Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:34 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why should it be warnable to make an argument that turns out to be false?
When it's an inherently misogynistic argument.
  #102  
Old 07-12-2019, 06:31 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And I understand why you don't want a debate about it, but the fact that there is a debate about it makes it debatable. And it makes your warning to manson, IMHO, a bullshit one.
My kids want to throw the ball in the house and I tell them to do it outside. There’s nothing wrong with throwing balls in the park, but it’s a big no-no in the living room. Imagine that.
  #103  
Old 07-12-2019, 06:51 AM
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 14,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
No that’s Zed. Zed’s dead baby. Zed’s dead.

I thought it was Fritz?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujQ-nMc0WGE

  #104  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:24 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
manson's issue was more of refusing to listen to moderator instructions. He was told not to try and argue about rape-related stuff in ATMB, but he kept on doing so. Even after a thread was closed, he brought it back up again. So he got a Warning.
I don't think this is an accurate summation of the posts in question.
  #105  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:30 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
By all means, continue to argue about it in this thread, too. It can only bring good things for you.
  #106  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:35 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
By all means, continue to argue about it in this thread, too. It can only bring good things for you.
Not sure I'll be able to. Have a lot of work to do today.
  #107  
Old 07-12-2019, 07:56 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
When it's an inherently misogynistic argument.
Doesn't matter. The mods tell people to stop debating issues in threads in ATMB all the time, even for GQ questions. ATMB is for questions about the board and moderation, it's not a mini-GD forum.
  #108  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:06 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Neither would I. Doing so would get me a warning, whereas I doubt it would get Richard Parker a warning. That's the point.
If it were true that we could express identical opinions but you would get modded and I wouldn't, then you're not actually complaining about the same thing as the OP. Your gripe wouldn't be with the mods punishing certain wrongthink, but instead your claim would be that the mods arbitrarily punish certain posters. Those are two different debates, requiring different evidence.

That aside, I don't think you're right that we'd be treated differently. I think if we literally used the same words, we'd be equally likely to face moderation. The reason I am confident I would not get modded (and maybe I'm wrong!), is that I don't actually think we police bad opinions on this board, even when they are based on bigotry at some level--for better or worse. What is policed is being a jerk. Even if I express opinions that are or are arguably misogynist (or racist or whatever), if I express them in ways that are civil and appropriate to the conversation I will not be modded merely for holding them. There are plenty of frequent posters here who routinely express racist and misogynist opinions, but they do so without using hate speech or bringing them up when not relevant or otherwise being a jerk about them. They don't get modded.

It is true that the likelihood of treading into jerk territory is higher in threads about fraught topics of identity and oppression. You should feel like you have to behave differently in such a thread. You should recognize that it is a fraught topic, and you should bring to it both a sense of humility and an obligation to be careful with word choices to explain more carefully than normal. That heightened sense of alertness to coming across as a jerk is entirely appropriate.

To bring it back to this thread, I'm pretty sure I could express the opinions expressed by the two warned posters in this thread without mod intervention (at least as to the core opinion that they and others now claim were the point of their posts). And the reason I would not get modded is not that I have some special immunity. It is because I would not use phrases like "rape-able" and "rag-head" or gratuitous addition to my hypothetical that a woman is wearing a burka--as the posters in question did. This isn't rocket science. If you wish to express opinions about fraught topics without being a jerk, then you need to be careful how you express them.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 07-12-2019 at 09:06 AM.
  #109  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:30 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
My kids want to throw the ball in the house and I tell them to do it outside. There’s nothing wrong with throwing balls in the park, but it’s a big no-no in the living room. Imagine that.
This is why we can't have nice things.
  #110  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:55 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
...
Richard Parker is my spirit animal.
  #111  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Richard Parker is my spirit animal.
This makes me happy!

I wish I could argue as well as he does. You never attack (directly or by implication) his motives on the issues he advocates for. [/whinge]

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-12-2019 at 10:12 AM.
  #112  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:16 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
If it were true that we could express identical opinions but you would get modded and I wouldn't, then you're not actually complaining about the same thing as the OP. Your gripe wouldn't be with the mods punishing certain wrongthink, but instead your claim would be that the mods arbitrarily punish certain posters. Those are two different debates, requiring different evidence.

