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.
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”?
You like the idea so it could be your insults playground as described a few posts up.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
That wasn’t the example you raised, which was actually racist.
But I guess those goalposts aren’t going to move themselves.
The suggestion for consideration was based on several premises:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?”
Nope. That’s not how emotions work for human beings. At all.
So what do you want, a medal? :rolleyes:
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.
No, I made that up. Sorry if I mislead you.
In retrospect, that particular paragraph could have stayed out.
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
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
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?