Will some viewpoints be eventually banned, regardless of how polite/civil?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@UltraVires

But you’ve won the argument.

No, you haven’t. You’ve just built an ornate hammer with which to whack a single mole. You’d have to build it all over again for the next mole, and moles are legion. There comes a time when the board can reasonably determine that some moles should be kept out because hammers, no matter how nicely-built, are of limited utility.

Who says that people who make incorrect arguments have to go away cowering in shame? I’ve not seen in once in any GD thread.

Shamed or not, a lot of them can just go away. They’re not going to change their views regardless of the counter-arguments, and they’re repeat those views no matter what, contributing nothing, learning nothing.

[UltraVires]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If I’m understanding you, are you saying that things that are “far outside the bounds of reasonable debate” need not be protected? Because this isn’t a strawman: people have been warned here before for wishing death on someone, or for expressing happiness in the suffering of someone’s family. You may not even say that the world would be a better place if I died from Coronavirus, no matter how politely you express that belief.

But if your standard really is that things “far outside the bounds of reasonable debate” need not be protected, that’s a starting point. If you’ll confirm that’s your position, we can move forward.

Yes, so long as it is very far outside those bounds and not an excuse to enact reasonably debatable policies as “truth” and done.

@iiandyiiii

It’s really just a question of where we draw the line. Does anyone have a problem with restricting advocacy for legalizing child molestation on this board? I seriously doubt it. Our society has rightly decided that this is beyond the pale. How about restricting advocacy for bring re-enslaving black people? Hopefully everyone would agree that also falls into the same category. What about advocacy for an apartheid system due to the supposed inferiority of other races? Or just advocating that it be taught in schools that other races are inferior?

I imagine we all have a line we draw, and it’s reasonable to discuss where that line ought to be for the board. It’s not some broad philosophical disagreement – it’s where specifically we think this line ought to be, since I imagine we all agree there should be a line.

I’ll say it again. Are you or other posters unable to articulate why child molestation should be illegal? Or why black slavery or Jim Crow is not a good thing?

I understand if you got some jackwad who is a troll and trying to yank everyone’s chain. But the OP was talking about someone who is seriously advocating. You aren’t up to the task? I am.

[iiandyiiii]

@UltraVires

I’ll say it again. Are you or other posters unable to articulate why child molestation should be illegal? Or why black slavery or Jim Crow is not a good thing?

Are you advocating that the rules be changed, and this kind of advocacy should be allowed? I feel like expending this effort would be a total waste of time, since anyone advocating for such awful crap is necessarily a troll.

I understand if you got some jackwad who is a troll and trying to yank everyone’s chain. But the OP was talking about someone who is seriously advocating. You aren’t up to the task? I am.

Seriously or not, anyone advocating for legalizing child molestation or enslaving black people is a troll. I’m glad the board doesn’t allow this kind of trolling. Are you arguing it should be allowed?

[UltraVires]

@Bryan_Ekers

No, you haven’t. You’ve just built an ornate hammer with which to whack a single mole. You’d have to build it all over again for the next mole, and moles are legion. There comes a time when the board can reasonably determine that some moles should be kept out because hammers, no matter how nicely-built, are of limited utility.

Shamed or not, a lot of them can just go away. They’re not going to change their views regardless of the counter-arguments, and they’re repeat those views no matter what, contributing nothing, learning nothing.

So how does that pick your pocket or skin your nose? Engage them or don’t. What harm is there? It’s sort of like the Free Speech clause; let’s give a wide berth so we don’t suppress good ideas when the bad ones come.

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

Are you advocating that the rules be changed, and this kind of advocacy should be allowed? I feel like expending this effort would be a total waste of time, since anyone advocating for such awful crap is necessarily a troll.

Seriously or not, anyone advocating for legalizing child molestation or enslaving black people is a troll. I’m glad the board doesn’t allow this kind of trolling. Are you arguing it should be allowed?

Definitely not a hill I’m willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let’s have the argument. You and I will be on the same side for once.

[RitterSport]

@UltraVires

And I didn’t mean to cut off this part.

That’s what GD is about! You tell me just like you did “Ultravires, you post is a pile of stinking horseshit because you assume there is only two genders” and we go back and forth (not here, but in a GD thread) about who is right and who is wrong and what was meant by certain comments.

