Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Crowd-sourced moderation in a place as politically biased as the SDMB is a recipe for groupthink. Posts out of alignment with the majority opinion will be downvoted into oblivion because they are out of alignment with the majority opinion, regardless of their quality.
  #352  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:15 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
The message board/bulletin board format is limited in its usefulness, and people have been trying to fix it since the Usenet days. Slashdot's moderation system was developed to address this 20 years ago, and since then we've seen many attempts to improve that system, most notably at this point, Reddit. Upvotes and downvotes are meant to bury the sorts of unhelpful, trollish, or cruel posts that litter comment sections while allowing the cream to rise to the top. The SDMB's linear format is fundamentally broken if the goal is reasoned debate, because it gives the same traffic to any reply, regardless of how quality it is. On Reddit, Shodan's multiple attempts to derail and victim-shame in this thread under the guise of "just advocating for curfews" would be downvoted into oblivion, until Shodan would finally give up and wander over to one of the troll farms like The_Donald where people would enjoy his antics.

In the absense of any kind of crowd-sourced moderation like that, it would be up to the mods to micro-manage threads to prevent someone from say, dropping a turd of an argument and ignoring all 15 replies only to drop a different turd of an argument. And it would require throwing out the limited rules and actually moderating based on what a GOOD discussion looks like, not on what a consistently enforceable discussion looks like. Consistently enforceable but bad isn't what anyone wants, except for the trolls.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone would volunteer to curate posts that agressively, and I'm not sure I'd trust the kind of person who would volunteer anyway. Maybe the mods try it out on a limited basis -- 30 days in GD of quickly putting the kibosh on any posts that aren't in furtherance of whatever the GD mods decide isn't a "good discussion," heavy on the subjective reasoning and light on the objective hedging.
Reddit's models has its own problems. I don't use it that much, but I know some people who have modded large-ish subreddits, and a big issue with the system is that drama and forms of brigading tend to get enough steam to get floated to the top. People also don't... use the system as intended. For instance, downvoting for disagreement instead of when something is heinous. Note that I'm not saying things like bigotry or victim blaming are "disagreements", I legit mean things like "I think this video game should adopt this feature instead of this feature!" Hell, I asked a question about... I think crafting in a video game and got downvoted into oblivion because it was too long and I was "too emotional" about it. I got downvoted for asking a 101 question in a 101 subreddit because it's a common question used to dismiss the philosophy the subreddit is built around and I even prefaced it with "I know this is used to dismiss this, but I've been trying to convince friends but don't know how to handle this specific argument, and it's hard to find info online because of all the sealioning around it."

Since it's subthread based it also gets... gnarly to follow once people start crossreferencing posts from other subtreads.

As you mention, linear boards work but they need heavy moderation. Do they work as well as reddit or stack exchange style? I prefer linear style, that's for sure, but i think it is ultimately context dependent. Q&A stuff works best with Stack Exchange style. I think Reddit vs Linear tends to have merits on a topic by topic basis rather than one having a large set of positives one way or another. Ultimately, board community and moderation is far more important than the exact board style used.

Discourse tried to also adopt the linear style, but with upvotes, and highly upvoted power users getting mod tools and that... ended poorly.

It's not really relevant at the end of the day anyway, it's not like there's a button in whatever cursed late 2000s version of vBulletin we're using to make upvote-style threads.

Last edited by Jragon; 12-03-2019 at 04:16 PM.
  #353  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:16 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't understand how their very existence is offensive.
You don't have to understand. You just have to believe it's true that for some people, they really are.
  #354  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:21 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Reddit's models has its own problems.
Very true, and I didn't mean to advocate that SDMB move to a Reddit system. Crowd-sourced moderation leads to hive-thought (hi octopus!) and I never even bother looking at usernames over there because there's no continuity of thought or dialog. But it doesn't mean it's not worth considering the benefits while we work through our own struggles. If we're going to stick with the linear format (which I agree with you, we should out of both preference and technological necessity), we need to come up with some other way to solve the problems inherent to the format.
  #355  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:26 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You don't have to understand. You just have to believe it's true that for some people, they really are.
This came up during the misogyny issue a couple months ago. I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.

~Max
  #356  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:26 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by margin View Post
I'd like to think that if I point out how utterly dishonest this is, it would be regarded as fair.

I SAID that if ANYBODY should have a curfew, it should be men. Is that clear?

You are doing that thing where you mock people who are trying to make a point that you really don't want to get made.
I am trying not to mock you, given recent history.

And your point is clear - but I disagree with it.

The purpose of the thread is to discuss Disputation on the SDMB. You apparently think that advocating for curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming and shouldn't be allowed. You apparently think, however, that advocating curfews for men is allowable. (Otherwise, presumably, you wouldn't have posted it.)

I disagree that either position, curfews for 11 year olds or curfews for men, harms disputation on the SDMB. I would allow both to be discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva
There is much that needs adjusting here. Everyone needs to be less judgmental, less aggressive, less inclined to condemn. There needs to be genuine social discourse. The entire idea about this place to begin with was that this would be a place where we could talk about damn near everything. More and more it's a place where we can't talk about anything.
I agree with this, especially the part about being able to talk about damn near everything.

If the SDMB decides that we can't have "genuine social discourse" on rape or misogyny or gender or race or whatever, then ISTM that "the entire idea about this place" is being abandoned, not furthered. And I think that would be a shame.

