Okay, whatever: I really didn’t understand. And the reason for that is that THAT IS NOT HOW THE FALLACY WORKS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID. Edit: also, you mixed your metaphors all to fuck and back in that snarky post, making it even more incoherent.
For example, I did not say that “the fact that is is a lesbian couple is not a legitimate topic of discussion.” Nor did I say anything similar to that.
Instead, I offered an example. I could repost the example about church, but instead I invite you to read the example and respond to it.
This is true, and honestly I think it’s an interesting logistical twist, akin to a kid whose parents have the same birthday forgetting to get them a present. A tiny part of what made UR’s posts so annoying is that it was hard to discuss that logistical twist, because any such discussion risked getting caught up in the offensive homophobic stuff.
Gosh, that mangling of the fallacy is really irritating. Here’s what the NTS would look like if it equaled legitimate topic of discussion:
“No legitimate topic of discussion is absent from the OP.”
“Being lesbian is absent from the OP [and is a legitimate topic of discussion].”
“Being lesbian is not a legitimate topic of discussion.”
The key is that the second step must contradict the first step, showing a counterexample. Also note how, properly framed, it has nothing to do with the thread in question.
You said:
No topic is legitimate for discussion unles it is brought out in the OP.
The fact that it was a lesbian couple was brought out in the OP.
The fact that is is a lesbian couple is not a legitimate topic of discussion.
Note that your second step does not offer a counterexample to the first step. It is mangled logically, it’s mangled inasmuch as it doesn’t represent what I said, and it’s completely inapplicable to the thread in question. No wonder I had no idea what you were getting at.
(In response to post #22) I thought so too. On reading the thread title, my mind jumped to the the answer “it’s the father’s job to ensure this doesn’t happen”. Of course there are other contexts besides this one where that formula doesnt work, so it’s an interesting situation, but one that can easily be discussed without resorting to insult.
To take two examples: in that thread, Shodan suggested the issue was gay-related with no supporting facts. It seemed like a bit of a leap that may or may not be rooted in prejudice. It deserves to be questioned by other posters, but it at least addressed the OP’s question and should not be modded IMO.
On the other hand, UR’s posts were insulting and nothing more than threadshitting and should have received at least a note to keep things on track.
Plenty of people get annoyed with certain members of the straight community for being so in your face to non-straights about their breeder behavior. But if I posted about what I was going to do for my wife for Mother’s Day, and somebody came in and started talking about us breeders and the propaganda we’re shoving down our kids’ throats about heteronormativity or some such, it’d be jerkish behavior. And I don’t see a relevant difference.
Well put, and this is the view I’m leaning toward. Plus, people who post comments like these—assuming they’re sincere and not just trolling—are, in their own perverse way, fighting my ignorance, by letting me know how some people out there really think.
On the other hand, I don’t want the SDMB to turn into a place where gay, or any other type of, people feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because of ignorant or bigoted comments made about them. So, I’m torn.
Should homophobia get more moderator attention? I think that’s something we’re going to have to leave to the moderators. They are the ones who have to identify what is homophobia, hate speech, racism, etc and what is robust discourse allowable within the rules. Frankly it’s not a decision I envy them. They will never please everybody and maybe that’s as it should be. One person’s homophobia is another person’s strong religious belief. This stuff ain’t easy!
I’ve learned on the board that it’s necessary to tolerate some offensive opinions in order to maintain an intellectually honest discussion. I’ve also learned how easy it is to post something stupid that unintentionally is offensive. However in tapu’s recent thread there were some offensive comments directed to her specifically and not simple general opinions. Perhaps if those posts were reported there would have been moderator action.
I would argue that statements like that should not be lead to moderator action. The way to fight such ignorance and hate is to draw.it into the light for rebuttal, refutation, and mockery, not to drive it underground.
There was also a request to close relayed to the mods at 2:21PM and the thread is still open. Perhaps the mods are busy evaluating the situation. I’d like to hear what they have to say about this.