That is the SDMB I knew when I joined in 2007. Don’t let it die, mods.

The last 9/11 truther thread that I remember went many pages before it was shut down. Posters with views that are just factually wrong simply ignore counterarguments and valid cites. They gish gallop and move goalposts all the time – it’s like trying to pin down jello. They focus on some erroneous or silly counterpoint and ignore all the serious, well-cited, and intelligent ones. And, in the end, their minds aren’t changed.

Do I think scientific racism discussions should be banned? Maybe, but probably not. However, the person pushing such bullshit should be on a short leash and if they are ignoring cites, moving goalposts, and not answering questions, the thread should be quickly shut down.

[UltraVires]

@RitterSport

Do I think scientific racism discussions should be banned? Maybe, but probably not. However, the person pushing such bullshit should be on a short leash and if they are ignoring cites, moving goalposts, and not answering questions, the thread should be quickly shut down.

But here’s the thing and it came up in the Shodan thread. Most posters, indeed most people, when they make an argument ignore cites, move goalposts, and don’t answer questions. Why is it only the disfavored arguments that get treated harshly?

[Telemark]

@UltraVires

Definitely not a hill I’m willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let’s have the argument.

Let’s not. It’s not the kind of community I want to be involved with.

[Jasmine]

LHD has hit the nail on the head. I can promote a very civil and logical debate as to why it would be beneficial to exterminate all the humans in China and Asia because it would reduce the world population by about 25%, alleviate the strain on resources and ease social/political tensions and problems. It doesn’t change the fact that I’d be promoting genocide. You can “hate speech” without the hateful rhetoric.

[UltraVires]

@Telemark

Let’s not. It’s not the kind of community I want to be involved with.

Then you are free not to participate in the thread. I just don’t know why you would want to ban others from doing so when you can easily wash your hands of the whole messy ordeal.

[RitterSport]

@UltraVires

But here’s the thing and it came up in the Shodan thread. Most posters, indeed most people, when they make an argument ignore cites, move goalposts, and don’t answer questions. Why is it only the disfavored arguments that get treated harshly?

If by “disfavored” you mean offensive and factually incorrect, then I think the reason is clear, right? Because that’s what this thread is really about, right?

Supporting Donald Trump for president would certainly be disfavored on a board that leans as liberal as this one, but that discussion will not ever be banned. Being anti-nuclear is generally disfavored here as well, but that discussion will not ever be banned.

I’m absolutely sure we could discuss how some minorities perform poorly on standardized tests, even though you might think that’s somehow disfavored. However, if a poster is going to make the factually untrue statement that those minorities are somehow genetically inferior and ignore all cites to the contrary, what should the board do about that?

[iiandyiiii]

@UltraVires

Definitely not a hill I’m willing to die on, but if you could discern that the person was not a troll, then let’s have the argument. You and I will be on the same side for once.

There’s no non-trolling way to advocate for child molestation or enslaving black people. Even if they sincerely believe it, it’s still trolling.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@UltraVires

So how does that pick your pocket or skin your nose? Engage them or don’t. What harm is there? It’s sort of like the Free Speech clause; let’s give a wide berth so we don’t suppress good ideas when the bad ones come.

I think we can discern pretty readily that some ideas are indeed irrefutably bad, and people who insist on advancing them are indeed bad people for doing so. They’d be free to exercise their Free Speech in places that are not privately controlled, such as message boards like this one.

[UltraVires]

@Jasmine

LHD has hit the nail on the head. I can promote a very civil and logical debate as to why it would be beneficial to exterminate all the humans in China and Asia because it would reduce the world population by about 25%, alleviate the strain on resources and ease social/political tensions and problems. It doesn’t change the fact that I’d be promoting genocide. You can “hate speech” without the hateful rhetoric.

You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

There’s no non-trolling way to advocate for child molestation or enslaving black people. Even if they sincerely believe it, it’s still trolling.

That’s a bullshit board doublenewspeak. If you sincerely believe it, by definition you are not trolling. It is a backhanded way to stifle debate.

