… how can I violate the troll rule if you don’t think I’m trolling? That doesn’t make sense. You can have a sincere troll but you can’t have an unintentional one. If you don’t think I was trying to troll it doesn’t make sense to warn me for trolling.
It goes against my own self interest but if I violate the rule against trolling you are supposed to insta-ban me. Others have in the past complained about trolls getting leeway because the mods like them and I do not want that reputation.
I mean, I offered defenses against the jerk (post #1, defenses 2.a., 2.b.) and troll rules (2.c.) but most of this ATMB topic has been about whether the topic was beyond the pale (2.d.). You mentioned misogyny, and people in the topic itself mentioned misogyny, and if that’s being considered the basis for jerkishness I offered a defense to that too (1.a.). But nobody has addressed it.
I don’t deny that your desire to have open debates on any topic is being squashed by a rule that says we don’t allow discussions of a hypothetical situation where rape could be justified. Unfortunately, your desire conflicts with the desire of many women and survivors of sexual assault to not have a board where those topics are discussed.
As white males, we’re not used to our supposed rights being usurped by someone else’s that conflicts with ours. But women are used to it, every fucking day. Maybe we can step aside this once and not insist that our needs are the most important.
Do the women on this board really need to have an “academic” debate on why they shouldn’t be raped, even if the raper really thinks they have a justification for it?
Not surprised at all on the crew who thinks it’s really important this debate takes place.
Oddly enough, I never had to be convinced that rape can’t be justified.
Your OP was very much like a Trolling. It was not an OP we’ll be allowing in GD for sure. The Title was provocative and troll-like.
If I thought you meant to troll, see above. As I did not think you meant to troll, you were warned for a very offensive and provocative thread. Using provocative in this case, to say trying to get a strong negative reaction from other posters, to get them to run afoul of our rules.
Please do not rules lawyer. IT is never appreciated.
But the SDMB isnt a social club. Its a message board that was created to discuss difficult issues and fight ignorance. Its members are anonymous. Its kinda racist to make this about ‘white males’ when we dont know what race MaxS is and we are assuming that other people beside white males might have some interest in it. We also have The Pit where vile language and insults are thrown around.
Senor Beef argued that controversial topics should be allowed in GD because thats basically what GD are. Lots of posters here avoid the forum because the rules governing debate are strict and debate can get heated. As long as threads have a clear and non-offensive title they should be allowed imo.
As you say you’ve come to the conclusion that rape isn’t wrong, I don’t think it’s safe for you to confront them in company, either.
It may be the right choice but it’s still a wrong thing.
Yeah, I was thinking about Omelas.
And what I was thinking is that that’s a serious discussion of its issue that in no way says that what is happening to that child is right.
It was completely flawed, anyway; because it did not take into account that, if you’ve got only two people, giving one of them major cause to either murder the other or at minimum get the hell away from them massively reduces the chances of either of them surviving long enough to raise even one child.
You were ignoring any sense of agency in the person raped, except for their refusal to engage in sex; as if that were the only action they could take that mattered.
I don’t know what else to say. Do you want me to put myself in your shoes or do you want me to try and tell you what it’s like in mine?
Because to me, yes, my topic could reasonably offend some people. But I was not trying to get a strong negative reaction from others, and I was not trying to get other people to run afoul of the rules. Neither was I trying to push the limits of the rules, as you may know I usually PM a draft to mods if I’m unsure whether the topic is allowed or not. This time it didn’t even cross my mind.
But I put myself in your shoes. If I was in your place, and I really think some member posted a topic that was offensive and “trying to get a strong reaction from other posters, to get them to run afoul of our rules”, that is intentional toxic behavior and the definition of trolling. I would either ban them for trolling or suspend them for a lengthy amount of time (or at least argue for it in the mod loop). If not banned, I would make it clear that one more screwup means strikeout, I would consider a single appeal and if in a good mood or if I respect/pity the member, explain once point by point why I disagree, and if the member is not repentant or seems actually clueless as to what he or she did wrong, I would recommend they take a break until they figured it out on their own.
I just read a not-very-good satire, The Constant Rabbit, about anthropomorphized bunnies in England and the oppression they face.
Not very good. But there’s one line where a rabbit calls a bigot “leporophobic,” and he responds something like, “Well, but see, you just called me leporophobic, which is horribly offensive thing to say and I’m quite offended so I suppose now we’re even, and anyway I just remembered I have an appointment, I hope you have a lovely day” and runs off, and just chef’s kiss it perfectly captures the foolishness of a certain kind of “I know you are but what am I?” rhetorical flourish.
