Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-29-2019, 09:59 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,558
And is it the reasoned arguments from the objective, rational white dudes that change minds, or the chance to talk to members of these groups in an open, safe forum? Because when I look at my own evolution into a more insightful human, it started with Eve and Esprix talking about their experiences, not formal debates from neutral parties about whether they were even worth listening to.

And I'm not worried about letting it die off. I've realized that doesn't work, because people seem to age into it. But I don't think treating all propositions as theoretically plausible and insisting each can be argued in a safe, supportive environment is the way we stop that. For every one the good guys win over, the bad guys win over even more--not despite being wrong, but because of it. Because people like the message "You are superior. You are the ideal. The more different someone is from you, the less human they are". Allowing open and free debate over those ideas lets bigots use us as a recruiting ground.

Look, five years ago, I agreed with you. I was a free speech absolutest. But The_Donald, RedPillers, 4chan and 8chan, Charlottesville. . . these things changed me. It's naive to think that we can be content neutral and not take responsibility for the damage the speech we promote does in the world. And it's hubris to believe what Mark Twain said was the most magnificent lie ever crafted, that "the truth is mighty and will prevail".

Last edited by Manda JO; 11-29-2019 at 10:00 PM.
  #202  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:03 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
And is it the reasoned arguments from the objective, rational white dudes that change minds, or the chance to talk to members of these groups in an open, safe forum?
I'm a scientist; bigotry doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We weren't scrutinizing this particular flavor of bigotry back then. Now we are, and that's a good thing.
  #203  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:14 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I'm a scientist; bigotry doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We weren't scrutinizing this particular flavor of bigotry back then. Now we are, and that's a good thing.
But the bigots aren't scientists. They don't care about scrutiny. They rationalize, they don't reason. And they reach others through that medium.
  #204  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:21 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
But the bigots aren't scientists. They don't care about scrutiny. They rationalize, they don't reason. And they reach others through that medium.
Again, the one loon isn't necessarily the one you're convincing. While I do learn by arguing, I didn't learn by arguing about this particular topic. Every thread has more readers than posters.
  #205  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:35 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
And of course derailing a thread is always bad. Someone starts an "ask the" thread and a bigot wants to stir shit up? I think our current rules should shut that down. But I'm open to evidence that's not the case.
  #206  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:38 PM
Amara_ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 223
I want to echo everything Manda Jo has said in this thread.
  #207  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:03 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I feel like we lost the moderate conservative voices long ago. We used to have more, but they've either disappeared or, in some cases, radicalized. Some of that I think is based on the current political situation: it can't be fun to be a reasonable conservative right now. But I would also propose that our "content neutral" moderation might has exacerbated things, as well. It's allowed conversations to go to really nasty depths that make the whole board less civil. It's lead to a not-entirely unjustified belief among conservative posters that they are targeted and unwelcome. ...
Sometimes even moderate voices can feel driven out.

You are a big supporter of #metoo for example and the movement has indeed done many goods ... and it also has those that operate under its hashtag that demonize anyone who expresses any hesitation from the line that a woman is ALWAYS telling the objective facts and that her version of what was in a man's head is ALWAYS to be accepted as objective fact, who argue that there is ALSO still a need to balance due process for someone accused, who would lump those concerns as "misogyny" and would describe expressions of those concerns as making them unwelcome. And honestly? Making major progress on issues will require taking it on as a systems quality improvement issue - which generally accomplishes less by punishing individuals, and more by figuring the processes that lead to the unwanted events occurring and fixing them. That means that if you want more than showy items of celebrities getting taken down, if you want to prevent future abuse, you do need to understand how the men who assault came to behave in that way in order to change the systems that result in it.

As to the examples you've posted ... there have also been similar ones with anti-Semitic tropes ... and as a Jew I am very used to hearing them and know they exist as held beliefs said in rooms I am not present in much more commonly than that. Coming up every so often here and having their tropeness beat up on? I can handle that. Trans-people are dealing with real hate in the real world every day. I think posts on this board did more to normalize trans issues than many appreciate. I'll speak for myself that my ignorance was reduced more by threads on this board, often in response to the vastly more ignorant, than by any journal articles I read.

I do not advocate for free speech absolutism here (or for the country). I completely accept that there are harms to some speech that offset the benefits. Constraining speech is completely reasonable but as much as I appreciate the harms of some speech I also have significant discomfort with absolute statements to be accepted as articles of faith.

One would have to be horribly naive to believe that in the marketplace of ideas YOUR ideas or MY ideas (which for the sake of discussion we can assume are always the objectively correct "good guy" ones) will always win. But as I've argued in thread in which these issues are writ larger, our society as a whole, I think that "my side" is better equipped for fighting the fight with words than we are with fists and weapons. And here we have home field advantage as well. You are simply wrong if you think that "the bad guys" come into this forum promoting their shit and have successfully won any of "good guys" over to their beliefs. And I do believe that over time some of the "bad guys" have unavoidably reduced their ignorance some even as they continue some of their bad faith arguments.