I can only speak about the forums that I moderate.
I personally don’t have any more tolerance for anti-gay speech than any other kind of hate speech.
GQ is for factual questions. We allow a bit of leeway once the question has been addressed factually, and folks can express opinions and joke around a bit, etc. In that context, you can express homophobic opinions as it might relate to the topic being discussed, but really, once you start expressing opinions, especially those that are likely to elicit strong reactions from others, your post probably belongs in another forum anyway. Since most of those types of opinions are likely to derail a GQ thread, it’s probably best in most circumstances to just stick to things that can be factually cited and save the homophobic comments for a more appropriate forum. In any event, anything that actually crosses the line into hate speech, whether it is homophobic or anything else, has no business in GQ.
In ATMB, you are expected to be civil. This isn’t the Pit or even the Pit Light. Treat all other users with respect. That means no insults of any sort. Hate speech is way over the line for ATMB.
I’ll be fairly surprised if anyone ever posts hate speech in the Marketplace, but just for the sake of completeness, the Marketplace is just a user benefit where you can sell stuff. It isn’t the place for debate of any sort and certainly isn’t a place for insults of any sort.
In any forum, if you think something needs our attention, even if you aren’t sure, please report it. We would rather receive too many post reports than miss an issue because someone was afraid to report it. There is never any penalty for reporting something that we later decide isn’t an infraction. We get plenty of post reports where the person reporting it isn’t sure if it’s actually a problem or not. We don’t mind those, so please keep sending them in.
Also, please keep in mind that homosexuality is currently a hot button topic for a lot of folks. The gay marriage debate is currently very heated in certain parts of the U.S. (and elsewhere) and what may seem like an innocent comment to you may start a rather large argument with someone else.
Okay. The next time you bring up your kids and your wife, I will be glad to point out that, if only your kids had a gay influence in their life, they might become decent people. And then harass you for putting your heterosexuality in my face, and talk about your breeder agenda.
Bringing up your life partner and kids is not an invitation to talk about any of that. Nor is it waving things in anyone’s face.
If you were having a conversation about heterosexuality or procreation, then it would be a topic of discussion. This other was a hijack for GD-level stuff and should have been moderated.
“If you want to discuss whether there is a homosexual agenda or the value of same sex parenting, please take it to GD. In this thread, it is a hijack.”
As far as I’m concerned the answer to your #1 question in the OP is “no” so that doesn’t lead to much discussion. If you feel a particular post is against the rules then report it. But please note that stating an unpopular, ignorant or outright incorrect opinion is not necessarily against the rules. The default since I have been a poster has always been to allow others to refute such opinions. As Miller said in the current Pit thread, “It’s hard to fight ignorance if we don’t allow ignorant people to post their ignorant ideas.”
From a board moderation standpoint this is probably the most relevant point - it’s not whether Urbanredneck et alia are being homophobes; it’s whether they’re being jerks (outside the Pit). Expressing an anti-gay opinion is fine (well, not really, but you know what I mean). Being needlessly assholish in the way one expresses it is another matter.
Yeah–while I have mixed feelings about whether scientific racists and the like should get to spout off in great debates, there’s a real difference between saying (for example) “gays make bad parents” and saying “your current parenting difficulties are because you’re gay.” The latter is a personal attack to a much greater degree than the former.
I do not believe #1 is true, while I did not check all (or even most) of the links to his postings, I could see someone substitute Irish or Blacks or other group and also go on non-moderated.
The reason is it’s obviously hateful, this person just demeans themself by such statements. So in a why they are just moderating themselves as people will seem them for exactly who they are.
As for #2, I don’t see this as a good example to consider, so it comes down to the evidence submitted, however as I pointed out this poster is self moderating by revealing his hatred which is turning off people to his posts. So I have not seen a reason given that #2 would be needed. Not saying it’s not, but there is nothing here to justify it IMHO.