/q/ - arisuchan meta

The thing is, certain topics inevitably carry a philosophical weight, and one's philosophy directs one's political dispositions. I agree that it does get annoying sometimes, but it would be a real shame to just shove them all off into the economics board just because they start talking about socialism. It would clutter /z/ with threads that don't belong there and most of those threads get back on topic eventually. It's really up to us users to use our heads and identify when a discussion isn't going anywhere.

Personally I enjoy reading them as long as they don't devolve into mud-slinging. There's really nothing for the admins to do on this one, we just have to start paying attention and keeping things on the right track

This was extremely predictable and I warned about it when the staff made that these soykafty board additions (/z/, /x/?? wtf). We need to broaden the boundaries of /z/ into a philosophy / social science board. This would contain all that /z/ is now, but also more and without arbitrary priorities of content which it fallaciously consists of now. Economics is trash without politicological understanding. Politicology is trash without sociological understanding. Sociology is trash without anthropological understanding. All study is trash without logic, reasoning and empirical examples.

Also nuke /x/, it feeds irrationality, delusion and predispositions to schizophrenia and has no place in a programmers' sqatted military silo with scifi characteristics.

>>1700

I don't actually agree with you on that. I believe that /x/ for example as a special place on this site because everything as a spiritual side of it, saying that there is no place for this here is like saying that paranormal studies as no place to be in scientific realm. Even if the internet is man made i believe that supernatural can affected it in many way. It isn't a rational way of thinking i agree but discrediting it simply because you don't believe in it doesn't seems fair to me and on top of that no one is twisting your arm to go look this board.

Now on the main point i agree partially. We could apply the same thing for every board, but we got to remember, we don't have the most active community of all time, more board means less activity overall for every board. I don't think that a good option for the moment.

>>1700
>a programmers' sqatted military silo with scifi characteristics

That may be how you view this site, but that's entirely dependent on which boards you choose to browse. Other people choose other boards. It's not about programming - it's about Lain, it's community and all things cyberpunk. That means anything from fan theories to philosophy to ethics to whatever the hell people want to talk about, tied together by nothing else than their shared like of the titular cartoon.

>>1695
>could they just be moved to /z/?
No! The theme of /z/ is quite clearly
economics and dystopian politics not just any random political trash. That soykaf doesn't belong anywhere. All discussion of politics in the short-term, especially US politics, is consistently garbage.

>>1696
This seems to be the reasonable solution. As long as the discussion is on-topic for the thread and the thread is on-topic for the board there doesn't need to be any intervention by the mods. Obviously when people delve into mud-slinging there should be action as it's a clear rule violation.

>>1701
That makes sense but to be fair all threads on /x/ at the moment could easily have been housed on /psy/, /feels/, /cyb/, /tech/ or /r/. Grouping them all onto one board seems extremely redundant as of now but perhaps that will change with newcomers. Honestly, it's the one board I would consider removing from the site.

>>1701
>paranormal studies as no place to be in scientific realm
isn't that the point of paranormal?
can you really consider something paranormal if you understand it scientifically?

>discrediting it simply because you don't believe in it
"it feeds irrationality, delusion etc." is not the same as "i don't believe in it"

i vote to keep the board cause i haven't seen a solid argument to remove it. feel free to provide one though.

>>2428
My guess is that paranormal translates as 'anomaly' in scientific language.

>>1702
Fuck off glitterboy.
Seph is blessed and so are we for having her .

>>1695
>>1696

This

I rarely interject in thread because i want to let user decide for themself when to stop. and what i realise is
most of the time you guys actually do take the path "Well it's not going anywhere." Even if there is a bit
of mud-sliging, it recentered on the topic most of the time.

It does get annoying tho, but it's also really engaging to understand the point of view of most people on certain topics.
Even if we agree on a lot in this community, we disgree on much more and this is fascinating to witness.
I learn a lot from you by looking at each thread and like previously said i would be a shame to shove it in one board
because there a disgreement among us.

Certainly i'm not alone on this.

