Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-03-2020, 12:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinsdale View Post
Just wondering: do the new rules cover a situation in which a single poster posts - say an 8th of the posts in a thread - 5 of the most recent 16, pressing a particular point while doing so? Because IMO that sort of hyperactive posting dominates and distorts discussion, and is the sort of thing that makes me drop out of many GD threads.
Is it any different when one poster posts the same point five times, or five different posters once each? I don't think it is.

Plus, see Wrenching Spanners' post about minority opinion.

Regards,
Shodan
  #52  
Old 01-03-2020, 12:53 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
This seems disingenuous.

The topics chosen as off-limits topics are far from the most commonly discussed topics on this MB. For example, the number of threads discussing "how men are somehow disadvantaged in society" is dwarfed by the number discussing how women are somehow disadvantaged by society, which is apparently completely A-OK. And so on for some of the other examples. This is not about thrice told tales or the like, but about suppressing opinions that some posters don't like hearing. You can bring up an issue which has been discussed a thousand times, as long as it's PC, and you can't assert (certain) positions which are discussed relatively rarely because they are not PC.

Call a spade a spade.
Following up on this point:

Consistent with the ostensible rationale that these are "tired topics", one would suppose that the objection is to starting a thread on these topics, but that merely espousing these opinions is still fine. So that no one can start a thread asserting a "scientific racism" position, or - one would have to assume - purporting to refute it, but that merely asserting a "scientific racist" position in some other context (e.g. as a counter to statistic-based claims of discrimination) would be fine, much as the assertion of the contrary position would be.
  #53  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:10 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295
Feel free to try that sort of rules lawyering.

Who knows? You might get lucky.
  #54  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:25 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
Well, my frst suggestion was "decided topics" which leaves less room for this silly nitlickery.
  #55  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:32 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295
No, I chose ĎTired Topicsí for a reason.

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that the list is about issues weíve decided are over and done with. Thatís incorrect.

Tired Topics are issues with which we are tired of dealing. Topics that are bound to get acrimonious, pop up every now and again and cause breakdowns in discussion and hard feeling among posters. The juice ainít worth the squeezing, there.

The people tired of the topics may be posters but the moderators certainly are.
  #56  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:43 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, my frst suggestion was "decided topics" which leaves less room for this silly nitlickery.
It does.

But the idea was to try to ban these unpopular positions while maintaining the conceit that the SDMB is about the free exchange of ideas and does not censor unpopular positions. So it was necessary to pretend that it was about "tired topics", though it's manifestly obvious that this is not the case.
  #57  
Old 01-03-2020, 04:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
The idea was that only idiots and trols want to discuss scientific racism so why let them?
  #58  
Old 01-03-2020, 04:23 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295
Thatís enough, you two. Letís keep it friendly.
  #59  
Old 01-03-2020, 04:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
Hmmm, ok.

If your list was about stuffnyou were honestly bored with, it's bizarre. How many moon landing hoaxers do we get here? A moon hoaxer is more tired than the abortion debate?

Call a spade a spade. These are rational people consensus topics.
  #60  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:07 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It does.

But the idea was to try to ban these unpopular positions while maintaining the conceit that the SDMB is about the free exchange of ideas and does not censor unpopular positions. So it was necessary to pretend that it was about "tired topics", though it's manifestly obvious that this is not the case.
Agreed. And that has been my main complaint about recent new rules although I clearly have not articulated it well. The strength of this board is the ability to talk about anything. That doesn't include insulting other people or hurling racial slurs, but the topic of discussion has always been unrestricted.

Lately, that is not the case. And I fully agree that it is disingenuous to say that these topics are "tired." How many men's rights or scientific racism threads do we get, really?
  #61  
Old 01-03-2020, 11:45 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Second, the prosaic. Longer threads are, in essence, less monetizable for the SDMB. Each successive page view by an individual poster, guest or registered, counts less toward either generating revenue or upping our page views and therefore the amount we receive per impression (it's not much per impression, trust me on that). By thread visit 3-5 there's essentially no revenue being generated by that visitor. Therefore, longer, omnibus threads that are participated in by fewer and fewer posters don't generate as much revenue as shorter, more diverse and wider participated threads.
Why haven‘t you shared this fiscal nugget before?

