Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: deathspeed on December 04, 2014, 10:04:03 pm
-
I think this guy nails it: "To make matters worse, a new cultural definition of 'tolerance' has emerged. Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic. Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims. According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted." - J. Warner Wallace
I've seen this in action on these boards as well as in real life. If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay). If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion). If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican).
Attitudes like that have a chilling effect on discussion. I generally don't share my opinions on facebook or join in interesting forum discussions because I don't' feel like being labeled as narrow-minded or attacked personally when I am merely expressing an opinion, seeking information, or providing information. It's not a matter of thin skin; my work has calloused me so strangers attacking me don't bother me personally, but I don't want to get sucked in and sink to their level.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
-
I think this guy nails it: "To make matters worse, a new cultural definition of 'tolerance' has emerged. Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic. Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims. According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow-minded and bigoted." - J. Warner Wallace
I've seen this in action on these boards as well as in real life. If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay). If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion). If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican).
Attitudes like that have a chilling effect on discussion. I generally don't share my opinions on facebook or join in interesting forum discussions because I don't' feel like being labeled as narrow-minded or attacked personally when I am merely expressing an opinion, seeking information, or providing information. It's not a matter of thin skin; my work has calloused me so strangers attacking me don't bother me personally, but I don't want to get sucked in and sink to their level.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
You no doubt consider me a prime offender, so let me give you my side of the story:
It is hard to be tolerant of opinions that fuel and justify actions that harm others; to use William O. Douglas's term, beliefs can be "brigaded with action," and in doing so forfeit their acceptance. Notice the word I used, "acceptance", and not "protection." That will be telling later.
There is a constant battle liberals fight between our civil libertarian impulses (which mostly agree with your sentiments), and our understanding that surest (and ultimately only) way to fight injustice is to target the beliefs that produce it.
Here's what really needs to be emphasized, since a lot of people in our generation don't seem to understand it now (for which I partly blame the culture of the internet): arguing that we as a society should not tolerate certain intolerant beliefs is not censorship. The whole purpose of the principle that governments should be forbidden, by banning the legal censoring of speech and opinion, from deciding what is acceptable and is not acceptable is so that decision is left to us. We have always had the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable as a community. To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you. Should we have a damn good reason for doing so? You bet, but we have every right to do it. Every human society that has ever existed has had some rules that everyone is expected to follow, either inside or outside the law; the question is what those rules should be. And at some point, we have a right to invoke the Harm Principle to justify (non-legal) sanctions against certain activities.
Unless, of course, you're actually engaging in harassment, bullying, threats or other "speech" that quite clearly meets the LEGAL standard of speech that has been "brigaded with action," at which point the law can come down on your ass. But I don't think we're talking about that, so much as those who express opinions that might try to excuse and justify such behavior.
We were never calling for censorship, ever. This was never about that. It's always been about CONVINCING enough people to take a stand against beliefs that contribute to harm, to shun them for doing so. We don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. We can do things that laws can't.
And if someone is yelling at you about something that doesn't deserve that kind of fire, or if they can't or won't explain to you why something you said crossed the line, they need to calm the **** down. You save that **** for something that really deserves it, and the responsibility not to abuse our power is on us.
-
There's lots of debates where people go at each others' throats for ****ty reasons, like some policy debates you gave an example of. You need to give the benefit of the doubt to civility, searching for common ground, or at least just being able to talk to each other like calm, rational adults. But sometimes what you call a chilling effect is unavoidable and necessary, for the reasons I gave above. Those times are a tiny minority. Openness and acceptance of others' opinions should always the default rule.
-
To silence a dissenting voice is to admit defeat. It is to say "I cannot provide a better option". You become censor, burner of books. It may not be your goal but it is what you become, If you are not going to go down that road you must accept that some people are going to say things that seriously piss you off, and they are going to convince some people that they are right and you are wrong, and you must defend their right to do so. You must fight to the death against what they say, but defend to the death their right to say it. and not try to gain gate keeper roles in communities so you can technically-not-be-censoring-because-you-are-not-the-government. Even when what they say is "problematic".
Any time you find an excuse to silence people all you are doing is inventing a new way to burn books. You can claim that such and such speech/opinion cause such and such action, and that speech just so happens to be any criticism of your ideals, and then very conveniently you can dehumanize and ignore your opposition and then ban them from all public discourse where you have managed to gain power, Further enhancing your own power. You can crush those repressive words but this is not progress, this is fiat of an authority and will only breed further restrictions on liberties and rights and expression. In your zeal to end oppression you become oppressive. You can only have growth and progress in an environment of free and open discourse, a place where any idea can be presented and criticized, a free marketplace of ideas, not a hug box. You have a right to be offended, but no right not to be.
-
To silence a dissenting voice is to admit defeat. It is to say "I cannot provide a better option". You become censor, burner of books. It may not be your goal but it is what you become, If you are not going to go down that road you must accept that some people are going to say things that seriously piss you off, and they are going to convince some people that they are right and you are wrong, and you must defend their right to do so. You must fight to the death against what they say, but defend to the death their right to say it. and not try to gain gate keeper roles in communities so you can technically-not-be-censoring-because-you-are-not-the-government. Even when what they say is "problematic".
Any time you find an excuse to silence people all you are doing is inventing a new way to burn books. You can claim that such and such speech/opinion cause such and such action, and that speech just so happens to be any criticism of your ideals, and then very conveniently you can dehumanize and ignore your opposition and then ban them from all public discourse where you have managed to gain power, Further enhancing your own power. You can crush those repressive words but this is not progress, this is fiat of an authority and will only breed further restrictions on liberties and rights and expression. In your zeal to end oppression you become oppressive. You can only have growth and progress in an environment of free and open discourse, a place where any idea can be presented and criticized, a free marketplace of ideas, not a hug box. You have a right to be offended, but no right not to be.
