# Will some viewpoints be eventually banned, regardless of how polite/civil? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 20, 2020, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210 "2020-05-20T21:33:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/81 "2020-05-22T03:44:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > (My point isn’t to focus on LGBT - that’s just one example - one could name dozens and dozens of other political or social viewpoints that are subjective but offensive - but which could be expressed in perfectly civil, polite, non-flaming ways.) Would I be out of line for saying that I kinda wish you’d picked one of those? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/82 "2020-05-22T03:52:02Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It’s just a bad argument that because we should ban debates about legal child molestation that it means that current issues involving transgender rights should be exactly the same, no matter the latest talking points and politically correct doctrine handed down from the left. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If you’re seriously equating child molestation and transgender rights, I think the problem is fairly obvious, and it’s not based on some arbitrary “I like this one better” determination. Apropos of nothing in particular, I’d be kind of happy to see fewer examples of people implying that when two different things are mentioned in the context of an analogy, it means that they’re being equated. One can find an analogy regrettably flawed without accusing the analogy-crafter of equating monstrous behavior with innocuous behavior. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/83 "2020-05-22T03:58:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And [here’s](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=863221) the post announcing the ban. :eek::eek::eek: :mad::mad::mad: :eek::eek::eek: That was a HORRIBLE announcement. Honestly, using the term “free reign” where “free rein” is the acceptable one? C’mon, what are we, barbarians? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/84 "2020-05-22T04:10:08Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > On the other hand, **Riemann** telling me I’m objectively wrong doesn’t change my mind one iota. I wouldn’t expect you to take my word for it. But you do realize that the semantic content of words is an objective empirical question, right? You don’t just get to choose your own meanings for words. Meaning is defined by consensus usage in our society. As you would discover if you actually went around using racial slurs against people who do bad things, and found that your assertion that this is a perfectly reasonable non-racist thing to do didn’t hold water. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/85 "2020-05-22T04:16:10Z")
> [@Delayed\_Reflex](#): > > Isn’t it more factual that there are more than two sexes (ie. intersex people), but that gender is a social construct so it could be reasonable to argue that there are only two genders? The argument could be advanced that the existence of definite lines between “Baby Boomers” and Gen-Xers is also a social construct, and therefore perhaps subject to change over time. So it would be hypothetically reasonable to argue that there are only two genders RIGHT NOW.\* \*RIGHT NOW being defined as _some time PRIOR to the emergence of multiple genders as a concept._ ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/86 "2020-05-22T04:19:04Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well all sorts of things are possible. What’s relevant here is whether you can insist that not only is it possible that your debate opponent has some belief that he’s expressly denying but that he definitely does, and further, that you demand action based on the assumption that he does. > > Conversely, thinking someone might possibly have other beliefs which **underlay** the positions they’re expressing is not an automatic indicator of bad faith. It’s when people refuse to accept the possibility that their opponents might simply mean exactly what they’re saying, no more and no less, that it becomes reasonable to question their bona fides and/or intelligence. Especially if - as is so frequently the case - this attribution of beliefs very much serves the interests of the ones doing the attributing. UnderLIE. Your argument is invalid. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/87 "2020-05-22T04:20:25Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Honestly, using the term “free reign” where “free rein” is the acceptable one? > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > UnderLIE. > > Your argument is invalid. Your on a role here, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/88 "2020-05-22T05:04:15Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Your on a role here, aren’t you? There is a particular ROLE which I feel is being thrust upon me, yes, if that’s your question. Otherwise, my list just got a bit longer… ETA: Belay my last. There’s no _otherwise_. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/89 "2020-05-22T09:59:04Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > **Your** on a **role** here, aren’t you? ISWYDT! **Kimstu** , it does seem like scientific racism is pretty much banned here. To be clear, I’m fine with that. OP, **kaylasdad99** makes a good point about reinventing the wheel – how many times should we have to show that scientific racism is bunk or that there are more than two genders? How many times do we have to argue against 9/11 Truther videos? I can come up with lots of examples of opinions that are obviously disfavored on this message board but are in no danger of being banned: President Trump should be re-elected Abortion should be banned You must accept Jesus Christ as your savior or risk going to hell Nuclear power should be banned GMO foods should be banned Public money should go to funding churches The United States should follow Venezuela’s example for governance The “trick” is to stay away from hate and bigotry. That should be hard for anyone, regardless of their political background. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/90 "2020-05-22T10:35:25Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Since that “three racist peas in a pod” thread I’ve been thinking about researching the subject just to see if we could have a civil debate. I think I could probably make some sort of argument about relaxing some sort of law. I remember just a couple years ago that I was a teenager and I thought it was stupid to make an some kid register as a sex offender because she was caught having sex with her boyfriend. And who in their right mind charges a kid with distribution of child pornography if the picture is of themselves? Sexting was common when I was in school, I’m sure it’s even more common now. I’m sure there’s stupid laws about child molestation that I could argue against. But that’s not child molestation – you could make a perfectly good and non-trolling argument that teens who engage sexually with other teens (in person or with their phones) are not necessarily being predatory and shouldn’t necessarily be treated as criminals. And I might agree with that argument! > [@](#): > > This isn’t the only topic I have backed down from, either. As recently as today, I was weighing whether to create a debate thread concerning whether using the n-word as an insult is always hate speech. I don’t think it is. I would have participated in such a debate with the intention of changing my mind. But, you know, I don’t want to bring that down on myself. I’ll just get virtually yelled at. I don’t actually use that word, not in real life and not in my inner monologues. No skin in the game. I already regret expressing what I have in ATMB. I can’t recall a single racist or hateful post from you. I’ve seen many posts from you that I think are wrong on the facts or opinions, maybe even wrong on what counts as racist or hateful… but I haven’t seen you make a racist or hateful post. I lay out my beliefs in a straight forward manner sometimes, but there are very few posters I’ve actually called hateful or racist, IIRC. If you argued that a slur isn’t necessarily hate speech, I’d probably disagree and make an argument similar to [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=22314081#post22314081). But I don’t plan to call you racist or hateful unless I see you make an actual racist or hateful post (and even then, you may have just made a mistake, and I might characterize the post and not the poster). > [@](#): > > So instead, I haven’t researched anything about hate speech or the n-word, I haven’t had my arguments fleshed out and criticized, and I carry on as I was before. Are you sure you’re not just making an easy rationalization to avoid a difficult topic? > [@](#): > > There was some furor a few months ago about misogyny. **nate** or someone had made a thread about how he was so distracted by female streetwalkers that he had trouble focusing on the road, but the furor was over him saying he would think, “I’d f— _that_”. I knew a little about feminism but it was truly perplexing to see posters I was coming to respect come down on the use of a single word like _that_ and saying this is what’s wrong with the boards. I decided this is something I simply must understand, and decided to ask. I probably gave **Broomstick** and others a huge headache, I probably came across as a troll, but I came out with my own understanding, possibly the wrong one, but better than blind acceptance. > > I came out of that debate feeling like I was unworthy to have an opinion about how women feel on the issue of sexual objectification. Like, if the issue of misogyny on these boards were put to a vote, I had best abstain since apparently I don’t have a clue. The onus is on me to make an effort to research the topic first. So I did some further research into sexual objectification. I made a thread to discuss, which you may remember. Not a single woman replied, and I think I ended up agreeing with **octopus** and **Shodan** before the thread died out. Not… the debate I was looking for, although I value their contributions. I can’t characterize threads I can’t see – if you have a link, maybe we could discuss those threads. > [@](#): > > There was a thread about the Trump impeachment. You may remember that I picked my hill and died on it. I learned a lot by researching my position and reading replies, probably more about constitutional law than I ever learned in school. I also got this strong vibe of, “get out of our thread” from some which sucks the fun out of it and makes me think twice before posting in political threads. When passions get hot sometimes that can be sensed through the screen. Even though you often take positions I find wrong (sometimes very wrong!), I think you’re a good poster and definitely not a troll. I always appreciate effort, and you put effort into laying out your thoughts. Even the wrong ones! > [@](#): > > Then there was that thread, similar to this one, “Discourse on the Dope” or something like that. I had an unpopular opinion, or rather, I failed to understand the rationale behind the popular opinions. Several people who I respect quit the debate, some twice, try as I may to stay civil and keep an open mind. I hate the feeling I got then, it’s the most undesirable outcome of a debate when the other side just says this isn’t worth it any more and walks away. I was stressing them out by having my opinion and not understanding theirs. I don’t like stressing people out. Even worse, they had skin in the game, and I don’t. Who am I to try and make sense of someone else’s cause celebre? By probing, am I doing more harm than good? Every day I considered whether it is in the spirit of this board to just stand down. That stresses _me_ out. Conveniently vacation time came around and forced me to retire anyways. > > I suppose this is only tangentially related to whether certain viewpoints will be _de jure_ banned, but I occasionally ask myself whether I am _de facto_ banning myself from expressing certain opinions out of politeness. More importantly, I ask myself whether that is a good thing in the long run. Maybe posts like this can help posters who disagree with your position be a little more likely to respond in a helpful way, if they so desire. But you have to also understand that you might have some biases and ignorances about certain issues that can be very profound and significant in other people’s lives, and dealing with these kinds of ignorances and biases can be exhausting for some folks who have to deal with it constantly every day. I think you’re pretty good at approaching the issues with humility, but also continue to have compassion for folks with very different experiences who have suffered due to these sorts of biases and unfairness in society. I think if you lay things out similar to the way you did in this post, you’ll be more likely to get positive engagement. