|
Ghost Leviathan posted: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. as an example, recall the furious temper tantrums in both 2019 and 2021, from various parts of the right, about how dare anyone refer to America's ethnic purity maintenance facilities as 'concentration camps,' due to this description being too emotionally charged to have a Reasonable Discussion
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 17:36 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:54 |
|
Colonel Cool posted:There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. I don't think D&D needs to be that place I very very strongly disagree with this, there are not very many extremely supportive spaces for trans people at all, anywhere, on the internet or anywhere else. I do not know why you think there are, but you are incorrect. I think something awful can be a place that is better at having these discussions than almost anywhere else on the internet, if we decide we want to. Step one of that is being an extremely supportive place where trans people can go to feel comfortable.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 17:47 |
|
Teaching people is fine(if it's voluntary). Asking questions is fine. None of the transphobes in that thread listened to anyone and made it clear they were not trying to learn. And most of us picked up on it quick Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Apr 24, 2022 |
# ? Apr 24, 2022 17:50 |
|
Main Paineframe posted: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". I would suggest that this, as well as the frequency of the belief that people are simply being assholes rather than innocently incorrect (not that I personally would consider those two things to be mutually exclusive) is because it is 2022, most of these ideas are not new and most of the opposition to them is the same tired poo poo that people either repeat unthinkingly or happily because doing so validates their already existing lovely ideas. Do we think there are very many doe eyed posters out there just waiting to be convinced, or do we think that most people already have an opinion one way or the other and if they're repeating the same dull crap it's probably because they already skew politically that way and are not likely to be convinced, and are only arguing with you to amuse themselves and waste your time.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 17:50 |
|
Jaxyon posted:Teachin people is fine. Asking questions is fine. None of the transphobes in that thread listened to anyone and made it clear they were not trying to learn. People who have been around the block arguing with transphobes - whether they be trans people or trans allies - have seen this behavior happen in every single discussion of trans people that comes up, everywhere on the internet and off the internet. It's seriously so tiresome. It happens the same way each and every time - someone barges in and makes some big unfounded claim that is extremely bigoted against trans people and argues for their exclusion on its basis, and then the discussion is about that, and people telling them to gently caress themselves, from there on out. I do not think the solution to this is to make telling them to gently caress themselves illegal. The solution is to have a set of rules that must be followed when discussing trans people because these same things happen every time if we don't and it isn't a productive discussion*. There are rules for every subforum that must be read and followed before you post. I do not see why there can't be ones specifically about trans people, which states that we as a community and a society are passed questions such as "are trans women women" or that we know that it simply isn't true that trans women do not automatically dominate sports upon transitioning, and that nobody transitions just to attempt to do this. These are undeniable truths which need no further explanation or discussion - or, maybe put it this way: do we have a d&d thread for explaining that 2+2 is 4, or that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, we don't. These are facts. To create a debate thread about them would be infantile and asinine. Coming into threads and making claims such as "trans women dominate womens' sports because they have an inherent adavantage" or asking "are trans women women?" is asinine on the same level, while also being bigoted and harmful. So why should we tolerate it? Go learn the basics somewhere else. This is a forum for serious debate and discussion. (*also a valid reason for this is that it turns these discussions into simply platforms for bigots to attack trans people rather than real discussion of trans issues but that point doesn't seem to matter to the d&d moderation team, so I'm speaking along the lines that do seem to matter to them.)
