Yes, I can. I mean, obviously I don’t, I’m not a bigot so far as I know, but I could imagine myself being one. Other people can and do. You can “wish” for some result without endorsing any possible or plausible path to reach that result. You can actually wish for things that are literally impossible.
Bigots are humans, and they aren’t necessarily perfect logicians either. They, too have thoughts that work at cross-purposes.
~Max
Mod it as a hijack.
~Max
So let’s get clear about the where and whats.
Sounds like agreement on the idea that continuing to say certain things that you know are offensive to participants is being a jerk, unless the op subject of discussion is that very concept and discussing it is impossible without potentially offending. Which we will come back to.
So for the “perfectly fine thread on trans issues, much good information sharing” … that’s not a GD asking for debate on the issues. Maybe an IMHO but in any case if the point of the thread is to share information then someone threadshitting with a trans-people don’t really exist or misgendering or transphobic comment is an offensive hijack and should be warned. That’s easy in my mind.
Is there any GD place still though for those who are not yet on board with thinking of a trans-person as their self-identified gender, and/or who do not appreciate the impact of the the stigma that society places, to express their thoughts? I am not sure.
Thing is that the average American’s views on transgender issues have moved very rapidly over the last several years and open discussions in which the ignorant were able to express their ignorance and be educated, were a large part of that movement. I readily admit that I learned a shitload reading those discussions with my ignorance being reduced a great deal. Reading Una’s threads in particular, including reading some of what was expressed by those more ignorant than I was, brought me up to speed and moved my mindset dramatically. OTOH Una’s great work came at a steep price.
Are we at the point at which those whose minds are open enough to learn have been reached by now and further discussions are unlikely to cause much more ignorance reduction and instead the offense of even a contained to a single thread discussion actually debating transgender rights is too offensive, too costly, too … rude? I’m thinking probably so, but I am not sure. I am sure though that we were not at that point two years ago. Forbidding those discussions then would have left many of us with our ignorance intact. And many of us while less ignorant than before are still actively learning.
No question that minimally those discussions need to be constrained at this point. Maybe completely?
Since Mr. Dibble already pointed out that modifying what another poster said is forbidden (no matter what your supposed reason), I will just say “Thanks, Mr. Dibble!” and not repeat what he said. Kindly do not modify what I’ve said. Clearly, though, you still don’t get it.
The point is that telling people to avoid inflammatory words or actions is wrong and has perpetuated injustices. Whether the wrongness is words or actions, the effects are the same.
Frankly, you’re starting to seem less and less like someone who goes to extreme lengths to rationalize bigotry and more and more like someone who adopts a purist stance in order to allow the expressions of bigotry to continue.
You are, in fact, incorrect. I was pointing out how allowing bigotry, whether it’s expressed via speech/writing or action, to continue without limits has been a means of allowing such bigotry to continue. And you are wrong in assuming that those of us who recognize and acknowledge the damage, not only to individuals but to debate, that such expressions of bigotry inevitably entail, do not want to visit such threads, though I admit, it’s cleverly disingenuous to claim so. What we want is for such threads to be recognized as the cover for bigotry that they are and on that basis to be closed.
You seem to have extreme difficulty grasping these arguments. Perhaps if you were to question the assumptions you make about those of us objecting–assumptions you doggedly stick to regardless of how well or how often we point out their erroneous nature-- you’d understand better. Or perhaps you don’t care to understand. I’m beginning to suspect that’s the case.
Yes, I know. I could wish for a unicorn.
However, I can’t wish for a unicorn that is also a hornless horse. That is literally impossible to wish for. I can verbalize it as a wish, but it’s a noncognitive statement, devoid of any meaning. It is “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously” encoded as a wish. Same for wishing for something but not wishing for the necessities it entails. Wishing for one is wishing for the other.
NM
[quote=“Max_S, post:435, topic:843977”]
[ul][li]Don’t like discussions of whether Blacks should have to sit in the back of restaurants? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Distressed by discussions of whether to herd Japanese into internment camps? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Don’t like discussions of the morality of sundown laws? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Don’t like discussions of whether bosses should refer to female employees by their bra sizes and refuse to promote them? Don’t join those discussions.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Sigh. How often do we have to keep repeating that this has nothing to do with what we like or don’t like?
This isn’t a preference. This isn’t a disagreement. We are talking about bigotry. Bigotry is a moral wrong. Ignoring a moral wrong by not participating is not how you deal with it.
It’s also 2019. No one would be bringing up such blatant issues because they legitimately didn’t know they are bigoted. At best, they are bringing it up to troll. More likely, the goal is to spread hate and bigotry, to make this place seem unwelcoming and to monopolize people’s energy fighting them. It’s also usually an attempt to hijack a topic and make it about that.
