Announcement New community where you can talk politics

[Greg Bernhardt]

Over the past several weeks, I've been inundated with members' DMs with concerns about what is happening in the US/World. There is an understandable desire to discuss these developments that are political in nature.

After years of hosting a political subforum, we ended it many years ago due to the toxicity seeping elsewhere in the community. We do still allow for some political threads that remain nonpartisan and topical to science/tech policy. Even then, we end up locking most of those threads.

Active participation and communication in/of our world events and politics remains a vital duty for all of us. PF is just not the right place with our narrow science education mission.

To accommodate PF member needs and the needs for our world's future, I, with the direction and support of several PF members, have opened a new community with a different tight mission.

Introducing CivicsWatch.com! Opened just yesterday. Civic Watch's focused mission is being "Committed to the Defense of Liberal Democracy". All are welcome to join and participate if you align with the following democratic and community values:

Liberal Democracy Values​

• Free and Fair Elections
• Rule of Law
• Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
• Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
• Pluralism & Political Competition
• Independent Media & Free Press
• Open Civil Society

Community Values​

• Civility
• Productivity
• Good Faith Debate
• Evidence Based Debate
• Transparency
• Integrity

In general, PF and Civics Watch will be completely independent communities. The only similarity will be the same standards for quality discussion and some shared member base. Want to talk science, PF is your place. Want to talk politics, Civics Watch is your place. Both are designed to better this world.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hi Greg!

Thanks for sharing this news. Having a forum where we can openly discuss political topics with the same standards for quality discussion, civility, and good faith debate is highly welcome!

I do have a few follow-up questions:

1. I was wondering about your involvement in Civics Watch website (if any). Are you the admin on both of these sites?

2. I know you stated earlier that certain political discussions are still allowed in PF, specifically related to science/tech policies in a non-partisan way. Do you foresee this continuing going forward? I am especially asking because there are many areas where science/tech policies are of major importance (e.g. budget for science funding).

3. Related to #2, what types of discussions related to science-related policies could be considered "edge cases"? For example, the discussion related to the measles outbreak in New Mexico? Or the societal impact of AI technologies?

I appreciate your feedback on these guidelines. Thanks!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

1. I was wondering about your involvement in Civics Watch website (if any). Are you the admin on both of these sites?

Yes admin of both. @Borg is also co-admin.

2. I know you stated earlier that certain political discussions are still allowed in PF, specifically related to science/tech policies in a non-partisan way. Do you foresee this continuing going forward? I am especially asking because there are many areas where science/tech policies are of major importance (e.g. budget for science funding).

The current guidelines will remain as is. Primarily, the thread must stay non-partison and focused on the science/tech policy data/facts. It's been proven to be a difficult bar to meet on PF. You are also welcome to start such threads on Civics Watch too.

3. Related to #2, what types of discussions related to science-related policies could be considered "edge cases"? For example, the discussion related to the measles outbreak in New Mexico? Or the societal impact of AI technologies?

If you can frame them as non-partisan and stick to the implications from a sci/tech policy angle, it's all good. The danger is they usually devolve into partisan mud slinging.

 

[FactChecker]

What I would really value is the same standards for references from reliable sources. I see many groups that do not give their references, so the validity of their statements is very difficult to determine.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What I would really value is the same standards for references from reliable sources. I see many groups that do not give their references, so the validity of their statements is very difficult to determine.

Stop over and contribute to building the guidelines.

 

[neilparker62]

Over the past several weeks, I've been inundated with members' DMs with concerns about what is happening in the US/World. There is an understandable desire to discuss these developments that are political in nature.

After years of hosting a political subforum, we ended it many years ago due to the toxicity seeping elsewhere in the community. We do still allow for some political threads that remain nonpartisan and topical to science/tech policy. Even then, we end up locking most of those threads.

Active participation and communication in/of our world events and politics remains a vital duty for all of us. PF is just not the right place with our narrow science education mission.

To accommodate PF member needs and the needs for our world's future, I, with the direction and support of several PF members, have opened a new community with a different tight mission.

