Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 12-06-2019, 01:48 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's asking way too much of the moderators.
It's no more mod-intensive than just outright banning topics. On the one hand, they mod people for posting outside the sticky, and move the thread. On the other, they mod people for breaking the topic ban (and delete the thread, ideally). Seems about the same.

The only way that doesn't ask more of the moderators is the status quo.
  #502  
Old 12-06-2019, 01:55 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,042
Max S. dodged the question, Dibble gave the honest answer, but again: In this day and age, are we ever going to get female, POC, or trans moderators again if they have to moderate "The Transphobic Thread"?
  #503  
Old 12-06-2019, 01:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
It's no more mod-intensive than just outright banning topics. On the one hand, they mod people for posting outside the sticky, and move the thread. On the other, they mod people for breaking the topic ban (and delete the thread, ideally). Seems about the same.

The only way that doesn't ask more of the moderators is the status quo.
You like the idea so it could be your insults playground as described a few posts up.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-06-2019 at 02:00 AM.
  #504  
Old 12-06-2019, 03:27 AM
DirkHardly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
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.
Going over the top right from the get-go aren't you? Yes, I'm privileged. In multiple ways. But so are you and so is everyone posting on this board or living in Western-style democracies. Millions upon millions of people across the globe are privileged in varying ways and to varying degrees. In the same manner, countless people are also marginalized in some way, and not always on a racial basis. Statistically, very few people in Western-style democracies like the US face anything close to life or death situations due to racism, or any other form of discrimination or marginalization, on anything resembling a day-to-day basis. Or ever. That is not to diminish the harm of other effects of racism or marginalization but a simple statement of fact.

And yes, racism is a horrible thing and a battle worth fighting. Condemn racism, belittle racists exactly as much as they deserve, but no more. If they are the subject of legal punishment or even physical harm that is legally justified and thus proportional then I will feel some sort of justice or karma was done and probably laugh.

All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately. Not in terms of motivation to right a wrong but by not letting emotion create bias.

And the big problem with people losing that objectivity is we get poorly thought-out public policies because emotion and bias overcome facts and reason. We also get people on a moral crusade to combat racism that suffers the common flaw of moral crusades. Namely that no matter how noble and true the goal, that people will turn it into an opportunity to do the exact same thing racists do and dehumanize and treat someone worse than they deserve in order to exert control over another and appease their ego by convincing themselves they're somehow better than that person. Or even if they are indeed "better", by overestimating the relevant gap between them.

And of course allowing racist or other shitty speech is dangerous. I think a lot of smart people have convincingly argued that censorship is more dangerous. And ultimately in a democracy you have to trust your fellow citizens to some degree. Because if a majority of the population is so susceptible to shitty ideas, especially a recurring and pervasive one such as racism, then you're in real trouble. Seems like the thing to do is to convince and educate your fellow citizens so you don't get outnumbered. And once again I think a lot of smart people have argued convincingly that censorship is largely ineffective and that fact along with its other costs outweighs its benefits.
  #505  
Old 12-06-2019, 03:54 AM
DirkHardly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The answer, in the case of racism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, is "Yes"
Yes, that is in fact the discussion we're having. Well spotted.


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.
The problem of course is when such accusations aren't justified. Like in the thread about conflict in heterogeneous populations. And because of people's biases and self-interests they can mistakenly or deliberately make such accusations and that's a bad thing as well. Those same biases and self-interests can also lead to a disproportionate response to actual racism. That is also bad. Maybe you should have asked for clarification before you went for the rolleyes emoji and calling it "idiotic."
  #506  
Old 12-06-2019, 04:07 AM
DirkHardly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
People really need to get over the board's stupid tagline.
Sigh....no, no they really don't. It's an important cause, possibly the most important. It's what sets this board apart, though arguably less so lately. And in an age of human existence where we have incredible amounts of information and much of it at our almost literal fingertips then what good could ignorance or not diminishing ignorance possibly serve?
  #507  
Old 12-06-2019, 04:14 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You like the idea so it could be your insults playground as described a few posts up.
No, I like it because it would make the poisonous posts confined. I still prefer outright topic bans.

It being an "insult playground" was my own addition, and not the main point. But it is a nice side-benefit.
  #508  
Old 12-06-2019, 04:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
The problem of course is when such accusations aren't justified.
That wasn't the example you raised, which was actually racist.

But I guess those goalposts aren't going to move themselves.
  #509  
Old 12-06-2019, 08:52 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, I like it because it would make the poisonous posts confined. I still prefer outright topic bans.

It being an "insult playground" was my own addition, and not the main point. But it is a nice side-benefit.
The suggestion for consideration was based on several premises:

1) The Pit is the "insult playground" (and even there there are limits) which confines what would in other fora be "bad poster" behaviors. GD is the place to debate sensitive ideas between people of different values, and therefore where some values conflict thus offense will occur, and where posters should try their honest best to have those sometimes difficult conversations without giving or taking offense.

2) Some subjects have so little discussion value and inflict so much harm as to be closed subjects. And some subjects have large numbers of Americans in honest disagreement with each other, and many who have been open minded enough to change their minds given hearing discussions and information. Some people can only see the dress as blue and black but can at least learn that others honestly see it as white and gold, and have conversations about it. Sometimes they can actually flip that switch even and see it the other's way.

3) Those latter, worthwhile still yet more still more risky conversations (given they involve core value disagreements and somewhat hardwired perceptual differences), require extra care by participants and extra guidance.

4) And the open question of which subjects are not worthwhile at all anymore, which ones are worthwhile but that level of risky, and which can be had without that. Hopefully most are in the last group but clearly not all are.
  #510  
Old 12-06-2019, 09:49 AM
DirkHardly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
That wasn't the example you raised, which was actually racist.

