Classic
Eventually SenorBeef and BigT will get tired of typing long dissertations at each other, and Octopus will get tired of dropping turds. It’ll die out soon enough.
Surely no one will stop coming to message boards and criticizing people for engaging in discussion, though.
I probably don’t have the endurance to span decades and multiple websites obsessing on the one true way to have a Woke board.
A little clarity here would be helpful: I think it was Demontree who was all petulant about how the mods didn’t moderate me insulting you, and I was like fuck off liar. In that context, I was talking about insults of the sort that get moderated, of course, since that was what she was claiming wasn’t getting moderated. When you were all YOUR A LIAR YOU INSULTED MY HONOR in this thread, I didn’t code-switch over to the normal meaning of the word “insult.”
Which, of course in regular conversation it’s an insult to tell someone that their attitude is disgusting, just like it’s an insult to tell someone that they’re easily offended. Your attitude was disgusting, and your unwillingness to examine that (except in a half-assed way that you subsequently held up as further evidence of moral rectitude) is disgusting, and you betcha I don’t mean that in a sunny happy complimentary way. But the mods in their ineffable wisdom have decided that telling someone they’re easily offended, or telling someone they’re being disgusting in how they dismiss the concerns of survivors, are on the “allowed” side of the line and don’t count as insults.
So I won’t deny that I had and have no nice things to say about your approach to the conversation. But Demontree’s wrong as shit, as per usual, and when you jumped in to YOUR A LIAR me you weren’t paying attention to the way the word was being used in that context.
Hope it’s all clear now; toodles.
Sweet! If I can add to the lesson, there’s a “take your lumps” aspect. You fucked up; you learned. Don’t write a multifaceted thesis in three-part harmony detailing all the ways in which you were technically innocent of some of the peripheral charges, and especially don’t call it “disputing my warning.”
Looks like I’m going to have to post parse this to deal with everything. It’s not my favorite style of posting, as it can feel like nitpicking or taking things out of context. I assure you this is not my intent.
You specifically argued in this thread that the mods regularly allow people to do this sort of thing to you, and that this is unfair, claiming it’s because they and the other poster agree. To argue something is unfair is to inherently argue that it should not be.
LHOD didn’t attack you. He attacked your position. You are inferring that this is an attack on you personally. Such indicates you found the remark offensive. And…
That is not what you said in the post I specifically quoted and replied to, however, which was the post I was addressing. You said you were against censorship due to offense. Yet you had previously argued that your offense should matter in how the mods moderated.
No such implication is inherent. All of those things are things where someone would be offended, and you argued that being offended shouldn’t matter. If you reduce trauma to “being offended,” as you did repeatedly, then you must treat all instances of offense the same. To treat them differently means you see that not everything can be reduced to “offense,” which was my point.
Yes, of course. Unless I see you argue otherwise at some point, I will take you at your word that this is not specifically an issue related to rape, but of trauma in general.
However, I would not argue that it matters too much. The current discussion is about rape victims, and thus it is inherently relevant. It’s possible that people would not react the same way if it were some other trauma, so it makes sense to stick with the topic at hand. (More about this after the next quote.)
I guess, but then it gets into parts that are irrelevant to the current discussion, as then you get into “are all traumas equal?” and other such discussions. The current issue is rape, so it makes sense to focus on that and not drop into such asides while this particular traumatic experience is on the table. We could discuss other traumas after this one is cleared up.
What you have claimed, repeatedly, is that people being offended should have on bearing on whether something should be allowed to be discussed. You did not limit it to trauma, which was part of the issue. You were treating offense of any kind as the same.
You are also still saying “uncomfortable due to discussing trauma.” We’re not discussing discomfort. We are discussing psychological harm. We are talking about discussions that are themselves trauma-inducing for some people. Making it about “discomfort” isn’t really any better than making it about “offense.” Both of these are terms used for much less harmful situations.
And, given that trauma is more harmful that offense or discomfort, it stands to reason that anyone who permits traumatic discussion would also permit offensive or uncomfortable discussion. Yet, as I’ve already pointed out. that’s not the case here. The number 1 rule is “don’t be a jerk.”
This would be true if (1) the discussion in question has value and (2) there is no other way to get at the value in that discussion. This is not the case. If this discussion is just “would rape be okay if…” the answer is very obviously “no.” If the discussion is about trying to iron out why rape is considered wrong, then that can be done in a less potentially harmful way. If the discussion is about our moral axioms in general, then you could choose another topic altogether to discuss.
None of this is stopping actual fruitful discussion. It is merely avoiding unnecessarily hurting people, which is a moral imperative.
But, as was pointed out several times, there was no way for people to avoid that discussion due to the title, which could not be avoided until it was edited. There was also no attempt to mitigate any potential harm in the discussion itself. That’s why the discussion got shut down.
This is part of what I meant by saying you didn’t seem to be listening. You keep on acting like people are saying “we can’t discuss rape at all” when that is not what is being said.
This is because of the way you are addressing the topic. It isn’t so clearly unwarranted as you believe. You are taking a position that many find to be morally abhorrent. Yet you are doing so in a very hostile manner.
The way you have been arguing this has not seemed empathetic to rape victims. The way you act all offended by the other side suggests that you find that more important than the issues regarding rape and trauma.
Again, how you discuss things matters. All conversations have subtext, and that subtext still exists even if the text itself is sufficient. And, when dealing with sensitive subjects, subtext is very, very important. It will be analyzed, and there’s nothing you can do to stop that.
You analyzed LHOD’s subtext, after all. You assumed an implicit attack on you, even though the actual text did not attack you. If you think he should be more careful, then you need to do be, too.
