Baronash posted:

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. When I said that the argument was made frequently, I meant the argument of "X is reprehensible, and it should be opposed/is a war crime/etc." That type of argument makes up, I would say, the majority of the I/P thread for understandable reasons, and vanishingly few of the posters involved in making those arguments feel the need to link horrifying content for the sole purpose of shocking their interlocutor.

I don't agree with your framing of this as a "position" that is being moderated. "Bombing an ambulance is morally and legally wrong" is a position. "I want you to see, in graphic detail, what it looks like when an ambulance is bombed" is not a position, it is a debate tactic, and one that is not acceptable here.

If someone is incapable of discussion without linking to liveleak-esque content, then they should not be posting here.

Jakabite posted:

It is a position. No one’s mind has ever been changed by participating in an internet debate anyway, its only utility is to convince spectators. And to be honest I do find it a bit gross that people are so intent on spending their time discussing this conflict but absolutely refuse to even be on the same page as a link to the reality of it. No one’s forcing anyone to look but this is over-sanitisation of a horrible subject.

OwlFancier posted:

And that's a value judgement that you can make, I merely point out that in doing that you also end up selectively moderating for positions which can dispassionately observe the horrific cruelty of war and give a lot of structural favour to the exact kind of rhetoric which is being used by the people in power who are supporting it. And it is exactly those positions which we are seeing popular protest the world over in opposition to.

The desire for civlity in the face of brutality creates its own opposition which will select for people who are blunt and angry about their positions because those are the ones excluded from the civil discourse. In this position it is impossible to achieve value neutral moderation, only to pick sides.

VitalSigns posted:

Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder.

But it's not mysterious when you look at the policy as just flowing downstream from how war is packaged and sold by the ruling class and their media, as this antiseptic thing where you push some buttons and some red lights on a map wink out on an electronic map, and reasonable people can disagree about whether any kids/medics/journalists/etc in the area were in league with the terrorists.

Absent a massive propaganda machine to manufacture consent for infinite war, a sensible policy would be to ban images of horrible violence and ban advocating for that horrible violence to be done to those people in the first place, but that's not how we're primed to view the conversation.

VitalSigns posted:

Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder.

But it's not mysterious when you look at the policy as just flowing downstream from how war is packaged and sold by the ruling class and their media, as this antiseptic thing where you push some buttons and some red lights on a map wink out on an electronic map, and reasonable people can disagree about whether any kids/medics/journalists/etc in the area were in league with the terrorists.

Absent a massive propaganda machine to manufacture consent for infinite war, a sensible policy would be to ban images of horrible violence and ban advocating for that horrible violence to be done to those people in the first place, but that's not how we're primed to view the conversation.

Koos Group posted:

No amount of rulebreaking is allowed in a good post. But a high quality post does lead to enforcement being more lenient, starting with a warning. If someone is posting well but absolutely insists on breaking some rule, they will have to be punished after a warning. I didn't make that clear in the example you provided, which is my fault.

quote:

Your first example does appear to have been a mistake. I assume it was not me who handled it, as I would have probed the poster, but it is old enough that it would be difficult to find the mod who handled it or their reasoning at this point (we have a poorly implemented report system). The second one also probably should have been probed, though the mod handling it might have found it clever and amusing enough not to do so.

OwlFancier posted:

Yes, this, basically. I find the former far more represhensible than the latter, but I am not aware of any policy to ban people for the former? Especially if it is worded abstractly, indefinitely.

I find it impossible to imagine that this does not constitute de-facto moderating positions.

socialsecurity posted:

If you feel you should be able to link people dying there is an active SAD thread about the topic that will probably supersede any decision Koos makes about the topic.

Jakabite posted:

It is a position. No one’s mind has ever been changed by participating in an internet debate anyway, its only utility is to convince spectators. And to be honest I do find it a bit gross that people are so intent on spending their time discussing this conflict but absolutely refuse to even be on the same page as a link to the reality of it. No one’s forcing anyone to look but this is over-sanitisation of a horrible subject.

Baronash posted:

Again, it's not a position, it is a tactic. You can't argue the facts of "I want you to see this." You can certainly form a position of "I think this tactic should/should not be allowed," but that is not the same thing.

Koos Group posted:

Again, I would prefer we focus on our positive or negative opinions of current D&D policies or occurrences, not politics, other forums, or old drama.

Baronash posted:

Again, it's not a position, it is a tactic. You can't argue the facts of "I want you to see this." You can certainly form a position of "I think this tactic should/should not be allowed," but that is not the same thing.

