Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-20-2020, 04:33 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,562

Will some viewpoints be eventually banned, regardless of how polite/civil?


Now that the debate over Shodan's banning (for insults and provoking) has died down, I wanted to discuss something:

A year or two ago, a Doper started a thread in ATMB (I did some searching but can't find it) in which he/she argued that there are some viewpoints that are simply so abhorrent that they should not be permitted on the Dope, regardless of how civil or polite the poster expressing those views may be. (The example used in that thread was scientific racism, or any view that one race is inferior to another.)

As we are often told by Dope mods/admins, the guiding principle of the Dope message board is: "Don't be a jerk." The vast majority of people who have been banned were banned because they were either trolls, spammers, or regular Dopers who couldn't stop flaming or insulting others. I am not aware of anyone who has been banned simply for expressing a controversial view, as long as they kept things polite and civil - it was the attacking or insulting behavior that got them banned, not their viewpoints. We have several conservative Dopers who have amassed years of longevity and many thousands of posts here without getting banned (or perhaps even warned or suspended,) which helps debunk the notion that conservatives can't get a fair shake here.

What I wanted to ask, though, was: Is the Dope ever likely to head in the direction of banning certain viewpoints entirely, regardless of how well-behaved a poster may be?

I don't mean viewpoints such as Holocaust denial, Flat-Eartherism or 9/11 Trutherism - which are factually wrong - but viewpoints that are subjective but often regarded as offensive - views like "There are only two genders" or "A man who undergoes transition surgery hasn't become a true woman, he just resembles one," or "Trump is a great president," - etc.

The Dope is influenced by outside culture as much as any other board, and with the direction that society is going in, it's not hard to imagine, for instance, a few years from now a Doper making a comment that there are only two genders, but then receiving a warning from a moderator, saying, "This sort of viewpoint is dehumanizing and invalidating of someone's gender identity. Don't be a jerk."

(My point isn't to focus on LGBT - that's just one example - one could name dozens and dozens of other political or social viewpoints that are subjective but offensive - but which could be expressed in perfectly civil, polite, non-flaming ways.)

If so, this would represent a major change in forum philosophy. Up to this point, Dopers have generally been safe from receiving warnings or other disciplinary action, as long as they kept things polite, civil and tame. But if we do head down that road, then we would be saying that it's not just enough to conform in terms of behavior, one must conform to certain viewpoints and opinions as well.

Again, we haven't had such instances (as far as I know of,) but the time to discuss or prevent something is in advance.
  #2  
Old 05-20-2020, 05:02 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,845

Will some viewpoints be eventually banned, regardless of how polite/civil?


I say no. The stated purpose here is to fight ignorance.

Flat earthers, young earth Christians, anti-vaxxers, moon landing deniers, birthers, etc. etc. are some of the many topics that are regularly brought up by new posters and they are not banned.

As I said in another thread, as long as you try to abide by the rules here, anything goes.

Yes, there seems to be a tighter rein being held, but it appears to be more against insulting sarcasm whether it’s targeted against other posters or the public in general.

Last edited by Omar Little; 05-20-2020 at 05:03 PM.
  #3  
Old 05-20-2020, 05:17 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 1,107
I'm not sure politely you can tell me that I have inferior intelligence based on the color of my skin or sex.
  #4  
Old 05-20-2020, 06:12 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,698
Velocity is drawing a distinction that I don't think Omar Little quite caught, which is the distinction between views that are only stupid and/or ignorant, versus views that are both stupid/ignorant and offensive.

So birtherism, moon landing denial, flat earth, and so on, are patently anti-reality views, but they don't seem to be offensive except to one's love of truth.

But racism ("scientific" or otherwise) and misogyny, to pick two possible topics, are examples of the other category, the one that Velocity is, I believe, asking about.

I can't answer his question, but I hope the rules don't change in that direction, because I think it is not a healthy approach -- it makes us look as if we are afraid of encountering those ideas.

And anyway we don't get so much of that stuff here that we are in danger of being overwhelmed by it.
  #5  
Old 05-20-2020, 06:31 PM
CCitizen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,789
I greatly appreciate SDMB for outstanding advice in Computer Science.