{{Piper goes off to click on the top 12 threads in each forum that he’s not read.}}
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 01-03-2020 at 11:46 PM.
  #62  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:03 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It does.

But the idea was to try to ban these unpopular positions while maintaining the conceit that the SDMB is about the free exchange of ideas and does not censor unpopular positions.
So we're clear, you think holocaust denial is merely an unpopular position?

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-04-2020 at 01:06 AM.
  #63  
Old 01-04-2020, 06:07 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It does.

But the idea was to try to ban these unpopular positions while maintaining the conceit that the SDMB is about the free exchange of ideas and does not censor unpopular positions. So it was necessary to pretend that it was about "tired topics", though it's manifestly obvious that this is not the case.
It's a question of percentages isn't it? What are the odds that someone wants to have a genuine discussion about scientific racism, versus pushing some kind of racial superiority rhetoric? If they want a genuine discussion, then they've got a burden in relation to other threads. They need to read the old threads and convince a moderator they've got something new to add. Or if there's new information, such as a scientific breakthrough, then the hypothetical OP would just need to run it by a moderator. For that matter, hard science should be able to be discussed even if it has a tired topic implication. If scientists discover a new genetic mechanism through which intelligence is inherited, that's easily a standalone topic. A moderator might need to issue "Keep it on Track" notes, but I don't believe the intention is to halt genuine discussion. The problem is that the chances of a discussion of a tired topic being genuine are quite low. Having a barrier-to-entry to prove a new thread is a diamond and not coal seems reasonable.
  #64  
Old 01-06-2020, 07:42 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So we're clear, you think holocaust denial is merely an unpopular position?
While we're at it, are men's rights activists the same as holocaust deniers? If I want to argue that in our society, men are disadvantaged unfairly in certain areas relative to women, like child custody and alimony, or the fact that men can be drafted to fight in wars and women can't be, will my thread be labeled an MRA thread and shut down? MRA is most certainly not the same thing as male chauvinist.

Last edited by Blalron; 01-06-2020 at 07:46 AM.
  #65  
Old 01-06-2020, 08:30 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
While we're at it, are men's rights activists the same as holocaust deniers? If I want to argue that in our society, men are disadvantaged unfairly in certain areas relative to women, like child custody and alimony, or the fact that men can be drafted to fight in wars and women can't be, will my thread be labeled an MRA thread and shut down? MRA is most certainly not the same thing as male chauvinist.
The new rules say -
Quote:
Men's Rights Advocacy. This can include threads about how men are somehow disadvantaged in society, women are somehow genetically inferior or have a predisposition toward specific gender roles and other threads about the ways in which men are somehow naturally entitled to be in charge
It is not clear if "somehow" means "in certain areas" or "overall". Given this -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance
Feel free to try that sort of rules lawyering.

Who knows? You might get lucky.
it might be a good idea to email a mod before either starting a thread. or espousing a position, that men are disadvantaged in certain areas. And then see what the response is.

Regards,
Shodan
  #66  
Old 01-06-2020, 08:56 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295
Isn't that exactly what's in the rules? If a poster thinks they've got a point of view on one of those subjects that could be worthy of debate without inspiring the same pain in the ass for the moderation staff then PM a mod with a proposal. We'll discuss it and get back to you fairly quickly.
  #67  
Old 01-06-2020, 12:33 PM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,326
With regard to "tired topics", couldn't we add more things to that list? Abortion, Religion, Donald Trump... all these things have been discussed to death, people have very firmly entrenched opinions that don't usually change even after thousands of posts discussing them.

Last edited by Blalron; 01-06-2020 at 12:36 PM.
  #68  
Old 01-06-2020, 12:42 PM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,326
What I take away from the rules is this. There's one dogma, one Sacred Cow that can't be disturbed on this board: the belief that there are no innate differences between human beings. The official position of the board seems to be that the "blank slate" view of human nature is the correct one, and anyone who says otherwise is not welcome.

