Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old Today, 08:32 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Sigh. How often do we have to keep repeating that this has nothing to do with what we like or don't like?

This isn't a preference. This isn't a disagreement. We are talking about bigotry. Bigotry is a moral wrong. Ignoring a moral wrong by not participating is not how you deal with it.

It's also 2019. No one would be bringing up such blatant issues because they legitimately didn't know they are bigoted. At best, they are bringing it up to troll. More likely, the goal is to spread hate and bigotry, to make this place seem unwelcoming and to monopolize people's energy fighting them. It's also usually an attempt to hijack a topic and make it about that.

If we ignore it, then the bigotry remains unchallenged, and that's even worse. So we wind up having to fight it. And that fighting opens up more excuses for them to post bigotry and try to get away with it. They get to move onto another tactic of seeming to be unflappable while making others angry, which creates the aesthetic that they are right. It actually helps their ideas spread further than just those who already agreed with them. And it helps cement the persecution fetish.

The problem is that allowing this bigotry on this board is itself harmful. It may have merit when it's something that's actually debatable, where things aren't settled. But blatant bigotry like this has no place, and our arguing with it serves no positive purpose. You are naive if you think you're fighting ignorance when you argue with it.

This is a classic right wing tactic, using the desire of those of us who value debate and argument to push their agenda. It's not like their arguments are right or convincing on a rational level. But that's entirely irrelevant when they aren't engaging in the same framework.

And, finally, it's also something that those of us who are against bigotry aren't going to be able to keep fighting without it taking its toll. When facing these people, the idea that we're here "for our enjoyment" as JC says goes away. We're fighting evil, not having a pleasant debate. And that's going to get testy.

The blatant bigots are already uncivil. They're already jerks. And once one side is a jerk, it becomes difficult for their opponents to not cross the line. Especially when they are frustrated that they need to keep fighting this crap, rather than the mods saying "You know what? This is being a jerk (or trolling). You're gone."

Civility and allowing blatant bigotry to be argued are incompatible. Trying to "fight ignorance" in bigots is at best wasteful and unwelcoming, and at worst playing right into their hands.

So, no, we can't treat bigotry like something we don't like and simply ignore it. We can't expect minorities to simply see it as something not to like and ignore it, when its very existence means the mods will not do anything if that minority faces bigotry. We can't treat these people like they are just ignorant and just need more information.

We have to treat bigotry like something that is morally wrong, something that needs to be stopped. We need to treat the worst bigotry for what it is, the epitome of "being a jerk."
That’s good and all but two things:

1. Regardless of how another supposedly behaves, humans supposedly have agency and are responsible for their own actions. There is no need for Pavlovian responses because of words or ideas. When I was in elementary school we learned to control emotions and use rational thought to handle disagreements.
2. Far too often on this board and in the wider real world, a dishonest tactic used to silence or ‘deplatform’ others is to use aggressive language directed at the person instead of language that disproves an idea. Labeling someone a racist, Nazi, or whatever merely for political reasons is far too prevalent and I can’t believe folks want to be able to do so here. Argue the idea if you are capable. Otherwise, stay out of the threads.

Ultimately, it looks like the majority want an ideological safe space and want the rules to reflect that. Sounds boring.

And I do have to ask. What is the genesis of all these board ‘improvement’ threads? The timing seems a bit strange.
  #452  
Old Today, 09:04 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
And I do have to ask. What is the genesis of all these board ‘improvement’ threads? The timing seems a bit strange.
I would imagine you could ask Tuba or a passing mod, as they seem to have driven a lot of the current flurry.
  #453  
Old Today, 09:38 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That’s good and all but two things:

1. Regardless of how another supposedly behaves, humans supposedly have agency and are responsible for their own actions. There is no need for Pavlovian responses because of words or ideas. When I was in elementary school we learned to control emotions and use rational thought to handle disagreements.
2. Far too often on this board and in the wider real world, a dishonest tactic used to silence or ‘deplatform’ others is to use aggressive language directed at the person instead of language that disproves an idea. Labeling someone a racist, Nazi, or whatever merely for political reasons is far too prevalent and I can’t believe folks want to be able to do so here. Argue the idea if you are capable. Otherwise, stay out of the threads.

Ultimately, it looks like the majority want an ideological safe space and want the rules to reflect that. Sounds boring.