Lol, this always comes down to those who believe in democracy vs libertarians who fear the "tyranny of the majority". It's not tyranny. I wield no authority whatsoever. I can only persuade. Shunning is a product of the individual actions of many, not something done by "command." You may not realize you're doing it, but your "authority" is often a slur for what is really earned consensus.
And the fact is that we all practice what you call censorship as part of normal thought and discussion. We eject ideas that haven't earned their place at the table. We don't let them back in because they have a "right" to be accepted equally. The stuff I am talking about is just at the more extreme end of this process.
-
I'm not talking about tyranny of the majority, or even group think, I'm talking about what happens when you 'persuade' someone with actual power (or gain actual power yourself) to start banning people, or shutting down toics. I'm not talking about ignoring someone, I'm talking about killing their digital presence.
-
I'm not talking about tyranny of the majority, or even group think, I'm talking about what happens when you 'persuade' someone with actual power (or gain actual power yourself) to start banning people, or shutting down toics. I'm not talking about ignoring someone, I'm talking about killing their digital presence.
An openly anti-Semitic thread here would get shut down pretty quick. Are you telling me we can't do that? We totally can. It's our (well, the admins) right, cause it's our forum. It's our community. We get to make the decisions.
-
If you can't convince someone that merely being poor or having dark skin does not certainly mean that one is lazy, for example than continuing a discussion with that person about societal problems becomes pointless. He has proven himself incapable of engaging in discussion about poverty or race until such a time as his opinions become more nuanced. Until that time his opinions on those topics are wrong or if not wrong then right by accident. Why would anyone "embrace" his ideas as being equally valid and true? They are obviously not.
No, tolerance is accepting where someone is coming from. It is not accepting whatever drivel they come up with as equally valuable. You can try to find common ground, you can try to present the best view of reality you have available, you can accept another possible representation of reality as potentially being true.
But if someone tries to tell you that White Supremacy website advocating the hanging of "smug blacks" is only talking about "the bad ones" through the word-smith magic of "explicit exclusion," you're probably better off telling them to shut the **** up.
-
you're probably better off telling them to shut the **** up.
Which is not censorship! Anyone who says it is is entitled, and thinks their ideas are entitled to time and space they failed to earn. The shunning I'm talking about is lots of people telling the guy to shut the **** up. A multitude of individual actions combining into what is accused of being censorship.
-
The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact. For example, gay people are not going to in any way harm you, your rights, or your country. That is entirely indisputable, and in such cases this definition of tolerance is the one that should apply.
Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true
On the other hand you have points that are debatable such as gun control or immigration, which have clear pros and cons to both sides and many different ways to view the issue, which can and will affect you, your rights, and your country. In this case, this definition of tolerance is the one that should be applied. Tolerance used to be the attitude that we took toward one another when we disagreed about an important issue; we would agree to treat each other with respect, even though we refused to embrace each other's view on a particular topic.
-
I especially love it when the phenomena that the OP exposes goes against me and my words get twisted and exaggerated into a zone of utter abhorrency (what a monster!), I get ****ing mad, I say something like "****ing hell do I love being misread", bail out of the thread before I get even more mad, and what's the end result? I get a warning for being "sarcastic". Jesus ****ing hell. Apparently even sarcasm is out of line nowadays, even when fully warranted.
And the **** continues even on this very thread. The droning brainwashed ideological bull**** just goes on like a ****ty cassete here. "Are you saying we should accept blatant racism here?" Yeah, that was totally what the OP was talking about. Why don't we allow the KKK throwing their propaganda here? Or what about hatred of gays? Clearly this board is filled with gay haters. They just hate them, dontcha know? It's not like they just have a different opinion on how society should be formalized and codified. No, it's hatred. "No, here you are being ignorant Luis, "hatred" doesn't just mean "hatred", it also means problematic ideas blah blah blah..." aaah jesus f christ, I have enough of this semantical sophistry that has polluted the internet.
And don't get me started on "Well if this guy has a different opinion that must mean he has proven himself incapable of having a reasonable discussion of the subject matter". Don't you ****ing read what you are writing? Do you think a "reasonable" person would EVER write such a totalitarian ****fest for a sentence? Here, here's a hint: if you don't want to discuss **** because you don't like the idea of discussing a particular ****, THEN DON'T. Leave the discussion to those that want to. I had enough of that discussion on Ferguson, not because I have a marginal radical opinion of it (matter of fact, I quite agree with (moderately) the leftist interpretation of what is going on in America, but that's besides the point!), but because any tangent that seems to go to an unapproved terrain that the high priests of morality in this board will immediately be branded as "HATRED OF X", and you can already feel the tension rising and rising and of course if anyone misreads what you say into a simpletonic one liner, then you are guilty of taking people to uncomfortable terrains and rising tensions and whatnots.
Well if forums are hereby declared to not be places of discussion and dissent but rather echo ****ing chambers for the righteous elitists in here, count me the **** out. I'm out. BYE.
-
He has proven himself incapable of engaging in discussion about poverty or race until such a time as his opinions become more nuanced. . .
You can try to find common ground, you can try to present the best view of reality you have available, you can accept another possible representation of reality as potentially being true.
Do you think a "reasonable" person would EVER write such a totalitarian ****fest for a sentence?
I think either you're not understanding what I wrote, or I'm having trouble understanding your reaction to it. The example was chosen because its something that nearly everyone on this forum would roughly agree with. I wanted to point out that tolerance does, and should have limitations.
-
But that was not the point the OP was making. That is like someone saying "Hey look we got a tolerance problem here, there's really little of it", and then someone else shows up and says "Are you saying we should tolerate the KKK?"
The OP raised the issue that certain discussions are being the target of a chill effect due to this excessive moralization of certain opinions into HATRED OF X, and then you come up and say "Well, I think we should keep racists out".
This is the kind of level these discussions are at the moment. ****ty level. Rock bottom level.
-
Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims.
