|
Jakabite posted:One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen. It's because D&D operates off of a very middle-class definition of rudeness. Calmly and icily arguing for the deaths of millions of people with a thesaurus in hand and a self-satisfied tone is not rude, it's intellectual drawing room conversation. Getting angry at or, worse, passing moral judgment on someone else in the room, is rude. But... this is also exactly what you guys wanted?? D&D demanded a place where 'rudeness' was banned so arguments exactly like that could be made without social disapproval: supporting a rapist for president, putting kids in cages (if the president has a blue tie and not a red tie), defending drone strikes, letting covid rip under a Democrat even if it kills more people than died under Trump, etc. Did you guys really think it would be different on a topic where you disagree with the political establishment? Not killing thousands of innocent civilians is a fringe position in the media and political class of the US, of course the mainstream view is going to be favored. ("You" isn't addressed to you personally, just the generic you) Jaxyon posted:
Case in point, this thread, people who also post in CSPAM are accused of "farming" for quotes, it's just assumed that no one can sincerely disagree with the slight-left-of-center bent of the forum, and anyone that seems to must be pulling some kind of trick on people. So idk maybe they guy is posting conservative opinions and declining to defend them as a bad faith troll to make people mad, but hard to tell since defending unpopular opinions will get you punished so perhaps his opinions are sincere and he just doesn't want to be on probation all the time.
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
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. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
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. What about supporting it, defending it, explaining how it was necessary or that they were willing human shields who deserved it. I agree with you that I don't want to see pictures of dead kids in the I/P thread, but even more I don't want to see people defending killing kids because that's worse, and yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probe But it was very calm soooo
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
The rules are written to prevent shaming anyone out of a thread for any opinion no matter how terrible, they just appear to have not been enforced this time. Generally shaming someone is a gamble, if you just respond "shut the gently caress up" to someone you get punished. You're "supposed" to report it and move on so mods can take care of it, according to the rules anyway. Koos Group posted:As a reminder, even when engaging with fraught topics or arguments that seem self-evidently wrong, rules of rigor and good argumentation still apply. This was in response to people reacting to someone posting pseudoscientific claims that African Americans have an unfair advantage in sports because they are descended from slaves. 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. So... which is it. Do mods handle stuff like "I like Hitler" or are the rules against incivility arbitrarily suspended and posters are expected to handle it with public shaming.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Skimming their post history they do not seem to be a Nazi (I realize I am risking savage mockery if my skimming was too brief and I missed a bunch of Nazi posts), and it was just a *very* tasteless joke, so maybe they dont need to be punished like an actual Nazi, but looking at what other people have gotten for much less, it should probably be more than a day to joke that doing the Holocaust was a good idea. I am curious why all the people responding in ways that also broke the rules weren't punished though, when people were warned before to be civil to a guy spouting actual Nazi race science or get punished themselves. Are the rules about civility, rigorous argument, and decorum in effect at all times, or nor? Is there an exception to them if someone posts a really bad position? Note that I would be fine with the latter I'd just like to know since we're always told it's zero tolerance on civility no matter what we're responding to. E: ah OK just saw that it was in a thread with its own rules about civility. E2: wait the England thread is the one where you're not expected to be polite??? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D I tend to agree most of the time and I think this forum goes too far in enforcing a band of acceptable political opinion and treating positions outside of it as inherently suspucious, but there's a balance you have to strike as well. This isn't just a regional debate competition between strangers, it's also a community, and people post here because they get something out if it, entertainment or education or whatever. If it becomes unpleasant, they leave, and most Jewish people i know do not think it is fun or entertaining to debate whether they are a scheming parasitic degenerate race who should all be murdered. If they come to a place and are told that, they will probably leave and not come back, no matter how well-sourced the claims that they should be gassed to death are nor how "well-intentioned" the interlocutors. So then it becomes a question of who we would rather hang out with: our Jewish friends, our LGBTQ friends, our black friends, etc. Or offputting debate-me-bros