But I guess those goalposts aren't going to move themselves.
No goalposts were moved. Notice the part about treating a person disproportionately harshly even when racism is actually present. That's a thing that can and does happen.
  #511  
Old 12-06-2019, 02:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately.
It can't be looked at objectively, logically, and factually without acknowledging that it's objectively and factually true that passions are involved; and that those passions have a legitimate place in the debate.


If nobody got upset about being murdered, driven out, driven to suicide, prevented from getting work, prevented from getting housing, being harassed on the street, and all the other myriad results of bigotry: then those things wouldn't matter, would they? It's precisely because people object to these things that they matter. And those objections are all based on passion. As is everything else that people want, including wanting not to having to recognize other people's pain.

There's often a nasty kind of catch-22 involved: people are visibly upset? they shouldn't be listened to because they're not being dispassionate. Nobody's visibly upset? well, then why should anything ever be changed, clearly there isn't any problem!

Last edited by thorny locust; 12-06-2019 at 02:47 PM. Reason: clarification, I hope
  #512  
Old 12-06-2019, 05:45 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,272
Just so you know I am not always "status quo" I just reported a post for misogyny. So even I, clueless old dude, can see bad posts.
  #513  
Old 12-06-2019, 06:15 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Going over the top right from the get-go aren't you? Yes, I'm privileged. In multiple ways. But so are you and so is everyone posting on this board or living in Western-style democracies. Millions upon millions of people across the globe are privileged in varying ways and to varying degrees. In the same manner, countless people are also marginalized in some way, and not always on a racial basis. Statistically, very few people in Western-style democracies like the US face anything close to life or death situations due to racism, or any other form of discrimination or marginalization, on anything resembling a day-to-day basis. Or ever. That is not to diminish the harm of other effects of racism or marginalization but a simple statement of fact.

And yes, racism is a horrible thing and a battle worth fighting. Condemn racism, belittle racists exactly as much as they deserve, but no more. If they are the subject of legal punishment or even physical harm that is legally justified and thus proportional then I will feel some sort of justice or karma was done and probably laugh.

All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. And with the understandable emotional nature of the issue maintaining objectivity is the most crucial part. It should be looked at dispassionately. Not in terms of motivation to right a wrong but by not letting emotion create bias.

And the big problem with people losing that objectivity is we get poorly thought-out public policies because emotion and bias overcome facts and reason. We also get people on a moral crusade to combat racism that suffers the common flaw of moral crusades. Namely that no matter how noble and true the goal, that people will turn it into an opportunity to do the exact same thing racists do and dehumanize and treat someone worse than they deserve in order to exert control over another and appease their ego by convincing themselves they're somehow better than that person. Or even if they are indeed "better", by overestimating the relevant gap between them.

And of course allowing racist or other shitty speech is dangerous. I think a lot of smart people have convincingly argued that censorship is more dangerous. And ultimately in a democracy you have to trust your fellow citizens to some degree. Because if a majority of the population is so susceptible to shitty ideas, especially a recurring and pervasive one such as racism, then you're in real trouble. Seems like the thing to do is to convince and educate your fellow citizens so you don't get outnumbered. And once again I think a lot of smart people have argued convincingly that censorship is largely ineffective and that fact along with its other costs outweighs its benefits.
Ah, yes, the "white privilege" pushback. I knew the first time I heard the phrase that people were going to get their knickers in a knot. Some people wrongly assume "white privilege"means white people have unearned wealth and ease-- that, being white, they didn't have to work hard and got to take it easy. Still, if "privilege" upsets you, maybe "narrow white perspective" would help you focus on the issue at hand. It's human nature to be unaware of subtle discrimination that doesn't affect you. It's only when you really start paying attention with humility and objectivity and are not poised to take umbrage that you start to see the difference. Not noticing until it's pointed out to us is normal. Refusing to see it even then because we're uncomfortable or have made erroneous assumptions about what the term means is not.

So no need to remind us how privileged we all are to have internet access. Yes, it sounds very noble. It may even let us fool ourselves into thinking that by avoiding the issue of race, we've surmounted racial issues. But that's only enough for people who are privileged in the sense they can live on such delusions. I hope you're not one of them.
  #514  
Old 12-06-2019, 06:27 PM
DirkHardly is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
It can't be looked at objectively, logically, and factually without acknowledging that it's objectively and factually true that passions are involved; and that those passions have a legitimate place in the debate.


If nobody got upset about being murdered, driven out, driven to suicide, prevented from getting work, prevented from getting housing, being harassed on the street, and all the other myriad results of bigotry: then those things wouldn't matter, would they? It's precisely because people object to these things that they matter. And those objections are all based on passion. As is everything else that people want, including wanting not to having to recognize other people's pain.

There's often a nasty kind of catch-22 involved: people are visibly upset? they shouldn't be listened to because they're not being dispassionate. Nobody's visibly upset? well, then why should anything ever be changed, clearly there isn't any problem!
There's no contradiction or catch-22. An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic. To the extent that it is not in such situations, then it is bad and counterproductive. They are not completely distinct or unrelated. Being angry or desiring remedial change in response to racism or some other injustice is a perfectly logical response and the moral outrage should be informed and defined in turn by that logic.

But if someone forgoes logic and operating on pure emotion makes accusations of such behavior without a logical or factual basis then they are not only acting illogically but causing harm to others by doing so. Likewise if they advocate for a disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic response to actual instances of racism or other unjust treatment then that is also beyond what logic and morality would justify. The other side of that, blinding onself to such issues or worse, deliberately ignoring or minimizing them, carries the same types of logical and moral failings.