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:00 |
|
empty whippet box posted:I very very strongly disagree with this, there are not very many extremely supportive spaces for trans people at all, anywhere, on the internet or anywhere else. I do not know why you think there are, but you are incorrect. I think something awful can be a place that is better at having these discussions than almost anywhere else on the internet, if we decide we want to. Step one of that is being an extremely supportive place where trans people can go to feel comfortable. I was trying to be nice with my wording. When I say "extremely supportive" what I mean is "does not question any of my positions for any reason no matter how ludicrous they are". There were absolutely people in the trans sports thread taking positions that were completely detached from reality (in my opinion). And to be clear, I think it's valuable to have supportive spaces where people can feel free to express themselves without having to defend anything they're saying. I'm just saying, I don't think D&D should be one of those spaces.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:02 |
|
empty whippet box posted:This is a forum for serious debate and discussion. The moderation team explicitly believes these are topics open for discussion(through action and words to confirm this) and that people must be assumed to be in good faith about them until they absolutely explicitly reveal themselves to be bigots by harassing posters. Only the most unrepentant bigots are open about their bigotry so all bigots need to thrive here is a thin veneer of sophistry and at most you'll get a nice little 3 day vacation for not playing the game well enough. As opposed to the ejection out the airlock you'd get in most other well moderated forums.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:03 |
|
Colonel Cool posted:I was trying to be nice with my wording. When I say "extremely supportive" what I mean is "does not question any of my positions for any reason no matter how ludicrous they are". There were absolutely people in the trans sports thread taking positions that were completely detached from reality (in my opinion). And to be clear, I think it's valuable to have supportive spaces where people can feel free to express themselves without having to defend anything they're saying. I'm just saying, I don't think D&D should be one of those spaces. Nobody is asking for a space where they don't have to defend anything they are saying. That isn't what anyone, at any point, anywhere in this thread asked for or desired. I think you should read my next post above.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:05 |
|
SpiritOfLenin posted:Most of the people regularly posting and following that thread are sick as poo poo of those topics cinci listed though. The thread is genuinely a lot better when there aren't multiple pages long derails about someone insisting NATO/the US is at fault or about how bad C-SPAM is, which was stuff that regularly happened early in the thread. Well said. Agreed on all points.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:12 |
|
Jaxyon posted:The moderation team explicitly believes these are topics open for discussion(through action and words to confirm this) and that people must be assumed to be in good faith about them until they absolutely explicitly reveal themselves to be bigots by harassing posters. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:recall the furious temper tantrums in both 2019 and 2021, from various parts of the right, about how dare anyone refer to America's ethnic purity maintenance facilities as 'concentration camps,' due to this description being too emotionally charged to have a Reasonable Discussion 'Denying that trans individuals have a right to exist' is a value 'no bigotry' is an invitation to work the refs against your posting enemies. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted: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
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:14 |
|
Sanguinia posted:EDIT: Also the rule that you can't cite to people's statement cross-forum or in their rap sheet to help prove their statements are obvious bad faith is a stupid one. Nix it. Either that or ban helldumping across all forums because allowing threads which only exist to mock people on other forums (especially when there's so many examples of people baiting out helldump content) while also making it punishable on D&D to point out people's statements on other forums for an actual constructive purpose is nonsense. This is a few pages back, but I didn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a valid argument. It gets really irritating that people say they don't have time to discuss topics in D&D, etc., and so they're dipping in, glancing, whatever else. But that same poster spends 90% of their time in another area of SA, like C-SPAM typically, being "ironic" or whatever about the very topic that they claim they can't spend more time in D&D discussing. Maybe they could only spend 70% of their time in C-SPAM, then they could use the other SA time actually getting caught up or having good discussions on whatever topic they feel worth the small amount of time they're going to invest in the applicable D&D thread. Otherwise it comes off as drive-by concern trolling/shitposting that, at the surface, seems like a good faith argument, but in reality is just trying to stir up the hornet's nest.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:25 |
Sarcastr0 posted:'Denying that trans individuals have a right to exist' is a value 'no bigotry' is an invitation to work the refs against your posting enemies. This has been an interesting discussion, and I’m curious to hear what kind of outcomes would people prefer for the hypothetical move away from the observed outcomes of the current moderation stance: 1) Values, e.g., “D&D mods believe that trans women are women, and do not wish to have this debated” 2) Principles, e.g., “conversations in D&D shall follow the spirit of the UHDR and the Istanbul Convention” 3) Behaviours, e.g. Rob Filter posted:"To help encourage debate and discussion we do not generally moderate on the content of your argument, just how do you present it. There are a few exceptions to this rule, though, where we see there is no meaningful debate or discussion to had around issues, or where the debate is been weaponized politically by the far right to organize violence against marginalized members of the community. Those topics include: the validity of trans rights, Holocaust denial, scientific arguments for racism, and gender equality. If you are concerned that your post may violate these rules, contact a moderator first." 4) Something else 5) Combination of multiple or the above I understand that my 3 options do overlap - this is just the best eloquence I can muster on the spot, apologies.