And I do have to ask. What is the genesis of all these board ‘improvement’ threads? The timing seems a bit strange.


Could you clarify how or why the timing seems strange to you?
  #454  
Old Today, 09:52 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,063
Yeah, me too. I can't speak for the others, of course, but I decided to make a go of it following Bone's departure. We're going to be adding new mods, my recent analysis of traffic in Great Debates and Elections - available elsewhere - indicated those two fora were falling behind in terms of traffic and over the years we've gotten feedback from both prospective mods and general posters that many avoid it - or don't want to be assigned to mod such - because they are just an unpleasant place to visit. Not unpleasant in a 'the truth hurts, Jack' sort of way but more in a 'crazy argumentative uncle at Thanksgiving' sort of way. Given that feedback, I checked with Jenny and decided to begin crowdsourcing opinions about ways to make the two fora both friendlier and more effective.

I've been using the feedback and commentary to begin formulating a new set of rules. Once that's done I'll share them with the mod loop and refine from there. Eventually, they'll be put in place.

One of the few things I absolutely know at this point is that the new rules will not please everyone. There will be someone who disagrees with every single one of them.

Meanwhile, I hope you all will continue to share. Should anyone have any specific feedback they don't want to share in clear, please feel free to send me a Private Message. It may seem cliché but I mean it sincerely when I say that I truly welcome all such messages. You may not get what you want but I'll put it in the hopper for review.
  #455  
Old Today, 10:06 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Changing your opinion is not the issue or the ask. Sometimes not speaking the opinion (if the opinion is something like a group is lesser or abnormal) but more often even just being mindful how an opinion is expressed.
Are we talking about my opinion here (needing to understand in a general sense before I can accept and support something) or the opinion of bigots?

~Max
  #456  
Old Today, 10:08 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
Are...Are you for real? Can you even think about the real world implications about what you just said? Black people...Go Away? What is wrong with you?
To clarify, I do not consider myself a white nationalist and I do not want black people to go away.

~Max
  #457  
Old Today, 10:13 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
But you won't get out of our way, though...
At any point, feel free to post or PM me that you agree to disagree and our discussion will end right there.

~Max
  #458  
Old Today, 10:47 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yes, it is. Anything else is sophistry.
I don't see why advocating for something that increases the risk of harm is the same as advocating for harm. For example (and every premise here is an assumption, btw):

Although swimming increases the risk of drowning, and drowning is a harm, encouraging a friend to swim is not the same as encouraging harm.

Although being told you can't achieve your dream increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is a harm, debating whether you can achieve your dream is not the same as advocating harm.

Although being told that your race is inferior increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is a harm, debating whether genetics factor into the observed racial disparity in IQ (is inferior) is not the same as advocating harm.

Although being told that you do not belong increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is harm, debating whether people with a trait you have would be better off in their own country is not the same as advocating harm.

Although advocating for suicide increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is harm, advocating for suicide is still advocating harm. Unless suicide isn't a harm.
Quote:
Irrelevant. Suicide advocates aren't necessarily motivated by a want to harm people. They can view their motivation as helping.
I would not want to shut down a debate over whether suicide is harmful, at least I don't think that topic itself is advocating harm. I am familiar with some of the philosophy behind suicide, and perhaps I should reconsider labeling "Is suicide selfish?" threads as advocating harm.

ETA: I still think there might be legal issues if we let such threads go on. If somebody attempts suicide and his browser window is left open on an SDMB suicide thread, that means the SDMB might get sued by survivors or relatives.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Today at 10:50 AM. Reason: double signature; ETA section
  #459  
Old Today, 10:51 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
... something that is morally wrong, something that needs to be stopped. ...
This is the shape of argument that justifies censorship by the religious right and their actions as well. It is both simplistic and specious.

Homosexuality is a moral wrong. Sex outside of marriage is a moral wrong. Abortion is a moral wrong. So on. High horses are dangerous places to set up soap boxes on. Not only do different people have different views of what is and is not a moral right and a moral wrong, they have even more divergent views over what counts as any specific moral right or wrong and how to balance different ones out on the scale of ethics when those moral values conflict with each other as they often do.

