Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[Moonbeam]

As you know, I'm a stickler for first defining parameters, definitions and all the other stuff folks take for granted and who neglect to consider the frame of reference existing in the mind of the person they speak to.

For instance... According to the FBI (2012) definition of Rape... It don't require sexual intercourse... could be by an object... ergo, there are conditions where rape cannot result in pregnancy... but if broom sticks are genetically similar I could be wrong... maybe

Which just goes to show that as far as I knew wasn't very far. I suppose also, on further thought, that many of the males around here who are wont to rape themselves with their heads wouldn't get pregnant either.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I believe a sub-forum is worthy at this point. A No-Bullshit zone - a zone of facts...

Sub forum where mods rule with an iron fist and you majorly risk points/temp-ban in your hands if you are intellectually dishonest (as judged by the whim of whomever is moderator of the section).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sub forum where mods rule with an iron fist and you majorly risk points/temp-ban in your hands if you are intellectually dishonest (as judged by the whim of whomever is moderator of the section).

The only thing I would say about points and banning is that, in the interest of fairness, they should not apply to the rest of the board. Especially at the start, when the subforum is an experiment, the worst penalty the moderator(s) should be able to apply is removing your posting access to the subforum itself.

Two main reasons for this:

1. It would be unfair to ban people from a site mostly run using laxer rules based on infractions in a subforum using more strict rules.
2. Knowing that their actions would affect a poster's status everywhere would make moderators in the subforum reluctant to act.

 

[Perknose]

I had a couple ideas regarding this, one of them somewhat original. But more on that later.

Firstly, as has been stated, one set of rules will not please everyone. Logically speaking, you cannot have two sets of contradictory rules in the same forum. It follows then that we need two forums. The subforum idea has been proposed many times, but I still think it is the best step towards a long term solution to the quality of content in regards to politics and news at Anandtech. A lot of people have said they want more intelligent debate and discussion with a low noise to signal ratio, let them prove it. A heavily moderated subforum will serve two purposes.

First, it will give the people who want adult conversations on the important topics of the news day an outlet where they aren't going to be subject to an endless stream of brain damaged one liners and will perhaps encourage activity from the group here at Anandtech that claim they want to post in P&N related topics but just regard it as too much of a swamp. Secondly, it will act as a filter to remove from the community people who are incapable of holding intelligent discourse. Either they will shape up to participate at the big boys table or they can get banned or keep sitting in the swamp where at the very least people interested in debate won't have to look at them.

That brings me to the second point, participation in the subforum is voluntary to people who don't want to obey strict rules won't have anything to complain about. They can still be the asshats they always dreamed of, they will just have to live with a smaller audience, and, frankly, I don't see the problem there. It should quickly become clear whether people actually want to behave like adults and discuss in an in depth and intelligent fashion or if that is just a facade to make themselves look better and they are really just here for the Thunderdome. Putting it in concrete terms, furnishing the whole community a ready made place where they can do what they say they want to do should once and for all settle who actually means it.

Finally, my somewhat original thought, I don't think all insults should be banned, but I do think they can be reigned in. My thought was to start implementing a ratio to insult quota for all posts, something to the effect of no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of any post in P&N can be insults (anything flagrantly irrelevant to the topic would not count towards the total). That would cut down on posts that are basically just "you're a <insert insult>" and maybe force them to say something interesting if they just have to get in that cutting remark. I have no doubt people will game the system and just spout a few talking points (though most do that anyway already) but maybe it will just make it too much work to be worth it unless they actually have something to say and at least cut down on some of the hollow abusive one-liners that are now a forum staple.

All of this of course depends on the moderator resources that can be committed to the project as both would require fairly active moderation to be effective.

I really like the way you think on all points. As can be seen here, even the more quality posters (subjective evaluation, I know) stray into back and forths even in thread where it was explicitly forbidden in the OP.

There's a reason they say politics and religion shouldn't be discussed in polite company. They go to core beliefs.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think applying a fractional template like that would be almost the classical definition of a rule that could be skirted around by those intent on causing trouble. And rather difficult for a moderator to enforce.

Seems to me it's just a judgment call. In the tech forums, the mods have no difficulty differentiating between someone who's just calling names for the sake of it, and others who are generally engaging in a quality discussion that veers off into flame-land. The latter situation is pretty easily corrected with a word to the wise.