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:30 |
|
empty whippet box posted:People who have been around the block arguing with transphobes - whether they be trans people or trans allies - have seen this behavior happen in every single discussion of trans people that comes up, everywhere on the internet and off the internet. It's seriously so tiresome. It happens the same way each and every time - someone barges in and makes some big unfounded claim that is extremely bigoted against trans people and argues for their exclusion on its basis, and then the discussion is about that, and people telling them to gently caress themselves, from there on out. I do not think the solution to this is to make telling them to gently caress themselves illegal. The solution is to have a set of rules that must be followed when discussing trans people because these same things happen every time if we don't and it isn't a productive discussion*. There are rules for every subforum that must be read and followed before you post. I do not see why there can't be ones specifically about trans people, which states that we as a community and a society are passed questions such as "are trans women women" or that we know that it simply isn't true that trans women do not automatically dominate sports upon transitioning, and that nobody transitions just to attempt to do this. These are undeniable truths which need no further explanation or discussion - or, maybe put it this way: do we have a d&d thread for explaining that 2+2 is 4, or that the sun will rise tomorrow? No, we don't. These are facts. To create a debate thread about them would be infantile and asinine. Coming into threads and making claims such as "trans women dominate womens' sports because they have an inherent adavantage" or asking "are trans women women?" is asinine on the same level, while also being bigoted and harmful. So why should we tolerate it? Go learn the basics somewhere else. This is a forum for serious debate and discussion. It'd be a pretty silly argument to say that all trans women automatically dominate all sports after transitioning, and pretty easy to debunk. I think positing that some people transition in order to get a competitive advantage in sports is a loving stupid argument, and I'd be happy to argue against it. I'd also be happy to make an argument for why trans women are women. I think it's a fascinating question, but then I'm a philosophy major that's written college papers on the subject. It's a pretty challenging topic, and being able to make that argument in a convincing way is kind of useful when over half the world disagrees with it. Saying that it's true because it's true and banning anyone who isn't convinced isn't a great way to make general social progress on the subject. None of these questions are anywhere close to the level of "does 2+2 equal 4?". But there is famously a thousand page trio of books on the subject of proving that 1+1 equals 2 that's supposedly pretty useful to a lot of things related to math and logic!
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:34 |
|
That assumes that minds are changed by debate, which I do not think they are. The utility of debate is recreational and grandstanding to make your position appear dominant, I do not think that arguing with people actually changes their minds.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:36 |
|
OwlFancier posted:That assumes that minds are changed by debate, which I do not think they are. The utility of debate is recreational and grandstanding to make your position appear dominant, I do not think that arguing with people actually changes their minds. I've had my mind changed by debates
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:39 |
|
Colonel Cool posted:It'd be a pretty silly argument to say that all trans women automatically dominate all sports after transitioning, and pretty easy to debunk. I think positing that some people transition in order to get a competitive advantage in sports is a loving stupid argument, and I'd be happy to argue against it. I'd also be happy to make an argument for why trans women are women. I think it's a fascinating question, but then I'm a philosophy major that's written college papers on the subject. It's a pretty challenging topic, and being able to make that argument in a convincing way is kind of useful when over half the world disagrees with it. Saying that it's true because it's true and banning anyone who isn't convinced isn't a great way to make general social progress on the subject. If you're happy to argue against it, then I think you should have a space to do that. The internet is full of spaces that are absolutely jam packed with people who want to make specious claims about trans people that are easily debunked. D&D does not need to be such a place. These questions are on the level of 'does 2+2 equal 4' because they are the very beginnings of trans topics; if you can't agree that trans women are women then you will never, ever get past that point in discussion. If a person continues to insist that transwomen dominate womens' sports then the discussion will never move past that point. How could you move forward teaching someone math if they refuse to accept that 2+2 equals 4? What would be the point of arguing with them about it? If we continuously allow threads discussing trans people to be about these very basic topics then they will almost never be about anything else, and as it has been noted again and again and again, the people "asking these questions" or making these claims are never doing so in good faith - they are showing up to make these claims to harm trans people, and treating their arguments as serious and worthy of consideration allows them to do that.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:42 |
|
