But do you agree that it is relevant to a discussion about “how things are today” regarding transgender folks?
Trans kids = transgender folks! To exclude the medicalization of trans kids from the conversation does not make any sense…unless the goal is to turn a thread into a hugbox where uncomfortable or challenging subject matter shall never be discussed.
I just don’t see how that fits with the board’s mission to fight ignorance.
I can totally see how the discussion of language (“people with cervixes”) was NOT relevant to the OP, and I winced when it was brought up. But a discussion of trans kids totally fits! And since some Dopers (you and others) have experience with trans kids or may have experience in the future, it’s a topic that is very topical and important for the whole community to engage.
I don’t get the sense that the actual topics are banned. Rather, a particular person was dominating the conversation to the point that other aspects of the discussion were not able to be examined. I actually think the aspects being discussed were the interesting part of the discussion, but I can see the mod’s point about how one person can overwhelm the discussion. But I expect that these topics can be discussed in the future even if they are hotly debated.
I wonder if the name of that kind of ban should be changed? “Topic Ban” can be taken to mean that a particular topic is banned rather than a particular member is banned from discussing that topic. Perhaps something more precise like “Topic Participation Ban” would be better.
It’s possible to debate the topic of censorship without (re)debating the specific subject of the censorship.
I should be able to debate the wisdom of publishing Mein Kampfwithout being dragged into debating the pros and cons of killing Jews, is what I’m saying.
That’s a weird position to take. The subject was censorship, not whether the views had any merit. In fact the discussion of whether the views have any merit would actively take away from the substance of the debate.
It seems to me that discussions about censorship in a democratic society generally get boring pretty quick. I think very few people are in favor of censorship, in general. They suddenly get very keen about the specifics of what gets censored, why and by whom.
As stated above, is there a significant cross section of the population that takes the view that censorship is good, without asking the questions, “Censorship of what?”
But of course, that would never have happened. Best as I can tell, topic bans are only given to people who adopt a minority viewpoint in discussions. I’m curious as to whether there are any counterexamples at all, but it’s certainly true in large picture.
For that matter, the whole notion of having “too many posts” as the basis for a topic ban is another way of suppressing minority viewpoints while pretending otherwise. In any discussion, the main supporters of a minority viewpoint will tend to have far more posts than holders of the majority viewpoint, since they will need to respond to many posts directed at them, while those in the majority will need to respond to far fewer.
FTM, ISTM that “derailing the conversation” is likewise. Best as I can tell, it frequently boils down to “my buddies and I would like to have a conversation based on certain premises that we all share, and so-and-so keeps undermining it by challenging those premises”.
The way I see it, posters in a Great Debate thread were posting unsubstantiated positions and @YWTF was brave enough to push back on those positions, which she did respectfully and with cites. If she dominated that thread, it’s only because there were a lot of unsubstantiated positions being posted and few others were brave enough to say anything.
I have had my own history of dominating threads about certain pet topics. Namely, racism and the existence of free will. When people post stuff I disagree with (in general, but especially on my pet topics), I’m not afraid to challenge them. Even when I like everyone posting in the thread. I try to listen to what everyone says, but I don’t hold back on what I have to say.
I’d very much hate it if someone decided to ban me from talking about my pet topic on the basis of me always dominating the conversation. Ban me from talking about a topic if I’m talking crazily and disrespectfully. But don’t ban me from a topic just because I’m passionate about it and I’m not afraid to tell someone they are wrong about something.
There are plenty of Dopers who share @YWTF’s opinions about stuff, or at least appreciate the unapologetically skeptical viewpoint she brings to the discussion. But not all of those Dopers are willing to come out and express their opinions. So @YWTF fills a niche here that might otherwise be unoccupied. I know there are folks who don’t want that niche to be filled and would prefer everyone say and feel the exact same way about trans stuff. But we need opposing voices here to keep this board an interesting place.
So the way I see it, she’s being penalized for being more outspoken than the average Doper.
No one can convince me that this isn’t major bullshit.
