How to Argue Productively

[Rolltydr]

All I ask is that Richard / MULTIZ321 continue to be allowed to post :
WHATEVER HE FINDS INTERESTING .

I don’t recall Richard engaging in (many/any) debates - what he does incredibly well is post ,interesting information . I trust his vetting of the source ; including the pictures of alligators climbing fences .

Richard is possibly my number #1 - new Covid 19 information source .
As well well as many other topics .

100% agree with this!

 

[Panina]

All I ask is that Richard / MULTIZ321 continue to be allowed to post :
WHATEVER HE FINDS INTERESTING .

I don’t recall Richard engaging in (many/any) debates - what he does incredibly well is post ,interesting information . I trust his vetting of the source ; including the pictures of alligators climbing fences .

Richard is possibly my number #1 - new Covid 19 information source .
As well well as many other topics .

I find his posts a wealth of information too but just saw one today that was very politically charged which I presume was not his intent. We need to be careful, can’t allow one to do it and not another, so no one should.

 

[PrairieGirl]

Alternatively they may have been raised in a family where ideas were not questioned, and ideas were not debated at the dinner table like mine so they perceive it as conflict - when it is not.

YES! This was my family too - and they were never considered arguments, they were discussions. Opposing positions were welcomed, but they had better be supported by factual information. And we learned at a very young age to "always consider the source".

 

[WVBaker]

I find his posts a wealth of information too but just saw one today that was very politically charged which I presume was not his intent. We need to be careful, can’t allow one to do it and not another, so no one should.

And therein lies just one problem with prohibiting any posting. What I may find "political", you may not. Some postings you know are political simply by the headline. If it's going to be an issue with you, avoid it and move on. The one's you don't know are political until you read it again, stop and move on. No one is forced to respond with their views on any subject. We all need to decide on what's important to us and what's not. Is blanket prohibition the answer?

We're all adults, we all make choices and there will be times when another's point of view is going to disagree with us. Should that be the case simply choose to "ignore" that person(s), but should we punish all others for the action(s) of one?

Oh wait, we're not arguing are we?

 

[Rolltydr]

I find his posts a wealth of information too but just saw one today that was very politically charged which I presume was not his intent. We need to be careful, can’t allow one to do it and not another, so no one should.

So, where would you draw the line on op-ed pieces or articles from sources that have a political bias?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TravelTime]

So, where would you draw the line on op-ed pieces or articles from sources that have a political bias?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Sources with a political bias”....I think this is all sources. I think some of my sources are unbiased but the next person will probably think differently. If we are posting articles, we must be aware they all have political biases for someone. I am aware even though I do post articles. Richard seems to find articles from lesser known sources so many people might not be aware if they have a political bias or not. I certainly am not aware of many of his sources.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I find this chart helpful when evaluating a source. I like how it separates opinion from news arms of major media.

Similar to a survey sample, I remove the outliers on both the left and right side. And then consider the middle columns knowing which way they lean and factoring that into my analysis. I have found excellent, factual articles on both Fox and CNN and WSJ and NYT, but disregard articles whenever it feels like it is in support of a political narrative on either side.

 

[Rolltydr]

“Sources with a political bias”....I think this is all sources. I think some of my sources are unbiased but the next person will probably think differently. If we are posting articles, we must be aware they all have political biases for someone. I am aware even though I do post articles. Richard seems to find articles from lesser known sources so many people might not be aware if they have a political bias or not. I certainly am not aware of many of his sources.

That’s kind of where I was going, @TravelTime. I would say it a little different. I believe most of us read our own biases into whatever we read. Therefore, we think everything we read is biased.

 

[Rolltydr]

I find this chart helpful when evaluating a source. I like how it separates opinion from news arms of major media.

Similar to a survey sample, I remove the outliers on both the left and right side. And then consider the middle columns knowing which way they bend and factoring that into my analysis. I have found excellent, factual articles on both Fox and CNN and WSJ and NYT, but disregard articles whenever it feels like it is in support of a political narrative on either side.

View attachment 19369

I’m not sure how I feel about something like this. I don’t like being told what to think so I prefer to read and make up my own mind. I would disagree that npr and Politico lean left. I consider npr overall is center and Politico center to leans right.

As I said in a separate post, I believe we read our own biases into what we read, whether the author intends a bias or not. To me, it’s more important that I trust a source to speak factually or to be honest about his/her biases. If they site information that is inaccurate or present opinion as fact, I can’t trust him/her even if I share their bias. For example, I used to watch several shows on one of the networks listed, that I won’t name to try and keep this apolitical. But over time, some of the shows were proven to be presenting information that could not be verified or was taken out of context. Conversely, I enjoy reading op-ed pieces from good writers that have a different political belief than I do. They make me think and, at times, teach me things and even change my mind on occasion.