I will discuss other issues on several other forums.
  #6  
Old 05-20-2020, 07:00 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 16,138
Arguments on "Men's Rights Activism" seem like a topic that is politically and culturally sensitive, and not always a case of being factually wrong like Holocaust Denial or Young Earth Creationism. Yet it is also widely felt to be offensive and in particular, misogynist, to modern liberal minds. This topic has also been banned here.
  #7  
Old 05-20-2020, 07:52 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A year or two ago, a Doper started a thread in ATMB (I did some searching but can't find it) in which he/she argued that there are some viewpoints that are simply so abhorrent that they should not be permitted on the Dope, regardless of how civil or polite the poster expressing those views may be. (The example used in that thread was scientific racism, or any view that one race is inferior to another.)
Was it the handsomeharry has been banned thread, perhaps?
__________________
Flush the Turd 2020
  #8  
Old 05-20-2020, 07:58 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 21,250
Do a board search on Cesario and get back to me.

I think it's addressed on a case by case basis but yeah, I think there are viewpoints that are so far afield that as a community we regard anyone who expresses them to be trolling.
  #9  
Old 05-21-2020, 04:30 AM
jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
Do a board search on Cesario and get back to me.

I think it's addressed on a case by case basis but yeah, I think there are viewpoints that are so far afield that as a community we regard anyone who expresses them to be trolling.
200 years ago, an argument for women's suffrage would have then been ban-worthy trollery. Even what seem like self-evident truths ain't necessarily so, and viewpoints far afield remain to enlighten us.
  #10  
Old 05-21-2020, 05:14 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
I'm not sure politely you can tell me that I have inferior intelligence based on the color of my skin or sex.
You don't believe that you or another poster could successfully refute the argument that your intelligence is not inherently inferior because of your gender or race?
  #11  
Old 05-21-2020, 05:17 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
200 years ago, an argument for women's suffrage would have then been ban-worthy trollery. Even what seem like self-evident truths ain't necessarily so, and viewpoints far afield remain to enlighten us.
Bingo. Challenge basic assumptions. If these basic assumptions are so clearly correct, then any challenge to them should be swatted away with ease.

Groupthink is dangerous and in the political field there are landmine issues. There shouldn't be on this board.
  #12  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:15 AM
Ulfreida is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You don't believe that you or another poster could successfully refute the argument that your intelligence is not inherently inferior because of your gender or race?
I don't think that is the point. The point is that believing the moon landing was staged is not inherently insulting to a class or group. Unlike your question.

There are thousands of "just innocently asking a question" posts which have the disguised (perhaps also to the poster) intention of proving that a class or group is inferior in some way.

The question is whether it is important to engage --in a reasoned, calm manner -- with people who want to prove they are superior to the usual denigrated groups, or whether this is such a waste of time the latter should be warned then dumped if they can't make the jump into the 21st century. Is ignorance going to be fought, or just catered to?
  #13  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:30 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
I don't think that is the point. The point is that believing the moon landing was staged is not inherently insulting to a class or group. Unlike your question.

There are thousands of "just innocently asking a question" posts which have the disguised (perhaps also to the poster) intention of proving that a class or group is inferior in some way.

The question is whether it is important to engage --in a reasoned, calm manner -- with people who want to prove they are superior to the usual denigrated groups, or whether this is such a waste of time the latter should be warned then dumped if they can't make the jump into the 21st century. Is ignorance going to be fought, or just catered to?
How is it being catered to? If the subject of the thread is that women are just innocent little cupcakes who have no mental capacity to be a doctor, why can't there be boom: Study X that shows no difference in mental capacity between genders, Survey Y that shows that female doctors have an equal success rate in treatment of patients to male doctors, Study Z that shows medical students at universities across the country with no appreciable difference among GPAs between gender?

That's how you fight ignorance. You aren't catering to it at all.
  #14  
Old 05-21-2020, 06:56 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is it being catered to? If the subject of the thread is that women are just innocent little cupcakes who have no mental capacity to be a doctor, why can't there be boom: Study X that shows no difference in mental capacity between genders, Survey Y that shows that female doctors have an equal success rate in treatment of patients to male doctors, Study Z that shows medical students at universities across the country with no appreciable difference among GPAs between gender?

That's how you fight ignorance. You aren't catering to it at all.
OK, but what do you do with a poster that presents that point of view and then ignores the many studies presented to him or her? It's a fact that there's more than one gender, for example -- at a minimum, there are people with XXY chromosomes or androgen insensitivity who will present differently than their genes -- what do you do with people who still insist there are only two genders? What do you do with people pushing scientific racism after being shown that races are nonsensical from a biology standpoint?

