Your argument above makes several assumptions, all of which are questionable:
That the Elections forum can observe and reflect rape culture without amplifying or encouraging it.
That there is no way to use a adversarial debate between proponents and opponents of a position (say “holding a woman down, trying to tear off her clothes while cutting off her screams is no big deal”) is the best or only way of simply acknowledging that such a position exists.
That the best way to decide upon the merits of such an argument is to give free rein to its proponents in an adversarial debate.
That the value of the Elections forum being a true reflection of the full spectrum of political debate is so great that any negative outcomes from giving a platform to “disgusting” ideas that are known to hurt, offend and drive off a sizable proportion of the board’s members can be safely discounted.
In other words, if giving a platform to advocates of rape culture makes the women reading Elections first cry and then remove themselves from the board, then, darnit, that’s just a price you’re willing to pay?
If that’s grossly unfair, what’s your suggestion for minimising the harm to board members from the unfortunately necessity of giving this ugliness free rein?
Or to put it another way - if mods were to Note, and Warn, and ultimately ban advocates of ugly, disgusting arguments that normalise rape, such that over time fewer and fewer people advocated these ideas, the upside would be that the boards became a more welcoming place to women. The downside would be that if we wanted to acknowledge or engage with these ideas, we’d have to reference someone outside the boards who holds them rather than directly debate a proponent. So what?
That is a fast moving thread and I’m certain I haven’t read every single post. I have read posts regarding the several thread reports, and I’d say most of it. I stopped participating in the thread because I felt like I’d probably have to step in and moderate so I backed away from actively participating, even though there was quite a bit I wanted to respond to.
The operative question is really, are posters allowed to have views and argue those views even when we find them distasteful and horrible. I don’t think it’s a clear cut answer. Some views are horrible enough that they would not be allowed. But consider that the arguments being objected to are almost mainstream arguments from the Republican party. It would be odd if the party line arguments were not allowed in a forum dedicated to elections and electoral politics. It would be like saying, being a Republican is not allowed and that is not a good outcome.
Do the following qualify as “mainstream arguments from the Republican party”: what Ford claimed happened isn’t that bad or isn’t a big deal, is just “trying to get laid”, that Ford and/or Ramirez share the blame for what they experienced (if their allegations are true), that they should be faulted for not reporting their experiences at the time, as well as the personal aspersions and denigrating language used against these women? If not, would any of those things be moddable?
The thread in question is pretty solid evidence that all attempts to ‘work within the system’, have been an abject failure.
In that thread men were allowed to freely express themselves, no parameters, no mods stopping by to decide what topics were okay. But when women want to ask about that trash, it’s got to be in ATMB, ergo lady like polite, the topic strictly limited to the mods wishes. Not the women’s, the mods wishes.
The reasoning amounts to, let’s not talk about that because it just goes round and round. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like, let’s not go there, it’s just ‘he said, she said’!
It stinks. Two moderations within four posts. Both to LIMIT what can be said.
Most of the denigating language (“lying bitch” etc) I saw in the elections thread came from left-leaning posters (who were, I believe, being sarcastic). It would seem to be counter to historical practice to warn over that.
Bone: Although I agree with your overall thinking at a high level, I believe that what andy is saying here is the crux of the matter. The particulars put some posts over the line. If it helps, imagine that Kavanaugh had been accused of harassing or hazing a black classmate and someone came into the thread and said: “so what if that black guy had a noose put around his neck at a party. Back when I was a kid, this happened all the time and blacks knew that if they went to certain parties they would likely get called racial epithets. They are at lest partly responsible for putting themselves in that position in the first place.”
So, yeah, I think that at least one particular poster on the pro-Kavanaugh side should be moderated in that thread and it could be done without reducing the overall quality of debate. But while that one particular poster should be moderated, and he has posted a lot in that thread, more than one or two folks on the anti-Kavanaugh side really need to dial back the vitriol, because if the mods start combing through that thread, a lot more on the anti side are going to end up with mod notes or warnings. As a few already have.
I’m not seeing your point. I was agreeing with DSeid and Bone that people in the general public hold many of the same views about the Kavanaugh issue that I saw in the thread. The people in the videos are not trolling.
I have also seen people in videos minimizing the alleged physical acts in the same way I saw them argued in the thread.
Here’s a video of some Republican women. (It’s alleged by one person that they might be operatives, but that’s beside the point.)
