Re my warning in this thread, I would cordially ask Colibri to explain his reasoning. Apparently, asking how gender fluidity wasn’t consistent with the current understanding of mental illness is somehow hijacking an OP asking about the current scientific knowledge re gender fluidity. But I don’t understand how.
Failure to follow mod instructions. That’s pretty clear. You should have dropped it and started a new thread if you wanted to continue it or get clarification. Ya didn’t.
His instructions were to not post opinions in a thread seeking factual information. I never posted an opinion, I was also seeking factual information. GD is not the appropriate forum for questions seeking factual information. Its to argue and i was not arguing.
If you wanted to question a mod’s actions, you should have started this thread after the first mod note. You didn’t let it go and **Colibri **had to make a second note, you came back again and got a warning. Again, you should have started this thread after the first note. This is where your objections or questions should have gone.
My 2 cents:
It seems to me that the question of whether a sub-topic should be moved to a separate IMHO thread (for fear of GQ derailment) is always subjective, not everyone may agree. But somebody has to make that call, it’s the mod’s job to do it, and once it’s made it’s perverse to fight it, since you can obviously just start a new IMHO thread. Nobody’s censoring you.
FWIW I thought Colibri’s call to move the contentious “mental illness” issue out of that thread was completely right, it’s an interesting question worthy of debate, but you were derailing that as a GQ thread. But even if I had disagreed with his call, in your position I hope I would still have respected it and just started and IMHO thread. You chose not to, multiple times.
In other words, it seems to me that the warning here doesn’t hinge on whether anyone agrees Colibri’s call was correct, there is no black-and-white objective answer to that. It hinges on whether it’s his job to make the call (it is) and whether the call should be respected once made (it should).
If you notice the timestamps, I was in the process of posting when he gave the first note. And I didn’t understand WHAT he wanted me to “let go of”? My question? Why?
If his first note said don’t post again in this thread, I would not have posted again.
I never fought anything. Merely sought to understand.
These are not questions, they are clearly opinions (see here), and on a controversial issue:
[QUOTE=Ambivalid]
How is this not a mental illness?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ambivalid]
So you’re saying that mental illness is synonymous with delusion? Obviously that is not true.
[/QUOTE]
It looks like you posted the latter more than 20 minutes after the second Mod Note to desist, I think that’s what got you warned.
You were also being a little disingenuous in claiming that your rhetorical questions were JAQ, fwiw.
Well, if you don’t understand a mod action, the place to ask is here. You aren’t supposed to question it in the thread.
Well I absolutely was not. This is something that irks me; any sort of question re gender identity is instantly shot down as bigotry, etc. I genuinely desire to know what I asked. Can I ask what makes you think I was JAQing off?
Absolutely untrue. My first question was an honest question, regardless of your interpretation of it. My second statement was just that: a statement of fact. Namely that “mental illness” does not mean "delusion.
Colibri and I aren’t exactly the best of buds, and I think he lets his feelings get in the way of his moderation at times. But, as much as I want to defend you, I can’t.
You were asking a very different question than the one in the OP, and it is contentious enough that it would require a new thread. You were asking why an LGBT issue was not a mental illness.
That’s enough for the Notes. But then you both argued with the mod and continued the hijack he told you to stop. The first one might still get a Note to take it to ATMB. But the second one is gonna get you a Warning, especially after two Notes.
The only thing that might’ve been better is if Colibri explained why it was a GD thing. Say something like “Calling an LGBT issue a mental illness is a very contentious topic, and is not GQ material.”
That was pretty good modding.
Ambivalid - your questions were hijacking the thread. The OP indicated familiarity with transgenderism but not interfluidity. The OP wanted scientific evidence on interfluidity. Asking, “How is this not a mental illness?” in post 3 tends to derail the thread.
Colibri delivered 2 notes, followed by a warning for not obeying moderator instructions. Well played.
I generally like your posts Ambivalid. If you want to discuss this in GD, go ahead. But whatever your motivations, you were sending the thread into a nontopical direction.
Whether that’s accurate or not, that’s beside the point. Both you and Derleth were told your conversation was a hijack, and you replied attempted to continue it after a Mod Note telling you to stop. Colibri specifically said that anyone continuing that discussion would get a Warning.
You can’t reply to a post specifically declared to be a hijack and say you weren’t trying to continue that conversation. He said discuss it elsewhere or drop it. You didn’t.
I can only thing you are angry and not quite thinking straight. You’re in that mode where you’re more interested in winning than being right. I know–I’ve been there. I suggest taking a break and coming back, and look at what happened with fresh eyes.
Im not claiming this was bad modding. I respect Colibri as a moderator and I wasn’t clear on what he wanted me to stop doing. As hard as that may be for some to believe, it’s the truth. I am fine with the explanations given here. I apologize for hijacking that thread.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
To be clear about my reasoning:
The OP asked a factual question about the state of research on gender identity. This is a reasonable GQ question. However, it’s something that will likely end up in GD unless modded narrowly.
Ambivalid asked whether transgender identity is a mental illness. This is a separate topic, and more appropriate to Great Debates.
I believed that this question constituted a hijack of the original question stated in the OP, and instructed those interested in discussing the question to start a new thread in Great Debates.
I issued a warning only after Ambivalid ignored two Moderator Notes instructing that the question he posed be taken to Great Debates.
I hope this is clear. You are still welcome to discuss the question in an appropriate forum.
You’re really doubling down on claiming that the way you raised the topic was “just asking”? I don’t dispute that you are honestly interested, and would like more information and a discussion, but your framing was far from neutral, it was strongly opinionated.
You said this:
[QUOTE=Ambivalid]
How is this not a mental illness?
[/QUOTE]
Consider the two statements below. They are both in the form of questions. Which is a neutral question just seeking information, and which is a rhetorical question expressing a strong opinion?
(a) How is Hillary Clinton not in jail?
(b) After the FBI concluded its investigation, why did they decide not to prosecute Hillary?
Fair enough.
Good moderating.