I've come to believe that people generally have 2 modes of response: underreaction and overreaction. With the latter often immediately on the heels of the former. That doesn't mean there isn't a happy and logical medium that people tend to blow right past.
  #515  
Old 12-06-2019, 07:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
I've come to believe that people generally have 2 modes of response: underreaction and overreaction. With the latter often immediately on the heels of the former. That doesn't mean there isn't a happy and logical medium that people tend to blow right past.
Uh huh, except you I bet. Reminds me of the old Carlin joke "Ever notice how everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?"
  #516  
Old 12-07-2019, 04:21 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
There's no contradiction or catch-22. An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic.
Nope. That's not how emotions work for human beings. At all.
  #517  
Old 12-07-2019, 08:53 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Just so you know I am not always "status quo" I just reported a post for misogyny. So even I, clueless old dude, can see bad posts.
So what do you want, a medal?

Last edited by Guinastasia; 12-07-2019 at 08:53 PM.
  #518  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:07 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I don't need nor want you to agree with me. I want the people with actual power here to.
That is unfortunate. I want me to agree with you; I do not care so much what "the people with actual power here" think as I do what I myself think.

I understand what you're saying, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Does it? Cite.
No, I made that up. Sorry if I mislead you.

In retrospect, that particular paragraph could have stayed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
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.
Let me ask you a question. Is there any context where you think it would be appropriate for any person to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence?

This is not a rhetorical question. I would answer with a qualified yes, the condition being whether such a theory has some traction among the public at large, and/or among those in power. The context would be that of a discussion between friends, or of a formal debate; I do not think it is appropriate to tell teenagers that their race is inferior in most other contexts.

The followup question: Why? For me, I exclude other contexts because I believe theories of inherited/racial intelligence are false, not because of some harm factor. I am not very receptive to arguments from consequence, and I very much believe the harm argument we have been discussing is an argument from consequence. My personal system of morals includes an axiomatic statement of racial and individual egalitarianism, at least in a big-picture sense. As such I cannot reconcile a theory of race and intelligence that violates that principle. (My 'would it be appropriate' question above is a moral question.)

But why do I think the theory is appropriate under any circumstances, even as it contradicts a core moral principle? I am not so sure of myself as to censor anything that contradicts my set of morals. So there must be some context where it is appropriate to discuss unpopular and discomforting ideas. I pick conversation among friends or formal debate, specifically because we can (ideally) rule out bad-faith (malice and insincerity).

But why expose teenagers to these things? That's why I condition my answer on whether the offensive theory holds sway at large, or among people in power. Perhaps small children need not be introduced to horribly offensive ideas, because small children cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. Teenagers can do so, I assume. Teenagers are old enough to recognize that offensive ideas can lead to offensive acts which can affect people; they can recognize that something is wrong there. In many places teenagers are considered adults. Teenagers, if they can behave, are welcome to attend and participate in debates be it formal or among friends. I am missing any reason to exclude teenagers from such a debate on principle. Even if there were such a reason, it would only seem to justify removing said teenagers from the debate, and not banning the subject itself.

~Max
  #519  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:15 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
Having to live in a society in which people want you gone is harmful. No overt acts of harm needed.
I disagree with the former sentence on principle. In my opinion it is not the wish or want that causes harm, it is the act (overt or otherwise).

~Max
  #520  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:32 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,130
The overt act is the expression of being unwelcome and/or abnormal/inferior.

That is an act of harm.

If your mother said she wished you had never been born and wishes you were gone would that be of no harm?
  #521  
Old 12-09-2019, 07:41 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bye NYC hello Chicagoland
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I disagree with the former sentence on principle. In my opinion it is not the wish or want that causes harm, it is the act (overt or otherwise).

~Max
You’re entitled to your opinion, or course, but I wholeheartedly disagree. A society in which a segment is not wanted, that is a harmful act.
  #522  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:02 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The only bigotry without harm is completely unexpressed bigotry.
Right, bigotry is harmful in the sense that a bigoted statement can cause a reader to either harm themselves or harm others. I can stipulate to that. I think you (and others) may misunderstand my argument, which is that people can express bigoted opinions without wishing harm upon others.

This was in response to thorny locust, who said she is offended when she reads bigoted arguments because she assumes the bigot wishes harm upon her and her loved ones. My counterargument is that this is not necessarily the case.

I am not trying to argue that bigotry isn't harmful. Please don't misinterpret me like that. I am not here to defend bigotry itself. How would I sleep at night?

I'm trying to formulate an argument by which I would want to ban bigoted opinions from these message boards as other participants of this thread seem to want. The argument, as I understand it, is that targets of bigotry are offended when they read bigoted threads or even titles, which causes stress, which drives them away or causes harm (or both). I am not usually persuaded by appeals to consequence, but at least I might understand the argument. If it is an existential issue for the board I might even subscribe to that argument.

What I cannot yet understand is specifically why you and others are offended when you see a bigoted thread, where the bigot is neither malicious nor insincere, and the thread is left open. It seems that maybe you don't think a person can be bigoted without being malicious or insincere. If you can convince me of that alone, I'll be all for banning bigoted threads.

If you are interested in convincing me. Presumably nobody "with real power here" wants to die on this hill with me, or they would say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
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.
I don't think self-contradictory beliefs are meaningless. I think people make decisions based on self-contradictory beliefs all the time, often without even knowing it. For example I might meet a person who is for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, increased defense spending, and maintaining current welfare spending. They might vote based on those contradictory beliefs, for a candidate who claims to share them all. Are their beliefs meaningless? Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs?

There are entire philosophies based on the idea that reality is a contradiction. But if those philosophies inform how people act, are they meaningless to you? I hope these are rhetorical questions, but if you think they are meaningless I would like to hear why.


My personal opinion is that much of the racism in my country today is not overt, malicious racism, but "benign" racism. Benign doesn't actually mean the racism is good or without harm. It only means that people don't realize it's wrong, or are in denial. I think it's been like that for most people for a long, long time. Racism born out of ignorance more than sadism, and this goes for other forms of discrimination too.

