Close. If the moderators, or Ed Zotti, consider catering to those people to be “doing the right thing”, then the boards will undergo a fundamental change.
Regards,
Shodan
I was stating my opinion, so it needed no correction by you.
As an objective standard, I would think any position which is supported by a decent-sized segment of society is worthy of discussion and consideration, regardless of how odious you find it. Besides for the arrogance involved in just dismissing the views of many other people as not worthy of consideration, they are also views that you - and society - have to deal with as a practical matter.
[And to head off Godwin at the pass, yes, this would imply that in the 30s in Germany that Nazi views were worthy of discussion and debate.]
But the moderators and Ed Zotti are influenced by the overwhelming consensus of the membership. (As noted, a mod was recently out of step on this very issue and had to back off.)
My point WRT this is that the consensus of the membership is a product of the makeup of the membership at this time. And that changing the rules would itself influence further change in the membership distribution, such that the current changes might not suffice and even more views and conduct will be considered outside the Pale. Lather rinse and repeat, and next thing you know the only debate is between “Democratic Socialists and Anarcho-Communists” (or the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea etc.)
You misplaced your quotation marks. In my opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, thank goodness we have a mind reader on this board to tell us our opinions are wrong.
It doesn’t take a mind reader to do that.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, thank you for Shadonsplaining that to all of us. Obviously we are all quite dumber than you and would be lost with out you telling us how dumb we are.
That’s true. The Overton window on the SDMB is shifting/being shifted. It is already pretty different from that of America in general, and a good many Dopers would like it to more different still.
The danger from my POV is that “you can’t say that” tends towards “you can’t think that” to people not being able to think that. We see that already with Dopers who literally cannot grasp the idea that someone might disagree with them in good faith, on a range of (usually politically correct) issues.
It’s a shame, but I doubt there is much I can do, as a member of a minority on the SDMB (but not a minority that “counts”), except push back, until and unless pushing back is no longer allowed.
Now you’re getting it!
Regards,
Shodan
It’s funny how those in all seriousness talk about moving the Overton window will be quick to exclaim “slippery slope fallacy” and “we can build stairs” when the shift in said Overton window is inconveniently noticed.
Or even if you agree with a point of view but disagree with how ideologically pure/rigid one ought to be can lead to social ostracism and attack.
I understand these sentiments entirely.
Any cites to support this supposedly scary Overton window shift?
Hello iiandyiiii. I wish I could write that iiandyiv sometimes but I digress. I was just referring to BPC’s mention of it.
Who is the “you” here? Although there is moderation and some intention to keep conversation civilized, the content of the board and the membership of the board are not defined by any person or group. If, say, 80% of the posters here agree with you and 20% do not, what do we do with the 20%?
For this to be compelling you would, I think, need to make some very specific suggested examples of rules and moderation changes. The (unpaid) mods have a tough enough time with the bright line sorts of rules. This looks impossible.
Take the issue of derails, for example. There are certainly derails of threads started about women’s issues by men who want to talk about men’s issues. There are also lots of other kinds of derails, down to ones as trivial as a thread about a movie being derailed to be about an actor from some other movie. Where do you draw the line? This is a purely practical question. The only way to stop such derails, it seems to me, is for the people who do them to stop. And so we’re back to “what do you do with the 20%?”
I think this is even less amenable to any sort of practical process. Limits on thread count for specific topics? Are we to have a new routine such that some mod is going to close a thread because “we already have X number of these threads, we can’t have any more?”
There is a definite problem; this board appears to have lost a percentage of women posters, and maybe some of the other minorities that you mentioned. I think that the recent discussions by and about women on this board have been salutary and helpful. I hope this will continue and over time will reverse the trend. Your approach, besides not being practical to apply, would likely shut out a different group of people, including people who are not themselves offensive but dislike that level of regimentation. The result might be agreeable but it would also be sterile.
(Quick note–of the past 27 posts in a thread about a lower share of women posting on the Dope, 25 were from men. Make of it what you will.)
21, I’m not a guy.
Shit. Sorry.
Why a decreasing share of female posters?