 

[dank69]

You are not dealing with stupidity. The science on liberals shows them to be as intelligent as liberals. I have said so many many times, but do liberals hear it? No. Liberals are blind to the fact that conservatives don't reason with their intelligence, they use it to protect their egos from truths that are painful to them. I believe this is a survival mechanism that allowed them to survive a childhood forced them to conform or die. But whatever the cause the fact is documented by neuroscience. So you want to ban folk who are stupid who are not stupid. Doesn't sound right to me.

As to their aggressiveness. You would be aggressive to if your felt your survival was at stake. If conservatives have an enlarged fear center, the right amygdala, as shows up on brain scans of people who self report as conservatives, then it is no great leap of logic to imagine that they are more effected by fear, and fear and violence, fight and flight, are bed fellows. Nor is it any surprise that conservatives would drive liberals crazy, leaping so to speak, without looking.

But the neuroscientists suggest that an instant ability to react to in some situations, instantly has survival value, just as a slower dis passioned examination of how to respond intelligently in other situations makes better sense. So it seems that if we were to truly ban conservatives, we would lose valuable survival abilities as a group.

The danger comes in other areas of difference two. Conservatives are better team players, great when we are in competition against some external threat and dangerous when there is none and the conservative team turns against liberals.

This is the situation as I see it. The challenge, then, is how to reach conservatives and notify them they have become dangerous to themselves, since they can't see it with logic and reason.

One suggestion propounded by folk who study this is for liberals to get with the program as to the real nature of the problem and find ways to communicate with conservatives. One suggestion is that they may be reached by stories, another that condemnation of their demonization of other teams may be required given that distust, and theoretically, by extention, self disgust, is in their nature, one of the many moral sensed they have that liberals don't so much.

At any rate, it seems to me that this they are stupid mentality is just part and parcel of liberal inability to deal with the fact that conservatives are impervious to reason. Folk who want to teach pigs to fly are barking up the wrong tree.

If the objective is for the segment of the population, only, who can reason be welcome to the forum, fine, but that would be a big mistake, in my opinion. I can go with demanding that they have to state their reasons why they feel any opinions they express seem right to them, not just unload their raw opinion because that's all it is and totally useless to others, because I believe they will soon be met with the fact that their reasons are no reasons at all but purely rationalizations of defended ego identifications. This is how I learned to think such as I am able, by questioning everything I thought was real, trying to logically prove it.

I know most conservatives are not stupid, but there are a few here that are. Those are the only ones I wouldn't shed a tear over if the mods decided to ban them for whatever reasons they see fit.

 

[Perknose]

I agree with what is being said....
Let me say that I believe being a mod involves a lot more than just donating your free time to a job that has no benefits and very little in the form of compensation other than knowing that you did your best!!! Even if your best falls short from time to time.....

With that said those who say -- Hey make me a mod and I will clean this place up are so sadly mistaken......there is more to being a Mod than banning and infractioning people....

Being a Mod involves getting along with the populace and sometimes trying to understand where somebody who you deem a trouble maker is coming from.....then there is trying to help posters who definitely have issues be they psychological or other issues....

Pax!!

Word! :thumbsup:

Anyone who thinks moderating is cut and dried doesn't know the job. I often say that moderating is as much art as science. This is a hard point to get across to a forum full of hard science/tech guys who are used to precision.

The precision of static rules often falls flat in the fluid, dynamic world of complex people interacting.

Beware certainty. Pride goeth before the fall.

 

[dank69]

I had a couple ideas regarding this, one of them somewhat original. But more on that later.

Firstly, as has been stated, one set of rules will not please everyone. Logically speaking, you cannot have two sets of contradictory rules in the same forum. It follows then that we need two forums. The subforum idea has been proposed many times, but I still think it is the best step towards a long term solution to the quality of content in regards to politics and news at Anandtech. A lot of people have said they want more intelligent debate and discussion with a low noise to signal ratio, let them prove it. A heavily moderated subforum will serve two purposes.

First, it will give the people who want adult conversations on the important topics of the news day an outlet where they aren't going to be subject to an endless stream of brain damaged one liners and will perhaps encourage activity from the group here at Anandtech that claim they want to post in P&N related topics but just regard it as too much of a swamp. Secondly, it will act as a filter to remove from the community people who are incapable of holding intelligent discourse. Either they will shape up to participate at the big boys table or they can get banned or keep sitting in the swamp where at the very least people interested in debate won't have to look at them.