But again, this place does not need be devoted to that fight and nothing else. That fight cannot squeeze out let alone hijack other discussions. I agree with significant constraints to prevent that.
  #208  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:19 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I feel like we lost the moderate conservative voices long ago. We used to have more, but they've either disappeared or, in some cases, radicalized. Some of that I think is based on the current political situation: it can't be fun to be a reasonable conservative right now. But I would also propose that our "content neutral" moderation might has exacerbated things, as well. It's allowed conversations to go to really nasty depths that make the whole board less civil. It's lead to a not-entirely unjustified belief among conservative posters that they are targeted and unwelcome.
This board reflects the view of the majority of the posters viz. liberal. If a conservative dare post here expect to be
1) Insulted, but in general enough terms that the mods can equivocate and say that YOU were not personally attacked. But of course on this board being a conservative gets you labeled as stupid, a racist or a misogynist.
2) Gang-attacked in the thread that gets derailed by attacks against Trump.

There is no room for rational discourse anymore here. No conservative member can explain why they don't like Obama or Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren
or AOC because it turns into thinly veiled ad hominum attacks against the poster. When I started here, people were allowed to have opposing viewpoints. Now they are not. And I agree with you about the moderation. It seems a lot of people are getting free passes from mods that before would have been warnings. That sets the tone for the board too.
  #209  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:20 AM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Somehow, nobody ever says of a woman, "she is falsely accused," when the usual dogpile starts. Nor is anyone ever concerned that SHE is innocent till proven guilty.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #210  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:26 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
They don't, not explicitly. This is less than 6 months old:



And it's from a poster who has been starting threads supporting that point of view for years without reprimand. Being content neutral is not a virtue.

This is a couple years old, about transgendered people:


...

And the same thing goes for the racist shit. How do you defend yourself against someone who has said you are genetically inferior? Why can't we have an official stance that this is horseshit?
I am not sure what Slackerinc meant by that post, honestly, but it was in the Pit. It is so baffling to me, i cant honestly make out what he was trying to say.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=877275

But he was called out for it, by many posters. loudly, in no uncertain terms. This board seems to have a almost 'anything goes' in the Pit, but like I said, I dont delve there. Got anything outside the pit- because I have not seen any of what you are saying in the last couple of years. And I have called for the Pit to be closed down many, many times right here. Ok, I agree- lets close the pit, except for rants. No more open racism, bigotry, homo-hating, or especially internet stalking allowed.


A couple years ago. And so? I cant even find it. A lot has changed here in two years.


Got anything new? Outside the Pit?

Got any:

Gay kids need conversion therapy
Most girls who say they were raped are lying.

Genes for intelligence are much more commonly found in white and Asian populations.


There are many wild accusations here being tossed around that the SDMB allows bigotry and racism and whatnot(which it does- in the Pit, apparently so lets shut the Pit down, easy-peasy)- yet, everyone seems low on actual examples. (outside of the Pit)
  #211  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:43 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Somehow, nobody ever says of a woman, "she is falsely accused," when the usual dogpile starts. Nor is anyone ever concerned that SHE is innocent till proven guilty.
This is simply an untrue statement.
  #212  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:43 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Sometimes even moderate voices can feel driven out.

You are a big supporter of #metoo for example and the movement has indeed done many goods ... and it also has those that operate under its hashtag that demonize anyone who expresses any hesitation from the line that a woman is ALWAYS telling the objective facts and that her version of what was in a man's head is ALWAYS to be accepted as objective fact, who argue that there is ALSO still a need to balance due process for someone accused, who would lump those concerns as "misogyny" and would describe expressions of those concerns as making them unwelcome. And honestly? Making major progress on issues will require taking it on as a systems quality improvement issue - which generally accomplishes less by punishing individuals, and more by figuring the processes that lead to the unwanted events occurring and fixing them. That means that if you want more than showy items of celebrities getting taken down, if you want to prevent future abuse, you do need to understand how the men who assault came to behave in that way in order to change the systems that result in it.

As to the examples you've posted ... there have also been similar ones with anti-Semitic tropes ... and as a Jew I am very used to hearing them and know they exist as held beliefs said in rooms I am not present in much more commonly than that. Coming up every so often here and having their tropeness beat up on? I can handle that. Trans-people are dealing with real hate in the real world every day. I think posts on this board did more to normalize trans issues than many appreciate. I'll speak for myself that my ignorance was reduced more by threads on this board, often in response to the vastly more ignorant, than by any journal articles I read.

I do not advocate for free speech absolutism here (or for the country). I completely accept that there are harms to some speech that offset the benefits. Constraining speech is completely reasonable but as much as I appreciate the harms of some speech I also have significant discomfort with absolute statements to be accepted as articles of faith.

One would have to be horribly naive to believe that in the marketplace of ideas YOUR ideas or MY ideas (which for the sake of discussion we can assume are always the objectively correct "good guy" ones) will always win. But as I've argued in thread in which these issues are writ larger, our society as a whole, I think that "my side" is better equipped for fighting the fight with words than we are with fists and weapons. And here we have home field advantage as well. You are simply wrong if you think that "the bad guys" come into this forum promoting their shit and have successfully won any of "good guys" over to their beliefs. And I do believe that over time some of the "bad guys" have unavoidably reduced their ignorance some even as they continue some of their bad faith arguments.