Maybe we need to be more respectful of each other on the Dope. It does not seem to me to be disrespectful to say that eleven year olds need supervision.

Regards,
Shodan
  #357  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:32 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This came up during the misogyny issue a couple months ago. I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.

~Max
I would challenge you to identify your biggest insecurity, then pretend that society in general doesn't approve of that thing you're insecure about, and then pretend that you stumble in a thread where someone is attacking that thing. Even if you ultimately overcome your personal insecurity, do you want to rehash that struggle over and over again? Do you want to convince someone why that thing you used to feel bad about isn't actually bad, even in the interest of "fighting ignorance?" Do you want to do that over and over again?

You may be having a hard time with this because it hasn't happened organically. (Some) gay people grew up hating themselves for being gay because society said they were bad, and they tried to pray the gay away, and failed, and eventually spent years coming to terms with who they were and not feeling shitty about it. And then (some) of them came on the straight dope and had to convince people that they were right not to feel shitty about themselves. Can you imagine how awful that must be?

I don't know about you, but I'm fortunate that I've never had to experience anything like that.
  #358  
Old 12-03-2019, 04:41 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Even if you ultimately overcome your personal insecurity, do you want to rehash that struggle over and over again? Do you want to convince someone why that thing you used to feel bad about isn't actually bad, even in the interest of "fighting ignorance?" Do you want to do that over and over again?
No, I do not. And I do not see why I would have to if that were made into the topic of threads here. As I said before, I would ignore those threads. I am under no obligation to fight ignorance on topics that I am especially distressed by.

If someone made a topic such as, "is it selfish to commit suicide"? I would not drop in to make an argument. I don't even have suicide attempts in my history, but that's something I can understand being frustrated about.

Actually, I might ask for that topic to be shut down as provoking harm. Depression over feeling selfish can feed into suicidal tendencies. Telling a suicidal person that it isn't selfish may be used to justify their suicide attempt. I'm not sure what good can come of such a discussion; chances are, somebody who feels suicidal will come across the thread and then we risk having blood on our hands.

Maybe you can stick a wedge into this and convince me that other topics are unworthy of discussion. Kudos to you for making me think.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-03-2019 at 04:43 PM.
  #359  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:56 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You don't have to understand. You just have to believe it's true that for some people, they really are.
And we should ignore those people. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance. If someone doesn't want to fight ignorance or is incapable of it, fine. Nobody is making them participate. But others want to participate. And if the mere existence of that conversation causes so much discomfort that they want to disappear it or they'll flounce, then flounce away. I wish them the best of luck with their problem and hope it's treatable.
  #360  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You apparently think that advocating for curfews for 11 year olds is slut-shaming and shouldn't be allowed.
That is not remotely apparent. In fact, given her words here, it's blindingly obvious that this is an incorrect reading of her beliefs. Please recognize that you fail on occasion to understand the arguments put forth by people whose political beliefs don't align with yours.
  #361  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:16 PM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
In the Pit, yes, but I am agreeing, lets get rid of the Pit.
Hell maybe just get rid of everything downstream of GD (or maybe elections).
  #362  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:59 PM
DocCathode's Avatar
DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philladelphia-Mummer city
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And we should ignore those people. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance. If someone doesn't want to fight ignorance or is incapable of it, fine. Nobody is making them participate. But others want to participate. And if the mere existence of that conversation causes so much discomfort that they want to disappear it or they'll flounce, then flounce away. I wish them the best of luck with their problem and hope it's treatable.
We're not talking about "fighting ignorance". We're talking about racism and other forms of bigotry and hatred hiding behind scientific-sounding words and politeness.

The Bell Curve has been throroughly debunked. How many times do we need posters claiming it is legitimate science and proves blacks are inferior?

I'm NOT saying we can't discuss race, or sexual orientation etc. I'm saying we can discuss these topic if we are honestly trying to fight ignorance.
  #363  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:09 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
People really need to get over the board's stupid tagline. This is a forum where people have ideological slapfights and occasionally answer factual questions in a forum whose good reponses come from maybe 6 posters with very narrow specialties, and is increasingly eclipsed by Ask<X> subreddits, the Stack Exhchange network, and educational Youtube channels or Discord servers. This dead forum is not even in the top 20 places on the internet to go if you want to make people change their minds or help them learn about the world. Just say you like arguing because you view the opposition as ignorant, I'm not gonna tell on you, pinky promise.

At best some people like me are trying to do damage control so the trolls and bigots aren't the only voices around saying shit about people, an endeavor I'm increasingly convinced is pointless given the board's low number of users and inflexibility of the users. I guess at best you may "fight ignorance" by giving already sympathetic posters slightly more nuanced views.

Last edited by Jragon; 12-03-2019 at 07:13 PM.
  #364  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:12 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
..

The title of the thread is Disputation and the Straight Dope Message Board. I assume we all agree that misogyny and slut-shaming are detrimental to disputation here. Thus the question - does it help, or hurt, disputation on the SDMB to class advocating curfews for 11 year olds as slut-shaming? IMO it hurts, and is more an example of IMO describing the 2011 thread as 'a bunch of guys getting together to slut-shame an 11 year old' or alleging that anyone defended the rapists or that the rapists were anything but condemned in the harshest possible terms, does not help disputation on the SDMB. And therefore IMO that thread is a good example of something that should not be outlawed, or sanctioned in any way.
...
I do have to admit that several of those posts are questionable, and might be Modded today in 2019/20. OTOH, quite a few of those posters have been Banned, so there's that.