We do not make this a better place to participate in by trying to make it a fight against poor morals ... that will certainly take longer than you think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
... Far too often on this board and in the wider real world, a dishonest tactic used to silence or ‘deplatform’ others is to use aggressive language directed at the person instead of language that disproves an idea. Labeling someone a racist, Nazi, or whatever merely for political reasons is far too prevalent and I can’t believe folks want to be able to do so here. Argue the idea if you are capable. Otherwise, stay out of the threads.

Ultimately, it looks like the majority want an ideological safe space and want the rules to reflect that. Sounds boring. ...
Yes. Labelling someone's position as based on some immoral or hateful belief is very often a dishonest tactic, no matter which side it comes from, including if it is defense of positions that I completely agree with.

But no one (I hope) is advocating for absolute ideological safe spaces any more than anyone is advocating for absolute free speech on these boards.

Let's return to that morally wrong and right framework and how the real world works.

Expressing ideas freely is a moral good to many of us.

Avoiding harm to others is a moral good to many of us as well.

And there are spaces where the two moral goods conflict. In those cases judgements get made but the process is not so simple as saying that this moral good is always more important that any other.

These cannot be "safe spaces" but they cannot be places too full of harms to others either.

Clear expectations of what is to found behind the door when entering specific fora and specific threads within those fora is part of it. The tolerance for offensive speech is, for example, much less in GQ than in The Pit, and should be. Within GD, where discussing and debating sensitive ideas between people of different values is part of its reason for being, some conflict of values and their applications is unavoidable and some offense will occur no matter how much one tries to express an idea mindfully. But GD is not like the Pit in that one should be expected to be very mindful in how expresses the ideas and offense should be minimized where possible. Moreover some debates have been so rehashed, have so little value served by rehashing again, and cause such degree of harm by being rehashed, that they can be closed because the balance is harms far outweigh the goods.

I'd argue for a very small list of those subjects though, and GREAT caution that it does not slide into censorship that labels opinions that very significant numbers of Americans hold (even if they are very wrong opinions) completely off-limits or using the charge of [hateful belief] as a means to silence dissent from a majority view. And it cannot be used to create a discussions which are witnessing for one belief system.

IF we, for example, declare that "scientific racism" is a subject that belongs in that group of subjects that have little discussion value left and which OTOH cause significant harms, then creating a thread to mock the belief system in GD is either also off limits or one in which those with those beliefs are free to go to town. There is in fact very little value to "witnessing" in GD.
  #460  
Old Today, 10:52 AM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 715
It's stuck in a loop.
  #461  
Old Today, 11:03 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Are we at the point at which those whose minds are open enough to learn have been reached by now and further discussions are unlikely to cause much more ignorance reduction and instead the offense of even a contained to a single thread discussion actually debating transgender rights is too offensive, too costly, too ... rude? I'm thinking probably so, but I am not sure.
I think, definitely not. I personally learned about the terms "trans man" and "trans woman" within the past couple months, from my participation here in ATMB. From your own cite, some 70%+ of Republicans believe gender is binary, even as over half of them would be somewhat comfortable having a friend come out as transgender.

In my personal experience, people here are hardly aware enough of transgender issues to stop using slurs. At work we have thousands of patients. Exactly one patient, in twenty years of practice, is identified as transgender.

We have an active lesbian community nearby. Ten years ago that community did not exist. Even today they do not stray from their enclosed neighborhood, although I think they have some sort of lesbian bowling club (in their neighborhood bowling alley). I doubt homosexual men feel welcome here.

There are people of color, too. They do not live in the largest community, they live either in the suburbs or the hood. The public schools which I attended were F- and D- rated, with a diverse student body. The charter school in the nearby community was A- rated and stereotypically white. Kids were putting "no colored people allowed" on water faucets in my schools and leaving tied nooses hanging over the school guardrails.

I graduated in 2014. All is not well in America.

