Disputation and The Straight Dope Message Board

About This Message Board
741

For the record I have never heard these terms before in my life. I’m learning every day.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you, margin, and anyone else who was offended by my absolute ignorance on what are probably multiple subjects. Margin, I view you and others as sort of my window into the mysterious world of women who are more… aware of women’s issues. I hope my anecdote about “hysterical” gives you a little perspective as to where I’m coming from. It’s not like there’s a feminist organization within an hour drive or even a regular meeting of Democrats I can crash just for exposure to people with different worldviews (they meet every 2nd Thursday two towns over, all five of them every month).

I won’t mind personally if all of these sensitive subjects are put off limits. I can talk to locals about that stuff, and there’s plenty else to do here other than debate sensitive subjects. It’s just that, I come here for exposure and I guess I have been projecting my own motivations on the rest of you. I acknowledge that I am a new member and really, some of you have put like twenty years into this community. I’ve barely spent that much time breathing. Evidently you don’t want to debate things like whether homosexual relations are moral, or why segregation is bad/diversity is good, or whether gender choice is a human right, etcetera. Normal, sober people usually don’t want to talk about that stuff when I bring it up in real life (pastors/rabbis excepted, they like talking about sensitive issues). If you don’t want to, by all means your voices about the future of these boards should be heard more than mine. I knew I would be in the minority before even opening this thread.

I’m taking a vacation and will be offline for a while. I hope the administration wraps up the new rule changes for the new year, that would be nice.

~Max

742

nm. Merry Holidays.

743

Oh, the Baptist Minister’s an OP here now? And I’m arguing against him, not just giving my opinion of some hypothetical situation you mentioned? My, my, look at those goalposts go…

There’s nothing wrong with honestly naming something that is “bad faith” arguing as bad faith arguing at the onset. There is no error saying that the doctrine of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is evil. We can see the results in all those dead homosexual kids you previously so easily dismissed.

The well was poisoned as soon as the Minister opened his lying mouth, and not being able to name it as a lie is exactly the same bully’s-friends-holding-my-arms-behind-my-back-while-he-gets-to-pound-me situation as currently exists in GD re: calling racists racists.

BTW: just checking - is “bad faith” another one of those expressions you’re using your own idiosyncratic definition of in this discussion? Like you did with bigotry? Because the “Love the sinner…” argument couldn’t be more textbook bad faith if it tried.

Sophistry. Unadulterated, genuine artisinal sophistry.

People who knowingly, purposely make evil statements and advocate evil acts are evil people.

And “what I consider”? Are you saying you don’t consider “Love the sinner, hate the sin” to be a harmful doctrine?

744

Bullshit. Show me where that is bad faith. Nothing dishonest about it.

So I was right and you are using some unique definition of bad faith.

Repeat after me: “It’s not bigoted to be intolerant of bigots”.

Now try saying it 100 times, until it sinks in.

745

The problem is that, for someone to “present those opinions,” we would inherently allowing them to endorse racial superiority. And you just got through saying such is morally wrong. And, if you believe something is a moral wrong, you’re going to do what you can to stop that thing from happening.

The issue here seems to be that, while you agree with us that it’s wrong to hold the view of racial superiority, you clearly do not think it is wrong to endorse racial superiority as long as such is in the confines of a good faith debate.

This isn’t an unusual position. In fact, it is what the old position of the mods–that we need to allow people to state bigoted opinions so that we can argue against them and fight ignorance.

And such is exactly what we are now arguing against, saying that, while this is a noble ideal, it doesn’t work out in practice. In practice, allowing these arguments serves as a platform for these people, elevating long debunked ideas to levels of prominence. In practice, the bigots have learned to use the desire to debate them in a way that allows them to actually further their own goals.

I can’t say the solution is to never discuss the subjects. But I do think there are some things that aren’t really up for debate anymore. There is nothing new to be said, and one side clearly lost. If someone comes in and makes those arguments, all that should need to be done is a link to where that argument was debunked and then closure. If somehow they find an argument that has never occurred before, then bring that up, and we can debate it.

The problem is that our ideal of debate can actually sometimes cause the very harm it is intending to prevent. As such, some sort of mitigation strategy needs to be in place for such. Maybe the one I’ve detailed isn’t the best one, but something needs to be done.

I invite you, after you return, to check out the video series The Alt-Right Playbook, a series created from looking at the academic research on this new style of arguing. Yes, some of the tactics are old, but the way it all comes together and is being used in a systematic way is new.

The enemy is exploiting our ideal of rational debate by using that against us. And we need to adapt. If you can come up with another way, that would be great, too.

746

Given that this thread is about conversations and debates on this board -

MrDibble, is there space, however constrained, in GD for discussions about gay rights? If so should the only ones who are allowed to speak be those who who are in the majority of Americans on this issue and prohibit anyone with a different POV (one that many here would label as overtly hateful, malicious, and bigoted, but that a sizable of minority of Americans hold) from expressing their beliefs? If they are allowed to speak is there (or should there be) any (again even constrained) space here to have actual conversation with them?

