Can’t add? Someone did and came up with 39, which also means I have zero idea where you are coming up with the 25% figure (the banned/total ratio was 23/39, which is 59%. Rest of your post is a strawman because the question was whether the thread was steering nominess away from the board, and not whether the thread’s “targets” were correctly identified. Nnon-bannees don’t count towards the 59%, tho I will note some of the longer-term ones have been suspended.
I’d also say chronic socks can’t be double-counted in the way you are suggesting because we wouldn’t know for sure they were a sock until their banning w/ the socking label (note that often they would indeed qualify as trocks, based on the mod labels in question-non-trolling socks likely don’t get noticed by the mods.or anyone if they keep a low profile). YWTF as discussed upthread actually quit right after being modded, note (and not from being mentioned in the thread 5 months earlier, thus their behavior was by definition not squeaky-clean by any stretch). Harrington might qualify as someone who was pissed off by the pitting and left soon after, but, based on his behavior he’d have an argument that it was deserved (judge for yourself).
In terms of questionable behavior, the target rate seemed pretty high to me (as I said only one seemed to have been unfairly chosen, in a one line post where the target was never discussed again). Someone doesn’t necessarily need to be banned for their behavior to qualify for the thread.
So conservative positions are welcome so long as they are presented very civilly, with hat in hand. But there is no corresponding requirement for left-leaning positions. This statement highlights the board’s animus towards conservative posters. How many times have we heard conservatives (and southerners, a two for one) mocked with the “mah freedumz” language? Is that the civility that we should approach debate with?
The -phobia characterization likewise defeats any debate. Someone doesn’t believe a biological male should participate on a girls high school team? Transphobia. No need to debate, straight to the Pit, because we don’t want the -phobia on the board. Don’t believe in same sex marriage. Homophobia. No debate. Off to the Pit. No -phobia on the board. The naming and shaming of arguments and dismissing them out of hand is truly Orwellian and denies the assurance that conservatives get a fair shake.
The demand to retain the Pitting of other posters again shows the bias of the board. We must not debate. We must not really report. We must personally insult people. Oh, but that won’t drive them away, but if it does, then good.
None of this from some posters in this thread shows any sort of dedication to real debate…at all.
I can’t think of any way way for being anti-SSM to be anything but homophobic. Sure sucks if you don’t like receiving that label, but it is what it is.
The transgendered-athletes-in-sports thing? There is a basis for reasonable debate there, and that particular issue should NOT be sent straight to the pit; however, you might be (wrongly, in my opinion) pitted for expressing that particular view. (Full disclaimer, I give not one solitary shit about sports of any stripe.)
“Bathroom bills”, though? Straight-up bigotry; no different from having a whites-only bathroom/drinking fountain/what-have-you.
Modnote: Drop the Trans Discussion from this thread as it is actually off-topic. Any continuation will probably result in warnings for ignoring mod instructions.
I’m going to Spoiler your post filmore. {Or as you deleted it, no need}
Thread closed on a timer as some posters are in the middle of composing replies.
No problem. The same point can be made with many issues. For example, someone may have a belief that black people are better at sports. Maybe they came to that belief because they are a racist or maybe because they got the idea from watching pro sports where black athletes make up a greater percentage than they do in society. But regardless, such a person starting a thread about “why are black athletes better than whites” is going to be cast with a racist brush from the beginning and is going to be much more likely to be pitted. Likely their arguments for why black people are better at sports are going to seem racist, and they may actually be. But if instead we actually engage the person, we may be able to work out why there is that discrepancy. We would probably learn it was due to economic differences and that fewer options are available for black people so they are more likely to funnel into athletics while their white peers focus more on academics. But no one should have the misconception that such a discussion is going to be calm and pleasant. Changing societal beliefs is hard and takes time. But pitting the OP as a racist with profanity laden personal insults is just going to drive that person away mentally and/or physically and they are unlikely to learn anything.
As far as maintaining an inclusive community goes, yes, the left is usually correct. A fundamental tenet of leftist thought is If they’re not causing measurable harm, leave everybody else the fuck alone.
Will that sometimes exclude right-leaning thought from the discussion? Sure. Because by engaging, they’re targeting some members of this community with measurably harmful commentary.
I appreciate your honesty. However, you are one of the few being so directly candid. Many others are claiming that it is an outright falsehood that right-leaning posters are treated differently at all.
Why engage the other half of the population to understand why they believe the things they do when it’s so much easier to just dismiss them as bigots? Perhaps this explains why Kron can’t think of any reason, except homophobia, to be anti-SSM.
I have no interest in discussing bigotry or homophobia in ATMB but these recent comments illustrate that a certain class of doper believes that some topics are so far beyond the pale that they are not worthy of discussion and that people who hold a different view should be banished.
I understand the arguments against SSM because I have spent time in other forums where people make sincere arguments against it. I don’t agree with those arguments but I understand them. I think it’s important to understand those arguments because the majority of the population subscribes to them and we need to engage them. If we dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a you are all just bigots and homophobes, we will never persuade them that they are wrong.
If we drive away the people with whom we disagree by calling them names; if we allow the Heckler’s Veto to shutdown controversial arguments or, worse, outright ban them, we’ll never be exposed to them and we’ll be able to confidently proclaim, like Kron, ‘I can’t think of any reason, except homophobia, to be anti-SSM’.
If someone were to rely on the Straight Dope for understanding on culture war issues, they would remain in the dark. Rather than fighting ignorance, we are enshrining it.
I don’t think that’s correct, at least in the US. IIRC, somewhere north of 60% agree with same-sex marriage.
I haven’t seen that happen here (though there are many who have been around longer with participation less spotty who might have). But from what I’ve seen, the Heckler’s Veto in the Pit doesn’t shut anything down in the actual discussion forums like GQ or GD.
But back to my main point, anything that can be reasonably assumed to cause actual harm to anyone in this community needs to be restricted.
I’m still not interested in discussing SSM in ATMB but perhaps 60% should be the cut-off for what we are allowed to discuss in general. If only 40% of the population hold an opinion on a topic, it’s ‘not worthy of respect in democratic society’ (Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development, 2019 ) and certainly not to be discussed on the Straight Dope.
I think it drives people away who might otherwise engage. And, often, that’s the intention.
I’m not sure on the protocol for citing posts from other forums in ATMB but, just today…
My goal is that no bigots wind up posting here.
The poster clarified to say that a bigot is defined to include anyone who wants to discuss a topic that should not be discussed because to discuss it would be bigotted.
Kron said above that he ‘can’t think of any way way for being anti-SSM to be anything but homophobic.’ He conceded that the ‘transgendered-athletes-in-sports thing […] is a basis for reasonable debate’ but you might be pitted for expressing it. Discussing transgender use of bathrooms is ‘straight-up bigotry’.
I maintain that it is the explicit goal of many Dopers to drive away posters who express opinions that they disagree with.
This is the ultimate veto. If an argument on a message board can be claimed to cause actual harm in the real world, it’s not a fit topic for discussion and should be banned.
And I’m not interested in discussing Maya “the TERF” Forstater.
Good. Those discussions should be banned, just like the discussions championing Mens’ Rights currently are.
Whether the discussion is causing harm to the people here should be up to the mods, though, and not to random posters (though posters should certainly get their input on the decision heard).
I am interested in the idea that a small segment of the population can decide that the majority opinion is ‘not worthy of respect in democratic society’ and not suitable for discussion on a message board.