Why would I? I disagree with his opinion and it was about possible future rules, not the way things stand. I even started a Pit thread to mock it.
(CarnalK made the same point early in this thread, and was modded only (I’m pretty sure) because he/she added the “Regards” line).
Well part of the joke for me, and hopefully a couple of other old warhorses here, was that Shodan himself once said that his “regards” sometimes means “regards” and sometimes it means “fuck you”, pretty much like “bless your heart” has its straightforward and snarky definitions.
Pendulum? When? We’ve been evolving, lately, towards treating everyone better. I know of no past back-and-forth.
And I’m not sure if you are framing the issue as “women vs. straight white men”, but that is my understanding of your post.
I agree with this.
I ran into this type of thing recently with one of my college age children while attempting to discuss Trump (and was surprised and disappointed). I’m not a Trump fan in the slightest, didn’t vote for him and I have a low opinion of him as a person. But my attempt at an unbiased discussion about which of his positions I agreed with and which ones I disagreed with and why was met with an extremely emotional response because I even entertained the idea that he might have a position that I agree with. No conversation was possible and I was a bad guy for even thinking there could be something positive associated with him.
I personally think you should be able to debate pretty much any position in good faith (e.g. not trolling and civil back and forth) including Starving Artist’s view of the world.
I also agree you don’t want to become 4chan, so it does require some limits. Maybe you leave Great Debates as the place with less censoring of ideas, and forums like IMHO and MPSIMS can be more restrictive. If someone is not comfortable with less restrictive discussions then they should avoid those forums that allow it.
I think it is useful to establish that “most of us regard the opinion you appear to be expressing as offensive in ways that have been addressed repeatedly” while still holding the door open to discussing the issue as opposed to defining it as “no longer debatable” and, along with it, defining anyone who believes otherwise, as an offensive deplorable person, period, end of story.
A lot of the people who have expressed what I think of as sexual trodlodyte attitudes and beliefs have NOT done so with any acknowledgment that most of us disagree with them; they have NOT stepped back from emotional appeals to stereotyping and outdated “stuff that everybody knows” and instead laid down any kind of systematic argument for why we should reframe or rethink these issues that we’ve thought about and framed over a period of time.
That’s a good line, but it needs to recognise that just because people regard an opinion as offensive doesn’t mean they are correct. Facts - or lack thereof - should override emotion.
I’m not weighing in here officially.
But I do want to point out that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Finding something offensive does not make it wrong. Contrariwise, something being right does not make something inoffensive. So trying to judge something’s correctness by judging it’s offensiveness is like trying to judge the melody of an apple. It’s two entirely separate things that cannot be reconciled.
This whole thing.
There’s a lot of over-the-top talk here about how banning certain topics would destroy the enlightenment, would turn this place into an echo-chamber, would result in mob rule.
Foolishness.
Let’s look at some topics:
-Black people are genetically inferior to white people, especially when it comes to intelligence.
-Women are overreacting to sexual assault because they’ve been brainwashed by the left.
-Republicans want to murder women and brown people.
-Affirmative action does more harm than good.
-Charter schools and taxpayer-funding of private schools should be expanded, to provide educational choice to people who otherwise wouldn’t have it.
-A supreme court nomination should not be voted against based on sexual assault allegations unless the evidence for those allegations rises to approximately the level accepted in a criminal court case.
I’m suggesting that we can ban the first three topics, which betray a fundamental lack of respect for the folks being discussed, without banning the second three topics. I disagree with all six topics, but see something qualitatively different about the first three when compared to the second three.
We’d still have a nearly-infinite variety of things to argue about, and ways to make those arguments, if we’re required to keep a level of respect and compassion higher than what’s currently required. I think Starving Artist’s posts exemplify the “polite but not respectful” variety of posts that have been tolerated for too long here, in the interests of allowing free expression; I think the board’s move in the direction of moderating such posts is a good move and should continue.