But in general the tone of that thread is condemnation of the rapists, and some trying to understand how the fuck that could be happening.
  #365  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:28 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.[/I]
Huh. How do you reconcile that statement with this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Now let me say this- I am a male, and hetero. The male body, no matter how good looking, does not excite me at all. But I have had several short relationships with transgendered female-types, and there was no problem with my libido- "Mr. Happy" got the "Female" message, not the Male message.
So which is true, DrDeth?

Last edited by Fenris; 12-03-2019 at 07:29 PM.
  #366  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:36 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Huh. How do you reconcile that statement with this one:



So which is true, DrDeth?
The former was a quote of kambuckta:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Nobody has said this is not a big deal, in fact the opposite that this is a VERY big deal.

Nobody has said that the little girl's behaviour caused or mitigates the culpability of the men involved.

Nobody is attacking the child who was raped.

You are wilfully misrepresenting what people are actually saying in this thread.

Cut it out.

Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.
~Max
  #367  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:38 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I do have to admit that several of those posts are questionable, and might be Modded today in 2019/20. OTOH, quite a few of those posters have been Banned, so there's that.

But in general the tone of that thread is condemnation of the rapists, and some trying to understand how the fuck that could be happening.
You can say you condemn rapists but also make arguments that end up producing and shielding them, or harming the victim hth

Last edited by Jragon; 12-03-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #368  
Old 12-03-2019, 07:39 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
People really need to get over the board's stupid tagline. This is a forum where people have ideological slapfights and occasionally answer factual questions in a forum whose good reponses come from maybe 6 posters with very narrow specialties, and is increasingly eclipsed by Ask<X> subreddits, the Stack Exhchange network, and educational Youtube channels or Discord servers.
That's just not why I come here.

~Max
  #369  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:11 PM
Fenris's Avatar
Fenris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 13,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The former was a quote of kambuckta:~Max
Oops. My apologies to DrDeth.
  #370  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
Claiming that a poster is sealioning isn't a 'direct personal insult' any more than accusations of 'ad hominem' and 'straw man' arguments, which happen all the time. The note was for being snarky.
Implying that someone is fearful is a direct insult but calling someone "a sea lion" iddn't. Oh bullshit.

It is a very stupid insult mostly usually called out by those who feel they can use it to avoid actually engaging in discussion or are unable to defend their positions.

But it is clearly an insult and a worse one that saying that someone is afraid.
  #371  
Old 12-03-2019, 08:38 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think it would be a better approach if we addressed the bad faith directly. Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

~Max
And how do you determine if the question and responses are posted in bad faith if you always give posters the benefit of the doubt? This is a serious question.
  #372  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:15 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This came up during the misogyny issue a couple months ago. I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.

~Max
Our loss, I suppose.
  #373  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This came up during the misogyny issue a couple months ago. I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.

~Max
Seriously, why? There are times that despite my best efforts to put myself in any specific "their" place I cannot understand what being in their place is like. I can still appreciate that their lived experience is as they report it to be and do a reasoned best to be respectful of it.

Now that does not mean that I automatically believe that the individual speaks for anyone else, let alone most of, let alone all of, any specific group or class, or that the individual's feelings automatically counts more than anything else. But I do need to consider that they do speak for more than just themselves as individuals and that their experience, even if it something that I cannot understand, may be shared by some significant number of others. Being considerate to others sensitivities even if we don't understand the reasons for the sensitivity, even if we can't imagine ourselves in that place, is simply the right thing to do. Advocating that others not be rude in that context is also something I'd think you could sign on to.

Larry Borgia, yes it would be.

Last edited by DSeid; 12-03-2019 at 09:41 PM.
  #374  
Old 12-03-2019, 10:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Huh. How do you reconcile that statement with this one:



So which is true, DrDeth?
Read it:


kambuckta replied: ....
Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.
  #375  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:19 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bye NYC hello Chicagoland
Posts: 19,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
Oops. My apologies to DrDeth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Read it:


kambuckta replied: ....
Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.
He already apologized
  #376  
Old 12-03-2019, 11:43 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.
So are you saying you don't believe people when they say these things are offensive, or that them being offended just isn't enough, and only your offense counts (as in the case of a suicide thread)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And we should ignore those people.
I'm going to start a thread on how Jews really wanted the Holocaust so they could get Israel out of it. Should that thread just be ignored?

Then I'm going to start one on how White people are failed genetic experiments by the Black scientist Yakub, which you can tell by their shrivelled penises. Should that thread also just be ignored?
Quote:
This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance.
No, it really isn't, any more than Coke adds life or Google is not evil.
Quote:
I wish them the best of luck with their problem and hope it's treatable.
The problem isn't with the people being offended, it's with the people offending. The proper treatment for that is pretty obvious, and it isn't "allow them to offend as much as they'd like".
  #377  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:23 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
He already apologized
Yes, I read and reply in order.
  #378  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:35 AM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The problem isn't with the people being offended, it's with the people offending. The proper treatment for that is pretty obvious, and it isn't "allow them to offend as much as they'd like".
The issue is whether being offended is a reasonable reaction and whether, even if it is, someone's being offended is sufficient cause to shut down discussion. Being offended in and of itself is meaningless, people get offended all the time. In all but the most extreme examples that's just part of life, especially in a free society where people can largely say or do what they wish. Generally speaking, your offense in such a society is your problem. It's part of living in a society among other humans with their own rights to express themselves in a manner which may very well cause offense.