Was the claim made. Debates and discussions should be about what is real and what is not real. What was required was examples of this being a potentially very bad outlook on what tolerance ought to be.
And if you think that this is so "****ty" then I doubt anything I'd have to say would make you feel better about it.
-
We made it quite clear what constituted grounds for shutting out a conversation, detailed reasons as to why, and an acknowledgement that this scenario should be quite rare, and that outside this scenario we were in agreement with OP. But don't let that stop you from going supernova.
You would instantly embrace our logic if someone demanded equal time for creationism and science in a scientific debate.
-
See what I mean? Who spoke anything about "equal time" and what in the god's name does that have to do with forum activities? "Time"? The ****? And who am I to deny people from speaking their ignorant minds about creotardation? Do you think I have the mentality of a censor? No, I wouldn't instantly do any **** like that, stop pretending you know me. You are also under the false impression that my anger right now is against the rules of the board.
And Mars, please reread what deathspeed quoted again and again until you finally understand his point. No, you didn't understand even the direction of that quotation, let alone its meaning.
-
And who am I to deny people from speaking their ignorant minds about creotardation? Do you think I have the mentality of a censor? No, I wouldn't instantly do any **** like that, stop pretending you know me. You are also under the false impression that my anger right now is against the rules of the board.
It would really help your accusations that I misrepresent others positions if you would stop doing that exact same thing. I do not intend to ever again have a discussion about your "anger". And I can't accuse you of having the mentality of a censor when I just went to great lengths to explain why we were NOT dealing with censorship.
The quotation itself was fine, I question how he applied it to our situation. He tried to imply that any disagreement on a couple of points would provoke accusations of having a whole series of objectionable beliefs not being immediately commented upon (I don't think I need to elaborate what those would be, on either side, in the context of our previous discussions). My point was that it's is 100% ok to come down on certain opinions, not because they are "offensive", but because they actively cover and promote harm to others. I have no right to make an accusation against someone's character simply because they stated such an opinion, unless that opinion is part of a pattern that makes clear the underlying prejudices, but I do have a right to attack the opinion itself. I'm sorry if you find that idea ****ty.
-
So "shutting out a conversation" is now something totally different from "censorship"? Since when may I ask?
And there you go accusing **** that didn't happen. The OP never said that there would be a provocation and direct accusations of having "obejctionable beliefs". He said something quite more subtle and sensitive. He said that there was a chilling effec to all this nauseating moralization of every single discussion. Oh look we are discussing X, we could discuss some really ambiguous and curious things in here, but no, there comes the moral police squad with probing questions to ensure you are not a racist douchebag. And it's that kind of attitude precisely that has the chilling effect.
And you totally make your game clear here. You blatantly argue for bullying people into submissively accept your superegotistical opinions on what is to be argued, what isn't, etc. Your praxis also makes it very clear. The problem with all of this is that reality is a hundred times more nuanced and paradoxical than the simpletonic ideological prejudices that one holds when we are in our twenties and arrogantly think we have sussed the world out, but nevertheless one uses their own arrogance to clamp down on others based on our simplified and codified worldview of what is right™ and wrong™ according to our egos. For this kind of activity, forums are not a place where one meets other diverse thoughts, learns to appreciate other worldviews, learns to tolerate people despite ideological differences. No, for this kind of internet persona, the internet world is to be conquered and submitted to our worldview. Anyone who deviates will be exposed and shamed. What did you say sir about blacks? Hmmm. Just making sure, ok, you can move along. Wait what, what was that regarding games and gays? Oh you meant "days"? Ahah, I'm sorry, move along you are all right.
As if your moral approval is important.
-
Slayer's Quick Guide to Tolerance
Things that you need to accept/tolerate are the parts of individuals or groups that they have no control over. So items like gender, ethnicity, sexual preference get a free pass. The parts of individuals or groups they have a choice in such as actions, ideals, etc. are free game for disagreement as far as I am concerned. That said it is always beneficial to understand the reasoning/motivations behind the choices both because they can open the door for compromise and a more precision based method for countering their position when necessary.
-
At this point I will just say I think Deathspeed is 100% right in that this forum has a huge tolerance problem. I personally think it's HLP's greatest issue.
-
This is not an anything goes forum, it never was and it never will be (that's what Reddit is for), and that does not make us totalitarians or religious zealots. It means we have this idea of reasonable standards. I can't order you to do anything. We don't have to do anything. What should we do is what interests me.
Let's pretend he kept this paragraph going and talked about actual stuff on HLP (note: I DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT GG AGAIN, and I doubt any of you do either):
If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay). If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion). If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican).
If a person does not think that GamerGate is nothing but a hatemob, he is a rabid misogynist. If a person finds GG repulsive in its entirety, he is turning a blind eye to the DIGRA conspiracy. That sure sounds like
any disagreement on a couple of points would provoke accusations of having a whole series of objectionable beliefs not being immediately commented upon (I don't think I need to elaborate what those would be, on either side, in the context of our previous discussions).
Deathspeed, I am NOT trying to rip you apart. Your position is largely correct, regardless it is certainly worth taking seriously. All I wanted to do was to establish the exact situation in which I would disagree with it and why. Apparently I am spending too much time justifying why it's acceptable to act a certain way in an extreme situation rather than making it clear that I think it should be invoked extremely rarely.
If y'all want to go away from picking apart the finer points of my position to what he specifically is concerned about, I'm all for that.
-
If a person does not think that GamerGate is nothing but a hatemob, he is a rabid misogynist. If a person finds GG repulsive in its entirety, he agrees with radfems on all points.
These are not logically symmetrical statements. The first statement is a cry of desperation on the lack of nuance over a perticular discussion, painting everything in black and white terms, the second is a statement on how a radical statement does not imply a different statement. The ironic point is that no one has ever stated that last one. No. One. Ever. So why would I ****ing care about what...
That sure sounds like
?
