new COVID discussion rule/s

[silent thunder]

Moderation is and seemingly always will be slanted, according to some.  How can it be otherwise?

 

[Nungali]

The slanted view I am suggesting  is not coming from the current moderators  ( just to be clear )

[liminal_luke]

@Bindi

 

For fairness sake, I´ll say a few things in your favor I believe to be true...

 

* I don´t believe you personally are homophobic.  I think you linked to those sites with homophobic views in order to make a point.  To me, it doesn´t matter much whether or not the sites were actually LGBT sites or not.  

 

* I think your analysis of Cheya´s article was correct.  The conclusions it tried to make were erroneous as you pointed out.  

 

There´s room to debate whether your comments in Cheya´s thread are worthy of moderation or not but I found them snarky.  The whole posting of the homophobic links to me feels a bit like a tantrum.  I´m not privy to your mindstate at the time so I can´t actually say you were having a tantrum, but that´s the sense I get from reading.  Saying "Do any of you actually know how to interpret data" is an insult.  You might believe it´s an accurate assessment but it comes off as an insult.

 

I believe if you had found a less emotionally combative way of making your points about the science Cheya would of continued to welcome your participation in the thread.

Edited October 23, 2021 by liminal_luke

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

@Bindi

 

For fairness sake, I´ll say a few things in your favor I believe to be true...

 

* I don´t believe you personally are homophobic.  I think you linked to those sites with homophobic views in order to make a point. 
 

 

You’re right of course, I’m not homophobic. I was responding to Cheya’s claim that my ‘vaccine makes you gay’ stories were made up. They weren’t. I linked to the articles that carried these stories to prove I hadn’t made them up. No tantrum, no snarkiness, merely proof I hadn’t made them up.  

 

Quote

To me, it doesn´t matter much whether or not the sites were actually LGBT sites or not.  

 

You have repeatedly referred to my posting links to homophobic sites, even in this current post (see bolded and underlined quote below). This suggests to me that it does matter to you whether the sites are homophobic or not. The sites I linked to were the very opposite of homophobic. 

 

Quote

 

* I think your analysis of Cheya´s article was correct.  The conclusions it tried to make were erroneous as you pointed out.  

 

 

I’m glad you’ve come to this conclusion. Being aware of data manipulation in one article can arm you against falling for it in another. 
 

Quote

 

There´s room to debate whether your comments in Cheya´s thread are worthy of moderation or not but I found them snarky. 
 

 

I was accused of making up vaccines make you gay stories. How else might I have proven I didn’t make them up? Would I have been believed me if I had merely stated I hadn’t made them up? Saying I didn’t make them up doesn’t sound like a strong defence to me, much stronger to post proof that I didn’t make them up. 

 

Quote

The whole posting of the homophobic links to me feels a bit like a tantrum. 
 

 

Are the links to an LGBTI site homophobic? Is the LGBTI site itself homophobic because they reported that some people were saying the vaccine makes people gay? 

 

Quote

I´m not privy to your mindstate at the time so I can´t actually say you were having a tantrum, but that´s the sense I get from reading.  Saying "Do any of you actually know how to interpret data" is an insult.  You might believe it´s an accurate assessment but it comes off as an insult.

 

Cheya wrote that we will know if the article was correct or not in 6 months time (if/when everyone who had been vaccinated started dying from AIDS). This was her best way of evaluating this article. Asking if any of you knew how to interpret the actual data seemed like a reasonable response at the time, instead of waiting the 6 months to prove this author right or wrong. 

 

Quote

I believe if you had found a less emotionally combative way of making your points about the science Cheya would of continued to welcome your participation in the thread.

Because you, Cheya and Taomeow already believed that the vaccine causes an acquired immune deficiency disorder, you were all blinded to the level of misinformation you were being fed. This does get frustrating for me at times, and I might not always say things in the kindest way, but I really am tired of combatting misinformation. Not combatting it doesn’t feel like an option when I see what I find to be glaringly obvious misinformation being posted. This is why I suggested a few months back that Cheya post in the new current events section, because then I wouldn’t have to see every new piece of misinformation, and I wouldn’t feel compelled to counter it. 
 

NB., full disclosure, I did study statistics at university level, where we were trained in how to conduct a scientific experiment, how to use statistics properly, as well as how to spot misuse of statistics. I passed all my stats units with distinctions. 
 