Those gender threads don't last four posts, with an ignorant OP devastated by actual scientific studies, biology, etc., and then slinking away. They last multiple pages before a moderator steps in and shuts it down. Scientific racism is no more valid than the moon landing hoax CT, but people pushing the moon landing hoax aren't telling other posters here that they are factually inferior to another set of humans.

So, OP, what do you do with a poster that presents an ignorant and offensive viewpoint and then refuses to acknowledge all the evidence against them?
  #15  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:03 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Here's a view: a certain poster's family should be tortured to death. That's subjective, not objective. A poster could state the case for their view in civil language.

If we stifle that view (as, of course, I believe we should), are we garrotting free speech? Are we condemning ourselves to an echo chamber? Are we being snowflakes?

I'm pretty sure we aren't, and I'm pretty sure any expression of that belief, or similar beliefs, is already forbidden from the boards, no matter how "politely" it's expressed. So let's figure out why we're willing to ban the expression of that view, and work backwards from there.
  #16  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:12 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You don't believe that you or another poster could successfully refute the argument that your intelligence is not inherently inferior because of your gender or race?
"Refute" in the sense that the person making the initial argument will say something like "Y'know, you're right, I never thought about it. I guess I should treat people as individuals and not make sweeping generalizations about gender or race" ?

Refute it in that sense?

Not a fucking chance.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #17  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:25 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
So, OP, what do you do with a poster that presents an ignorant and offensive viewpoint and then refuses to acknowledge all the evidence against them?
You do what is always done. You rest on your arguments confident in the knowledge that the poster has not made his case. You cannot change the whole world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Here's a view: a certain poster's family should be tortured to death. That's subjective, not objective. A poster could state the case for their view in civil language.

If we stifle that view (as, of course, I believe we should), are we garrotting free speech? Are we condemning ourselves to an echo chamber? Are we being snowflakes?

I'm pretty sure we aren't, and I'm pretty sure any expression of that belief, or similar beliefs, is already forbidden from the boards, no matter how "politely" it's expressed. So let's figure out why we're willing to ban the expression of that view, and work backwards from there.
That's a strawman. The example is so far outside the bounds of reasonable debate to make it silly. Even if the outcome is that "Yeah, he's got a good point, we should torture the poster and his family" it is illegal and unconstitutional. I suppose you could say that my comments would allow this because, after all, we could amend the Constitution to allow such torture, but it is so extreme that I would suggest so improbable that we should put a pin in this and revisit it if it becomes a real issue and not just a hypo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
"Refute" in the sense that the person making the initial argument will say something like "Y'know, you're right, I never thought about it. I guess I should treat people as individuals and not make sweeping generalizations about gender or race" ?

Refute it in that sense?

Not a fucking chance.
But you've won the argument. Who says that people who make incorrect arguments have to go away cowering in shame? I've not seen in once in any GD thread.
  #18  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:33 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
OK, but what do you do with a poster that presents that point of view and then ignores the many studies presented to him or her? It's a fact that there's more than one gender, for example -- at a minimum, there are people with XXY chromosomes or androgen insensitivity who will present differently than their genes -- what do you do with people who still insist there are only two genders? What do you do with people pushing scientific racism after being shown that races are nonsensical from a biology standpoint?

Those gender threads don't last four posts, with an ignorant OP devastated by actual scientific studies, biology, etc., and then slinking away. They last multiple pages before a moderator steps in and shuts it down. Scientific racism is no more valid than the moon landing hoax CT, but people pushing the moon landing hoax aren't telling other posters here that they are factually inferior to another set of humans.
And I didn't mean to cut off this part.

That's what GD is about! You tell me just like you did "Ultravires, you post is a pile of stinking horseshit because you assume there is only two genders" and we go back and forth (not here, but in a GD thread) about who is right and who is wrong and what was meant by certain comments.