~Max
  #462  
Old Today, 11:15 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
... At work we have thousands of patients. Exactly one patient, in twenty years of practice, is identified as transgender. ...
Of course part of that reason is that many of the transgender patients feel it is unsafe to be so identified. They are there. It is really an observation that somewhat supports the other argument. The need to create spaces that are not perceived as hurtful.
  #463  
Old Today, 12:26 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
At any point, feel free to post or PM me that you agree to disagree and our discussion will end right there.
I don't need nor want you to agree with me. I want the people with actual power here to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't see why advocating for something that increases the risk of harm is the same as advocating for harm.
Sorry, I believe there was a part there that I took as read, but apparently not - "it" there was the specific case I mentioned, not whatever general case you could squeeze out of an analogy.
Quote:
Although being told you can't achieve your dream increases the risk of suicide,
Does it? Cite.
Quote:
Although being told that your race is inferior increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is a harm, debating whether genetics factor into the observed racial disparity in IQ (is inferior) is not the same as advocating harm.
Yes, it is, when you do it in a forum where PoC (especially vulnerable PoC youth) can read your words. Same with being told you shouldn't, or don't exist for LGBQT youth.
  #464  
Old Today, 12:27 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Since Mr. Dibble already pointed out that modifying what another poster said is forbidden (no matter what your supposed reason), I will just say "Thanks, Mr. Dibble!" and not repeat what he said. Kindly do not modify what I've said.
I'm not so sure that it's forbidden, but I will do my best not to modify your quotes in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Clearly, though, you still don't get it.

The point is that telling people to avoid inflammatory words or actions is wrong and has perpetuated injustices. Whether the wrongness is words or actions, the effects are the same.
I don't understand what you mean here. I was saying, if you are stressed out by reading threads on subjects you find objectionable, don't read those threads. I don't know what injustices are perpetuated by you staying away, unless you mean that the bigot goes unchallenged and therefore continues being bigoted. But if that's what you mean, why would closing the thread stop the bigot from being bigoted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Frankly, you're starting to seem less and less like someone who goes to extreme lengths to rationalize bigotry and more and more like someone who adopts a purist stance in order to allow the expressions of bigotry to continue.
I'm not trying to be either. I am trying to rationalize your opinion, and the opinions of other people in this thread. The people who say things like, 'we shouldn't allow bigoted discussions to take place here at all'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
You are, in fact, incorrect. I was pointing out how allowing bigotry, whether it's expressed via speech/writing or action, to continue without limits has been a means of allowing such bigotry to continue.
If you mean leaving a bigoted thread unchallenged results in allowing the people in that thread to remain bigoted, I agree. In my opinion, that's how it's supposed to be. If someone has an opinion that you disagree with and you simply ignore them, that opinion isn't going to change or disappear. Maybe you can stop noticing it but it still exists.

If you are concerned that bigotry itself makes you unsafe, because it exists in general, then shutting down discussions is not going to make you feel any safer except in some superficial "out of sight, out of mind". Such a policy will only make this forum yet another safe space, but it doesn't address the root problem.

Learning and teaching is stressful, especially when dealing with sensitive subjects. I come here to learn, and if I'm lucky, to teach. I don't come here to relieve stress (maybe in the Cafe/Thread Games forums). Again, maybe you see these message boards as having a different purpose. That might explain the apparent lack of daylight between us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
And you are wrong in assuming that those of us who recognize and acknowledge the damage, not only to individuals but to debate, that such expressions of bigotry inevitably entail, do not want to visit such threads, though I admit, it's cleverly disingenuous to claim so. What we want is for such threads to be recognized as the cover for bigotry that they are and on that basis to be closed.
I think you and I went through this before. You were saying, and appear to still say, that bigotry is bad faith so we shouldn't even entertain bigoted threads and posters. My response to this was and still is to address the bad faith instead of the bigotry, because I reject the premise that all bigotry is bad faith.

This recent back and forth between us came out of a discussion between thorny locust and I. In that discussion I was trying to understand why she believes allowing discussion of bigotry is harmful.

I apologize if I misrepresent you or anyone else's argument, please correct me if when I do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
You seem to have extreme difficulty grasping these arguments. Perhaps if you were to question the assumptions you make about those of us objecting--assumptions you doggedly stick to regardless of how well or how often we point out their erroneous nature-- you'd understand better. Or perhaps you don't care to understand. I'm beginning to suspect that's the case.
I try to notice and question my own assumptions. As I am sure you know, it is a never ending struggle. The reason I press the "why is this harm" is to avoid making assumptions, because the ones I can think of only seem to reinforce my existing opinion. Most recently I did so in post #419.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Today at 12:29 PM. Reason: formatting
  #465  
Old Today, 12:37 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,063
Altering another posters text in quote boxes - other than to snip our irrelevant parts or to place emphasis on the part to which you are replying is absolutely forbidden. There are few more straightforward paths to trouble for a poster. Avoid doing so
  #466  
Old Today, 12:44 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yes, I know. I could wish for a unicorn.

