You’ve had your say. Repeatedly.
But I do apologize to Miller. For some reason I thought he was a former moderator.
So if we take his post as all the answer we’re going to get, the trolls will dance happily tonight.
Sorry, ladies.
You have not?
so what this boils down to is you can’t or wont be able to use personal experience in posts dealing with any prejudice because no one can be an authority on it?
NM - not really the right thread.
I think there are ways to make a point or to drive change.
This certainly isn’t it.
Three books on lactose intolerance? Is there really that much to say about it?
Anyway. To the general argument you put forth in the abstract -
There’s not much doubt that there is “expert opinion” that is given more weight than uninformed rantings. But does that apply to subjective issues of intent and perception? And should we place moderators in the position of judging who is expert?
Individuals of a group are expert on whether or not they feel insulted by a particular statement, and that informs some about whether or not most of that group would feel insulted … but the possibility of selection bias in response with an obviously non-scientific sampling must be noted. And the speaker similarly is an expert to the same degree as to whether or not insult was intended.
Let’s use a historical example. Years back political staffer used the word “niggardly” in reference to a budget issue. Some hearing just the word and demanded his being fired as use of the word was perceived as racist. They are experts on how they felt about hearing the word. Are those who took offense the experts on whether or not the intent of the speaker was racist or if the word was racist? Should the person have been fired because he was racist?
I am not arguing that members of a marginalized group are not more informed about what is perceived as hateful unto them. But I am not so sure about the abstract contour of your argument in matters where the issue contains determination of the intent of something communicated.
“Niggardly” is an archaic word that many or most folks probably don’t use or may not even understand. It also sounds really, really similar to a vile racial slur. With that in mind, it’s probably wise for smart people to find another word (and there would be many to choose from) lest they inadvertently offer serious offense. Some folks don’t care about the possibility of offering serious offense to folks, and they’ll probably disregard this advice.
The guy in question was rehired, IIRC. The incident started a good conversation, and hopefully folks learned something.
In short, language can be complicated and weird, and I think it’s wise for folks to take things like this into account when considering using uncommon words.
Hi Exapno. I have seen many poll threads on SDMD where the results of the poll bore no resemblence whatsoever to the opinions expressed by the majority of the people posting individual comments in the thread. In fact, I’d probably have trouble locating a poll thread where that was not the case. If we went by the individual comments, then Rush and Jethro Tull would indisputably be the greatest bands of the late 20th century.
Likewise, when I see a Pit thread and someone makes a comment along the lines of “you’ll notice that no one is supporting you on this”, I usually think, “that’s a bullshit argument — post the thread on a different message board and the consensus would be radically different.”
So, this thread is not your finest hour, and bad mouthing volunteer mods for not being on emergency call to answer your very flawed post is not helping matters.
I don’t think anyone is saying you can’t “use personal experience in posts”. Feel free to continue doing so. Others may not grant you the status of an “authority on it”, but that’s not a prohibition on sharing.
This again - the women have spoken !
It’s standard practice in any research or polling institution when you’re trying to extract a genuine opinion of something to do so from a random much larger population. SD members aren’t a random population - it’s overwhelming left leaning. So your view that the moderators should take their marching orders from the women is a biased one and not reflective of the real world outside of SD.
If you all are really that upset about peoples opinions setting up a forum is pretty easy. So instead of using this concerted effort to finally rid the forum of people who think differently why not use all that energy to set up your own forum, silence offending views and then you can all sit back and watch that echo chamber die a slow death. Because differences of opinions is what makes things interesting and communities grow.
All of the “conservatives” that are still around know what the rules are and are very careful as to not offend. Yet, words and meanings are misconstrued time and time again. I’ve read them , the accused to try to explain what they meant and it’s the same result as apologizing to a twitter outrage mob. Never apologize to a mob, they won’t be satisfied until they get their pound of flesh (banished) once you’ve been targeted.
There’s even a comment in this thread denigrating white people with the white male privilege remark. When you ascribe a trait to a whole group of people whether positive or negative that’s racism. No big deal tho, it’s good to know who those members are. Asian are doing pretty well in the west, when are we going to start using Asian Privilege ?
Point is adults crying misogyny every chance they get need to get a thicker skin and quit looking to be offended all the time.
It’s not about people being offended; it’s about creating the sort of culture where women who are raped or sexually assaulted are afraid to come forward, because when they do, their credibility is attacked over and over again, their motives and judgement are questioned, blame for the acts taken against them is placed on them, etc…
That’s not what is being suggested here. The OP is saying that those with personal experience should prevail, and those without should be told to “shut up and nod.”
This is a really weird hill to die on.
Appeal to authority is a complete non starter.
And the particular comment in question is mired in so much other shit, it’s not the foundation you want to build any kind of case on.
If you want to change the rules to be clearer for everyone, that’s great and helpful. Cite the current rule and how you would modify it.
Saying only a certain class of people can moderate a rule means that the rule itself is poorly constructed, and that certain classes of people might as well not be able to post on certain topics.
If you don’t like the modding, having a more balanced mod board would be the more appropriate thing to fight for.
I think I am one of the men you refer to. What do I learn by shutting up and nodding?
~Max
Not nod, actually listen.
What if, after listening, I disagree?
I like to assume that any time someone has quoted a message, that they have in fact read it and considered the arguments presented there.
~Max
Exactly so.
My comment is not about the specific case but the general argument.
Those who perceive insult or offense are not the experts on whether or not it was intended. Sure the speaker can lie about their intent but in general they know what they meant and for these labels intent matters.
Now common sense (sometimes getting labeled “PC”) is that once one is aware that something you did not intend offense with still caused it is to modify future communication to avoid causing future offense. Ignorance is excusable, persistently doing something you know offends because you don’t think it should? That’s being a jerk at best.
This is precious. Please, tell me what I said that you feel denigrated you. Tell me what trait I assigned to a race of people.
It’s an example of what some consider offensive, but I’m not going expound on it here since that would be derailing the discussion.
Thank you for the helpful response. I’m convinced.