~Max
  #523  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:04 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvoryTowerDenizen View Post
You’re entitled to your opinion, or course, but I wholeheartedly disagree. A society in which a segment is not wanted, that is a harmful act.
Expressing things that cause offense can indeed be harmful. The problem is almost anything that is in dispute can be labeled offensive.
  #524  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:10 PM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bye NYC hello Chicagoland
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Expressing things that cause offense can indeed be harmful. The problem is almost anything that is in dispute can be labeled offensive.
I was responding to a specific comment. Do not globalize my comment for your purposes.
  #525  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:10 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
You're a creative apologist, l'll give you that.
This indicates to me that I am miscommunicating. If you explain what you think I am arguing, I can try and sort things out.

~Max
  #526  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:16 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Comparing immigrants/religious denominations to animals is not offensive?
I don't think comparing a person to an animal is necessarily an insult. Animals have lots of traits, and I don't think it's fair to assume that when I compare someone to an animal I am saying they are anything less than human.

Context and body language would make this clear in person. Having lots of children isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily a shot at promiscuity or responsibility. If someone were to use "breed like rabbits" in a negative sense, it's an insult just like any other.

~Max
  #527  
Old 12-09-2019, 08:21 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
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.
As much as I would like to say, "yes, it is possible!" this is a question that I am unqualified to answer. Unless I were actually a woman or person from a disempowered group who wants to be a moderator here, or knew someone who does, I would be uncomfortable answering the question in the positive. Unless I knew the opinions of all members from disempowered groups, I would be uncomfortable answering in the negative.

And that is how the issue stands.

~Max

~Max
  #528  
Old 12-09-2019, 09:10 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
It's an example, you could also substitute it for a woman reading "this alleged rape victim is a liar" or a trans person reading "there's no such thing as transgender." The point is once someone reads this type of comment on this message board and that comment is sanctioned, for a lot of people it's going to color their view of the board as a whole and make the entire thing seem unwelcome to them, even if they try to compartmentalize and just focus on topics where they don't think this kind of stuff is going to come up.
Pretend some alleged rapist is pronounced not guilty. A woman makes a thread about it in IMHO. In her humble opinion, the ruling is complete and utter bullshit. Max S. appears and posts, "I agree with the opinion, this alleged rape victim is a liar". OP becomes offended. Why does she become offended? Perhaps she was a rape victim herself, or a loved one was a rape victim, and she is all too familiar with victim-blaming a la Max S.. Reading a fellow doper express victim-blaming triggers all of those feelings from the past, which stresses her out. She reports the post, and a week later leaves the board by accusing the moderation of being too lax on people like Max S.

Now, here's my approach to the hypothetical ATMB thread.

My initial impression from this hypothetical is from the OP's point of view. Max S.'s behavior is unacceptable. Victim-blaming has no place in civilized debate. It stresses people out, causes people to leave the board, and is nasty overall. If the moderators are fine with this, they are enablers and I shouldn't grace the board with my continued presence. It's unhealthy for me and for them. Bye!

Second pass. I put myself in the shoes of Max S. Why does he think the victim is lying? In the first pass I had assumed the victim was not lying. In the second pass I look at the merit of the argument, if there is one. If there isn't, I look for a pattern of bad-faith behavior. If Max S. appears to be a good-faith poster, but doesn't have a solid argument, I might make a post laying out why his post is victim blaming and why victim blaming is bad. If he relents, I exit the thread thinking, lesson learned, ignorance fought, don't punish the kid too hard. That would be nice if the apology was the last reply. Otherwise, if he has a solid argument, which I agree with, I take his side overall. For example, if the only witness (the victim) was impeached for fabricating critical elements of her story, that might be a good reason to think the victim lied about being raped. Considering that Max S. is me, I probably have what I think is a good reason.

Third pass. This is where I try to be a detached, neutral commentator. I look at my conclusions from the first and second pass to decide whether the moderators should reconsider their actions, then I post my opinion if the thread is still alive. I ask other posters if they disagree and try to understand why.

Out of all of this, you will notice that I do not consider the feelings of the female member to be more important than a good faith argument. What do you think of my approach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
Even in the context of friends/family, if someone made a comment like that and someone who heard said they found it offensive, I really hope you would discourage your friends from offending that person in the future.
Yes, if I could understand why they might be offended, or I had some other relatively convenient way of communicating the same idea ("have large families/lots of children"), or else if I don't feel a duty to express that idea and I know and respect the person well enough to trust that they have good reasons to stifle that conversation.

~Max
  #529  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:21 PM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I agree that we all need to work at being our best selves here. Christ knows I don't manage it, and can work at it.

Something I'd like to ask my fellow leftists to do: please allow space for reasonable opposition.

[snip]

There's plenty of conservative thought that denies the humanity/right to exist of oppressed groups, sure. I'm not going to list them here out of fear that someone will come along and hijack the thread to squabble over specific examples.

[snip]

I think I see people in disagreements trying to change the arena from "we disagree on the best methods" to "we disagree because you're denying humanity.
The middle bit is a poor way to start.
  #530  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:34 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
... What do you think of my approach? ...
That you left out the most reasonable choice: knowing that victim blaming is likely to be heard like that, you consider if there was a way to make the point, assuming you conclude that the point is reasonable, in a more carefully worded manner. If it is clear that you are at least trying your honest best to make the point, for any given subject that is known to be a tricky one to discuss without causing offense, respectfully, then that effort should be respected, unless the point you are trying to make is one of the few that are far beyond the pale.
  #531  
Old 12-09-2019, 10:43 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle View Post
The middle bit is a poor way to start.
No, it's the simple truth. And demonstrates why being "fair" and treating all sides as equal is in reality just a prettied up way of taking the side of the far right and silencing their victims.

In the long run a board or other meeting place can have the right wing or everyone else but not both, because the Right will drive everyone else away.
  #532  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:27 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Let me ask you a question. Is there any context where you think it would be appropriate for any person to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence?
Yes. There is precisely one such context.

That context is a parental figure informing them of the existence of the phenomenon, in a warning fashion.