That brings me to the second point, participation in the subforum is voluntary to people who don't want to obey strict rules won't have anything to complain about. They can still be the asshats they always dreamed of, they will just have to live with a smaller audience, and, frankly, I don't see the problem there. It should quickly become clear whether people actually want to behave like adults and discuss in an in depth and intelligent fashion or if that is just a facade to make themselves look better and they are really just here for the Thunderdome. Putting it in concrete terms, furnishing the whole community a ready made place where they can do what they say they want to do should once and for all settle who actually means it.

Finally, my somewhat original thought, I don't think all insults should be banned, but I do think they can be reigned in. My thought was to start implementing a ratio to insult quota for all posts, something to the effect of no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of any post in P&N can be insults (anything flagrantly irrelevant to the topic would not count towards the total). That would cut down on posts that are basically just "you're a <insert insult>" and maybe force them to say something interesting if they just have to get in that cutting remark. I have no doubt people will game the system and just spout a few talking points (though most do that anyway already) but maybe it will just make it too much work to be worth it unless they actually have something to say and at least cut down on some of the hollow abusive one-liners that are now a forum staple.

All of this of course depends on the moderator resources that can be committed to the project as both would require fairly active moderation to be effective.

I agree and think a subforum would be a good idea to explore. I also agree that the infractons earned in said subforum should not result in loss of privileges in other forums until the experiment has been run thoroughly. I will suggest taking the infractions earned in such a subforum a step further by suggesting a redemption avenue where someone infracted for using logical fallacies is able to have the infracton removed early if they can acceptably explain in their own words what fallacy was committed. From then on they will be held to a higher standard regarding the use of the same type of fallacy again. Educational!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think applying a fractional template like that would be almost the classical definition of a rule that could be skirted around by those intent on causing trouble. And rather difficult for a moderator to enforce.

Seems to me it's just a judgment call. In the tech forums, the mods have no difficulty differentiating between someone who's just calling names for the sake of it, and others who are generally engaging in a quality discussion that veers off into flame-land. The latter situation is pretty easily corrected with a word to the wise.

But there are much more objective/testable realities and truths to be found in computer hardware than there are in politics.

If A calles B else a name, while correcting him, in hard-ware because B is an AMD fan boy and A knows B is giving bad advice; then there are reasonably accepted objective criteria for this.

On the other hand, if A says "Bush didn't mind bringing economic ruin to the country to benifit his own wealth" and B "corrects" him and similarly throws a barb at A, what with A being a "lib-tard"... well A is making a hyperbolic statement, one well outside main-stream thinking, but one that you could back up with observations of a set of political behaviors; on the other hand, from even a moderate liberal perspective, to argue that a president is anti-american is loony and saying as much about A would be true from B's perspective, and hardly an insult.

So hardware is much less ambiguous than politics; meaning that the butt-hurt when you make a call on either side of the above-style of back-and-forth is exponentially higher.

***
more technically:

In applied psychology we have three kinds of 'justice' that we think of. Interactional (degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect), distributive (is justice meted out/provided for everyone equally?) and procedural (fairness in the processes that resolves disputes and allocates resources).

Looking at the situation through these lenses, we can see that when B insults A, there a judgment made by the mod to either do something or not, regarding the interaction. One could easily see that interactional justice is a primary concern at this point: does the insulted party get the dignity/respect of a moderator that comes from doing something about the insult.

Distributive justice requires that 'class' not be taken into account when distributing justice. While Perk would prefer not mention this, the fact is that some folks here feel like they aren't part of the preferred clique, and thus are not receiving distributive justice. On the other hand, basic moral fairness and concern pulls on a mods conscience to be as fair and equal as possible. The truth is that everyone is subject to subconscious influences that make them think they are thinking/behaving rationality, when there are many other things going on that influence us; no matter how logical/ethical we intend to be.

Procedural justice, the level at which we are talking about in this thread; It's built on suppositions about the aforementioned levels of interaction and can't exist without the previous two. Factually, no justice can prevail because it's illusory, a story made up by people in power to justify power to themselves and others. There's no jury by peers, no trial for banning; no public airing of disagreement: there is bringing a request before the empowered elite and asking if they support their fellow mod-friends or not. Rules, in procedural justice, are not about even handedness, they are about fairness (mitigation of the over-lord's power) in solving a disagreement with a moderator (as is the case when someone disagrees with points/banning).

