March 24, 2011 at 10:11 am #254725
Does anyone know of a website where one can discuss topics that have been ruled out of order for ALS? I guess I’m thinking of things like climate change, carbon tax, peak oil and the like. I’m pretty much self-sufficient, but for me the world doesn’t end at my property fence lines and I’m not yet ready to lock the gates, fortify the place and say “I’m alright Jack”. I’m concerned what the future holds for my grandchildren, my community, our nation and the rest of the world as we frail and flawed human beings try to grapple with the difficult issues confronting us. I think the Internet is a wonderful place where we can kick issues around, get a better understanding of them and look for solutions. There are sites like The Drum, The Punch and Crikey where these topics are discussed without heavy-handed intervention by moderators, but debate usually divides along partisan political lines. I’m not interested in politics. I’d just like to discuss these issues rationally with like-minded people concerned about our planet’s future. If I were more tech-savvy I’d start my own site.March 24, 2011 at 10:54 am #493250
not a forum but ROEOZ is a very interesting yahoo list
(ROEOZ stands fo running on empty OZ )March 24, 2011 at 11:12 am #493251
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ runs an open thread every now and then, and always contains a lot of good science-based information and conversation on climate change. There are a few international forums around as well.
http://www.sydneypeakoil.com/ allows for the discussion of peak oil, though it is Sydney based. You might find a regional alternative. There’s also the ROEOZ mailing list for Australia-wide discussion of peak oil, it’s a mailing list, but you can read it online.
The Drum, Punch and Crikey are current affairs sites, not sites devoted to simple living, so of course their moderators wouldn’t have to be heavy handed because all out flame wars and vitriolic discussions of politics and religion are an expected part of their landscape. Thanks for the pointed barb though, appreciated 😛
As for rational discussion of these matters, you will find it in some of the places mentioned above, in others where the moderation is less heavy handed then it quickly devolves into, well, something less than rational.March 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm #493252
I think we also need to clarify something here. We aren’t shutting down all discussion on things like climate change and peak oil. These issues are important reasons behind why many of us are here. There are things relating to them that fall well within the scope of this forum. What we are shutting down are the endless denier vs believer ‘discussions’ that invariably end in circular arguments and personal name calling (and loads of complaints to the moderators as well).
If someone were to start a thread on, say, how people are responding to peak oil. That’s fine. Unless it starts to attract “what are you talking about, its all a myth” posts. Then its not fine and we will either moderate out those off topic posts or shut the thread down. If you do respond to a post in one of those areas, please keep the post on topic. That is, respond to the question asked by the original poster. Don’t take the thread off on another tangent (such as – “you’ve all been conned.. its a myth”).
I would ask those of you out there who don’t believe in peak oil or climate change or whatever to not look in the peak oil or climate change areas or whatever areas. Leave them for the people who accept them and want to take action. You’ll only see things that annoy you and you’ll feel compelled to post. Save your sanity (and ours) by staying out of those discussions. There’s plenty of other stuff here relating to the reasons you joined this community to keep you occupied.
DaveMarch 24, 2011 at 1:25 pm #493253
Having a lot of experience in forums, I find the problem with them is that some people become keyboard hero’s. What starts out as a reasonable discussion soons falls into mud slinging and name calling. That is when I definately agree with moderation.
It is ridiculous to read when it deteriorates into this type of behaviour and certainly gives the forum a bad taste or feeling. Freedom of speech is one thing, but distasteful conduct is childish and should be stopped. This is just the sort of behaviour the degenerates into people receiving hate mail or even worse still!!:SMarch 24, 2011 at 8:05 pm #493254
Thanks for the pointed barb though, appreciated.
No, Geoff. You and I know each other on and off the forum and I wasn’t pointing a barb at anyone. Certainly not you and ALS, which I greatly respect. Hey, I’m still here – for now anyway, but thinking seriously about my future involvment. My question is genuine and judging from the replies so far there’s not a whole lot of Aussie sites out there where you can have a free and frank, robust discussion.
Are our posts to be restricted to “why is my pet choocky sick?” or “why is my pumpkin vine falling over?” If so, I think that’s sad, because some of us are fair dinkum and have been living the self-reliant lifestyle for a long time. Feeding ourselves and living sustainably is a given – we don’t even think about it. We’re living the lifestlye, not blathering on incessantly about it on Internet forums. It’s not exactly rocket science, so why make such a big deal of it, and why can’t we discuss other topics?
Incidentally, I tried to find a place where I can resign and unsubscribe from the site, but it’s eluding me. Could one of you clever members/admins/moderators assist a senior citizen in this?March 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm #493255
wazza you sounds like the sort of bloke we need around here.. I’m going to go read some of your posts, stay, perhaps?March 24, 2011 at 9:04 pm #493256
I think it is only those of us that wont simply tow the carbon/climate change line that are not really wanted to comment. if we agree with all the brainwashing we would be fine. this is why I have stopped commenting too.March 24, 2011 at 9:36 pm #493257
…I’m still here – for now anyway, but thinking seriously about my future involvment.