That is the SDMB I knew when I joined in 2007. Don't let it die, mods.
  #19  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:36 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's a strawman. The example is so far outside the bounds of reasonable debate to make it silly. Even if the outcome is that "Yeah, he's got a good point, we should torture the poster and his family" it is illegal and unconstitutional. I suppose you could say that my comments would allow this because, after all, we could amend the Constitution to allow such torture, but it is so extreme that I would suggest so improbable that we should put a pin in this and revisit it if it becomes a real issue and not just a hypo.
If I'm understanding you, are you saying that things that are "far outside the bounds of reasonable debate" need not be protected? Because this isn't a strawman: people have been warned here before for wishing death on someone, or for expressing happiness in the suffering of someone's family. You may not even say that the world would be a better place if I died from Coronavirus, no matter how politely you express that belief.

But if your standard really is that things "far outside the bounds of reasonable debate" need not be protected, that's a starting point. If you'll confirm that's your position, we can move forward.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 05-21-2020 at 07:37 AM.
  #20  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:38 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,926
It's really just a question of where we draw the line. Does anyone have a problem with restricting advocacy for legalizing child molestation on this board? I seriously doubt it. Our society has rightly decided that this is beyond the pale. How about restricting advocacy for bring re-enslaving black people? Hopefully everyone would agree that also falls into the same category. What about advocacy for an apartheid system due to the supposed inferiority of other races? Or just advocating that it be taught in schools that other races are inferior?

I imagine we all have a line we draw, and it's reasonable to discuss where that line ought to be for the board. It's not some broad philosophical disagreement -- it's where specifically we think this line ought to be, since I imagine we all agree there should be a line.
  #21  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:43 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But you've won the argument.
No, you haven't. You've just built an ornate hammer with which to whack a single mole. You'd have to build it all over again for the next mole, and moles are legion. There comes a time when the board can reasonably determine that some moles should be kept out because hammers, no matter how nicely-built, are of limited utility.

Quote:
Who says that people who make incorrect arguments have to go away cowering in shame? I've not seen in once in any GD thread.
Shamed or not, a lot of them can just go away. They're not going to change their views regardless of the counter-arguments, and they're repeat those views no matter what, contributing nothing, learning nothing.
  #22  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:46 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If I'm understanding you, are you saying that things that are "far outside the bounds of reasonable debate" need not be protected? Because this isn't a strawman: people have been warned here before for wishing death on someone, or for expressing happiness in the suffering of someone's family. You may not even say that the world would be a better place if I died from Coronavirus, no matter how politely you express that belief.

But if your standard really is that things "far outside the bounds of reasonable debate" need not be protected, that's a starting point. If you'll confirm that's your position, we can move forward.
Yes, so long as it is very far outside those bounds and not an excuse to enact reasonably debatable policies as "truth" and done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's really just a question of where we draw the line. Does anyone have a problem with restricting advocacy for legalizing child molestation on this board? I seriously doubt it. Our society has rightly decided that this is beyond the pale. How about restricting advocacy for bring re-enslaving black people? Hopefully everyone would agree that also falls into the same category. What about advocacy for an apartheid system due to the supposed inferiority of other races? Or just advocating that it be taught in schools that other races are inferior?

I imagine we all have a line we draw, and it's reasonable to discuss where that line ought to be for the board. It's not some broad philosophical disagreement -- it's where specifically we think this line ought to be, since I imagine we all agree there should be a line.
I'll say it again. Are you or other posters unable to articulate why child molestation should be illegal? Or why black slavery or Jim Crow is not a good thing?

I understand if you got some jackwad who is a troll and trying to yank everyone's chain. But the OP was talking about someone who is seriously advocating. You aren't up to the task? I am.
  #23  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'll say it again. Are you or other posters unable to articulate why child molestation should be illegal? Or why black slavery or Jim Crow is not a good thing?
Are you advocating that the rules be changed, and this kind of advocacy should be allowed? I feel like expending this effort would be a total waste of time, since anyone advocating for such awful crap is necessarily a troll.

Quote:
I understand if you got some jackwad who is a troll and trying to yank everyone's chain. But the OP was talking about someone who is seriously advocating. You aren't up to the task? I am.
Seriously or not, anyone advocating for legalizing child molestation or enslaving black people is a troll. I'm glad the board doesn't allow this kind of trolling. Are you arguing it should be allowed?
  #24  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:51 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
No, you haven't. You've just built an ornate hammer with which to whack a single mole. You'd have to build it all over again for the next mole, and moles are legion. There comes a time when the board can reasonably determine that some moles should be kept out because hammers, no matter how nicely-built, are of limited utility.