Deathspeed, I am NOT trying to rip you apart. Your position is largely correct, regardless it is certainly worth taking seriously. All I wanted to do was to establish the exact situation in which I would disagree with it and why. Apparently I am spending too much time justifying why it's acceptable to act a certain way in an extreme situation rather than making it clear that I think it should be invoked extremely rarely.
This focusing on the "clamping down" over certain subject material rather than actually reading deathspeed's point over the much more silent and chilling effect of the current moralizations of every single damned discussion around here sparks some neurons in my brain that are goading me to say that you really didn't understand deathspeed's point, despite you saying you agree with it. Perhaps you did and merely decided to rant in a tangent. Who knows.
-
Well... the often asked question is whether intolerance should be tolerated. But that's a complex question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question) because the matter is of course not black and white.
The right question to ask is how much intolerance should be accepted.
Typically the solution is to accept weird and different opinions, as long as they do not negatively affect other peoples' lives. But this basic idea of tolerance and acceptance hits its limits, when someone starts to limit other peoples' rights and liberties based on their beliefs.
As such, there is, and must be, a limit to how much intolerance should be tolerated or accepted. Unlimited tolerance of intolerance will just lead to the destruction of the tolerant society. That is why modern, democratic societies have certain limits to personal liberties when it comes to, for example, freedom of expression. Hate speech legislation is probably the best example. But there is a difference between, for example, cultural criticism and incitement to racial violence (which is the original definition of hate speech).
Unfortunately it's very common for the former to be labeled as the latter, and then the topic typically turns into a mudslinging metadiscussion and the attention is turned away from the original issue.
Internet fora are in some ways similar to societies, and in some ways different. A similarity would be that in order to preserve order and (relatively) nice atmosphere on a forum, it is necessary to limit the participants' freedom of expression. But a forum is different from a modern democratic society in the sense that most of them are not fundamentally democratic. There are no elections, and the hierarchy of moderation is typically based on the forum's history and a limited degree of meritocracy. Some fora are more like dictatorships, some are more communally driven, but it is very rare for a forum to actually have any democratic process going on under the hood.
As such, the limitations to the freedom of expression are not subject to public opinion or democratic legislation process. They are more arbitrary and fluid, which in my opinion is actually necessary so that moderators and admins can judge on a case-by-case basis as required. It's not just a simple matter of "crossing a line" - it's also about how the particular participants of that discussion react in that situation.
Sometimes it's necessary to close a thread when the discussion gets too animated, hostile or personal, even if the content itself doesn't offend any particular guidelines.
When it comes to HLP in particular and a "tolerance problem", I'm not quite convinced that has anything to do with actual issues with tolerance or acceptance of differing opinions, but rather the empirical evidence that when certain arguments are introduced into a discussion, it's only a matter of time until the thread erupts into a maelstrom of ****posting...
-
The right question to ask is how much intolerance should be accepted.
There we have it. Not rocket science.
-
Slayer's Quick Guide to Tolerance
Things that you need to accept/tolerate are the parts of individuals or groups that they have no control over. So items like gender, ethnicity, sexual preference get a free pass. The parts of individuals or groups they have a choice in such as actions, ideals, etc. are free game for disagreement as far as I am concerned. That said it is always beneficial to understand the reasoning/motivations behind the choices both because they can open the door for compromise and a more precision based method for countering their position when necessary.
Hey cool, somebody else who actually agrees with me instead of moaning about censorship while missing the point of the thread!
-
The right question to ask is how much intolerance should be accepted.
There we have it. Not rocket science.
One would imagine otherwise, given the shenanigans both here and at the internet at large. Either way, I'm done here.
-
On tolerance and forums.
In public, we are obligated to tolerate all people's beliefs and actions that do not actively cause tangible harm to others. That's what freedom of speech and freedom of association mean. Tolerate means "not actively attempt to suppress by use of force or threats." It doesn't mean that you're free from social consequences of actions. You have the right, in public, to think gays are nasty, mean, smelly, sinful, wrong, whatever. I have the right to call you an asshole for it. So long as neither one of us attacks the other, or tries to get them thrown in jail, or sues because our delicately flowery feelings got hurt, that means our free society is functioning well.
Now, this does not mean people have to engage in debate, contractual arrangements, or even acknowledge your views. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance, it means that you get to exist and hold those views. If you get fired for it, that's a social consequence of your speech. Contractual arrangements are voluntary. If you get shunned and ostracized for it, that's another social consequence. Neither impede your freedom of speech or association.
Now, where tolerance ends is at my private door. If you come into my living room spouting off views that I disagree with, I'm obligated to tolerate your existence in public and your speech in public. In my living room, it's MY rules. I have the right to ask you to leave, and if you decline, I have the right to pick you up and hurl you out. Forums, Facebook, Twitter, websites, blogs, etc - these are private spaces. You don't have a right to free speech on them, and you don't have a right to be tolerated on them. Each administrator is allowed to set their own rules. On a skinhead site, that might mean no saying nice things about blacks. On HLP, that means living by the community guidelines.
So no - on a forum, any forum, you don't have a right to even be tolerated. You have a right to participate so long as you do so within the rules of the site. On HLP, that means you stand a good chance of experiencing social consequences of speech for certain ideas, and a very good chance of being thrown out if those ideas run to what this site considers unacceptable extremes. Don't like it? There's the door.
-
Yeah that's what you get when you bring a hammer to an electronic problem. Your comment was both absolutely fair and irrelevant in this thread.
I see some people here are really confused about two different layers of "chilling effects" in forum conversations. One stems from the rules of the board. That discussion is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Absolutely irrelevant. Irrelevant. Should I repeat it again? Irrelevant. This should be obvious, and yet person after person keeps chiming in on what the "rules" are and what the board will find "unnacceptable" and so on. It's absolutely irrelevant what the "board" finds unnaceptable, although I do notice the curiosity of thinking that the board has some kind of "Anima" that is born out of the multiple consciousness of everyone around here. I'm sure the BP crew would approve.