That aside, I don't think you're right that we'd be treated differently. I think if we literally used the same words, we'd be equally likely to face moderation. The reason I am confident I would not get modded (and maybe I'm wrong!), is that I don't actually think we police bad opinions on this board, even when they are based on bigotry at some level--for better or worse. What is policed is being a jerk. Even if I express opinions that are or are arguably misogynist (or racist or whatever), if I express them in ways that are civil and appropriate to the conversation I will not be modded merely for holding them. There are plenty of frequent posters here who routinely express racist and misogynist opinions, but they do so without using hate speech or bringing them up when not relevant or otherwise being a jerk about them. They don't get modded.

It is true that the likelihood of treading into jerk territory is higher in threads about fraught topics of identity and oppression. You should feel like you have to behave differently in such a thread. You should recognize that it is a fraught topic, and you should bring to it both a sense of humility and an obligation to be careful with word choices to explain more carefully than normal. That heightened sense of alertness to coming across as a jerk is entirely appropriate.

To bring it back to this thread, I'm pretty sure I could express the opinions expressed by the two warned posters in this thread without mod intervention (at least as to the core opinion that they and others now claim were the point of their posts). And the reason I would not get modded is not that I have some special immunity. It is because I would not use phrases like "rape-able" and "rag-head" or gratuitous addition to my hypothetical that a woman is wearing a burka--as the posters in question did. This isn't rocket science. If you wish to express opinions about fraught topics without being a jerk, then you need to be careful how you express them.
I think that's my point. When you take a position opposite to the Official Board Position on certain topics you must tread very lightly and carefully, showing the utmost respect to the other side. That is not done in other topics.

When people debate religion, for example, there is no respect. People who believe in God are said to believe in "sky fairies" and the like. Trump supporters certainly are not treated with any respect at all. There is no board rule to be careful, respectful and polite in GD, but when you are debating the list of issues the mods feel strongly about, then your post is spot on.

You seem to think you are answering the problem, but you are describing the problem.
  #113  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I think that's my point. When you take a position opposite to the Official Board Position on certain topics you must tread very lightly and carefully, showing the utmost respect to the other side. That is not done in other topics.

When people debate religion, for example, there is no respect. People who believe in God are said to believe in "sky fairies" and the like. Trump supporters certainly are not treated with any respect at all. There is no board rule to be careful, respectful and polite in GD, but when you are debating the list of issues the mods feel strongly about, then your post is spot on.

You seem to think you are answering the problem, but you are describing the problem.
Do you believe there are any topics on which it's appropriate to "tread very lightly" when discussing just because of the nature of the topic? For example, do you think someone ought to be more careful and thoughtful when talking about rape and the abuse of women than when talking about the local basketball team? If so, then the only disagreement is about which topics meet this criteria. Which could well be a legitimate thing to discuss in ATMB, IMO -- which topics should meet this criteria for this board?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-12-2019 at 10:20 AM.
  #114  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:23 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
If it were true that we could express identical opinions but you would get modded and I wouldn't, then you're not actually complaining about the same thing as the OP. Your gripe wouldn't be with the mods punishing certain wrongthink, but instead your claim would be that the mods arbitrarily punish certain posters. Those are two different debates, requiring different evidence.
I recently received a mod warning for the first time in my 26,000+ posts here. No need to rehash it, I don't even disagree with it. I'm quite sure I could have posted the exact same thread, and used a synonym for a single word in that thread, and not received a warning.

It really is not what you say, but how you say it.
  #115  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:15 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
because you will either be a true believer in an almost Maoist politically correct agenda, or be living out your days in pathetically cowed prostration before said True Believers.
How hilariously silly and over-exaggerated. Slinging hyperbole like this doesn't actually make a case.
  #116  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:38 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,209
Yeah, what we really need is a moderating trend in alarmation.
  #117  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:47 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Trump supporters certainly are not treated with any respect at all.
Do we have any Trump supporters whose support isn't primarily about "librul tears"?