>>2434
Take this discussion for example and imagine it were on any other board:
>>>/z/61

Are you really going to tell me that this is interesting and engaging political discussion? That it is "fascinating" to see petty repetative arguments and weak insults?

A post like this makes a direct comment about a political ideology and, whether I agree with them or not, allowing one ideological post means allowing all the meaningless and annoying discussion that follows. Maybe you're right and there's no need to take action but it's worth someone calling it out for being annoying and soykaf.

Certainly I am not alone on this either.

>>2436

I did not said that every thread was perfect.You're still right, I can't deny it, It does happen.
but what would you prefer? The staff censoring any post making political ideology in each thread that is not /z/? Or letting the user direct the flow of the conversation?

I could become a relentless mod and banning any political comment that isn't in /z/ but this would limit the conversation and since we're not that much posting on the website that make thing even more limited for people to actually discuss. Accepting to let user talk political like this also mean that meaningless discussion will happen, and when it happen report the discussion and specified that it's derailing and I or any other member of the staff will be able to interject/delete/ban people that are either derailing/insulting/trolling depending on the situation the staff will take appropriate measure.

Even if we were to prohibit political discussion outside of said board it would still happen it cannot be remove entirely. I prefer to let you guys the power to decide. If you tell me that majority of people would prefer that fine but this seems a really restrictive measure for a website that prone liberty of expression.

>>2438
I guess it could've seemed sarcastic but I was being genuine in saying that I don't know what the best course of action is. On one hand I agree with you that mods shouldn't be overactive and that there should be plenty of freedom for the users but on the other hand I can see how baity and annoying these posts can be. I know for sure that I'd rather they didn't happen in the first place but that's not something that's up to me.

As I see it, there is plenty of leeway for political consideration to stay postive and on-topic but it is the ideological aspect that is very consistently cancerous to discussion. Do with that what you will.

>>2438
>this seems a really restrictive measure for a website that prone liberty of expression
It doesn't seem that restrictive to me.
I don't want to have to scroll through advertisements about why i need to buy someone's product,-
and i likewise don't want to have to scroll through advertisements about why i need to buy someone's ideology.

If you say people can't talk about something, that would be problematic, but
accurately categorizing content isn't really restrictive in my opinion

>>2456

I don't think the advertisements is a good metaphor. I still understand the point your making and again I agree.

It simply doesn't feel right with me as a mod. If i continue with your metaphor, When i see advertisements it doesn't change my world or my actual situation instantly that much, i loss money, it doesn't challenge me, but i can still refuse to buy the product. That mean i don't gain anything from seeing product if it's there or not.

With political discussion the product is free and instantaneous. when you see someone, and I'm quoting "advertisements about why i need to buy someone's ideology" when you look at it it challenge your own view of the world you currently have and YOU have the power to either decide whether it sit right with you or not? Or you can ignore it and move along. Maybe, just maybe there will be someone else scrolling just like you that will see something that challenge is view of the world and made them move to somewhere else ideologically.

To me the later scenario is a win win situation, but yes it does bring a lot of soykaf with it.

>>2468
There is no reason why ideological discussion would result in pragmatic conclusions and you're mistaken in assuming otherwise. Where is the win in having this site used to recruit disciples into meme ideologies?

>>2508
>There is no reason why ideological discussion would result in pragmatic conclusions and you're mistaken in assuming otherwise.
I wasn't clear enough. I never ever meant or say that idealogical discussion would conclude and yes I would be mistaken in assuming otherwise. I don't know what to tell you, half this imageboard as political discussion in their thread, it's bound to happened. Putting all of those thread in a board would be even more
chaotic. Let's think of a solution, what more could we do to bound every single political discussion into on unique board or to better categorize them? Should we put a warning word on each thread allowing political discussion? Doesn't sounds right to me but this could be a solution that our administration and user could vote?

>Where is the win in having this site used to recruit disciples into meme ideologies?
I would rather not go into this, I wouldn't want to recruit you into my meme ideologies. Joke aside, why would you ask such a question if you wouldn't want to understand
my point of view, my belief, my ideology?

