I have some sympathies with your general stance, but this can’t be the case. The Pit is extremely advertiser-hostile. It’s also popular with the user base - I suspect riots would occur in ATMB if it was yanked. This website has always existed at the sufferance of upper management. There are less than 400 charter members on the books, which pencils out to less than $6000 per year when they were charging money. That sort of revenue is a joke for a business. Management doesn’t need traffic here, (whisper and more to the point it doesn’t need the liability exposure) .
The Dope is known for heavier than typical moderation. The Pit was envisioned as a safety valve for the rest of the website. It works fairly well IMHO, but I agree that it has lots of downsides.
This week’s cover story at the Economist magazine is, “Is America dictator-proof?” The answer to any question in a headline is always no: this is no exception. I agree that social media is toxic, but personally I’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Uh, neither it was the murder of Monsignor Romero, the whole background included having the USA giving money, training and weapons to the Salvadorean dictators. And many of the right wing in the USA cheering for that. So, think about the context; yes, those things do not happen in a vacuum and that should moderate what one does say.
It is not good to willfully remain ignorant about an issue like that, and there is bit of ignorance here when one tries to defend the likes of Shodan, people like Shodan did attack, even if there were no insults to him about an issue.
In regard to defending the use of the confederate flag… (yeah, what a mountain chosen to die for) Talk about things that really did not take place in a vacuum! Any moderate right winger who is not aware of the baggage that the flag brings nowadays is willfully ignoring a lot.
My point was and is that effective communication is different from in-group virtue signaling. Now, it’s not up to me to tell you what to value so communicate as you wish.
I’m on a number of forums and the Dope seems better than most; a happy medium between moderating anti-social posts / posters but not blocking people just for having unpopular views.
I have gotten frustrated with various back and forths in the past, and had to take a break from the forum at times. But, what I have also found, is that when I read some of my own posts back my tone is often sharper / more mocking than perhaps I appreciated.
I will say though, more specific to the OP, that I tend to steer clear of threads about gender; anything alluding to differences between men and women’s experiences. They seem to always be toxic, and not just because of jerks, but people pre-emptively treating other people as jerks. I’m not sure these topics go down well on any forum though.
Oh yeah, I forgot the thing about climate change denial. At one point it was purely because some people were spamming the board with the “article of the day from my favorite denialist webpage”.
But was it extended to a blanket ban? If so, yeah I’d probably disagree with that.
There has to be something lost in translation if you aren’t understanding that how to message is different than advocacy or critique. You may think being an obnoxious tool will win people over to your point of view.
It won’t.
However, being an obnoxious tool will signal to your in-group that you possess sufficient zealotry and are a true-believer. Again, if that’s what you value you do you. If you want to change minds, you will need to build rapport with others instead of reinforcing tribe standing by seeking the approval of the most vociferous of your side’s radicals.
Nah, what is clear is that you are the one ignoring that, well, you should expect a reply. And no, that there are some that will not change is not the problem, this is because you do ignore that others do notice that you are missing how ignorant the examples you use are, it then makes your point to be a very underwhelming one.
Absolutely not, but that’s what they like to claim. They get topic-banned when they refuse to provide cites to their baseless claims, argue in bad faith, lie about what others have said, lie about what politicians have done, etc.
You will not find any poster who has been topic-banned only for having an unpopular view.
I’m surprised you’re even putting this forth. Does this seem realistic? Have you ever seen it happen here yet in the 7 years you’ve been here?
In many threads, you often seem to have an unquestioning gullibility about things you hear and/or read.
You seem to have some common sense. It would be good if you use it to look up (from reputable sources, or in this case, a search of the board) verification for claims instead of just swallowing them whole-cloth.
Well put. Qualification: mockery can move the ball provided you first get your adversary to invest in your opinion of them. Mockery is different than denouncement when it opens up the possibility of a modest shift in perspective toning down the ridicule.
Though honestly persuasion is difficult and insufficiently understood. I do think that it tends to occur in steps and that bigger leaps in opinion have internal origins. Which suggests that the persuader should leave space for the targets to work things out on their own.
On this board, the targets are mostly those you are not conversing with. Third party posters and lurkers.
I’m not aware of anyone who has yet been banned for having an unpopular viewpoint as long as they remain civil/respectful, although AIUI it’s technically possible. For instance, I believe the rules technically prohibit some anti-transgender language or views even if they are phrased with good “wording.”
I think that’s an excessive view of the actual rules:
Transgender issues. Discussions of transgender issues are often fraught and opinions tend to be polarized. Nonetheless, the SDMB believes frank conversation reflecting a wide diversity of views is the surest way to establish common ground. To facilitate such discussion, please observe the following guidelines, which apply to all forums.
Please do not state or imply that transgender people are mentally ill. We realize the question remains controversial. However, we’re not going to settle the matter here, and raising it tends to poison other discussion of transgender issues. Please keep your opinions on the subject to yourself.
Do not deliberately misgender another poster – that is, refer to them by a pronoun or other sex-specific term indicating a gender other than the one they identify as. This applies only in cases where a poster’s gender identity is reasonably clear. Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures.
The only things you can’t do is describe it as mental illness and mis-gender someone. But both of those ALSO boil down to Not Being a Jerk. Because if you do either, I’d read those as a direct insult to the posters in question.
[ I left out the third point about the use of cis- when it comes to gender, as it’s not a hard rule, and also boils down to a request again for civil discourse ]