Do you feel the need, for example, to cater to a racist offended by the very presence of a person of another race or do you discount it entirely as an unreasonable reaction? Or would you even go further and act or speak in a manner which may cause a racist even greater offense without regard at all to their feelings? See, sometimes the problem is with the offended person and not the purported offender. I think you know this but you just want one standard for yourself and people you agree with and another for everyone else.

So let someone go ahead and make your hypothetical threads about the Holocaust or Yakub or whatever so the inherent illogic and stupidity of such ideas can be exposed. I'd be "offended" in one sense not because I'm white (so very white, like in a kinda sad way) or have some Jewish ancestry but by the existence of such stupidity, whether directed at me or not. But I'm not offended in the sense of undertaking some grand moral crusade because I just don't really give a shit what such people think and choose to go on with my life as if it doesn't affect me, because it really doesn't in any meaningful way unless I choose to let it.
  #379  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:48 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
The issue is whether being offended is a reasonable reaction and whether, even if it is, someone's being offended is sufficient cause to shut down discussion. Being offended in and of itself is meaningless, people get offended all the time. In all but the most extreme examples that's just part of life, especially in a free society where people can largely say or do what they wish. Generally speaking, your offense in such a society is your problem. It's part of living in a society among other humans with their own rights to express themselves in a manner which may very well cause offense.

Do you feel the need, for example, to cater to a racist offended by the very presence of a person of another race or do you discount it entirely as an unreasonable reaction? Or would you even go further and act or speak in a manner which may cause a racist even greater offense without regard at all to their feelings? See, sometimes the problem is with the offended person and not the purported offender. I think you know this but you just want one standard for yourself and people you agree with and another for everyone else.

So let someone go ahead and make your hypothetical threads about the Holocaust or Yakub or whatever so the inherent illogic and stupidity of such ideas can be exposed. I'd be "offended" in one sense not because I'm white (so very white, like in a kinda sad way) or have some Jewish ancestry but by the existence of such stupidity, whether directed at me or not. But I'm not offended in the sense of undertaking some grand moral crusade because I just don't really give a shit what such people think and choose to go on with my life as if it doesn't affect me, because it really doesn't in any meaningful way unless I choose to let it.
I found it. The world's most privileged post.

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

And "step up and bring your heinous ideas, that we may debunk them" only works if everyone is coming to the table in good faith. It's a dangerous fucking game because, sure, best case you utterly humiliate them, but worst case they disseminate their message and gain new recruits. Turns out there they didn't care if their argument got demolished, they just wanted to hand out metaphorical pamphlets to onlookers who may be interested.
  #380  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:19 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
The issue is whether being offended is a reasonable reaction
The answer, in the case of racism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, is "Yes"
Quote:
and whether, even if it is, someone's being offended is sufficient cause to shut down discussion.
Yes, that is in fact the discussion we're having. Well spotted.
Quote:
Do you feel the need, for example, to cater to a racist offended by the very presence of a person of another race or do you discount it entirely as an unreasonable reaction? Or would you even go further and act or speak in a manner which may cause a racist even greater offense without regard at all to their feelings? See, sometimes the problem is with the offended person and not the purported offender.
Well, there we have it.

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

Not enough in the world for such an idiotic notion.
  #381  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:06 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I think you know this but you just want one standard for yourself and people you agree with and another for everyone else.
Yes. That is exactly what I want.

Of course, on this one, the group "people I agree with" is the same as "people who think racism is offensive", and "everyone else" is "racists and people who apparently aren't offended by racism even a little bit", so I am happy to embrace this double standard. Ecstatic, even.

It's a very avant garde stance, I know.

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-04-2019 at 03:09 AM.
  #382  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:38 AM
Calavera's Avatar
Calavera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Read it:


kambuckta replied: ....
Oh, and FTR, I'm a woman, and I know plenty of male shrieking harpies too. Idiocy on this scale knows no gender boundaries it seems.
Learn to quote properly.
  #383  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:10 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
And how do you determine if the question and responses are posted in bad faith if you always give posters the benefit of the doubt? This is a serious question.
I don't always give posters the benefit of the doubt. I might do so initially, but I'm not going to bend over backwards and ignore clear signs of bad faith. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to give examples here, but I am sure that at least once I have publicly articulated exactly where and why I stopped giving a poster the benefit of the doubt on some question.

~Max
  #384  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:27 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Seriously, why? There are times that despite my best efforts to put myself in any specific "their" place I cannot understand what being in their place is like. I can still appreciate that their lived experience is as they report it to be and do a reasoned best to be respectful of it.
I don't need to understand someone's experience or agree with their position to "understand" it. The problem is that I am unconvinced by appeals to consequence. That kind of argument isn't usually persuasive to me, especially if the consequence itself contradicts some premise that I hold to be true. I mentioned this a couple weeks ago in the concurrent misogyny thread:
SPOILER:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think what you are saying is that women who leave the board come to this point, throw up their hands, and walk away. That's the particular response that I think, so much worse for the women.

There are two alternatives, in my opinion. One, you can outlaw the sort of posts in question. Two, you can address the post directly.