I think that of all of those things, the only one that might hold some water is the contention that it’s not right to hold him accountable for something he did 30 years ago. Not that it makes what he did right, but it also doesn’t mean that he’s the same person now that he was 30 years ago.
I wasn’t a sexual assaulter or rapist or anything like that when I was 16 (30 years ago), but I was definitely not the person I am today. I was far more sexist, homophobic and agreeable to a lot of the rape culture type stuff than I am now at 46. Some of that is because I learned the hard way by being confronted when I was being an ass, some was through observation and reflection, and some was just sheer growing up.
I guess the upshot of all that is that I think it would be extremely unfair if say… I was ever prevented from holding public office or anything like that because I called someone a “fag” and told homophobic jokes in 1988 for example. I don’t do that anymore, and haven’t for quite a while. I suspect most every adult has something they did in high school that was not nice, and that is out of character for the person they are today.
Where do you draw the line anyway? Clearly some kid doing something obnoxious as a 13 year old middle schooler wouldn’t be held against them as a fifty-something adult, but would something a 15 year old high school freshman? 16 year old sophomore? 17 year old junior?
That’s what bugs me about the Kavanaugh hearings; they’re currently setting a precedent that someone has to be perfect in order to be considered- no juvenile stupidity, no changes of heart, changes in community mores over time, etc… or else it’ll be dug up from decades before and that person will be pilloried with it.
…Obama admitted publicly he used marijuana and cocaine when he was younger.
If Obama had said he had never used marijuana and cocaine, but we found witnesses who said they had seen him using marijuana and cocaine, then we have good reason to doubt his suitability for serving in public office.
You admit to telling homophobic jokes in the past. There are probably some people who will hold that against you: that’s unavoidable. But if you lied about it: and if we found out that you lied about it, then I don’t think you should be holding public office either.
There’s juvenile stupidity and there’s sexual assault. One is not the same as the other. I did stupid things as a juvenile. I did not lay hands on a woman in any violent or inappropriate way.
There’s a criminal trial and there’s common decency. Trying Kavanaugh for a 36-year-old accusation is one thing. Gifting him for life with potentially limitless power over the bodies of women when his character around women is suspect is wildly different.
False equivalence is the heart of this dispute. You’re not helping.
No, the operative question is “are those distasteful and horrible views being presented in a manner designed to deliberately piss people off?” Because that would be trolling.
OK. I’m old and I’m also old school in some ways. Specifically, I’m of the school that says that stupid, noxious, belittling, and even odious speech should be allowed and kept in the open so that it can be hooted at, dumped on, mocked, reviled, and exposed as the damaging nonsense that it is.
The SDMB is not facebook or reddit or some dark web outpost in which that speech can go unchecked to build up a community of like-minded haters. Here they will be called out for what they say. They will be reminded that their words are unacceptable. They will be told over and over that the world has changed.
I don’t see how the Dope can be open to all and also be a safe space. That’s unfortunate and I empathize with those who find the openness uncomfortable and unpleasant. The board’s openness is a strength. That openness shouldn’t be confused with the openness of a sewer: past threads ares littered with the Banned who never learned their lessons. The mods are too slow on the trigger, true. I’ve reported many posts with “why isn’t this person banned yet?”
tl;dr. Dump on the assholes, warn the jerks, ban the haters.
Certainly it’s true that nearly everyone saying “attempted rape isn’t a big deal” or “all boys did stuff like that” or “That was just called ‘getting laid’ in 1982” are Republicans. But it’s not true that all Republicans are saying that.
It’s perfectly possible to be a Republican who doesn’t trivialize rape or blame the victim of rape. And nobody here is talking about modding the Republicans who don’t make that sort of horrorshow post. Non-horrorshow Republicans are 100% allowed.
If we reach a point in our society where it’s impossible to be a member of a major party without being pro-rape, we’re pretty screwed. And if we reach that point, banning all members of that party isn’t the worst idea in the world.
100% not. And we need to put it as baldly as possible:
Questioning the veracity of her claim is within the bounds of reasonable conversation. I strenuously disagree with the ways that her claim tends to be questioned, but those questions are copacetic.
Declaring that the actions she claims are, as claimed, no big deal–that they’re just “getting laid”, or she’s at fault so shouldn’t complain, or they’re just what guys do and girls should expect it–is pro-rape, and is outside the bounds of reasonable conversation.
It’s crucial to this conversation that folks don’t confuse the two different arguments.