Introducing CivicsWatch.com! Opened just yesterday. Civic Watch's focused mission is being "Committed to the Defense of Liberal Democracy". All are welcome to join and participate if you align with the following democratic and community values:

Liberal Democracy Values​

• Free and Fair Elections
• Rule of Law
• Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
• Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
• Pluralism & Political Competition
• Independent Media & Free Press
• Open Civil Society

Community Values​

• Civility
• Productivity
• Good Faith Debate
• Evidence Based Debate
• Transparency
• Integrity

In general, PF and Civics Watch will be completely independent communities. The only similarity will be the same standards for quality discussion and some shared member base. Want to talk science, PF is your place. Want to talk politics, Civics Watch is your place. Both are designed to better this world.

All the best with the new group/community - definitely needed!

 

[gmax137]

The only similarity will be the same standards for quality discussiond.

I wish you luck. I just scanned thru a few threads over there and, honestly, so far it looks like just another echo chamber to me. I don't see evidence of any standards. I guess time will tell.

 

[FactChecker]

I wish you luck. I just scanned thru a few threads over there and, honestly, so far it looks like just another echo chamber to me. I don't see evidence of any standards. I guess time will tell.

I have hope that it will be run with the desire for verifiable statements that are in this forum. Of course, political facts are more transient and debatable than physics. I checked the reputation of one reference given (https://www.theverge.com/news/622502/faa-orders-staff-find-funding-starlink-verizon-deal) and it had a completely clean record on a fact-checking website.

 

[apostolosdt]

With due respect to this Forum and its distinguished members, it is my humble opinion that politics (and philosophy, for that matter) is not a suitable topic in a scientific forum—especially one devoted to an experimental science as physics.

 

[nuuskur]

With due respect to this Forum and its distinguished members, it is my humble opinion that politics (and philosophy, for that matter) is not a suitable topic in a scientific forum—especially one devoted to an experimental science as physics.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you in this regard, hence CW is a separate forum.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I wish you luck. I just scanned thru a few threads over there and, honestly, so far it looks like just another echo chamber to me. I don't see evidence of any standards. I guess time will tell.

We're 2 days in and haven't even built guidelines yet, give me a week lol. The first few years of PF were a mess disaster. To build a fancy vase, you need some dirty clay first. @Borg has some great plans to build some ML fact checking systems.

 

[PeroK]

With due respect to this Forum and its distinguished members, it is my humble opinion that politics (and philosophy, for that matter) is not a suitable topic in a scientific forum—especially one devoted to an experimental science as physics.

That's true until politics intrudes on our lives to the point where it cannot be ignored. In the Soviet Union in the 1930's, for example, politics was all there was - escape was practically impossible. Eventually you may not be able to hide in a laboratory, even if you want to.

 

[AlexB23]

Over the past several weeks, I've been inundated with members' DMs with concerns about what is happening in the US/World. There is an understandable desire to discuss these developments that are political in nature.

After years of hosting a political subforum, we ended it many years ago due to the toxicity seeping elsewhere in the community. We do still allow for some political threads that remain nonpartisan and topical to science/tech policy. Even then, we end up locking most of those threads.

Active participation and communication in/of our world events and politics remains a vital duty for all of us. PF is just not the right place with our narrow science education mission.

To accommodate PF member needs and the needs for our world's future, I, with the direction and support of several PF members, have opened a new community with a different tight mission.

Introducing CivicsWatch.com! Opened just yesterday. Civic Watch's focused mission is being "Committed to the Defense of Liberal Democracy". All are welcome to join and participate if you align with the following democratic and community values:

Liberal Democracy Values​

• Free and Fair Elections
• Rule of Law
• Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances
• Protection of Civil Liberties and Human Rights
• Pluralism & Political Competition
• Independent Media & Free Press
• Open Civil Society

Community Values​

• Civility
• Productivity
• Good Faith Debate
• Evidence Based Debate
• Transparency
• Integrity

In general, PF and Civics Watch will be completely independent communities. The only similarity will be the same standards for quality discussion and some shared member base. Want to talk science, PF is your place. Want to talk politics, Civics Watch is your place. Both are designed to better this world.

That is a cool idea. Hopefully, there can be threads for moderates (centrists), left wing, right wing, and old-school politics. Like a thread for those who are liberal or conservative, but are tired of the modern antics of the 21st century liberal and conservative parties. Also, don't forget Canadian liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of Canadians on Physics Forums.