 

[Karen G]

Here’s an idea: why don’t those of you who want to discuss or argue about controversial topics hold your discussions via private conversations. You can have more than two people in a conversation.

Just click on the user name of whomever you want to chat with, add as many names as you wish & start writing.

That way the moderators don’t have to get involved & those who don’t care to participate don’t have to read the comments.

If anyone wants to start a private discussion group you could start a new thread and invite others who want to do the same to identify themselves & then go for it.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Here’s an idea: why don’t those of you who want to discuss or argue about controversial topics hold your discussions via private conversations. You can have more than two people in a conversation.

Just click on the user name of whomever you want to chat with, add as many names as you wish & start writing.

That way the moderators don’t have to get involved & those who don’t care to participate don’t have to read the comments.

If anyone wants to start a private discussion group you could start a new thread and invite others who want to do the same to identify themselves & then go for it.

Interesting idea. Like a private forum.

I have regular private conversations with a few Tuggers where we have common ownership in a TS and share loopholes we don't want the developer to learn about on a public forum.

A few questions:

Can people be added to the conversation who may want to join later?

Can you delete people who join the conversation who post offensive material and/or block them if they start making personal attacks or harass others?

Can we add more than 5 minutes to the editing time similar to the main board?

 

[Karen G]

A few questions:

Can people be added to the conversation who may want to join later?

Can you delete people who join the conversation who post offensive material and/or block them if they start making personal attacks or harass others?

Can we add more than 5 minutes to the editing time similar to the main board?

These are all questions above my pay grade, but I'll see what @Makai Guy or @TUGBrian have to say.

 

[Panina]

It

And therein lies just one problem with prohibiting any posting. What I may find "political", you may not. Some postings you know are political simply by the headline. If it's going to be an issue with you, avoid it and move on. The one's you don't know are political until you read it again, stop and move on. No one is forced to respond with their views on any subject. We all need to decide on what's important to us and what's not. Is blanket prohibition the answer?

We're all adults, we all make choices and there will be times when another's point of view is going to disagree with us. Should that be the case simply choose to "ignore" that person(s), but should we punish all others for the action(s) of one?

Oh wait, we're not arguing are we?

So, where would you draw the line on op-ed pieces or articles from sources that have a political bias?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The rules of tug have always been no politics. If something mentioned a politicians name, even a reference that is clear who it is, a political party, or government failures or praises, political articles, etc. it was removed in the past on tug.

This is not a prohibition on tug, it was a rule being a member of tug. Those who don’t like the rules have many other forums elsewhere to go for political discussions.

I personally do not appreciate having to ignore over and over again the political pushes packaged in all different ways. Not many tuggers are doing that but many of us have to endure it.

 

[Brett]

It


The rules of tug have always been no politics. If something mentioned a politicians name, even a reference that is clear who it is, a political party, or government failures or praises, political articles, etc. it was removed in the past on tug.

This is not a prohibition on tug, it was a rule being a member of tug. Those who don’t like the rules have many other forums elsewhere to go for political discussions.

I personally do not appreciate having to ignore over and over again the political pushes packaged in all different ways. Not many tuggers are doing that but many of us have to endure it.

right, I have to endure it too

 

[WVBaker]

The rules of tug have always been no politics. If something mentioned a politicians name, even a reference that is clear who it is, a political party, or government failures or praises, political articles, etc. it was removed in the past on tug.

This is not a prohibition on tug, it was a rule being a member of tug. Those who don’t like the rules have many other forums elsewhere to go for political discussions.

I personally do not appreciate having to ignore over and over again the political pushes packaged in all different ways. Not many tuggers are doing that but many of us have to endure it.

We agree to a point. Many articles or subjects may be defined as "political" by one and not by another. That's such a hazy line to try not to cross. If one post is allowed to remain and yet another is removed it may not be received as "fair", so to speak. You would need to review the wording in each and every post in order to make sure it does not or can not be or become "political", however that's defined. Logistically, quite a task for anyone.

Which of course leads us to, is this a debate, an argument or a discussion?

 

[Panina]

We agree to a point. Many articles or subjects may be defined as "political" by one and not by another. That's such a hazy line to try not to cross. If one post is allowed to remain and yet another is removed it may not be received as "fair", so to speak. You would need to review the wording in each and every post in order to make sure it does not or can not be or become "political", however that's defined. Logistically, quite a task for anyone.