Shamed or not, a lot of them can just go away. They're not going to change their views regardless of the counter-arguments, and they're repeat those views no matter what, contributing nothing, learning nothing.
So how does that pick your pocket or skin your nose? Engage them or don't. What harm is there? It's sort of like the Free Speech clause; let's give a wide berth so we don't suppress good ideas when the bad ones come.
  #25  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:52 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Are you advocating that the rules be changed, and this kind of advocacy should be allowed? I feel like expending this effort would be a total waste of time, since anyone advocating for such awful crap is necessarily a troll.



Seriously or not, anyone advocating for legalizing child molestation or enslaving black people is a troll. I'm glad the board doesn't allow this kind of trolling. Are you arguing it should be allowed?
Definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let's have the argument. You and I will be on the same side for once.
  #26  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:54 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And I didn't mean to cut off this part.

That's what GD is about! You tell me just like you did "Ultravires, you post is a pile of stinking horseshit because you assume there is only two genders" and we go back and forth (not here, but in a GD thread) about who is right and who is wrong and what was meant by certain comments.

That is the SDMB I knew when I joined in 2007. Don't let it die, mods.
The last 9/11 truther thread that I remember went many pages before it was shut down. Posters with views that are just factually wrong simply ignore counterarguments and valid cites. They gish gallop and move goalposts all the time -- it's like trying to pin down jello. They focus on some erroneous or silly counterpoint and ignore all the serious, well-cited, and intelligent ones. And, in the end, their minds aren't changed.

Do I think scientific racism discussions should be banned? Maybe, but probably not. However, the person pushing such bullshit should be on a short leash and if they are ignoring cites, moving goalposts, and not answering questions, the thread should be quickly shut down.
  #27  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:58 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Do I think scientific racism discussions should be banned? Maybe, but probably not. However, the person pushing such bullshit should be on a short leash and if they are ignoring cites, moving goalposts, and not answering questions, the thread should be quickly shut down.
But here's the thing and it came up in the Shodan thread. Most posters, indeed most people, when they make an argument ignore cites, move goalposts, and don't answer questions. Why is it only the disfavored arguments that get treated harshly?
  #28  
Old 05-21-2020, 07:58 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 24,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let's have the argument.
Let's not. It's not the kind of community I want to be involved with.
  #29  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:08 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,720
LHD has hit the nail on the head. I can promote a very civil and logical debate as to why it would be beneficial to exterminate all the humans in China and Asia because it would reduce the world population by about 25%, alleviate the strain on resources and ease social/political tensions and problems. It doesn't change the fact that I'd be promoting genocide. You can "hate speech" without the hateful rhetoric.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #30  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:09 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Let's not. It's not the kind of community I want to be involved with.
Then you are free not to participate in the thread. I just don't know why you would want to ban others from doing so when you can easily wash your hands of the whole messy ordeal.
  #31  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:09 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But here's the thing and it came up in the Shodan thread. Most posters, indeed most people, when they make an argument ignore cites, move goalposts, and don't answer questions. Why is it only the disfavored arguments that get treated harshly?
If by "disfavored" you mean offensive and factually incorrect, then I think the reason is clear, right? Because that's what this thread is really about, right?

Supporting Donald Trump for president would certainly be disfavored on a board that leans as liberal as this one, but that discussion will not ever be banned. Being anti-nuclear is generally disfavored here as well, but that discussion will not ever be banned.