But again, this place does not need be devoted to that fight and nothing else. That fight cannot squeeze out let alone hijack other discussions. I agree with significant constraints to prevent that.
There's a LOT of Bill Burr to unpack here!
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #213  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:00 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I am not sure what Slackerinc meant by that post, honestly, but it was in the Pit. It is so baffling to me, i cant honestly make out what he was trying to say.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=877275

But he was called out for it, by many posters. loudly, in no uncertain terms.
You realize that means jack-shit compared to the official sanction it enjoys, right?
  #214  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:06 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You realize that means jack-shit compared to the official sanction it enjoys, right?
what "official sanction" are you talking about? No one gave that post any "official sanction" in any way shape or form.


Did you report it and Pm a Mod and get a answer?
  #215  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:10 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
One would have to be horribly naive to believe that in the marketplace of ideas YOUR ideas or MY ideas (which for the sake of discussion we can assume are always the objectively correct "good guy" ones) will always win. But as I've argued in thread in which these issues are writ larger, our society as a whole, I think that "my side" is better equipped for fighting the fight with words than we are with fists and weapons. And here we have home field advantage as well. You are simply wrong if you think that "the bad guys" come into this forum promoting their shit and have successfully won any of "good guys" over to their beliefs.
Kind of a difficult argument to be making in the age of Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron isn't it ?

I would also be remiss if I didn't seize the opportunity to trot out that one MLK quote everybody likes to forget now that every white guy was obviously cool with MLK what with his being so moderate and peacelike :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. King
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
I think what he was saying was, incrementalism can go felch a goat, in so many words.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-30-2019 at 02:11 AM.
  #216  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:12 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
what "official sanction" are you talking about? No one gave that post any "official sanction" in any way shape or form.
Was it modded? No? Then it's sanctioned.
  #217  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:26 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,699
Man, The West Wing really just profoundly fucked up a generation of Liberals huh.
  #218  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:50 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
How do you mean ?

ETA : Hmm, that maybe came off aggro or something, which it is absolutely not - I'm honestly interested & curious and would like to hear more

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-30-2019 at 02:53 AM.
  #219  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:54 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
How do you mean ?
Knowing you, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with Innuendo Studios and The Alt-Right playbook in particular, right? Remember that Never Play Defense video where he shows a clip of The West Wing and talks about how Liberals eat up someone by laboriously explaining why their short, quippy, and wrong statement is wrong at length?

Basically that. I don't think The West Wing literally caused this, but man do the values of "man just watch me wreck this dude who clearly has no strong position with my reasoned argume-wait why did half of you become fascists?" is strong. There are far more victory conditions for a debate beyond actually being factually correct, and in some cases like naked bigotry playing that game is not a great idea. You want to explain something to someone? Bypass the bigots and explain it directly, don't argue with them

Last edited by Jragon; 11-30-2019 at 02:57 AM.
  #220  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:08 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Knowing you, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with Innuendo Studios and The Alt-Right playbook in particular, right? Remember that Never Play Defense video where he shows a clip of The West Wing and talks about how Liberals eat up someone by laboriously explaining why their short, quippy, and wrong is wrong at length?

Basically that. I don't think The West Wing literally caused this, but man do the values of "man just watch me wreck this dude who clearly has no strong position with my reasoned argume-wait why did half of you become fascists?" is strong.
Oh, yeah, that . Yeah I wouldn't say TWW was a cause, so much as an expression of, but yup.
  #221  
Old 11-30-2019, 07:42 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,823
I know you said that you are not naive enough to believe that the right ideas always win out. But I have to take advantage of an example where the tactics we are trying to stop have worked. I hope you will not be offended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You are a big supporter of #metoo for example and the movement has indeed done many goods ... and it also has those that operate under its hashtag that demonize anyone who expresses any hesitation from the line that a woman is ALWAYS telling the objective facts and that her version of what was in a man's head is ALWAYS to be accepted as objective fact,
What you have stated here is not in any way the position of the #MeToo movement. What you are claiming is what the opposition to the movement claims happens all the time. But it doesn't actually match with the reality. Whenever the opposition claims this is what the #MeToo movement is about, there will be multiple people trying to explain how they are incorrect, using nuanced arguments.

Yet it isn't those nuanced arguments that you remember. It isn't all the articles where #MeToo itself explain what the movement is about. Heck, you don't even remember the salient point that gender isn't relevant, and that men are also saying #MeToo.

No one who puts forth an anti-rape movement can ever push the idea that you should always believe the accuser and not be out of touch with reality. There are documented, verified cases of false accusations. This is a strawman put forth by those who oppose the movement, in order to make #MeToo look irrational and wrong.

I don't think you're one of these people. I don't think you have an interest in maintaining the status quo. Yet their tactics work. Maybe not enough for you to say the movement is all bad, but enough for you to think that what you described is a significant part of the movement. Enough for you to see the few cases that can be perceived in this way, and have your confirmation bias take over.

This is why we have to worry not just about debunking people, but also deplatforming them. This is why these arguments are dangerous. This right here is an example where the reader took away the wrong idea.