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith.

Panzeh posted:

I will say this- i think it would cut down on a lot of the talking past each other if people only attributed positions to specific posters or people, and actually had to quote the post in question rather than vague swipes.

VitalSigns posted:

Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder.

But it's not mysterious when you look at the policy as just flowing downstream from how war is packaged and sold by the ruling class and their media, as this antiseptic thing where you push some buttons and some red lights on a map wink out on an electronic map, and reasonable people can disagree about whether any kids/medics/journalists/etc in the area were in league with the terrorists.

Absent a massive propaganda machine to manufacture consent for infinite war, a sensible policy would be to ban images of horrible violence and ban advocating for that horrible violence to be done to those people in the first place, but that's not how we're primed to view the conversation.

socialsecurity posted:

If you feel you should be able to link people dying there is an active SAD thread about the topic that will probably supersede any decision Koos makes about the topic.

VitalSigns posted:

See also how supporting violence is treated. Automatic ban, unless it's an agent of the state shooting someone for jaywalking or something and then not only is there inevitably someone to say "good shoot", but their pro-violence opinion must be treated as respectable and it's the people telling them to gently caress off who get punished.

OwlFancier posted:

Showing evidence of things is a tactic, but it is a tactic that preferences some positions over others. There are some positions which are more sustainable in the absence of evidence than in the presence of it.

I don't think tactics and positions are especially separable.

World Famous W posted:

im always sincere, but ill drop the jokes for this. several of the us politic threads have people that have been posting together for years. we are all human and will build and keep grudges. hell, ive got plenty of grudges from 2020 and posters about reade. now, ive mostly been civil to them, but it's there. just don't think you're going to get what you want here at all

edit: we are all human, not we all ate humans

Panzeh posted:

I will say this- i think it would cut down on a lot of the talking past each other if people only attributed positions to specific posters or people, and actually had to quote the post in question rather than vague swipes.

Staluigi posted:

I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout

The best way we ever saw to shock people out of complacency for police brutality was expressly trying to share and boost visibility of video of police killings, especially the infamous hotel Simon Says video and all those reels of police popping beloved family pets like it some kind of trophy shoot. The best way we had to slap people right off the fence about mass shootings and permissive gun laws was showing the bodies. Same poo poo happening in israel right now, and it's been pretty consistent with warcrimes footage in ukraine, I'm almost certain

it's actually one of the reasons why certain groups clutch pearls hard enough to turn them into diamonds over "displaying heartless gore" when it's definitely going to change people's minds over time if the way the events are reported isn't heavily sanitized and cordoned off. I don't know how much i like this as reality but gets you thinking about the deliberacy of groups that tried to stop us showing police killings to complacent fairweather "allies" while the police just kept killing and killing and killing and killing and i have a tendency to remember it when looking at poo poo like all this and trying to figure oh no i gotta go looking for the Bad Faith Bogeyman again cause gonna bet

I started with an interest in wanting to make the letters-from-birmingham rear end White Liberal compelled to actually see police violence and murder in action, to keep them from keeping that as an abstract concept in their minds rather than constant and state sanctioned terror. And i definitely want the realities of communal punishment and violent ethnic cleansing in palestine absolutely jammed in the faces of people day in and day out

so i guess i got 2 dogs in the fight till the cops plug them at least




SIDE NOTE: also found out that the absolute best way to increase sympathy and support for cops was if people saw videos of them dealing with belligerent sovereign citizens like this 100% catapulted them in the opposite direction of acab

Koos Group posted:

It is also true that bombing children is more harmful than anything one could post, but this is irrelevant as bombing children is already against the general rules of SA.

Rigel posted:

A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics.

When we get closer to an important election and those topics are used more often to just shut down debate and discourage people from talking about what they want to talk about, then this board has often banished those arguments into their own containment thread(s), but we aren't there right now.

