you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Solution?

I think that it is ok to have some stricter rules for discussions in some subs, as long it is clear.
Like discussions can be disturbed by people that have totally different world-views
or in this case totally different biological experiences.

For example: on C_S_T on reddit, we had restrictions on discussions, where one could start with a certain premise. And this premise was accepted for the full discussion. A discussion of "How would spirits see the world?" starts with the premise that there are spirits in this world, somehow. It gives the possibility to explore a certain idea, without having to discuss everything else.

Criticism on such discussions can be started with a different post, so it does not disturb the original discussion.
Like I could post: "Do spirits actually exist?" And this is a whole different discussion.
In a religious discussion one would like to start with: "How did god create the world" with the idea that there is a god that created it.
The discussion would not even make sense, if you (or someone else) started to dominate the discussion questioning where the proof of such a god would be.

But if this starts to dominate the subsaidit, someone might even create a different subsaidit where all these more atheist topics are discussed. Not to fight the other subsaidit, but to get deeper discussions about certain topics.

For example, I also have a /r/plasmacosmology subsaidit.
That is because mainstream astronomy does model space, plasma and electromagnetism the same way as plasmacosmology does.
This resulting difference is so big, that there is no "big bang" in the plasmacosmology model and no "dark matter" and no "black hole". There are other solutions for the observations that we see. So the premise of the subsaidit is that we have made a mistake in some theories, and that this has led to different models. And with this premise it would make no sense to state that it is wrong, because it breaks with mainstream theories. Instead one could claim that it is wrong, because we saw a "black hole" in a picture recently. And so we get into a discussion about how this picture is computer generated and that it is not really accurate at all.

In that sense moderation becomes more like a guide instead of a restriction.