I ask again, do you think something suggested in this thread will solve threadshitting, or are you just complaining in general? Threadshitting can only be addressed once it already happens, until the mods are gifted with psychic abilities.
“Don’t open the fucking thread” is a complete response to the OP, which is not about threadshitting. And the only response to threadshitting can be made after it occurs.
Yes. My advice is that you don’t let one person breaking the rules ruin your board experience.
Well, yes - the implicit suggestion in the OP to just straight up start warning racists as soon as they open their traps with their bullshit.
Let’s just say I think the mods should take a harder line and be less concerned with being “evenhanded”. It offends me that racists get handled with kid gloves around here. A few more warnings would go a long way to easing the atmosphere.
Fair enough - I was obviously expanding the discussion from there.
Firstly, it’s not just one person, and secondly, given the topics that interest me, such as Africa, I intersect these people on a more than normal basis. So while your advice is appreciated, it’s kind of hard to swallow.
If you believe the posts are off-topic or jerkish, report them. But the point stands: if you see one posts like this, don’t let it ruin your enjoyment of the thread.
It’s all very well and good to say “don’t let it”, but the reaction is basically involuntary - I see the racist response and my mood worsens, there’s no conscious thought involved. It’s an autonomous cringe.
At the risk of sounding like a psychologist when I am nowhere close to one, you do have some ability to control how you respond to offensive stuff. Don’t give these people the power to ruin your experience and they will not ruin your experience. And report the posts if you think they’re breaking the rules.
I mean, what do you want the Mods to do? Even if they ban everyone you think is being a racist, other dudes will post other stuff that might be considered racist by some. So then- every post must be reviewed before it appears?
Now, I do think it might not be a bad idea for tPtB to email CP and request that he no longer open new threads like that.
Apparently, this is very complicated for you since you don’t bother reading my actual posts. I already told you that I ignore most of the posts. The issues are that it’s not always easy to ignore or avoid, that there are consequences to everyone ignoring it, and that I shouldn’t really have to, nor should anyone’s hands be tied when they do respond to the threads. Why is there a report button if the solution to every post you don’t like is ignoring it IYO? Clearly there are rules and minimum levels of decency which we all have to abide by. My request that those standards include a general prohibition against repetitive, racist threads from the same small group of posters.
No, that’s not really what I am suggesting. I would prefer that if the mods are gonna allow transparently racist threads, then the respondents can point out that the OPs are (often) admitted racists. Right now, when someone points that out, they get warned. The problem, IMO, with having such a misguided policy is that you automatically stack the deck against those arguing against them. This is simply because cleaning up shit takes longer than spewing it. It’s much easier to say Obama is a Kenyan, or that Bush knew about 9/11 than to systematically deconstruct those bullshit claims. Especially when these lunatics come armed with bullshit cites, and convincing prose. What happens, as evidence by the decreasing length of these threads, is that collective desire to argue with these fools wanes, so their claims don’t face proper scrutiny.
My desire is that if you are gonna tie one arm behind my (AND OTHERS’) back, then don’t let the “debate” happen in the first place. Even if I accept that these people are attempting to have an honest debate (I don’t), I don’t think the rules should be such that they inadvertently facilitate their proselytizing. If the rules can’t be administered fairly, then they shouldn’t allow the threads.
It isn’t tying anyone’s arm behind their back to enforce the rule against ad hominems and name-calling in GD. If you can’t debate without that, then go start something in the Pit.
Plus it is a little hard to take you seriously when you complain about how obtrusive you find these threads when you go into threads that have nothing to do with race and hijack it, or at least try to.
Look, we get it. You don’t like what they say, and you can’t seem to shout them down. Boo hoo. I would like this to be a message board where we can discuss anything, even if some of us find some of it offensive. And I would also like to be allowed to make up my own mind about what positions have been refuted, and what have not, without the mods jumping in to tell me. Or you, for that matter.
This goes to something I have mentioned in the past - some posters, as well as some people IRL, would like to be able to shut down a discussion by simply shouting “Racist!” That ought not to be how it works, at least not on a board dedicated to free discussion.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think they should ban someone just for being a racist,anymore than they should have banned Cesario just for being a paedophile (AFAIK, they didn’t). Actions on board are what should count.
I think they should more-strongly moderate racist posts - I think they should stop the “well, this is a legitimate debate” bullshit, make the call that posting any race realist screed is functionally the same as outright calling every non-white Doper “nigger”, and dish out warnings as such. I want them to mod the implicit statement “Black posters are all of inferior genetic stock, intellectually” as the hate speech it is, no matter what it’s paraphrased as, or what bullshit discredited science is dragged up to defend it. I want anyone who argues “But the science is still undecided” to get a life, as well.
I don’t expect that to happen, not at all, but it is what I “want the Mods to do.”
You know, there are reasons people can believe you’re acting idiotically without resorting to observations of your racial creed.
You’re right. And absent their statements on the matter, you might have a point. Seeing as some of them are admitted racists, who think Black people are intellectually inferior, I don’t really think I am making an unfair assumption.
So when any poster types the word “racist,” it forces the thread to close? I had no idea. I assumed that the target of the remark would be free to address or ignore it, and that the discussion would continue.
Up to now I didn’t understand what the big deal was, but now I see. We definitely don’t want that kind of power to fall into the wrong hands.
No, it doesn’t force it. Fortunately, I never said that it did.
Obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree. I can’t tell you how many times people shut down discussion of the 2008 presidential election by saying “Racist.” if you weren’t voing for Obama.
Suppose someone said that Obama had an advantage in the election because blacks admire him for “being a nigger in a suit” and whites love him “because he’s an oreo”*. That could be a great discussion about perceptions of Obama’s background (urban ethnic vs middle-class anglo) and cultural stereotypes of what means success but I guaranty the OP would be called Racist because the material or language makes them uncomfortable.
Ah. So these unnamed people you know on the board and IRL just *wish *they could shut a discussion down that way. Much the way I’d like to be able to open a bank vault by shouting “open sesame!”
But as you said, that’s not how it should work on a board dedicated to free expression. And since it *doesn’t *work that way, I guess we’re all happy. Have a great weekend!
Mr. Turnip, the point of the OP is that certain topics should not be allow: topics that they feel are “racist”. So not 'unnamed" people, but rather the people in this thread pushing for that policy.
Considering the controversies the board generates enforcing a "no personal attacks outside the pit’ policy, the concept of a “no advocating of racial differences” policy sounds like a nightmare.
I would love to hear the board’s definition of hate speech.
In conclusion, hate speech is acceptable, because (well, you know?) we want to feel superior. Now, allow us to point to research that validates our opinion, because (well, you know?) it’s science!