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Bindi

[liminal_luke]

@Bindi

 

To me, if someone says "vaccines make you gay" -- that´s homophobic.  So I guess what I mean is the original material you found in the mostly LGBT sites was homophobic.  The sites themselves may have quoted it in order to make fun (in poor taste, imo).  Those sites are arguably not homophobic but they quoted (and you requoted) homophobic material.  Did you make up the story that vaccines make you gay?  You did not.  But clearly the original writers of that thesis made it up.  I think that´s what Cheya meant when she said that those stories were made up -- not that you made them up but that the religious leaders who originally wrote them made them up.

 

For what it´s worth (not that you should care about my opinion), I don´t think you´re a bad person, Bindi.  I appreciate that you are trying to counter what you see as "misinformation."  I think you´re smart and scientifically astute.  But the posting of the vaccine-makes-you-gay material feels, at best, a little tit-for-tat.  You may not mean it in a snarky way but it does come off that way.  In my eyes, a ppd is kind of like a person´s home.  The rest of the forum is more like a public square, occasionally like a rowdy sports bar, but a person´s ppd is their own little corner of the forum where they can decorate things to their liking and put their feet up.  If you came into my home and told me that I wasn´t very intelligent (didn´t know how to interpret data) and started bringing up bizarre homophobic analogies, I might ask you to leave. 

 

My objection to the current rule is that it makes Cheya and Taomeow (and anybody else who starts a covid related ppd thread) into a kind of second class citizen.  Everybody else gets to have a ppd home with a sturdy door that locks, while they are forced to stand by while anybody and everybody, however rude, walks through their place.  They don´t dare take any kind of action to stand up for themselves because doing so could be interpreted as a "first offense" by the mod team and lead to immediate punative action with no opportunity for dialogue or recourse.  It´s not surprising that they´ve hidden their threads; that´s what anybody with a modicum of self-respect in this situation would do.  Some may be happy to see those threads go but it makes me sad.  I think we´re missing out on a lot of good thinking and useful information.

 

This is all very unfortunate. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by liminal_luke

[Earl Grey]

38 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

My objection to the current rule is that it makes Cheya and Taomeow (and anybody else who starts a covid related ppd thread) into a kind of second class citizen.  Everybody else gets to have a ppd home with a sturdy door that locks, while they are forced to stand by while anybody and everybody, however rude, walks through their place.  They don´t dare take any kind of action to stand up for themselves because doing so could be interpreted as a "first offense" by the mod team and lead to immediate punative action with no opportunity for dialogue or recourse.  It´s not surprising that they´ve hidden their threads; that´s what anybody with a modicum of self-respect in this situation would do.  Some may be happy to see those threads go but it makes me sad.  I think we´re missing out on a lot of good thinking and useful information.

 

^^ The above has happened to other members who owned PPDs who were perceived as abusive by moderators in the past and members who were abusive to those owners as well. One such member in the latter group who was very abusive and abrasive now moderates two forums after Sean gave an ultimatum to Alt-Right members to leave. 

 

TDB is a discussion site and broad range of interests, which is what makes it problematic on what to do. Our own AG forum is focused on practice, theory, and application, so a covid19 subject would need a very good justification to appear, and even then, it would be heavily scrutinized due to the scientific and academic background of the owner. Such an example might be TCM or Ayurveda in relation to covid19, but it would emphasize that each one is a framework, not truth or fact. 

 

Rethinking the mission of TDB might not be a bad option rather than just adding rules that sound closer to 

 

All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

You’re right of course, I’m not homophobic. I was responding to Cheya’s claim that my ‘vaccine makes you gay’ stories were made up. They weren’t. I linked to the articles that carried these stories to prove I hadn’t made them up. No tantrum, no snarkiness, merely proof I hadn’t made them up.  

 

 

You have repeatedly referred to my posting links to homophobic sites, even in this current post (see bolded and underlined quote below). This suggests to me that it does matter to you whether the sites are homophobic or not. The sites I linked to were the very opposite of homophobic. 

 

 

I’m glad you’ve come to this conclusion. Being aware of data manipulation in one article can arm you against falling for it in another. 
 

 

I was accused of making up vaccines make you gay stories. How else might I have proven I didn’t make them up? Would I have been believed me if I had merely stated I hadn’t made them up? Saying I didn’t make them up doesn’t sound like a strong defence to me, much stronger to post proof that I didn’t make them up. 