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/91 "2020-05-22T11:38:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Apropos of nothing in particular, I’d be kind of happy to see fewer examples of people implying that when two different things are mentioned in the context of an analogy, it means that they’re being equated. One can find an analogy regrettably flawed without accusing the analogy-crafter of equating monstrous behavior with innocuous behavior. I just wanted to clarify if they _were_ being equated, not knee-jerkedly reacting to just their proximity in the same sentence. The point being it’s not like we oppose child molestation and embrace trans-rights out of some purely arbitrary idea like picking a favorite color (or as a " politically correct doctrine handed down from the left", as Ultravires, the poster to whom I was responding, earlier put it). There are significant distinctions between the issues that make one acceptable and one not. “Whataboutism” seeks to ignore those distinctions whenever possible. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/92 "2020-05-22T13:33:45Z")
Max, is this the thread you refer to? I don’t see any reference that the women the OP is referring to are prostitutes. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135) ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/93 "2020-05-22T13:38:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I can’t characterize threads I can’t see – if you have a link, maybe we could discuss those threads. He’s talking about[this thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135). ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/94 "2020-05-22T15:27:45Z")
If that’s the thread, there was a lot of good discussion, AFAICT from skimming it (didn’t read every post, but I did read several of Max’s). Maybe Max found some of it tough… if so, then there are going to be tough discussions sometimes for tough topics. Maybe some folks were too harsh (though I didn’t note any that jumped out as too harsh in my skimming), but that’s also going to happen sometimes too, especially with topics that are potentially traumatic for some. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/95 "2020-05-22T15:28:52Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I made a thread to discuss, which you may remember. Not a single woman replied How do you know? ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/96 "2020-05-22T16:45:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Max, is this the thread you refer to? I don’t see any reference that the women the OP is referring to are prostitutes. > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880135) By female streetwalkers, Max S. is referring to women walking down the street. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/97 "2020-05-22T16:51:42Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > How do you know? I assume he’s referring to [this](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=882031) thread. I just scanned through it, and most posts are from people who have either claimed they’re male or have male-sounding names. There are a couple posters in there for whom I don’t know either way - maybe Max knows better. That said, I mean, even posters who have said they’re male could be lying, so who really knows? If I had written Max’s sentence and prefaced it with, “as far as I know”, it’d be true (for me.) ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/98 "2020-05-22T16:52:59Z")
> [@Emiliana](#): > > By female streetwalkers, Max S. is referring to women walking down the street. Which would be a really weird use of the word. Perhaps he’s just misremembering? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/99 "2020-05-22T18:18:23Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Which would be a really weird use of the word. Perhaps he’s just misremembering? Claiming that words do not mean what they plainly _do_ mean would be consistent with his other assertions that words do not carry the semantic content and cultural significance that everyone else understands them to have. He has claimed that using a racial slur against someone has done something bad is not a racist thing to do, apparently because it is directed at one specific individual rather than _explicitly_ at all people in that group. > [@Fighting misogyny - but "cunt" and "bitch" are still okay words](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/106): > > So, yes or no, if a black man punches your wife, calling him a nigger is not hate speech? > [@Fighting misogyny - but "cunt" and "bitch" are still okay words](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fighting-misogyny-but-cunt-and-bitch-are-still-okay-words/853769/114): > > It’s a complicated question but I’m going to say no, calling a black man who punches your wife a nigger is not hate speech just because you called a black man a nigger. It could be hate speech if you show hatred towards a class of people, but I am of the opinion that the word “nigger” alone does not do so. Not even when used as an insult or ethnic slur. > > I’m probably on my own with that opinion, but hey, I read replies with an open mind. His last sentence makes explicit, I think, that he simply does not grasp that the meaning of language is not a matter of subjective opinion but an empirical objective question of cultural consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2020, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210/100 "2020-05-22T20:55:51Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Which would be a really weird use of the word. Perhaps he’s just misremembering? It seems unlikely. The OP of the thread Max S. is referencing was clearly talking about being distracted by random women walking down the street. He either considers all women to be prostitutes or he feels no need to adhere to linguistic conventions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-some-viewpoints-be-eventually-banned-regardless-of-how-polite-civil/854210.md?page=6)