|
Koos Group posted:
I think it's mostly worked well. I think the sports fairness thread highlights the type of edge case where that policy breaks down. There are simply cases where providing a level playing field grants legitimacy to a position that is not warranted and harms others. tl;dr pretty good all around, but the paradox of tolerance is a thing. Don't be Joe Rogan.
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:Or more pertinently, see why exactly that's wrong, but yes. As you've seen in this thread, we're still trying to iron out what if any exceptions there should be to the rule of not moderating positions, and whether the good faith rules and interesting discussion rules might be expanded to pick up problematic cases instead. This is because there are, it seems, potential downsides to any approach. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So actually reading the rule around bigotry Never take the bigot's side, even tacitly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I have not accused anyone in this thread of acting in bad faith, and I believe the individuals who've said they're upset are upset. I also don't believe my rule set has had any terrible outcomes thus far. I think a good measure of a lot of the frustration you see on trans related issues is because you don't think there have been terrible outcomes. It comes across rather "What are you so angry about, the other half of your family lived!"-ish. I think your rule set works well for debates and the general disagreements people get into in threads. That it fails on existential questions related to minority groups should be an additional sign that such things should not be welcome in the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This actually seems like a really good solution. It's got my vote That would be great for a specific thread. As a standard for the entire sub forum it sucks to have the community grant even that amount of legitimacy to such beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:The thread was intended to be closed at the end of Sunday regardless, Sharkie has already had ample posting in it and was no longer doing so when I probed her, and I'm giving everyone warning. I also never ignore PMs. Well, across the forum, on the whole, good job. It looks like you have some blind spots. You should take on someone who can watch them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 04:17
|
|