>>2512
>Why would you ask such a question if you wouldn't want to understand
my point of view?
You've lost me here. I ask because I see no value in ideological discussion on this site. I'm not asking you to start preaching.

Here's my quick and dirty solution: take all dumb political words like "capitalist" and "marxism" and filter them all to the same thing like "high tech low life" or something. Suddenly political ideology becomes meaningless and people have to go back to actually making good points.

Not a very elegant solution I know, but it is one idea.

>>2532
its a good idea

If philosophical discussion were to be a fresh apple in a tree, politics would be the low hanging fruit, ideological debates being an apple that you forgot about for 6 months.

If the last two appeal to you, you should check out Jim's pig farm when it's back up. However, you can only make so much selling pig soykaf, sooner or later you will have to offer pigs to somebody.

If this place becomes a pig farm too, I won't have anywhere left.

>>2533
Hey thanks.

>>2532
>all to the same thing like "high tech low life" or something.
All that'll do is encourage the use of code words. Low-IQ political zealots ruining sites is a social problem, not a technological one. You can't solve it through technological means. They need to feel unwelcome when they try to stir soykaf.

The problem in your arguments reside in the fact that you consider some topics and words to be "political" and "ideological", as if the rest of our discussions were not. Which is wrong. Everything is connected, everything is political. "Apolitical" is a memeword that refers to a non-existent concept. The things we enjoy, the way this world makes us feel, hell even the way we use code is political.

So, in order to keep off these "big mean ideological debates" that some apparently don't want (and keep off alt-fascists), what could be efficient would be to keep these discussions at a micro level as much as possible focusing on the concrete aspects of the subject, and avoid as we can to take it to a macro level, because it often leads to authority arguments.

>>2539
>Everything is political. Just accept it as it is.
>Except for people I disagree with. Don't accept them.
Typing like an arrogant pseud doesn't make your post any less retarded. There's a general consensus on what is normal discussion and what is political garbage; attempting to blur the lines doesn't really mean anything to those of us who see the issue. Everyone can go back to focusing on micro level discussion while you subtly insert your politics everywhere but once another thread gets derailed people will get pissed again. You're really not offering any lasting solutions here.

>>2532
i actually like this idea, someone should beta test this and see if its effective

>>2541
Ill agree, >>2539 could have been less harsh in its wording. It definitely comes off as condescending. I dont want to tell you what to think either, nor do I want this post to come off as condescending either, so please bear with me when I say that 2539 raises two good points. The first about the nature of politics. The second about a possible solution.

You can choose to disagree with the first point, and I can see why and how we can distance ourselves from politically charged discussion. Now that that is out of the way, I'd like to discuss the second point and try to flesh it out, so to offer a more tangible solution. Thats the key word here, "tangible." The following is my attempt to rephrase the last paragraph of >>2539 in a way that is easy to apply as a guideline for healthier discussion:

Whenever possible, try to be as specific as possible. Include details, even if its just your own experiences with something, having something concrete gives us more information than we had before. Be honest with your experience and opinion.

Lastly, I think some ancient rules could stand to be repeated here. Be nice to each other. Do not feed the trolls. It breaks my heart when I see experienced anons having a healthy discussion get led into the weeds just because a troll succesfully managed to push someones button. Again, dont feed trolls. Also, it is worth noting that since this is an anonymous imageboard, trolls can "feed themselves" by forming both sides of a discussion. Just like any source of info, anons too must be vetted. The easiest way to do this is to compare what someone is saying against your own current understanding. That approach works well, if you're knowledgeable enough to know fact from crap. I always try to play it safe and assume as little as possible. This forces me to read up as much as I can before engaging any topic further.

ok so heres your trigger warning.
Im super conservative, my best sources of information are Judicial Watch, The Epoch Times and The John Birch Society. A Ron Paul is fine too. In the efforts to balance my viewpoint out, does anyone have good information sources that are left-leaning? Thank you in advance.