The Israel-Palestine Moratorium

[Simplicius]

Why do we need to argue from the perspective of the HAMAS? Surely we can be more neutral when we are debating on that issue, and seek a rational solution that can benefit both sides.

I mean from what I understand, both sides( meaning the members of this board) can agree that peace is beneficial to both parties, if a fair agreement was made. The HAMAS and the current Israel government may disagree with the idea of peace, but I would highly doubt that any member here would actually suggest that war is the preferred solution.

Why can't we discuss over a fair agreement that can benefit both parties?

Both sides have demonstrated again and again that peace is acceptable only on their respective terms. A debate to gin up a "fair agreement" would have to pretend that Israel and Palestine are both prepared to give considerable ground to the other so an agreement could be made.

You could also have a debate pretending that the Federation was militarily stronger and the Empire was less ruthless - but what would be the point?

[Uraniun235]

I'm getting three main points from the arguments against lifting the moratorium:

One is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because whatever no matter what "solution" we might ultimately arrive at, the two combatants would never agree to it. Is this for fucking real? How many threads have we had on gun control where not only have people gotten really pissed off, but have also been flamed for parroting "yeah but 'MERIKA would never accept it" when someone suggests that some gun control measure or another might be beneficial? I can't recall ever "resolving" the gun control issue, and I'd be willing to bet that future gun control arguments will largely go around in the same circles. Where's the moratorium on gun control?


Another is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because there is no clear good side and bad side, because it's somewhat morally ambiguous. I really hope I'm wrong about that one, partly because I would think such a subject would tend to make for the richest debate material. Who says that every discussion has to have a clear resolution?


Third is that we can't because some people's feelings might get hurt.



Maybe I'm not reading correctly - please let me know where I got something wrong.

[Tiriol]

I'm getting three main points from the arguments against lifting the moratorium:

One is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because whatever no matter what "solution" we might ultimately arrive at, the two combatants would never agree to it. Is this for fucking real? How many threads have we had on gun control where not only have people gotten really pissed off, but have also been flamed for parroting "yeah but 'MERIKA would never accept it" when someone suggests that some gun control measure or another might be beneficial? I can't recall ever "resolving" the gun control issue, and I'd be willing to bet that future gun control arguments will largely go around in the same circles. Where's the moratorium on gun control?


Another is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because there is no clear good side and bad side, because it's somewhat morally ambiguous. I really hope I'm wrong about that one, partly because I would think such a subject would tend to make for the richest debate material. Who says that every discussion has to have a clear resolution?


Third is that we can't because some people's feelings might get hurt.



Maybe I'm not reading correctly - please let me know where I got something wrong.

I think that the main reason for IvP moratorium isn't any one of those, but the fact that it [discussion of the Israel/Palestine situation] practically invites needless flames and trivial arguing and that disrupts any thread where it is involved. And it would spill into other threads, sooner or later. Which, in turn, would disrupt the forum on which the debate is going on and which, in turn, would not only - yes- hurt people's feelings but also would add greatly to the moderators' duties (and despite being quite fair, they are humans as well, so they might or would get involved on personal level sooner or later).

[ray245]

I'm getting three main points from the arguments against lifting the moratorium:

One is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because whatever no matter what "solution" we might ultimately arrive at, the two combatants would never agree to it. Is this for fucking real? How many threads have we had on gun control where not only have people gotten really pissed off, but have also been flamed for parroting "yeah but 'MERIKA would never accept it" when someone suggests that some gun control measure or another might be beneficial? I can't recall ever "resolving" the gun control issue, and I'd be willing to bet that future gun control arguments will largely go around in the same circles. Where's the moratorium on gun control?


Another is that we can't argue about Israel v Palestine because there is no clear good side and bad side, because it's somewhat morally ambiguous. I really hope I'm wrong about that one, partly because I would think such a subject would tend to make for the richest debate material. Who says that every discussion has to have a clear resolution?


Third is that we can't because some people's feelings might get hurt.



Maybe I'm not reading correctly - please let me know where I got something wrong.

I think that the main reason for IvP moratorium isn't any one of those, but the fact that it [discussion of the Israel/Palestine situation] practically invites needless flames and trivial arguing and that disrupts any thread where it is involved. And it would spill into other threads, sooner or later. Which, in turn, would disrupt the forum on which the debate is going on and which, in turn, would not only - yes- hurt people's feelings but also would add greatly to the moderators' duties (and despite being quite fair, they are humans as well, so they might or would get involved on personal level sooner or later).

However, all debates can invite flames that will boil over anytime. From Gun ownership to civil rights for LGT. Does this mean we should be afraid of that topic? No.