I don't think we should even be looking for procedural justice because it just doesn't make sense for an online forum. Everyone wants distributive justice, but when it is perceived (or actually) not there, there is often an imbalance between a side that thinks its just perceived and the other that think's its actual. As for distributive justice: we tried allowing people to distribute justice based on clicking the ! icon... that worked to get trolls to bring about 'justice' against those that they didn't like. In the end, then, just rule enforcement is an impossibility.

Instead I suggest we appeal to a kind of ethically-answerable pragmatism. In this senario the mods are not jail keepers, making sure the inmates stay in line; but instead are coaches, helping folks that are going off the rails. We all have moments where we lack clarity, times when our ideas are expressed but they don't load onto the debate, ways of presenting the other person that reflects what they think of themselves in our mind, but does not reflect what they think they think of themselves.

If moderation started with the perspective "how do I help this person work better in the community" and then banned when someone continually didn't even try to shape up, then you could vacation them so they can cool off and figure out what to do differently. I don't think this would be all that much more work in the long-run; though there is a start-up cost.

I think this will work because personally, Harvey did this with me. With no intent of trolling, I was a religious troll, and by working with me toward being a better member of the community I also became a much better person IRL.

The precision of static rules often falls flat in the fluid, dynamic world of complex people interacting.

In organizational theory we deal with this by adding ambiguity to the rules

 

[Whiskey16]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the direction this discussion is now going. Gives me hope.

 

[Greenman]

I had a couple ideas regarding this, one of them somewhat original. But more on that later.

Firstly, as has been stated, one set of rules will not please everyone. Logically speaking, you cannot have two sets of contradictory rules in the same forum. It follows then that we need two forums. The subforum idea has been proposed many times, but I still think it is the best step towards a long term solution to the quality of content in regards to politics and news at Anandtech. A lot of people have said they want more intelligent debate and discussion with a low noise to signal ratio, let them prove it. A heavily moderated subforum will serve two purposes.

First, it will give the people who want adult conversations on the important topics of the news day an outlet where they aren't going to be subject to an endless stream of brain damaged one liners and will perhaps encourage activity from the group here at Anandtech that claim they want to post in P&N related topics but just regard it as too much of a swamp. Secondly, it will act as a filter to remove from the community people who are incapable of holding intelligent discourse. Either they will shape up to participate at the big boys table or they can get banned or keep sitting in the swamp where at the very least people interested in debate won't have to look at them.

That brings me to the second point, participation in the subforum is voluntary to people who don't want to obey strict rules won't have anything to complain about. They can still be the asshats they always dreamed of, they will just have to live with a smaller audience, and, frankly, I don't see the problem there. It should quickly become clear whether people actually want to behave like adults and discuss in an in depth and intelligent fashion or if that is just a facade to make themselves look better and they are really just here for the Thunderdome. Putting it in concrete terms, furnishing the whole community a ready made place where they can do what they say they want to do should once and for all settle who actually means it.

Finally, my somewhat original thought, I don't think all insults should be banned, but I do think they can be reigned in. My thought was to start implementing a ratio to insult quota for all posts, something to the effect of no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of any post in P&N can be insults (anything flagrantly irrelevant to the topic would not count towards the total). That would cut down on posts that are basically just "you're a <insert insult>" and maybe force them to say something interesting if they just have to get in that cutting remark. I have no doubt people will game the system and just spout a few talking points (though most do that anyway already) but maybe it will just make it too much work to be worth it unless they actually have something to say and at least cut down on some of the hollow abusive one-liners that are now a forum staple.

All of this of course depends on the moderator resources that can be committed to the project as both would require fairly active moderation to be effective.

So moderation becomes a math problem with subjective variables, assigned percentages and so forth? It might work, but I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to do it.
Complexity and subjective definition of what constitutes an insult is always going to be questioned, and it's often going to appear biased.

The forum almost works right now, all that needs to happen is a minimum amount of civility must be insisted on. Those that can't make a point without anger will depart with as much drama as they can create, those interested in real discussion will hang around.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But there are much more objective/testable realities and truths to be found in computer hardware than there are in politics.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. Seems to me there are facts and opinions in both cases, and also claims of facts that other may not agree with.