---------------

And, now, because I'd be remiss not to at least briefly give a counterargument: The problem is not when people question the idea of believing the accuser. The problem is when the accuser is assumed to likely be lying. Or when someone tries to argue the accuser should not have said anything. It is when people yell about "innocent until proven guilty" in old cases where proof is unlikely. It is the lopsided issue where the accused is defended at the expense of the accuser.

It is not about questioning the accuser, trying to figure out what actually happened. It isn't about assuming what the accused is thinking, but looking at the evidence without a bias towards disbelieving the accuser. It even involved looking at what the accused themselves actually said.

And, again, it is not a women vs. men thing. Men can be the victims, and thus the accusers. Women can be the perpetrators and the accused. Making it only about women vs. men is just a way that the opposition uses to try and play into a culture war, using existing biases to their advantage.
  #222  
Old 11-30-2019, 07:50 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Again, the one loon isn't necessarily the one you're convincing. While I do learn by arguing, I didn't learn by arguing about this particular topic. Every thread has more readers than posters.
Where you err is in assuming that these readers think like you. Sure, some do, but "the loon" isn't going to convince them anyways, as their argument is clearly bad.

The people they set out to convince are not those who are persuaded by the evidence. And all of our rational arguments debunking them don't work.

The loon only looks loony because they're not engaging in the same framework we are. I could go into more, but it would simpler to redirect you to stuff like "the Alt-Right Playbook" mentioned earlier. I apologize that it is in video form, but that is a better form for reaching people these days.

The war we fight now isn't against accidental ignorance. It is the willful kind, the ones who, for emotional reasons, want to believe what they say is true. The goal is to use our own biases against us. We want a fair debate, but they won't give it.
  #223  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:17 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
And I'm not worried about letting it die off. I've realized that doesn't work, because people seem to age into it.
This isn't true. Every single generation has gotten better wrt same sex marriage as it has aged. We have good data on this. https://www.people-press.org/2019/05...pendix-charts/

We didn't get where we are today by banning discussion.
  #224  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:22 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Where you err is in assuming that these readers think like you. Sure, some do, but "the loon" isn't going to convince them anyways, as their argument is clearly bad.

The people they set out to convince are not those who are persuaded by the evidence. And all of our rational arguments debunking them don't work.

The loon only looks loony because they're not engaging in the same framework we are. I could go into more, but it would simpler to redirect you to stuff like "the Alt-Right Playbook" mentioned earlier. I apologize that it is in video form, but that is a better form for reaching people these days.

The war we fight now isn't against accidental ignorance. It is the willful kind, the ones who, for emotional reasons, want to believe what they say is true. The goal is to use our own biases against us. We want a fair debate, but they won't give it.
Where we, as a country, are on sex/gender ~now (2017) is where we were on same sex marriage in 2007. We've been debating and it works. If this board actually cares about fighting ignorance, then we'll keep it up. If someone's feelings get hurt along the way, fuck 'em; I'm done with the abusers in my life who try to control what others say or do while using their untreated issues as an excuse for their demands.
  #225  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:40 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,823
And now to address this post for its actual points. I had to debunk the stuff in the first post, but I'm not going to let that become the focus of the argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Sometimes even moderate voices can feel driven out.

You are a big supporter of #metoo for example and the movement has indeed done many goods ... and it also has those that operate under its hashtag that demonize anyone who expresses any hesitation from the line that a woman is ALWAYS telling the objective facts and that her version of what was in a man's head is ALWAYS to be accepted as objective fact, who argue that there is ALSO still a need to balance due process for someone accused, who would lump those concerns as "misogyny" and would describe expressions of those concerns as making them unwelcome. And honestly? Making major progress on issues will require taking it on as a systems quality improvement issue - which generally accomplishes less by punishing individuals, and more by figuring the processes that lead to the unwanted events occurring and fixing them. That means that if you want more than showy items of celebrities getting taken down, if you want to prevent future abuse, you do need to understand how the men who assault came to behave in that way in order to change the systems that result in it.
This argument might work in other contexts, but it doesn't work here. The problem with sexual assault isn't a difficult problem. The problem is (1) not understanding consent, as we've seen them arguing things that ignore it. And (2) that they felt they could get away with it.

Those are the point of #MeToo. Number 2 comes first: people won't get away with it, even if it's been decade. But there's also #1, with victims sharing their stories so that people can hear actual examples of what consent is and how important it is.

Quote:
As to the examples you've posted ... there have also been similar ones with anti-Semitic tropes ... and as a Jew I am very used to hearing them and know they exist as held beliefs said in rooms I am not present in much more commonly than that. Coming up every so often here and having their tropeness beat up on? I can handle that. Trans-people are dealing with real hate in the real world every day. I think posts on this board did more to normalize trans issues than many appreciate. I'll speak for myself that my ignorance was reduced more by threads on this board, often in response to the vastly more ignorant, than by any journal articles I read.
This is not a hypothetical issue. Someone actually PMed me when I was arguing about the board needing to deal with transphobia, and let me know that they and a dozen other people had quit because of how the mods were dealing with the trans issue. I can't be more specific, as I promised not to reveal names, even of those who were already out as trans.

