" so then ALL of my observations and conclusions must lack validity ....just consider the source and the "impairment" there is obvious, correct? Suppose that premise for dismissal is what lacks validity.

Go ahead, onward to Shangri La where perception is reality for the "enlightened" and the modern and don't listen to me, not ever, who would dare to speak the blasphemy that perception is not reality and that a nexus you deny exists for a plain fact obviously in many respects of direct correlation does in fact exist. It is not my intel analysis that is faulty, but is your ideology which rejects examination because of facts that show yours and others perception is not in fact reality. When your illusions are threatened by facts, you bring down the hammer that silences what you simply refuse to hear. No evidence would be sufficient to cut through the conditioned defense mechanisms of your conditioned mind. And in that world where you assert there is no nexus between natural rights and general liberty, every aspect of life is and will be governed and is decided by many men with many guns, while you have none, but of course that tiny distinction must be somehow different another way between those who say what will be and those who are subject to make it so .....while denying the obvious "forbidden" distinction that the guns have anything to do with who is who as the actors in that scene. But of course, who could ever imagine the preposterous idea that all political power flows from the barrel of a gun?

That simple truth and many others can't be discussed here because it is counter to "authorized doctrine" as proclaimed by the Supreme Authority and dialogue controllers and thought police, revisionist historians and mini propaganda minister / enforcers of "ideological purity" which has "protected status" on this board.

I get it completely. There is a practical goal of "peace keeping" that allows for discretion deciding what is at any given point in any discussion "politics" or some other "forbidden subject" where discussion must be curtailed because someone got angry or someone got offended, even though that is really their little "personal problem" but we must for expediency not personalize an indictment that could "offend" further and will tell the "white lie" that it was the subject matter that was the issue and not the immaturity of those who "lose it" and "go off" on others simply to trash a discussion about a topic they can't psychologically manage and maintain self control.

So we stipulate the problem is a "taboo subject" to put out the fire, and it is the taboo subject that is the "bad actor" and the whipping boy that takes blame. The safe zone is then recreated .....until next time

Rinse, lather, and repeat.

You see I do understand completely.

blogfast25 - 7-1-2016 at 07:28

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

You see I do understand completely.

What I understand is that you have a near-infinite capacity to spin 'theories' that have no evidential basis, then present these as 'truths'.

How 'Blogfast controls this forum' is one of the many.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]

Pyro - 7-1-2016 at 07:37

You start flinging shit at people and flaming them which gets threads you don't approve of closed down. Go look at the last 5 closed threads and see who first started insulting...

Not such a crazy theory.

hyfalcon - 7-1-2016 at 07:41

How about the first time someone gets personal, they take a week sabbatical. If when they come back it starts again then give them a month off, if there's a third time, you just ban them.

blogfast25 - 7-1-2016 at 07:49

Quote: Originally posted by Pyro

You start flinging shit at people and flaming them which gets threads you don't approve of closed down. Go look at the last 5 closed threads and see who first started insulting...

When people start flinging shit at entire Peoples, religions and other assorted groups they should expect some counter-fire from those who disagree with that. After having insulted half the world, these racists should then perhaps not cry 'ad hominem' when some one calls them a name.

You somehow laughably pretend to be 'objective' while anyone can see where your sympathies lie.

Had I known about the 9 year old policy on 'no politics!' I would have reported these violations to the mods here, well within my rights.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]

Rosco Bodine - 7-1-2016 at 07:55

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

You see I do understand completely.

Evidence you want, okay you asked for it.

Evidence of tag team elder abuse at this board.

The coordinated attack evidences a constructive conspiracy.

Review the thread in which the linked post appears for evidence.

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=63065&...

blogfast25 - 7-1-2016 at 08:06

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

The coordinated attack evidences a constructive conspiracy.

You obviously don't know what a conspiracy is, which may explain why you see them everywhere.

Political threads are now prohibited after finally and much belatedly enforcing a policy that was in place for 'ONLY' NINE YEARS! Nothing else.

As suggested elsewhere:

Please start your own blog, Rosco.

They’re:

• Free
• Take 5 minutes to set up
• Can be closed (‘membership only’)
• Moderate out the ‘children’ to your heart’s content
• Recruit here or generally on the Net
• Write what you want without any restrictions whatsoever
• 'Censor' any opposition
• Have massive food fights with opposing blogs

Simples.

[Edited on 7-1-2016 by blogfast25]

Rosco Bodine - 7-1-2016 at 08:10

Say something smart wise guy would you like dozens of more examples ?

blogfast25 - 7-1-2016 at 08:15

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Say something smart wise guy would you like dozens of more examples ?

Unless you want that possibly pruned too, go right ahead.

People are tired of this sh*t, Rosco. You're not helping yourself.

Rosco Bodine - 7-1-2016 at 08:20

I'm sure the tag team has its methods in place to dismiss valid complaints.

blogfast25 - 7-1-2016 at 08:21

I'll also remind you of this:

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone

If someone were a rules-lawyering robot they might claim that calmly insulting different religions, political parties, dearly held ideologies etc. is fine according to the letter of the law, and it's people who can't argue back without anger who are really at fault. But everybody here is mere flesh and blood -- I checked! -- so this argument is hereby rejected by The Management.

Metacelsus - 7-1-2016 at 08:36

Blogfast, Rosco: please stop flaming. (That's what this thread is about, right?)

Rosco Bodine - 7-1-2016 at 08:44

No it is not about flaming at all. It was an appeal to conscience and clarity, that went nowhere.

MrHomeScientist - 7-1-2016 at 08:45

Ironic (or perhaps inevitable) that a thread about stopping flame wars has instead incited one. All we need is franklyn to make an appearance and we've got the whole crew.

It's not about "suppressing truth" or a "conspiracy" or whatever it is you all are rambling about. It's very simple, really: This is a forum about amateur chemistry. If your post is not at least tangentially related to that, then it doesn't belong here. I don't care what your views are on subjects other than chemistry. You are free to post them on other, more appropriate forms, but please leave everything else at the door when you come here. Simple.

Bert - 16-1-2016 at 00:50

I have banned at least 4 members from posting, (but not from U2U) in the last 24 hours.

Essentially, if you would not say something to another person's face, do not post it here. If you are the kind of asshat that actually WOULD insult other people to their faces over religion, politics, sexual preferences or other NON SCIENCE RELATED MONKEY POO FLINGING, make an exception for this area of the internet and DON'T.

If you have a problem with someone else and their statements, activities or views, call a moderator on it if they are doing something that violates site policy. Otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STAY OUT OF EACH OTHERS FACES.

If you feel the need to discuss politics, find a different forum for that. This is not negotiable. Anywhere.

And U2U me if you're banned but want to not be.

http://youtu.be/eRnoUNwFOkE

[Edited on 16-1-2016 by Bert]