It's absolutely trivial to notice that people will be "subject" to social effects by spewing what their consciousness and reason dictates to the keyboard here. What is not so trivial and is actually the subject of the thread is how precisely certain effects are going well over the top lately in the forums, how a certain kind of attitude is redefining what "tolerance" means, and how this is having a chill effect on discussions at large. This is killing GenDisc, IMHO, which is probably the motive and want of some people here. I don't care that much anymore to be frank. At this point, you might just as well just kill the whole GenDisc, if this is the sort of level of (non)discussion that you want to keep.
-
This is killing GenDisc, IMHO, which is probably the motive and want of some people here.
I confess, this was all about destroying GenDisc. But you'll never get the names of the other conspirators out of me!
burn the evidence burn the evidence burn the evidence
-
This is what we (Luis, me and probably Deathspeed) are talking about. I can't quote from a locked thread.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87750.msg1751913#msg1751913
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87750.msg1751933#msg1751933
-
I call for all liberty-minded posts to impose a chilling effect on chilling effect-imposing posts. Chill out with extreme prejudice.
-
And Mars, please reread what deathspeed quoted again and again until you finally understand his point. No, you didn't understand even the direction of that quotation, let alone its meaning.
Ah, serves me right for trying to multitask. My point - tangentially anyway, still stands. If you want to make a truth claim about something especially something that is potentially harmful to other people, and it is a claim that all the evidence says is incorrect, I don't think a legitimate discussion forum should have any qualms about removing the pulpit for that claim, just as surely as a TV network has the right to remove the pulpit for a personality of theirs who is outed as racist or anti-Semitic.
-
Luis, for someone arguing about the chilling effect of something, you show an absolutely stunning lack of regard for the chilling effect of the hostile responses you've posted on this thread.
There are large number of intelligent, thoughtful, erudite, people on HLP who deliberately avoid Gen Discuss because they are sick of posting something only to have someone come along and shout at them about it.
As far as I'm concerned both issues are a problem when it comes to forum moderation. I'll agree that I've seen lots of evidence that the issue under discussion is bad for the forum. But in this case it's unwarranted hostility that has turned this thread into a ****fest rather than the nuanced discussion you've said you want to see more of.
-
Wow. There are some extremely intelligent people in these forums; sometimes I have trouble determining what they are actually saying! I was tempted to just read and not respond, but I don't' want to be perceived as a drive-by poster who just starts a fire and sits back to watch. ;)
I did not have anyone in particular in mind as a prime offender when I posted that quote, and I did not intend it as an indictment of the HLP forums. Nor was it intended to spur discussion for or against censorship, either by government or by societal or forum rules. My concern is more with society as a whole and increased polarization, and the whole phenomenon that if you aren’t for me you suck as a person. Forums and social media are just a reflection of the bigger world. More and more people seem to be acting like 3-year olds throwing a tantrum when you tell them that Spiderman is not real. When they can neither refute nor accept that position, instead of just accepting that you have a different point of view, they tell you that your clothes are ugly.
My position is that when people come up against a stance held by someone else that they cannot accept, and they cannot convince the person to change the offending viewpoint, more and more often they turn to attacking the character of the one they disagree with rather than accepting that the person will not change their beliefs and just moving on. Of course there are viewpoints that are invalid in fact (“Spiderman is real!”), as well as those that go against my personal beliefs and (hopefully educated) opinions. In either case, I may try explaining my position in a rational and respectful way to persuade them of the error of their ways, but if they choose not to accept that or they turn on me, I choose not to engage with them further. I may not accept their position, but I accept that it is different than mine, even if their position offends me or is provably wrong. The chilling effect comes in when I don’t engage to begin with, because I expect a backlash so I think “why bother?”
The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact. For example, gay people are not going to in any way harm you, your rights, or your country. That is entirely indisputable, and in such cases this definition of tolerance is the one that should apply. Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true
Actually that sort of is the point - factually opposing views are expected to be embraced. You left off the second part of the quote – “even though they often make opposite truth claims.” The point is that even if a view is an actual fact (“gay people are not going to in any way harm you”), embracing all views means it goes both ways. If everyone embraces all views, and you expect the intolerant person to embrace your view, you also must embrace the intolerant view "gays will hurt you", no matter how despicable that view may be to you and regardless that those views make opposite truth claims. Please correct me if I misunderstood or misrepresented what you were saying.
Again not calling out anyone here, but in society as a whole there seems to be a trend of reacting to the messenger rather than responding to the message. I have been guilty of that myself – “Oh, that memo is from Mr. Goodypants; this oughtta be good!” But if a broken watch can be right twice a day, Mr. Goodypants can get something right occasionally too, even if I have never agreed with him in the past. I’ve had to teach myself to pay more attention to the message. I may still have to pay attention to the messenger as well, especially if I suspect there may be a hidden agenda, but the message should be the primary focus.
My point was that it's is 100% ok to come down on certain opinions, not because they are "offensive", but because they actively cover and promote harm to others. I have no right to make an accusation against someone's character simply because they stated such an opinion, unless that opinion is part of a pattern that makes clear the underlying prejudices, but I do have a right to attack the opinion itself.
I do agree with this. Sometimes a person may truly be narrow-minded and bigoted, as shown by repeated patterns, but accusing a person of that simply because they refuse to accept and approve of your position is uncalled for.
Slayer's Quick Guide to Tolerance
Things that you need to accept/tolerate are the parts of individuals or groups that they have no control over. So items like gender, ethnicity, sexual preference get a free pass.
I agree, but those are precisely the parts that trigger accusations of bigotry when you try to discuss them or are even perceived as discussing them when you are not. If I, a white male, say “I hate the looters and opportunists appearing in Ferguson”, someone will accuse me of being racist. I am tempted to counter with “YOU are the racist; I never equated blacks with looters,” but then I am doing the same thing my accuser was doing, so I tend to not say anything at all.
