Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old Yesterday, 01:48 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's asking way too much of the moderators.
It's no more mod-intensive than just outright banning topics. On the one hand, they mod people for posting outside the sticky, and move the thread. On the other, they mod people for breaking the topic ban (and delete the thread, ideally). Seems about the same.

The only way that doesn't ask more of the moderators is the status quo.
  #502  
Old Yesterday, 01:55 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Max S. dodged the question, Dibble gave the honest answer, but again: In this day and age, are we ever going to get female, POC, or trans moderators again if they have to moderate "The Transphobic Thread"?
  #503  
Old Yesterday, 01:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
It's no more mod-intensive than just outright banning topics. On the one hand, they mod people for posting outside the sticky, and move the thread. On the other, they mod people for breaking the topic ban (and delete the thread, ideally). Seems about the same.

The only way that doesn't ask more of the moderators is the status quo.
You like the idea so it could be your insults playground as described a few posts up.

Last edited by CarnalK; Yesterday at 02:00 AM.
  #504  
Old Yesterday, 03:27 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
I found it. The world's most privileged post.

Politics isn't a some ideological game of chess played in the heads of a bunch of airy philosophers. It's fucking life and death for marginalized people. Bigoted rhetoric isn't just some words on a message board, it's a contribution to a cultural ideal that aims to deny you rights, deny you services, in some cases even kill you.

And "step up and bring your heinous ideas, that we may debunk them" only works if everyone is coming to the table in good faith. It's a dangerous fucking game because, sure, best case you utterly humiliate them, but worst case they disseminate their message and gain new recruits. Turns out there they didn't care if their argument got demolished, they just wanted to hand out metaphorical pamphlets to onlookers who may be interested.
Going over the top right from the get-go aren't you? Yes, I'm privileged. In multiple ways. But so are you and so is everyone posting on this board or living in Western-style democracies. Millions upon millions of people across the globe are privileged in varying ways and to varying degrees. In the same manner, countless people are also marginalized in some way, and not always on a racial basis. Statistically, very few people in Western-style democracies like the US face anything close to life or death situations due to racism, or any other form of discrimination or marginalization, on anything resembling a day-to-day basis. Or ever. That is not to diminish the harm of other effects of racism or marginalization but a simple statement of fact.

And yes, racism is a horrible thing and a battle worth fighting. Condemn racism, belittle racists exactly as much as they deserve, but no more. If they are the subject of legal punishment or even physical harm that is legally justified and thus proportional then I will feel some sort of justice or karma was done and probably laugh.

All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately. Not in terms of motivation to right a wrong but by not letting emotion create bias.

And the big problem with people losing that objectivity is we get poorly thought-out public policies because emotion and bias overcome facts and reason. We also get people on a moral crusade to combat racism that suffers the common flaw of moral crusades. Namely that no matter how noble and true the goal, that people will turn it into an opportunity to do the exact same thing racists do and dehumanize and treat someone worse than they deserve in order to exert control over another and appease their ego by convincing themselves they're somehow better than that person. Or even if they are indeed "better", by overestimating the relevant gap between them.

And of course allowing racist or other shitty speech is dangerous. I think a lot of smart people have convincingly argued that censorship is more dangerous. And ultimately in a democracy you have to trust your fellow citizens to some degree. Because if a majority of the population is so susceptible to shitty ideas, especially a recurring and pervasive one such as racism, then you're in real trouble. Seems like the thing to do is to convince and educate your fellow citizens so you don't get outnumbered. And once again I think a lot of smart people have argued convincingly that censorship is largely ineffective and that fact along with its other costs outweighs its benefits.
  #505  
Old Yesterday, 03:54 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The answer, in the case of racism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, is "Yes"
Yes, that is in fact the discussion we're having. Well spotted.


Well, there we have it.

Apparently the problem all along was we haven't been considering the poor racists' fee-fees.