It is not a public debate where the theory is given any resemblance of credence to.
  #533  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:40 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It seems that maybe you don't think a person can be bigoted without being malicious or insincere
That is correct.

Only a complete child can be a naif bigot. Functioning adults have to either intend the harm, or lie to themselves about the harm. That is precisely correct.
Quote:
Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs?
I don't see how.

People act based on an absolutely incoherent idea called God, all the time. That doesn't render the idea of God meaningful. It just means people don't need meaningful motivations in order to act.
Quote:
My personal opinion is that much of the racism in my country today is not overt, malicious racism, but "benign" racism.
By my observation, your personal opinion is just flat-out wrong.
Quote:
Benign doesn't actually mean the racism is good or without harm. It only means that people don't realize it's wrong, or are in denial.
I wouldn't class being in denial as benign. At all.
Quote:
I think it's been like that for most people for a long, long time. Racism born out of ignorance more than sadism, and this goes for other forms of discrimination too.
The way brown people are treated in the USA isn't from ignorance. It's very active.
  #534  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:41 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Pretend some alleged rapist is pronounced not guilty. A woman makes a thread about it in IMHO. In her humble opinion, the ruling is complete and utter bullshit. Max S. appears and posts, "I agree with the opinion, this alleged rape victim is a liar". OP becomes offended. Why does she become offended? Perhaps she was a rape victim herself, or a loved one was a rape victim, and she is all too familiar with victim-blaming a la Max S.. Reading a fellow doper express victim-blaming triggers all of those feelings from the past, which stresses her out. She reports the post, and a week later leaves the board by accusing the moderation of being too lax on people like Max S.

Now, here's my approach to the hypothetical ATMB thread.

My initial impression from this hypothetical is from the OP's point of view. Max S.'s behavior is unacceptable. Victim-blaming has no place in civilized debate. It stresses people out, causes people to leave the board, and is nasty overall. If the moderators are fine with this, they are enablers and I shouldn't grace the board with my continued presence. It's unhealthy for me and for them. Bye!

Second pass. I put myself in the shoes of Max S. Why does he think the victim is lying? In the first pass I had assumed the victim was not lying. In the second pass I look at the merit of the argument, if there is one. If there isn't, I look for a pattern of bad-faith behavior. If Max S. appears to be a good-faith poster, but doesn't have a solid argument, I might make a post laying out why his post is victim blaming and why victim blaming is bad. If he relents, I exit the thread thinking, lesson learned, ignorance fought, don't punish the kid too hard. That would be nice if the apology was the last reply. Otherwise, if he has a solid argument, which I agree with, I take his side overall. For example, if the only witness (the victim) was impeached for fabricating critical elements of her story, that might be a good reason to think the victim lied about being raped. Considering that Max S. is me, I probably have what I think is a good reason.

Third pass. This is where I try to be a detached, neutral commentator. I look at my conclusions from the first and second pass to decide whether the moderators should reconsider their actions, then I post my opinion if the thread is still alive. I ask other posters if they disagree and try to understand why.

Out of all of this, you will notice that I do not consider the feelings of the female member to be more important than a good faith argument. What do you think of my approach?
So, first of all, it's not possible to be truly objective or neutral, and being detached might not help you be the arbiter of how valid a debate topic is.

I think if this hypothetical is actually one where the alleged victim was actually caught with hard evidence that she falsely accused, then it would be reasonable, but in the overwhelming majority where that is not the case I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who says she's lying. If someone says "she's lying" and then points out some kind of inconsistency with her testimony or some other fact of the case, that may be relevant to a guilty verdict, but aren't in the realm of claiming that a rape victim was lying. Arguing with that has the problem that you either actually debate the details of the case which gives tacit approval to the victim-blaming framing of the argument, or you discuss the victim-blaming aspect which gives tacit approval to the supporting arguments. And there's really no way to know if the poster is actually trying to argue in good faith but just started with an overly emotional take, or if they know exactly what they're doing (and I think it's more likely it's actually neither and that people often frame debates for psychological reasons they don't fully understand).

It might not be worth it at all to try to walk the tightrope of debating the arguments without falling into the trap and helping make the "rape victims are lying" premise seem more acceptable to other people reading the thread. Even if it is, it might be disheartening for anyone to try to engage given how emotionally charged the topic is for anyone.

And I would still return to the original point, which is that for someone with a personal connection to this to just ignore threads where this might come up and expect them not to have their overall opinion of the board affected is unreasonable.
  #535  
Old 12-09-2019, 11:43 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
No, it's the simple truth. And demonstrates why being "fair" and treating all sides as equal is in reality just a prettied up way of taking the side of the far right and silencing their victims.

In the long run a board or other meeting place can have the right wing or everyone else but not both, because the Right will drive everyone else away.
How is anyone being silenced if they can type their thoughts?
  #536  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:47 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How is anyone being silenced if they can type their thoughts?
Can we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is?
  #537  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:34 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Can we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is?
Of course you can. Just in the appropriate forum. The problem is, many want to use ad-hominem attacks with a majority of the posters in certain threads to discredit people and by extension their ideas. If every thread and every forum had no properly enforced rules it would be useless anarchy.

What's so challenging about putting ideas and conversations in the appropriate thread and the appropriate forum? Actually we all know that it isn't actually challenging to do so. What the real issue is that some want to deplatform others and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used.
  #538  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:42 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Can we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is?
octopus is exactly right. Feel free to share your thoughts in the appropriate forum (and in adherence with various other board rules) and you should be just fine.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-10-2019 at 01:42 AM.
  #539  
Old 12-10-2019, 02:35 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Of course you can. Just in the appropriate forum.
So that's a "yes, you are being silenced", then.

Telling someone to take their thoughts to a different forum is silencing them in that discussion.

Which is appropriate for some thoughts, and not for others.

Quote:
What the real issue is that some want to deplatform others
I freely own to wanting to deplatform bigots.