I'm sure it happens sometimes, but what I mean is that I don't think that the likelihood of anybody, personally, debating someone into not being a transphobe is very high. And especially I do not think it is as effective a conversion method as simply enforcing the desired position via whatever appratus you have and the enthusiastic participation of as many people you already have onside as possible. Because, I think, social pressure is far more effective at getting people to adopt ideas than personally debating them, thus creating an environment where the desired ideas are normative is a better use of time than one where there is a notion that the ideas are up for debate, especially given the sort of people you are likely to attract with the latter stance. And it also has the added benefit of being a much more pleasant space to exist in.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:43 |
|
OwlFancier posted:That assumes that minds are changed by debate, which I do not think they are. The utility of debate is recreational and grandstanding to make your position appear dominant, I do not think that arguing with people actually changes their minds. I don't think it usually changes the minds of people you're arguing with, especially in the moment, because it's a really hard thing to do to back down on the spot when you're heated about something. But I do think that convincing the audience, especially the ones that are kind of ambivalent on the subject, is a lot more realistic. I got something like eight supportive PMs from lurkers after the trans sports thread including a particularly nice one from a poster who described herself as an older person who knows nothing about trans issues and is too afraid to say what she thinks about them. She said that my messaging on these issues would be very effective with her cohort and that I should do what I can to get it out there. So no, I don't think the entire population is made up of hardliners that can't be swayed with the right arguments. Some of them definitely exist, but I think they're in the minority.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:44 |
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I've had my mind changed by debates yeah same, this: quote:The utility of debate is recreational and grandstanding to make your position appear dominant is a weird take
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:45 |
|
Is debate the most effective way to change peoples minds? After all winning a debate dosen't mean you are right and can often simply be you are better at rhetoric? What is the benefit of opening up these things to debate vs a simple deatched piece of information that people can be pointed at?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:49 |
SourKraut posted:This is a few pages back, but I didn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a valid argument. I agree, I think it's a fundamentally unhealthy dynamic for the SA on the whole. My feeling is that the majority of goons farming various subforums for quote have a jaded, deeply cynical view of it all, and so the USDA Grade A quotes are then to be sourced from someone genuinely passionate. Once you define the target like that, the name of the game is to elicit an emotional response, which de facto means that the existence of a quote farming practice in a subforum does explicitly incentivize threadshitting elsewhere. D&D as a subforum, much like every other, should be allowed to exist without being a punching bag for posts like this one. Sure, this specific post was punished, and much harsher than what its ilk gets away with normally, but I believe that SA would be better for it if the practice was banned in general. Not sure this is D&D feedback material though, and if it would make sense from a moderation perspective to, e.g., decided that we just start slamming 1-day probations as the minimum duration for someone caught SYQ'ing. That’s basically D&D mods moderating posts outside of it, which they shouldn’t do. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:49 |
|
empty whippet box posted:If you're happy to argue against it, then I think you should have a space to do that. The internet is full of spaces that are absolutely jam packed with people who want to make specious claims about trans people that are easily debunked. D&D does not need to be such a place. I mean maybe it's just a disagreement over what the purpose of D&D should be, which is fine. I can't tell you your preferences are wrong and I don't know how valuable my perspective is on that particular question because I'm not a D&D poster. But then again, I also think that D&D should have less regulars and more thread specific people who come in to talk in a thread on a subject that interests them.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:50 |
|
Raere posted: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. My personal take (and why I edited that thread's title to as the 'YES' to it) is there's no way to reasonable discuss, let alone debate, someone's right to exist. That applies to any LGBT, Racism, etc. The athlete portion is a sore spot as well, I don't know how we can reasonable allow debates around it because the reality in my opinion is that trans people are their preferred and chosen gender, and we're going to have to deal with that in sports. I think its more on sports itself to deal with than the trans person to deal with. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 24, 2022 |
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:51 |
|