Assuming that there is a decreasing share established - I suspect it is a function of increasing availability of choices for online activities.
See this article, from way back in 2011, lamenting the decline of the message board format:
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/
Sound familiar? How many times has someone started a thread about some question, only to be met with links to five earlier threads about the same thing?
Of course, that speaks to the decline of boards generally–not to decline of percentage of women on this particular board … but I suspect that the roots of the problem lie more in us being, basically, boring, than in us being, basically, offensive: that we aren’t attracting more female posters because there isn’t as much we have to offer over them over other formats, like Tumblr or Instagram - both of which tend to have a high female percentage of participants.
To make an analogy - I’m in a TV show fandom; I make fan art, and post in it various places - on Reddit, on Tumblr, and on Instagram. The very same stuff attracts a widely different percentage of male and female commentators – on Reddit, more men; on Tumblr and Instagram, more women. The conclusion: the platform matters considerably, and some attract a greater percentage, for whatever reason, than others.
The explanation that offensiveness is to blame, seems to me, is unsatisfying in face of the alleged facts: no-one doubts this board can be at times offensive, but that has been true since it started. Indeed, offensiveness has decreased markedly over time - years ago, it was far worse than it is now, for women, gays, transgender people, people of color, you name it … the Board has trended increasingly ‘culturally left’ and ‘more sensitive’ for years. Yet it had a greater percentage of female posters in the past, when it was more offensive, then it does now, when it is less offensive.
Seems to me that making the Board ever less offensive, while it may be a desirable goal in and of itself, will do little to attract new female posters, if the issue is that the very platform being used isn’t as attractive to new female posters as other choices.
Okay, if it’s just that some (or even many) Dopers are very lib/left, then I don’t see what the problem is. Some Dopers are very conservative/right. If the rules were to change such that “conservative” stances weren’t allowed, then I could see a problem, but I don’t see any evidence this is the case. Unless you’re thinking that overtly racist/bigoted/hateful stances, which are indeed banned, fall under the “conservative” label… but that rule has been around for a long time.
Part of that is the increasing difficulty of virtue signaling as the window shifts. People have to use increasingly minor deviations to attack so as to restore their position as champions of what is good and righteous. And thus discussion becomes more and more about less and less.
No, it’s not lib/left vs. conservative per se. The shift in the Overton window is an effort to identify some ideas as outside the pale because the poster wants to change the definition to put them there and thus to avoid discussion of the topic.
Do you see the difference? Ban discussion of the idea that “transgender people are not really the gender they self-identify as” not because it is a conservative or liberal view, but because he wants it to be off-limits so it can’t be discussed.
No doubts many or most of those pushing to shift the window such that “transgender people are not really the gender they self-identify as” is squashed would be liberal/left. But it is not necessarily a political opinion.
Of course, Dopers make everything political.
Regards,
Shodan
This does not lend itself to cites.
However, I have observed (several times, in these threads) that several years back (before the “no boob jokes” rule was enacted) the issues being complained about were worse than they are now. And yet, the percentage of female posters was higher than it is now, which seems to counter the claims in the OP of this thread. Several posters (including but not limited to me) suggested that there is simply less tolerance for this sort of thing than there was. So the standards are being raised, or at any rate changed.
In general, ISTM that there are fewer posters with “dissenting” opinions these days as compared to 10 years ago, e.g. there were more conservatives, religious people etc. etc. Good thing or not depends on your perspective, but it’s consistent with the notion that the board consensus of what’s acceptable would have shifted - since the collective ideology of the board has shifted.
I don’t think there’s much that can be done about it. So it goes. But to the extent that the administrators are contemplating reinforcing that dynamic, they would be wise consider the impact on the board which is broader than the specific aspect being discussed here, IMO.
If BPC was calling for banning those kinds of assertions, then I see what you mean, but I don’t believe he was. I believe he was saying that such arguments are beyond the pale of decency in his opinion, but that’s different than saying it ought to be banned. If I’m wrong, then I disagree that such assertions should be banned, although I think that something like deliberate misgendering of other posters would fall under the “don’t be a jerk” rule (and I’m pretty sure it does), just as other sorts of name-calling would be.