In favor of shutting down SD and banning similar threads

[Lasagna]

There are two forms of argument that are helpful and healthy for human society.

The first form is dialectic, whereby two (or more) participants engage in one another in a mutually cooperative search for truth in regards to some subject. It is traditionally the method characteristic of philosophy and the special sciences which philosophy gives birth to. It is rather obvious that BF SD could not be considered representative of dialectic. There is nothing remotely similar to cooperation between posters, and nobody at any point appears to entertain the prospect that they are incorrect and their opponent correct, which is the foundation upon which the dialectical method is built.

The second form is rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and in a democratic society based on public participation, any citizen, in order to fully perform their function as a citizen, has to be equipped to some degree or another with rhetorical skills. Dialectic can not really be engaged in on a society wide scale, but rhetoric allows us to get around the challenges inherent to dialectic and yet still have a society based, to some degree, on reasoned exchange. Is what goes on in SD representative of rhetoric? Obviously, no. At no point does anyone attempt to persuade anyone else of the truth of their positions, nor are their arguments persuasive, unless one comes in wanting to be persuaded. Rather than tailoring arguments to persuade their opponent, SD arguments are tailored in such a way as to give the person making them an excuse not to be persuaded, and to continue hurling insults at their opponent.

If what goes in in SD is neither dialectic nor rhetoric, what is it? It is simply forum sanctioned fighting. A place for people to go to hurl insults at one another and express internet rage. It is not helpful to the forum in any manner, and should be closed.

[Bodhi]

Meh, I ignored Hawaiian, I'm going to see what I can get out of now. Windowlesshouse and myself were having a fairly productive dialectic discussion. Or so I thought, maybe he was angry and I simply didn't detect it. However, there exists no small problem with people entering into discussions in a lazy manner that is not well thought out and getting into pageslong discussions with others that amount to having to effectively construct a real initial post in a retroactive manner. I think if we want to go about creating an SD that works and is functional, we need to first form a table of SD individuals, who possess SD membership and power over others' membership, and develop it from there. I do believe a democracy is the only way SD will ever thrive or function. We keep having mods "put over" SD that amount to people with no experience or interest in SD that eventually give up out of apathy or spite.

[DemolitionSquid]

Contrary to popular belief, the internet is not serious business. SD can die like the floppy disk.

[JT]

To essentially boil down what Ben said in the first post,

[Bodhi]

I hereby vote JT out of SD.

[JT]

I hereby vote JT out of SD.

Psh, whatever. SD has sucked ever since WinAce died.

I think SD just needs better moderation. There's only one mod for it, and while the senior mods are supposed to pick up the slack (as has been explained to me), I rarely see them in there.

[WindowlessHouse]

Meh, I ignored Hawaiian, I'm going to see what I can get out of now. Windowlesshouse and myself were having a fairly productive dialectic discussion. Or so I thought, maybe he was angry and I simply didn't detect it. However, there exists no small problem with people entering into discussions in a lazy manner that is not well thought out and getting into pageslong discussions with others that amount to having to effectively construct a real initial post in a retroactive manner. I think if we want to go about creating an SD that works and is functional, we need to first form a table of SD individuals, who possess SD membership and power over others' membership, and develop it from there. I do believe a democracy is the only way SD will ever thrive or function. We keep having mods "put over" SD that amount to people with no experience or interest in SD that eventually give up out of apathy or spite.

I find it hard to remain genuinely angry with anyone over the internet because it doesn't mean anything in the long run. Anyway, I responded to your questions in the stem cell thread.

SD needs a mod that actively participates and doesn't just respond to the report post notifications. This is because arguments are made in context and knowing what is going on is necessary prior to modding. He/she needs to know the distinctions between legitimate argument and an illegitimate one like Ben has delineated in the first post. Prescience and knowledge of history would also help the cause.

Also, most arguments are also caused by the two parties misunderstanding of each others particular use of free-floating signifiers (words).

Submit your resume for review. KTHXBYE

[Troll]

I agree with Ben, there really is no point of SD. Most people here are unwilling to change their opinions no matter how persuasive your argument is. You could hit somebody with a knock-down argument and they will either backpedal, ignore it, change the subject, or something of that nature. People aren't even interested in learning new things, but instead are more concerned with "winning" arguments.

Like you said, a lot of people frame their arguments in such a way as to not be persuasive, but instead would rather have somebody to argue with. I do it, you do it, everyone here is guilty of it. I second a vote to remove SD, and also I nominate Kaizen as SD mod should my first vote fail.

[JT]

I agree with Ben, there really is no point of SD. Most people here are unwilling to change their opinions no matter how persuasive your argument is. You could hit somebody with a knock-down argument and they will either backpedal, ignore it, change the subject, or something of that nature. People aren't even interested in learning new things, but instead are more concerned with "winning" arguments.

Like you said, a lot of people frame their arguments in such a way as to not be persuasive, but instead would rather have somebody to argue with. I do it, you do it, everyone here is guilty of it. I second a vote to remove SD, and also I nominate Kaizen as SD mod should my first vote fail.

To borrow terms from the economic world, there really isn't any incentive to making a good argument or "winning" an argument on the internet, anywhere. We're not voting on anything, we're not really trying to convince anyone to change our minds, we don't even have to face any kind of actual reprisals, and at the very worst we get banned. Boo hoo.

SD used to be full of great posters who actually had detailed arguments, but now most of them are gone. Instead, we have poorly written posts (and yes, I will admit I have written a few of them) about the same old subjects. Nothing new is ever presented, everyone is in intellectual gridlock and are essentially turtling on their positions. On rare occasions do people admit they are wrong, or change their mind, but usually people blather about the same old shit, and then get all offended when someone disagrees (again, I am guilty of this in the past).

I second Kaizen as being mod material, but I wouldn't mind Ben, Grog, or a reinstated Nuts as new SD mods. Sure, we don't agree on much, but at least they make coherent arguments, and are generally nice.

[Grog]

Maybe not shutting down, but if not it needs major reform.

But otherwise, yes SD is pretty much a disgrace.

I've never understood why people get so much satisfaction over insulting and belittling their opponents over the internet. You gain nothing...in fact you have probably lost the opportunity to learn something intelligent they may have had to say.

[JT]

Maybe not shutting down, but if not it needs major reform.

But otherwise, yes SD is pretty much a disgrace.

I've never understood why people get so much satisfaction over insulting and belittling their opponents over the internet. You gain nothing...in fact you have probably lost the opportunity to learn something intelligent they may have had to say.

See above Penny Arcade comic. Without any kind of face-to-face communication or any real consequences, the asshole in all of us is unleashed on the internet. Some people are just "better" at it.

[Troll]

I know. I'm actually a very likeable guy in real life, but I've noticed I'm only "friends" on blizzforums with people who more or less agree with me and my positions. I guess one thing thats different about me is that actually I do provoke confrontations in real life too just like here. If I sense that somebody doesn't like me I will usually try to act even more obnoxious to get them to speak up.

[Mike]

Don't like it, don't go there?

I fail to see how such a high volume section needs a shutdown.

[Grog]

It is simply forum sanctioned fighting. A place for people to go to hurl insults at one another and express internet rage. It is not helpful to the forum in any manner, and should be closed.

I disagree with the conclusion as well, but he did give well-thought out reasoning, mike.

[Lasagna]

Don't like it, don't go there?

I fail to see how such a high volume section needs a shutdown.

I was not expressing merely a personal dislike of it but a belief that its existence is actually harmful to the forum at large.