The Library

9:44 PM

"It seems like you feel this dogmatic bias in the site’s moderation makes it harder for people who share your views to participate, or even to new users to join. And absolutely I agree with you there."

@Dan "Let me make an entirely positive alternative suggestion: if there were more upvotes of answers that were consistent with the consensus here, such as it is, there's be less issue with the presence of answers that lead to fraught conversation." interesting

@JackDouglas ha nice

@Dan hmm, read the next paragraph

@JackDouglas yes I have read the whole post

@JackDouglas the conclusion ties it up for me: "I'm not saying that Jack is right, or that I agree with his point of view. I'm new here so I don't have enough to base an opinion like that. What I am saying, though, is that if you want to change the current situation, your strategy might be wrong."

I HOPE my strategy has not been the same

Monica and I have this same discussion, I think NPOV-lite or whatever is unwelcoming and will put many folk off and she thinks the status quo does that

I guess everyone knows both are true to a degree

but we differ on to what degree

@Dan no-one thinks that

seriously I've always fully appreciated your engagement

in every area of the site

9:48 PM

but even if so, that sucks, but meh

for me it is ideological

I think you will know how to vote straight away on our meta post :)

but there are underlying biases for all of us, myself included

and I'm somehow going to force everyone to vote

@Dan sure, and it's hard to see my own biases

I can't remember if the conversation was with you or someone else, but my bias is coming from a tradition where one actually should not ask biblical life application questions to anyone other than one's priest

@JackDouglas of course, same here

15 mins ago, by Jack Douglas

America is not biassed towards white people simply because there are more of them

15 mins ago, by Jack Douglas

it's a question of whether contributions from all viewpoints are welcomed, not whether they need to be promoted to have equal weight in my view

^^^ No that is not the issue.

9:52 PM

I said "in my view" :)

Yes this site welcomes all, in the same way that my club analogy welcomes all. But what we're doing is saying "all are welcome -- you don't mind if I blow smoke in your face, I hope".

yes, that's right

It's not about promoting the other answers; it's about not needlessly offending the people you want to welcome.

whatever we do, some will be offended

so it is not needless

'smoke' is relative

your clean air is smoke to others

Promoting minority posts just because they're minority posts would be even worse -- in addition to the loss of integrity, it sends a message of "there there little girl, have a cookie and feel better".

9:54 PM

@JackDouglas in this case, yes

@JackDouglas "absence of smoke-filled air", while clean, is not the same thing as "clean air". Especially if you can easily step outside for a smoke.

So allow me to clarify where I think I may slightly disagree with @MonicaCellio (and with @JackDouglas): I am acknowledging that neutrality is actually a doctrinal stance and thus is just a difference of 'cigar' vs. 'cigarette' smoke (both are smoke). I am actually arguing for it anyways, while acknowledging that it is a doctrinal stance (pluralism/relativism)

I'm not asserting dogma. I could, you know, but it would feel rude. I'm saying that, knowing that it's contentious, we should both check it at the door.

@Dan I'm arguing for being as inclusive of diverse viewpoints as we can -- by sanctioning none of them.

Because the mantra of neutrality is a modernist ideal cloaked in postmodern sheepskin

@MonicaCellio but that's somewhat impossible

@MonicaCellio we agree on the end result, just not the philosophy of what that end result is :)

@Dan we can do a whole lot better than we are. I've seen respectful discourse among people who violently disagree. It can work.

@Dan gotcha.

9:58 PM

so essentially I agree with @JackDouglas 's critiques of this position, but I am arguing for it anyways, acknowledging it is itself a doctrinal stance

@MonicaCellio but I do think we agree on the end result

@Dan ok, I see that. I think we get hung up on the word "doctrine". What I want to see us reduce is unsupported assertions of Truth.

@Dan I do too.