I meant in the abstract. Which I’m terrible at because, as my wife often reminds me, I went to what she considers to be a vocational school (B.Comp.Sci.), where they didn’t teach us anything except how to code.
Sure, it’s possible but do really expect every instance of corporate censorship or public boycott to be an academic discussion of the general principle of censorship? Outright calls for violence are generally thought acceptable things to censor. Whether Mein Kampf is a call to violence would surely come up in a discussion of its censorship, no?
Thank you, I appreciate your clarification. It also looks like I opened up a can of worms here, which is why I was hesitant bringing it up.
I was concerned because I’ve seen other platforms shut down or limit discussion on LGBTQ topics when they get too hateful towards us and I didn’t want that happening here. You are right that YWTF was taking it off topic (even though I didn’t consider the stuff dealing with trans kids/teens off topic), and I think my reaction was because I felt like I was trying to bring it back on topic right before you shut it down. I understand now why you did however, given the other thread. YWTF, monstro, and DemonTree posted so much that it drowned out any criticism from us or our allies and so we all eventually just gave up in the end and let the transphobia continue without our participation.
It’s a topic that’s personal to me as it directly affects my life, and I think people get too bogged down in statistics and data to realize that.
I’m sorry, but I see a lot of crazy and disrespectful posts from YWTF on this topic. Enough that I have completely bailed on threads where she is posting. She goes far beyond healthy skepticism to impugning the motives of other posters who disagree with her, among other things. This is not a blanket condemnation of YWTF. I think she is especially emotionally affected by this topic and it makes it difficult for her to dial in the rhetoric. If I remember correctly, YWTF is your sister. You love her and you strongly agree with her positions in these threads. This certainly influences your view of things. I don’t think anyone here is out to “get” her or to facilitate censorship in general. A topic ban isn’t even really a punishment, and in this case, it appears to be temporary. It seems like a sensible move to me.
I disagree with you that she posts crazily or disrespectfully. I think people in general are super sensitive about everything nowadays. Her issue is that she didn’t get the memo that she should cater to everyone’s super sensitivities. Which of course means she can often be quite abrasive. But I don’t think she’s out here being crazy or hateful. I think people are reacting to her as if she is being crazy and hateful, because they just see that she’s writing a lot but can’t be bothered to give her a fair reading.
She doesn’t show respect to posters who argue disingenuously or unfairly impugn her motives (which plenty of Dopers do, btw). So no, she’s not all sweetness and light. I know that bitch can be a bitch. But bitches aren’t always wrong. Sometimes they speak truth, even if they aren’t always diplomatic in their delivery.
Frankly, I think if she was as outspoken against other progressive pet topics, she wouldn’t be on anyone’s radar. People through the ages here have talked plenty of crazy yingyang against black folks (their laziness, their whinyness, their criminality, their low intelligence), and yet those folks have been tolerated and allowed to dominate as much as they want. I’ve duked it out with posters over topics like reparations and Affirmative Action. And people have come at me with crazy bullshit and talked all kinds of shit about me offline. Big fucking whoop. Being able to fiight crazy bullshit is what makes this place what it is. Most of the folks I’ve spared with in the past aren’t here now, and I miss them. I miss them just like I miss all the wonderful posters I have always agreed with (dammit, @wonky, why won’t you come back?!) All the folks I engage with on this board have helped to shape my ideas and opinions about stuff.
If people can’t find the words and the passion to fight @YWTF so that she doesn’t dominate the conversation so much, then that tells me that topic has got too many land mines, which of course is very problematic. If people can’t talk about something without having hurt feelings every time a disagreeable comment is made, then no one is going to change their minds about anything. Maybe that’s not what you are here for (changing minds), but that’s what GD should be about, IMHO. It shouldn’t be a kumbaya, everyone-agree-to-agree affair.
Yes, the two of us are sisters. Maybe the two of us are way too similar in how we’re wired for me to see her the way you see her. But I know her politics very well. She’s not an angry obsessive transphobe. She just not afraid to say unpopular things when she has an argument ready.
