You are defending against the portion of my post that began "beyond that. . .’
I have provided an example of two statements that convey similar messages in which, (as you have noted), the expression is directly related to the message. My point was that that very connection makes some expressions more appropriate than others and that there is no necessity in allowing all expressions when some will destroy discussion rather than conveying ideas.
It’s the “rather than conveying ideas” part that is incorrect.
Those types of statements have been common in GD since I got here. How often do I read stuff from conservative posters about how “liberals” have certain evil traits? Or how the PC crowd just wants to do evil things? They often come out of left field, too. At least this was a response to a claim.
It really does not seem like you thought this through, given your mod note. There are tons of “ludicrously partisan” statements in Elections, and of course people would take issue with saying that any level of partisanism is wrong in Elections.
And, now that you are giving an alternative explanation, I cannot make heads or tails of what is supposed to be acceptable and what isn’t. I don’t see any name calling. I see someone stating a belief that conservatism itself has all the traits that adaher ascribed to Trumpism. And thus Trump’s base is the Republican base.
And I didn’t see the thread being hijacked by it. No one commented on it before you did.
You must not have been paying attention in the last year or two, when similar posts have been routinely moderated. Why do you think Der Trihs doesn’t post in GD anymore?
Because he insulted the poster, not the post.
Nope.
Now you are missing my statement. I do not claim that inflammatory statements do not convey ideas. However, when they are excessively inflammatory, they simply inflame passions and encourage personal feuding rather simply conveying ideas.
No. But it starts down the road where the discussion is not on the idea, but on the motivations of the poster who states the belief.
I am unsure why some on the left cannot simply debate the proposition without resorting to charges of bigotry, xenophobia, or the ultimate comparison of why the current idea is exactly the same as Jim Crow laws.
I am not saying that the mods should rigorously enforce gentlemanly debating rules, but when the debate shifts from a discussion (in my hypo) about the pros and cons of building a wall versus whether or not people who advocate building a wall are xenophobes or racists, then they should steer it back on track.
If they allow a charade whereby there are veiled attacks on the poster in the form of attacking the post, then that purpose is frustrated. Is there a difference between:
-
You are an asshole. and
-
Your post has the indicia of an assholish quality. ?
Probably because any discussion that doesn’t include charges of bigotry and xenophobia is a transparent attempt to duck the facts and should be denounced instantly.
The Dope’s position for the past 17 years is that there is. So why would anyone think otherwise?
I think I see what you are saying, and I am going to pivot my argument.
Consider the following hypothetical arguments in Elections:
[INDENT] Poster A: I can’t help but feel pride for the Scottish people, who voted for Brexit and are finally taking their country back.
Poster B: Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a wide margin.
Poster C: Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a wide margin, you stupid git.
Poster D: Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a wide margin, you weapons grade plum.
Poster E: Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a wide margin: most posts on this message board show greater familiarity with the facts. [/INDENT] Now in some sense Posters B, C, D and E are saying different things. In the context of governmental censorship, I’d say it’s difficult to disentangle style from content.
But honestly, in terms of rule enforcement on this message board it really isn’t. If Richard Parker want the mods to say, “We curb content on this message board, but only insofar as you think direct insults against posters in GD or Elections are a form of content”, that seems fine but frankly overly pedantic.
A philosopher at this point would look for a clever distinction, maybe between pure content (narrowly defined) and broadly defined expression. But in the end, I’d say that the style/content distinction is a valid one when sorting expression between message board forums and a far more problematic one when regulating T-shirt messages or vulgarity. (To be clear, I think it could actually be argued that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment yada yada. I’m not claiming that the T-shirt case was a slam dunk.) Furthermore the style/content distinction is far more operational here than it would be by a government censorship office, in terms of leaving due allowance for personal freedom.
Agreed. I just think it’s important for moderators to acknowledge the fact that moderation like that involved in this thread involves highly subjective, discretionary decisions about which ideas are conducive to civil debate. The contention that the moderation in this thread was only about “expression” and not “ideas” is not correct, in my view. A more forthright and productive discussion of this enforcement of the rules would flow from identifying why it is that particular ideas are or are not conducive to civil and interesting debate. That would spotlight the key premise of tomndebb’s justification here, which was that the ideas expressed by **DigitalC **“served no purpose other than to rile up other posters”–instead of what I think is largely a red herring that this was about style and not content.
I think we’re getting closer to understanding each other. I’m saying that there is a different bundle of ideas conveyed in “Fuck the draft” than conveyed in “The draft is unwise policy.” They share some ideas, no doubt. And the first bundle may include some contentions more likely to inflame passions. But forbidding the first statement i Elections or GD is not cost-less. The cost is the loss of (*relatively *more civil, as compared to the Pit) discussion of those more inflammatory ideas. So I think defense of the banning of inflammatory ideas requires more than just the correct judgment that they are inflammatory. It should also involve consideration of whether the inflammation is worth it to have a debate over that content that is likely to be different from a debate over the related but less inflammatory content.
