Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,842
edits
Talk:Faction: Difference between revisions
m
if maybe -> whether + fix link
(some TIPAESA discussion) |
m (if maybe -> whether + fix link) |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
**position: Self-applying labels so as to identify with a faction that holds a well defined viewpoint is productive, as it saves time re-explaining well defined concepts | **position: Self-applying labels so as to identify with a faction that holds a well defined viewpoint is productive, as it saves time re-explaining well defined concepts | ||
***argument: we've seen a lot of the arguments before; many are well worn and arise due to various differences in life experience and economic interests that are really hard to eliminate, and certainly won't be settled online here. | ***argument: we've seen a lot of the arguments before; many are well worn and arise due to various differences in life experience and economic interests that are really hard to eliminate, and certainly won't be settled online here. | ||
***argument: if we allow someone to identify the predictable and imitative part of their argument, that makes the creative and original part stand out, and it helps them identify | ***argument: if we allow someone to identify the predictable and imitative part of their argument, that makes the creative and original part stand out, and it helps them identify whether better rhetoric or evidence already exists that would make it easier for them to make the same point - but that's up to them | ||
**position: Identifying factions allows them to claim viewpoints as factional, so protecting them from [[sysop vandalism]] | **position: Identifying factions allows them to claim viewpoints as factional, so protecting them from [[sysop vandalism]] | ||
***argument: this seems to be the default anyway as people gang up to resist [[ad hominem revert]]s - over time, people will notice that certain people who say what they think are reasonable things are reverted more often than others who say what they think are less reasonable things, and that will form factions whether they are acknowledged or not. | ***argument: this seems to be the default anyway as people gang up to resist [[ad hominem revert]]s - over time, people will notice that certain people who say what they think are reasonable things are reverted more often than others who say what they think are less reasonable things, and that will form factions whether they are acknowledged or not. | ||
****evidence: multi-party [[representative democracy]] evolved in every country that tried to start with [[direct democracy]] or [[participatory democracy]]; it therefore must be assumed to solve some essential problems | ****evidence: multi-party [[representative democracy]] evolved in every country that tried to start with [[direct democracy]] or [[participatory democracy]]; it therefore must be assumed to solve some essential problems | ||
*Issue: [[factionally defined]] terms are often specifically chosen to created [[forced conjunction]] or deny the importance of major distinctions the "other side" sees as crucial, like denying "choice" or "life" as values in the [[abortion]] debate by trying to get neutrals to use a label which puts the emphasis on one or the other | *Issue: [[factionally defined]] terms are often specifically chosen to created [[forced conjunction]] or deny the importance of major distinctions the "other side" sees as crucial, like denying "choice" or "life" as values in the [[abortion]] debate by trying to get neutrals to use a label which puts the emphasis on one or the other | ||
**position: forcing all factions to agree on neutral titles is one of the great successes of [[neutral point of view]]. Neutral titles are good policy and make it much easier to find [[troll | **position: forcing all factions to agree on neutral titles is one of the great successes of [[neutral point of view]]. Neutral titles are good policy and make it much easier to find [[troll bridge]]s. | ||
**position: [[Consumerium:Itself]] can't expect to do any better than the people who devote their lives to [[dispute resolution]] and policy debate in the real world. For instance, you can't expect to achieve more agreement on what global [[sustainable industries]] are than say [[Green Party policy]] would reflect already - if they, who care about it and believe in it the most, can't exactly define it, then, it's irrational to believe that [[Consumerium:We]] can. | **position: [[Consumerium:Itself]] can't expect to do any better than the people who devote their lives to [[dispute resolution]] and policy debate in the real world. For instance, you can't expect to achieve more agreement on what global [[sustainable industries]] are than say [[Green Party policy]] would reflect already - if they, who care about it and believe in it the most, can't exactly define it, then, it's irrational to believe that [[Consumerium:We]] can. | ||
***argument: this terminology is weak, because the subject matter is new and difficult | ***argument: this terminology is weak, because the subject matter is new and difficult | ||