Deathspeed, I am NOT trying to rip you apart. Your position is largely correct, regardless it is certainly worth taking seriously. All I wanted to do was to establish the exact situation in which I would disagree with it and why. Apparently I am spending too much time justifying why it's acceptable to act a certain way in an extreme situation rather than making it clear that I think it should be invoked extremely rarely.
Thank you; I did not take it at all that you were trying to rip me apart.
I really was intending discussion to be more along societal lines than along GenDisc issues, but since several had brought it up, I acknowledge that there have been issues in GenDisc. I have seen responses in other threads that seemed to be more personal attacks, sometimes from people whose posts I have generally admired or at least agreed with, and have searched back through earlier posts trying without success to determine the source of the vilification. It appears that it is somehow perceived as open season on some members. I don’t know if it is based on past behaviors or what; there is probably an interesting study in groupthink and mob behavior just waiting to be done. One HLP member PM’d me some thoughts, rather than post them here. I understand why; I have seen this person (not just views) attacked for posts that seemed benign to me. I don’t always agree with the member (or anyone here for that matter), but I always read what the member has to say. This is exactly the chilling effect I am talking about – this member has some valid and valuable discussion points regarding forum behaviors regarding twisting words, implying motives, and behaviors I just mentioned but did not feel welcome to share those with everyone. My gain, but GenDisc's loss.
I wish I had the energy to respond to everyone who has participated in this discussion; I did not expect it to be on its second page by the time I got home form work!
-
The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact. For example, gay people are not going to in any way harm you, your rights, or your country. That is entirely indisputable, and in such cases this definition of tolerance is the one that should apply. Tolerance is now the act of recognizing AND EMBRACING all views as equally valuable and true
Actually that sort of is the point - factually opposing views are expected to be embraced. You left off the second part of the quote – “even though they often make opposite truth claims.” The point is that even if a view is an actual fact (“gay people are not going to in any way harm you”), embracing all views means it goes both ways. If everyone embraces all views, and you expect the intolerant person to embrace your view, you also must embrace the intolerant view "gays will hurt you", no matter how despicable that view may be to you and regardless that those views make opposite truth claims. Please correct me if I misunderstood or misrepresented what you were saying.
I guess I really didn't read too much into that definition of tolerance, yeah that's not what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is that as Starslayer said, things people have no control over get a free pass. If you're not tolerant of somebody's sexual orientation or gender or nationality and so on and so forth, take a hike. Anything that people can CHOOSE however such as the issues of gun control, immigration, or foreign policy is entirely on the table for debate, and in those cases tolerance = respect despite opposing views. You get me?
Edit: I also accidentally hit the kick ass button on your post, whatever that does. :nervous:
-
The Kick Ass button merely starts a little forum game similar to asteroids.
The idea is to release stress you're if you're pissed off with someone rather than inflicting it on the rest of us. :)
-
Ah, neat. Can I stop being waffles now by the way Kara?
-
Luis, for someone arguing about the chilling effect of something, you show an absolutely stunning lack of regard for the chilling effect of the hostile responses you've posted on this thread.
There are large number of intelligent, thoughtful, erudite, people on HLP who deliberately avoid Gen Discuss because they are sick of posting something only to have someone come along and shout at them about it.
As far as I'm concerned both issues are a problem when it comes to forum moderation. I'll agree that I've seen lots of evidence that the issue under discussion is bad for the forum. But in this case it's unwarranted hostility that has turned this thread into a ****fest rather than the nuanced discussion you've said you want to see more of.
Don't worry, I'll be a lot less of a hurdle on these "intelligent thoughtful erudite" elite in GenDisc going forward, I won't dare pest them with my obviously stupid misguided anger. I'll eat cake instead.
-
Forums and social media are just a reflection of the bigger world. More and more people seem to be acting like 3-year olds throwing a tantrum when you tell them that Spiderman is not real. When they can neither refute nor accept that position, instead of just accepting that you have a different point of view, they tell you that your clothes are ugly.
Two thoughts on this:
1. It is generally desirable to deconstruct the argument, not the person. In general, words I try to live by. Personal attacks don't make your point This is true of almost all arguments, but it has one key flaw: it assumes a rational opponent and rational participation.
2. As a result of (1), there are rare instances where some views are so outlandish, so offensive to individuals, so deeply held, and so factually incorrect that there is no option of rational deconstruction, but the character of your opponent becomes relevant. I have had the misfortune of engaging with a creep on Twitter some time ago who, no matter the argument, persisted in doing nothing but repeating that gays were less than human, sinful, and deserved no protections. In much more offensive language I might add. After several attempts at rational discussion, it became obvious that said person wasn't interested in rational discussion, at which point I bluntly pointed out that he was a bigoted hypocrite not to be taken seriously, and exercised the good old block button. Contrary to the idea of refuting/accepting his position and moving on, I did the equivalent of calling him an ugly person. And I'd do it again.
The trouble with this notion of tolerance is not that I think you're wrong that public discussion has gotten a lot uglier, but rather that it becomes very hard to cling to our ideals about debate and arguments when you face opponents who have no such qualms. We can all try to make it better, but sooner or later someone is going to manage to drag you down to their ****fest and beat you with experience.
HLP is nowhere near as bad as the Internet at large, but there are some views that, even here, I think occasionally deserve the dismissive treatment. This is not to say I necessarily agree with the way things have been going in GenDisc, lately.
-
If a person does not agree with gay marriage for any reason, that person hates gays (even if their brother/sister/bff is gay). If a person disagrees with [insert any religion here] for any reason, that person hates everyone of that religion (even if their spouse follows that religion). If a person does not agree with the Tea Party extremes, they love Obamacare (even if they are a card-carrying straight ticket Republican).
Or it could be people generally tolerate opposite opinions rather well, but they don't tolerate the perception of being force fed these opinions.