Staluigi posted:

I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout

The best way we ever saw to shock people out of complacency for police brutality was expressly trying to share and boost visibility of video of police killings, especially the infamous hotel Simon Says video and all those reels of police popping beloved family pets like it some kind of trophy shoot. The best way we had to slap people right off the fence about mass shootings and permissive gun laws was showing the bodies. Same poo poo happening in israel right now, and it's been pretty consistent with warcrimes footage in ukraine, I'm almost certain

it's actually one of the reasons why certain groups clutch pearls hard enough to turn them into diamonds over "displaying heartless gore" when it's definitely going to change people's minds over time if the way the events are reported isn't heavily sanitized and cordoned off. I don't know how much i like this as reality but gets you thinking about the deliberacy of groups that tried to stop us showing police killings to complacent fairweather "allies" while the police just kept killing and killing and killing and killing and i have a tendency to remember it when looking at poo poo like all this and trying to figure oh no i gotta go looking for the Bad Faith Bogeyman again cause gonna bet

I started with an interest in wanting to make the letters-from-birmingham rear end White Liberal compelled to actually see police violence and murder in action, to keep them from keeping that as an abstract concept in their minds rather than constant and state sanctioned terror. And i definitely want the realities of communal punishment and violent ethnic cleansing in palestine absolutely jammed in the faces of people day in and day out

so i guess i got 2 dogs in the fight till the cops plug them at least




SIDE NOTE: also found out that the absolute best way to increase sympathy and support for cops was if people saw videos of them dealing with belligerent sovereign citizens like this 100% catapulted them in the opposite direction of acab

socialsecurity posted:

Who are these certain groups? Are they posters? Could you quote them?

Gumball Gumption posted:

I don't disagree with any of this but I do think the way the Internet works means that in reality posting gore means that the people who could have their minds changed just walk away without looking and the only people who stick around want to gawk or worse.

I think it's a really strong argument for why CNN or the NYT shouldn't be self-censoring and also an explanation as to why they avoid graphic evidence of police misconduct but I don't know if it applies to SA the same way. I just find it hard to see it being something that's going to shake people up, instead we will just have the worst posters left getting really excited about death in 4k

Ither posted:

I only read the USCE, 2024 GOP Primary, and Trump Legal Troubles threads.

I have no complaints about them except for the recent electoralism discussion that occurred in USCE.

Can I get a clarification on this please? When will we be there?

Koos Group posted:

Might have a reckoning if it starts taking over the thread whilst going nowhere again.

Staluigi posted:

I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout

The best way we ever saw to shock people out of complacency for police brutality was expressly trying to share and boost visibility of video of police killings, especially the infamous hotel Simon Says video and all those reels of police popping beloved family pets like it some kind of trophy shoot. The best way we had to slap people right off the fence about mass shootings and permissive gun laws was showing the bodies. Same poo poo happening in israel right now, and it's been pretty consistent with warcrimes footage in ukraine, I'm almost certain

it's actually one of the reasons why certain groups clutch pearls hard enough to turn them into diamonds over "displaying heartless gore" when it's definitely going to change people's minds over time if the way the events are reported isn't heavily sanitized and cordoned off. I don't know how much i like this as reality but gets you thinking about the deliberacy of groups that tried to stop us showing police killings to complacent fairweather "allies" while the police just kept killing and killing and killing and killing and i have a tendency to remember it when looking at poo poo like all this and trying to figure oh no i gotta go looking for the Bad Faith Bogeyman again cause gonna bet

I started with an interest in wanting to make the letters-from-birmingham rear end White Liberal compelled to actually see police violence and murder in action, to keep them from keeping that as an abstract concept in their minds rather than constant and state sanctioned terror. And i definitely want the realities of communal punishment and violent ethnic cleansing in palestine absolutely jammed in the faces of people day in and day out

so i guess i got 2 dogs in the fight till the cops plug them at least




SIDE NOTE: also found out that the absolute best way to increase sympathy and support for cops was if people saw videos of them dealing with belligerent sovereign citizens like this 100% catapulted them in the opposite direction of acab

quote:

With each new conflict in the Middle East, families of the fallen, activists, and politicians on both sides criticize the American news media for not showing their dead more often. This was the reaction, in the summer of 2014, for instance, when the U.S. press coverage of beach bombings in Gaza included images of dead Palestinians. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Israeli prime minister complained that Hamas was intentionally putting civilians in harm’s way so that news images of their deaths would elicit sympathy from Americans: “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause,” he said, fearing that such images ignite antisemitism.

News images showing dead Palestinians have been welcomed by their families and larger communities, as was famously the case for the Muhammad al-Durrah incident in the Gaza Strip during the Second Intifada. In 2000, a freelancing cameraman filmed Jamal al-Durrah and Muhammad, his twelve-year-old son, seen holding onto each other as they crouch for cover behind a concrete cylinder during crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces (figure 13.6). On the video, a burst of gunfire stirs a thick cloud of dust, and when the dust settles, the boy is seen slumped across his father’s legs (figure 13.7). When broadcast first on French television, the voiceover declared that the boy is shown dead. … This video coverage and related still images became a symbol of the Second Intifada, generating intense debate for about two decades, and counting.
…
News images of the boy and his father have been aptly described as acquiring the power of a battle flag. Arab countries issued postage stamps bearing the images, and artists made large murals of it. Much of the Arab and Muslim world has also viewed the picture as a symbol of martyrdom, and it inspired thousands to participate in online voting campaigns attempting to procure enough votes for the image to win a best picture of the year award.