Last edited by Skywatcher; 07-12-2019 at 11:48 AM.
  #118  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:52 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,242
Moderator Note

Let's keep Trump (and other politics) out of this discussion, please.
  #119  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:55 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
be living out your days in pathetically cowed prostration
If only.
  #120  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:59 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You seem to think you are answering the problem, but you are describing the problem.
OK. So the complaint is not that posters are treated differently for identical opinions. And the complaint is not that posters are punished for wrongthink. The complaint is that posters are policed for jerkishness more tightly on certain topics, and you think those topics are unfairly selected?

I still don't agree. If a topic touches on an area of widespread social bigotry, then you need to be more careful. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Threads about politicians and their supporters do not fall into those categories. Belief in god, an opinion held the overwhelming majority of Americans, doesn't fall into that category.

At best, your complaint is that this board does not think that Christian identity is a fraught topic that deserves this kind of close attention. I can think of some examples of tight modding in threads about religious belief, but I don't really have a strong opinion on that topic. I don't think the status of Christians is anything close to the status of Jews or Muslims, in terms of the extent of social bigotry directed against them in the contemporary west. But if that is the subject of your complaint, then I'm fine with a call for more civility in the discussion of Christian faith.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 07-12-2019 at 12:00 PM.
  #121  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:12 PM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, I'm not arguing for you, and I'm really not arguing. I'm trying to figure out what the rules are, and these threads never provide any answers other than: 1) I'm an idiot for even asking, 2) If we have to tell you, then I'm an idiot, 3) Don't be a jerk, and 4) We know it when we see it.
It's easy once you figure out their motivation. In regards to their fight against “misogyny” on the board. They've faced heavy pressure from the sex-negative feminists here to appease any perceived slights. Which is everything unless you're praising women, non-sexually of course. Not surprising SN feminists are the minority in the real world, but hold a vocal majority here. Nno one takes them seriously in real life. If we did, we'd all be extinct in a hundred years.

So that's the rules, behave like it's 1840, and put women on a pedestal and never criticize women or god forbid say you find some women attractive. Ever. This is why they aren't clear on the rules because they know the rules are ridiculous where their rules are basically: treat women like infants that have to be protected from any form of criticism, even when it's earnestly done with their best interest in mind.

They aren't clear with the rules because it's misogynistic to treat women like infants in the real world.
  #122  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:14 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker
That aside, I don't think you're right that we'd be treated differently. I think if we literally used the same words, we'd be equally likely to face moderation.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. I got Warned for a post expressing (I think it is fair to say) what is consensus thinking on the SDMB. That was about transgenderism, but I very much doubt if someone else, posting the exact same thing in those exact words, would have received even a mod note.

There was a fairly long thread in ATMB discussing it, but AFAICT no more explanation on why it was trolling when I did it but unremarkable when anyone else says it besides "different mods have different interpretations of the rules".

Regards,
Shodan
  #123  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:21 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,214
May I respond to Ibanez's post without running afoul of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Note

If you want to relate this to a moderation decision that's fine, but if you only want to debate the topic itself, that is not appropriate for ATMB. Take it to GD if you want, but I want no more discussions about the rape topic in ATMB.

Any further discussions of the rape topic in ATMB without being explicitly related to moderation actions or rules will result in warnings.
  #124  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't think that is necessarily the case. I got Warned for a post expressing (I think it is fair to say) what is consensus thinking on the SDMB.
That's not the consensus on this board (or for liberals in general) as I understand it. "Gender identity" does not = "whatever you decide it is". It's far, far more complicated, AIUI.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-12-2019 at 12:26 PM.
  #125  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
In response to Ibanez, I'm not aware of any significant influence of "sex-negative feminists" on this board. I'm not even sure if I know of any such posters on the board.

EDIT: Since this is about the culture of this board, and not about politics, hopefully this doesn't violate the mod instructions to not bring politics into this discussion. If it does, I will drop it if notified.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 07-12-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #126  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:29 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't think that is necessarily the case. I got Warned for a post expressing (I think it is fair to say) what is consensus thinking on the SDMB. That was about transgenderism, but I very much doubt if someone else, posting the exact same thing in those exact words, would have received even a mod note.

