It’s correct, but ECG already said it’s Discourse that’s broken.
I thought replying to people who replied to me in a debate was a good thing to do. Isn’t posting and then ignoring the replies an indication of trolling?
I won’t be quitting the board since the lack of communication turned out to be due to a technical issue, but I don’t think it’s possible to debate anything substantive without getting in trouble if you disagree significantly with the median opinion, so I guess I just won’t do that anymore.
110 posts out of a total of 1,068 isn’t “oddly obsessive” if she’s getting jumped on by five or six regulars every time she makes one. Especially since, if she didn’t then those same posters who constantly (might we say, obsessively?) reply to her every post would have no compunction in accusing her of dodging debate, and would then use that as reason to call her a troll.
She can’t win. If she responds she gets piled on. If she tries to fight through the pile-on then she’s “obsessive”. If she doesn’t, then she’s a troll who only posts to get reactions and ignores counterarguments. The game is rigged.
I say all this, by the way, not to pick on Babale, or Monty, or anyone else. Just to point out that DemonTree’s behaviour isn’t “obsessive” by the standards of the board, and it’s weird to see it called out as such.
Personally, it’s clear to me that you’re fixing to ban her. If I was her I’d ask you to stop delaying the inevitable and just get it over with. I certainly wouldn’t stick around of my own accord.
It’s not that she continues to debate with other posters; it’s that she continues to debate a tired and hateful topic that the rules say is no longer debatable. A debate is not repeating the same argument to anyone who responds.
There are plenty of communities out there where you can debate if trans people exist. I’m tired of losing valuable trans posters because some people here feel the need to question if they really exist or should have basic human rights. Take it elsewhere.
Thank you. This is exactly what was happening in that thread. Hence my decision that my only option is to not participate. In a rigged game the only winning move is not to play.
I mostly tried to avoid the topic of trans people, too, since I know it’s a sensitive one. But it’s a live issue in politics and a major front in the culture wars, so that wasn’t really possible.
I’ll note that the behavior that led to the suspension was documented here:
Not only did DemonTree link to hate speech, but did so saying that the hate speech matched their “lived experience”. Posting a link to hate speech and advocating it is deliberately trying to get around the board’s ban on such speech.
DemonTree is fortunate (and the board is unfortunate) that the suspension wasn’t permanent.
All 3 of those are Pit threads. Not that I don’t think one could find similar for other fora, but picking three Pit threads doesn’t make for a strong argument, as the rules and moderation are different for the Pit.
Human Rights zealotry is what I think actually runs deep here. Gender happens to be a current locus of combat within the greater scope of human rights at this moment in history.
And I’ll disagree with people who say that nobody gets banned (or should get banned) for their political views. We are at a horrific cultural point where early-Nazi political views are being mainstreamed, where denial of human rights is coming out of the most powerful house on Earth, where hatred that was once marginalized is rapidly becoming the law of the land.
Hate speech is political, and politically dominant.
But that doesn’t mean that the board needs to tolerate it. Political views that advocate hate speech are not part of productive discourse, and do not need to be tolerated–whether it’s advocacy of killing all the Jews in Israel, insistence that Black people are less intelligent, or bloviating that trans people are mentally ill.
Those who think that any of these positions need to be discussed should find other places to discuss them, where, if the people there don’t shut them the fuck down, that’s on other people.
Hey! I got that same mod note!
I agree, it’s totally inexplicable how circumcision could come up in a discussion about a subject that one side keeps calling ‘the mutilation of children’s genitals’, totally inexplicable.
Up Next: What the fuck is the connection between the Covid vaccine and abortion?
At least part of the problem in that thread is that the moderators, who are often itching to shut down even a potential hijack, allowed that one to get heavily into immigration policy.
Supporting the “kill all the Jews in Israel” cause isn’t allowed here? News to me based on what goes on in every thread about Israel and some not about Israel. And a good point in evidence for the “hate speech” fig leaf as opposed to the “opinions we choose to allow or not” reality being meaningless.
I have re-opened this thread. However, keep the following in mind.
This is ATMB. Keep everything related to the rules and moderation of the SDMB. If you actually want to debate issues, you know where GD is.
Differing political views about subjects like Israel is beyond the scope of this thread. Feel free to start a new ATMB thread if you wish to discuss how contentious political topics should be moderated or allowed.
I want to clear this up. I do not share the views on trans people expressed in the article, and I did not intend to advocate for or endorse them. My ‘lived experience’ is of having multiple discussions with different people wherein I express opposition to something, they deny that it is happening (and not infrequently attack me for claiming it is), then when I show them evidence it is happening, they switch to defending it.
I had no idea the article in question would be considered hate speech, and I wasn’t trying to get around any board rules. TBH I didn’t put more than 5 minutes thought into it, and given prevailing opinions on the right, those particular ones didn’t really stand out to me. This immediate assumption of nefarious motives is what made me believe it’s impossible to get fair treatment, but I’m glad the mods didn’t ban me for thoughtlessly linking to opinions I don’t even agree with.
I’m still a little unclear. Do you think that hate speech, as long as it’s been normalized as part of the mainstream political discourse, should be allowed? Or do you think hate speech shouldn’t be allowed, but that because what you linked to wasn’t hate speech, there shouldn’t be a problem? Or do you think that because you didn’t look carefully at your own cite, just threw it out without careful perusal, what you did was okay?
If you want to cite that happening, there’s an easier way than citing some rando article you Googled up: you could cite the posts where that happens. I don’t doubt that you perceive that to happen, but whether your analysis is correct is another question entirely, and one best served by direct cites, not by posting articles you haven’t put five minutes into considering.
This confuses me. The SDMB rules are not hidden or secret. If the average member puts in a good faith effort to to find them, they will. If for some reason a member cannot find them or does not want to put in the effort, they can contact one of the moderators asking about the rules. They can start a thread in ATMB about the rules, and are encouraged to do so.
What the prevailing opinions on something are, is not relevant. The SDMB updated rules are explicitly clear on the issue.
Hate speeh is defined, sometimes in non specific terms and sometimes in specific ones, in the board rules. I have read the updated board rules. I read the opinion piece you linked to. Under the SDMB rules, that opinion piece is hate speech.
You have repeatedly said that you did not know it violated the rules on hate speech. If that can be read any other way than an admission that you have not read the board rules, and an admission that (whether you agree with them or not) you do not consider the views an tems used in the linked opinion piece to meet your personal definition of hate speech either.