Some seek to sequester all death as a private affair. To them, the postmortem picture seems to violate something universally sacred. They argue that privacy for the deceased is “primary,” even when responding to accounts of parents, community members, and activists who feel otherwise.37 Belittling the perspective of those intimately involved who want the public to see the loss of their loved ones, a critic warns, “Few seem to understand how [the dead’s] privacy is elementally important, more so than social change, political or ideological goal seeking.”38

Although they are popular, there are considerable problems with proclamations like this. In particular, it is inaccurate to claim that privacy is “elementally important,” given that this is a matter of personal and cultural preference. Relatedly, there is no consensus. Yet, a professor interested in the ethics of photojournalism recently crusaded against the publication of a postmortem photograph by similarly claiming that anything but a private death “undermines the integrity of the human being,” as if there is some universal imperative at stake.39 He concluded that the postmortem image is unethical because it does not, in his opinion, honor the “the dignity of the individual.”

These commentators demand privacy for the dead as if it is a one-size-fits-all ethical imperative, but there is nothing inherently unethical about death rituals that favor public participation. The ideal practices have varied tremendously over time, and today they continue to. In a relatively recent news image that has been accused of violating privacy, a public procession is shown following the Palestinian men who carry the bodies of young boys (figure 13.8). A rigid insistence on a private death would have to ignore the reality of a crowd gathering in the streets.
…
In addition, the absence of a picture can be upsetting to the family. As discussed above, there are many occasions when kin desperately want the world to see what they have lost. This was the case, for example, when Haitians pleaded with photojournalists to take pictures documenting earthquake victims. If the news media are obligated to avoid causing distress, sometimes they would be compelled to publish additional pictures documenting the dead.

Discendo Vox posted:

Why do you need a bad thing to happen again before you prevent the bad thing from happening?

TheDisreputableDog posted:

I had a great conversation with Inferior Third Season awhile back where they explained from their point of view, some posts are 51% probe-worthy, and others are 49%. It’s essentially a coin flip. I appreciate their explanation, and I’m not saying they’re being intentionally disingenuous, but after the eighth or ninth consecutive lost coin flip, you have to consider that perhaps being the only nominal conservative here is the deciding factor.

Mid-Life Crisis posted:

D&D today is like reading about ‘settled science’ during peak COVID. Not sure if I ever saw a bit of ‘settled science’ that didn’t get blown apart under scrutiny later, at least in scope of how it was discussed in the press, by the feds, or online (and not by the actual scientists themselves who would have been careful not to talk about the work in such ways). Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith.

Main Paineframe posted:

ban anyone who posts a twitter

World Famous W posted:

Gumball Gumption posted:

Sorry, if dumb Twitter links that are hastily sent to you in a panic are how the leaders of the free world operate so it should be how D&D operates. Matt Yglesias is a thought leader in Washington DC and we shouldn't build a safe zone where we can just avoid that fact.

World Famous W posted:

im always sincere, but ill drop the jokes for this. several of the us politic threads have people that have been posting together for years. we are all human and will build and keep grudges. hell, ive got plenty of grudges from 2020 and posters about reade. now, ive mostly been civil to them, but it's there. just don't think you're going to get what you want here at all

edit: we are all human, not we all ate humans

Kalit posted:

This

I don't think I've ever heard Yglesias being referred to as a "thought leader". TBH, I've never even taken him as a serious political analyst/journalist/whatever he is.

Bar Ran Dun posted:

Most of the actual old drama has died down as well. Some people now post in CSPAM and some still post in D&D and generally each group stays there. There seems to be only a relatively small number of folks that regularly post in both.

Discendo Vox posted:

No. If the "old drama has died down", it's because the trolls have more control; the people who were the most beneficial participants have been driven off of DnD or SA overall. The subforum continues to be harvested and targeted by trolls, actively facilitated by the current pattern of rationalizing not enforcing the rules. This thread is a great example, like its multiple predecessors; users who participate in the forum give feedback; it is either ignored or new actions are actively refused. Trolls poo poo the place up, and it serves to entertain them.