There was a fairly long thread in ATMB discussing it, but AFAICT no more explanation on why it was trolling when I did it but unremarkable when anyone else says it besides "different mods have different interpretations of the rules".

Regards,
Shodan
I don't think that is a great example (I think you're wrong about what the liberal view on gender identity is).

But I take your general point, and I would modify my claim as follows: Without talking about particular posters, I think it is probably true that I could post the identical thing to someone else, and depending on their history on that topic on this board, our statements might be interpreted differently. That is the nature of interpretation, and not a function of political bias. That said, it counsels for mods cutting a little extra slack for posters with whom they personally disagree, to mitigate the possibility of uncharitable interpretation. I suspect they mostly do that. And I don't think that likely changes the result with respect to the posts that the subject of this OP.
  #127  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:30 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
It's easy once you figure out their motivation. In regards to their fight against “misogyny” on the board. They've faced heavy pressure from the sex-negative feminists here to appease any perceived slights. Which is everything unless you're praising women, non-sexually of course. Not surprising SN feminists are the minority in the real world, but hold a vocal majority here. Nno one takes them seriously in real life. If we did, we'd all be extinct in a hundred years.

So that's the rules, behave like it's 1840, and put women on a pedestal and never criticize women or god forbid say you find some women attractive. Ever. This is why they aren't clear on the rules because they know the rules are ridiculous where their rules are basically: treat women like infants that have to be protected from any form of criticism, even when it's earnestly done with their best interest in mind.

They aren't clear with the rules because it's misogynistic to treat women like infants in the real world.
This is complete and utter nonsense.
  #128  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:33 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
It's easy once you figure out their motivation. In regards to their fight against “misogyny” on the board. They've faced heavy pressure from the sex-negative feminists here to appease any perceived slights. Which is everything unless you're praising women, non-sexually of course. Not surprising SN feminists are the minority in the real world, but hold a vocal majority here. Nno one takes them seriously in real life. If we did, we'd all be extinct in a hundred years.

So that's the rules, behave like it's 1840, and put women on a pedestal and never criticize women or god forbid say you find some women attractive. Ever. This is why they aren't clear on the rules because they know the rules are ridiculous where their rules are basically: treat women like infants that have to be protected from any form of criticism, even when it's earnestly done with their best interest in mind.

They aren't clear with the rules because it's misogynistic to treat women like infants in the real world.
No need to read anything into TPTB not wanting to establish a bright "DO NOT CROSS" line other than not wanting to encourage games of "See? See? There's the line! I've not crossed it!", aka "I'm not touching you!", aka being a jerk. Been that way since Day One.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 07-12-2019 at 12:35 PM.
  #129  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:56 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
May I respond to Ibanez's post without running afoul of this:
Before you do, first consider, is it even worth a response?
  #130  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:01 PM
Ibanez is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
This is complete and utter nonsense.
Of course it is.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...rchid=15990176
  #131  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Rather than making an argument, here's a list of threads that may or may not be related, in any way, to this discussion! Have fun!
  #132  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:16 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Rather than making an argument, here's a list of threads that may or may not be related, in any way, to this discussion! Have fun!
For a more instructional example of "many variations on the same theme," try the "Find all posts by..." link!
  #133  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:18 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 42,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
I'm glad you agree that those threads demonstrate that your post was nonsense.
  #134  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:19 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
When people debate religion, for example, there is no respect. People who believe in God are said to believe in "sky fairies" and the like. Trump supporters certainly are not treated with any respect at all.
People who ridicule atheism are also treated snidely without Moderation; it just dos not happen as often. Supporters of any president tend to have their support mocked; again without Moderator intervention.

Is there a lack of respect demonstrated? Yes.
Are those demonstrations of disrespect treated differently? No.
The Moderation is still based on whether it is the thought or the poster being mocked.

I have long noticed that claims of discrimination tend to be based on whose ox is being gored. (There have been occasional exceptions, but the tendency trends that way.)
  #135  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:50 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Richard Parker is my spirit animal.

Mythological and dead?
  #136  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,491
Shodan, wowww. That warning was some straight up BS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I don't think the status of Christians is anything close to the status of Jews or Muslims, in terms of the extent of social bigotry directed against them in the contemporary west. But if that is the subject of your complaint, then I'm fine with a call for more civility in the discussion of Christian faith.