@Dan and I could be persuaded if I felt we would end up with a viable site

but I'll never be persuaded that an answer without assertions of truth is possible

@JackDouglas I still think there may be a compromise position, but I'm not going to be the one to bring it up :P

@JackDouglas so tell me -- how's it working on C.SE? I don't really follow it, but I gather that they take on core divisive issues without the Catholics and the Calvinists and the Orthodox all beating each other up, right? How?

@JackDouglas and I agree with you on this point

@MonicaCellio it works fine because of a shared bias

10:01 PM

@MonicaCellio I'm not the right person to ask, I've barely skimmed 'main' there

@JackDouglas qualified language is easy. Show me one answer where you need to assert rather than say "so-and-so understands this as...".

@MonicaCellio we don't have a shared bias

@MonicaCellio the latter is still an assertion of truth, just a different one

@Dan well their shared bias is "Christian", but there are some pretty important differences within that, no?

@JackDouglas it's a verifiable claim, even if the author didn't source it.

@MonicaCellio i would argue that the shared bias is a Christian-influenced form of postmodern relativism

NOT Christianity itself (they themselves acknowledge they are not a Christian site)

and that works

10:03 PM

@Dan well yeah, they say that. So does BH. :-)

because they do not get offended by mainstream Christian assertions of truth

But you can see the cracks in their pool lining as well when Mormons and JWs answer ;)

@Dan but if someone from some off-shoot branch started asserting things like that God is actually four not three, or that Jesus didn't die, how would that fly?

@MonicaCellio I don't see the difference

@MonicaCellio hence the two examples I just gave

@MonicaCellio but it works because they have defined a scope and it is more or less agreed on

@JackDouglas you don't see the difference between something that can only ever be an opinion (not provable) and something that can be looked up?

10:06 PM

You have to understand that there will always be some cognitive dissonance in any system that embraces postmodernity (it is a self-defeating philosophical ideology)

so we will never have a system free from dissonance and outliers

the goal is to include as much as we can without including too much

And that line is easier to find consensus on in the company of a majority of Protestants than it is in a company with Jews and folks from both western and eastern Christian faith

@Dan sure. I'm not saying there won't be cognitive dissonance. I'm saying that how we express those diverse perspectives has a huge impact on how they are received, and that there is no cost other than acknowledging that one isn't necessarily Absolutely Right About Everything in doing it in a qualified way.

@MonicaCellio nothing is provable in a framework-independent way

we all have axioms

@Dan I can see that. And I've said more than once that if this site decides it wants to assume a Christian baseline that's fine -- if it's declared explicitly.

@Dan this is true

@MonicaCellio and where we would differ is that I think with the exception of the most egregious cases, trying to enforce neutrality in answers is a losing battle (i.e. waste of my time, I won't fight that war)

10:09 PM

@JackDouglas what was recorded at the Council of Such-and-Such is a fact. The triune nature of God is an opinion. Both are axioms but one has a firmer foundation than the other.

@MonicaCellio why is the first a fact?

@MonicaCellio so for me I want a heavy hand on questions, but allow DVs, ignore, and comments to be the main tools for answers

@Dan while to me, if we can't have some degree of qualified neutrality -- it really is a matter of politeness and respect to me -- in answers, then I'm not interested in helping this site.

or do you just mean it is 'undisputed'?

@Dan I think we could toughen up on questons

@JackDouglas I mean it is undisputed.

10:11 PM

@MonicaCellio well everyone could be wrong

@MonicaCellio I think that the mods have made it clear that whatever we come up with will be guidelines, not strict rules

@JackDouglas that needs to happen too.

@Dan there are strict rules: ad hominems in answers etc

@Dan right, but with a guideline in this direction we will be in a better position to push for fixes to deficient answers.