@Bryan_Ekers

I think we can discern pretty readily that some ideas are indeed irrefutably bad, and people who insist on advancing them are indeed bad people for doing so. They’d be free to exercise their Free Speech in places that are not privately controlled, such as message boards like this one.

Sure, but I think the OP is concerned (and I share his concern) that this board is rapidly going toward the idea that, for example, supply side economics is so “irrefutably bad” and that “people who insist on advancing” that idea are “bad people for doing so” and turning this whole place into an echo chamber, which I wholeheartedly agree is happening.

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]

@UltraVires

Sure, but I think the OP is concerned (and I share his concern) that this board is rapidly going toward the idea that, for example, supply side economics is so “irrefutably bad” and that “people who insist on advancing” that idea are “bad people for doing so” and turning this whole place into an echo chamber, which I wholeheartedly agree is happening.

And your pocket is picked or your nose skinned how, exactly?

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.

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.

[Slash1972]

@UltraVires

That’s a bullshit board doublenewspeak. If you sincerely believe it, by definition you are not trolling. It is a backhanded way to stifle debate.

I’m sorry, but your points are somewhat valid up to this. If a person sincerely believes that there is nothing wrong with child molestation or enslaving black people, then they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board.

[octopus]

@Velocity

Now that the debate over **Shodan’s **banning (for insults and provoking) has died down, I wanted to discuss something:

A year or two ago, a Doper started a thread in ATMB (I did some searching but can’t find it) in which he/she argued that there are some viewpoints that are simply so abhorrent that they should not be permitted on the Dope, regardless of how civil or polite the poster expressing those views may be. (The example used in that thread was scientific racism, or any view that one race is inferior to another.)

As we are often told by Dope mods/admins, the guiding principle of the Dope message board is: “Don’t be a jerk.” The vast majority of people who have been banned were banned because they were either trolls, spammers, or regular Dopers who couldn’t stop flaming or insulting others. I am not aware of anyone who has been banned simply for expressing a controversial view, as long as they kept things polite and civil - it was the attacking or insulting behavior that got them banned, not their viewpoints. We have several conservative Dopers who have amassed years of longevity and many thousands of posts here without getting banned (or perhaps even warned or suspended,) which helps debunk the notion that conservatives can’t get a fair shake here.

What I wanted to ask, though, was: Is the Dope ever likely to head in the direction of banning certain viewpoints entirely, regardless of how well-behaved a poster may be?

I don’t mean viewpoints such as Holocaust denial, Flat-Eartherism or 9/11 Trutherism - which are factually wrong - but viewpoints that are subjective but often regarded as offensive - views like “There are only two genders” or “A man who undergoes transition surgery hasn’t become a *true *woman, he just *resembles *one,” or “Trump is a great president,” - etc.

The Dope is influenced by outside culture as much as any other board, and with the direction that society is going in, it’s not hard to imagine, for instance, a few years from now a Doper making a comment that there are only two genders, but then receiving a warning from a moderator, saying, “This sort of viewpoint is dehumanizing and invalidating of someone’s gender identity. Don’t be a jerk.”

(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.)

If so, this would represent a major change in forum philosophy. Up to this point, Dopers have generally been safe from receiving warnings or other disciplinary action, as long as they kept things polite, civil and tame. But if we do head down that road, then we would be saying that it’s not just enough to conform in terms of behavior, one must conform to certain viewpoints and opinions as well.

Again, we haven’t had such instances (as far as I know of,) but the time to discuss or prevent something is in advance.

Died down is not a synonym for closed and squelched out of embarrassment.

Civil debate shut down? Of course. Accepting that arguments from differing sets of moral axioms result in different sets of logical conclusions is far from being universally understood. It’s far easier to label that trolling instead of admitting that ones particular sense of morality is one set out of many and not necessarily intrinsically superior.

[Jasmine]

@UltraVires

You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?

Sure they can, but that’s not my point. I can actually make my point by quoting you from a little farther down in this thread: “they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board.”

[Jasmine]

@UltraVires

You refuted that argument in one sentence. Other posters are incapable?

Sure they can, but that’s not my point. I can actually make my point by quoting you from a little farther down in this thread: “they have a severe cognitive dysfunction that needs to be looked at, and not be given voice on this message board.”