It's not something to be ashamed of.
Quote:
and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used.
[/QUOTE]Like I said, I'm not actually allowed to make those supposed ad hominem attacks, so it's hardly a viable tactic, is it?

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-10-2019 at 02:39 AM.
  #540  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:17 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic. To the extent that it is not in such situations, then it is bad and counterproductive. They are not completely distinct or unrelated. Being angry or desiring remedial change in response to racism or some other injustice is a perfectly logical response and the moral outrage should be informed and defined in turn by that logic.

But if someone forgoes logic and operating on pure emotion makes accusations of such behavior without a logical or factual basis then they are not only acting illogically but causing harm to others by doing so. Likewise if they advocate for a disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic response to actual instances of racism or other unjust treatment then that is also beyond what logic and morality would justify. The other side of that, blinding onself to such issues or worse, deliberately ignoring or minimizing them, carries the same types of logical and moral failings.
That is, as has been noted, not how human minds work.

Emotions aren't the result of logic. Emotions are primary, and then people bring logic (or ought to) to bear upon them. I doubt there's any significant number of people who sit down and work out logically what they think the effects of some particular bit of bigotry will be, and then say 'why yes! I conclude logically that I ought to get angry about that!'

-- does anybody first think consciously 'there's a bear in my path, snarling and heading in my direction. What's the evidence that bears can harm people? Exactly how big is that bear? How sure am I that it's a bear, and not a joker in a bear suit? Is there clear evidence that a bear can cross this 2' high single rail fence that's inbetween us?' and then only when all those questions are logically answered conclude 'I ought to be scared now!' If human minds worked that way, none of us would be here, because all our ancestors would have been eaten by lions and tigers and bears.

But they weren't, because emotion fed adrenalin which got them, say, up into a tree; from which position they could pause and consider whether that actually was a bear, whether it actually was after them, and what to do about it if so.

In this thread we are up in that figurative tree. (At least, I hope we are. I hope we're not still arguing about whether bigotry is a figurative bear, or whether bears are dangerous; though I'm not sure that Max isn't.) We're trying to figure out which of those things in the path are actually bears, how to tell which ones are bears, and what to do about them when they are. And for figuring that out, yes, logic is necessary both for sorting out whether there's a "factual basis" for concluding that a particular statement in a thread is a bear or can reasonably be taken for one or is unreasonably encouraging to bears; and for sorting out whether a particular response or proposed response is "disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic".

But what's going on isn't that the emotional response has to wait for a logical defense. What's going on is that logic needs to be brought into the discussion to consider what to do about the pre-existing emotional response. And this needs to be done without denigrating that emotional response for being emotional. Emotions save our lives, and give meaning to them. Without emotion, none of us has any reason to be alive in the first place; or to object to bigotry; or to do anything at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Let me ask you a question. Is there any context where you think it would be appropriate for any person to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence?

This is not a rhetorical question. I would answer with a qualified yes, the condition being whether such a theory has some traction among the public at large, and/or among those in power. The context would be that of a discussion between friends, or of a formal debate; I do not think it is appropriate to tell teenagers that their race is inferior in most other contexts.
Two things:

For one, are you really under the delusion that black teenagers in this society are unaware that some people think black people are less intelligent than white people?

For two: you appear to be confusing the information that some people think this is true with the information that "their race is inferior". I very much hope that this is some accident of the way you phrased your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I disagree with the former sentence on principle. In my opinion it is not the wish or want that causes harm, it is the act (overt or otherwise).
Expressing the wish or want is an overt act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Right, bigotry is harmful in the sense that a bigoted statement can cause a reader to either harm themselves or harm others. I can stipulate to that. I think you (and others) may misunderstand my argument, which is that people can express bigoted opinions without wishing harm upon others.

This was in response to thorny locust, who said she is offended when she reads bigoted arguments because she assumes the bigot wishes harm upon her and her loved ones. My counterargument is that this is not necessarily the case.
That's not what I said; or, at any rate, not what I meant to say. Let me try rephrasing.

I said that I'm angry, an anger based upon fear, when I read such arguments because the result of such arguments is, as has been clearly shown historically and in current events, serious harm up to and including death of large numbers of people including innocents.

And I said that the fact that people making such arguments are deliberately deluding themselves into claiming that isn't so is an act of willful ignorance.

And I said that wishing something to happen that will in its essence cause harm is also to be responsible for the harm; even if the harm isn't the initial impetus for wishing the thing to happen.

Suppose I decide to drive myself home, even though I'm staggering drunk. I have no wish to kill anybody; I just want to get home, without having to pay for a cab or deal with the hassle of getting my car back the next day. But, because I'm driving drunk, I smash into somebody else's car, send it off a cliff I knew perfectly well was there, and kill three people.

I shouldn't be charged with premeditated murder; I didn't intend to kill anybody. But I should be, and probably will be, charged with vehicular manslaughter, and sent to jail. Because even if I tell others, and even if I told myself, that I meant no harm: my actions could be easily foreseen to potentially cause serious damage to others, up to and including killing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What I cannot yet understand is specifically why you and others are offended when you see a bigoted thread, where the bigot is neither malicious nor insincere, and the thread is left open.
This has been explained to you over and over. I don't understand why you can't understand it.

For one more time: leaving such arguments to be considered as a normal and proper attitude is fucking dangerous. Because when they're considered normal attitudes, more and more people act upon them as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think self-contradictory beliefs are meaningless. I think people make decisions based on self-contradictory beliefs all the time, often without even knowing it. For example I might meet a person who is for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, increased defense spending, and maintaining current welfare spending. They might vote based on those contradictory beliefs, for a candidate who claims to share them all. Are their beliefs meaningless? Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs?
And that is exactly an example of one of the reasons (not the only one) why bigotry is dangerous: because people vote based upon bigotry, for those who will do something about the things they've been daydreaming about while claiming that their daydreams are harmless. How can you see that, and not see how these "harmless" expressions of belief are doing harm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think comparing a person to an animal is necessarily an insult. Animals have lots of traits, and I don't think it's fair to assume that when I compare someone to an animal I am saying they are anything less than human.