The irony is, to excel in applying freedom of speech, one must also excel in applying good manners and respect.
-
I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...
It is hard to be tolerant of opinions that fuel and justify actions that harm others; to use William O. Douglas's term, beliefs can be "brigaded with action," and in doing so forfeit their acceptance.
You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go. Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.
I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs. So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument. Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.
Here's what really needs to be emphasized, since a lot of people in our generation don't seem to understand it now (for which I partly blame the culture of the internet): arguing that we as a society should not tolerate certain intolerant beliefs is not censorship. The whole purpose of the principle that governments should be forbidden, by banning the legal censoring of speech and opinion, from deciding what is acceptable and is not acceptable is so that decision is left to us. We have always had the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable as a community. To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you. Should we have a damn good reason for doing so? You bet, but we have every right to do it. Every human society that has ever existed has had some rules that everyone is expected to follow, either inside or outside the law; the question is what those rules should be. And at some point, we have a right to invoke the Harm Principle to justify (non-legal) sanctions against certain activities.
And here's another interesting. You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction. How is that any different from a practical standpoint?
Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?
The point you all seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be "views" are actual fact.
And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views. For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s. Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather. It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.
-
And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views. For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s. Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather. It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.
...Choosing to ignore facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist, and just because you don't agree with reality doesn't mean reality is just a point of view.
-
I had no idea that reality was a forum member to whom someone could disagree with.
Here's a possibility: there is no "reality" in forums. There are only points of view. About Reality. Problems arise when someone confuses their own points of view with Reality itself. You disagree with me? Well you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Reality, you see?
And I totally get MP's point. Of course there are some points of view that are better than others. The problem here is that no one here is God. Therefore if someone fervently believes their own point of view is the best representation of Reality, he / she / it should at least not misunderstand their place in the forum and automatically believe that their own point of view should be taken as the null hypothesis of everyone else, and if not, well those who disagree are just bigots and creotards and deniers dontchaknow.
And it always starts so well. It always starts with simpletonic sentences like "Well but are you suggesting we should tolerate the KKK?", "Are you saying that Global Warming does not exist?", "Are you saying that there is no such thing as mysoginy?", which are the kind of asinine questions that are blatantly asked to shame people into accepting your own (much less direct, more nuanced, more questionable) shenanigans by fiat. By far, those black and white scenarios are not the problem, no one will actually take them seriously, they are just boogeymen concocted to create a moral panic that we somehow are on THE VERGE! of being OVERWHELMED! by racist mysoginistic deniers all over the place and they will eat your children if you don't stand at the gates. This is the "Power of Nightmares" all over again. Kittens are about to be killed! By kitten haters! But don't you worry, we will protect everyone from kitten deniers! With big badass words!
All praise these knights of righteousness. What would the world be without them.
-
You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go. Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.
I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs. So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument. Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.
That is not what I said. We have a right to ban harmful action but only to shun (which is a combination of many individual actions and not something the state does) harmful expression. You are correct that I applied the term to the mere advocacy of an opinion as opposed to an actually directly harmful act contained within speech, but I also compensated by considerably downgrading the steps we can take to curtail it.
And here's another interesting. You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction. How is that any different from a practical standpoint?
First, read what I said:
To speak your mind should never be a crime - but we don't have to indulge you, and award you the resources you need to successfully advocate for policies that harm others. We can damn well make the choice to shun you.
I'll turn it back around on you. Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?
I'm not going to go all libertarian on you and now say that anything goes as long as the government doesn't do it. There needs to be some space left for any idea or speech to be allowed, in a place in which anyone can hear it if they wish. But turn "societal sanction" around and look at it from the other direction, and it looks like the free actions of individuals. How dare you compel them to give a space to ideas they made a choice to reject?
Like it or not we have to very carefully navigate the boundaries between ensuring personal liberty, and not de facto denying the liberties of others in the exercise of it. That's why we have things like laws against housing discrimination. You are not seeing this. You are thinking too abstractly. Sometimes, any choice you can make does one or the other - you have to weigh the benefits and costs and decide what really matters to you. The goal should be to realistically maximize both individual freedom and social justice, for the latter is required for both the former to truly exist in reality and to allow the meaningful exercise of it.
-
Sorry, I have a bad habit of posting one point quickly without thinking if I wanted to stop there and then spending several minutes adding in a whole 'nother response to the original post.
-
You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go. Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.
I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs. So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument. Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.
That is not what I said.
What is not what you said? Everything in that quote was sourced from your post.
I'll turn it back around on you. Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?
If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?" Answer that one and I'll answer this.
I'm not going to go all libertarian on you and now say that anything goes as long as the government doesn't do it. There needs to be some space left for any idea or speech to be allowed, in a place in which anyone can hear it if they wish. But turn "societal sanction" around and look at it from the other direction, and it looks like the free actions of individuals. How dare you compel them to give a space to ideas they made a choice to reject?
You've managed to completely invert the logical process here. You are arguing in favor of societally shunning those who have certain opinions -- the end result of which would be to compel them to either change their opinions or leave the society. It is you who are arguing in favor of compulsion, not me.
The goal should be to realistically maximize both individual freedom and social justice, for the latter is required for both the former to truly exist in reality and to allow the meaningful exercise of it.
What is your definition of "social justice"? For that matter, what is your definition of "individual freedom"?
-
If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?" Answer that one and I'll answer this.
I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.
You've managed to completely invert the logical process here. You are arguing in favor of societally shunning those who have certain opinions -- the end result of which would be to compel them to either change their opinions or leave the society. It is you who are arguing in favor of compulsion, not me.
If that makes us like 1984, then every society that has ever existed is like 1984.
