(Discussion about) a few rules for PD

[OswegoAtheist]

This discussion thread is pinned.

Here's a few rules I'm thinking about adding to PD (with group consent and discussion):

1. No debunking anti-Republican propaganda.
Our TOS currently reads, "Discredit and or refute right-wing propaganda disseminated via e-mail, newspaper, 527 organizations, and broadcast media"; but I'd like that to be changed to "right-wing propaganda and other statements, primarily aimed at Democratic or liberal politicians or principles". The reason I want to add this is that, given all the rhetoric surrounding the Republican primaries, I'd hate to see PD ever put in the position of defending or supporting Repub-on-Repub attacks.

2. Provide verifiable links whenever possible.
"Verifiable" meaning meeting a certain standard of veracity; snopes.com would be great (they cite their sources), media sites are great, noted-personality blogs are acceptable (i.e.: Rachel Maddow, yes; your cousin Tim who works at the grocery store, no). Right-wing sites are always unacceptable, and linking to free republic will get you banned.

3. "Kenyan Birth Certificate Socialist Anti-White Muslim Communist Fascist Secret Plot to Install Sharia Law William Ayers Acolyte Radical Death Panels" propaganda threads will be locked.
We debunk propaganda, not idiocy.

The following aren't rules, but suggestions:

4. Cross-thread posts are encouraged.
If you see something in another forum or group that you think belongs here, share it. Once the primaries transition into the general election, all the smear merchants and liars will be coming out of the woodwork, looking to cash in by selling their books on Newsmax and World Nut Daily.

5. If you come across good sites and reviews of right-wing "books", share them here.
I'd love it if PD became the one-stop centre for DUers to be able to get the facts. Since propaganda needs wide dissemination in order to be effective, many DUers are going to come across lies and smears that others have encountered before.

Oswego "Get ready" Atheist

[The Green Manalishi]

1. I disagree with ever banning someone just because of the source they link to

IF Free Republic, or Stormfront, for that matter, has information that helps me refute a conservative meme then [pst the link, I say.

[OswegoAtheist]

4. No banning involved, just thread locking. n/t

Oswego "n/t" Atheist

[PatrynXX]

7. depends on a source

I want a source debunked. and I'm new on this group. I posted a site I don't know anything about. Would like actual info on it. Figured it'd be a good place to start here. and even threat locking should have an appeals process. Some adult sites have such a thing.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. I have no problem with most of these.

#3 is iffy to me. I realize that these sorts of things are idiocy, but there are times when it would be good to be able to discuss and arm ourselves with arguments against some of the charges brought by the idiots. For instance, when "death panels" were the big discussion, I wanted all the information that I could get about what the truth was and what was bunk. The same can be said of charges of "socialism", especially if the right brings up a particular action that they are calling socialist. With the rule as it is written, we would not be able to get needed truth on some charges against Obama or other Democrats.

[DesertRat]

5. I feel the same way

Much of the anti-Obama rhetoric that I run into (emails, Facebook and face-to-face) falls into the #3 category. It unfortunately comes with living in a very red area. It would be helpful to have some handy links to debunk it.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. A hypothetical on #1.

If there was an area where Republicans were arguing over something like climate change -- something less possible now that Jon Huntsman has withdrawn, of course -- we should be able to point out the lies without being accused of defending a Republican. In another example, we should be able to differentiate between someone defending Newt Gingrich and someone correcting minor mistakes in "When Mitt Romney Came To Town" while affirming the general thrust and facts of that documentary.

[progree]

6. I think we should be debunking propaganda, there is a HUGE ELECTION IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS

I think at the 6 month point before an election that will determine whether or not the Supreme Court is 6:3 in favor of the CONservatives, we should maybe quit worrying about so many rules and restrictions. We are here to debunk propaganda, not to be afraid to even see it. Its time for Smash Mouth football, like the RepubliCONS play, not worrying about that maybe some delicate people here might be offended. GOODNESS GRACIOUS PEOPLE, do you really want a 6:3 Supreme Court?