 

 

Are the links to an LGBTI site homophobic? Is the LGBTI site itself homophobic because they reported that some people were saying the vaccine makes people gay? 

 

 

Cheya wrote that we will know if the article was correct or not in 6 months time (if/when everyone who had been vaccinated started dying from AIDS). This was her best way of evaluating this article. Asking if any of you knew how to interpret the actual data seemed like a reasonable response at the time, instead of waiting the 6 months to prove this author right or wrong. 

 

Because you, Cheya and Taomeow already believed that the vaccine causes an acquired immune deficiency disorder, you were all blinded to the level of misinformation you were being fed. This does get frustrating for me at times, and I might not always say things in the kindest way, but I really am tired of combatting misinformation. Not combatting it doesn’t feel like an option when I see what I find to be glaringly obvious misinformation being posted. This is why I suggested a few months back that Cheya post in the new current events section, because then I wouldn’t have to see every new piece of misinformation, and I wouldn’t feel compelled to counter it. 
 

NB., full disclosure, I did study statistics at university level, where we were trained in how to conduct a scientific experiment, how to use statistics properly, as well as how to spot misuse of statistics. I passed all my stats units with distinctions. 
 

 

 

What did I say up there about   some people had a slanted view through this  ?    

 

Struth ! Now I am not even game to say the word 'homophobic'       ....... damn !  ( Now I'm for it ! )  .

 

[liminal_luke]

5 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

TDB is a discussion site and broad range of interests, which is what makes it problematic on what to do. 

 

Civil discussion isn´t easy.  The Trump-Talk era here on the board was difficult for me because some of the more right-wing members were openly dismissive and demeaning of members who shared opinions at odds with their own.  In a way, I was glad when Sean arrived with his communist/anarchist sledgehammer and busted up the place.  Previously timid leftists emerged from their burrows and did little happy dances; I was reassured to see that a person could be spiritual, even Taoist, without loving Trump.  Still, looking back today, I miss some of the wiser, more measured conservative voices.  I miss Brian, I miss RedCairo.  I´m a free speech guy at heart and, with very limited exceptions, I think people should be able to say what they want.  My free speech leanings put me somewhat at odds with the zeitgeist: in the name of combating "misinformation," many are increasingly in favor of censorship.  

[Earl Grey]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Civil discussion isn´t easy.  The Trump-Talk era here on the board was difficult for me because some of the more right-wing members were openly dismissive and demeaning of members who shared opinions at odds with their own.  In a way, I was glad when Sean arrived with his communist/anarchist sledgehammer and busted up the place.  Previously timid leftists emerged from their burrows and did little happy dances; I was reassured to see that a person could be spiritual, even Taoist, without loving Trump.  Still, looking back today, I miss some of the wiser, more measured conservative voices.  I miss Brian, I miss RedCairo.  I´m a free speech guy at heart and, with very limited exceptions, I think people should be able to say what they want.  My free speech leanings put me somewhat at odds with the zeitgeist: in the name of combating "misinformation," many are increasingly in favor of censorship.  

Censorship is a disproportionate reaction to what essentially amounts to strong personalities. Whether it is passive-aggression or outright emotional manipulation, individuals who understand this game know how to flaunt the rules and play everyone like a damned fiddle. 
 

During my Great Wall experiment in the PPJ I actually got a lot more data about human nature and ignoring rules—especially ones I wrote. One discovery: if people don’t agree, they believe they’re above the rules, but when someone they don’t like is violating them, they’re quick to point them out and wait for consequences.

 

Human nature is opportunistic when there is individual and group imbalance and leads to a tribal mindset. 
 

One solution in an old group in college I was part of was humor and absurdity. If the leader was irritated with someone talking over everyone, he decided that they weren’t allowed to speak unless it was in iambic pentameter, and if they violated that, nobody needed to listen to them until they got it right.

[liminal_luke]

@Trunk

 

Is a Bum allowed to have a Covid related thread in a ppd that is locked to all replies?  

[ralis]

44 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

@Trunk

 

Is a Bum allowed to have a Covid related thread in a ppd that is locked to all replies?  

 

So others can read it and be influenced not to get the vaccine? Answer is no!

