⫸STICKY⫷ Growing this forum- Suggestions for Improving P&S

[Foreigner]

The forum accommodates religious and spiritual discussion, but if your ideas are demonstrably unfounded/wrong, then expect criticism. That is how a forum of free speech/ideas works. You can propose anything you like, but if your proposition is stupid, then expect to get criticism. If you can't handle criticism, then perhaps writing a blog may be more suitable.

How do you demonstrate that a spiritual or philosophical idea is wrong, other than referencing your own experience? Is there some kind of "correctness" rule book that I'm unaware of?

How about this... if you think an idea is stupid and wrong, don't give it energy by responding to it? Past threads that are obviously crackpot non-starters don't get replies. There's no need to be pro-active or authoritative in shutting them down or berating people.

How many topics have we had that have been derailed by low tolerance for differences?

So my other suggestion would be, OPs should have the right to define the parameters of a discussion and have it honoured by the mods. For instance, if a topic is based within a religion, then atheists and scientists shouldn't be able to show up and tell them they're crackpots for believing in God, because it's not relevant to intra-faith discussions. This rule would apply likewise for scientists, academic philosophers, any anyone who wants to create a contained discussion about a topic. Topics that are kept general are, of course, open to whoever wants to give input.

I would even support creating a thread tag that people can select to denote such focus threads.

 

[swilow]

How about this... if you think an idea is stupid and wrong, don't give it energy by responding to it? Past threads that are obviously crackpot non-starters don't get replies. There's no need to be pro-active or authoritative in shutting them down or berating people.

Its true, or you could say that one can rebut or disagree in a certain respectful way. Admittedly a hard happy medium to find but worth striving for. But, at the same time, I think that some of the more 'out there' topics can lead to something somewhat interesting, even if the main discussion is tangential to the intial premise. To me, simply not responding is a bit boring and I don't really see the point in people posting something on a public forum and only expecting agreement.

So my other suggestion would be, OPs should have the right to define the parameters of a discussion and have it honoured by the mods.

I agree in part. Is it in the rules? Something like it is I think. I think parameteres would need to be reasonable though.

For instance, if a topic is based within a religion, then atheists and scientists shouldn't be able to show up and tell them they're crackpots for believing in God, because it's not relevant to intra-faith discussions.

I understand the idea and again I partially agree, but I'd be a bit saddened to be locked out of discussions here simply because I have a different opinion. In truth, most of the instances where people can in agressively is from new-comers or once off posters who haven't really tested the waters. Most of the disagreements I see here are relatively civil. I do not think there should be any ban against offering up a contrary opinion. If people do not want discuss these topics, use the blog section. That's my advice, but I will respect whatever anyone asks of me within reason.

 

[Foreigner]

I understand the idea and again I partially agree, but I'd be a bit saddened to be locked out of discussions here simply because I have a different opinion. In truth, most of the instances where people can in agressively is from new-comers or once off posters who haven't really tested the waters. Most of the disagreements I see here are relatively civil. I do not think there should be any ban against offering up a contrary opinion. If people do not want discuss these topics, use the blog section. That's my advice, but I will respect whatever anyone asks of me within reason.

It's not a ban, it's a safe guard to protect the sanctity of certain discussions. What you mention about newcomers is true, but also, the environment of authoritarianism and hostility can prevent newcomers from appearing too. I agree lately things have been more or less good around here, but there have been exceptions.

I don't see what's wrong with being able to create focus threads which prevent irrelevancies. If I want to talk about Buddhism I shouldn't have to spend all my time fending off people who think Buddhism is crap. If you think it's crap then don't contribute. Saying God doesn't exist or that there's no proof is a non-starter and shuts down most threads. I for one would like to get beyond that so we can talk about stuff that actually matters.

And like I said, I support this standard for everyone. If an atheist wants to start a thread about atheism, or a scientist wants to start a thread about how religion is non-sense and here's why, I support it. But focus threads should be safe from intrusions, not because they're namby pamby or weak, but because it creates room for depth among those of us who value the subject matter.

 

[swilow]

Fair point/s. For me, I guess I've no real place in religious threads anyway.