I'm absolutely sure we could discuss how some minorities perform poorly on standardized tests, even though you might think that's somehow disfavored. However, if a poster is going to make the factually untrue statement that those minorities are somehow genetically inferior and ignore all cites to the contrary, what should the board do about that?
  #32  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:10 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Definitely not a hill I'm willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let's have the argument. You and I will be on the same side for once.
There's no non-trolling way to advocate for child molestation or enslaving black people. Even if they sincerely believe it, it's still trolling.
  #33  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:11 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So how does that pick your pocket or skin your nose? Engage them or don't. What harm is there? It's sort of like the Free Speech clause; let's give a wide berth so we don't suppress good ideas when the bad ones come.
I think we can discern pretty readily that some ideas are indeed irrefutably bad, and people who insist on advancing them are indeed bad people for doing so. They'd be free to exercise their Free Speech in places that are not privately controlled, such as message boards like this one.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
I was once trolled by smoke signal. He said the holocough wasn't real.
  #34  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:11 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
LHD has hit the nail on the head. I can promote a very civil and logical debate as to why it would be beneficial to exterminate all the humans in China and Asia because it would reduce the world population by about 25%, alleviate the strain on resources and ease social/political tensions and problems. It doesn't change the fact that I'd be promoting genocide. You can "hate speech" without the hateful rhetoric.
You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?
  #35  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:16 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There's no non-trolling way to advocate for child molestation or enslaving black people. Even if they sincerely believe it, it's still trolling.
That's a bullshit board doublenewspeak. If you sincerely believe it, by definition you are not trolling. It is a backhanded way to stifle debate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I think we can discern pretty readily that some ideas are indeed irrefutably bad, and people who insist on advancing them are indeed bad people for doing so. They'd be free to exercise their Free Speech in places that are not privately controlled, such as message boards like this one.
Sure, but I think the OP is concerned (and I share his concern) that this board is rapidly going toward the idea that, for example, supply side economics is so "irrefutably bad" and that "people who insist on advancing" that idea are "bad people for doing so" and turning this whole place into an echo chamber, which I wholeheartedly agree is happening.

It's just a bad argument that because we should ban debates about legal child molestation that it means that current issues involving transgender rights should be exactly the same, no matter the latest talking points and politically correct doctrine handed down from the left.
  #36  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:20 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 60,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sure, but I think the OP is concerned (and I share his concern) that this board is rapidly going toward the idea that, for example, supply side economics is so "irrefutably bad" and that "people who insist on advancing" that idea are "bad people for doing so" and turning this whole place into an echo chamber, which I wholeheartedly agree is happening.
And your pocket is picked or your nose skinned how, exactly?

Quote:
It's just a bad argument that because we should ban debates about legal child molestation that it means that current issues involving transgender rights should be exactly the same, no matter the latest talking points and politically correct doctrine handed down from the left.
If you're seriously equating child molestation and transgender rights, I think the problem is fairly obvious, and it's not based on some arbitrary "I like this one better" determination.
  #37  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:23 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's a bullshit board doublenewspeak. If you sincerely believe it, by definition you are not trolling. It is a backhanded way to stifle debate.
I'm sorry, but your points are somewhat valid up to this. If a person sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with child molestation or enslaving black people, then they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board.
  #38  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:26 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Now that the debate over Shodan's banning (for insults and provoking) has died down, I wanted to discuss something:

A year or two ago, a Doper started a thread in ATMB (I did some searching but can't find it) in which he/she argued that there are some viewpoints that are simply so abhorrent that they should not be permitted on the Dope, regardless of how civil or polite the poster expressing those views may be. (The example used in that thread was scientific racism, or any view that one race is inferior to another.)

As we are often told by Dope mods/admins, the guiding principle of the Dope message board is: "Don't be a jerk." The vast majority of people who have been banned were banned because they were either trolls, spammers, or regular Dopers who couldn't stop flaming or insulting others. I am not aware of anyone who has been banned simply for expressing a controversial view, as long as they kept things polite and civil - it was the attacking or insulting behavior that got them banned, not their viewpoints. We have several conservative Dopers who have amassed years of longevity and many thousands of posts here without getting banned (or perhaps even warned or suspended,) which helps debunk the notion that conservatives can't get a fair shake here.

What I wanted to ask, though, was: Is the Dope ever likely to head in the direction of banning certain viewpoints entirely, regardless of how well-behaved a poster may be?

I don't mean viewpoints such as Holocaust denial, Flat-Eartherism or 9/11 Trutherism - which are factually wrong - but viewpoints that are subjective but often regarded as offensive - views like "There are only two genders" or "A man who undergoes transition surgery hasn't become a true woman, he just resembles one," or "Trump is a great president," - etc.

The Dope is influenced by outside culture as much as any other board, and with the direction that society is going in, it's not hard to imagine, for instance, a few years from now a Doper making a comment that there are only two genders, but then receiving a warning from a moderator, saying, "This sort of viewpoint is dehumanizing and invalidating of someone's gender identity. Don't be a jerk."

(My point isn't to focus on LGBT - that's just one example - one could name dozens and dozens of other political or social viewpoints that are subjective but offensive - but which could be expressed in perfectly civil, polite, non-flaming ways.)