Sure, lots of things in the tech world are objective, but those don't tend to be the subjects people argue about. Debates over performance or benchmarking or what company is going to succeed over the long term, etc... these are similar to political arguments.

The main difference is that the moderators in those rooms don't allow the sort of behavior that has become the norm here.

 

[Moonbeam]

DixyCrat, I really like the coaching notion you bring to the table here. You also mentioned that we may consider ourselves rational even if not. Thinking about what I suggested, a forum with no put downs of others, the respect notion and even the potential salutary effects of mimicking good behavior when we may not yet fully feel it or appreciate for its potential, coupled with a rule that one must provide reasoning for opinions strikes me as a useful learning ground where coaching could be very effective.

Perhaps the forum could have a goal that alludes to such intention, "this forum is here for those who want to share their core beliefs with others regarding items in the news and politics, with the intention to acquire perspective on how others react to them, to learn to communicate effectively and contribute ones perspective and get feed back on how others react to it, or some such." This might shift the emphasis from a competition of the validity of ideas toward an analysis how convincing ones reasons for belief are to others. If we all want to think we are reasonable we could put that and not our core truths to the test. Instead, therefore, of attacks on what others thing is true, attention could turn to how well our reasons for believing as we do resonate with what others think is logical and rational. The things that could be coached here, it seems to me, is politeness, respect for the opinions of others, and what is honest thinking and what is unexamined assumption, (are beliefs supported by logic and reason, or not).

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think what is also interesting is those who demand posts that also include "facts"........again most of those who want a fact filled post will not accept other peoples facts......the premise my facts are correct your facts aren`t just does not hold water.

I have been on fact based forums and let me tell you...there are almost always more than one set of facts on a given subject! Regardless of if a person believes that thyeir facta re the only correct facts!

Civility seems to be the order of the day!!

If you go with the Palestinians/Israeli issue whose facta...who right? whose wrong?.....hmmmmmm

 

[waggy]

I think what is also interesting is those who demand posts that also include "facts"........again most of those who want a fact filled post will not accept other peoples facts......the premise my facts are correct your facts aren`t just does not hold water.

I have been on fact based forums and let me tell you...there are almost always more than one set of facts on a given subject! Regardless of if a person believes that thyeir facta re the only correct facts!

Civility seems to be the order of the day!!

If you go with the Palestinians/Israeli issue whose facta...who right? whose wrong?.....hmmmmmm

i have to agree. if you want to ban someone for not having facts this board is going to lean one direction even worse then it is now.

who is to say the facts i list from a article are not right? who is to say the article's author is right? to many "what if's"

and those saying the mods should be a dictator are just as wrong. again the forum would lean to one side and not fair. You can't have 1 or even 2 people in complete charge and what they say what is right.

if you going to do that we need 2 forums for politics..

 

[jackstar7]

Can we get some feedback on the constructive ideas that have been presented thus far? It might help steer the discussion towards refining ideas or scrapping them for new ones.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This seems like as close to consensus on action as I've seen since these discussions began months ago.

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps we could look at the issues that make forum participation difficult for different folk and what makes moderating those issues difficult.

I would like a forum that is put down free. Is that what others want or do they want to insult others? Is that difficult to moderate. Is it hard, say, to identify a put down. I don't think there's much that we are better at.

Facts that I believe are problematic here. Retaliation is easy to justify. Revenge and bad feelings carry over from thread to thread. People vary in sensitivity and in what they are sensitive about. All our feelings of grievance are our own responsibility. They arise our of past feelings of inferiority. So while we can't have any expectation we will not be insulted, we can be and intentionally. Not all the burden for this then can fall on only one party. But it doesn't get started if no put downs are tolerated I think.

I am not a mod. I do not know the issues from that side. How hard would it be, do you, mods, others, think they are to identify?

 

[Atreus21]

now I know how the founding fathers felt.

My opinion: Crack down on excessive insults and blatant thread-jacks. You're not going to civilize internet arguments by applying civilized rules.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Instead, therefore, of attacks on what others thing is true, attention could turn to how well our reasons for believing as we do resonate with what others think is logical and rational...The things that could be coached here, it seems to me, is politeness, respect for the opinions of others, and what is honest thinking and what is unexamined assumption, (are beliefs supported by logic and reason, or not).