[silent thunder]

And so the Tao Bums has graduated to become the Arbiter of The-All-Truth...

 

 

 

 

[ralis]

Sometimes I wonder why self enamored persons are even participating here. Many here are adherents of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism etc., but ignore basic tenets of, no separation, compassion, mortality, karma and so forth. Profuse self referencing with no thought for others is the main theme in the anti-vaxx discussions.

 

 

[liminal_luke]

4 minutes ago, ralis said:

 Profuse self referencing with no thought for others is the main theme in the anti-vaxx discussions.

 

 

As gobsmackingly wrongminded as it may seem to some, there are people who refuse the Covid vaccine out of compassion for others.

[Trunk]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

@Trunk

Is a Bum allowed to have a Covid related thread in a ppd that is locked to all replies?  

 

No, because that effectively cuts off debate ... the ability for differing views to be presented by members.

 

4 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

And so the Tao Bums has graduated to become the Arbiter of The-All-Truth...

 

If you read the line above your quote, here, and the rule change in the opening post, you'll see the the rule is crafted to allow varying pts of view.   Staff is not going around deleting posts that don't fit their idea of truth, as your comment is suggesting is happening:  Nope.

[ralis]

4 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

As gobsmackingly wrongminded as it may seem to some, there are people who refuse the Covid vaccine out of compassion for others.

 

I am not buying that one bit! An infected person spreads COVID around to others and many get sick and die is compassionate? 

 

No wonder I am not spending as much time here as I did in the past!

Edited October 24, 2021 by ralis

[silent thunder]

sigh...

25 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

<snip>

 

 

If you read the line above your quote, here, and the rule change in the opening post, you'll see the the rule is crafted to allow varying pts of view.   Staff is not going around deleting posts that don't fit their idea of truth, as your comment is suggesting is happening:  Nope.

I see the spirit of the rule, and appreciate the attempt but the implimentation is where I see great fuzziness and projection/assumption.

 

There is no guarantee that every 'misguided' post will be rebutted in every personal thread.

And hence, no guarantee that some folks won't encounter misinformation that goes unchallenged and perhaps be influenced by it at some point.

 

Who determines what must be countered?  Who makes sure every misguided statement is rebutted and in a timely fashion?

It seems an untenable situation to me.

 

I'm still for banning the topic entirely.  It's the only way to be sure no one is influenced and potentially harmed.

 

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Trunk said:

 

If you read the line above your quote, here, and the rule change in the opening post, you'll see the the rule is crafted to allow varying pts of view.   Staff is not going around deleting posts that don't fit their idea of truth, as your comment is suggesting is happening:  Nope.

 

It´s true that the rule is crafted to appear value neutral: it applies equally to all Covid ppd threads.  It´s also true that "staff is not going around deleting posts that don´t fit their idea of truth."  Nevertheless, the effect (and arguably the intention) of this ruling is to shut down discussion.  Here´s why. 

 

At present the only Covid related ppd threads that get any appreciable traffic at all are those of Cheya and Taomeow, two Bums who have been critical of the mainstream approach to the pandemic.  Trunk posted an announcement of this rule change in their their threads and the rule is clearly aimed at them.  This rule creates two tiers of ppd ownership, a double standard.  Cheya and Taomeow are only allowed to moderate their Covid threads under extreme peril -- a single misstep could result in an immediate and irreversible locking and pitting of what might amount to years of work.  Everybody else gets to moderate their ppds at will.  

 

Imagine it was you that was subject to this unequal status.  Would you be willing to continue putting out the time and effort it takes to create material that others find interesting and worth responding to?  Likely not.  Only a very specific kind of person -- submissive, insecure, comfortable with humiliation -- would accept such treatment without complaint.  Neither Cheya nor Taomeow have what it takes, alas, to continue working under the new conditions.  They´ve packed up their Covid threads.  I´m hoping they don´t leave the forum altogether but time will tell.  The foreseeable (and perhaps foreseen?) effect of this new ruling is that debate has been stifled.  We´ve lost important contrarian voices at a time when contrarians are becoming an endangered species.  So sad...

 

(Later edit: I do want to acknowledge that the intent of this new ruling is to save lives.  I appreciate that the moderators might feel as though they´re in something of a Covid pickle.  As much as I disagree with the approach taken, I do appreciate the good intentions.)