Are our posts to be restricted to “why is my pet choocky sick?” or “why is my punmkin vine falling over?” If so, I think that’s sad, because some of us are fair dinkum and have been living the self-reliant lifestyle for a long time. Feeding ourselves and living sustainably is a given – we don’t even think about it. We’re living the lifestlye, not blathering on incessantly about it on Internet forums. It’s not exactly rocket science, so why make such a big deal of it, and why can’t we discuss other topics?
Hi Wazza. I applaud your interest in moving beyond your own backyard, seeing as you have achieved a status that some of us here can only dream of at this point in our journey – total self-sufficiency.
It seems to me that you need look no further – the people on this forum are the community you are trying to reach out to. Many of us are just beginning, and while answering a question about a sick chook may seem mundane to you, that chook experience could be the beginning of a life long passion for backyard poultry, and some of the vital first steps for that person attaining what you now have.
Don’t you remember more humble beginnings? Having someone with the knowledge that you do can take someone like me to the next level. That has to be worth it – every bit helps. Teach a man to fish….I hope you can stay.March 24, 2011 at 11:27 pm #493258
Gothmother post=308005 wrote: I think it is only those of us that wont simply tow the carbon/climate change line that are not really wanted to comment. if we agree with all the brainwashing we would be fine. this is why I have stopped commenting too.
People, regardless of their views on certain issues are most welcome to comment on posts here. We really don’t care whether you believe climate change is real, or not real, whether the earth is round or flat or whether the moon is made of cheese.
What we don’t want are the is/isn’t arguments. Seriously, we get complaints about that. We get lots of complaints. Inboxes flooded with PMs and reported thread messages. People feel unwelcome. People feel threatened. People leave the community because of it.
All we ask is that sceptics, refrain from hijacking every climate change or peak oil thread and turning it into an is/isn’t argument. Likewise, those that accept climate change, refrain from hijacking any sceptic threads.
We don’t like having to do this. I like a full and frank exchange of views as much as anyone. The rest of the community though is sick of it and wants it to stop. Seriously, people are leaving because of this. There’s a lot of great stuff on here. Everyone has something to contribute. We all have our reasons for being here and we can all help each other on the journey towards a simple life. We welcome contributions from everyone. What we don’t welcome is the hostility and name calling that happens when arguments get out of hand.
Think of us as UN peacekeepers. We keep the warring sides apart. This means that everyone hates us and we get shot at from both sides.
Play nice folks.
DaveMarch 24, 2011 at 11:37 pm #493259
Wazza, as far as leaving goes, there is no process.
You simply leave. You can choose to return any time in the future or not.That is your choice to make.
Members have done just that over the years.
No fuss, no resigning, no problem.
Whilst you are here, however, you can chose to contribute and share you own experience(s) or not.
That, too, is your choice.
People chose to read about and learn from your experience or not.
To quote one of my distant rellies “Such is life.”
Although you may be ‘living the life’ many people are not, hence this site.
People really do want to ‘hear’ how you/we/others here do it; the highs, the lows and the middle bits.
Yes, the info is ‘out there’ and google can be your friend whether people are looking for info on climate change, peak oil or even sock drawer sorting, but this site tends to be like a small community of people that gets together in somebody’s lounge (Dan’s) for a chat and everybody is able to learn from others.
As far as ‘restricted’ topics goes, I feel (for what it is worth) the issue tends not to be whether or not the topic can be discussed but more HOW they are discussed.
As in ‘real’ life, we have trolls, religious and science zealots/bigots and genuine caring, informed or curious people, whether formally educated or not. The whole range is represented on this site and most have an opinion that they chose to share or not.
I am sorry that you feel I (since I seem to be the current ‘sheriff‘ at the moment) am ‘heavy handed’ with censure. As mentioned elsewhere – probably a locked thread , circular arguments and copy/paste wars with who can collect the most links does not make for great reading and I have the PMs to suggest that not many members find it that interesting – the way topics are argued not the topics themselves.
I do feel that your comments are totally unwarranted.
There is no suggestion at any time that anybody has to ‘tow the line‘ in relation to anything except good manners.
You, yourself have expressed views that others have agreed or disagreed with in threads. If somebody disagreeing with or misinterpreting your view(s) in a thread constitutes ‘towing the line‘ perhaps you need to take it up with the individual concerned rather than suggesting it is some sort of site policy.
But then that is just my opinion and I respect yours.
I will stop now since a colleague has jumped in before I finished this but I hope people get the ghist and this does not come across as too disjointed. B)
Off to search for more info on sorting out socks :whistle:
Doc 😉March 25, 2011 at 8:48 am #493260
I’ve spent a lot of time running community workshops on both climate change and peak oil (in the context of permaculture solutions) and learnt some things very quickly –
We opened the workshops to those who were concerned about the future and wanted to do something positive about it
Anything outside of that and it we’d suggest that perhaps the person set up there own workshops and discuss their issues there
This happened probably once in five years – most of the time we had people who were genuinely concerned but wanted to work on what they can do, not fight against what they don’t want (as suggested by David Holmgren in his text)
We framed all language with a positive tone – we all took responsibility for this – we all kept a check on each other to ensure we stayed on track and focused
It truly worked
I also found with our local Transition Town group that each month we would have new people turn up who were very excited about finding a group of like minded people – this tended to put an end to any agenda we had for the day as the new people just wanted to talk about their lemon tree, their chooks, their vegie garden…
Instead of fighting against this constant ‘reforming’ of the group, we went with the flow – its a casual get together now, a relaxed chat over coffee, but all of us who are further along the road work between meetings on projects and report back to the group – this allows space for new people to meet others in the group, for information to be shared and its kept the group going and growing for five years now.
