Note that search IDs expire. Whatever this referred to, it’s gone now.
It referred to threads in ATMB where the word “attractive” was mentioned. I didn’t see the relevance.
A large part of determination of trolling depends on context. So in the example you raised, if a person wholly ignorant of gender related matters were to make the same statement, it could be treated differently than if a poster who has extensive experience in gender related discussions. That seems right to me.
You’re also mischaracterizing the warning that ITD gave - you seem to be stuck on the length part, as if length of post were the determining factor. On the contrary, the determining factor was whether or not the post was solely to rile others up.
The fact that it was Shodan was apparently a contributing factor to the determination that it was posted to rile others up though.
Yeah, if by “straight up BS” you mean “entirely reasonable and justified warning”.
Would someone else also be warned for posting that in the same context? Yes, they would, or certainly should. I find it rather incredible that this actually needs to be explained to you. The thread was about the underlying factors contributing to gender identity conflict, or gender dysphoria, which was starting to lead to an interesting discussion. Gender dysphoria is a serious life-altering issue that affected people deeply struggle with. Your snide drive-by comment that “I would have thought that the number 1 factor [of gender identity] would be ‘whatever you decide it is’.” was a jerkish attempt to trivialize it and reduce it to essentially comical proportions, as if this serious issue is nothing more than some trivial whim that might occur to someone one day and be forgotten the next. It was especially jerkish in juxtaposition to the OP’s attempt to seriously understand the problem.
If you genuinely believe gender dysphoria isn’t a real problem, I don’t think you’d be modded for a good-faith attempt at explaining your reasoning. It’s not a matter of “how long it would have to be not to be trolling”, it’s a matter of being a participant in the discussion rather than a drive-by smartass.
This is untrue.
The fact that it was not fleshed out to an unspecified degree is the reason that ITD said it was trolling.
There was no mischaracterization at all.
Regards,
Shodan
Why isn’t referring to a person’s belief in a deity as “believing in a sky fairy” not similarly determined to be for the sole purpose of riling someone up? That insult would apply to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
Implicit in your response is that once someone has sufficiently participated in a discussion about transgender issues, then he or she should absolutely know (or accurately stated, agree with the board position) that the correct side is right and therefore stop disagreeing or being snarky. I wholeheartedly disagree with that position as it stifles debate, but if we are going to outlaw snark, then that should apply to religion or really all topics across the board.
It’s just that the board has selected a few undefined topics (generally women’s issues, gay and trans issues and the like) to be “special” topics where politeness and respect are required but only if you are on the wrong side of the issue. If you are on the right side of the issue, you can insult, call your opponents bigots and phobes and be as snarky as you want. That is inconsistent with a board that wants open debate, again, unless snark is prohibited across the board on each side.
Yes, that is no doubt trolling.
I think you’re entirely missing the point here (and so is Shodan). How can you claim that such a phrase would or would not be perceived as trolling without knowing anything about the context?
For example, in a discussion about atheism, saying that “I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in a sky fairy” would be fine. But, say, someone starts a thread about the Protestant Reformation, and an in-depth discussion results about the divergence of beliefs between Catholics and Protestants. Jumping into that thread with a comment like “nah, they’re both exactly the same, because they both believe in sky fairies” would be, at the very least, threadshitting, and could well be perceived as trolling.
And that was exactly the nature of Shodan’s comment. What could any reasonable person possibly imagine that drive-by comment contributed to the thread? It was just a nasty implication that the whole matter was a non-issue not worthy of discussion, and by further implication, that those discussing it were fools.
Fair point.
It could be, depending on the context. wolfpup in the 2nd paragraph of post #149 gives a potential example of this.
This is not implicit in my response in the slightest. Let be be explicit - there is no requirement to agree with the majority opinion, the minority opinion, or any opinion. Everyone is always welcome to disagree with just about anything, including moderation in the appropriate fourm.
This is completely wrong as well.
To put a finer point on it: all opinions are welcome, as long as they’re genuine and presented in a neutral manner.
My emphasis; the implied criticism that there are certain topics that receive special scrutiny over jerkish behavior, might be missing a distinction between disparaging remarks that punch down, and disparaging remarks that punch up.
Making a critical or hostile remark about “women’s issues, gay and trans issues” (to quote you) is punching down, because these are demographic groups that have less status, power, and influence in most societies. Making a critical or hostile remark about, say, men’s rights groups, is punching up—because overwhelmingly these groups are made up of people at the top of the demographic status-hierarchy.
I’m not suggesting that this is a distinction consciously employed by moderators. I doubt that it is.
But it’s possible that the basic underlying idea contributes to the decision on whether or not someone is posting in a jerkish way. Punching down is jerkish. Punching up: less so.
Okay, I took your assurances to heart and started a thread in GD that I would have otherwise had great trepidation to wade into.
I suspect the responses there will fulfill your predictions but not for the reasons you believe.
ORLY? What do you believe are the reasons I believe, and what do you believe the real reasons will be?
ATMB is for discussion about the board. This thread is about trends in moderation. Please keep to that topic, and not digress into personal treatises about what you think others believe. ATMB is not the appropriate place for that discussion.
Wasn’t SD talking about how she expects the thread to be moderated? That is how I interpreted it, which means that my response was also about expectations of moderation.
I will agree that the moderation has taken a higher degree in interest in such topics, demanding posters be more respectful in those discussions. I will not, however, agree with the idea that respect is only required if you are the right side. It’s actually a chore to call out bigotry without getting in trouble for it, something that a lot of us don’t like. Even the post/poster distinction isn’t absolute anymore, as sometimes attacking the post may be determined as attacking the poster, if the attack is strong enough. We have to be calm about it.
Uh… isn’t it usually UPstate? What are you trying to say? Stop beating around the bush… give it to me straight… is… is Zotti in HELL?