Context
Yes, exactly, context.

Of course we are all animals. But the history of the USA specifically, and of the human world in general, means that comparing specific groups of people to specific types and/or specific traits of animals is anywhere from mildly offensive to immediately dangerous. Words have meanings; and the meanings they have include the connotations they've built up over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
some want to deplatform others and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used.
What do you suggest should be done if a poster is engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of attacks?
  #541  
Old 12-10-2019, 03:54 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by tricoteuse View Post
IIt really does look like you're trying to blame the membership for not being as kind and welcoming as you think they should be.
We used to be better.
Then we started to replace debate with insults and it kinda went downhill from there.
  #542  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:05 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
--As for Bone, his farewell post included enough jabs at board culture, I'm pretty okay with folks responding to it critically. Had he given a resignation that was more vague, that'd be different; but talking about he can no longer "suffer fools" is pretty much inviting a response.
Where is the farewell post posted? Is there a link?
  #543  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:14 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So, you truly have learned nothing from all this, that much is clear.

Since your "everybody" seems to include racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, Islamophobes...the list goes on.
The thing is that pro-lifers are frequently labeled misogynists
People who oppose affirmative action are often called racists
People who don't like what Israel is doing are called anti-semites
People who believe in the second amendment are called baby-killer
etc.

There is plenty of room for honest debate in those topics and the debate is short circuited by accusations like the ones you list.

On of the last great debates we had on this board was after Sandy Hook when most of the board supported an assault weapons ban. And in the face of accusations of baby-killing, the pro-gun side convinced a large portion of the board that assault weapons bans are stupid gun policy.

I don't know if something like that could happen quite as easily today.
  #544  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:35 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I've told you already in this thread why unchallenged bigotry makes me feel unsafe, and makes me feel that others are unsafe. Others have done so also. I really don't see what the problem is with getting this information into your head; but obviously there is such a problem. A culture that allows bigoted speech to become commonly accepted allows the ideas behind such speech to become commonly accepted; and, once the ideas become commonly enough accepted, such societies then very often put them into practice.
Let me know if I misinterpret you. You are offended angered by discussions involving bigotry because such discussions drive away non-bigots, therefore leaving the bigotry unchallenged, which leaves the bigots thinking their views are commonly accepted, which leads them to think bigoted acts of harm are acceptable, which leads to harm. Right? Is that a circular argument, if being offended causes those people to leave the discussions, and people leave the discussions because they are offended by the consequence of people leaving the discussions?

Even if I got that wrong, I don't understand why banning bigoted ideas from this message board alleviates your fear of bigotry going unchallenged. As I was saying in the post you quoted, bigotry isn't something that dies out if you push it away or confine yourself to safe spaces. If your goal was to achieve a world without bigotry, you have it all backwards. From the viewpoint of the bigots*, you are shrinking their exposure to non-bigoted viewpoints (even if only a tiny bit). By refusing to even entertain their arguments, the Straight Dope would only send the message that they are not interested in fighting ignorance. By alienating the bigots we would remove this community from the pool of respected people that bigots might look at when deciding whether an idea is commonly accepted or not. And there are plenty of bigots, enough that many forms of bigotry are somewhat mainstream. Paradoxically, you will be making bigotry appear more commonly accepted, therefore you should feel more unsafe, therefore you should be against banning bigotry.

* Bigots who argue in good faith. Bad-faith bigots are unworthy of a platform here, because of the bad-faith, not the bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Some situations call for arguing against, others for suppression, and non-bigoted people can indeed disagree as to which situation is which; including as to which situation is which on this board. But claiming that suppression is never useful doesn't seem to me to be at all supported by the evidence.
I support supressing people who directly advocate harm and/or argue in bad faith. There are moral and legal reasons I think we shouldn't allow people to advocate harm, and arguing against bad faith is an exercise in futility. When do you think we should surpress bigoted speech? I thought that was the main question the whole time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Of course it's a contradiction.
I don't think it is. Do you think any of these statements necessarily imply wishing harm upon people?
  • wishing white nationalists would change their mind and willingly respect black people; versus
  • wishing black people would change their mind and willingly move away
  • wishing sexists would change their mind and willingly respect women; versus
  • wishing feminists would change their mind and willingly take on traditional roles
  • wishing transgender people would change their minds and willingly recognize that they have a mental illness; versus
  • wishing transphobic people would change their minds and willingly recognize that transgender people do not have a mental illness
  • wishing homosexuals would change their minds and willingly forgo homosexual intercourse; versus
  • wishing homophobes would change their minds and willingly recognize that homosexual intercourse is part of human nature
I do not think any of these wishes are necessarily a wish for harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
The bigot can, of course, find other places to do so. But the more places that say flat out 'that's not an opinion worth seriously considering', the fewer people will start thinking 'everybody's saying this, and hardly anybody's contradicting them, there's probably something in it.'
I have been thinking about this thread a lot. Is this your argument?
  • 1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored
    • 2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that lead to harm
      • 3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted
        • 4) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots
          • 5) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots
            • 6) Discussions of bigotry are discussions where bigots wish harm upon others
            • 7) Discussions where bigots wish harm upon others are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots
          • 8) Discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots are discussions that drive away non-bigots
        • 9) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted
      • 10) Discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted are discussions that lead to harm
    • 11) Discussions that lead to harm should be censored
That's a pretty good argument, and the only point I disagree on is #6, which is why I am pressing that point (see above).