And I would argue for just the opposite: allowing equal contempt for any religion that prescribes a strict, patriarchal antediluvian code of sexual ethics.
  #137  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:04 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not the consensus on this board (or for liberals in general) as I understand it. "Gender identity" does not = "whatever you decide it is". It's far, far more complicated, AIUI.
If you posted exactly what I did, would you expect to be warned for trolling?

Please note that I am not asking if it would be debated. Ivory Tower Denizen said in the linked ATMB thread that it was those specific words that caused it to be trolling. Do you believe that anyone who posts that should be Warned for trolling?

To be fair, ITD also said it wasn't fleshed out enough, although I never heard how long it would have to be not to be trolling.

Regards,
Shodan
  #138  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:08 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Mere Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
May I respond to Ibanez's post without running afoul of this:
I agree it's not worth it.
  #139  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:11 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

Very enlightening...
  #140  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:19 PM
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Here's what I don't understand about it.

SamuelA said (paraphrasing) that he was not at all blaming the Jews for being exterminated in the Holocaust or for women getting assaulted by being in a man's room at night, but either of these groups could avoid the bad things by taking other actions.
That response by SamuelA followed multiple posts (addressing his original supposedly factual question) which explained in some detail that and why Jews could not avoid being killed in the Holocaust by assimilating. At least one of those earlier replies in addition pointed out that doing so would require joining the very culture which was engaging in wrongdoing.

It's certainly true that some people, during the Holocaust and in a lot of other circumstances, have under duress saved their own lives, at least temporarily, by joining in torturing and/or murdering their own family and community members; and I don't think those people should bear the same degree of burden of responsibility as those who started the murders in the first place. But, even aside from his already having had explained to him why it usually wouldn't have worked in that situation, calling such behavior a recommended course of action seems to me to be a major problem. I gather that on these boards one isn't even allowed to recommend evading copyright law; I don't see why moderator action for recommending joining in genocide isn't reasonable.
  #141  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:30 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibanez View Post
Note that search IDs expire. Whatever this referred to, it's gone now.
  #142  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:36 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Note that search IDs expire. Whatever this referred to, it's gone now.
It referred to threads in ATMB where the word “attractive” was mentioned. I didn’t see the relevance.
  #143  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:47 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you posted exactly what I did, would you expect to be warned for trolling?

Please note that I am not asking if it would be debated. Ivory Tower Denizen said in the linked ATMB thread that it was those specific words that caused it to be trolling. Do you believe that anyone who posts that should be Warned for trolling?

To be fair, ITD also said it wasn't fleshed out enough, although I never heard how long it would have to be not to be trolling.

Regards,
Shodan
A large part of determination of trolling depends on context. So in the example you raised, if a person wholly ignorant of gender related matters were to make the same statement, it could be treated differently than if a poster who has extensive experience in gender related discussions. That seems right to me.

You're also mischaracterizing the warning that ITD gave - you seem to be stuck on the length part, as if length of post were the determining factor. On the contrary, the determining factor was whether or not the post was solely to rile others up.
  #144  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:50 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
A large part of determination of trolling depends on context. So in the example you raised, if a person wholly ignorant of gender related matters were to make the same statement, it could be treated differently than if a poster who has extensive experience in gender related discussions. That seems right to me.

You're also mischaracterizing the warning that ITD gave - you seem to be stuck on the length part, as if length of post were the determining factor. On the contrary, the determining factor was whether or not the post was solely to rile others up.
The fact that it was Shodan was apparently a contributing factor to the determination that it was posted to rile others up though.
  #145  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:50 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Shodan, wowww. That warning was some straight up BS.
Yeah, if by "straight up BS" you mean "entirely reasonable and justified warning".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you posted exactly what I did, would you expect to be warned for trolling?

Please note that I am not asking if it would be debated. Ivory Tower Denizen said in the linked ATMB thread that it was those specific words that caused it to be trolling. Do you believe that anyone who posts that should be Warned for trolling?

