It’s not unrelated.
Yeah, it was. My question was do you folks that want the Pit gone agree that attacking a poster with their thread about their mental health problems is exactly the kind of thing this board should not tolerate.
But, somehow, you want to change the subject to posters that use their mental health problems as an excuse for their bad behavior.
But their often unmoderated bad behavior leads to Pit threads.
Do you agree that attacking a poster with their thread about their mental health problems should be off limits or not?
I’ve already said yes.
I do report misogynistic posts (although it’s clear the mods and I disagree strongly on what is and isn’t misogynistic) I don’t report racist posts because racism is not against the rules here. Apparently, I’ve also recently found out, neither is genocide-denial.
Yup, you can say, almost, anything you want… but don’t use slurs! 'Cause the real problem with racists is those bad, bad words they use.
Uh, are you sure you linked to the right thread? That one isn’t in the Pit, hasn’t been posted to since Oct, and doesn’t have anywhere near 800 posts.
I linked to the thread that caused the pitting, since that was what was relevant to the discussion. If you want to see the pit thread, you can search for it.
But is misogyny specifically against the rules here, either? I remember all the contretemps, but I looked around a bit and couldn’t find an official rule about it. Happy to be corrected about that.
In any case, even if racism were against the rules specifically, I suspect that, like misogyny, you would disagree a lot with mods about the definition, and you would still be unsatisfied.
But that’s you. Other people might be OK with that scenario. Hard to know.
Not specifically, but the mods did say they were going to act on it, and in general they have been taking a stronger stance against it, so it’s been worth reporting even if the action rate is less than desirable.
Whereas in previous ATMB threads I’ve been outright told that plain old racism is not against the rules, and won’t be modded in-and-of-itself. And what I have reported has been pooh-poohed
I won’t dignify the rest of your post with an answer, as I can’t be arsed to open a new pit thread tonight.
It should be pretty obvious that there is nothing to be gained by allowing things like
“I want to discuss why [some group defined by common descent or phenotype] has [some biologically inherent bad trait]”
“all [members of demographic group] should be [treated negatively in some way]”
*slur-filled ranting about groups
whereas there are other topics that touch on race which can be productively discussed.
There are people who might consider topics such as the impact on outcomes of behavioral aspects of culture, or the wisdom of affirmative action, or the efficacy of the tactics of BLM protestors, to have objectively correct answers and wrong “racist” answers. This can’t be the position of the people enforcing “rules against racism” if there is going to be a political discussion board. The continued catering to those people in board moderation has led to a bizarre situation where the window of allowed positions has bifurcated into far-left and far-right and various beliefs that average people tolerate or even hold aren’t allowed to be advocated.
Right now the board is in a paradox where, for some reason that may or may not have made sense in 1999, there is a bizarre pride taken in the fact that “racism per se” is not disallowed, but topics which reasonable, non-racist people can and do disagree on cause a panic where the mods rush to shut down the “wrong” side and every single post from people expressing opinions that probably 80% of Democratic voters would agree with triggers fourteen Pit posts rushing to call it racist.
If the board chooses to continue allowing sociopolitical debates at all, I’d suggest at least one modification to the current approach, which is - stop trying to determine what is morally acceptable or morally unacceptable racism and just focus on whether a topic can possible spawn a useful thread. There is nothing to be gained from letting people start threads about whether all Xes are thieves and then having a bunch of other people yell at them about it. It’s a pointless exercise in trolling and the harvesting of low-hanging fruit. Conversely, stop pretending that advocating for entirely mainstream positions on topics that are currently major debates in the larger world is somehow off-topic or outside the window of acceptability in a “political debates” section of the board.
I never really think of anyone I post to as a “lefty” or a “conservative”. I respond to what they posted whether a recipe or an opinion.
Yes, politely disagreeing with people’s right to exist does occasionally cause some people to get upset.
As I said, there can be tons of toxicity hidden by a thin veneer of “civility”. And there are those who make that style of posting an artform.
See, that’s the sort of assertion that cannot be honestly refuted outside of the pit, as the reasons for making those assertions on your part require a level of frank honesty that is not appropriate for other forums.
This is not true, while there is an element to that, and I wouldn’t mind seeing actual abuse, like someone bringing up a mental health issue a poster discussed in one thread as a form of attack on that poster in a different thread in the pit, be curtailed, many people are attacking it because it allows people to openly discuss how certain posters act in disingenuous ways.
I don’t think that this is true at all. Most of the posters that post in the pit also post in other areas of the board, and have no trouble whatsoever keeping within the rules.
Do you actually have any examples to offer, or is this just another empty assertion?
This is true. There are certain posters who start screaming profanity laced tirades in the pit about other posters over slight misunderstandings or disagreements, and they generally are not good posters in any parts of the board.
…never happened. Neither has this:
Can you provide an example of this? I’ve never seen mods rush to shut down one side of an argument.
Uh-oh, did I post something pittable? Sorry, I took it as a given that you don’t see eye to eye with the mods about racism based on your posts here. My apologies for making a bad assumption.
Cite that this is a significant problem? Not only have I never seen anyone do such a thing, I have difficulty imagining what it would even mean. Presumably politely advocating for murder(!) is against the board rules, so are we talking something like arguing in favour of selective abortion or embryo screening?
Leaving that aside, even a poster advocating for discrimination is an extremely rare event; the large majority of what is claimed as bigotry by ‘progressive’ posters is simply people disagreeing about theories like CRT, or on factual questions, or on the best way to deal with racism, sexism, etc.
Calling someone disingenuous is an insult. That’s why you can only do it in the Pit. Objecting to being insulted is obviously not the same as objecting to other people having a different opinion. Debating with people who hold a different opinion is kind of the point of GD. Getting insulted and abused by people who can’t handle disagreement with their ideas is just an unpleasant aspect of board culture that the SDMB would be better off without.
I don’t see eye-to-eye with the mods around the moderation around racism. With the current set of mods, I think we are in general agreement about is and isn’t racism is. So there’s no reason to suppose that should reason prevail and actual racism be moddable, that I would be unsatisfied.
I’m not unsatisfied with the modding around homophobia, for instance, or most of the modding around misogyny - it’s a learning process, we let the mods know what we think is misogyny by reporting, and the mods let us know what they think is misogyny by modding or not modding particular posts. Sometimes they let a reporter know their thinking sometimes not. I’m generally satisfied with the process even if I disagree with specific instances. So I wouldn’t say I disagree “a lot” around it. It’s more about honing the edges.
Sorry if that was extra cranky, but I’m kind of sick of the bullshit narrative that I see everything as racism and won’t settle for anything less than complete acquiescence. There are in fact only a couple of changes to the moderation that I’d like. Hell, just one change would satisfy me.
Please try to post the non-leftist view on topics such as affirmative action, magnet school admissions, or the existence & desirability of critical race theory, and let me know how long it lasts before someone finds a reason to shut down people arguing for the position that the median American holds on these issues. There all sorts of both ambiguous and unwritten rules that are selectively wielded on people who have the wrong opinions and/or the wrong amount of board tenure, and ultimately any discussion of how things work around here needs to address that fact.