No, for fuck’s sake. It’s not “kinda racist”. Get outta here with that nonsense.
Quibble over the details if it’s that important. But the upshot is, your topic “could reasonably offend some people,” and it did so, and you got in trouble for it. Do you understand both why it was SO offensive, and how to avoid that in the future?
If so, awesome! If not, I suspect your posting here is gonna run into some problems.
As opposed to, say, Cafe Society where people very much needed to be protected from every mention of a certain book series? Some people considered THAT to be very important indeed, so much so that they insisted a rule be made juuuuuuust for them. So pardon me if I find your dedication to keeping GD an unspoiled paradise of Very Important Thought a trifle, shall we say, hypocritical.
Its racist because it assumes facts not in evidence. It was a wrongheaded remark imo because humans are individuals and not part of a larger amorphous group. Make the point directly. ‘Posters shouldnt discuss rape hypotheticals because they can cause distress in other posters.’
When you use race when no race has been mentioned or implied it very well could. When you say that ‘white men’ should not be allowed to discuss certain topics on a message board it could be. For laws/rules to actually work effectively they have to be enforced equally.
This is an incredibly stupid analogy, and your attempt to turn your line of argument into a personal attack like this does not speak well for the purity of your intent or character. Not only that, but this analogy - even if it were true - works against you, not me.
First, the rules in the game of thrones threads had nothing to do with my personal preferences. I’ve read all the game of throne/IOSAF books. I don’t care about shielding myself from spoilers. What the spoiler rules fights in the game of thrones threads were about was that no one could agree with what constituted a spoiler, and so a good 40% of the first season’s thread was people fighting over what constituted a spoiler and what didn’t, which consistently derailed the discussion the entire time. There were also trolls who wanted to push against those rules and spoil it for people who they resented for not wanting to have spoilers who were always pushing past the rules and kicking up shit storms.
The (wildly successful) solution to this problem was to institute a series of threads that discussed the show strictly as its own entity, with no book talk at all, and eliminated any need for specific arguing over what is and isn’t a spoiler in every single thread.
And - an important point you didn’t mention - is that there were also threads that were open to discuss the show, books, and everything, which had no spoiler rules at all. I participated in several of those threads, by the way, which proves that your whole “the entire forum was set up so SenorBeef didn’t see spoilers!” bullshit is bunk.
The whole “SenorBeef has special rules just for him!” meme is just complete bullshit. Look up the season 1 game of thrones threads and see what a fucking trainwreck they are, and then look up later seasons when they run smoothly. 1) It was not just me who wanted to fix the problem, 2) it was not me personally wanting to be protected from all discussion of the books, since, you know, I read them and participated in threads which featured open discussions of the books, and 3) it worked. I (and others on my side, and good moderation) did the boards a favor and greatly improved the quality of those discussions.
Now, why does this analogy work against you more than me? Because I never, in any way, tried to stamp out open-spoiler discussion of the game of thrones books/series combined. We just wanted a separate place where people who only saw the show could discuss that without it constantly getting derailed or risk getting spoilers.
What you’re trying to do is not that. You aren’t trying to create your own protected discussion. You are insisting that that discussion should not exist anywhere. You characterize me as demanding that no discussion of the game of thrones books occur anywhere, and that isn’t true. However, you are saying that hypothetical discussions involving rape should not be allowed anywhere. You are the one that is attempting to stamp out certain topics, not me.
I’m saying if you want your own discussion boards or forums or threads where discussing rape hypotheticals is not allowed, go ahead and start them. But don’t go to a place that is intended to foster open discussion and tell us that we’re not allowed to discuss them there.
So even though your analogy is a complete characterization of the points you’re trying to make, even if it were not, and it was a good analogy, it’s an analogy that works against yourself, not me.
I can’t tell you what I think of your pathetic attempts to make this personal in this forum, so I will instead simply disregard you as a good-faith actor and instead regard you as a person who (failingly) attempts to make personal attacks when they can’t make their point on its merits.
Its not what you said that I disagreed with. TroutMan said that white men should step aside in arguments and let others speak. I disagree with the first part and agree with the second part. He assumed that MaxS is white (chances are he is right) but why bring race into a discussion that isnt about race? Especially since he would have been equally against the thread if a man from a different race posted it.
it was a polarizing statement.