Post by Michael Wilbur-Ham on May 2, 2013 10:48:23 GMT 10
This forum is different from others because I want to make a difference. I want this forum to make progress.
When a group wants to make progress this is usually done by being organised. A meeting has an agenda or there is someone in charge who directs the discussion.
If, at any time, any person can discuss any agenda item, a meeting quickly turns into disorganised rabble (which is what you see in the comments of other websites).
Another difference between a meeting which makes progress and a disorganised conversation is that a meeting which makes progress makes decisions along the way, and once a decision is made this becomes the basis for the discussion of the next agenda item.
In this forum we first discuss the facts, based on these facts we decide policy, and finally action - how to make this policy happen.
Facts: No value judgements, no decisions on what to do .
What are the facts? What is the uncertainty of the facts?
What is the situation now? How did we get here? What is predicted for the future under different scenarios?
Without any moral or political biases, what would a panel of real experts report?
Note that facts include the expected outcome of different policies. And this may include probability - ie this policy has a 80% chance of succeeding.
Think of having just been diagnosed with a serious medical condition - before deciding what to do you want the facts. This includes what is known about your current condition, what is involved with different treatments, and the likelihood of each treatment being successful.
Facts are laying the cards out on the table - the expert is not telling you which card to pick and at this stage you are not deciding what to do.
Policy: Given some agreed facts what do we want to do?
This is the time to make moral and value judgements.
One policy thread might be the big picture long term policy. Another policy thread might be what actions should be done soon to move towards a long term goal.
Action: Given an agreed policy how do we get this policy to happen?
How do we convince others that our policy is the right one?
Can we convince the current government to do this policy?
If so, how? If not, what else can we do?
If you read the comments of other websites then it is clear that most progressive posters have reached this point but go no further.
So, for example, on boat people, in this thread some would argue that if Australia implemented a compassionate solution that the number of arrivals would not become hundreds of thousands or millions, and in this thread some would argue that given this we should change to a compassionate solution.
If you read through the comments of What if it was our kids? Four Corners and asylum seekers on The Conversation it is clear that within the 204 comments there are many people who support my view that we should change policy to a compassionate solution.
But all the progressive thinkers on The Conversation devote all of their energies in rebutting the right-wing views of people who won't change their views no matter what is said. And no-one, other than myself, raises the topic of what can we do to change policy.
The main reason that this forum might make a difference is that I hope progressive thinkers will devote time and effort to contributing to the action threads. Nothing changes by just hoping that Labor would do better. What can we do that will lead to change?
So each topic has at least three threads:
Taking negative gearing as an example, we would have:
Facts: Negative gearing (include what would be the effect of ending it)
Policy: Given that ending negative gearing won't destroy the economy, should we end it?
Action: Given that ending negative gearing won't destroy the economy and we want to end it, how do we get this to happen?
As we won't all agree on the facts, and we won't all agree on the policy, the threads could branch out.
So for example, on climate change we could have:
Fact: Climate change - the big picture - Are the IPCC, Stern and Garnaut reports substantially correct?
Policy: Accepting that the IPCC, Stern and Garnaut reports are correct, what should be our policy on climate change?
and for those who don't accept the above interpretation of the facts, we could have a thread:
Policy: Accepting that all the reports contain major flaws and distortions, what should be our policy on climate change?
So each thread on this forum assumes acceptance of some earlier decisions. If anyone wants to challenge those earlier decisions then this can only be done in the thread where that is the topic of debate. Hence questioning the big picture science is not banned from this forum - but it is restricted to the the thread discussing the big picture of whether or not the major reports are correct.
Note that all posts on this forum must be mindful - and thus most posts by climate change deniers would be deleted because they are not mindful. (Anyone wanting to post mindless climate change denial or who wants to read the 'debate' between deniers and those who accept the science can go to the comment section on any article on climate change at The Conversation.)
If you want to express all your views on a topic you will need to contribute to several threads.
But I hope that many members of this forum will just take the facts threads and the policy threads as OK, and jump straight to the action threads.
What makes this forum different is that it provides a place for people who agree on a policy to work together to try to make things happen.
