|
As someone who avoids USCE as much as possible, it seems like a lot of rules and guidelines for D&D as a whole are being crafted with that specific thread in mind, with the end goal of making it marginally less terrible, but with the consequence of making a lot of other threads very bizarre and stupid. What is necessary in USCE, it seems, is not working for things that aren’t USCE. One size doesn’t fit all, so my advice would be that different topics/threads require different moderation philosophies, or there’s going to be a lot of yelling and unpleasantness.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
There are a number of posters (Rob Filter, Bel Shazar, Upgrade, UCS Hellmaker, StratGoatCom, Sanguinia, Jaxyon, OwlFancier, Sharkie, Anticheese, empty whippet box, RBA Starblade, ram dass in hell, Despera, Liquid Communism, Miss Broccoli) in this thread stating that bigots and racists are not being properly moderated, leading to a need for new rules. Can we get some examples of posts that would be punished under these new rules that did not receive punishment already? Like, specific posts, not just general vibes. It would help clarify for me what isn't be handled by the current set of rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Tezer posted:There are a number of posters (Rob Filter, Bel Shazar, Upgrade, UCS Hellmaker, StratGoatCom, Sanguinia, Jaxyon, OwlFancier, Sharkie, Anticheese, empty whippet box, RBA Starblade, ram dass in hell, Despera, Liquid Communism, Miss Broccoli) in this thread stating that bigots and racists are not being properly moderated, leading to a need for new rules. Internaut! posted:Males in general are significantly stronger and faster than females, there is no debate about this in any serious circle. This does not even address transgender athletics much less make a statement about them. This post right here. The poster was eventually probed, but this extremely racist post was not considered in isolation worthy of a probe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Transgender participation in sport is something that actually does require somewhat complex and meaningful policy positions in order to maximize equity and fairness, so it should, in theory, be something that we should be able to discuss with sensitivity. But it's very emotionally charged and when a bunch of people kramer into the discussion to spray transphobia everywhere, it makes the reasonable arguments look unreasonable. Nearly all of the D&D debacles tend to come down to a highly sensitive issue where people believe disagreement is a moral outrage. Everyone likes the snap moderation when it's on their side, but all the people who wanted snap moderation on Tara Reade and the transgender sport thread and donations to literal Nazis sure were mad about snap moderation on Xinjiang. I'm obviously in favor of transphobes instantly getting banned, but I'm not convinced that mods are ever going to be able to do that without tacking on a bunch of unreasonable bans too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:This post right here. The poster was eventually probed, but this extremely racist post was not considered in isolation worthy of a probe. I agree, that post sucks rear end. They were thread banned and received a three day probation for general posting practices (which would include that post). There's an argument to be made that three days wasn't enough, but that's different than saying that the posting wasn't punished, and that a new rule needs to be made to 'catch' that bad post. What posts are currently being made, being reported, and not receiving punishment that should instead receive punishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
That is the nature of political conflict, yes, you cannot find a position that will please everybody, at some point you have to make a value judgement, because everybody else is certainly doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Can I post a thread debating if the earth is round and will mods make sure to shut up anyone who's too mean about insisting that it is when I ask questions? I went to make sure D&D is safe for different opinions before I post it. I'm absolutely willing to listen to suggestions that the earth is round and isn't flat. We can compare data, I have a lot of data showing that the earth is probably flat that I'd love to discuss with other intellectuals, I just want to make sure decorum is up held and anyone who is too difficult about making their point is kicked out.
Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is the nature of political conflict, yes, you cannot find a position that will please everybody, at some point you have to make a value judgement, because everybody else is certainly doing it. I agree with this - in conjunction with the 'arguments not positions' there should be a statement of values, explaining which positions are out of bounds. A valueless community is 1) impossible, and 2) going to end up with some pretty awful values (paradox of tolerance and all that). But the process of laying out those values is not a quick one; while there are already winners and losers in the 'lets pretend no values' regime, the change will always leave some people unhappy. But I do think a project of working towards a D&D values statement to go alongside the more procedural rules is something to strongly consider.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Absolutely incredible watching posters who are rightfully upset about the shitshow that was the moderation in my transgender athletics thread getting insta-probed while "have you considered that maybe transgender people are too safe" guy is just sitting there. Why are you misgendering Colonel Cool?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:While this is a useful rule of thumb, Miss Broccoli & Colonel Cool have both disclosed that they are trans women so the algorithm kind of breaks down. There is no shortage of trans women willing to poo poo on other trans women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Tezer posted:I agree, that post sucks rear end. I think it's really silly it took several days for that post to be dealt with, which is probably why it was linked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Oh, would a thread about the Holomador make sure that no one will be called a genocide denier? In the context of that thread it would be a baseless accusation from people who have no interest in discussing the topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
People should probably find another boogeyman besides "decorum" to blame the ills of the world on too, while I'm thinking about it. It never really has anything to do with what's being discussed and kind of just annoying to read.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:But I do think a project of working towards a D&D values statement to go alongside the more procedural rules is something to strongly consider. I think this could be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if you can do that without kicking conservatives out of D&D, on example of the sports thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think this could be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if you can do that without kicking conservatives out of D&D, on example of the sports thread. The sub with multiple conservative mock threads already does this in practice but not policy which is really one of the big problems with D&D. Policy is very idealistic while actual practice is a lot more reasonable and puts a specific window on acceptable views. Things would be a lot less contentious if the sub was more honest about what views are and are not allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think this could be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if you can do that without kicking conservatives out of D&D, on example of the sports thread. Bigotry is not, by its nature, conservative. There are conservative bigots, there are liberal bigots, there are socialist bigots. One of the issues with always looking at things in a US-centric way is it erases some of these distinctions. For example, the Conservative Party of Canada is still not great on LGBTQ issues and racism and that sort of thing, but the party line is waaaaay better than their counterparts in the US, and it's actually leading to an issue where the base ends up consuming a lot of US media and getting pissed at the party for not being quite extreme enough, leading to schisms at the provincial and federal levels in a lot of cases. The point being: I think curating a space largely free of bigots is a valuable goal. If it has the consequence of kicking many/all conservatives out, all that proves is that conservatism is too closely linked with bigotry in certain contexts. That sounds like a problem with the conservative movement, not D&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Making a thread with the purpose of everyone agreeing with each other or getting probed just doesn't seem like a good idea for a debate forum in the first place, so it's a good thing that the thread was closed regardless of the issue involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think this could be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if you can do that without kicking conservatives out of D&D, on example of the sports thread. Rob Filter posted:or where the debate is been weaponized politically by the far right to organize violence against marginalized members of the community. This is a pretty good standard. It requires you to have some kind of process for adding and removing topics on the list over time as different topics fall under the baleful eye of the far right. But it seems do-able.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:04
|
|
|
Dr Kool-AIDS posted:Making a thread with the purpose of everyone agreeing with each other or getting probed just doesn't seem like a good idea for a debate forum in the first place, so it's a good thing that the thread was closed regardless of the issue involved. Agree 100% and I even posted that it seemed like a honey pot, and was not a good thread subject. This forum is on the leading edge (generally) of what is socially acceptable. There's probably some grey areas, but we don't need threads to debate socially settled topics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