 

[phinds]

That is a cool idea. Hopefully, there can be threads for moderates (centrists), left wing, right wing, and old-school politics. Like a thread for those who are liberal or conservative, but are tired of the modern antics of the 21st century liberal and conservative parties. Also, don't forget Canadian liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of Canadians on Physics Forums.

I believe the intent of that forum is to be open to all, as long as they are civil and their posts are fact-based.

 

[Grinkle]

@Greg Bernhardt @Borg

I have been looking to a place to start a couple threads that are a mix of politics and economics. I will post them on Civics Watch to see if they get any traction - but I am posting here to ask if you think a sub-forum on Civics Watch for questions that are mostly about effects of political policy on macro-economics makes sense?

I can't post over there yet, my account activation is pending or I would have posted this over there. :-)

 

[PeroK]

That's true until politics intrudes on our lives to the point where it cannot be ignored. In the Soviet Union in the 1930's, for example, politics was all there was - escape was practically impossible. Eventually you may not be able to hide in a laboratory, even if you want to.

To put it slightly differently. International participation here is predicated to some extent on our countries being allies. This is predominantly a US-based site, so the existence of this site in its current from to some extent depends on the US and other nations (like the UK where I'm from) being on friendly terms. Economic rivalry is fine, of course. If, however, the US and the UK were to become economic, political or even military enemies, then my participation on here becomes out of the question.

You can call that politics, if you want, but it's more fundamental than that. It's a question of mutual respect, if nothing else.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That is a cool idea. Hopefully, there can be threads for moderates (centrists), left wing, right wing, and old-school politics. Like a thread for those who are liberal or conservative, but are tired of the modern antics of the 21st century liberal and conservative parties. Also, don't forget Canadian liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of Canadians on Physics Forums.

"liberal democracy" is not partisan and championed by both Liberals and Conservatives

 

[FactChecker]

if you think a sub-forum on Civics Watch for questions that are mostly about effects of political policy on macro-economics makes sense?

I would have a special interest on that, expecially if macro-economic data is used as the basis.

 

[Dullard]

That is a cool idea. Hopefully, there can be threads for moderates (centrists), left wing, right wing, and old-school politics. Like a thread for those who are liberal or conservative, but are tired of the modern antics of the 21st century liberal and conservative parties. Also, don't forget Canadian liberals and conservatives. There are plenty of Canadians on Physics Forums.

I mean no offense, but (IMO) the viewpoint segregation of your 'hope' is actually the problem with the media today - It has led to everyone having their own 'facts.' Without agreement on facts, no discussion can occur.

 

[BillTre]

"liberal democracy" is not partisan and championed by both Liberals and Conservatives

I agree with this but it is using old terminology (Liberals and Conservatives) which now have different colloquial meanings. Similarly the meaning of liberal democracy has changed in it common (in the media) use.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I agree with this but it is using old terminology (Liberals and Conservatives) which now have different colloquial meanings. Similarly the meaning of liberal democracy has changed in it common (in the media) use.

small l vs big L is the important difference :)

 

[PhDeezNutz]

I just joined. Awaiting approval (same username).

I look forward to well regulated and fruitful discussion. I do have my own political beliefs but I’m opened to having them challenged.

 

[AlexB23]

I mean no offense, but (IMO) the viewpoint segregation of your 'hope' is actually the problem with the media today - It has led to everyone having their own 'facts.' Without agreement on facts, no discussion can occur.

I do agree on that, after rethinking that.

 

[AlexB23]

"liberal democracy" is not partisan and championed by both Liberals and Conservatives

Agreed, or at least by the old-school liberals and conservatives. Not as much by the current crop of liberals and conservatives in the mid-2020s though.

 

[AlexB23]

I believe the intent of that forum is to be open to all, as long as they are civil and their posts are fact-based.

I like fact-based posts, and wish more folks did that.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Agreed, or at least by the old-school liberals and conservatives. Not as much by the current crop of liberals and conservatives in the mid-2020s though.

Let's have that debate at Civicswatch.com

To prevent this thread from becoming what it's intended to prevent here, I'll close it out. Thanks all for your feedback!