And so, as such, if we begin voting in accordance with those guidelines and continually referencing them in comments - behavior will change

but not overnight

but I don't want to begin using the tools before we have the consensus (cart before horse)

hence why I invest more in meta than in commenting and voting right now

(although I am still commenting and voting, just not in ways related to this - there is still good content here to work with)

10:13 PM

@JackDouglas and some new evidence comes to light we can re-examine it. We could discover new elements some day too, but that doesn't mean the scientific community doesn't have some understanding of how atoms work.

and I am eagerly awaiting you guys' meta post :)

@MonicaCellio @JackDouglas actually, ever studied quantum physics? We really don't have any clue :P

@Dan yeah, we need to have a written-up guideline, and then link it all over the place, and recognize that it will take time. But we've got to stop just assuming it's fine now and there's no need to change.

@Dan I have :)

@Dan I wish more people did. Our meta is practically dead sometimes.

@Dan btw check the delete-votes list when you get a chance.

@MonicaCellio the problem is most stuff is disputable, such as statement like 'Christian's believe…'

10:15 PM

@Dan no, sorry -- I was thinking of the periodic table I learned in high school versus what it looks like now.

@JackDouglas (yes, I was agreeing with you there, and here)

the term 'Christian' isn't undisputes

@Dan oh, I know, sorry, I was just desperate to throw in that idle boast!

@JackDouglas such-and-such teaches... and "Christianity" is usually too broad except for the core ideas (like Jesus :-) ). You need to be more specific. But it's good for you; don't be afraid of backing up assertions.

@MonicaCellio don't know how

@MonicaCellio in the end your better off saying "I believe" instead

show him!

10:17 PM

@JackDouglas haha no problem, I get it. I can be a pendant too at times :P

we need mooare delete votes!

@Dan do you know Godel's incompleteness theorum?

@Dan review -> tools -> delete -> 30days (it defaults to just today's votes), then look at the pending-votes lists.

you don't mean VTC right? Because the one question in queue with a VTC is fine now that Jon edited it

in my opinion

@JackDouglas never heard of it

@JackDouglas well yes, but apparently asking for that offends some people.

@MonicaCellio EXACTLY

10:18 PM

@Dan it's worse than quantum physice :)

but @MonicaCellio even academia doesn't require Wikipedia-style neutrality, that can actually weaken academic arguments depending on the field

@Dan no, I mean delete votes, the things that only something like five of us can cast (and two of those people aren't around much), plus mods who won't.

What we're doing is actually unique

@MonicaCellio @JackDouglas I just learned new features. I only ever looked at Review tab

never knew about tools

Q: Is Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem a "cheap trick"?

@Dan I'm not arguing for wikipedia-style NPOV. I'm arguing for being more aware of our mixed context and the need to be polite and respectful to all in the room, even if it means adding some qualifying language around what is obviously True And Important to you. 'Cause we're not all in the same camp here and we want to be civil.

2

Jon Ericson

42

I found a throw-away critique of Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in an essay about Deconstruction: The basic enterprise of contemporary literary criticism is actually quite simple. It is based on the observation that with a sufficient amount of clever handwaving and artful verbiage, you can...

10:21 PM

@MonicaCellio yes I know, but no one agrees on what that language should be - unless we make it clear that we want it to come from a specific perspective: that of pluralism/relativism

@Jack so on that post we were discussing earlier, if @Dan casts the second vote will you cast the third?

@MonicaCellio will my vote be visible to the OP?

@Dan I think we all have some understanding of how to make it better. Don't make "perfect" the enemy of "better".

and even then we have disagreement

Because defining terms in postmodernism is like nailing jello to the wall

@JackDouglas deletions show up as "deleted by Foo, Bar, and Baz", so yes. That's why I'm asking you to cast the third one. You're a mod but you're also a user.