Tezer posted:I agree, that post sucks rear end. Firstly, the severity of the moderation response matters. People who post racism get month long probes / bans in other forums, people who post racism in d&d get away with 3 days. Racism is nonsense, and its impossible for someone to justify racism in good faith, so the rule "only post in good faith" will always have a second order effect of probating racists eventually. But this rule catches them with notes that say "broke d&d good faith rules" rather than notes that say "was a huge loving racist", and they catch them with 6'ers rather than month probes + bans / permabans. Breaking different rules has a different severity, so having a proper rule against racism and transphobia is still valuable even if its not catching anybody new. Secondly, its alot easier to catch people arguing against trans rights than to catch the transphobia they are deploying as part of their arguments. Consider Permabanned poster Aginor's opening post. Try catching every instance of direct misgendering and insinuated misgendering he made: Aginor posted:Hot take. Trans athletes should not be allowed to take part in gender specific sports. Lia Thomas, for example, is only just transitioning. She is built like a male swimmer. She needs time to go through her transition and then once that's done she should be allowed to compete as much as she wants. But, does anyone possibly see the disparity? Transitioning women cant compete in men's sports, whereas transitioning men compete in women's sport and they overtake and it becomes more important than women's leagues. Takes away from what women are achieving. Aginor posted:Hot take. Trans athletes should not be allowed to take part in gender specific sports. Lia Thomas, for example, is only just transitioning. She is built like a male swimmer. She needs time to go through her transition and then once that's done she should be allowed to compete as much as she wants. But, does anyone possibly see the disparity? Transitioning women cant compete in men's sports, whereas transitioning men compete in women's sport and they overtake and it becomes more important than women's leagues. Takes away from what women are achieving. The end result of banning weaponized bigoted talking points will be the moderators catching bigoted horrible people like this earlier, and them not temporarily slipping through the net until they are caught by the good faith rules banning racism / transphobia through implication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
I mostly lurk D&D to read about current events and get perspectives that I might not get by reading a more traditional source or through my own personal experiences. I'd like to say the Ukraine thread has been a breath of fresh air compared to some of the other threads in this forum. Most posts in that thread are informative and any slapfights are quickly shot down. I think it's a mix of posters bringing good content to the table combined with consistent, timely moderation. I know that if I have 100 unread posts in that thread, at least a good 75-80 will be interesting or informative. Compare that to the the US CE thread where any time something is posted, it quickly devolves into the same tired "dems bad" takes and the resulting slapfights that come from that. Often when reading through that thread I'll just scroll forward 5 pages if certain posters post something, because I know it will just devolve into the same arguments that have been hashed out a hundred times. I'd say out of 100 posts, maybe 5-10 are interesting or informative. I'm not sure how moderation can fix that without explicitly moderating people and positions. That thread is dominated by a subset of active posters who are very willing to voice their opinions, but I don't often see them bringing new arguments to the table. I know this is a bit hypocritical coming from a lurker, since I'm essentially saying "post better for me", but I don't know how that thread gets fixed without changing the core issue of the same posts being made by the same people ad nauseum. I don't even necessarily disagree with their positions, so don't take this as an attack on liberals or leftists or whatever, it's just tiring to read the same thing over and over. I've essentially stopped reading that thread because of it and I suspect many others have stopped reading / engaging with it for the same reasons as well. Seph fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but what's wrong with just backing down on the policy of "any position is fair game" to the degree necessary to avoid topics that are clearly adjacent to bigotry? Like I mentioned in my critique of megathread off-limit topics lists, let's not pretend we're being super purist about "not moderating positions" anyways. We've acknowledged that some kind of mental shortcuts to moderate positions are apparently necessary if we judge that the positions in question invite too many slapfights or are off topic or whatever. If we can do that for stuff that makes moderation inconvenient in other cases, why not do the same for stuff that's the tiniest semantic nitpick away from bigotry? Is "wow this topic is lame and sucks to moderate" really a better thing to make position moderation exceptions for than "if I squint a little this topic is just straight up transphobia?" If you want to chalk it up to "we can't have nice things" and just blame the posters, sure cool whatever. But whatever the root cause, I think we've proven that no pure strain Socratic discourse is being lost by cutting this poo poo out. speng31b fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Tezer posted:There are a number of posters (Rob Filter, Bel Shazar, Upgrade, UCS Hellmaker, StratGoatCom, Sanguinia, Jaxyon, OwlFancier, Sharkie, Anticheese, empty whippet box, RBA Starblade, ram dass in hell, Despera, Liquid Communism, Miss Broccoli) in this thread stating that bigots and racists are not being properly moderated, leading to a need for new rules. I caught a probe for objecting to the premise 'I think you're the one working backwards from the endpoint that trans women are women'. Of note, I do not believe new rules are needed. I just think vocal bigots, be they intentionally bigoted or simply systemic bigots ignorant to the situation and unwilling to learn, should be casually discarded like any other refuse. e: not complaining about the probe itself. Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