To be fair, ITD also said it wasn't fleshed out enough, although I never heard how long it would have to be not to be trolling.
Would someone else also be warned for posting that in the same context? Yes, they would, or certainly should. I find it rather incredible that this actually needs to be explained to you. The thread was about the underlying factors contributing to gender identity conflict, or gender dysphoria, which was starting to lead to an interesting discussion. Gender dysphoria is a serious life-altering issue that affected people deeply struggle with. Your snide drive-by comment that "I would have thought that the number 1 factor [of gender identity] would be 'whatever you decide it is'." was a jerkish attempt to trivialize it and reduce it to essentially comical proportions, as if this serious issue is nothing more than some trivial whim that might occur to someone one day and be forgotten the next. It was especially jerkish in juxtaposition to the OP's attempt to seriously understand the problem.

If you genuinely believe gender dysphoria isn't a real problem, I don't think you'd be modded for a good-faith attempt at explaining your reasoning. It's not a matter of "how long it would have to be not to be trolling", it's a matter of being a participant in the discussion rather than a drive-by smartass.
  #146  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:22 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You're also mischaracterizing the warning that ITD gave - you seem to be stuck on the length part, as if length of post were the determining factor. On the contrary, the determining factor was whether or not the post was solely to rile others up.
This is untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD
The only purpose of this post is to rile people up and piss them off. If you had a thoughtful contribution to make, you would have fleshed it out and explained it. As is, the only conclusion is that you're trying to troll this thread.
The fact that it was not fleshed out to an unspecified degree is the reason that ITD said it was trolling.

There was no mischaracterization at all.

Regards,
Shodan
  #147  
Old 07-13-2019, 01:53 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
A large part of determination of trolling depends on context. So in the example you raised, if a person wholly ignorant of gender related matters were to make the same statement, it could be treated differently than if a poster who has extensive experience in gender related discussions. That seems right to me.

You're also mischaracterizing the warning that ITD gave - you seem to be stuck on the length part, as if length of post were the determining factor. On the contrary, the determining factor was whether or not the post was solely to rile others up.
Why isn't referring to a person's belief in a deity as "believing in a sky fairy" not similarly determined to be for the sole purpose of riling someone up? That insult would apply to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Implicit in your response is that once someone has sufficiently participated in a discussion about transgender issues, then he or she should absolutely know (or accurately stated, agree with the board position) that the correct side is right and therefore stop disagreeing or being snarky. I wholeheartedly disagree with that position as it stifles debate, but if we are going to outlaw snark, then that should apply to religion or really all topics across the board.

It's just that the board has selected a few undefined topics (generally women's issues, gay and trans issues and the like) to be "special" topics where politeness and respect are required but only if you are on the wrong side of the issue. If you are on the right side of the issue, you can insult, call your opponents bigots and phobes and be as snarky as you want. That is inconsistent with a board that wants open debate, again, unless snark is prohibited across the board on each side.
  #148  
Old 07-13-2019, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why isn't referring to a person's belief in a deity as "believing in a sky fairy" not similarly determined to be for the sole purpose of riling someone up? That insult would apply to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

........
Yes, that is no doubt trolling.
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #149  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:58 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why isn't referring to a person's belief in a deity as "believing in a sky fairy" not similarly determined to be for the sole purpose of riling someone up? That insult would apply to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
I think you're entirely missing the point here (and so is Shodan). How can you claim that such a phrase would or would not be perceived as trolling without knowing anything about the context?

For example, in a discussion about atheism, saying that "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a sky fairy" would be fine. But, say, someone starts a thread about the Protestant Reformation, and an in-depth discussion results about the divergence of beliefs between Catholics and Protestants. Jumping into that thread with a comment like "nah, they're both exactly the same, because they both believe in sky fairies" would be, at the very least, threadshitting, and could well be perceived as trolling.

And that was exactly the nature of Shodan's comment. What could any reasonable person possibly imagine that drive-by comment contributed to the thread? It was just a nasty implication that the whole matter was a non-issue not worthy of discussion, and by further implication, that those discussing it were fools.
  #150  
Old 07-13-2019, 04:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,491
Fair point.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.
Closed Thread

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 09:04 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017