Not enough in the world for such an idiotic notion.
The problem of course is when such accusations aren't justified. Like in the thread about conflict in heterogeneous populations. And because of people's biases and self-interests they can mistakenly or deliberately make such accusations and that's a bad thing as well. Those same biases and self-interests can also lead to a disproportionate response to actual racism. That is also bad. Maybe you should have asked for clarification before you went for the rolleyes emoji and calling it "idiotic."
  #506  
Old Yesterday, 04:07 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
People really need to get over the board's stupid tagline.
Sigh....no, no they really don't. It's an important cause, possibly the most important. It's what sets this board apart, though arguably less so lately. And in an age of human existence where we have incredible amounts of information and much of it at our almost literal fingertips then what good could ignorance or not diminishing ignorance possibly serve?
  #507  
Old Yesterday, 04:14 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You like the idea so it could be your insults playground as described a few posts up.
No, I like it because it would make the poisonous posts confined. I still prefer outright topic bans.

It being an "insult playground" was my own addition, and not the main point. But it is a nice side-benefit.
  #508  
Old Yesterday, 04:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
The problem of course is when such accusations aren't justified.
That wasn't the example you raised, which was actually racist.

But I guess those goalposts aren't going to move themselves.
  #509  
Old Yesterday, 08:52 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, I like it because it would make the poisonous posts confined. I still prefer outright topic bans.

It being an "insult playground" was my own addition, and not the main point. But it is a nice side-benefit.
The suggestion for consideration was based on several premises:

1) The Pit is the "insult playground" (and even there there are limits) which confines what would in other fora be "bad poster" behaviors. GD is the place to debate sensitive ideas between people of different values, and therefore where some values conflict thus offense will occur, and where posters should try their honest best to have those sometimes difficult conversations without giving or taking offense.

2) Some subjects have so little discussion value and inflict so much harm as to be closed subjects. And some subjects have large numbers of Americans in honest disagreement with each other, and many who have been open minded enough to change their minds given hearing discussions and information. Some people can only see the dress as blue and black but can at least learn that others honestly see it as white and gold, and have conversations about it. Sometimes they can actually flip that switch even and see it the other's way.

3) Those latter, worthwhile still yet more still more risky conversations (given they involve core value disagreements and somewhat hardwired perceptual differences), require extra care by participants and extra guidance.

4) And the open question of which subjects are not worthwhile at all anymore, which ones are worthwhile but that level of risky, and which can be had without that. Hopefully most are in the last group but clearly not all are.
  #510  
Old Yesterday, 09:49 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
That wasn't the example you raised, which was actually racist.

But I guess those goalposts aren't going to move themselves.
No goalposts were moved. Notice the part about treating a person disproportionately harshly even when racism is actually present. That's a thing that can and does happen.
  #511  
Old Yesterday, 02:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately.
It can't be looked at objectively, logically, and factually without acknowledging that it's objectively and factually true that passions are involved; and that those passions have a legitimate place in the debate.


If nobody got upset about being murdered, driven out, driven to suicide, prevented from getting work, prevented from getting housing, being harassed on the street, and all the other myriad results of bigotry: then those things wouldn't matter, would they? It's precisely because people object to these things that they matter. And those objections are all based on passion. As is everything else that people want, including wanting not to having to recognize other people's pain.

There's often a nasty kind of catch-22 involved: people are visibly upset? they shouldn't be listened to because they're not being dispassionate. Nobody's visibly upset? well, then why should anything ever be changed, clearly there isn't any problem!

Last edited by thorny locust; Yesterday at 02:47 PM. Reason: clarification, I hope
  #512  
Old Yesterday, 05:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,680
Just so you know I am not always "status quo" I just reported a post for misogyny. So even I, clueless old dude, can see bad posts.
  #513  
Old Yesterday, 06:15 PM
nelliebly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Going over the top right from the get-go aren't you? Yes, I'm privileged. In multiple ways. But so are you and so is everyone posting on this board or living in Western-style democracies. Millions upon millions of people across the globe are privileged in varying ways and to varying degrees. In the same manner, countless people are also marginalized in some way, and not always on a racial basis. Statistically, very few people in Western-style democracies like the US face anything close to life or death situations due to racism, or any other form of discrimination or marginalization, on anything resembling a day-to-day basis. Or ever. That is not to diminish the harm of other effects of racism or marginalization but a simple statement of fact.

And yes, racism is a horrible thing and a battle worth fighting. Condemn racism, belittle racists exactly as much as they deserve, but no more. If they are the subject of legal punishment or even physical harm that is legally justified and thus proportional then I will feel some sort of justice or karma was done and probably laugh.

All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately. Not in terms of motivation to right a wrong but by not letting emotion create bias.