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? Sorry to snip just the first part of this post, but I think it's solid and brings up some topics I've been pondering as well. A lot of concerns in this thread directly or obliquely reference the problem of posters not trusting other posters to be posting in good faith, and then maneuvering either directly or indirectly to stop bad faith posters or even entire lines of argument that are presumed to be associated with a category of known bad faith posters. And again, I won't be able to make a single coherent suggestion about how to fix this, so it'll probably just sound like I'm complaining, but I'm going to try to apply this to my experience posting in SA and D&D for a number of years, albeit as not the most committed or active poster for the past few years. Basically what it boils down to is that D&D "serious posting" ethos combined with constant suspicion of bad faith posting makes for an especially toxic environment. And while I totally understand the history and valid reasons for suspicion of bad faith posting in specific cases, it's pretty demoralizing to come into a thread and see a viewpoint be shouted down as bad faith, against thread rules, boring, when it's sincerely not any of those things. And again, because D&D is all about unironic serious posting, the undertone to all of that is highly moralistic. You took a bad stance that bad faith posters tend to align with and therefore you're a piece of poo poo and/or troll. Maybe you're just a fundamentally bad human being -- oh by the way I checked your post history and therefore gently caress you. When those are table stakes to engagement it's honestly just too emotionally draining to engage with a lot of content on here. I don't have all the solutions, but a small improvement to "not moderating positions" might be to set clearly defined limits around it (i.e., bigotry adjacent) and apply the rule not just to moderation but to posters trying to police other posters' conduct. I always appreciated the stricter rules against backseat modding in the past and I'm not sure why those were relaxed.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:52 |
|
Colonel Cool posted:So no, I don't think the entire population is made up of hardliners that can't be swayed with the right arguments. Some of them definitely exist, but I think they're in the minority. Ther is no light bigotry. Your intent does not lessen the impact. That's why ironic bigotry is just bigotry. Oh some fragile people messaged you that they are fragile? Who cares. If you change your mind you can change your mind but most non "hardline" bigots are just as hardline. They just are polite about it and see themselves as different.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 18:59 |
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:yeah same, this: Our main frame of reference for "how people think" is ourselves.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:00 |
|
Oh you're afraid people might call you out for not doing the slightest big of homework before questioning someone's existence? That must so hard
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:01 |
|
I think the distinction between "good faith" and "bad faith" is kind of silly really. I don't care what someone thinks in their heart or whether they are sincere in their beliefs or not, because it really doesn't matter. It is entirely possible for people to just think things that are wrong, morally or factually, entirely sincerely, and to be just as unlikely to change their position as someone who is doing it purely to troll. Whether or not they are posting "in good faith" is really quite irrelevant, I think. If someone says things that are wrong, and gives indications that they are unlikely to stop doing this in the future, this is going to make people question whether or not they are worth responding to as if there were some possibility of achieving anything. Further, a perfectly sensible reaction upon having this suspicion is to try and find something to either corroborate or dispel it, so looking at their wider track record is an obvious first step. I really do not think you can expect people to just... not follow that train of thought, because it is an entirely reasonable one. It is using your brain to identify a pattern, if the pattern seems obvious to you then your options are either to call the person out on it or to just stop posting. And I do sometimes do that because I simply do not have the energy to explain why someone is being an idiot, but taking the more combative path is entirely understandable IMO, perhaps even preferable, because if everyone just went quiet in the face of idiocy we would never hear anything else. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 24, 2022 |
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:04 |
speng31b posted:Basically what it boils down to is that D&D "serious posting" ethos combined with constant suspicion of bad faith posting makes for an especially toxic environment. And while I totally understand the history and valid reasons for suspicion of bad faith posting in specific cases, it's pretty demoralizing to come into a thread and see a viewpoint be shouted down as bad faith, against thread rules, boring, when it's sincerely not any of those things. I think this is a salient argument, but this coin, in my opinion, does have the other side. There’s a lot of malicious posts (which I would define from D&D perspective as posting in any way that isn’t meant to constructively move the conversation forwards in the lowest number of posts possible), and plenty of high-visibility posters making malicious posts exclusively. Just look at US CE, it appears to have 2 dozen regulars while having maybe half a dozen contributors. It does suck to be suspected merely because you are genuinely clueless about someone’s favourite posting cudgel, no disagreement here. However, I do disagree that D&D posters on the whole are being unreasonable or excessively paranoid in their suspicions, especially when it comes to topics like the trans athletics thread - in this extremely online discussion board it simply is implausible that in 2022 someone could still have a naive, pure heart “so how are these trans people women anyway” question, to paraphrase.