it was discouraging that it took a few days of bullying to get the moderators to take down a "here's how -you- can donate money directly to fascist militias and get a cool prize from us for doing so" link , but on the bright side they were eventually taken down, and the guy who pointed out D+D was directly financing fascists was only probated a couple of times in retaliation. this is about as good as one could expect D+D to treat this issue, under the circumstances. the trans athletes thread was a miserable shitshow by the end of the title and didn't get better from there, here's hoping future threads on that subject are less of a nightmare. i understand why moderators took the tack they did, but the reason that it was a stupid idea was shown off by the follow-up "let's debate how much poo poo moderators can eat" thread. the process of humoring some premises will inherently lead to toxic and unproductive discussions. there's been a lot fewer people probated for the crime of engaging with moderators when they make political arguments over the last few months, so that's been nice to see
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:12
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Bigotry is not, by its nature, conservative. There are conservative bigots, there are liberal bigots, there are socialist bigots. Sure, though I’m not certain why you take me for an American. What I’m saying is that, e.g., ostracising trans people in sports in Latvia has virtually unanimous support of all parties representing classical conservatives, national conservatives, liberal conservatives, social conservatives, and right-wing populists - which is the sum of political forces we have that could be ostensibly described as “conservative”. This group of people would be excluded from the conversation effectively on the basis of identity, since our conservatives love having whips and purity tests, whereas the remaining 2 parties are “big tent for Latvian speakers” and “big tent for Russian speakers”, where members can (mostly) do whatever the gently caress they want. Hypothetical “no LGBT bigotry” rule would have an order of magnitude difference in relative casualties between the conservatives and everyone else. That was the gist of what I wanted to say - not that there are no card-carrying political progressives with individual beliefs on some topic that are reasonably classified as bigotry, but that such a rule change would disproportionately affect conservatives, especially on the topics pertinent to current day culture wars, if it had any teeth. On the other hand, as Gumball Gumption says, D&D posters already self-moderate the forum into specific political positions anyway, and so formalising such a rule would hardly affect many - not that I would loose any sleep over them. Besides, we already have C-SPAM, where people appear to be welcome to complain about Holodomor believers all day long already. In the short term, this would likely cause more inter-forum drama, but in the long term I fail to identify how the status quo benefits the majority of active D&D participants. That could of course just be me being ungrateful for being presented with regular attempts to rationalise Russian Lebensraum. Or maybe I’m missing those people who were genuinely put off by D&D before and now sincerely contribute in it, instead of intentionally leaving incendiary messaging to farm quotes, like what the trans athletics thread appears to have been meant to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I believe it would help kickstart this whole 'ironing out' process if you would stop calling bigotry a position. Bigotry does not deserve the respect you are giving it. As I've said, I don't consider bigotry itself to be a position, but rather an enmity toward a group or groups of people. Because it's a personal feeling, it's not something that can be meaningfully debated. There are however specific positions that often accompany bigotry or are used as justifications for it, such as assertions about the group's members, and those are what can be countered and debunked. PT6A posted:As someone who avoids USCE as much as possible, it seems like a lot of rules and guidelines for D&D as a whole are being crafted with that specific thread in mind, with the end goal of making it marginally less terrible, but with the consequence of making a lot of other threads very bizarre and stupid. Perhaps. Gumball Gumption posted:Can I post a thread debating if the earth is round and will mods make sure to shut up anyone who's too mean about insisting that it is when I ask questions? I went to make sure D&D is safe for different opinions before I post it. I'm absolutely willing to listen to suggestions that the earth is round and isn't flat. We can compare data, I have a lot of data showing that the earth is probably flat that I'd love to discuss with other intellectuals, I just want to make sure decorum is up held and anyone who is too difficult about making their point is kicked out. To be perfectly honest, if we had a real flat Earther on the forums and they posted a thread in D&D, I would find it both entertaining to watch it be debunked and I think it could have some valuable educational material about astronomy, the history of science, and meta-discussion about how the phenomenon of modern flat Earthers came to be. I would not want anyone to ridicule the user in D&D itself, but would expect it to occur on other boards that hear about it and I don't have a problem with that. Gumball Gumption posted:Oh, would a thread about the Holomador make sure that no one will be called a genocide denier? In the context of that thread it would be a baseless accusation from people who have no interest in discussing the topic. There is still real scholarly debate about the intentionality of the famine, so this actually ends up being an example of how it would be tricky to enforce rules on positions such as genocide denialism. Gumball Gumption posted:The sub with multiple conservative mock threads already does this in practice but not policy which is really one of the big problems with D&D. Policy is very idealistic while actual practice is a lot more reasonable and puts a specific window on acceptable views. Things would be a lot less contentious if the sub was more honest about what views are and are not allowed. You've brought up what I see as the strongest argument against the non-moderation of positions, which is that it's simply too