Come on, as a liberal minded board, it is funny to hear people saying we simply should not discuss certain things out of bad feelings. Is this the same forum where people think that society ought to progress forward irregardless of how certain people would feel?

From what I understand, the previous gun control debate is rather civil, which demonstrate that people will be able to control themselves. Let us have a chance to prove that we can be civil, just one more chance.

I'm mean sure, we all know that certain things is infeasible in real life, however this is a ST vs SW forum we are talking about. Are we saying that ST vs SW warrants more discussion and debate as compared to IvP?

Moreover, saying that Israel and Palestine will never agree to certain stuff is a logical fallacy. The fact that certain actions seems to be impossible, does not mean it will never happen.

Avoiding the issue is not going to help the situation down there at all, and it is not going to help this board in any form.

I remember that a while ago, personal insult was hurled in the Heterosexuality rights debate, does this mean we should ban any discussion on those issue?

I don't think so.

Moreover, the internet is basically a battleground for political opinions, which can influence others through the acts of a few. The very fact that US supply Israel with aid annually means public opinions of Israel will influence Geo-politics as a whole.

[Simplicius]

If gun control debates not only went 'round and 'round but generated huge shitstorms each time, then I bet there would be a moratorium on gun control debates. You'll notice, too, that gun control debates are not very frequent these days - it appears that the participating sides have recognized that the debates are not likely to go anywhere, and avoid them.

I'd be fine with lifting the moratorium but if and only if a shitstorm was unlikely, or if the debate was going to be so productive that the shitstorm would be worth it. Since I don't think either of these are the case, actual IvP debates should be restricted to the Coliseum, where in-depth, focused debate is easier, and without a commentary thread, to keep the noise down. If such a debate turns out to give the board an informed, authoritative base for future discussion, then it would be worth discussing lifting the ban.

As for lifting it and simply vigorously policing all participants and meting out punishment for all violations of debating rules regardless of the perpetrator, that would be one way to deal with the matter - but some people who have been here far longer than I seem to think that such discipline would be inevitably necessary even for senior members who are generally cool, rational debators. So what would be gained by allowing such a debate? If it could produce very productive results, then why not have it in a format that doesn't require heavy moderation to deal with apparently inevitable flood of bad debating?

[Simplicius]

From what I understand, the previous gun control debate is rather civil, which demonstrate that people will be able to control themselves. Let us have a chance to prove that we can be civil, just one more chance.

The moratorium - taken together with the presence of the debating rules, and Darth Wong's statements back when we were discussing being more civil to each other - seems more likely to be in place to avoid unproductive and bad debating, not incivility or hurt feelings. The IvP flame-fests would just be icing on the shit cake, demanding a lot of moderator attention and work for a totally unproductive result.

As far as I and my advisory vote are concerned, lifting the moratorium requires a convincing argument that IvP debates would generate productive results, whether they were civil or not.

[Coyote]

IvP debates get personal, quickly, even for people who have no vested interest. Also, unfortunately, you have people who do "drive-by shooting" posts where they come in, launch off something about "you support TERRORISM/GENOCIDE!!!" for whatever reason (they really believe it, or they just want to stir the pot, or they're really motivated but can't form a coherent argument).

It's not so much a concern about being butthurt; it's more about just a lot of inflammatation to no productive ends. Most of the time, even our worst flamefests do, eventually, go somewhere, but for a lot of IvP debates, they just went to HoS.

At first I was willing to look at lifting the moratorium, but now I'm not so sure and think maybe we should leave it in place and just confine it to the Coliseum if it's going to happen at all. Such a thing would, at least, cut down on the drive-bys flamebaiters.

[Guardsman Bass]

This is a slight side-note, but the Moratorium was put in place in 2002/2003, right? Did all the threads that became shitfests on this issue get permanently burned out after the Moratorium was put in place? I haven't been able to find and view any of them on search.

[ray245]

I think that the Moratorium should be lifted given the recent example the Gaza thread. I feel that for it to be civil, moderation is needed.

Moderators moderating that debate should not think of suspension and temp ban as a punishment, and more of a restraining tool to cool the situation down. I mean that is what moderators are for! Moderators are not supposed to be a judge, they are supposed to moderate that debate.

I think that a simple appeal to everyone in the process of that debate can really help the situation.

Or do something funny by asking people to do a 'what the hell???' action such as putting a smiley after their argument.

It's like asking Football players to wear a 'No Racism' shirt when they are playing internationally.