I think this points to the real danger (even on a private message board!) of attempting to moderate inflammatory ideas. Surely whether or not a policy is xenophobic is fair game in GD. You may feel that liberals are too quick to use that characterizations, but that too is fair game for discussion. Sending all that debate to the Pit would strike me as the wrong move.
I think I address some of this in the earlier paragraphs of this post. But here’s one further (maybe) clarifying distinction. There are lots of reasons that government efforts to distinguish style and content are a bad idea that do not apply to a private message board’s efforts to do so. That is obvious. But I don’t actually think there is a difference on one key point: the actual practical abilities of humans–whether bureaucrats, judges, or private citizens graciously volunteering their time to give us a cool place to discuss ideas-- to do so without injecting their own biases. I think the long-running discussion over this issue in the law sheds light in precisely that relevant area. And the upshot of that is that instead of arguing that they’re merely moderating style, moderators who choose to explain their decisions ought to explain why the inflammatory nature of the content outweighs the advantages of (relatively more) civil debate as to that content in GD or Elections.
And with that, I think I’m spent. Thank you for your efforts to make our forums good fun for civil discussion of ideas, tomndebb. I hope you take my criticism in the spirit it is intended, even when I express it poorly as I think I mostly have in this thread.
Emphasis added. Why do people keep saying this? No moderator has suggested that all such debates should be sent to The Pit. In fact, there is no reason you couldn’t open an entire thread in GD on the subject: Resolved, Building a Wall on the Mexican Border is Xenophobic (provide you don’t poison the well in such a way that lends it being sent to the Pit). Just don’t drop a gratuitous, partisan swipe in a thread that’s not even about that s subject in the first place.
Isn’t UltraVires arguing that such a thread should be sent to the Pit? Mods might not agree with him, but his argument is only an improper application of the rule because of a different subjective judgment about what is rightly inflammatory vs. needlessly inflammatory.
You also seem to be defending this kind of moderation on the grounds that the post was off-topic. But I don’t think anyone has asserted that rationale. Surely, tomndebb’s “no needlessly inflammatory ideas” concept is not limited to off-topic ones.
This is so weird. Some on the left consider bigoted, xenophobic ideas to be flawed due to their bigotry and xenophobia. This isn’t a resort, it’s an argument from values. If an idea’s support is predicated primarily on appeals to fear of foreigners, for example, it’s laudable to point that out; it’s not a “resort.”
It is simple well-poisoning and question begging with a bit of implied false analogy under the surface.
If someone says that opposition to same sex marriage is bigoted, it adds nothing to the debate. All it does is start a new debate about what is bigoted/not-bigoted, how opposition to same sex marriage is/is not the same as opposition to interracial marriage, and does not advance one single whit any ideas about the substantive pros or cons of legal same sex marriage.
It would be like if in every economic debate, my side just claimed that the latest Democratic proposal was socialist or communist and absolutely no different than the economic policy of Josef Stalin. We then do not debate the merits of the proposal, but we debate how it is or is not socialist or communist.
There is simply no need, nor any benefit, to hurling labels.
Twice wrong, and you should realize that. First, it’s not well-poisoning. Second, notice how you added in the “Stalin” piece to make the analogized argument unreasonable. Instead, if someone objected to a particular Democratic proposal by saying it smacked of Communist solutions to economic troubles, that’d be an entirely valid objection. It might be incorrect, but it’d be entirely debatable. If people said, “So what’s so bad about Communism?” then you can discuss that; but if everyone agrees that communism is bad, then you can discuss the ways in which the proposal is or is not communist.
There’s nothing scary or terrible at all about having such a discussion.
And what if someone said about democratic voters in the US: “This IS the base. Liberalism IS socialist, communist an collectivist!!” and nothing more. What does that add to reasoned debate?
This is said frequently. It may not add to reasoned debate but it is not modded either.
Look, I’m not saying this shouldn’t be modded. I’m fine with more modding along these lines; I’ve argued repeatedly for moderation based on content-free sniping (note that I’ve ALSO argued that describing arguments as racist, bigoted, etc. should be allowed; I think such charges should be supported, but upon supporting them should be allowed).
My trouble with tom’s post earlier was the idea that it should be modded for trolling. I think that renders the idea of trolling nearly incoherent. Modding it (without warning) for broad-brushism is fine with me, as I suggested earlier:
So to get back to your example, if someone supported those claims about democratic voters (even supporting them with the totally shitty arguments that are the only ones available in support of such a proposition), I’d be fine with it. What good is an argument without some fool making dumb arguments to argue against?
It’s silly for religion to get special treatment. A funny hat or silly prayers shouldn’t render ideology labeled as religion immune to the exact same criticisms that are aimed at other ideologies.