I would also say that transphobia comes up more often than antisemitic arguments. It isn't "every so often." The way it comes up IS part of the "real hate" trans people experience in the world today. And it's compounded by the need of the mods to defend the transphobic people from anyone who is uncivil to them, while not removing the far worse bigotry.

Quote:
I do not advocate for free speech absolutism here (or for the country). I completely accept that there are harms to some speech that offset the benefits. Constraining speech is completely reasonable but as much as I appreciate the harms of some speech I also have significant discomfort with absolute statements to be accepted as articles of faith.

One would have to be horribly naive to believe that in the marketplace of ideas YOUR ideas or MY ideas (which for the sake of discussion we can assume are always the objectively correct "good guy" ones) will always win. But as I've argued in thread in which these issues are writ larger, our society as a whole, I think that "my side" is better equipped for fighting the fight with words than we are with fists and weapons. And here we have home field advantage as well. You are simply wrong if you think that "the bad guys" come into this forum promoting their shit and have successfully won any of "good guys" over to their beliefs. And I do believe that over time some of the "bad guys" have unavoidably reduced their ignorance some even as they continue some of their bad faith arguments.
And yet the alt-right, which didn't previously exist, is still recruiting new members. The "Alt Right Playbook" works. That is why we've had to change our tactics, to become better equipped to deal with the new threat. We can't keep using the old tactics while the enemy improves theirs.

Quote:
But again, this place does not need be devoted to that fight and nothing else. That fight cannot squeeze out let alone hijack other discussions. I agree with significant constraints to prevent that.
The problem is not squeezing out discussion as much as it is squeezing out people, which then reduces the diversity of ideas. The problem is that you can't have a civil place that people want to stay around that allows bigotry. People who abhor bigotry will want to fight it, and those who are targets of it will not want to stick around.

Maybe this was less true in the past, when their were fewer options online. But now you could post here and have to face being condemned as a human being for who you are, or you could go somewhere where that shit isn't allowed. Because "no bigotry" is the foundation of most civil forums.

None of this is to completely eliminate all topics related to bigotry. There are still plenty of issues that are gray, and I think the mods should err on the side of allowing things to be argued. But some things are just beyond the pale.

And, as a bonus, even making some things beyond the pale communicates a desire to deal with bigotry, and thus helps make the place feel more welcoming. It opens up the possibility that, if something else gets too bad, it will be dealt with. And not that civility is the only thing that matters.
  #226  
Old 11-30-2019, 08:52 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
This isn't true. Every single generation has gotten better wrt same sex marriage as it has aged. We have good data on this. https://www.people-press.org/2019/05...pendix-charts/

We didn't get where we are today by banning discussion.
Indeed, in general, people accept some of the changing attitudes of society as they change, and it isn't by being bullied into it. On the other hand, they can be bullied into shutting up, which alters the Overton window.

It just appears that people become more conservative as they age because they don't change rapidly enough to catch up with the new cohorts of adults.

It obviously doesn't work with all topics. The progress in gay and trans rights would not have happened without a lot of people changing their minds which wouldn't have happened with a "fuck the old people, they're all ossified bigots" attitude. On the other hand, marijuana reform did indeed need to wait for the pre-Boomers and some Boomers to be displaced by the younger generations.

As a discussion board, we should allow discussion. But like I've said before, sometimes an obvious troll is obvious and sometimes the arguments have been rehashed by the same person time after time and they will not change their mind. I wish we could get rid of those problems without shutting the door to open-minded discussion of all topics.
  #227  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:08 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was it modded? No? Then it's sanctioned.
The sanctioned posts that we have seen of late are like this
Poster: I can't believe you said that. ALL REPUBLICANS* kiss the Cheetoes' ass all the time and are racist misogynists and are too stupid to realize the rapist Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to this country ever.
Mod: Take it to the pit if you feel that way. No warning issued.

*Since it does not say "you", it is not insulting the target.

This board is starting to remind me me of "free speech" advocates on college campuses, i.e. I support free speech that allows ME to have MY viewpoints and that NO ONE should be allowed to disagree with me.

Last edited by Saint Cad; 11-30-2019 at 11:12 AM.
  #228  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:38 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,558
I feel like you all are coming at this from this highly idealistic theory about what should work, and ignoring the evidence of what is actually happening. The reality is that lots and lots of groups are being run off by our "anything goes, as long as it's civil" mentality. This includes reasonable, reasoned conservatives, people that fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, and women. We are in this weird place where we have radical voices on both sides of the spectrum pissing each other off. Really, really noticable, however, is that the progressive side includes fewer and fewer minority voices. It's white dudes arguing with white dudes about the experiences of people unlike them. I can't imagine that the lurker population that we are supposed to be so worried about is any different. You talk about the need to educate the lurker. But that's making the assumption that the lurker is a Standard White Dude. Who else would possibly be interested in these conversations?

Look, I know lots of teachers who love to be hard-asses. And they always justify it by pointing at that one or two kids who came back and thanked them for the swift kick in the ass. But I gotta tell you--those teachers never even see the many, many more students that their idealistic hard-ass tactics drive off. What we are doing is driving off swathes of people. It may be too late. If having some board standards beyond civility is not acceptable to you, is anything?