who enjoy discussing whether the Holocaust was a good idea that didn't go far enough. I also don't agree that the only way, or even a good way, to learn is to stake out an extreme position in total ignorance in hopes that people will yell at you in a didactic enough manner to teach you. In my experience that tends to impede learning, because once you stake out a position you can easily become emotionally invested in defending it in order to avoid 'losing',: searching for sources that confirm your position, discounting rebuttals, and so on. Learning can also happen by posing questions and collaborating in discussion without making it into an adversarial contest. If I was introduced to an epidemiologist, and I wanted to learn about epidemiology, I would ask them questions. I would not 'learn' by adopting the contrarian position that germ theory is wrong and start citing sources that all disease comes from an imbalance between the four bodily humours, because the other person is much more likely to just write me off as a waste of time than spend their day trying to disprove pseudoscience to me to my satisfaction. E: also, what Koos said about Mid-Life Crisis' post not actually being a response to anything anyone else actually argued, since the Hitler post was a shitpost and not a serious argument with a proper bibliography. Just explaining why I would disagree with hosting pro-Holocaust arguments even if they were formatted like a research paper. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
I was under the impression that Freedom of Movement to and from the UK has ended, they should have to get a visa to post anywhere else E: unless they come here through the Irish thread of course
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
So the problem with joking that the Holocaust was a good idea is the "joking" part? If they had instead put it forth as a serious thesis with supporting arguments backed by citations to historical writings on the Jewish Question, would that fly in the name of not stifling debate? And if so, why was the "mods enjoy eating their own feces" thread closed, that is certainly a position which is open to falsification and therefore possible for reasonable people to debate, yet you seemed to have no trouble determining what is right or wrong to argue there
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:If it had occurred in UKMT, I don't know, but in D&D proper, yes. Seeing Nazi or antisemitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informative, particularly with the outbreak of this ideology in the past decade, as it would help people not only recognize them but argue against them elsewhere. Seeing Nazi or anti-semitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informer yes, and that goal could be accomplished by a thread with a historical or philosophical survey of those arguments without anyone actually taking the Nazi position and arguing for murdering millions of people. What is the additional benefit of allowing actual Nazis to advocate Nazi positions, is there any? Koos Group posted:That thread was closed because it was done in bad faith. The user did not believe mods eat feces, or that productive discussion could be had on the matter. Its intent was only to demonstrate hypocrisy regarding D&D moderation. Well since I have seen no evidence either way, I am still undecided on the matter, and seeing the arguments and refutations of possible mod coprophagia could be quite informative.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:That is exactly the point. Having absurd, unsupportable positions means that, at least ideally, when these positions are refuted, they will be forced to either give up or resort to dishonest tactics to continue the argument, and the dishonest tactics are what is moderated. That is how one hopes truth and goodness comes to the fore in a debate. If you know this in advance why not just apply the rule now instead of making everyone go through a kabuki of debating racists and homophobes etc until they finally break a decorum rule. Why not just include Nazism in the unpublished list of 'stale' arguments that get probed on sight without the poster cordially receiving rope for a few days until they 'fail to address replies' or 'cite an unreliable source'? It's a 100 year old ideology, and antisemitism is millenia old, what is the freshness date on antisemitism? E: Koos Group posted:It's the same as the benefit of having any position argued by its actual adherents rather than only summarized or analyzed by others. Getting it straight from the horse's mouth means it is more likely to be similar to what you'll encounter in the real world, and you can see what sort of things they might say in response to criticisms. If you want to learn what Libertarians actually believe you're way better off reading books by actual libertarian thinkers than by reading former SA libertarian jrodefeld's much poorer quality arguments sourced from mises.org VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
There also seems to be an inherent tension between "you can learn about Nazi arguments by debating them" and "Nazi arguments will inevitably break other D&D rules around good faith and will get punished" If they're in bad faith anyway, what do you learn from debating them (unless you didn't already know that). If you do learn something valuable anyway from bad faith arguments, then why aren't they allowed as teachable moments.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 21:16
|
|