 

[Xorkoth]

I agree completely. While disagreeing with/discussing an idea is obviously the whole point of this forum, there are many cases where religious and fringe topics get cluttered with people basically shutting the ideas down. if someone wants to post a thread discussing Christianity or astrology or whatever, they should be able to do so and not fear ridicule, and likewise so should people wanting to reply to such threads.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I don't see what's wrong with being able to create focus threads which prevent irrelevancies. If I want to talk about Buddhism I shouldn't have to spend all my time fending off people who think Buddhism is crap. If you think it's crap then don't contribute. Saying God doesn't exist or that there's no proof is a non-starter and shuts down most threads. I for one would like to get beyond that so we can talk about stuff that actually matters.

I completely agree with this. I don't know why you sensed authoritarianism in my initial comment. Because I don't have much to say about buddhism, I'm probably not going to comment on the thread, but I'm also opposed to people trying to ruin the thread with their blatant (and mostly counter-productive) disagreement.

I feel like you directed the comment at me, since I'm a pretty militant materialist/atheist; but I feel like there hasn't been much disruption in religious/spiritual threads.

 

[Foreigner]

I completely agree with this. I don't know why you sensed authoritarianism in my initial comment. Because I don't have much to say about buddhism, I'm probably not going to comment on the thread, but I'm also opposed to people trying to ruin the thread with their blatant (and mostly counter-productive) disagreement.

I feel like you directed the comment at me, since I'm a pretty militant materialist/atheist; but I feel like there hasn't been much disruption in religious/spiritual threads.

I cited Buddhism as an example... you haven't dissed Buddhism anywhere as far as I can tell

 

[swilow]

Buddhism is interesting and useful for me. I think its a really workable philosophy. There's a Buddhist temple near my mother's house, quite laid back in appearance with a resident Tibetan monk named Geshe Doga. He leads meditations and just likes to chat to a pretty large audience. What strikes me about him is how often he laughs really enthusiastically, at the slightest hint, in stitches. He can then instantly go back to tranquility. Something I wish I could manage...

 

[Ninae]

That is because his spirit/presence has arisen within him. It makes you laugh, and sing, too. It just takes time to purify enough but is well worth it.

 

[swilow]

I think he's seen the truth. Life is absurd a lot, it needs to be laughed at. I find him inspiring.

I tried to chat to him but language barrier etc. We smiled at each other and he clasped my hand.

 

[Foreigner]

Ordained Tibetan monks don't have to make income, or worry about money. Not to mention they are doing 24/7 what they want to do. Of course they can laugh about it.

When you are aware of all the existential stuff but then have to survive in a shitty, mundane world by working with ignorant people in soulless systems, it's hard to transform it.

Sorry to sound jaded but I lived with Tibetan monks for 2 years so I've seen beyond the veneer.

 

[Yourbaker]

While the idea of focused discussion threads is nice the practicality of keeping a thread on focus is challenging. While reading threads here I've found usually the death of the thread is a callous usually juvenile remark and the OP gets lost defending when ignoring works better. People will derail their own threads.

I think you can always look to improve and try new things but in the end we always have to deal with the interruption and how we learn to do that may be just as important as our threads.

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah, keeping threads on topic is hard here, I agree. Some threads go off-topic and that's their natural course over time. Some go off-topic in a unconstructive way like you said though. I haven't been seeing that lately very much, people have been by and large very respectful, but there have been other periods of time where that has not been the case. Generally it's one or more consistently disruptive posters. The best thing to do is about is to not feed the trolls, when trolls are present.

 

[cduggles]

Hi, I just read through this thread after posting earlier.
First, not all scientists are atheists!
I wanted to comment about people shutting down religious people. For truly religious people, you are talking about what someone believes about fundamental issues of morality and the fate of the soul.
People have been and are being violently persecuted and killed right now for their religious beliefs. Additionally, an act such as self-immolation by Tibetan Buddhists (which speaks both to spiritual and political oppression) makes the ultimate statement about belief.
A little respect from people who believe otherwise or believe nothing would be helpful to encourage true communication.
Part of my own belief system is to try my best not to proselytize or persecute. In increasingly secular societies, religious people are dismissed rudely out of hand and scorned as utter idiots. It's a dangerous road.
I don't necessarily think it's a mod issue as much as a participant issue.
A non-religious example of this would be a thread about something like astrological horoscopes, which I do not follow. I wouldn't jump on a thread and mock everyone who does believe them, and I might contribute something about the history of the ideas behind it or some tidbit.
I don't feel particularly successful on my theological outing today, but I will try to hone my method if a topic of interest comes up.
And philosophical discussions would be great!

tl;dr Try to be like herbavore

Best, CD

 

[Foreigner]

People are free to discuss ideas, even if it includes mocking ideas. However they are not free to mock or attack individuals. There's a subtle but important difference.