If we ignore it, then the bigotry remains unchallenged, and that’s even worse. So we wind up having to fight it. And that fighting opens up more excuses for them to post bigotry and try to get away with it. They get to move onto another tactic of seeming to be unflappable while making others angry, which creates the aesthetic that they are right. It actually helps their ideas spread further than just those who already agreed with them. And it helps cement the persecution fetish.
The problem is that allowing this bigotry on this board is itself harmful. It may have merit when it’s something that’s actually debatable, where things aren’t settled. But blatant bigotry like this has no place, and our arguing with it serves no positive purpose. You are naive if you think you’re fighting ignorance when you argue with it.
This is a classic right wing tactic, using the desire of those of us who value debate and argument to push their agenda. It’s not like their arguments are right or convincing on a rational level. But that’s entirely irrelevant when they aren’t engaging in the same framework.
And, finally, it’s also something that those of us who are against bigotry aren’t going to be able to keep fighting without it taking its toll. When facing these people, the idea that we’re here “for our enjoyment” as JC says goes away. We’re fighting evil, not having a pleasant debate. And that’s going to get testy.
The blatant bigots are already uncivil. They’re already jerks. And once one side is a jerk, it becomes difficult for their opponents to not cross the line. Especially when they are frustrated that they need to keep fighting this crap, rather than the mods saying “You know what? This is being a jerk (or trolling). You’re gone.”
Civility and allowing blatant bigotry to be argued are incompatible. Trying to “fight ignorance” in bigots is at best wasteful and unwelcoming, and at worst playing right into their hands.
So, no, we can’t treat bigotry like something we don’t like and simply ignore it. We can’t expect minorities to simply see it as something not to like and ignore it, when its very existence means the mods will not do anything if that minority faces bigotry. We can’t treat these people like they are just ignorant and just need more information.
We have to treat bigotry like something that is morally wrong, something that needs to be stopped. We need to treat the worst bigotry for what it is, the epitome of “being a jerk.”
If you meant discussing topics related to these issues, then sure.
But the examples you gave show you mean arguments where one side puts forth blatant, unquestionably bigoted statements. Rather than defending discussions, you are defending people being able to say outright bigoted things under guise of wanting a debate.
There are actually aspects of these topics where discussion can be had. But stuff like whether or not making black people sit in the back of the bus is acceptable not one of them. You might as well be asking whether or not it’s okay to keep black slaves.
There are people who are racist, misogynistic, or transphobic without any intended malice. But those who argue things like this are not among them. The best case scenario is that they are just trolling–knowing that saying something so bigoted would piss people off.
I’ve already discusses at length in multiple threads what they may instead be doing. I simply invite you to watch the video series “The Alt-Right Playbook.”
So lets say you’re an immigrant, in a political thread you read “immigrants breed like rabbits”, and this apparently is allowed because it isn’t an explicit call for violence against immigrants. The recourse you now have is either to suck it up just avoid threads where someone might say something like this. You don’t think this would contribute to your feeling the board as a whole doesn’t welcome you? Do you really think it’s that easy (or worth it) to compartmentalize and just have to consciously make the decision to think about how every topic might turn into more bigotry in order to seek out the threads you can enjoy/get something out of without a risk of bigoted comments against you?
This is pretty much standard right wing forum-takeover tactics that are being promoted. Insist on “discussions” about bigoted issues which by nature promotes the idea that such beliefs are arguably true. Maintain a “Just Asking Questions” stance to make your enemies look unreasonable & leverage the moderators into silencing them for you. Create a hostile environment that drives out everyone who isn’t also a bigot. Then either watch the board collapse or take it over. There’s literal right wing playbooks for this sort of thing.
That’s good and all but two things:
Ultimately, it looks like the majority want an ideological safe space and want the rules to reflect that. Sounds boring.
And I do have to ask. What is the genesis of all these board ‘improvement’ threads? The timing seems a bit strange.
I would imagine you could ask Tuba or a passing mod, as they seem to have driven a lot of the current flurry.
Could you clarify how or why the timing seems strange to you?
Yeah, me too. I can’t speak for the others, of course, but I decided to make a go of it following Bone’s departure. We’re going to be adding new mods, my recent analysis of traffic in Great Debates and Elections - available elsewhere - indicated those two fora were falling behind in terms of traffic and over the years we’ve gotten feedback from both prospective mods and general posters that many avoid it - or don’t want to be assigned to mod such - because they are just an unpleasant place to visit. Not unpleasant in a ‘the truth hurts, Jack’ sort of way but more in a ‘crazy argumentative uncle at Thanksgiving’ sort of way. Given that feedback, I checked with Jenny and decided to begin crowdsourcing opinions about ways to make the two fora both friendlier and more effective.