The former option is the easy way out, but I think it is contrary to the mission of this place. By all accounts the man in question is ignorant if he argues in good faith while still being demonstrably wrong. The stated purpose of this message board is to fight ignorance, so why would we outlaw ignorant posts? To outlaw ignorant posts because they make people so uncomfortable that they leave the board? I mean, we can do that, it's within the staff's rights. But I think to do so would be contrary to the purpose of the board. IMO, of course.

The latter option has the benefit of fighting ignorance, or at least attempting to. The drawback is that it is an endless uphill battle. But, again, fighting ignorance is a never-ending uphill battle. It's taking longer than we thought.

Just my thoughts.

~Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Let's assume that under the current set of rules, the board will turn into an echo chamber of misogynists. That it is impossible to entertain unwitting misogynist arguments, made from ignorance but in good faith, without driving out everybody else and removing the capacity to address those arguments.

I also take it as a premise that it is impossible to fight ignorance without addressing it - entertaining the ignorant arguments.

Therefore, it is impossible to fight ignorance that takes the form of misogyny. Would you agree? I don't.

~Max

So I am thinking here, perhaps there is some other form of argument. Maybe there is a different appeal to consequence that I am persuaded by. I don't know everything, my opinion isn't set in stone, after all. Maybe there's a flaw in my rebuttal and someone can point that out.

But absent something like that, it's very much "let's add rule X because some people say we should" or "because of [invalid argument]". And that's a no-go for me.

~Max
  #385  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:46 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So are you saying you don't believe people when they say these things are offensive, or that them being offended just isn't enough, and only your offense counts (as in the case of a suicide thread)?
I believe people who say they are offended. That people are offended is not enough to change my opinion on anything except whether or not people are offended. I need to know what specifically they are offended by, and why (doesn't have to be specific) they are offended. Then I can determine, for myself, whether or not it would be appropriate to take some sort of action that addresses the offender.

For example, a homosexual might see a number of threads where people argue that homosexuality is immoral. This might make them uncomfortable because they do not like being exposed to other people calling them or their traits immoral. Said homosexual then comes to ATMB and asks for a ban on topics that question the morality of homosexuality, because it makes them uncomfortable, because they do not like being exposed to other people calling them or their traits immoral.

I am not convinced by such an argument. I don't think this board should be a safe place for people who do not like being exposed to other people with different or even offensive views. If those views are wrong or ignorant then the mission of this board is to [ETA: provide a place where people can] combat them with sound reasoning.

The counter to my rebuttal is that such threads are made in bad faith. The posters there aren't interested in debate, they only wish to spread propaganda and hope to win people over by sheer exposure. My response is to combat bad faith in its own right, not to institute a ban on sensitive topics.

Another counter is that even if we are only considering good faith posters, homosexuals will just give up and leave the board, and so will women and other minorities. The board will turn into an echo chamber and then it will really be impossible to fight ignorance. My response is that this leads to the absurd conclusion that it is impossible to fight ignorance, see the spoiler in my previous post. As such, I must reject the counterargument.

That's my read of the situation here.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-04-2019 at 11:50 AM.
  #386  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think this board should be a safe place for people who do not like being exposed to other people with different or even offensive views
So, as per your own earlier example, people at risk for suicide should also just suck it up if someone is advocating it as the best solution to their problems, no?
  #387  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:57 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So, as per your own earlier example, people at risk for suicide should also just suck it up if someone is advocating it as the best solution to their problems, no?
No, advocating suicide is advocating harm which is wrong and outlawed in its own capacity.

I really do hope you keep pushing this line of thought and change my mind. I've been trying to and it hasn't worked so far.

~Max
  #388  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocCathode View Post
As much as I usually hate "ditto!" and "QFT" and "this!" posts, I wish more lurkers in this thread would let those fighting the good fight know that they are heard, agreed with and supported.
Yowp. Several days when I couldn't get it the time to more than glance at this thread; and now I'm going to wind up producing the sort of post in response that some people won't even read. And while I'm composing it probably a dozen other posts will intervene. Oh well; here goes anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
does it help, or hurt, disputation on the SDMB to class advocating curfews for 11 year olds as slut-shaming?
Context.

In a thread about child-raising, discussing curfews for 11-year-olds in general and presumably of any gender, of course it wouldn't be.

In a thread specifically about the rape of an 11 year old, of course it is. It's shifting blame to the child, or at best to the parents, as if the fact of a person's being vulnerable means that others are entitled to take advantage of the vulnerability.

And some 11 year olds are raped in their own houses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think it's necessarily victim blaming to think that wearing a short skirt is "asking for it". I haven't seen the X-Files so the reference is lost on me entirely. Asking to be raped? assaulted? harassed? That's victim blaming. Asking for people to look at your legs? Not victim blaming.
I have never seen the X-Files. Nobody needs to have seen the X-Files, or any other single specific cultural reference, to have run into "asking for it" in the sense of 'asking to have sex with anybody who sees you, including in the form of rape'. It's all over the place in this culture; has been for all of my life.

And wearing a short skirt isn't 'asking people to look at your legs', either. It's often 'this is comfortable clothing on a hot day.' Sometimes it's 'this is what's in style and I might be teased, or not promoted, if I don't look stylish'. Sometimes it's just 'this is what was clean in the closet today'. It's very rarely 'I want to be leered at.'




Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
The message board/bulletin board format is limited in its usefulness, and people have been trying to fix it since the Usenet days. Slashdot's moderation system was developed to address this 20 years ago, and since then we've seen many attempts to improve that system, most notably at this point, Reddit.
Every form of human communication is limited in its usefulness. It's vitally important that humans try to communicate anyway.

I find Reddit nearly unusable. Any sort of protracted detailed conversation is difficult to follow. It's impossible to get any sense of a community of people across different topics, because every topic is its own separate group with its own separate rules. It's possible to find specific topics one already knows one's interested in, but next to impossible to notice 'here's person whose other posts I like posting about something I never heard of, maybe I'm interested in that?'

And I'm highly dubious about the upvote technique being useful for this sort of problem. A handful of bigoted posters, for instance, could easily upvote each other's posts enough to keep them from being buried -- and could even have them at the top, looking relatively highly praised, if those on the board who are bothered by such posts take the advice we keep being given to just ignore those threads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't understand how their very existence is offensive.

No, really.

I've brought this up before, but if someone made a thread claiming that they are the only person who exists (a form of solipsism), I would not be offended. If someone told me to my face that they think I and those of my religion are going to hell, I don't become irate, I just think that they are misguided. When someone tells me, to my face, that my race is inferior and deserves to be rid from the face of the earth, the primary emotion I feel is one of pity for the person in front of me.

If someone were to say they wish harm to me or my loved ones personally, or if there is an actual threat, then I get angry.
I'm going to guess that you didn't have a large number of your relatives murdered by bigotry a handful of years before you were born.

And that you don't know anyone murdered by bigotry this year, or last year, or any of the years before.

But don't you read the news?

Bigotry is dangerous. It isn't just dangerous in the abstract. It isn't just dangerous historically. It isn't just dangerous to a couple of people a year, somewhere far away, who nobody on this board happens to know. When someone tells me that people of my heritage are inferior and deserve to be rid from the face of the earth: they are saying they wish harm to me and my loved ones. When people say that people of any social group are inferior and deserve to be rid from the face ot the earth: they are saying they wish harm to my loved ones, or my loved one's loved ones, and also that they may well be coming after me next. When people say that people of any social group don't even exist, they're saying that those people shouldn't be on the face of the earth.

And, as a matter of plain fact, people die because of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You don't have to understand. You just have to believe it's true that for some people, they really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do have to understand, or I won't be on board.
You're never going to fully understand everything about people who are significantly different from you. What you need to understand is that there are people who are significantly different from you.

I very much doubt that I understand what it's like to be trans. I don't have to. What I need to understand is that trans people exist; and ought not to be disrespected for existing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
And we should ignore those people. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance.
How are you going to fight ignorance by ignoring people?

Which question, of course, you can easily turn around. But why should the people objecting to bigotry be the ones to be ignored, while the bigots should be paid attention to?

What we're talking about here, AIUI, is how to fight ignorance of a particular type. I'm not entirely clear, in my own mind, to what extent we should ban particular language, let alone particular topics. But I'm fairly sure that 'we need to keep endlessly debating everything as if everything were a serious position which it's reasonable to hold' is creating problems.
  #389  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:55 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
No, advocating suicide is advocating harm which is wrong and outlawed in its own capacity.
Why should that matter? You're acting as though the inherent harm in suicide is a settled matter (which - several governments disagree about. ) not worth debating any more.

Or are you talking about the rules of this board? Because this thread is about those rules, pointing to the current rules is a non-starter.

And anyway, for consistency with your own argument, surely you must admit there could be ignorance on the part of suicide advocates that could best be fought by debating them, not silencing them?
  #390  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Why should that matter? You're acting as though the inherent harm in suicide is a settled matter (which - several governments disagree about. ) not worth debating any more.
Yes, right, I am assuming that it is inherently off the table to encourage suicide on these boards. I don't really have an opinion about assisted death but I am definitely against advocating general suicide on a medium like this, where we don't have access to verifiable facts about the person involved, and we can't physically restrain them if they attempt suicide mid-sentence.

ETA: Not only are there moral dilemmas, but there are legal issues as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
And anyway, for consistency with your own argument, surely you must admit there could be ignorance on the part of suicide advocates that could best be fought by debating them, not silencing them?
In my opinion any such benefit is outweighed by the risk of immediate and tragic harm.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-04-2019 at 01:11 PM.
  #391  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:35 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I have never seen the X-Files. Nobody needs to have seen the X-Files, or any other single specific cultural reference, to have run into "asking for it" in the sense of 'asking to have sex with anybody who sees you, including in the form of rape'. It's all over the place in this culture; has been for all of my life.

And wearing a short skirt isn't 'asking people to look at your legs', either. It's often 'this is comfortable clothing on a hot day.' Sometimes it's 'this is what's in style and I might be teased, or not promoted, if I don't look stylish'. Sometimes it's just 'this is what was clean in the closet today'. It's very rarely 'I want to be leered at.'
Yes, I had a pretty good idea about that but qualified my post just in case. The reason I treat looking at legs differently than sexual assault is because I personally see one as normal behavior and the other as not. By "asking for" I don't mean the woman literally wants people to look at her legs, just that she ought to know that going out without pants will result in people looking at your legs. Looking at people's legs is not inherently wrong (in my opinion), I mean it can be overdone like anything else but that's different. I'm not saying she is asking for her coworkers to peer over the cubicle licking their lips, that goes far beyond looking. I know girls who are terribly embarrassed when people look at their legs. I don't think it's victim-blaming to advise them not to wear miniskirts (there's better advice, obviously). There's no victim in that situation.