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:14 |
|
Stormgale posted:Is debate the most effective way to change peoples minds? After all winning a debate dosen't mean you are right and can often simply be you are better at rhetoric?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:21 |
|
Cicero posted:When I was Mormon and more conservative, I had my mind changed by the discussion about gay marriage. The arguments about it, combined with the fact that there was this big public debate about it for a number of years which had me thinking seriously about my position, got me to do so. The more I thought about the homophobic views I had inherited from society at large and Mormonism in particular, the more I felt like, "...wait no, that's dumb." For high controversy topics we need a related A/T thread where knowing or unknowing bigots can learn how to engage in a more meaningful discussion. Unironic virtual reeducation camps?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:27 |
|
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? Good points, and I haven't talked about one of my motivations for this, which has to do with my age. I've seen the whole transition from racism and other bigotries being acceptable to completely unacceptable. I've seen the passionate, righteous and intelligent arguments people made against these things when it was still necessary to do so, and that led to us winning culturally. But now that we have won, and equal rights is becoming an axiom, I fear some people might be forgetting the actual justifications for it. I don't believe moral and social progress is durable in the same way as technological progress, where we'll simply stay at the most sophisticated level we've reached because we have all the necessary knowledge; but rather it's something that we'll need to always be vigilant to maintain, because it involves human beings rather than physical laws. So, even if we understand that bigotry is wrong intuitively, or have at least been socially conditioned not to engage in it the same way one doesn't belch in public, I believe it's still useful to be educated on the arguments for why. This makes our ideas more resilient, when we have firm reasoning for them we can remind ourselves of. I believe the most robust way to do this is to look at actual bigoted ideas people are bandying about, along with the reasoning for them, because that leads to a full exploration of why they're wrong. So, I suppose that's my overall political reasoning for the rule. But, my higher concern than any of my politics is simply how interesting D&D's discussion is, so I'm of course willing to reconsider for that sake.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:31 |
|
Cicero posted:When I was Mormon and more conservative, I had my mind changed by the discussion about gay marriage. The arguments about it, combined with the fact that there was this big public debate about it for a number of years which had me thinking seriously about my position, got me to do so. The more I thought about the homophobic views I had inherited from society at large and Mormonism in particular, the more I felt like, "...wait no, that's dumb." "Maybe some bigots might eventually stop being bigots" is not a good enough to allow bigots to post bigotty. If people volunteer to do outreach and emotional labor then they can do that but a message board is almost never how that works. If people want to convert bigots there are actual tactics.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:33 |
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:This has been an interesting discussion, and I’m curious to hear what kind of outcomes would people prefer for the hypothetical move away from the observed outcomes of the current moderation stance: Because they could get out of control, these values should have a light touch, and probably a 'one warning' system since a lot of folks don't read the rules. And there should be a rebuttable presumption against adding to them. I don't think this would ban conservatives who want to talk about economic stuff, or imperialism stuff, and I have no problem with this not being a place for the kind of social conservative who doesn't believe in personhood of trans people, or who thinks it's child molestation to mention Sarah has two dads. For instance, I'm still on the fence about trans in pro sports, but am quite able to keep quiet about it if that's the read of the room. I really don't like the behaviors as set out here, because that will be a lot of line drawing about whether something is a right-wing talking point or not. And some of the more vocal folks here have a really expansive view of right wing. IMO it just moves the heat slightly, but wouldn't lessen it.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:33 |