The mods here are always looking out for people who are significantly derailing threads by trying to drown out the central ideas being discussed. If you feel something is going awry then you can always use the Report function and the mods will look into it asap.

 

[FnX]

In my opinion, the best way to grow and improve this forum isn't necessary an administrative issue as such, but for everyone to grow and improve themselves. Something like leading through example, to foster an open-minded and respectful attitude to the ideas of others. To emphasize that, perhaps in the context of philosophy and spirituality things are often less about right and wrong and more about opinions and ways of looking at the world. Moderators should remember that a lot of people look up to them, what, how and where they write is often seen as an example, which I don't really mean as critique towards anyone, just a reminder.

 

[Yourbaker]

How about this... if you think an idea is stupid and wrong, don't give it energy by responding to it? Past threads that are obviously crackpot non-starters don't get replies. There's no need to be pro-active or authoritative in shutting them down or berating people.
/QUOTE]

Looking at the closed threads in p&s there is a distinct patern forming, it is killing the few active posters left here. You may wish to rethink your reasons for closing threads. It's beginning to feel like personal choice and people who have differing opinions are pushed out of the sand box.

 

[Foreigner]

How about this... if you think an idea is stupid and wrong, don't give it energy by responding to it? Past threads that are obviously crackpot non-starters don't get replies. There's no need to be pro-active or authoritative in shutting them down or berating people.
/QUOTE]

Looking at the closed threads in p&s there is a distinct patern forming, it is killing the few active posters left here. You may wish to rethink your reasons for closing threads. It's beginning to feel like personal choice and people who have differing opinions are pushed out of the sand box.

Best thing you can do if you disagree with a thread closure is report the thread, or PM one of the mods. Everything is negotiable.

 

[DoctorMolecule]

More gentle persuasion to stay on topic from all points of view

 

[JessFR]

I'm gonna say something. And it'll probably be unpopular. But I tend to avoid p&s and since this thread is asking how it might be improved, I thought perhaps I should say why I avoid it.

P&S feels like the dumping ground where the stupid threads go. There are almost no actual real philosophical discussions, and I find most of the spiritual discussions to the extent they even are spiritual discussions involve the kinda subjects I think of as stupid. Because of this I avoid it. Which is a real shame really. There's a lot of real smart, sensitive people on Bluelight. There's lots of room for good, intelligent philosophical and spiritual discussions. But it doesn't happen here much that I can see.

Its called philosophy and spirituality. But really it's more about conspiracy theories, occultism, the supernatural and new age beliefs. Ghosts, aliens, conspiracies, palm reading, clairvoyance, etc. That's what I think of when I think of this subforum. and since I have a very low opinion of all those subjects, I have a low opinion of this subforum too. I certainly don't think of philosophy or spirituality.

I'm not sure how you'd go about fixing it or even if it can be fixed or that people really want it fixed.

And you know, I don't really have a problem with people believing that kinda stuff. Ok that's a lie, I do have a problem with it, but I've long accepted that I can't do anything about it so all I ask is that I not have to listen to it. But because of that, if there were genuine intelligent thoughtful philosophical or spiritual questions in this subforum. Things like questions about the nature of existence, the existence of objective morality, what is the nature of the soul? I wouldn't see them or contribute to them because I'd be avoiding this subforum because I'm more expecting the other stuff I mentioned. Maybe the subforum could be renamed and labels introduced or something. I dunno.

I know this might be very unpopular, but since the question was asked how to improve p&s. I figured I might as well explain the reasons I avoid it. But of course I might well be in the minority here. I haven't read the rest of this thread so I wouldn't know.

It's not just here though. I have similar sentiments towards the healthy living subforum. That it's less about healthy living and more about stupid diets and supplements and so forth.

Since I don't want to start a fight, generally I just avoid this kinda thing completely rather than say anything about it.