It’s not so much that I’ll get tired of them. It’s that I will see that I’m getting nowhere. Right now, I seem to be getting somewhere, and I hope that @SenorBeef also thinks he is getting somewhere. Once I am no longer getting somewhere, or ideally, we work out our differences, the discussion ends.
I also don’t get the disdain some people have for long dissertations. To me, that’s what a board about fighting ignorance should feature heavily. I get more frustrated when discussions get reduced to one liners. (I’m not referring to you or @kaylasdad99, BTW. Y’all are having a different discussion than we are.)
Using 5000+ words to post some trite idea that has an actual content of 20 words isn’t fighting ignorance of any kind. It’s bloviation.
For some reason I’m reminded of this scene:
I’m not going to respond to all of it in detail, because I think a lot of it is pedantic and not substantive.
So several things wrong with this. First, it was an aside, it’s not at all a component to any of the arguments I made. I was more or less saying “you don’t even have to bother to make your insults of me mod-proof, they won’t mod personal insults directed towards me anyway”
Secondly, you are still operating under the presumption that I believe that any sort of moderation or restriction is censorship, and since I oppose all censorship, I’m a big hypocrite. First, this style of “gotcha ya!” argument is really boring and almost never makes a good point. Secondly, it’s a straw man - not only have I never said that I am opposed to moderation or restriction/censorship of any kind, I specifically repeated that in the last post I made to you. I do not want a list of banned topics based solely on their potential to upset people who have trauma related to those topics. That does not mean that I want no rules of any sort.
No, he tried to attack my motivations, not my position. He attempted to smear my argument by saying that I had a disdain for rape victims, a personal failure on my part, rather than addressing the argument itself. That’s both a straw man, an ad hominem, and a personal insult.
A lot of the rest of your post is pedantic nitpicking about the words offense, discomfort, and trauma. That level of precision is not needed for understanding what I have to say. It’s plain that I’m acknowledging that people have negative emotional reactions to certain topics, and that I do not believe, in the right venue (GD), that those negative reactions should make those topics off limits.
Moderators have since clarified that that’s not what happened, so I was mostly just addressing the people who personally attacked me by repeatedly telling me that I don’t care about trauma or rape victims or implying worse than that.
This is a good point. I am fully supportive that while I believe all things should be open to discussion, people should be able to have the information needed to avoid the discussion, and it should work to minimize the potential harm insofar as that does not restrict the discussion.
The hostility is mostly based around the personal attacks. People can understand my position and disagree with me, and that’s fine, but see what I said above about regaining the moral high ground: they don’t feel great as the people in favor of shutting down discussion, so instead they reframe the issue as being opposed to some sort of monster who has no sympathy for trauma of any type. The problem, being, of course, that that’s a completely invented position they’re attacking me with that has nothing to do with what I’ve said in this thread nor who I am or what I do in reality.
I didn’t tell him he should “be more careful”, nor did I meaningfully analyze subtext. It is plain as day that his intent was to malign my intentions and motivations. Just because he left out a few words to avoid moderation does not mean that he didn’t attack me, that’s absurd.
Anyone can spout off for multiple paragraphs. It doesn’t require any special skills, despite the opinion of some that long dissertations are required for “intellectual” conversation.
It does require skill, however, to make your point clearly with few words. Concise writing is difficult, but worth the effort.
It’s a choice between allowing any discussions on rape, or keeping a bunch of posters we think are very valuable whose personal experiences and trauma would cause them to leave if we allowed these discussions.
That’s a pretty easy choice, because I don’t think these discussions add any significant value, but those posters definitely do.
What, at the heat death of the Universe?
They call it ‘I’m not touching you’. Attacking someone without crossing the line so it’s moddable. LHoD has done it to me a few times, too. He’s good at it.
I think that’s exactly it. They don’t mind thinking about uncomfortable things in general, but they’ve got their worldview all settled, and it’s a nice, comforting one - one where the solutions are simple, there are clearly defined bad guys that need to be defeated, there is no need for compromise, and we are assured of being on the right side of history - and they do not want it challenged, because that makes them just as uncomfortable as a religious person told there is no god.
They want to protect people from trauma, and that’s a good thing to do, and something we should be trying to do. But they don’t want to admit there are trade-offs involved; that we may be sacrificing something else that is important and beneficial to accomplish this. So they minimise it by pretending open discussion is just about entertainment, and avoid addressing your arguments by accusing you of not caring about rape victims.
[quote=“Max_S, post:4519, topic:913349, full:true”]
Looking at those thread’s OP, I wouldn’t say either of those is looking at the morality of rape. While rape is mentioned, neither is examining the rape itself.
The first is about what is moral to sentence a pregnant murderer who got pregnant by rape.
Abortion and the death penalty is the question your OP opens with.
Your second link has an OP that, again, mentions rape but does not make it central to the OP. And seems like it could be debated without rape.
Admittedly, both threads could later get to a debate about the morality of rape, but it seems tangential at best. But for my opinion, they are threads about morality of other actions.
Holy shit, can one of you pit the other so we can get this thread back on topic?? As a wise man once said:
coming from the person who splashed onto the board telling people they were misogynists if they supported trans rights, that’s pretty rich.
Ya know, if you’d spend half as much time listening to what the mods say about the ‘’‘rules’‘’ as you do talking about how the rules need change you might be able to pass the SDMB-SATs!
THERE.
ARE.
NO.
BRIGHT.
LINES.
And if ‘you’ think ‘you’re’ cute and make it a habit of trying to post close to, but not over, that non-line? ‘You’ will regret it.
And why am I, almost, abso-fucking-lutely certain that you fucktards are complaining about un-modded posts that none of you bothered to report?