I’m really not sure where you stand. My suspicion is that you do think gay rights would be a fine thing to discuss, but I am not sure if you think those who are uncomfortable with gay rights should be allowed to speak. I am pretty sure that you do not think that there should be any even constrained space for actual conversation with them.

To those who do believe those with some (by a majority of this board’s opinion) objectionable perspectives should be able to be part of actual conversations in at least some space here*, calling them liars and stating that you know their motivations better than they do, stating that they are immoral, at all let alone before they have even said much at all, is antithetical to the goal.

Noted that having a space for those sorts of conversations with people of views very different than our own is not a goal that should be accomplished to the exclusion of other goals.
*That seems to be the crux. Which objectionable perspectives are beyond the pale of even tightly constrained conversation? Is having those conversations still possible or is it better to have conversations only with those who mostly agree with us on the most important issues, lest anyone get offended?

747

Besides for all that, there’s an additional issue of banning a position as being objectionable when the primary objectionable aspect of the opinion is not explicitly upheld - and is even explicitly denied - by the ones arguing for that position, but rather is read into it by the very opponents who want it banned. (This is sometimes done by tenuous logical implication - e.g. the claims that differences in average IQ amount to an assertion that all members of an ethnic group are “inherently inferior”, and sometimes by self-serving inferences - e.g. the claim that anyone saying X is making a “dog whistle” and really means Y.)

Whether certain positions should be declared so objectionable that they are banned from discussion has its own set of issues, but banning positions based on re-characterizations by their ideological opponents is another level entirely.

748

I’m fine with people who have differing opinions being allowed to speak, up until the point they turn to actual hate speech. I’m *not *OK with being gagged from expressing my opinion on their opinions. Note that I wouldn’t have a problem, for instance, with Max’s Hypothetical Minister posting that “Love the sinner…” crap, as long as I was allowed to point out that it’s inherently self-contradictory and hence a bad faith argument. And an evil one.

What you’re talking about isn’t creating a “constrained” space for debate, it’s about creating a safe space for bigots where they can espouse their bigotry freely, without having the flaws pointed out to them unless their opponents first jump through 20 hoops they don’t have to negotiate themselves. The only constraint is on one side, there.

We shouldn’t have to re-debate “Love the sinner…” Every. Fucking. Time homosexuality is debated. Any more than we should need to debate the fundamental humanity of transsexuals or the inherent equality of women or the basic wrongness of racism.

749

To clarify, the concept of a constrained space is several-fold.

  1. Constrained as in actual virtual space.

Just as we constrain/segregate certain sort of insulting (“flaming”) posts to within the Pit, leaving the rest of the board places where those who do not want to deal with that as “safe” zones from that sort of interaction (in theory), we’d have some specific more sensitive subjects constrained to within a limited number of threads, and not have posters functionally troll other threads with hijacks related to them. Obviously what is a hijack and what is not is a judgement call as is what is offensive but for these subjects the burden of proof (outside of those threads devoted to them) would be on its direct relevance and zero tolerance for allowing it to veer the thread off its op. Conversely in the threads identified as devoted to discussion of those sensitive subjects behaviors that prevent such discussion have the burden of proof.

  1. Constraint enforced within those threads.

Neither trolling nor overt hate speech would be allowed in those threads, and little tolerance for dishonest posting tactics, but no one should enter looking to be offended. The rule for posters with those threads would be an assumption of good faith even as the values of the posters may be in serious opposition; the moderators OTOH would be tightly facilitating and “encouraging” better behaviors when intent is … unclear.

In this imagining an op could be opened about some specific aspect related to say transsexuality and comments in that thread would have to be about that specific aspect, not debating the validity of the concept itself, again. Someone makes that comment n that thread they are shut down within that thread and redirected to a past thread which covered those issues, keeping the existential question of transsexuality discussion confined to that one thread and easily avoided by all who have tired of it or who find it hurtful to have to read, again. To emphasize, mods in those threads should have a hair trigger for trollish behavior, for dishonest debating tactics, and for all other behaviors that prevent real discussions, but posters participating should try their best to cut each other as much slack as possible.

  1. Constraint as in some subjects are in fact considered just done already. I have argued this should be a very short list. I would be cautious of slipping down a slope that leads towards “the Der Trihs doctrine.” But caution of slope slipping should not excuse no steps whatsoever, even if one hangs on some as one steps.

The hope is that the place overall is not considered by anyone to be a pervasively hostile environment and that those who want to engage with those whose values they find offensive can (free to always also Pit anyone and invite them over), and those who want to avoid such interactions, experiencing them as hostile interactions, can reasonably do so as well.