[Big Phil]

ray, was anything solved in the Gaza thread? Were any clear and definite conclusions drawn, or has it been 22-23 pages of pointlessness? Can we ever successfully conclude an IvP thread? You can sum up solutions to the IvP situation in one line:
Either one side wipes out the other, the UN steps between them, or they all just agree to forget the past and live happily ever after.

[Coyote]

Well, I think that what was accomplished so far in the Gaza thread was what didn't happen-- we finally had a discussion that didn't end in fire & fury. Although it is, technically, still kicking.

But it shows maturity on the part of a lot of us-- we no longer automatically jump to the conclusion that if you criticise one side then you must automatically be a partisan for the other side; etc. My thoughts on this board (and going back to the first big IvP blowout we had here, with me and Arthur Tuxedo that ended in the Moratorium) is that this may not necessarily result in a conversion to one side or another, but at least allow us to see the other side's points and recognise them as valid (or shoot holes in them if they are not).

It is the exchange of information and points-of-view that I value. I've learned a lot on the board in general and learned not to jump too quickly when someone says something that used to be a red flag for my old bull eyes.

It's like the thoughts here on religion. None of it has "changed" my mind; I'm still a semi-practicing Jew and probably won't change from that because I like it. But I've learned a lot about the atheist perspective here, and I value my insight, even though I'm not going to become an atheist myself.

[Stark]

Are you suggesting that all the doom-saying talk about how any discussion would automatically collapse into chaos requiring mod intervention isn't accurate? I'm still of the opinion that if we have 'closet' bad debators on this board, it's worth luring them into the open and banning them if necessary; the idea that otherwise 'normal' or 'good' posters degenerate into trolling idiots on the IvP topic it totally bizarre to me. Thngs like the drive-bys and vulturing would, I imagine, be bought under control the same way they have elsewhere once the intent to enforce the rules on this issue was demonstrated.

However I'm getting the impression the IvP is a lot of people's hobby-horse or blindspot or 'hidden shame', so this issue is clearly a complex one.

[Dark Hellion]

I think it has more to do with the fact that the issue as an issue has no real clarity. It is such a complex mess of historical fact and conjecture that no real conclusions can be drawn about culpability, responsibility, or even future directions. Who one sides with depends upon myriad factors, some which can be easily changed and some which are nearly foundational to the entire political or ethical outlooks that one takes in life. Such deep seated beliefs (such as the extent of sovereignty of national entities, the moral responsibility of sovereigns, etc.) are nearly impossible to change without exacerbation long argumentation or dramatic life events.

Because of this, rarely will the good that can come from the discussion outweigh the bad. Talking around the point, like the Gaza thread has done is a good way to go about it.

We do see similar behavior in other posters about certain subjects, and if the IvP ban is lifted with an intent to drive bad single topic posters out, there are a number of other posters who should also be banned in the nature of fairness. But as a board we have not to this point banned posters like Kamikaze Sith and AD (well it didn't stick) because they will get heated in every police abuse case that comes to the board and will always butt heads and disagree. A primary purpose of the board has been to encourage argument and disagreement. But IvP is a disagreement that will not stay civil, for a number of reasons, and some form of soft ban needs to stay whether mod enforced or just socially enforced by the posters ourselves.

[Mr Bean]

The current Gaza thread is more a ongoing commentary thread and less a discussion or debate thread.

[Stark]

The current Gaza thread is more a ongoing commentary thread and less a discussion or debate thread.

Agreed; and the people in there are still operating under the shadow of the moratorium, so it's not representative at all of what non-restricted debates would be like.

DH, this logic that we should avoid 'difficult' subjects that are 'unclear' because people get 'heated' just doesn't seem fair to me. I appreciate the administration overhead and moderator workload but from a debate standpoint it sounds really weak to say that we can't talk about xyz because it's too hard. That people honestly seem to think the SDN population is a nest of vipers that'll go apeshit over certain topics seems odd to me, since that's what the rules were created for.

[Batman]

I WASN'T part of the discussions that lead to the implementation of that moratorium but given my involvement with some people who ARE personally involved in that conflict I absolutely think that YES, there's a good chance the debate would (AGAIN, apparently) have devolved into people going apeshit and arguing from emotion, not logic. It's pretty hard to keep a cool head when you have to fear being blown up on your way to school.

[Dark Hellion]

Actually Stark, I was attempting to say that as a board we have generally encouraged people to disagree even in the difficult cases where no clear ethical supports can be found. However, IvP differs from these (such as gun control, police power, etc.) in that the issues of intractability tend to be nearly axiomatic within a person's political beliefs. Since arguing such axioms in difficult, IvP becomes a proxy which will always fail spectacularly as it cannot express the abstractness of such beliefs and the actual situation often confounds the logic that must be used to effectively debate.