Disputation and The Straight Dope Message Board

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@tricoteuse

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.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

–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?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@MrDibble

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.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

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 [DEL]offended[/DEL] 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.

@thorny_locust

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.

@thorny_locust

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?
[ul][li]wishing white nationalists would change their mind and willingly respect black people; versus[/li][li]wishing black people would change their mind and willingly move away[/ul][/li][ul][li]wishing sexists would change their mind and willingly respect women; versus[/li][li]wishing feminists would change their mind and willingly take on traditional roles[/ul][/li][ul][li]wishing transgender people would change their minds and willingly recognize that they have a mental illness; versus[/li][li]wishing transphobic people would change their minds and willingly recognize that transgender people do not have a mental illness[/ul][/li][ul][li]wishing homosexuals would change their minds and willingly forgo homosexual intercourse; versus[/li][li]wishing homophobes would change their minds and willingly recognize that homosexual intercourse is part of human nature[/ul][/li]I do not think any of these wishes are necessarily a wish for harm.

@thorny_locust

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?
[ul][li]1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored[/li] [LIST][li]2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that lead to harm[/li] [LIST][li]3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted[/li] [LIST][li]4) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots[/li] [LIST][li]5) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots[/li] [LIST][li]6) Discussions of bigotry are discussions where bigots wish harm upon others[/li] [li]7) Discussions where bigots wish harm upon others are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots[/ul][/li] [li]8) Discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots are discussions that drive away non-bigots[/LIST][/li] [li]9) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted[/LIST][/li] [li]10) Discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted are discussions that lead to harm[/LIST][/li] [li]11) Discussions that lead to harm should be censored[/LIST][/li][/LIST]
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?
[ul][li]B1) Discussions of bigotry should be censored[/li] [LIST][li]B2) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that lead to harm[/li] [LIST][li]B3) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted[/li] [LIST][li]B4) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots[/li] [LIST][li]B5) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots[/li] [LIST][li]B6) Discussions of bigotry are discussions that drive away non-bigots (circular)[/li] [li]B7) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots (also circular)[/ul][/li] [li]B8) Discussions that offend/anger/discomfort non-bigots are discussions that drive away non-bigots[/LIST][/li] [li]B9) Discussions that drive away non-bigots are discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted[/LIST][/li] [li]B10) Discussions that make bigotry appear more commonly accepted are discussions that lead to harm[/LIST][/li] [li]B11) Discussions that lead to harm should be censored[/LIST][/li][/LIST]
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.

@thorny_locust

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

[Max_S]

@Max_S

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

[Max_S]

@nelliebly

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

[Ruken]

@nelliebly

And you know this how?

By reading the boards while having a working vision system and English fluency.

[Max_S]

@DSeid

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

[Max_S]

@CarnalK

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

[Max_S]

@DirkHardly

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

[Max_S]

@DSeid

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?

I agree, expressing bigoted acts can cause harm. Directly even.

I don’t think that my mother wishing I had never been born or that I would go away is necessarily harmful, but acting upon those wishes certainly can be. That includes telling me.

But do I think it is always wrong for a mother to tell her son that she wished he was never born? Do I think it is always wrong for a mother to tell her son that she wants him to just go away? A very nuanced “no”, to both.

~Max

[Max_S]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

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.

We can agree to disagree on this. I will admit that if I took your position as to whether wanting or wishing something would go away constitutes harm, I would support a ban on bigotry.

~Max

[Max_S]

@DSeid

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.

Yes, of course. I used curt language for the sake of brevity and to mirror the language in the example I quoted, but in practice I would go to certain lengths to make my opinion more polite, and to distinguish it from victim-blaming in general. Or at the very least I would try to do so after being called out about it.

~Max

[Max_S]

@MrDibble

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.

The followup question: why?

I gave my reasons already. You didn’t address them, but opted to answer my question directly. Why do you think the only appropriate context to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence is one where parents do so as a warning?

~Max

[Max_S]

@MrDibble

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.

Adults can be naive about other things. Why can’t they be naive about bigotry?

@MrDibble

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.

You and I have a different way of assigning meaning to beliefs. But let’s leave the God business out of this thread. I don’t think we need to resolve this difference to move forward.

Question 1: Do you think wishing for some thing necessarily implies endorsement of that thing and the processes that are necessary for that thing to realistically happen?
Example 1: If I wish I had your stuffed animal, does that mean I endorse your sadness from having that stuffed animal taken away from you?
Question 2: Do you think wishing for some thing necessarily implies endorsement of the processes that are necessary for that thing to realistically happen, even if you are ignorant of those processes?
Example 2: If I wish I had your stuffed animal, does that mean I endorse your sadness from having the stuffed animal taken away from you, even if I thought you did not like the toy and therefore would not be sad?

~Max

[DSeid]

Those who characterize racism as something necessarily of those with ill intent (or who are lying to themselves) have a harmfully naive and simplistic either-or understanding. Most of us have implicit beliefs that result in actions that in aggregate have racist impacts. Most are not explicitly of ill intent or even lying to themselves. They are honestly unaware of how their implicit beliefs impact their actions and what impact those actions have. They are ignorant of how institutional inertia which they passively participate in propagates ongoing racist outcomes.

Labeling racism as something of those other bad people, surely not something of we honest folk of good intent, is of real harms.

Making ourselves less ignorant of the racist biases we act upon without any awareness of is made less likely by that simplistic mindset.
Max, as for the curt language- that really in your example was the issue that was potentially offensive.

No question that some will be offended by some ideas no matter how parsed and that sometimes that is justified for that matter. No question that sometimes posters claim no intent to offend when it is hard to believe such a lack and with no regret expressed for the offense given. But I maintain that many discussions are still possible when some level of benefit of the doubt is given. And with tight moderation and containment of a short list of specific subject of discussion.

It does further seem to me that moderation on needless offense is lax in fora that it should be tight in and that the snark is more often just nasty and without humor or wit.

[octopus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

We used to be better.
Then we started to replace debate with insults and it kinda went downhill from there.

A very persistent and vocal minority want that to be a feature in order to prevent challenge to the ideological orthodoxy of the board. Why? Who knows? It seems a place where everyone thinks in a homogeneous manner would be pointless.

[Chisquirrel]

Oh come on. You couldn’t fit “hive mind” in your post?

[DSeid]

No one is asking for ideological homogeneity.

The list of what should be outside the pale for discussion even in a tightly constrained manner may be bigger than I’d like, but the idea that some discussions are too offensive to allow is not in and of itself outside what is already done.

There is a place on this board for insults and intentional offense given (once upon a time with some cleverness and funny expected). But yeah GD should not be it.

[thorny_locust]

Max, occasionally I find myself in a discussion with someone who doesn’t understand what I’m saying.

I’ll do my best to explain myself in different words. I’ll sometimes do this repeatedly.

But there are occasions when it eventually becomes apparent to me that the other person and I could keep on going around and around on the subject until a hundred years from next Tuesday, but comprehension is not going to be forthcoming; at least, not due to my attempting to explain myself in combination of words number 16, or 316.

I’ve concluded that this is one of those occasions. I hope that I’ve been making sense to others posting in, and/or reading, this thread. I hope that I’ve been making sense to the moderators. I apparently haven’t been making any sense to you. You, for what it’s worth, are not making any sense to me. I don’t think this is going to change; at least, not on this subject.