Which of course leads us to, is this a debate, an argument or a discussion?

I feel this is a discussion bordering on debate.

 

[TravelTime]

I feel this is a discussion bordering on debate.

I think debate is allowed as long as there is not name calling or lecturing. Or politics, religion or contentious social issue. I really think covid is a contentious social issue and should be limited unless it relates to travel. As I recall, we are not allowed to talk about climate change on TUG bc it has been defined as a contentious social issue. So is Covid.

 

[Fredflintstone]

I suppose the line for me would be if someone glances over something but the main meaning of the sentence/paragraph refers to something non political. For example:

Due to government regulations on border closure, I cannot go on my trip to Hawaii yet. I hope covid clears soon as I am really looking forward to going.

Versus.

Those republicans are at it again. They closed the borders and don’t know what they are doing!

So, I do see clear lines here. It’s all on the context of what the focus of the meaning is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Fredflintstone]

I do agree. No name calling, finger pointing and/or degrading someone’s opinions. It’s ok to disagree but you should still respect the other side too.

In my case, I rent only BUT try real hard to communicate that I respect those who own TS. I will express my opinions but also respectful when someone disagrees with me. It’s ok to disagree as long as the other side has equal and respectful footing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Panina]

I suppose the line for me would be if someone glances over something but the main meaning of the sentence/paragraph refers to something non political. For example:

Due to government regulations on border closure, I cannot go on my trip to Hawaii yet. I hope covid clears soon as I am really looking forward to going.

Versus.

Those republicans are at it again. They closed the borders and don’t know what they are doing!

So, I do see clear lines here. It’s all on the context of what the focus of the meaning is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Very good example.

 

[isisdave]

I found CalGal's shared chart interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all is that it's titled "News Media Bias Ratings" and I'd have to say that I consider most of the outlets in the outside columns "Opinion Media" rather than "News Media." That is, to me it seems that they exist to share their opinions, perhaps based on the news, but reporting the news isn't their point. As I see it anyhow. And that's fine with me.

The other thing is that I found some outlets' position in the chart a little surprising. I certainly don't read all the articles from the outlets I do read. I'm going to be visiting allsides.com to see how they do this.

 

[TUGBrian]

A few questions:

Can people be added to the conversation who may want to join later?

yes

Can you delete people who join the conversation who post offensive material and/or block them if they start making personal attacks or harass others?

they can leave a conversation, but I do not believe you can remove someone else.

Can we add more than 5 minutes to the editing time similar to the main board?

pretty sure editing is limited to 24 hours.

 

[PrairieGirl]

Karen G, I think that your proposed solution has a great deal of merit! The question remains though, will those posters that this discussion is directed at be 1) reading this thread and 2) willing to give it a try

 

[CalGalTraveler]

I found CalGal's shared chart interesting for a couple of reasons. First of all is that it's titled "News Media Bias Ratings" and I'd have to say that I consider most of the outlets in the outside columns "Opinion Media" rather than "News Media." That is, to me it seems that they exist to share their opinions, perhaps based on the news, but reporting the news isn't their point. As I see it anyhow. And that's fine with me.

The other thing is that I found some outlets' position in the chart a little surprising. I certainly don't read all the articles from the outlets I do read. I'm going to be visiting allsides.com to see how they do this.

Great observation. I agree the outermost columns should be labeled "opinion media." Whatever you call it, I remove both from consideration similar to throwing away outliers on a survey. With that said, I will read opinion pieces from the middle columns and other media but do take note of the potential biases. I also look at who wrote the opinion piece and whether I believe they are merely amplifying a political narrative (which I toss) or whether they are providing an alternative well-sourced viewpoint to consider.

As mentioned previously, I do like how they separate the opinion arm of the media from the news arm on the chart.

Please note that this is for online and print articles only and doesn't cover cable TV news. Much cable TV news is opinion media especially in the evening hours.

LIke anything, this chart not perfect but seems to jive with most of my observations of these sources and gives me some good guidelines. YMMV. Please let me if you find out anything interesting about allsides.

 

[dgalati]

Here’s an idea: why don’t those of you who want to discuss or argue about controversial topics hold your discussions via private conversations. You can have more than two people in a conversation.

Just click on the user name of whomever you want to chat with, add as many names as you wish & start writing.

That way the moderators don’t have to get involved & those who don’t care to participate don’t have to read the comments.

If anyone wants to start a private discussion group you could start a new thread and invite others who want to do the same to identify themselves & then go for it.

There was a private conversation a few months ago where many were invited. That resulted in a moderator stepping in. Private conversations can go wrong as most open discussions sometimes do.