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think this is a salient argument, but this coin, in my opinion, does have the other side. There’s a lot of malicious posts (which I would define from D&D perspective as posting in any way that isn’t meant to constructively move the conversation forwards in the lowest number of posts possible), and plenty of high-visibility posters making malicious posts exclusively. Just look at US CE, it appears to have 2 dozen regulars while having maybe half a dozen contributors. Yeah I totally agree that the behavior under suspicion actually does happen, but depending on the specific case maybe or maybe not to the degree suspected by posters. My position is going to sound hypocritical because in the case of the trans thread I'm totally on the side of "that thread never should have happened," because I think bigotry adjacent topics should just be defined as off limits with as little ambiguity about it as possible. The great tradition of Socratic discourse isn't adding value to anyone there, and I think that can just be decided and done. That's why my tentatively suggested solution looks more like the following, in order of priority: - Strictly but narrowly define the positions that are off limits, per forum and not per thread to avoid recurrences. Trans bigotry talking points should clearly be one of those. Perhaps a short discussion about any topic added to this short list of known bad topics is helpful. - Harsher penalties for posters proven to be actually acting in bad faith, ideally thread bans. My guess is that the really disruptive behavior is more restricted to a small but active set of posters than a mass conspiracy by posting enemies. - Strictly enforce the no posting about posters and no backseat mod rules. Use the report button. Even when it's justified by past experience, it makes posting into a toxic shithole that doesn't have much to do with debate or discussion and makes the posting culture in the forum and each thread increasingly insular. Noone going in to discuss a topic wants to be personally moralized about, and doing so drives people to seek out alternatives for lower emotional stakes poo poo posting. speng31b fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 24, 2022 |
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:38 |
|
Ghost Leviathan posted: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. Sarcastr0 posted:I'm all for a statement of values, as I said above. But having D&D include hunting for bigots in hiding seems a really bad idea. This is one of my major concerns with moderating positions. It's incentivizing people who have those positions to hide them, only making insinuations. In other words, acting in bad faith. This in turn makes it more justified for others to assume the people they're debating aren't acting in good faith, which will in all likelihood lead to suspicion of cases where someone is not acting in bad faith and does not believe any of the banned positions but is coming too close to them or making a point that could incidentally support them by accident. Before I came on, there was a phenomenon in D&D where people would ask a lot of leading questions in the hope of getting someone to admit to believing something that could run afoul of moderation, while the other person either tried to answer increasingly irrelevant questions honestly or did their best to continue hiding, if they did in fact believe something they were afraid could get them in hot water. It led to discussion that didn't add anything to the actual topic. One thing I'm grateful for is this seems to be rarer since I began modding, and I fear a backslide depending on how we handled banning positions.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:42 |
speng31b posted:Yeah I totally agree that the behavior under suspicion actually does happen, but depending on the specific case maybe or maybe not to the degree suspected by posters. Agreed on the number nuance, I fully believe that people inside the problem threads overestimate it, myself including, and just speculate that people out of them are likely to underestimate it. It’s definitely a thread-level problem as well, rather than some grand conspiracy. That said, while thread bans do effectively solve that problem, my understanding is that the general direction for SA moderation is to drop thread and forum bans in future, due to cumbersome enforcement logistics.
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:43 |
|
Threads about contentious topics/topics about which people might be badly misinformed should start with some context explaining a poster's position and/or vetted educational resources. It should not start with "are trans people existing in bad faith?"
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:43 |
|
If someone holds a position I consider reprehensible then I would prefer them to hide it rather than feeling at liberty to just post it as much as they like.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:54 |
|
speng31b posted:
The problem with this when it comes to bigots saying bigoted things is that if nobody says anything in the thread, and just reports it, then what winds up happening is the poster will get a 6er for bad discussion practices or something, and not for their bigotry. And then the thread moves on and the person was allowed to post their bigotry with absolutely no pushback at all. A probation for not dotting your i or crossing your t is not the same as a probation for being a bigoted sack of poo poo. When I see someone posting something harmful and bigoted, I feel the need to tell them to gently caress themselves with a sideways rake because I think of someone coming into the thread and seeing no pushback against them at all and thinking "wow, this really must be what people think here". There were examples of this in the trans athletes thread as well, where posters being obviously bigoted were repeatedly called out for being bigoted but then were probated on a posting technicality. That's not a good look. But koos did not strictly follow the no posting about posters rule there, because (this is my perception of why, anyway) it was obvious that it was warranted in this case.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2022 19:45 |