Edited October 24, 2021 by liminal_luke

[Michael Sternbach]

This issue with its many aspects IS controversial - and not only on TDB. In my country, a full 40% of voters rejected granting government extended powers of implementing "anti-pandemic measures" back in June - all just ignorant and irresponsible extremists?

 

Such measures are indeed a double-edged sword. Arguably, some of them could be saving lives. By the same token, they could destroy lives as well, as they wreck havoc with countless businesses. And so on.

 

On the one hand, there is the medical side that I feel we can't always trust the media to represent in an unbiased and balanced fashion. Most of us may not be medical experts - but even amongst the latter, there is an appreciable degree of disagreement. And what about naturopathic views? They tend to diverge from mainstream opinion almost by definition.

 

On the other hand, there are ethical implications as well - when push comes to shove, what do we value most? Our safety - or our liberty?

 

Obviously, different individuals will have different views on all that. I feel, now more than ever, staff should uphold TDB's traditional position as an independent platform for open discussion. A last bastion of uncensored exchange between free thinking and self-determined individuals, if you will.

 

Understandable as the administration's concerns may be, what each reader makes of the information presented here should be left to their own discretion.

 

As things stand, I prefer not to tick any of the optional boxes offered in the OP. What I shared are simply some general philosophically inspired guidelines that I suggest you take into consideration.

 

Cheers

Michael

Edited October 25, 2021 by Michael Sternbach

[Earl Grey]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, in variations of the same essential meaning. 

[silent thunder]

Thank you @Michael Sternbach

 

Well said. 

[Master Logray]

The forum is set up for a purpose, and for specific subjects.   Members inevitably talk about non-related things.  If these become too many, then what should the forum do?   Whether it is Covid or flower arrangement, if every time I log on the Activity Section, I see 50 posts about Covid or flower arrangement, I would not like to scroll to the end and find out any normal post.  True or untrue, saving or destroying lives, these are subjective opinions.  But the quantity of unrelated posts is very real and quantifiable, and annoying too.   Keeping them in Current Section still appears in the Activity Section?  right?

[Apech]

@Trunk and mod team et al,

 

Have you considered moving all Covid related content to a separate sub with a pinned and prominent site disclaimer/position statement i.e. not a medical site, recommend all users to seek professional medical advice, follow their local government guidelines regarding social distancing etc. ... and please cite all claims with links to external sites.  And that apart from this we support the freedom of individuals to reach their own conclusions informed by current science and the values of the system of cultivation they follow, and value the function of this site as free and frank discussions between individuals with their own views, questions or reservations.

 

?

 

 

[Trunk]

15 minutes ago, Apech said:

@Trunk and mod team et al,

 

Have you considered moving all Covid related content to a separate sub with a pinned and prominent site disclaimer/position statement i.e. not a medical site, recommend all users to seek professional medical advice, follow their local government guidelines regarding social distancing etc. ... and please cite all claims with links to external sites.  And that apart from this we support the freedom of individuals to reach their own conclusions informed by current science and the values of the system of cultivation they follow, and value the function of this site as free and frank discussions between individuals with their own views, questions or reservations.

 

?

 

HOLY MACKERAL!!,  Excellent disclaimer.  If we post one, gonna use that.

 

The seperate subsection - more of a catch all - would be Current Events.  Yeah, we could get more specific, but I think the Current Events section is a good model - not only for covid, but for Current Event kerfluffles that seem to happen every few years or so.  I like that specific permissions must be granted to see that area, so for members who just wanna see internal arts stuff, it doesn't show up in their "show new posts" list.  Not click-bait for conflict, doesn't cloud the board as much from there.

[ralis]

8 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

HOLY MACKERAL!!,  Excellent disclaimer.  If we post one, gonna use that.

 

The seperate subsection - more of a catch all - would be Current Events.  Yeah, we could get more specific, but I think the Current Events section is a good model - not only for covid, but for Current Event kerfluffles that seem to happen every few years or so.  I like that specific permissions must be granted to see that area, so for members who just wanna see internal arts stuff, it doesn't show up in their "show new posts" list.  Not click-bait for conflict, doesn't cloud the board as much from there.

 

I recommend everyone research the legalities of giving medical advice. California has very strict laws regarding medical advice which also applies to online discussions. I am not a lawyer, but did a little research a few minutes ago.