Moderation : causes and prevalence of homosexuality unrelated to acceptance of homosexuality

About This Message Board
1

In this thread : https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=872098 Barack Obama asks why some societies were more tolerant of homosexuality than others.

Tim@T-Bonham.net answers the question, making the statement that homosexuality is universally present at 5-10% rate in all cultures : https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21528149&postcount=7

I dispute this statement : https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21528266&postcount=12

I’m then moderated because it’s an hijack.

I dispute this moderation :

-The statement that there’s universally 5 -10% of homosexuals hasn’t been moderated as an hijack. I see no reason that one position on this issue should be moderated and the other not.

-If I’m correct, Tim argument is wrong for being based on a wrong assumption. Pointing out that an answer to a GQ is wrong, or at least can be wrong and explaining why isn’t an hijack (unless, again, the original statement was itself an hijack)

-It seems to me more than obvious that if homosexuality isn’t solely a genetic or epigenetic phenomenon, hence if the prevalence of homosexuality varies from one culture to another, the answer to the question “why is homosexuality tolerated in some culture and not others?” is going to be entirely different. People don’t pass law that forbid what they like doing. On the other hand, they’re perfectly willing to pass laws forbidding what a small minority likes doing. If a large part of the population indulge in homosexual sex, the reason why it’s “tolerated” is obvious. So, the issue of the prevalence, and as a result, of causes, of homosexuality is entirely relevant to this question of why homosexuality was accepted in some societies.

Finally, I know that Americans have come to associate “homosexuality is from birth” as pro-homosexual discourse and “'homosexuality isn’t from birth” (generally heard as “homosexuality is a choice”) as homophobic, and expected that on this board, someone would take offense at my denial that the “5%, from birth” is a proven fact (but I didn’t expect that from a moderator), so I even took the pain to point out that this association of ideas isn’t universal to defuse this risk (and in fact, even though I think neither statement can actually be considered homophobic, the arguments that used to be given to show that “people are homosexual from birth” is an homophobic statement had more merits than the as far as I can tell non existing arguments for the opposite conclusion). I’m of course adding this last paragraph because I suspect that I was moderated for making a non politically correct statement, or more exactly a statement that is associated with non politically correct discourse in the USA nowadays, even though this association is entirely caused by an American cultural peculiarity, and not by the statement itself being offensive. Hence that i was moderated not because contradicting the previous accepted statement was actually an hijack, but because the moderator thought that contradicting it could offend someone, or found it offensive himself.

2

You felt the need to wrote several long posts in the referenced thread, and another one here. That in itself implies to me that the moderation was correct. Variable prevalence could, of course, be relevant to that thread. But since a discussion of prevalence is likely to be extensive and could be controversial, why not just mention the issue briefly in the original thread, and then start and link to a new thread to have that discussion separately?

It seems to me that the obvious course of action to test your theory that you are being censored would be to start a separate thread to debate the issue, rather than throwing around unevidenced accusations in ATMB.

3

I don’t see the need to start a thread about this, and I mentioned the issue briefly in my original post. Like the poster I contradicted did. But while his post was considered fine, my post was considered off topic. Which means that saying “since across all cultures there are only 5%, then…” is considered a proper answer while “since prevalence is variable then…” is considered a wrong answer.

And I don’t expect that, should I start a thread about this , it would be forbidden. I just see that seemingly one position is assumed correct, and can stay in GQ, while the other is assumed incorrect by default, and can only be discussed separately like “Since ancient cultures were created by aliens, then…” would be. Even though the “5%” is absolutely not some kind of proven or generally accepted fact, only a position currently favored by the American left.

4

And yes, I wrote several posts about it because I’m pissed. I feel that this board more and more sidelines arguments that happen to contradict the current dogma of a fraction of the American left that is more and more vocal and domineering on this board.

If I’m correct about the reason why my statement was considered a hijack and the one I was responding to not, it means that are considered invalid arguments not only based on offensive statements “since homosexuality is wrong, then…”, not only based on statements that are associated in the USA with offensive statements “since homosexuality is a choice, then” (even if, once again, they’re if anything less offensive than the “dogma” outside of the current American context), but simply an argument that could justify a statement that is associated in the USA with an offensive position.

It’s obvious that the question asked can’t have the same answer if homosexuality is a random variation with a fixed rate and if a society can have 5% of people interested in homosexual relationships and another society 50%. You can’t really answer the question without assuming one or the other. This kind of moderation means that otherwise valid answers are not accepted if they based on arguments simply remotely evocative of a position deemed wrong by a part of the American left (and I insist again : even though the only reason why this position is considered “wrong” by this group is that it has been used by the “bad people” in the US debate for reasons that are peculiar to the USA).

So, yes, I’m seriously pissed. I’ve been on this board for apparently 18 years, and I feel that it has now devolved to the point where a general question can’t be answered if an argument used is even remotely evocative of something that a subgroup has arbitrarily deemed inacceptable.

5

If your view was the problem, not the hijack it would cause in that thread, then why is this thread not being closed ?

The validity of you view isn’t the issue, using it to hijack another discussion isn’t cool though. And that’s a judgement call for a mod, and your personal opinion on that front won’t much matter very likely.