10:23 PM

and some good philosophers would (correctly) argue that true philosophy cannot occur in a logical sense within postmodernism for this reason

@Dan my proposal goes some way towards that, doesn't it? meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/701/43

unless one steps outside of it

@MonicaCellio When he sees my name and diamond on the list he'll see me as a mod

@Dan everything I know about "postmodernism" comes from discussions on this site. I'm the wrong person to get involved in philosophical nuance on that; I'm after practical, achievable improvement.

whether I like it or not that diamond has weight and I cannot imagine a case when I'd want to cast the third delete vote but not be willing to cast the first

10:24 PM

@JackDouglas I'd still like to see some examples to clarify that -- posts that would be handled differently if we did that. I'm having trouble understanding how it improves things just from the description, so if you could illustrate for me...

@JackDouglas so leave a comment? Jon has been the "third user vote" on some posts. You don't give up being a user.

@MonicaCellio I think he was wrong about that

the only way I'm still purely a user is with voting

because nobody knows

@JackDouglas you might want to do some asking around then. Ok if you're unwilling to act as a user then I respect that, but I don't think what I'm asking (and what Jon has done) is unusual. I've certainly seen it on other sites. I haven't searched MSO for guidance on that, nor asked in TL.

I don't think this answer has earned my delete vote, only my downvote

and I already voted on some of these

A: Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding vote

20

This can be used in "grey areas" where a moderator can choose to give his or her opinion but not make a decision alone. I don't see the point. Moderators can already leave comments, thus making their opinions known, just like normal users. Moderators can edit poorly-worded questions, just li...

While I think this is a bad answer (and thus has my downvote), it is still an answer so I won't offer a delete vote

10:29 PM

@Dan thanks for looking. I wish the delete queue were as obvious as the review queues. (Also complete; older delete votes are still there but are completely unindexed.)

especially since in this case the OP clearly made a NT connection in the question itself

@Dan I just voted on the Q and both answers :)

so answering a Hebrew Bible question from a Christian perspective isn't far-fetched for that one, the OP asks for it

Calebs comment is pretty much spot on

@Dan it's full of unsupported assertions; it all falls down if you don't understand the answerer's process. But again, I'm not asking for blind votes but that you take a look and consider, which you're doing. Thanks!

10:32 PM

@MonicaCellio btw, I downvoted the question itself and every answer to it

but I don't see anything worthy of my delete vote on it

@Dan I'd previously DVed the question and two of the answers; I see there are some newer, short, -1ed answers there now that I haven't reviewed.

They would have to make a racial slur or it would have to be 'not an answer' or something that looks like a person who escaped from a mental ward and spends their entire day phoning into AM radio talk shows about conspiracies posted it

Oh it's brilliant. I hadn't noticed.

that Q is an excellent example of how my proposal would work

the leap between Genesis and Revelation is unacceptably big IMO

And Joseph's answer would be excellent on C.SE

@JackDouglas yes I think the question is the problem here

10:36 PM

@Dan actually, on closer examination, does this answer the question? It doesn't look like it to me.

@MonicaCellio no, I just DV'd it

@JackDouglas yeah, the question is bad (hence my DV); there are two good questions that could be asked out of those sources, but he didn't ask either and tying them together is kind of "out there".

but it answers part of it

I just VTC'd the question

as opinion

@MonicaCellio under my proposal it would be closed

I agree with @Dan it is already borderline whether is really starts from the text or an opinion

@Dan ditto.

@JackDouglas ok thanks. I assume by that that you mean "would be closed by a mod on noticing it", not "would be closed by community", right? That helps. If you can point out a few more that'd still help me. (Doesn't have to be right now; I have to drop off very shortly for Shabbat.)

10:39 PM

@MonicaCellio yes I do

(well, either/or)

I'll post in here any more I happen to spot

@JackDouglas sure, it's possible that the community would get there first, but it's unlikely. :-)

that's right, I mean we'd all attack :)

@JackDouglas thanks. Well, gotta run; looking forward to your next round of edits/comments on the meta post. TTYL.

bye

and goodnight @Dan

my servers are fixed and it is long past my bed-time :)

bye all!

10:41 PM

G'night then.

(reading the link @JonEricson sent)