Perhaps a policy could be instituted where it is forbidden to negatively stereotype any ethnic/racial/political/religious group where reality indicates that most are actually decent citizens*, outside of the Pit (and even there, truly vicious stereotyping would not be tolerated).
No more claiming that all or most blacks, whites, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians etc. etc. are evil/threatening/intolerant/bad/whatever - which speaks to fundamental lack of respect.
I suspect such a rule would be enormously frustrating to those who love to blast the Other, resulting in lower traffic and hastening the board’s demise.
But it would engender a lot more civility.
*exceptions to include neo-Nazis and ISIS.
I disagree. I have no problem with such topics being posted.
First off, I believe in free speech, and if someone wants to out themselves as a racist, sexist, or whatever, that’s on them and to the benefit of the rest of the Dope.
Second, distasteful as it may (or may not) be, if someone starts such a thread citing actual evidence that one sort of human is better at X than other sorts of human then either we argue against it using facts (not emotions) or we recognise that it is, in fact, true. For instance, could you dispute that the Bajau nomads are better adapted to diving through having larger spleens and are better able to hold their breath? That’s a fact and the beginning of speciation - Darwin in action. There’s nothing wrong with stating that. Facts are facts.
Third, it allows us to educate those whose only sources of knowledge have been the hatemongers. Do you really want to pass on the opportunity to fight ignorance and educate the willing? How would you respond to a thread like, “I’ve always been taught that niggers are sub-human but I kind-of-like one and she’s kinda cute.”? Would you block it or would you take the opportunity to show the author a better way?
The Dope has an over-riding rule: Don’t Be A Jerk. That covers a multitude of sins. If you think a poster’s being a jerk, report the post and let the Mods take care of it.
When you say “ban this topic”, are you thinking “automatic warning”, “insta-ban” or something else?
Under the topic ban you are suggesting, would you allow: “Why do blacks, on average, score lower than whites and asians, on average, on IQ tests?” How about: “Are blacks, on average, better at certain athletic feats than whites, on average”?
I have no problem with item number two being moderated with a warning (women brainwashed by the left). I would not support an insta-ban, and I know the mods don’t like bright lines (which I think is generally a good idea), so a zero tolerance warning probably isn’t appropriate. But I think that most instances of someone posting that should rate a warning. Even in the Pit. It’s offensive on the face of it to any woman posting here (and a lot of men, too). I’d also recommend the same for posts like “all men are basically rapists at heart”, although I don’t think we get that kind of post here very often.
Would you recommend banning item number three (Republican bashing) even in the Pit? I agree that statements like that about either Republicans or Democrats has no place in the debate forums, but I don’t see why it should get a warning in the Pit. I don’t think it should rate an insta-ban, but should generally be warnable outside the Pit.
I have no idea why you would bring up “instabanning” just because he wants certain topics dissallowed.
Disallowing topics implies punishment for those who violate the rule. John was asking what the consequences would be.
I would expect that if those rules were implemented, such threads would be closed, and the rules reiterated, and that’s it, unless there were repeat offenders, in which they might be warned, and then suspended or banned if they kept breaking the rules.
Exactly.
But those topics can be brought up in an existing thread. In fact, that is the more likely scenario, and is the scenario that resulted in Starving Artist being banned. I’m certain that at least some posters here will not be happy if the topic ban is just another rule, to be dealt with at the discretion of the moderator.
Being “just another rule” would be a vast improvement from the rules as they are now, IMO. And SA was a special case, dealt with in a special manner, as was appropriate (again, IMO). As much as a I find the “blacks are dumber” crowd repellent both morally and factually, I wouldn’t be in favor of an instaban even with those rules simply if they came into, say, a thread about academic performance in inner cities, and spouted their pseudoscience. Rather, I’d support a mod note, then a warning for the 2nd offense, and then a suspension or banning if they continued.
There’s lots of stuff that’s disallowed now. Basically spamming is the only one that’s instaban. So yeah, it’s a little bizarre of Mace to ask about that.
Of course not.
Yes.
Yes, it does.
Doesn’t it?