Last edited by Blalron; 01-06-2020 at 12:45 PM.
  #69  
Old 01-06-2020, 02:08 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
What I take away from the rules is this. There's one dogma, one Sacred Cow that can't be disturbed on this board: the belief that there are no innate differences between human beings. The official position of the board seems to be that the "blank slate" view of human nature is the correct one, and anyone who says otherwise is not welcome.
I think that's a pretty drastic misinterpretation. I don't think anyone's saying that individual humans don't vary from birth, or from before birth, or even from conception; let alone that anyone should be prevented from saying the opposite.

But to say that individuals vary is a very different thing from saying that differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. both are primarily innate with little influence from environmental (including social) factors either before or after birth and on top of it that they can be neatly, or even somewhat messily, allocated according to skin color or eyelid structure or continent one's ancestors were born on.
  #70  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:40 PM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I think that's a pretty drastic misinterpretation. I don't think anyone's saying that individual humans don't vary from birth, or from before birth, or even from conception; let alone that anyone should be prevented from saying the opposite.

But to say that individuals vary is a very different thing from saying that differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. both are primarily innate with little influence from environmental (including social) factors either before or after birth and on top of it that they can be neatly, or even somewhat messily, allocated according to skin color or eyelid structure or continent one's ancestors were born on.
Okay, but there are mountains of evidence pointing towards differences between men and woman. For example, the murder rate for men vastly exceeds women's murder rates. Not just in the USA, but in all societies across the globe where data has been gathered (if anyone can find an example to the contrary, I'd be greatly interested in seeing it). From my point of view, it seems implausible to argue that biology has nothing to do with this.

Why don't male and female professional athletes compete on the same playing field, instead they compete separately from one another. If men and women were exactly equal in ability, why would we need to do this? Denying that there are differences between men and women is just as absurd as climate change denial.

Last edited by Blalron; 01-06-2020 at 03:41 PM.
  #71  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:43 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
What I take away from the rules is this. There's one dogma, one Sacred Cow that can't be disturbed on this board: the belief that there are no innate differences between human beings. The official position of the board seems to be that the "blank slate" view of human nature is the correct one, and anyone who says otherwise is not welcome.
ISTM that this applies mostly to groups, especially socially defined groups like SIRE. The ban is on arguing that there could be any genetic or inherent factor that, on average, differs in incidence among groups.

The MRA ban seems to me to be more problematic. If it means only "men" and "women" as the terms apply to gender, that's one thing. If it means applied to biological sex - XX and XY, cismen and ciswomen - that is not really a socially defined group. Yes, of course there are outliers and edge cases, but does that mean we cannot debate if men are more likely to be engineers because they are better, on average, at math (as well as more subject to developmental disorders and schizophrenia)? Not necessarily that they deserve to be engineers, or that engineers deserve to be in charge, or that being better at verbal skills means that you are inherently inferior - just that different jobs tend to reward different skill sets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust
But to say that individuals vary is a very different thing from saying that differences in intelligence, motivation, etc. both are primarily innate...
Yes, that's true. It's also different from saying that those differences are primarily innate. There are lots of things that are affected both by nature and by nurture. It is possible both to reject the tabula rasa and genetic determinism.

Regards,
Shodan
  #72  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:52 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blalron View Post
Okay, but there are mountains of evidence pointing towards differences between men and woman.
The physiological differences between men and women are not listed among the Tired Topics which cannot be discussed.

You are, thus, arguing something should be allowed that is still allowed.
  #73  
Old 01-06-2020, 04:08 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Pete Buttigieg: Who the hell?
Pete Buttigieg: Debate Performance
Pete Buttigied: Slipping in the polls?

Than it is to see a general Pete Buttigieg primary thread.
I can see value in keeping threads separate and not omnibus, but that's overkill. All three of those would contain the same information. I'd even expect that, if all three threads were live, there would be people who would post the same post in all three threads. Who he is will include information he gives in debates, and his debate performance will be reflected in what happens in the polls. They're too intertwined.
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 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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