I said “parental figure”, not “parent”, that can include teachers.
And as to “why”? For one thing - because anything else carries the same “real harm” risk as shown by my earlier cites about Black youth’s response to racism.
For the same reason they aren’t allowed to get away with naivety as an excuse about gun safety if they own a gun, or the rules of the road if they drive a car. Only, with bigotry, their mouth and fingers are the vehicle and the weapon.
Why? It’s a perfectly valid analogy. People acting based on a concept that is cognitively meaningless.
Oh, there’s so much assumed social meaning built up around it, which is what they’re actually referring to. But the concept itself? Not so much.
I don’t think you’re interested in “moving forward” at all, by this point. I’m happy to just step out of it, like thorny locust.
Like I said, I don’t need to convince you. As things stand, your stance of giving overwhelmingly more weight to abstract ideas than real human pain is just so counter to my values that I see no value in engaging you at all.
What discussions are currently banned on this forum besides advocating actual current crimes? I mean there are discussions I won’t participate in or initiate but I’m unaware of content bans.
Not how valid a debate topic is, how valid an opinion is. Nevertheless, you are right: it is impossible to be truly objective or neutral. I try nonetheless.
Well, I’m not sure if you can open up an IMHO thread about, say, a he-said she-said case which results in acquittal without exposing yourself to the possibility that some people think the woman is lying. The only alternative that agrees with the verdict is to think she was mistaken (which is also quite offensive and unlikely in my opinion) or that she told the truth, but didn’t have evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. So that means without accusing the victim of lying, it is virtually impossible to think the accused is innocent.
I think somebody opens a thread like that because they think the victim was telling the truth, and therefore the verdict was an injustice. I think it’s unreasonable to open an opinion thread while simultaneously thinking that any opinion that disagrees with you is beyond the pale or unworthy of expressing. Unless I am mistaken, and I hope that I am, that is the effect of what you are saying.
So yes, it is disheartening for others, but if you feel so strongly about the issue, it would appear that it is unreasonable to even open a thread like that and expect anything else… unless you are looking for validation, in a safe space.
If that is what you and others really want, I have no quarrels with it (unlike, say, octopus). But please be upfront if that is the case. So far as I can tell, the members of this board do not come here for validation and my thinking that they do indicates that I misunderstand something.
Now we’ve made the jump from being disheartened about a specific poster to being disheartened with the board as a whole (I assume). What prompts the inductive leap?
Does our member decide that there is too much ignorance here and give up?
Does our member decide that there is too much bad faith going unaddressed and leave?
Does our member decide that being exposed to so much offensive content is too stressful and leave?
Does our member conclude that the board overall condones bigotry, and decide she (or he) will have no further part in it?
Is it something else?
Cite? I get the distinct impression that “ideological orthodoxy” is explicitly not the reason people want to ban certain topics of discussion, or confine them to Pit rules. In this thread alone I have seen arguments ranging from harm avoidance to basic decency.
That can’t be right. Why would commenting on the attractiveness of a politician be out of bounds? I mean as long as it’s not a hur hur hur fapping vulgar post. It’s a bit before my time, but I get the impression that one of the main reason Kennedy won was because he was a more attractive TV presence than Nixon.
I’ve seen comments (don’t recall at the moment whether here on the SDMB or elsewhere) that suggest that some of Tulsi Gabbard’s support is due to the fact that she’s a looker. Is mentioning that, or agreeing with that verboten?
Overt hate speech is not allowed. Yes discussions that advocate or instruct regarding actual crimes, gratuitous objectification (A thread titled “who would you rather have sex with Ginger or Mary Ann” would be shut down.)
-Accusing rape victims who come forward of lying is a common victim-blaming tactic.
Given this, someone who argues that a rape victim is lying without hard evidence is really not making a reasoned argument. It is reasonable to simply say we don’t know. However, trying to demonstrate that whatever argument is brought up by someone making the “the victim is lying” case runs the risk of falling into the trap I mentioned previously, and may be disheartening to every try for a lot of people for whom it’s a painful subject.
More than what MrDibble said, that example was specifically chosen because that exact (more innocent) thread had been part of a critical mass of threads that were read as needlessly objectivifying that caused discussions in ATMB which catalyzed significant change in the what sorts of threads are acceptable. The discussions raised awareness in many other posters of how what they thought of as “good fun” was hurtful and unwelcoming to others. There has been a fair amount of mod guidance since then that makes it very clear that the thread I imagined would be shut down moving forward. I’d go so far as to consider such a thread in the current context to be trolling.
There’s lots of other fora specific rules as well of course. Not political threads or hijacks in MPSIMS, so on. Each forum has its own subject and behavioral constraints.