Something like rape, by contrast, is inherently wrong. If you haven't noticed, I'm approaching this from a deontological perspective. Even if it were the case that statistically, wearing miniskirts increases the risk of rape (false to my knowledge), under no circumstances can someone make that general correlation into a blame-shifting causation without blaming the victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
When someone tells me that people of my heritage are inferior and deserve to be rid from the face of the earth: they are saying they wish harm to me and my loved ones.
That is certainly possible, but it does not follow. It is possible for me to wish group X simply disappeared while also being a pacifist. For example, it is possible that an American last century wanted to eradicate the black population in this country, yet still wished no harm upon them (see, Liberia). It is possible that some people wanted the Native Americans out of their towns but did not go so far as to wish harm upon them.

Of course, there are always people who want both removal and harm. Those people have no place here. But not everybody is like that, and if you are basing board policy on the assumption that bigots want to hurt minorities, I might not agree with that policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
What you need to understand is that there are people who are significantly different from you.
Understood, recognized, acknowledged, and agreed with.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-04-2019 at 01:37 PM. Reason: victim, not witness
  #392  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:53 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Context.

In a thread about child-raising, discussing curfews for 11-year-olds in general and presumably of any gender, of course it wouldn't be.

In a thread specifically about the rape of an 11 year old, of course it is. It's shifting blame to the child, or at best to the parents, as if the fact of a person's being vulnerable means that others are entitled to take advantage of the vulnerability.
No, it doesn't mean that. The fact that the parents did not impose a curfew, and especially that they allowed their eleven year old daughter to "date" a nineteen year old, does not shift any blame onto the eleven year old. Does it shift blame onto the parents? Hell yes, it does, and rightly so.

"What in bloody hell were you thinking?" is a perfectly valid question when directed at a mother or father who, when a nineteen year old shows up at the door and wants to "date" your eleven year old, lets it happen.

Nobody expects an eleven year old to make consistently wise decisions. Because they're eleven years old. That's why they need parents - and why those parents had better have two brain cells to rub together and see if they can strike a spark.

Regards,
Shodan
  #393  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:55 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, right, I am assuming that it is inherently off the table to encourage suicide on these boards.
What about a discussion that you see as clearly advocating/encouraging suicide, but other posters (including mods) seeing as merely discussing a hypothetical or a point of statistics?
Quote:
In my opinion any such benefit is outweighed by the risk of immediate and tragic harm.
And you think advocating misogyny, transphobia, racism carries no risk of immediate harm?

Are you aware of the suicide rates for LGBT youth? Or the clearly established link between discrimination and suicide ideation in Black youth?

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-04-2019 at 02:59 PM.
  #394  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:22 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
That is certainly possible, but it does not follow. It is possible for me to wish group X simply disappeared while also being a pacifist. For example, it is possible that an American last century wanted to eradicate the black population in this country, yet still wished no harm upon them (see, Liberia). It is possible that some people wanted the Native Americans out of their towns but did not go so far as to wish harm upon them.

Of course, there are always people who want both removal and harm. Those people have no place here. But not everybody is like that, and if you are basing board policy on the assumption that bigots want to hurt minorities, I might not agree with that policy.
Forced removal is harm. It doesn't matter whether it's dragging screaming families out their houses in the middle of the night and sticking them on cattle cars, passing restrictive covenants based on skin color that have the power of law, or low level aggression & prejudice to make members of a group feel uncomfortable. It's harm. People advocating it are advocating harm as much as those advocating stringing them up.
  #395  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:57 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Forced removal is harm. It doesn't matter whether it's dragging screaming families out their houses in the middle of the night and sticking them on cattle cars, passing restrictive covenants based on skin color that have the power of law, or low level aggression & prejudice to make members of a group feel uncomfortable. It's harm. People advocating it are advocating harm as much as those advocating stringing them up.
It is also possible to be a bigot who wishes people of color would go away, yet still be against forced removal. Or to support the establishment of Native American reserves, but decry the Trail of Tears.

~Max
  #396  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:03 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 727
Beep beep boop!
  #397  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:37 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
What about a discussion that you see as clearly advocating/encouraging suicide, but other posters (including mods) seeing as merely discussing a hypothetical or a point of statistics?
I would start an ATMB thread to understand why I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
And you think advocating misogyny, transphobia, racism carries no risk of immediate harm?
No I don't, and emphasis on immediate. Directly advocating suicide, which is harm by definition, is different than advocating for some position that is linked to harm in some statistical and societal sense.

~Max
  #398  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:41 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It is also possible to be a bigot who wishes people of color would go away, yet still be against forced removal. Or to support the establishment of Native American reserves, but decry the Trail of Tears.

~Max
You're trying to desperately find some platonic idea of "racist who is not dangerous" and like... why? Like why is it worth it to you to try and find an example of a... I can't even find the words to describe it... worthwhile racist viewpoint? Non-violent one?

People don't exist in some weird vacuum of opinion. People who want PoC to go away have other viewpoints that reinforce that belief. Why do they want people of color to go away? How may they treat PoC around them? Will they give them worst service if they come to where they work? They probably support policies that clamp down on PoC because the viewpoints that want them to leave also make them think they're violent/thiefs/rapists/whatever.