idealistic in what sort of material it hopes to produce. I'd like to make a separate post about my worries and considerations for everyone to respond to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:There is still real scholarly debate about the intentionality of the famine, so this actually ends up being an example of how it would be tricky to enforce rules on positions such as genocide denialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:It should be super easy to ban holocaust denial and scientific racism. I think that would be easier, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:As I've said, I don't consider bigotry itself to be a position, but rather an enmity toward a group or groups of people. Because it's a personal feeling, it's not something that can be meaningfully debated. There are however specific positions that often accompany bigotry or are used as justifications for it, such as assertions about the group's members, and those are what can be countered and debunked. The real debate... how does one best respond to a bigot? On the whole I think meeting bigotry with a reasoned debate is a net loss in that it creates a hostile environment for whole groups of people and their allies even when it successfully changes a bigot's point of view. First and foremost bigotry needs ridicule, derision, and isolation. How someone responds to that is what determines if reason and explanation are worth the effort. If you want to explore a premise, demand it strip out the bigotry and reformulate the problem statement neutrally. Usually it can't be, which should be telling, but I could more readily entertain a debate about the implications of society's slowly increasing acceptance of the expression of trans identities to the current design of gendered sports competitions that wasn't encumbered with people trying to justify why a subset of women should be banned from women's sports.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:It should be super easy to ban holocaust denial and scientific racism. I only have a passing knowledge of Holodomor, so forgive me if this is ignorant, but if there is legitimate, good-faith academic research into whether or not it was intentional, would you consider discussing that "scientific racism"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I think cinci zoo sniper has done a commendable job with the Ukraine thread. I might have some minor quibbles but overall they done good. Agreed (and I say that as someone who has often recently been on the receiving end of 6-hour probations from you!) My only feedback is that I wish there was a way to address C-SPAM poster's "concern trolling" posts, since it becomes plenty evident at times that they drop in to D&D threads to stir the pot, engage enough that it seems to be in good faith but don't provide sources/etc., and then go back off to C-SPAM to make light of the topic they were just posting in D&D. I know that QCS is supposed to ideally be used for the purpose to address issues like this, but the problem is that more often than not, the mods and IKs of C-SPAM agree with the general braintrust/etc., so getting anything punished or changed is unlikely. In some instances they're even in on it, such as the mod who tried to lure Brown Moses so that he could chain-probe him, and openly bragged about it. The mod only received a 6-hour from Koos, when it seems like that should be something that gets him stripped of his forum role, or at least a much longer probe. Canned Sunshine fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Seph posted:I only have a passing knowledge of Holodomor, so forgive me if this is ignorant, but if there is legitimate, good-faith academic research into whether or not it was intentional, would you consider discussing that "scientific racism"? "scientific racism" usually refers to skull measuring rubbish, such as the aforementioned "black people were genetically engineered to be super strong by slave owners" that was brought up earlier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Agree 100% and I even posted that it seemed like a honey pot, and was not a good thread subject. Using that as the main metric for what discussion is allowed has a few problems. First, there are still positions with wide social acceptance that you probably would not want. For example, answering "no" to the question posed by the trans athletes thread is a position held by many people and regions in the United States. Second, it would preclude some leftist positions as well, as it's not generally socially acceptable in the US to say landlords should have the places they don't live in confiscated and nationalized, or that rioting is a better way to affect change than voting. Third, it seems like a formalization of "decorum," as they say, because it's circumscribing based on what's polite rather than what's morally or factually correct. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Seph posted:I only have a passing knowledge of Holodomor, so forgive me if this is ignorant, but if there is legitimate, good-faith academic research into whether or not it was intentional, would you consider discussing that "scientific racism"? Er, I wouldn't think so, since 'scientific racism' has its own specific definition of pseudoscientific justification of racism, rooted in things like eugenics and phrenology, see the idea that somehow African slaves were bred for strength in America. (Which incidentally even a cursory knowledge of biology and American history will immediately prove to be a ridiculous idea on any kind of practical grounds) Arguments over the Holodomor's nature and causes would just fall under history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:You set the thread up to fail. Your OP was just the word YES in an attractive graphic. Later, you said… (emphasis added) This is fair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"scientific racism" usually refers to skull measuring rubbish, such as the aforementioned "black people were genetically engineered to be super strong by slave owners" that was brought up earlier. Ghost Leviathan posted:Er, I wouldn't think so, since 'scientific racism' has its own specific definition of pseudoscientific justification of racism, rooted in things like eugenics and phrenology, see the idea that somehow African slaves were bred for strength in America. (Which incidentally even a cursory knowledge of biology and American history will immediately prove to be a ridiculous idea on any kind of practical grounds) Arguments over the Holodomor's nature and causes would just fall under history. Thanks. I was interpreting that comment to refer to Holodomor specifically, not the general concept of scientific racism. That makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
