It is good to have the Pit where we can see slurs, canards and snarks flourish in a nurturing habitat. They’re inhibited in other forums. They need a place of their own.
Booorn Free…
It seems to me he was not criticizing your comments because “newbies are stupid and I don’t care about the input” but because you presumed to make a declaration of fact about the vast majority of posters without any factual support, viz.,
If this is true, why should it be considered a problem that must be addressed by changing board policies? What’s so bad about it? Furthermore, if this is the problem that needs to be addressed, it seems to me that King of Soup wants just the opposite: More freedom to criticize OPs. How do we reconcile these two complaints?
Isn’t this a bit hyperbolic?
How “just plain wrong” does it get? It’s just words on a screen, isn’t it? Isn’t actual harmful or illegal behaviour barred by the SDMB terms of service?
Any examples to demonstrate that dissent or criticism or logical analysis are unwelcome outside the Pit?
Do you see any problems with this analogy?
How about, “Sodomy is offensive behaviour that only degenerates engage in, so we shouldn’t allow it even between consenting adults who do it in the privacy of their own homes.”
Is this really all that big a problem in the Pit? Can we have some examples?
Is there no discussion going on in the Pit in terms that its participants choose to employ?
No, but a closer (not exact) analogy is dumping garbage in a single designated place, the garbage dump. Or storing flammables/explosives/poisons, etc., away from places they could do damage.
But even this isn’t close, because the Pit is not remotely like any actual place that is being “polluted.” Where’s the damage?
I’d say the damage is to civil discourse. Neither that nor the Pit is a physical thing. That’s why the “garbage dump” analogy IS an analogy, not an identity.
I’d say it’s not a valid analogy, because any physical place has an unavoidable effect on the physical places adjacent to it, both socially and physically, and, to some extent, cannot be avoided as a physical feature present in the world. A Web site message board, on the other hand, has no physical presence, is adjacent to nothing, and can have no effect, either social or physical, on those who choose not to visit it, and, especially a place like the SDMB Pit, if avoided, is close to being nonexistent in the outside world.
I’m afraid this is something you’d have to prove. The conditions of the Pit apply only in the Pit and only to those who choose to post and read there. I can’t see how it can remotely have any effect on anyone else.
Furthermore, the Pit, whatever conditions it allows, is merely expression. What you seem to be saying is that in order to have a civil society, one must ban all expression that one finds distasteful. This proves too much. It says not only should the Chicago Reader bar a certain type of expression on its message boards, but that in order to preserve a civil society, we must as a group, ban certain kinds of expression. That idea violates my notions of the value of free expression.
and the roads, don’t forget the roads.
Just to clarify: it is NOT the case that “bad language” is forbidden outside the Pit. While we would like to have polite dialog in the other forums, we do not try to censor language. The only diff is that bad language can’t be directed AT OTHER POSTERS outside the Pit.
So, in Cafe Society, you can certainly suggest that a certain writer is a fuckhead; and in Great Debates, you can ditto ditto that slimeball politician. But you can’t say such things about another poster. It’s not the language, it’s the insult. You also can’t call another poster a “fool” – it’s not forbidden because “fool” or “fuckhead” are “bad language” but because they are personal insults directed at other posters.
… and, it’s also worth saying, that there are standards of behaviour, even for the Pit. Hate speech isn’t allowed, for instance; and we once had a poster who used “fuck” as every other word, was told to cool it and didn’t, and got the boot.
fuck :eek:
Wow, that’s a pretty big about-face! You started by saying that The Dope shouldn’t even have a Pit and now are claiming that more stuff should go there. :dubious:
There’s a few reasons, IMO, that having a pity party in the Pit is not a good idea.
First, people are already having emotional difficulties or they wouldn’t be throwing the pity party. So when people rain on their pity party, many of them have a mental meltdown (or so it seems from their responses). That doesn’t do anyone any good. If they put their pity party in MPSIMS, they might get a better response and therefore a better result.
Another reason is that self-Pittings are not allowed in the Pit. What that means is that in order to be angry (which is what happens in the Pit), they have to be angry at someone else. And that means that they’re vilifying someone else which makes them look like a victim. That’s not an attractive look. . . for anyone. And they might actually start to think they are a victim which is not good either.
On top of that, from the reader’s perspective, pity parties don’t make for good reading in the Pit. You want to feel sorry for the person. . . but it’s the Pit, so you also want to give an honest, perhaps not-so-diplomatic response. So now one has to choose. And you see this dichotomy often there. Some people will give emotional support and others will be logically giving answers and the whole thread becomes disjointed.
For those reasons and several others, I think that pity parties should go in MPSIMS.
Again, it’s not perfect because it’s an analogy. We could argue about how much expression, if any, should be limited to certain places, but arguments for or against limitations on free speech are extremely contentious and I’m not interested in arguing it or extending any argument beyond this post.
Most universities seem to think it’s been proved and will go far to enforce it, both directly and indirectly. I’m not happy with that, but they don’t care. If you convince them they’re wrong, I’ll be convinced.
The damage I referred to is allowing Pit-style language outside of the Pit, so I don’t understand how that statement is relevant.
I’m surprised to see what your understanding of my post is, because in fact I said no such thing.
Not surprisingly, in light of the straw man you constructed.
Just calling it an analogy doesn’t end the matter. I’m saying the analogy is not valid. An invalid analogy does not support an argument.
The proposition, as I understand it, is that the SDMB should do away with the Pit and bar entirely from the boards all Pit-style communication. If that is the proposition, then your argument doesn’t support it.
Uh, no, not a straw man. Rather, a series of statements that proceed logically from proposition to conclusion. If you’re saying that I misunderstood the proposition at issue, then that’s something to be cleared up, but that doesn’t make it a straw man.