Peoples opinions don't exist independent of their world view, and the world view that causes people to "not want <X> type of person around them" generally, in the real world, entails other beliefs and actions that are harmful.

And also like reservations are like... inherently violent? Even without forced relocation they were straight up an admission by the US government of "you have no sovereign hold over your traditional land or governance structure, so we're going to pseudo-sanction a small postage stamp of land for 5-6 different tribes that lets you have some degree of illusory autonomy on our own terms." Note that tribes were forced to share the same lands, often tribes with mutually unintellagble languages and vastly different cultural customs or traditional governing structures. Tribes that were traditionally nomadic forced into small areas of land where nomadism can't be done and sharing it with tribes who had sedentary ruling structures.

The US has tried to dissolve the reservations before, or at least declare the US government "wouldn't support them" anymore. For instance the Indian termination policy.

Forcing tribes together, grouping them in a way that changes their governance structures and erasing their cultural traditions, forcing them to live in a government-sanctioned location without their own country with full autonomy if they want to continue their millenia old nations, and all that? That's violence. It's violence with a smile. It's violence under the guise of being gracious and magnanimous.

Last edited by Jragon; 12-04-2019 at 04:42 PM.
  #399  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:48 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
You're trying to desperately find some platonic idea of "racist who is not dangerous" and like... why? Like why is it worth it to you to try and find an example of a... I can't even find the words to describe it... worthwhile racist viewpoint? Non-violent one?
Why do I want to welcome bigots who aren't bad people? Who only happen to be ignorant? Who actually stand a chance of being reasoned out of their bigoted views?

I live among these people. They aren't bad people, at least not all of them. These are your fellow human beings, whether you live in the U.S. or any other state with bigots. They aren't all lost causes.

Apparently you don't believe in the tagline, but I do, and fighting ignorance is the explicit reason that I am here on these boards. Be it someone else's ignorance, or my own...

~Max
  #400  
Old 12-04-2019, 05:02 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The reason I treat looking at legs differently than sexual assault is because I personally see one as normal behavior and the other as not. By "asking for" I don't mean the woman literally wants people to look at her legs, just that she ought to know that going out without pants will result in people looking at your legs. Looking at people's legs is not inherently wrong (in my opinion), I mean it can be overdone like anything else but that's different. I'm not saying she is asking for her coworkers to peer over the cubicle licking their lips, that goes far beyond looking. I know girls who are terribly embarrassed when people look at their legs. I don't think it's victim-blaming to advise them not to wear miniskirts (there's better advice, obviously). There's no victim in that situation.
Going out without pants will result in people seeing your legs, yes. Nobody's expecting everybody to go around with some sort of blinders that prevent the viewing of legs. Looking at legs in such a fashion that it's noticeable to others that you're looking specifically at legs, and not at the person in general, is another matter entirely. If the "girls" you know (are they all minors?) are terribly embarrassed by having people look at their legs, it's almost certainly because the people in question are staring at their legs, not just casually noticing them on the way by. It's not polite to stare at people in general. It's proper in some situations to be looking directly at a particular person, rather than generally and casually around the room or the sidewalk or whatever, but in most of those situations one is suppose to be looking at the face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
That is certainly possible, but it does not follow. It is possible for me to wish group X simply disappeared while also being a pacifist. For example, it is possible that an American last century wanted to eradicate the black population in this country, yet still wished no harm upon them (see, Liberia). It is possible that some people wanted the Native Americans out of their towns but did not go so far as to wish harm upon them.

Of course, there are always people who want both removal and harm. Those people have no place here. But not everybody is like that, and if you are basing board policy on the assumption that bigots want to hurt minorities, I might not agree with that policy.
The result of bigotry is harm to the persons who are targeted by it.

The result of attempting to forcibly move all black people who were in the USA in the 1900's or the 1800's to Liberia would have been to do harm to many of them, even if not all those who wanted to do so wanted to think of it that way. The result of some people in the Americas wanting Native Americans out of their towns did a great deal of harm.

Wanting entire categories of people to just disappear is to wish harm upon them.

In addition, while there may be some bigots who are deluding themselves into thinking that it's possible to want all the people they disagree with to not exist, or to want them to exist but Somewhere Else, or to want them to exist but only as second or third class citizens, without that doing them any harm: bigotry in general also encourages the people who do actively want to do harm. Again, don't you read the news?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, it doesn't mean that. The fact that the parents did not impose a curfew, and especially that they allowed their eleven year old daughter to "date" a nineteen year old, does not shift any blame onto the eleven year old. Does it shift blame onto the parents? Hell yes, it does, and rightly so. n
There may be blame applicable to the parents. But shifting blame onto the parents is still a distraction from placing blame on the rapist. And it comes across way too much as 'well of course an 11 year old girl isn't safe outside her own house, that's just the way people should expect the world to be!'

ETA: Just saw this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It is also possible to be a bigot who wishes people of color would go away, yet still be against forced removal. Or to support the establishment of Native American reserves, but decry the Trail of Tears.

~Max
No. It may be possible to claim that one supports the separation of Native Americans onto reserves away from their homelands, but decries the Trail of Tears but the Trail of Tears was an essential part of the policy. You can't force people out without forcing them out. You can't force people out without harming them.

Last edited by thorny locust; 12-04-2019 at 05:06 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.

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