750

We already have that. It’s called an Ignore List.

No one is forcing you to debate anything if you don’t want to.

Regards,
Shodan

751

An ignore list does not accomplish that goal, it avoids contact with a particular poster who may more often be offensive, but it does not prevent the digression, the hijack of the thread that such behaviors cause.

It fails, completely fails, as a means to accomplish the goals, if those are the goals (they are in my mind but maybe not yours or in the minds’ of MrDibble let alone those like Der Trihs).

752

A brilliant riposte to something … absolutely nobody has said.

753

There are books. I recommended one elsewhere about sexist language.

And your perspective? You have rejected all explanations. You are exactly like every OTHER guy who dismisses women when they talk about what they experience-----and refuses to inform himself.

What you want to “debate” is recognizing whether I and everybody else who’s not a white guy are human. Whether we’re perverted or not. Whether we lie about everything. WE NEVER MOVE ON.

Our basic humanity is never accepted. It’s never, “okay, this is settled, let’s move on.” And how come every last one of these JAQ offs is on the internet but refuses to research and even read anything? It’s always, “BUT WHY can’t I tell women to wear burkas if they don’t want to get raped? Free speech!” It’s always having to defend the most basic territory.

There’s always some dude who’s never bestirred himself to look up anything-----and who absolutely refuses to listen-----demanding for the millionth time that we explain why it’s not okay to accuse all rape victims of lying and prove that gay guys aren’t recruiting.

754

No one on the SDMB tells women to wear burkas or says that all rape victims are lying. The problem of defending that territory doesn’t exist.

In my view, much of the problem is Dopers reacting as if someone said those things. Even when that is not a reasonable interpretation of anything posted.

Regards,
Shodan

755

And sometimes when it is.

Pretty sure you understand that margin was being slightly hyperbolic.

756

Even to the extent that that’s true, it’s still a problem. Hyperbole changes reasonable to unreasonable, positions worthy of discussions to positions unworthy of discussion, inoffensive (or less offensive) to highly offensive. It’s a very substantive difference.

Engaging in hyperbole detracts significantly from the ability to have discussions about the particular issue at hand. It’s not always (in fact it rarely is) obvious at which point the hyperbole ends and what represents the genuine point being argued. So on the one hand it’s fundamental to the issue at hand, as above, but on the other it’s virtually impossible to address other than to just take it at face value, for those who have the patience for that or find it amusing.

757

This is why people call you dishonest, when you pretend sarcasm doesn’t exist.

And it’s funny how “we don’t say all women lie about rape” gets used as a defense when every rape topic gets filled with men protesting that women lie unopposed by other men. (With or two notable exceptions.) Sure, they don’t say, “I hearby declare and announce that I believe all women lie about rape,” but they NEVER read the cites, never change their position, never avail themselves of the Internet’s incredible resources. They never read books. Plus it helps that there’s a very elastic definition of lying when it’s a woman. Not proven? Lie. Doesn’t remember every last detail perfectly? Lie. Other people don’t remember? Lie. It’s almost like they avoid that actual facts about rape because they’re afraid of what they might find.

I’ve recommended, “Against Our Will”, by Susan Brownmiller; “Men on Rape,” by Tim Beneke; “A Woman Scorned,” by Peggy Reeves Sanday; “The Gift of Fear,” by Gavin de Becker; “Why Does He Do that?” by Lundy Bancroft; and if anybody picks one book, it should be, “Virgin or Vamp” by Helen Benedict.

Other women cite the FBI, the CDC, (and the CDC’s correction of the way MRAs are lying about the CDC’s research) but the dialogue never changes. By way of example, there’s a topic in great debates where people really, really, REALLY want to blame rape on womens’ clothes, drinking habits, womens’ clothes, party attendance, bar patronization, womens’ clothes, and womens’ clothes and womens’ clothes. It’s, what, thirteen pages by now?

758

If you were purely betting on the odds, you’d win if you bet on Ford, just by the numbers.
The sheer number of men who pile on to rape discussions to accuse women of lying reminds me of an odd phenomenon in my old unit.

We had one (1) girl who slept around.

We had fifteen (15) guys who talked about her and two (2) women who demanded why we couldn’t discuss something * else.* The 15 guys claimed they’d each slept with her. They criticized her for that.

If you listened casually, you’d think it was fifteen *different *women who the guys were talking about. It was so pernicious that when the two women who fought back each got pregnant later on, they concealed their condition for months while doing ruck marches and PT tests, till they were visibly pregnant.

759

Since right now.

Go look over here: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=887052

It starts off trying to hide under a political/cultural argument but eventually becomes pretty blatant:

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22038646&postcount=135

So far, at least, the mods haven’t said anything about it.

760

Really not seeing anything remotely resembling that there. Mind you I didn’t read every post but the general arguments there are more just inane and poorly articulated than anything else.

I’ll comment in the thread though.