And the big problem with people losing that objectivity is we get poorly thought-out public policies because emotion and bias overcome facts and reason. We also get people on a moral crusade to combat racism that suffers the common flaw of moral crusades. Namely that no matter how noble and true the goal, that people will turn it into an opportunity to do the exact same thing racists do and dehumanize and treat someone worse than they deserve in order to exert control over another and appease their ego by convincing themselves they're somehow better than that person. Or even if they are indeed "better", by overestimating the relevant gap between them.

And of course allowing racist or other shitty speech is dangerous. I think a lot of smart people have convincingly argued that censorship is more dangerous. And ultimately in a democracy you have to trust your fellow citizens to some degree. Because if a majority of the population is so susceptible to shitty ideas, especially a recurring and pervasive one such as racism, then you're in real trouble. Seems like the thing to do is to convince and educate your fellow citizens so you don't get outnumbered. And once again I think a lot of smart people have argued convincingly that censorship is largely ineffective and that fact along with its other costs outweighs its benefits.
Ah, yes, the "white privilege" pushback. I knew the first time I heard the phrase that people were going to get their knickers in a knot. Some people wrongly assume "white privilege"means white people have unearned wealth and ease-- that, being white, they didn't have to work hard and got to take it easy. Still, if "privilege" upsets you, maybe "narrow white perspective" would help you focus on the issue at hand. It's human nature to be unaware of subtle discrimination that doesn't affect you. It's only when you really start paying attention with humility and objectivity and are not poised to take umbrage that you start to see the difference. Not noticing until it's pointed out to us is normal. Refusing to see it even then because we're uncomfortable or have made erroneous assumptions about what the term means is not.

So no need to remind us how privileged we all are to have internet access. Yes, it sounds very noble. It may even let us fool ourselves into thinking that by avoiding the issue of race, we've surmounted racial issues. But that's only enough for people who are privileged in the sense they can live on such delusions. I hope you're not one of them.
  #514  
Old Yesterday, 06:27 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
It can't be looked at objectively, logically, and factually without acknowledging that it's objectively and factually true that passions are involved; and that those passions have a legitimate place in the debate.


If nobody got upset about being murdered, driven out, driven to suicide, prevented from getting work, prevented from getting housing, being harassed on the street, and all the other myriad results of bigotry: then those things wouldn't matter, would they? It's precisely because people object to these things that they matter. And those objections are all based on passion. As is everything else that people want, including wanting not to having to recognize other people's pain.

There's often a nasty kind of catch-22 involved: people are visibly upset? they shouldn't be listened to because they're not being dispassionate. Nobody's visibly upset? well, then why should anything ever be changed, clearly there isn't any problem!
There's no contradiction or catch-22. An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic. To the extent that it is not in such situations, then it is bad and counterproductive. They are not completely distinct or unrelated. Being angry or desiring remedial change in response to racism or some other injustice is a perfectly logical response and the moral outrage should be informed and defined in turn by that logic.

But if someone forgoes logic and operating on pure emotion makes accusations of such behavior without a logical or factual basis then they are not only acting illogically but causing harm to others by doing so. Likewise if they advocate for a disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic response to actual instances of racism or other unjust treatment then that is also beyond what logic and morality would justify. The other side of that, blinding onself to such issues or worse, deliberately ignoring or minimizing them, carries the same types of logical and moral failings.

I've come to believe that people generally have 2 modes of response: underreaction and overreaction. With the latter often immediately on the heels of the former. That doesn't mean there isn't a happy and logical medium that people tend to blow right past.
  #515  
Old Yesterday, 07:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I've come to believe that people generally have 2 modes of response: underreaction and overreaction. With the latter often immediately on the heels of the former. That doesn't mean there isn't a happy and logical medium that people tend to blow right past.
Uh huh, except you I bet. Reminds me of the old Carlin joke "Ever notice how everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?"
  #516  
Old Today, 04:21 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
There's no contradiction or catch-22. An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic.
Nope. That's not how emotions work for human beings. At all.
  #517  
Old Today, 08:53 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Just so you know I am not always "status quo" I just reported a post for misogyny. So even I, clueless old dude, can see bad posts.
So what do you want, a medal?

Last edited by Guinastasia; Today at 08:53 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017