But here you have your own thread now!

Be happy! Have at it! Say what you wan to say! Get it all out!

6

I already answered that. I’m not saying that I would be prevented from discussing this topic. I’m saying that it’s removed from “acceptable discussion” as, for instance some incongruous or offensive argument would be, too far fetched or inacceptable to be included as part of a reasonable exchange and only good to be torn apart in “Great debates”.

Once again, if the issue was hijacking, then the person I was responding to and who was assuming the opposite stance would have been asked to stop hijacking the thread too. If it had been the case, I might have disagreed that it was an hijack, but I wouldn’t have assumed partisanship. But when one stance is considered fine and the opposite an hijack, I have difficulties finding another explanation than : “this stance is welcome on this board, and the opposite stance is unwelcome”.

Anyway, I assume that Colibri will eventually write what exactly were his motivations.

7

GQ is not the place for arguments, regardless of dogma or acceptability. Possibly the whole thread should have been moved to Great Debates, if as you say the question is unanswerable without argument, but that’s a separate issue.

8

Just because I didn’t include that in my note, doesn’t mean it was fine. I did consider including it, but since you were the one who started to debate the causes of homosexuality, I only addressed your post. Certainly if he had responded to your post I would have included him in the note as well, but he did not.

I think you have shown amply here why moderating your post was justified. The discussion you wanted to have would have totally hijacked the thread.

Of course, no discussion is being shut down. You’ve devoted far more time and energy to disputing the moderation than it would have taken to start a new thread in Great Debates, where you could have the discussion you wanted to have.

9

I agree with the moderation, but I have a slightly different explanation. A budding discussion was being (temporarily) shut down, because it was taking place in the wrong forum. It’s clear the OP of this ATMB thread wanted a full on debate about a contentious topic. That’s GD material.

I actually was reading through this thread, wondering why you were moderating a GD thread. Then I clicked and realized this was about a GQ thread. Of course this is a hijack in a GQ thread!

10

To expand further, that statement wasn’t considered a hijack because the poster wasn’t attempting to debate the causes of homosexuality. He was just stating a commonly accepted figure for the prevalence of homosexuality. He was not trying to start a discussion on that subject. You, on the other hand, were.

The cause of homosexuality is a complicated and highly controversial subject. If you want to debate that particular subject, you are completely welcome to. But this is a debate, and is best suited to Great Debates. If I had allowed this discussion in General Questions, in my judgement it would have interfered with addressing the question in the OP.

The issue of course isn’t whether a discussion can be had, but which forum to have it in. If you want to debate a controversial issue, then do it in Great Debates. Your allegation that such discussions are prohibited on the basis of my note is frankly absurd.

11

That being said, the OP in the original thread was so wildly wrong in so many of their assumptions that there was no way to discuss their questions in GQ and the thread should have been moved to GQ anyway.

Clairobscur’s posts would still have been a hijack (in the US we aspirate our aitches, and therefor use the “a” form for the indefinite article) but a less egregious one. It’s also true that Tim started it, and that his “facts” were not supported and probably not correct.

The OP’s question for that original thread could be re-phrased as “male homosexual behavior in various flavors became relatively popular in different cultures at different times in their histories, and at other times were severely punished; why would this have happened?” I doubt there is anything like a factual answer to that.

12

OK, I agree that I was wrong and that the moderation was appropriate and I apologize for the unwarranted accusation against you.
However :

I’m still firmly convinced that this question can’t be addressed without making assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality, hence its causes. The simpler answer to the question still is : they allowed fucking men because they liked fucking men. As I wrote in the thread, not all questions can be answered without making possibly controversial assumptions.

13

Just reading the two points linked, Tim’s post seem like much more of a hijack than clairobscur’s.

14

I was thinking the same thing. Both look to me to be equally falling in the category of needing a new thread in GD than as part of an existing GQ thread.

15

Thanks very much. I appreciate it. (I must admit some astonishment, however, since this is the first time I can recall that someone who started an ATMB thread to complain about my moderation changed their mind.:))

Given that the OP has indicated in the thread that it is fine with him to move it to Great Debates, I have done so and rescinded my instructions. Have at it!

16

Print a hard-copy and have it etched in stone; it will probably never happen again.

Also a good call on jumping it to GD. It looks to me to be one of those that once the basic question is answered just naturally lends more to that forum and one can argue that just in the answering a GD is going to break out.

17

I think the problem arises when someone posts in GQ a “question” that cannot be factually answered without making some assumption/assertion/argument. Someone does so and then the “counterpuncher” gets mod noted.

IMHO, these should just be whisked off to GD instead of trying to constrain the discussion when it cannot be so constrained.

18

Isn’t the true prevalence of homosexuality, and its biological or social causes, fundamentally a GQ question? I mean, otherwise GQ should be shut down, with a sign saying “just Google it”, if it’s only for simple questions of verifiable fact about which there is no dispute.

19

The main advantage of GQ over Google, to me at least, is the ability to ask follow up questions.

20

Did you mean: the ability to ask fouled-up questions