Thanks for your response. I recognize that you are not the mod to whom this is addressed, but one of the reasons given for judging my post as was done is that it was not fleshed out enough, which seems to me to be a reference to shortness. I understood ITD to be saying that if it were longer, it would possibly not have been seen as trolling. If I had given more reasons or more rationale for saying something that is (as mentioned) pretty much the consensus on the SDMB, maybe it would not have been seen as satirical.
But again, I appreciate any feedback from any mod. Can I ask again if this is under discussion among the mods, and if the input from this thread is being considered?
Needless to say, I never said that, and it’s simply a snarky distortion of my position on the issue, just as Shodan was accused of doing on the gender identity issue.
I have reported it. What do you, Dear Readers of This Thread, feel should happen?
My own feeling is that while the rhetorical technique is juvenile and absurd, it should not be moderated, or at best receive a note, and the appropriate counter is for me to respond that I never said any such thing, and he’s miscasting my actual argument.
Bricker: That post is a personal attack, and has no place outside the Pit. Clearly against the rules. It should be moderated, but I don’t think it’s comparable to Shodan’s post, which I don’t think breaks any rules.
I predict his defense would be that it’s an attack on my argument, not a personal attack. If that defense is accepted, then the analogy to Shodan’s post becomes clear, since what he attacks was in fact never my argument.
And I assume he’ll offer that defense rather than admitting to a personal attack in GD, but perhaps I am mistaken.
Having gone back to that thread, I can see the whole thing is unravelling into a pissing match. There’s a lot more that needs to be done than just address that one post by Lemur, who is a poster I highly respect, btw.
Maybe this is a better example. One line? Check. Possibility of derailing? Check. Short/not fleshed out? Check. A dismissive misrepresentation of the OP? Check (IMO). From a poster with a reputation for snark? Well, check the user name.
Is it trolling? Not IMO. Should it receive a warning? Again, not IMO. But I would pretty much have to think so, if I feel (and I do) that my post, which could at least be interpreted as like the linked one, should equally not have been subject to warning.
I don’t think the mods should be biased. I don’t think, by and large, that they are. But it is sure hard to avoid the conclusion that it does happen sometimes. And I would hope very much that if and when it happens, that it can be at least recognized.
Cut to the chase here. If Shodan had all the warnings stick this last one would most likely be the one to get him banned, pleasing a bunch of the liberal members of the board. This includes some of the mods, IMHO.
I know that I have read on this board that gender identity is what someone says it is.
Hi Shodan. I am not a moderator, and I try not to impersonate one or pretend to be a reader of moderators’ minds. But you’ve referenced my reply to your reported post as a means of saying that what you posted could be interpreted as something other than a side-snipe.
In that reply I was making an effort to explain some things that I did not believe you, as of yet, “get”. I am going to characterize my effort to do so as qualifying as an “in good faith” effort – I wasn’t merely trying to do a verbal jiu jitsu to your poke at gender-variant people and the gender identity question, I was also actually hoping to explain something and make it more clear – admittedly not primarily to you so much as to other folks reading along, but, yeah, to you too.
Meanwhile, a second theme in this here thread is the experience of conservative-minded SDMB members as a… dare I say it… marginalized minority. I want to say this to you (and to others who identify in that fashion): I experience you as being here in good faith. I think the conservative dopers who have chosen to stick around for the long haul are doing so in a genuine effort to communicate, as opposed to just looking for opportunities to taunt and torment the libtards and so forth. That doesn’t preclude you from behaving in the latter fashion in any given thread or in any given post, and yes I still think the post for which you got the warning was intended as a poke, an attempt to make us look ridiculous. But I do believe you participate on the dope in order to communicate. Naturally you hope your way of seeing the world will rub off on other (less conservative) people more than you hope the influence will take place in the other direction – I don’t begrudge you that in the slightest, by the way – but I view you as a sincere participant in this marketplace of ideas thingie we’ve got going here.
If you view my reply to your “warned” post to have been a response worthy of use in defending yourself here, I invite you to think about what I said and give it some serious contemplation and perhaps reply to it in that spirit.
I think someone did the statistics once. Or at least took a shot at it. I don’t remember it being particularly damning of the moderation-- it’s easy to come up with a long list of liberals that have been banned.
Thanks for your response. What I said about your response in the other thread was what, I think, you are saying - that you responded to it with discussion. IOW even a poster for whom the topic of gender identification is near and dear (if I may say so) recognized it as being other than trolling.
Thanks. And this goes back to a question I asked in the title of this OP. It seems more than a little harsh that a mod instantly assumes bad faith, based allegedly on the specific words in a specific thread, when even posters (excuse me if I phrase this badly) whose gender identity is non-standard can read the same words and respond with discussion.
If there is doubt about what I posted or my intentions, I would hope to be asked. Why wasn’t there doubt? IYSWIM.
I would expect that a lot more liberals have been banned over the years, but this is a overwhelmingly liberal board. So the sheer numbers don’t always tell the whole story.
It would be like concluding that more white people are shot by police in the US, therefore there is no bias against black people.
No-it would be like saying that if the Mods ban a conservative for whatever reason, then they should ban a proportionally equal number(10 to 1? 20 to 1?) of liberals “for balance”.
I’m going to make a distinction here: if you’ll reread what I posted above, it’s not so much that I recognized your post as being other than trolling, but rather than I recognize you as being other than a troll.
I would be unhappy if an accumulation of warnings (or a sense of injured dignity and injustice for that matter) resulted in you not being here any more.
I reinvite you to respond (or at least think about) the discussion that you recognize my post to you in the other thread as constituting.
Of course. And then the liberals would nod solemnly at each other and we’d get to hear again how conservatives don’t last here because of the commitment to fighting ignorance, and reality having a liberal bias.
No, it would be like complaining that contentless snark that mischaracterizes a position gets a warning when it comes from a conservatives and a pass when it comes from a liberal.
With the caveat that different mods run that forum, I would 100% love to see that sort of nonsense modded much more heavily than it is. Debate is not at all furthered through deliberately interpreting the opponent’s position in the worst possible light.
And to be crystal clear, on the merits I think Shodan is wrong to the extent his posts suggests there’s a flippancy or randomness associated with gender identity. I hope my earlier post made that clear.
It’s simply that the cure for this kind of flippant response is a serious counter that explains the issue, because frankly it’s not an intuitive one. People see boys and girls, men and women, all neatly matched with penises and vaginas as assigned at birth, because that’s the truth for a strong majority of people and the folks for whom its not have not been historically visible. But again, the fix for that is calm explanation, not reflexive shaming (or Warning).