I feel like you guys are treating the experiences of people directly affected--targeted--as inconsequential, as collateral damage, and treating their exodus as something that is beyond our control or culpability.
  #229  
Old 11-30-2019, 11:59 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I feel like you all are coming at this from this highly idealistic theory about what should work, and ignoring the evidence of what is actually happening. The reality is that lots and lots of groups are being run off by our "anything goes, as long as it's civil" mentality. This includes reasonable, reasoned conservatives, people that fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, and women. We are in this weird place where we have radical voices on both sides of the spectrum pissing each other off. Really, really noticable, however, is that the progressive side includes fewer and fewer minority voices. It's white dudes arguing with white dudes about the experiences of people unlike them. I can't imagine that the lurker population that we are supposed to be so worried about is any different. You talk about the need to educate the lurker. But that's making the assumption that the lurker is a Standard White Dude. Who else would possibly be interested in these conversations?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

I don't necessarily disagree. And finding a way to balance the above cartoon with an interest in discussion is what I'm current working on.

Please take any direct ideas - no discussion, just ideas - to the thread in GD that I've stickied. That's where I'll be going through looking for ideas that can facilitate where I'm trying to get us to.
  #230  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:14 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,558
Thanks. Did that.

I'd like to invite all y'all to click on the button that shows who has posted and how many times. I am not 100% on everyone's demographics, but I am pretty sure I am the only woman who has made substantial contributions to this thread. Mr. Dibble is the only person of color. Is that because they are happy with the statusbquo, because they don't see the point of even trying, or because they are gone?
  #231  
Old 11-30-2019, 12:58 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I don't think this describes GD. I can't speak for other fora (I spend most of my time reading GQ and GD.) If I'm counting correctly there were only 18 threads started in November, of varying OP quality. But with people mostly behaving themselves. If anything, I think we can work to help people develop more and better OPs. I've posted some ideas there. Some of the folks posting in that thread have never even started a GD thread or haven't done so since before I joined. Yet want to make new rules for the rest of us.
  #232  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was it modded? No? Then it's sanctioned.
No, that's not how this works.
  #233  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
This isn't true. Every single generation has gotten better wrt same sex marriage as it has aged. We have good data on this. https://www.people-press.org/2019/05...pendix-charts/

We didn't get where we are today by banning discussion.
Yep. Sure there's still bigotry but as people get better informed, it's dying off. Some of the arguments about SSM was that it would allow sex with animals, and other really fucking stupid things.

So yes, knowledge and reasoning can help the sort of bigotry spread by ignorance and lies.
  #234  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
...
And yet the alt-right, which didn't previously exist, is still recruiting new members. The "Alt Right Playbook" works. That is why we've had to change our tactics, to become better equipped to deal with the new threat. We can't keep using the old tactics while the enemy improves theirs.



....
Umm, no the term "Alt-Right" is new, the bigots in it are not- the KKK has been around since the late 1800's, then there's Gov Maddox, American Independent Party (AIP) established in 1967, John Birch society (1958) and so forth. We just have a new term for all of them.
  #235  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:23 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
This is simply an untrue statement.
Go look at the threads about Christine Blasey-Ford. The same people who are adamant that Kavanaugh is innocent till proven guilty see nothing wrong with accusing of lying deliberately. Every time a case of rape comes up, there are too many people accusing the victim of lying. What's fascinating is that suggesting the accused is a liar never, ever, comes up. Just women.

In general, Hillary Clinton is the primary example of this, though I am thinking more of in the real world.
__________________
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
  #236  
Old 11-30-2019, 01:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
Go look at the threads about Christine Blasey-Ford. The same people who are adamant that Kavanaugh is innocent till proven guilty see nothing wrong with accusing of lying deliberately. ....
I think that's politics not misogyny . The GOP playbook is that "our guy is great and a Moral paragon, thus anyone accusing him is a liar". Altho yes, all of Kavanaugh's accusers are women, Trump is being accused by some men, including Military heroes, thus all of them have been accused of being a liar.
  #237  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:06 PM
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: 41,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Thanks. Did that.

I'd like to invite all y'all to click on the button that shows who has posted and how many times. I am not 100% on everyone's demographics, but I am pretty sure I am the only woman who has made substantial contributions to this thread. Mr. Dibble is the only person of color. Is that because they are happy with the statusbquo, because they don't see the point of even trying, or because they are gone?
Where is that button?
  #238  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:11 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,558
It's the "number of replies" column. The numbers are got links.
  #239  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:19 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is online now
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I think that's politics not misogyny . The GOP playbook is that "our guy is great and a Moral paragon, thus anyone accusing him is a liar". Altho yes, all of Kavanaugh's accusers are women, Trump is being accused by some men, including Military heroes, thus all of them have been accused of being a liar.
And here we go around the mulberry bush again.

Calling women who report sexual misconduct “liars” is textbook misogyny, no matter how similar it looks to a somewhat analogous scenario.