I hope you take part and help me to change the world.
When a group wants to make progress this is usually done by being organised. A meeting has an agenda or there is someone in charge who directs the discussion.
If, at any time, any person can discuss any agenda item, a meeting quickly turns into disorganised rabble (which is what you see in the comments of other websites).
Another difference between a meeting which makes progress and a disorganised conversation is that a meeting which makes progress makes decisions along the way, and once a decision is made this becomes the basis for the discussion of the next agenda item.
In this forum we first discuss the facts, based on these facts we decide policy, and finally action - how to make this policy happen.
Facts: No value judgements, no decisions on what to do .
What are the facts? What is the uncertainty of the facts?
What is the situation now? How did we get here? What is predicted for the future under different scenarios?
Without any moral or political biases, what would a panel of real experts report?
Note that facts include the expected outcome of different policies. And this may include probability - ie this policy has a 80% chance of succeeding.
Think of having just been diagnosed with a serious medical condition - before deciding what to do you want the facts. This includes what is known about your current condition, what is involved with different treatments, and the likelihood of each treatment being successful.
Facts are laying the cards out on the table - the expert is not telling you which card to pick and at this stage you are not deciding what to do.
Policy: Given some agreed facts what do we want to do?
This is the time to make moral and value judgements.
One policy thread might be the big picture long term policy. Another policy thread might be what actions should be done soon to move towards a long term goal.
Action: Given an agreed policy how do we get this policy to happen?
How do we convince others that our policy is the right one?
Can we convince the current government to do this policy?
If so, how? If not, what else can we do?
If you read the comments of other websites then it is clear that most progressive posters have reached this point but go no further.
So, for example, on boat people, in this thread some would argue that if Australia implemented a compassionate solution that the number of arrivals would not become hundreds of thousands or millions, and in this thread some would argue that given this we should change to a compassionate solution.
If you read through the comments of What if it was our kids? Four Corners and asylum seekers on The Conversation it is clear that within the 204 comments there are many people who support my view that we should change policy to a compassionate solution.
But all the progressive thinkers on The Conversation devote all of their energies in rebutting the right-wing views of people who won't change their views no matter what is said. And no-one, other than myself, raises the topic of what can we do to change policy.
The main reason that this forum might make a difference is that I hope progressive thinkers will devote time and effort to contributing to the action threads. Nothing changes by just hoping that Labor would do better. What can we do that will lead to change?
So each topic has at least three threads:
Taking negative gearing as an example, we would have:
Facts: Negative gearing (include what would be the effect of ending it)
Policy: Given that ending negative gearing won't destroy the economy, should we end it?
Action: Given that ending negative gearing won't destroy the economy and we want to end it, how do we get this to happen?
As we won't all agree on the facts, and we won't all agree on the policy, the threads could branch out.
So for example, on climate change we could have:
Fact: Climate change - the big picture - Are the IPCC, Stern and Garnaut reports substantially correct?
Policy: Accepting that the IPCC, Stern and Garnaut reports are correct, what should be our policy on climate change?
and for those who don't accept the above interpretation of the facts, we could have a thread:
Policy: Accepting that all the reports contain major flaws and distortions, what should be our policy on climate change?
So each thread on this forum assumes acceptance of some earlier decisions. If anyone wants to challenge those earlier decisions then this can only be done in the thread where that is the topic of debate. Hence questioning the big picture science is not banned from this forum - but it is restricted to the the thread discussing the big picture of whether or not the major reports are correct.
Note that all posts on this forum must be mindful - and thus most posts by climate change deniers would be deleted because they are not mindful. (Anyone wanting to post mindless climate change denial or who wants to read the 'debate' between deniers and those who accept the science can go to the comment section on any article on climate change at The Conversation.)
If you want to express all your views on a topic you will need to contribute to several threads.
But I hope that many members of this forum will just take the facts threads and the policy threads as OK, and jump straight to the action threads.
What makes this forum different is that it provides a place for people who agree on a policy to work together to try to make things happen.
I hope you take part and help me to change the world.