I’ve been using the feedback and commentary to begin formulating a new set of rules. Once that’s done I’ll share them with the mod loop and refine from there. Eventually, they’ll be put in place.
One of the few things I absolutely know at this point is that the new rules will not please everyone. There will be someone who disagrees with every single one of them.
Meanwhile, I hope you all will continue to share. Should anyone have any specific feedback they don’t want to share in clear, please feel free to send me a Private Message. It may seem cliché but I mean it sincerely when I say that I truly welcome all such messages. You may not get what you want but I’ll put it in the hopper for review.
Are we talking about my opinion here (needing to understand in a general sense before I can accept and support something) or the opinion of bigots?
~Max
To clarify, I do not consider myself a white nationalist and I do not want black people to go away.
~Max
At any point, feel free to post or PM me that you agree to disagree and our discussion will end right there.
~Max
I don’t see why advocating for something that increases the risk of harm is the same as advocating for harm. For example (and every premise here is an assumption, btw):
Although swimming increases the risk of drowning, and drowning is a harm, encouraging a friend to swim is not the same as encouraging harm.
Although being told you can’t achieve your dream increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is a harm, debating whether you can achieve your dream is not the same as advocating harm.
Although being told that your race is inferior increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is a harm, debating whether genetics factor into the observed racial disparity in IQ (is inferior) is not the same as advocating harm.
Although being told that you do not belong increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is harm, debating whether people with a trait you have would be better off in their own country is not the same as advocating harm.
Although advocating for suicide increases the risk of suicide, and suicide is harm, advocating for suicide is still advocating harm. Unless suicide isn’t a harm.
I would not want to shut down a debate over whether suicide is harmful, at least I don’t think that topic itself is advocating harm. I am familiar with some of the philosophy behind suicide, and perhaps I should reconsider labeling “Is suicide selfish?” threads as advocating harm.
ETA: I still think there might be legal issues if we let such threads go on. If somebody attempts suicide and his browser window is left open on an SDMB suicide thread, that means the SDMB might get sued by survivors or relatives.
~Max
This is the shape of argument that justifies censorship by the religious right and their actions as well. It is both simplistic and specious.
Homosexuality is a moral wrong. Sex outside of marriage is a moral wrong. Abortion is a moral wrong. So on. High horses are dangerous places to set up soap boxes on. Not only do different people have different views of what is and is not a moral right and a moral wrong, they have even more divergent views over what counts as any specific moral right or wrong and how to balance different ones out on the scale of ethics when those moral values conflict with each other as they often do.
We do not make this a better place to participate in by trying to make it a fight against poor morals … that will certainly take longer than you think.
Yes. Labelling someone’s position as based on some immoral or hateful belief is very often a dishonest tactic, no matter which side it comes from, including if it is defense of positions that I completely agree with.
But no one (I hope) is advocating for absolute ideological safe spaces any more than anyone is advocating for absolute free speech on these boards.
Let’s return to that morally wrong and right framework and how the real world works.
Expressing ideas freely is a moral good to many of us.
Avoiding harm to others is a moral good to many of us as well.
And there are spaces where the two moral goods conflict. In those cases judgements get made but the process is not so simple as saying that this moral good is always more important that any other.
These cannot be “safe spaces” but they cannot be places too full of harms to others either.
Clear expectations of what is to found behind the door when entering specific fora and specific threads within those fora is part of it. The tolerance for offensive speech is, for example, much less in GQ than in The Pit, and should be. Within GD, where discussing and debating sensitive ideas between people of different values is part of its reason for being, some conflict of values and their applications is unavoidable and some offense will occur no matter how much one tries to express an idea mindfully. But GD is not like the Pit in that one should be expected to be very mindful in how expresses the ideas and offense should be minimized where possible. Moreover some debates have been so rehashed, have so little value served by rehashing again, and cause such degree of harm by being rehashed, that they can be closed because the balance is harms far outweigh the goods.
I’d argue for a very small list of those subjects though, and GREAT caution that it does not slide into censorship that labels opinions that very significant numbers of Americans hold (even if they are very wrong opinions) completely off-limits or using the charge of [hateful belief] as a means to silence dissent from a majority view. And it cannot be used to create a discussions which are witnessing for one belief system.
IF we, for example, declare that “scientific racism” is a subject that belongs in that group of subjects that have little discussion value left and which OTOH cause significant harms, then creating a thread to mock the belief system in GD is either also off limits or one in which those with those beliefs are free to go to town. There is in fact very little value to “witnessing” in GD.
It’s stuck in a loop.