However, I can't wish for a unicorn that is also a hornless horse. That is literally impossible to wish for. I can verbalize it as a wish, but it's a noncognitive statement, devoid of any meaning. It is "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" encoded as a wish. Same for wishing for something but not wishing for the necessities it entails. Wishing for one is wishing for the other.
I don't think bigotry without harm is noncognitive like a hornless unicorn. I cannot imagine a hornless unicorn, because a unicorn must have a horn by definition. I can imagine a country without black people, because a country does not need black people to be a country. By ignoring any realistic process of getting from reality to the ideal, a white nationalist (which I am not) can wish for blacks to go away without wishing or wanting any harm to come upon them.

This isn't some unrealistic hypothetical bigot either. I remember talking with people who held those beliefs: wish black people would go away, but against harming them or forced removals.

~Max
  #467  
Old Today, 12:46 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Altering another posters text in quote boxes - other than to snip our irrelevant parts or to place emphasis on the part to which you are replying is absolutely forbidden. There are few more straightforward paths to trouble for a poster. Avoid doing so
Alright, will do. Apologies to nelliaby.

~Max
  #468  
Old Today, 01:13 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Retired Straight Dope Staff
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think bigotry without harm is noncognitive like a hornless unicorn. I cannot imagine a hornless unicorn, because a unicorn must have a horn by definition. I can imagine a country without black people, because a country does not need black people to be a country. By ignoring any realistic process of getting from reality to the ideal, a white nationalist (which I am not) can wish for blacks to go away without wishing or wanting any harm to come upon them.

This isn't some unrealistic hypothetical bigot either. I remember talking with people who held those beliefs: wish black people would go away, but against harming them or forced removals.

~Max
Having to live in a society in which people want you gone is harmful. No overt acts of harm needed.
  #469  
Old Today, 01:17 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
duplicate

Last edited by MrDibble; Today at 01:19 PM.
  #470  
Old Today, 01:24 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Could you clarify how or why the timing seems strange to you?
Losing a mod, in part due to obvious modding inconsistencies and disregard of precedent, combined with such public soul searching hints at deeper schisms internally in how a board should be run. I think the feedback seeking at this point isn't going to be productive as it is sort of backwards. I'm of the opinion that you set the tone and rules of the board and have the population it attracts be the population of the board. Trying to please a very obstinate and different set of people with strong ideological differences is an exercise in futility.

This is a thread on disputes which primarily would be a focus for boards such as elections, GD, perhaps the Pit. I think the status quo enforced with an even hand and according to precedent is as good as we can get.
  #471  
Old Today, 01:28 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think bigotry without harm is noncognitive like a hornless unicorn.
The only bigotry without harm is completely unexpressed bigotry.

But we're talking about expressed bigotry here, so that hypothetical inner private bigotry is irrelevant.

Quote:
By ignoring any realistic process of getting from reality to the ideal
Like I said, it's an utterance a human can make, but its inherent self-contradictory nature makes it meaningless. We don't need to consider wishing for magic beans as meaningful.
Quote:
This isn't some unrealistic hypothetical bigot either. I remember talking with people who held those beliefs: wish black people would go away, but against harming them or forced removals.
They lied to you. Of this I am 100% certain.
  #472  
Old Today, 01:58 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
This isn't a preference. This isn't a disagreement. We are talking about bigotry. Bigotry is a moral wrong. Ignoring a moral wrong by not participating is not how you deal with it.
I agree with you, but my advice of ignoring bigotry threads was not intended to deal with them at all. I am saying, if bigoted threads disturb you, stress you out, cause you harm, make you want to leave the board, then maybe just ignore them. Don't deal with them, let them be.

Yes, that means they might go unchallenged if everybody does so. Part of fighting bigotry is that it's stressful. There's no way around that. It cannot be an easy task.