Hope this helps, people and the relationships we have with each other are the key to the future – not technologies, not preparing your lifeboat – but working with others – its bloody hard, but its the only way we’ll get what needs to be done, done.March 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm #493261
Doc post=308020 wrote: As in ‘real’ life, we have trolls, religious and science zealots/bigots and genuine caring, informed or curious people, whether formally educated or not. The whole range is represented on this site and most have an opinion that they chose to share or not.
That’s an interesting range of stereotypes Doc has chosen for our members, in particular, science zealots. What’s most interesting is the emphasis placed on it with the added descriptive meaning, by the use of the word bigots. There wasn’t any emphasis placed on any other stereotypes, that appears to be something important in his message.
I’ve been an ALS member since 2006, member number 276. I’m an avid reader of anything and everything. I enjoy the broad range of topics at ALS. I enjoy and value the broad range of effort that members put into their diverse contributions. Without the culmination of members contributions the place would be an empty shell. You couldn’t pay people enough money to accumulate this knowledge-base. Keep that firmly in mind I reckon!
In that time as a member I’ve seen the range of threads and posts from an equally wide range of people, from people, not stereotypes. Never would I dare to stereotype people based on anyone’s posts, a range of posts or PMs. Never would I dare to stereotype people in real life, period. It’s not in me!
As I like to do now and then to enhance the clarity of what I’m expressing, here’s a copy and paste…
One theory as to why people stereotype is that it is too difficult to take in all of the complexities of other people as individuals. Even though stereotyping is inexact, it is an efficient way to mentally organize large blocks of information. Categorization is an essential human capability because it enables us to simplify, predict, and organize our world. Once one has sorted and organized everyone into tidy categories, there is a human tendency to avoid processing new or unexpected information about each individual. Assigning general group characteristics to members of that group saves time and satisfies the need to predict the social world in a general sense. Another theory is that people stereotype because of the need to feel good about oneself. Stereotypes protect one from anxiety and enhance self-esteem. By designating one’s own group as the standard or normal group and assigning others to groups considered inferior or abnormal, it provides one with a sense of worth.
It might surprise some people, that I began as a reader of Grass Roots magazine in the mid 80’s. Have also been a reader of Organic Growing, Earth Garden and Warm Earth too! I’ve been to Bill Mollison’s farm “Tagari” at Tyalgum – in the 90’s. I’m intimately familiar with Permaculture principals through numerous publications, just as I am familiar in a multifaceted way in all manner of interests. In the 80’s I designed and built a 1500 watt sine-wave inverter for the alternate solar/wind power system I was planning. I can knit, my Mum and Gran taught me. Can build a house, have relocated a house, restored a broken/damaged solar hot water system for our current use. None of which is related to my trade. My work as an apprentice and tradesman was rewarded with various merits from industry bodies and political heads of departments. The work I’ve conducted in wildlife conservation has received national and international attention and worldwide media coverage, more than once. Also, as it so happens these days, according to my results, I’m not too bad at investigation of the criminal types too. Interesting how experience in one trade leads one onto another, and another. There’s a snapshot! Not a stereotype.
In the time I’ve been an ALS member, I can fairly confidently say that I’m most likely the most prominent of members over that period to have posted on topics science related and to discuss topics from a science based perspective. If someone wishes to correct me on that, I’m open to suggestions on who else that member more science based might be.
Upon that basis, it appears to me, Doc’s use of the stereotype “science zealots” or “science bigots” is, in a weaselling kind of way, directed at myself. Would I be correct in that? If I’m wrong I’m happy to hear otherwise.
If that is the case, while stereotyping is not very becoming of anyone, least not of a “minder” of many thousands of ALS members.
I think what stereotyping amounts to is like personal name calling, and if that’s what it was, I’m not impressed.
Playing nice folks should work both ways, shouldn’t it? But, this isn’t a level playing field.March 28, 2011 at 12:57 pm #493262
As in ‘real’ life, we have trolls, religious and science zealots/bigots and
Gramatically speaking, the statement is referring to both religious zealots and bigots, and science zealots and bigots.
Unfortunately this renders your conclusions invalid given that it is no longer specifically an attack on science zealots who are also bigots.March 28, 2011 at 1:23 pm #493263
As in ‘real’ life, we have trolls, religious and science zealots/bigots and genuine caring, informed or curious people, whether formally educated or not.
it appears to me, Doc’s use of the stereotype “science zealots” or “science bigots” is, in a weaselling kind of way, directed at myself.
Bullseye, why do you label yourself as a “science zealot/bigot” rather than one of the “genuine, caring, informed” people Doc referred to?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.