Women who have experienced this and have clear opinions how misogyny looks, appears, and happens in real life are saying this. Please do not reflexively shut it down because you don’t see it that way.
  #240  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:29 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Umm, no the term "Alt-Right" is new, the bigots in it are not- the KKK has been around since the late 1800's, then there's Gov Maddox, American Independent Party (AIP) established in 1967, John Birch society (1958) and so forth. We just have a new term for all of them.
The alt-right is also new in its tactics. You can name the John Birch Society and the KKK because they were structured groups that relied on specific recruitment tools that didn't involve public debates or mainstreaming (hell, the whole point of the white sheets was to stay away from the mainstream). I guarantee you won't find the Turner Diaries or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in your local bookstore .

The alt-right recruits by polluting other online communities in an informal, unplanned, stochastic way which may or may not lead individual alt-righters to group up, either formally as e.g. Proud Boys or informally as e.g. groypers. But that's the minority. For the most part, the alt-right are just isolated dudes behind a screen... who sometimes happen to go on to shoot up a mosque/synagogue/campus à propos of nothing.

The FBI's assessment is that while far-right asshole numbers have increased dramatically over the past couple decades ; the number and membership rolls of established/formal hate groups has markedly decreased, in part thanks to the effort of law agencies to bust them up or infiltrate them. I'm reasonably sure Interpol would tell you the same thing about European fashy assholes. Hence the move towards decentralized "leaderless resistance" (aka lone wolf terrorism) and infiltration of police & armed forces which is at the same time directly encouraged but nigh impossible to trace back to the movers & shakers of the movement (guys like Bannon, McInness, Spencer etc). They're barely even needed any more, either - by and large the alt-right radicalizes itself organically at this point.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-30-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #241  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Kobal2 and Jragon - messaging, selling, requires knowing the room you are in, who is in it, and who your actual target is. And success or failure is not measured by whose voices you hear loudest in return, or even by one election cycle.

THIS room contains a good bunch of those slightly left of center and those much farther left, some slightly right of center, and a few left who are conservatives. The target of any pitch here pitch should not that conservative demographic.

This gets into hijack territory reality is that the more liberal side IS winning the battle in the marketplace of ideas. On economic matters the mood is "the most liberal ever recorded" (and the graph is also notable for the long term trend showing the lows less low and the highs higher). "Since 1992, the percentage of Americans identifying as liberal has risen from 17% then to 26% today." Conservative views are not more popular over time, even if they gotten louder and more strident. And overall generationally liberal views are increasing.
Quote:
Across all four generational cohorts, more express either consistently liberal or mostly liberal opinions across the 10 items than did so six years ago.

Yet Millennials are the only generation in which a majority (57%) holds consistently liberal (25%) or mostly liberal (32%) positions across these measures. Just 12% have consistently or mostly conservative attitudes, the lowest of any generation. Another 31% of Millennials have a mix of conservative and liberal views.

Among Gen Xers and Boomers, larger shares also express consistently or mostly liberal views than have conservative positions. Silents are the only generation in which those with consistently or mostly conservative views (40%) outnumber those with liberal attitudes (28%).
(Silents are currently 71 to 91 years old, and to put it nicely, their numbers won't be exactly increasing over the next years.)

Reality is that the West Wing bit you cite as something factual is a fiction.


(Kobal2, I am not ignoring your King quote, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion which is not about incrementalism vs more revolutionary changes. Find me the quote in which Dr. King advocated not listening to those with opposing views, and advocated for demonizing those who disagree with you, and it will be on point.)
  #242  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
... What you have stated here is not in any way the position of the #MeToo movement. ...
When faced with several walls of text posts and right of the gate what is written is an implication of my having taken a position that I have not taken, I don't spend too much effort or time on what follows.

I will simply state yet again that constraining speech here to some degree is very justifiable. Some speech causes harms. And constraining speech also imposes harms. There are balances are different fora are set to different points on the scale.
  #243  
Old 11-30-2019, 02:54 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Was it modded? No? Then it's sanctioned.
You mean that because the poster wasn't sanctioned what he did was sanctioned? ("Sanction" is such a great contronym!)

Allowing something ≠ approving or endorsing something btw.
  #244  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:18 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
(Kobal2, I am not ignoring your King quote, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion which is not about incrementalism vs more revolutionary changes. Find me the quote in which Dr. King advocated not listening to those with opposing views, and advocated for demonizing those who disagree with you, and it will be on point.)
You don't think saying "moderates are actually worse than the KKK" demonizes moderates at least a little bit ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid
Reality is that the West Wing bit you cite as something factual is a fiction.
You're missing the point. Jragon and I weren't really talking about the WW but more about another show which used a WW bit to illustrate a point : a tendency among intellectuals (mostly on the left) to somewhat self-indulgently revel in scathing, well-cited, eloquent takedowns of snippy, ignorant or generally shitty arguments. Which is fine, as far as that goes (I don't have anything against masturbation myself).
But in the real world those intellectually satisfying longform arguments/comprehensive pwnages don't necessarily, or even often, actually win debates nor change the minds of people who aren't already liberal intellectuals who enjoy a good, thorough takedown to begin with. It misses the salient point : bad faith debaters (or journalists) aren't trying to convince you, and they know full well their house of cards are full of shit. They're playing meta tricks on the silent crowd. Because people don't really read past headlines, people self-insulate against views contrary to their own with artifices like "fake news !" or "virtue signalling !" or "liberal bias !". People TL;DR. People don't really remember long arguments, but salient nuggets can stick to minds. Dishonest or bad faith actors revel in this gap of understanding.