And then of course, what you think is or is not moral is your opinion. Nobody has to agree with you about that, and I think it's a bad idea to justify some sort of accusation of bad faith with your personal moral beliefs. To those with different morals, such an accusation would be baseless and therefore any censorship based on that accusation would appear unfair. Talk about burning bridges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It's also 2019. No one would be bringing up such blatant issues because they legitimately didn't know they are bigoted.
In my experience, you are just plain wrong. I've been in cities where people are very much aware of bigotry. I can understand why you might think everybody has heard about transgender issues or supports gender equality or homosexual relations. I feel like we aren't going to agree about this, if you aren't taking my word for it already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
If we ignore it, then the bigotry remains unchallenged, and that's even worse. So we wind up having to fight it.
I'm trying to understand you, too. My initial assumption (apparently wrong, I can't say I'm surprised) was that being exposed to bigotry caused harm, too. What you've written indicates to me that my assumption was wrong, or at least does not accurately describe you. I have already laid out four different assumptions (reproduced below) I could make about why you might think ignoring bigotry is "worse" than trying to address it. Alternatively, you can tell me what you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
  • You feel compelled to correct bigots and therefore cannot stay away from obviously bigoted threads, even if they cause great distress to you
  • You take some sort of pleasure in reading bigoted arguments, even if they cause great distress to you
  • You aren't offended about yourself being exposed to bigoted arguments, you are offended because other people are offended
  • You aren't offended about yourself being exposed to bigoted arguments, you are offended that bigots still exist
I doubt that I'll bend for #1 or #2. #3 is only delegating whatever reasoning I might understand to another person. #4 seems most likely to me. But if you are offended by the persistance of bigots in general, I still don't think that's any basis for banning bigoted debates. Removing them from this place does not change the world for the better, it denies them a platform yes, but no minds are going to change as a result. Less communication between bigots and non-bigots is worse for everybody, and this is my opinion, isolation breeds ignorance breeds fear breeds hate.
For the rest of your post, which I think is the substantive part, I am reading that you are afraid that without more moderation you think the bigots will crush any hope of fighting ignorance with their bad faith tactics. That they will stay just on this side of the rules, and all of the good posters will fall to temptation and get banned. In other words, you are saying that bad-faith bigotry is so dangerous, and so successful that it will succeed against any good-faith arguments; not only that, but if there is such a thing as good-faith bigotry, it is indistinguishable from bad faith.

You didn't say that exactly but I can't seem to make sense of your argument any other way. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I confronted a similar argument in the concurrent misogyny thread. I think what you are presenting is a form of defeatism that leads to the absurd conclusion that it is impossible to fight ignorance that manifests itself in the form of bigotry. As such, I must reject the premises: first, it is possible to distinguish between good-faith and bad-faith bigotry, at least enough of the time so as to preserve these forums; second, bigoted opinions can and should be addressed with reason.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Today at 01:59 PM. Reason: "why you might think"
  #473  
Old Today, 02:36 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
[T]he examples you gave show you mean arguments where one side puts forth blatant, unquestionably bigoted statements. [...]

There are actually aspects of these topics where discussion can be had. But stuff like whether or not making black people sit in the back of the bus is acceptable not one of them. You might as well be asking whether or not it's okay to keep black slaves.

There are people who are racist, misogynistic, or transphobic without any intended malice. But those who argue things like this are not among them.
It took me a while to think of such discussions that I might give the benefit of the doubt to, and approach with an open mind.

Let's say you have a bus line. Of all the neighborhoods it services, only one has a significant black population and that neighborhood is at the end of the line. The opposite end of the line is like, downtown or wherever everyone wants to get off. A thread asking if it is racist for the bus driver to ask blacks to sit at the back does not automatically earn the mark of bad faith, in my opinion. I think it is racist because the driver is assuming the black person is staying until the end of the line, solely based on their skin color. It may also be practical but that doesn't make it any less racist. People might like to mingle on the bus line (ha!) and such a rule prevents that; also normally you give the front seats to people who have trouble walking. But I would not put this hypothetical thread beyond the pale of civil debate.

Or let's say there's a thread where somebody says, slavery isn't necessarily evil. The person lays out a utilitarian argument and claims that overall, slavery could result in less suffering, especially in a post-scarcity economy. He cites that StarTrek episode where Rome meets the modern day, and says the slaves could have unions and guaranteed healthcare and social benefits. No mention of race based slavery. I would surely disagree, but I think it is possible to have a civil debate on that topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I've already discusses at length in multiple threads what they may instead be doing. I simply invite you to watch the video series "The Alt-Right Playbook."
I can't watch videos right now but I will check it out later tonight.