If so, this would represent a major change in forum philosophy. Up to this point, Dopers have generally been safe from receiving warnings or other disciplinary action, as long as they kept things polite, civil and tame. But if we do head down that road, then we would be saying that it's not just enough to conform in terms of behavior, one must conform to certain viewpoints and opinions as well.

Again, we haven't had such instances (as far as I know of,) but the time to discuss or prevent something is in advance.
Died down is not a synonym for closed and squelched out of embarrassment.

Civil debate shut down? Of course. Accepting that arguments from differing sets of moral axioms result in different sets of logical conclusions is far from being universally understood. Itís far easier to label that trolling instead of admitting that ones particular sense of morality is one set out of many and not necessarily intrinsically superior.
  #39  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:30 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?
Sure they can, but that's not my point. I can actually make my point by quoting you from a little farther down in this thread: "they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board."
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #40  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:31 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?
Sure they can, but that's not my point. I can actually make my point by quoting you from a little farther down in this thread: "they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board."
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #41  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:34 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 13,306
Hey, I'm pretty sure I said that
  #42  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's a bullshit board doublenewspeak. If you sincerely believe it, by definition you are not trolling. It is a backhanded way to stifle debate.
Trolling does not require a lack of belief. That's been shown on this board again and again. White supremacist trolls aren't somehow not trolling because they sincerely believe in white seupremacism.
  #43  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:53 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes, so long as it is very far outside those bounds and not an excuse to enact reasonably debatable policies as "truth" and done.
I agree! So the question is, how do we determine what's very far outside those bounds?
  #44  
Old 05-21-2020, 08:57 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Yeah, "trolling" is at its core a delight in pissing people off and stirring shit up. If I go to a rightwing messageboard for the sole purpose of crowing that Trump is the worst president in the history of our nation, my sincere belief that it's true doesn't stop my action from being trolling.

At the same time, trolling definitely gets overdiagnosed. But deceit is not its core: delight in riling people up is.
  #45  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:05 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
....
Sure, but I think the OP is concerned (and I share his concern) that this board is rapidly going toward the idea that, for example, supply side economics is so "irrefutably bad" and that "people who insist on advancing" that idea are "bad people for doing so" and turning this whole place into an echo chamber, which I wholeheartedly agree is happening.....
Do you really think that supply side economics debates are in danger of being shut down here? I think that's a great example of an idea that is probably factually incorrect and probably disfavored and on this board, but you could have a great debate about it.

It's not offensive, and it's certainly possible to sincerely believe that it works. I feel like you're arguing against yourself.

Hey, OP, do you think supply side economics is a viewpoint that will eventually be banned?
  #46  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:06 AM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You don't believe that you or another poster could successfully refute the argument that your intelligence is not inherently inferior because of your gender or race?
I'm not your toy who needs to prove it's worth as a human.
  #47  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:10 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I am not aware of anyone who has been banned simply for expressing a controversial view, as long as they kept things polite and civil - it was the attacking or insulting behavior that got them banned, not their viewpoints.
I am aware of at least one.

Starving Artist was banned for expressing a controversial view, i.e. that contemporary society magnifies the issue of sexual harassment out of proportion.

This was the final straw.

And here's the post announcing the ban.

SA was far more polite and civil than (at least) 90% of the people he interacted with, and was explicitly banned because his views themselves were judged to be inherently offensive.

There may have been others, but this is one that I recall offhand.
  #48  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:28 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 24,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Then you are free not to participate in the thread. I just don't know why you would want to ban others from doing so when you can easily wash your hands of the whole messy ordeal.
Because I don't want to be a member of a community that condones hate speech, no matter how polite.
  #49  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:49 AM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 21,250
The question wasn't whether we should (effectively) ban certain speech but whether we tend to. Or at least that's how I took it.

I don't think we need (or should) build a list of verboten topics.
  #50  
Old 05-21-2020, 09:54 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
I'm not your toy who needs to prove it's worth as a human.
This right here. The idea that there's nothing wrong with denying someone's basic humanity, because they can just refute the argument, is a pretty shoddy reading of human nature. If that were true, presumably there'd also be nothing wrong with calling for the torture of a specific poster, because there, too, it'd be possible to refute the arguments in favor of said torture.
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 09:14 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