One thing I haven't seen brought up yet, even by the mods, was the "working the refs" problem previous iterations of D&D had. How do people feel that's going right now? As I recall, that was one of the stated rationales for moving to "moderate discussions, not positions": banned positions became a crutch people relied on as a thought-terminating cliche. If someone disagreed with an argument on an ideological level, then instead of engaging with that argument on its merits, they'd try to get that argument declared as a banned position - even if they had to make some pretty absurd leaps of logic to do so! Instead of debating and discussing the argument directly with the poster who posted it, they'd debate and discuss with the mods to try to convince them it should be a ban-on-sight position, exerting their debate chops in PMs (or in a public tantrum) by stretching the description of the banned position well beyond any reasonable limits. To (anonymously) quote a post from one of the previous feedback threads: quote:every time anyone suggests that maybe d&d should be about debate and discussion and not working the refs to get your forums enemies threadbanned because they don't like the political figures you do all you guys lose your poo poo. it'll be fine and I very much doubt koos is ignorant to how any of this poo poo works and how places get infiltrated by the far right. I think when somebody posts something that's wrong, there's four main reasons they might do so:
--- I sympathize with Koos here, because there's still plenty of people out there who are genuinely incorrect on trans issues not because they're hateful, malicious bigots, but just because they don't know any better! Knowledge doesn't materialize fully-formed out of the ether. People don't just wake up one day with a complete understanding of what it's like to be trans. They have to be taught by someone! They have to be told why the preconceptions and misconceptions they were taught growing up were wrong, they have to be told why the concerns they've heard from bigots aren't true. Should Something Awful be a place where they learn that kind of stuff? It's entirely possible that maybe it isn't. But it used to be! A lot of longtime posters here used to be liberals or even libertarians, with lovely positions on both economic and social issues. But through the efforts of politics teaching threads in D&D and LF, we were shown where we were wrong and dragged toward more progressive stances. We learned anti-racism, we learned queer issues, we learned socialism, and we learned how hosed the system already is. We certainly didn't learn that poo poo from our parents or our teachers, we had to find sources outside the traditional bigoted power structures to learn that stuff - and for a fair number of us, that outside place was a dying internet forum. Feels like the whole "teaching" aspect of that has been on the decline ever since the Trumpification, though; at some point it seems like we collectively decided that everyone has to already agree with us on these issues and that there's no longer any room to convert those who don't know. "Here's why you're wrong" has been replaced by "gently caress off transphobe" or "moooooooooooooods". If there's anywhere on SA where it should still be acceptable to teach people why trans sports restrictions are silly, then D&D should obviously be the place for that. It's certainly not something the other forums' dedicated trans threads should have to put up with. It might very well be the case that it's no longer acceptable to have that kind of teaching here, though. At the very least, only a small minority of the community seems to be interested in allowing that kinda stuff anymore. The SA politics community, and what it expects and wants, has shifted over the years. The days of LF embassy threads to GBS are long, long ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
One thing to keep in mind in particular is that the right has literally spent years developing arguments and dogwhistles that have the sound and appearance of respectability for use in debate and media spheres with liberals who give them endless benefit out of the doubt. This has ended up with the whole treasured debate sphere being overwhelmed by gish galloping crypto-nazis working the refs and using any opportunity to spread their beliefs to an audience regardless of whoever's declared the 'winner', hence why they throw massive tantrums at being deplatformed- because it's a tactic that works. Decorum is a weapon they use to get their enemies- progressives, leftists, and anyone not accepting tacit bigotry- labelled and silenced as irrational, unfair and manipulative, taking advantage of people who care about tone and not the content.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
As a lurker by and large I think things are slowly but surely getting better. The trans athletes thread was a travesty, and I hope the mod team takes the failures there to heart moving forward as trans issues are not going away any time soon as a political flashpoint. The D&D covid thread specifically is much better and has generally been almost too quiet because arguments aren't flaring up every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:One thing I haven't seen brought up yet, even by the mods, was the "working the refs" problem previous iterations of D&D had. How do people feel that's going right now? As far my thread is concerned, that still happens. There are posters whom to the best of my intuition will angle their posts so that I ought to find myself in a position to clap someone else, just on the “decorum” grounds. Different means, but the same outcome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 17:34
|
|