Take evolution for example : in the US, in order to appear "fair" or "giving every side of the issue a voice", numerous public debates were held on TV, in campuses and so on. Those public debates have more or less always involved one (or a few) creationists and one (or a few) people who actually knew what the fuck they were talking about. And the creationists were consistently dunked on - either straight up losing the debate, or resorting to shit tactics (like Gish).
Yet the US is still one of the only Western countries where doubting evolution is still even a Thing at all.
Because the simple fact that a big "fair" public TV debate takes place implicitly legitimizes the creationists' side as being of equal value (even, or especially, to those who didn't *actually* watch the debate) and the impression of who won a TV debate among viewers has a lot less to do with the content of the arguments themselves and appearances, tones of voice, confidence, theatrics.

In other countries, creationists demanding debates were either laughed out the room ; or prompted one sided documentaries on evolution that didn't involve creationist bullshit at all. And so creationists remained a tiny, ridiculed fringe.

The same thing happens on message boards. I recently re-visited an old Holocaust denial thread in which the entire thread repeatedly dunked on the one denier. Who nevertheless kept posting long screeds with dodgy-ass cites (or even cites running directly against their position but they pretended supported them) for page after page, entirely ignoring the points of the opposition unless he could cherry pick one argument he had an answer to.
Now, the rational take on that was that Chen019 was a blithering liar and obviously dishonest... to people who actually took the time to read through the barrage of cites, or look up who the people he was citing were. Which takes effort. To people who didn't make the effort, or only skimmed through the thread he might have appeared to be holding his ground, since he kept having so much to say. I, like you, would like to believe that Dopers, hell, that people are smarter than that in general.
And yet Holocaust deniers are coming out of the woodwork. Because they don't care that their arguments are shit, and the people they convince don't really care either - they've just been given a reason to consider their latent prejudices confirmed. And by debating Chen instead of booting his ass right out, he was given a platform to expose the entire board to a whole bunch of shit sites. If only one Doper went from "Holocaust denial is complete and utter skinhead bullshit" to "Hmm, maybe there's something there... ?" at the end of that shitshow, Chen019 conclusively won.

And if a single Doper went from her to there thanks to my putting that old thread back in the limelight, I'm the asshole now. But there you go.
  #245  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:28 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Allowing something ≠ approving or endorsing something btw.
But that's the thing ! It can be taken to be. Or seem to be. As the French saying goes, "he who says nothing, consents". In a formal debate, choosing not to rebut an argument and leaving it on the table is generally taken as conceding the point, isn't it ?
  #246  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I feel like you all are coming at this from this highly idealistic theory about what should work, and ignoring the evidence of what is actually happening. The reality is that lots and lots of groups are being run off by our "anything goes, as long as it's civil" mentality. This includes reasonable, reasoned conservatives, people that fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella, and women. We are in this weird place where we have radical voices on both sides of the spectrum pissing each other off. ...
I do not believe I am coming from this too idealistically at all.

Many on each side of the spectrum have become very used to only having discussions with those who agree with them. And shouting matches at those who disagree with them. In the real world and more so in the social media space there are fewer and fewer rooms in which people have actual conversations with people of very different perspectives.

This board has not suddenly developed more of a "'anything goes, as long as it's civil' mentality" ... if anything it has (and correctly so I believe) put more and more limits on speech that offends certain groups over time. What has changed is that fewer and fewer have any skill set or tolerance for tolerating being in the same space in actual conversation with those who they disagree with. The ability to listen, or at least the interest in listening, is decreased. Too many think they already know what the other actually thinks and why and are done there. And that makes it an unwelcoming place for everyone.


margin there is some (loud but smallish I think) group of "the same people" who do what you say. And there are many, really the majority here, who accused Ford's detractors and Kavanaugh of lying, to use your example. Most here would endorse that the vast majority of the time someone who reports something as sexual assault is being truthful and that a denial by an alleged perpetrator is a lie

At the same time, declaring that anyone who ever doubts any specific report of assault is a textbook misogynist, end of discussion unless you want to be so labelled, as IvoryTowerDenizan would apparently have us do, is ... problematic.
  #247  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:30 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is online now
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
But that's the thing ! It can be taken to be. Or seem to be. As the French saying goes, "he who says nothing, consents". In a formal debate, choosing not to rebut an argument and leaving it on the table is generally taken as conceding the point, isn't it ?
You’re 100% right that it is! Tacit approval is absolutely a thing.
  #248  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:34 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Did you click the big red button?
  #249  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:38 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, that's not how this works.
No, that is, in fact, how it works. Silence is approval.
  #250  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:42 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Allowing something ≠ approving or endorsing something btw.
Allowing something very much is approving it (but I agree, is not endorsing it)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


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

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017