Is that what they do? I thought it was to stop an endless series of mindless provocations that get us nowhere. The Conversation has come to the same position: that refusing to give voice to time wasters who have nothing new to say does not stifle thought it is the time wasters who do that. The time wasters have been given their chances so many times if their message had any content it has been heard by now. There is no discernable content only talking points.
I confess to failing sometimes to ignore provocation, we all have weaknesses.
Also, there are many posts in this thread which are not directly about climate change and the consumer. Maybe to be consistent, maybe Choice should vet each post and moderate those that donât.
Clearly, our perspectives differ. The Bill is climate change news. The outcome will affect consumers. The same goes for policies (or the lack thereof). And yes, Choice has political roles to play.
I have moved the discussion in the Climate Change News section on what is news, what should CHOICE be supporting and linked discussion to this thread which is in part to discuss what CHOICE should allow or not.
There are often fuzzy lines in topics. Some topics diverge and then come back, some posts offer advice/support/info that links to something in a post above it that while not part of the original topic adds an âanswerâ. Often this comes back on track and the topic moves on. In some cases it generates enough ânoiseâ that it is moved to a new topic or merged into a topic more suited to the posts made.
As for the post regarding the Bill, it doesnât say sign it, a person can follow the link/links and decide for themselves whether what they have read pushes/nudges them to take action or not.
Is it news? For lots of posts in all topics there will be a mix of those who already knew and others who didnât know. So for some it is, and for some not.
Your, others & my post there about whether the @Drop_Bearâs post was news or not are a divergence from the topic, it generally gets some leeway to being left in the topic but if a user is ever concerned with the divergence then using a Flag is encouraged. This Flag is then considered and if needed the post is dealt with. If we instead debate the merits of whether it should be in the topic or not in that very topic we, those of us responding to the merits, are diluting the topic ourselves.
Certainly if you think that a post has got it wrong about what is being debated in the topic it is healthy to use a post to respond with evidence (personal, science) and not let it stand uncontested. Shonky pseudo science is not acceptable and should be Flagged.
Agree it is worthy of further discussion. The following topic has been created to consider that point. In particular in relationship to Climate Activism.
Often we call things political positions like we are inferring that it is party politics alone, ie the position is purely a political one and not a consumer issue. Having a stance on a thing while it may hold political interest can also be one that has great impacts on consumers, if not directly now certainly they will be into the future.
Sometimes the only way to get change is to get political. To get legislation enacted that changes the way we do things, Sugar Taxes, Tobacco smoking, Gambling advertising, Alcohol advertising among many where there are political interests involved often require supporting one stance over another. Lobbying is political, it may be that only one side is lobbied in other cases it may be a select few or indeed the whole list of political parties.
Perhaps it may be better thought of that CHOICE while politically involved does so only to better get Consumer outcomes and as such they might be considered to be apolitical, having no preference for a particular party but certainly having a preference for an particular outcome.
In the realm of Climate Change (CC) and how it is seen, the results of CC have direct effects on consumers, often this is lost because some people see the discussion purely as a division between what one party/group politically believe and what another group/party believe. Science however has a extremely large non partisan view of what is happening and what is needed, they need politicians to get over their party lines and make the changes needed at the legislative level to bring about the outcomes we need. This requires that we as consumers support a good stance or political move eg petitions, if we donât know about it how do we support it or decide whether it is worth our support.
The reference to CC is just an example of one area where some see it as purely political, there are others eg Gun Control, Immigration, Bush fires.
There are many posts in the Climate Change Consumer thread which could be classed as solely political in nature. These often have little or no text about relevance to the consumer and often point to an article which either supports or undermines a particular political view.
With a thread like this one and others which can easily become or be seen as political in nature, it possibly should be expected of the poster that commentary is provided to why the particular post is relevant to the thread topicâŠrather than posting a link and hoping that others can deduce its relevance, if any (which often isnât the case).
My earlier comment made is specifically about these sort of posts which donât substantiate any links to impacts on the consumer.
If Choice takes the view that any link or post indirectly links to consumer issues (including those outlined above), then this would set a precedence for political or opinion based non-consumer posts in any thread. I am not sure if this is a direction for the community to take.
Edit: It may also make it more difficult to moderate/remove such posts in the future as the author of such posts may challenge the decision to moderate/removed a post.
Not every post in every topic is on topic for the matter, some are branches in reply to other points in a post. If they start to develop a life of their own then if often leads to moving them to a relevant thread/topic or creating a new topic that suits the material. I am not completely against some deviation as long as it has merit and I think CHOICE itself tolerates/accepts some linked deviation from the main topic.
A move such as I am talking about was moving those posts from the CC News thread to this topic which is more about what was being discussed.
Sometimes a link is pretty self explanatory and yes I agree that often most need a comment to link them properly. This has been commented on before in other parts of this site as well, so is not an isolated concern to that News forum.
I donât disagree.
Nor do I disagree with having that discussion.
While wisdom sometimes needs time, one way forward I saw as appropriate, and not to detract from more general discussion
It was proposed to continue the opportunity to discuss as it deserves the direction of the proposed legislation from Zali Steggall, as well as putting the consumer outcomes in context to the known positions of others in parliament.
In general previously Choice has taken a particular view on consumer issues, and following discussion campaigns for relevant consumer outcomes have resulted.
Actions on climate change are no different. The direction of changes to global climate and factors driving the change have been well documented. The solutions though are subject to much disagreement and discussion (informed or otherwise).
I also agree that in being part of a discussion we all have a responsibility to ensure the content has a context. Simply reposting from other sources without an explanation of the content, relevance and purpose adds less to the discussion while leaving the posters motivations open to different interpretations.
The motivation behind a sequence of consecutive posts without provision of breathing space between for feedback and critique remains known only to the poster. This occurs in numerous topics from time to time. Enthusiasm, obsession, redirection, domination, etc. Discourse I thought provided warnings against some forms of response.
This thread is now being exploited, less to promote meaningful discussion than to discourage (some) discussions. Has the time come to put an end to the topic?
Part of âEncouraging Meaningful Discussionsâ is deciding what constitutes a meaningful discussion. Where do we draw the line at what is too off topic or not appropriate? This is where I think establishing clearer moderation guidelines might help
Perhaps out of context, I wonder how often I forget the importance of that point.
How do best encourage others to contribute alternate points of view?
And how do we learn to accept those points of view even when we disagree with them?
Is the difficulty for many of us that we continue to be analytical and apply a standard Choice test based on observation and scientific endeavour,
Where for many the core question is the classic âwhat colours does it come inâ?
IE there is more to assessing needs than simply applying pure science, including which tea tastes best.
Helen Wellings often asked that question and others for,good reason. What is important in a product for some of us has nothing to do with the innovation behind the product. It needs to appeal to what others value most. Perhaps that is why Helen used to put certain questions, to better understand how the product might meet the needs of all.