Or, as mentioned earlier in this post, is it like this?
  • B1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored
    • B2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that lead to harm
      • B3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted
        • B4) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots
          • B5) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots
            • B6) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots (circular)
            • B7) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots (also circular)
          • B8) Discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots are discussions that drive away non-bigots
        • B9) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted
      • B10) Discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted are discussions that lead to harm
    • B11) Discussions that lead to harm should be censored
Because this argument is circular and I find it unconvincing. That doesn't mean it's not the real reason you get angry, and I respect and acknowledge that you and others are offended or angry regardless of the reason. I just don't agree with this reasoning, and I would think you are being unreasonable, and for whatever my opinion is worth, I do not support changing the rules to alleviate what I think is an unreasonable anger or offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
That's like saying they want to have a thousand new single-family houses built in what's now woods but they don't want any trees to be cut down.
This is a good example of what I am saying. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the thought of building a house on a plot of forest land without cutting down any trees. A house can be in or around the trees. A house can be built underground, under the roots, with a small entrance between the trees. Building materials do not need to come from the local forest, nor do they need to be wood at all. Trees could be uprooted and moved to a nearby meadow. If you mix in a little ignorance, these ideas might even sound plausible.

~Max
  #545  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:45 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is a good example of what I am saying. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the thought of building a house on a plot of forest land without cutting down any trees. A house can be in or around the trees. A house can be built underground, under the roots, with a small entrance between the trees. Building materials do not need to come from the local forest, nor do they need to be wood at all. Trees could be uprooted and moved to a nearby meadow. If you mix in a little ignorance, these ideas might even sound plausible.

~Max
This did not occur to me when I made the original post, but perhaps you are comparing black people to trees. In that sense I think the analogy fails, because unlike trees, black people can voluntarily move away. That doesn't mean they will, or that it is realistic to think that they want to. But the thought of black people leaving a neighborhood without being threatened, harmed, or coerced is not inherently contradictory.

~Max
  #546  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:26 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I am saying allowing bigots who, to use your term, argue in bad faith, to post their bad faith questions is wrong. It gives them the platform they're seeking. Call it an accessory after the crime.

YOU seem to be saying that you have to give such people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they really don't know! Maybe they mean well! And you seem to be saying "Let's let them have their say, even though they may be bad faith bigots (For the sake of argument, I"m going along with your shaky assumption that there are a significant number of good faith bigots.), because gosh, maybe bad faith bigots can be talked into changing their ways! Is that accurate?

My question to you: how do you determine ANYONE is arguing in bad faith if you bend over backwards, as you are wont to do, to give them the benefit of the doubt?
No, I agree with you. People (including bigots) who argue in bad faith should be warned or banned. I assume that when you wrote, "... gosh, maybe bad faith bigots can be talked into changing their ways!" you meant good-faith bigots, not bad-faith bigots. I don't think it's worth the effort trying to reason with an opponent who argues in bad-faith.

I do not advocate bending over backwards to give members the benefit of the doubt. If there is a pattern of bad-faith, don't give them the benefit of the doubt. For example, if a member uses some offensive slur in a context where it was not absolutely necessary to convey the point, and people come to ATMB calling for the member's head, I might give them the benefit of the doubt if they claim ignorance. It would depend on how commonly that word is interpreted as a slur. If it happens again, especially in the original thread or ATMB thread, that constitutes a pattern of bad-faith.

I have examples ready, but it is conveniently against the rules to junior-mod or accuse other members of trolling. You can look at my posting history in ATMB within the past two months. Read between the lines and you should be able to tell exactly where and why I might stop giving members the benefit of the doubt.

In my short time here, I have yet to conclude that any member is a bad-faith poster overall. It would take a history of specific and articulable findings of bad-faith for me to reach that conclusion.

~Max
  #547  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:58 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
And you know this how?
By reading the boards while having a working vision system and English fluency.
  #548  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:45 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Given that more than half of all Americans believe that there are only two possible gender identities, man and woman, that roughly equal numbers support and oppose bathroom bills that require people use bathrooms consistent with the gender of their birth, are these subjects that should be handled as "settled", especially as GD is pretty clearly labelled as a place in which debate on sensitive subjects may occur and a thread on the subject will be clearly labelled as something to avoid if one feels one wants to?

These are subjects that significant numbers of Americans have been changing their minds about over the past few years. Solid direct explicit rebuttals and real life experiences shared in face of bigoted stereotypes put forth have been part of that. Maybe not leading to epiphanies for the bigots, but helping educate others mightily.

If it is to be allowed at all, how should it be constrained to avoid those who JAQ it, or clearly ignore answers in favor of repeating the same questions without caring about the response, or who otherwise argue in bad faith?
Not only do I think it should be allowed, I think such debates should be encouraged. I thought that was the purpose of the Great Debates forum? If you want to look at a position as beyond the pale (in America), it has to have a lot less than half of Americans behind it.

Regarding the bad-faith, I think we can and should moderate that for what it is rather than what it purports to be. A member who argues in bad faith should be reprimanded for arguing in bad faith, not for presenting a controversial viewpoint.

~Max
  #549  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:52 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Max S. dodged the question, Dibble gave the honest answer, but again: In this day and age, are we ever going to get female, POC, or trans moderators again if they have to moderate "The Transphobic Thread"?
Hold on, why would a trans moderator moderate the transphobic threads?

Isn't that a conflict of interest? That would be like Bone moderating the NIMBY thread. I would expect moderators to recuse themselves from moderating debates where they have a strong opinion, whenever possible.

The question I refused to address is whether we would get any minority moderators if they are expected to stay out of the bigoted threads.

~Max
  #550  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:58 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Going over the top right from the get-go aren't you? Yes, I'm privileged. In multiple ways. But so are you and so is everyone posting on this board or living in Western-style democracies. [...] All I'm asking for is looking at it objectively, logically, and factually. [...]
Tu quoque? Jragon was trying to argue that bigotry itself is objectively wrong. You forgot to actually make a rebuttal.

~Max
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017