I think this is a perfect solution (or, at least well worth a try).

I think if we stopped trying to defend our political identities and instead started seeking to share them (and have others share theirs with us) we would all grow a great deal more.

I think what is also interesting is those who demand posts that also include "facts"........again most of those who want a fact filled post will not accept other peoples facts......the premise my facts are correct your facts aren`t just does not hold water.

This is a good point. If we shift from arguing for the Truth (and therefore defending our truth/identity/Facts) to sharing what we think and why; we could move to dialog instead of monologs of ego defense

Civility seems to be the order of the day!!

Not just civility, but an out-right attempt to be kind in accepting and sharing ideas. This will take the shields down of those that most need to hear opposing view points (on all sides)

They arise our of past feelings of inferiority.

stated different (but I think with the same meaning) they arise out of a desire to defend our identity, a sort of pride in 'ourselves' that we hold onto, lest we move back to melancholy life-space where we did not take pride in ourselves. The solution is that dismissing pride, which lets us look at the fear of being worthless and wrong, allows us to listen to others and appreciate why they are where they are.

spitballing some ideas:

I would like to vote NOT for a new rule, but for a new ethos, "ATP&N exists in the spirit of appreciating other's perspective, particularly when it is divergent. Idea exposition should be limited to a honest presentation of core beliefs and why they are held, and intellectually honest questions posted with the intent to better understand the perspective the person holds."

I think we all want to have a sub-forum with much stronger moderation that acts as a sort of laboratory for these ideas.

=)

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm sorry that you don't agree with my vigilante posting tactics but I reserve them for a very few number of posters.
As I've said before I'll be happy to converse in a polite manner with almost anyone if they are willing to reciprocate.

I have no issues with you and we can agree to disagree on the pic tactics.

 

[boomerang]

I believe a sub-forum is worthy at this point. A No-Bullshit zone - a zone of facts...

Would the facts accepted to be true by righties be as worthy as facts as accepted by leftists?

I ask because all I see coming out of this are arguments over whose facts are the correct facts.

 

[UberNeuman]

Would the facts accepted to be true by righties be as worthy as facts as accepted by leftists?

I ask because all I see coming out of this are arguments over whose facts are the correct facts.

Well, first my apologies to our fellow forum members and mods.

And I wish to clarify what I meant by "the facts."

We all have our viewpoint on everything, but there does come a point when one has to deal with the real facts concerning an issue.

I'll use this as an example: Obama's Birth Certificate.

The facts are in on that - yet some still believe that Obama hasn't been honest about it to this date....

Some keep repeating incorrect or distorted information, attempting to mould a narrative from it... Much like what happened with Acorn... There seems to be far too much lately of grabbing something off a blog that fits what a partisan wants to be true - but you start picking away at what it is and most of the time it's conjecture, speculation and rumor mongering - you see that it's a straw man punching bag and nothing more...

Yet these same people keep repeating these falsities ad infinitum...

Hell, man, you've got people posting parody news items as actual news! Because they want to believe in their own idea of truth and nothing else!

I'm sure you're thinking, "well the left does it too!" And that's fine.

Call out the bullshit as needs be...

I'd agree that we all get worked up, we get behind our sides when talking about politics...

Now would a sub-forum cut down on this nonsense?

I would see it as a forum like Highly Technical - no bullshit in there - and guess what! You and I everyone else doesn't have to post in a SD forum - but if anyone does - they won't be able to rely on repeating talking points over and over, or using the classic "neerner-neerner" defense with confronted with opposing information....

\that's my two cents worth...

 

[Moonbeam]

Would the facts accepted to be true by righties be as worthy as facts as accepted by leftists?

I ask because all I see coming out of this are arguments over whose facts are the correct facts.

For me this is not the issue because I don't believe that facts have a bias. I think that were the bias comes in is in what we accept as facts when they are not facts at all. This is why the attempt to explain why you believe what you believe exposes the assumptions we make for peer review. If a person is actually interested in finding out what facts are really true he will welcome this, but if the intent is to be right regardless of fact, then one will learn nothing but others will be able to determine what they are dealing with. Where the emphasis is on discovery and not being correct, a friendlier attitude may prevail, especially if no put downs are allowed to emotionally side track reason. I welcome any thoughts and disagreements you may have on this.

 

[waggy]

facts like in this http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2296389

is i think one thing we don't need..