I lean towards allowing discussion of very sensitive and potentially offensive subjects in GD. I do not think we need to make this place safe from all possible offense in all fora. But achieving the goal of meaningful discussion (rather than Facebook posts and shouts) in GD minimally requires some balance and some subjects require tighter facilitation (along with tougher skins) than others. Constraining those subject discussions in various ways is required. Allowing them to hijack discussions in other ops is something that should be clearly not allowed.
You seem to be assuming that cases where the alleged victim’s account was not shown to be either true or false are excluded from the numbers entirely (i.e. from both the numerator and denominator). I believe these studies excluded that number from the numerator only. Meaning that if you go with the 2% number for example, that of the three categories of 1) proven true, 2) proven false, and 3) not proven either way, that the second category is 2% of the total for all three categories.
It’s unclear how big that that third category is, but I would expect it’s the majority of cases, since many reports never make it to trial to begin with for this exact reason. So the impact is very significant.
In addition to all that, it’s very likely that the percentage of false accusations among those which are unproven are a lot higher than the percentage among those which are proven one way or the other, since people are less to make false accusations when there exists conclusive prove that they’re false.
Bottom line is that it would make sense to assume that the true percentage is substantially higher than the 2%-10% which is commonly bandied about.
The problem with that is that is that IME, what defines something as a hijack in the view of many posters is not the tangential relevance to the subject at hand. Rather, it’s the very fact that they’re only interested in a discussion with others who share their opinions on certain basic premises, and they want to have the discussion in that context. From that perspective, someone who insists on bringing up that they reject the entire premise is hijacking the discussion that the other guys would prefer to have. But it’s not a hijack from the perspective of the guy bringing up the issues.
For example, suppose someone wants to have a discussion about what to do about all this rampant misogyny, and someone else comes along and says he doesn’t think anything at all should be done because he doesn’t think all this rampant misogyny exists to begin with. That’s a very on-target position from the perspective of the guy making that point, but it’s a hijack from the perspective of the other guy, who doesn’t want to deal with that position. (I would consider Will Farnaby to be an example of this, among others.)
But there’s no way to deal with it without effectively devaluing certain positions, since that’s the only basis for declaring them hijacks to begin with.
Really I think not. Counterpoints, even ones that represent value sets that are strongly disagreed with, are not misrepresented as hijacks by anyone. They are sometimes objected to because the value sets they come from are offensive to some others. Managing that is a real issue. But it isn’t the hijacking I am talking about, be it as merely annoying like injecting “statism” or off-subject Sanders v Clinton antipathy into fairly random threads. Or making an off hand off topic potentially sexist or racist or transphobic (so on) comment outside of a well facilitated thread on the subject. Some thread creep as conversations evolve is inevitable and fine; these sorts of hijacks are different and not.
Although my join date is 2017, I didn’t start participating or even lurking here until 2019. Whatever these changes and mod guidance amount to, I want to see them written into the FAQ/rules as soon as possible.
Even if I don’t like the rules, I strongly prefer that they are written down. It’s not commonsense that a “who would you rather bang” thread is trolling or hate speech or advocating violence, or even being a jerk. People have those sorts of conversations all the time.
Leges institutuuntur cum promulgantur, the law is instituted when promulgated.
Sure, you can argue the wishes are not harmful. But what you miss is that we’re not talking about wishes alone here. At the very least, each of these wishes has to be something stated or acted upon for it to become the purview of moderation here. So they are in fact analogous to your unwanted child example where the parent tells the child they wish it hadn’t been been born. (or if they treat the child like they wish it didn’t exist, which is also harmful.)
The problem is that stating or acting upon any of the bigoted wishes you mentioned are harmful on their own. It’s not about “wishing harm” but actually causing harm.
For example, the white supremacist stating or acting upon his wish that a black people leave and that their society be white only is causing harm to black people. It is pushing the idea of separate but equal, which we already saw how that turns out in practice. Since it is the white people who get to stay, black people are being treated as inferior.
Now you may then wonder what about the converse arguments. Aren’t they harmful? No. They are wishing that people would stop doing harm to others. Any action towards those beliefs would only reduce harm. Heck, even if we got 100% what we wanted, there would be no harm. These are inherent good arguments.
That’s the thing with bigotry. You can’t treat it as an equally weighted argument on both sides. Bigotry is harmful, and fighting bigotry is not. Bigotry is being a jerk–as merely expressing it attacks minorities.
And the number 1 rule here is “don’t be a jerk.” We strive to be civil. And none of the wishes you stated are civil.
Sure, there is the competing desire to be able to discuss things, so we may want to allow some things that are marginally offensive, but there’s no reason to allow the blatantly bigoted opinions you gave.
(Though, with the trans one, posting why being trans isn’t a mental illness might be valuable–as long as we don’t have to continue arguing it. The rest are clearly evidently bigoted and no one is arguing them without knowing that.)