~Max
  #474  
Old Today, 02:41 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
So lets say you're an immigrant, in a political thread you read "immigrants breed like rabbits", and this apparently is allowed because it isn't an explicit call for violence against immigrants.
I don't think that's even an implicit call for violence, and to be honest I don't think it's offensive. To "breed like rabbits" is an idiom meaning to have lots of children. I have used this phrase in colloquial speech when describing my own family and the families of my friends. I have also heard it used to describe the Catholics as a religious denomination, Orthodox Jews, and adherents of Islam. I have heard immigrants themselves use the phrase, as well as WASPs.

If it is offensive to you, that only shows how different the culture that surrounds me is from the culture that surrounds you.

~Max
  #475  
Old Today, 02:55 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 715
You're a creative apologist, l'll give you that.
  #476  
Old Today, 02:58 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,032
Comparing immigrants/religious denominations to animals is not offensive?

That benefit of the doubt you talk about, Max? You've pretty much lost any I would have given you.
  #477  
Old Today, 03:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And I'd like to press this point. Do you think we'll ever again get decent female or person of colour moderators if they are expected to simply scroll by racism and misogyny?
Doubling back to this.

First we have to accept that a post being racist or misogynistic is not usually a matter of objective fact but of perception. It is like Yanni vs Laurel. Some things that you see or hear someone else honestly sees or hears as something else even though you cannot imagine how.

With that as a basis my sense is that many posters of traditionally disempowered groups recognize that being at the table, or part of the loop, does not mean that their perception will always carry the day, but it does mean that others hear that Yanni is also heard. Being part of a diverse group in the loop is a clear good for all. Even if your view is not always the consensus you have a better chance to have a more informed consensus. Some hopefully are interested in that.
  #478  
Old Today, 03:27 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Far too often on this board and in the wider real world, a dishonest tactic used to silence or ‘deplatform’ others is to use aggressive language directed at the person instead of language that disproves an idea. Labeling someone a racist, Nazi, or whatever merely for political reasons is far too prevalent and I can’t believe folks want to be able to do so here.
I don't think dishonesty motivates anybody in this thread. People have made it clear that they think bigoted ideas are harmful and/or bad-faith. I may not be able to comprehend why they are harmful (yet), and I may disagree that bigotry implies bad-faith, but I do not think the participants of this thread want to "silence" people "for political reasons".
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Ultimately, it looks like the majority want an ideological safe space and want the rules to reflect that. Sounds boring.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a safe space to talk with friends. I don't think it fits the brand, but maybe it's time for rebranding. But if this is the goal, I wish proponents would be a little more upfront about it. I get the impression (especially from DSeid) that a safe space is not the goal, just some standard of decency that is more stringent than what we have now.

~Max
  #479  
Old Today, 03:51 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Of course part of that reason is that many of the transgender patients feel it is unsafe to be so identified. They are there. It is really an observation that somewhat supports the other argument. The need to create spaces that are not perceived as hurtful.
Sex is the sort of thing you can't easily hide during a physical. Either they are coming in as their birth-assigned gender, or they choose to hide SRS from the record and otherwise deceive us.

But one out of multiple thousands isn't unrealistic, especially if the few others around here drive to the nearest metropolis for their non-emergent healthcare needs.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; Today at 03:51 PM.
  #480  
Old Today, 04:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,742
Transgenderhood isn't always going to be obvious on physical examination and afaik, the vast majority haven't undergone SRS.

Last edited by CarnalK; Today at 04:04 PM.
  #481  
Old Today, 04:08 PM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Sex is the sort of thing you can't easily hide during a physical. Either they are coming in as their birth-assigned gender, or they choose to hide SRS from the record and otherwise deceive us.

But one out of multiple thousands isn't unrealistic, especially if the few others around here drive to the nearest metropolis for their non-emergent healthcare needs.

~Max
Deceive us? I think your bigotry is showing a bit Max.

And assuming you're not their physician, why are you looking in detail at thousands of people's medical records anyway?
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 04:12 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