-
deathspeed, your beliefs are very close to my own on tolerance and interacting with people. And MP-Ryan, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you are the poster I respect the most when it comes to Gen Disc. An example to us all in how to conduct yourself imo. And Luis, please take this as the friendly advice it’s meant as, I know why you are angry. I know all too well what you are feeling. But please try to calm down, for while I agree with just about everything you are saying, it is damaging the effectiveness of your arguments. And you are right. Your anger is justified. And while I love the passion, the anger is getting in your own way. Please try to calm down and re-read your posts once you are calm and try to imagine how they could come across in current form, and then imagine how they would look if you strip the angry words out. Also, you don’t need to come at this topic right away. Take some time if you need it to cool down before you post.
Some people seem to be getting caught up with the problem of thinking we have to tolerate the extreme. I don't think anyone is referring to the extreme in this. For some people around here they will do whatever it takes to win and destroy the credibility of the other side. If that means coming at someone sideways and attempting a character assassination and twisting everything they say into the worst possible interpretation and applying the most sinister motives they can think of to that person, so be it. They make the discussions so hostile. You would think we were making history turn before us on here with the cut-throat way some people behave here in our discussions. Anything seems to go as long as you're right it seems for them. And of course, they always think they're right. For who is going to argue points that they don't think are right?
Now, I and I think others will look at this behaviour and be confused. Confused because it’s not going to solve anything. Because it’s not going to win that person over. Putting someone on the defensive and making them attach negative associations to interactions with you is about the worst way to go about winning someone’s heart and mind. But I don’t think it’s about that single person, though there are certainly very real negative feelings towards that person, it’s certainly not impersonal with regard to that person. It’s about spreading whatever it is they’re getting behind, and using the tactics of the politician to do that. What I mean by that is when you see opposing politicians meet or go on campaign, they’ll often go after the other person’s character. Why bother meeting them in a fair debate on each subject when you can simply invalidate all the arguments they make by planting in the minds of the people the notion that that person is a moron, a bigot, a racist, or whatever the flavour of the month happens to be. It’s a cheap and nasty shortcut. Someone like Anita Sarkeesian operates in much the same way. She shuts down all opportunities for the opposition to engage with her, and uses the trolls as a vehicle to paint everyone who opposes her as the same as those trolls. And some people like that because they don’t care how the view is promoted and pushed, only that it is. Whatever works. Whatever gets the job done. The path of least resistance rather than the right path. Why bother with anything else, when you can just cut the legs out from under the opposition immediately by associating them with those trolls and making the resistance melt away because people won’t even step up for fear of being branded a hatemonger, a troll, a misogynist? Bring this association into the minds of people, that the only possible opposition to Anita Sarkeesian is from trolls and misogynists. From a dying gaming culture of misogynistic, sexist, hateful people who are in the process of going the way of the dinosaur. Here on the forum, I think it’s about promoting your views simply by making it so you are the only one expressing said views, and exploiting the power of peer pressure. Setting up an us or them dynamic, they always seem to go for the us and them dynamic, and make the other side to the one they’re standing on look as unattractive and difficult to stand on as possible. Discredit, demonise and destroy the opposition or simply make life difficult enough for them that they melt away. But not everyone is going to do that. And when these people meet with resistance that refuses to conform or be broken down by these insidious tactics, they get angry. They get really angry.
Tolerance doesn't mean you have to respect someone. It doesn't mean you have to like them. It doesn't mean you have to stay silent and allow them to spread their views unchallenged. You're never going to like everyone in a place like this. That doesn't mean you should try and remove them from it by making life difficult for them, harassing them, or trying to get rid of them. There are two people on this forum who I will not name who I strongly dislike, which has nothing to do with hostile action against me. I just ignore these two people completely. Oh, I read their posts. But I don't talk to them. If they're not doing anyone here any harm, then they have a right to be here and be unmolested. I truly believe that. Their mere presence here does not bother me. This place is big enough for the three of us and then some. If you choose to interact with someone, you should treat them with respect. And I don't mean anything special here, nothing more than the basic respect you'd give a stranger is needed. If you can't do that for whatever reason, and they're not doing any harm, leave them alone. And harm doesn’t include expressing opinions you don’t like, if it’s done in a respectful way. I know of at least one person here who does not like me, but doesn’t try to do me any harm. And I respect them for that. The feeling of dislike is not mutual.
It's possible to vehemently oppose someone's view while not being out to harm them. It’s possible to be passionate about what you believe in without that passion turning into hate and negativity. It's possible to dissect someone's arguments while being nice and friendly at the same time, or at the very least, impersonal. It’s possible to enter a discussion with an open mind even if it involves viewpoints and ideologies that you despise. You can have two people who completely and very strongly disagree with each other and still have them hold a civil and open minded discussion with each other with mutual respect. If even enemies in war can sometimes respect each other, I’m sure we can too. As well as the fact this place is not primarily for discussion. The off topic forums are called that for a reason. We all have something in common. And personally, I find it helpful to remember that fact.
-
Someone like Anita Sarkeesian operates in much the same way. She shuts down all opportunities for the opposition to engage with her, and uses the trolls as a vehicle to paint everyone who opposes her as the same as those trolls.
Okay. Lorric. Have you or have you not seen the incredibly vile responses directed at her in response to her videos and comments? Even if you think that she really is as you describe (and I sure as hell think she is not), why does she have to deal with that stuff? Should she engage in "outreach" against those who are calling her a ***** with every other word, much less sending her rape and death threats? Seriously, how would you react if that was the **** you had to put up with every day, you'd damn well do exactly what she does, and carefully restrict the ability of others to make your life awful. And if that creates the impression of refusing to listen to criticism, big ****ing deal! Her first duty is to protect herself, just as it is for you or anyone else! She doesn't have to be a ****ing martyr - she can try to get her message out and be a person who doesn't want to read all that **** at the same time. There's just no empathy here.
Doing what you advocate would make her life pretty much unlivable (as in, even more than it already is). That's what you're asking of her, and that's not her ****ing fault - that's the fault of those who are trying to make her life unlivable, all because she posts some videos they don't like. Direct your anger at them, not her.
Do you understand why I see arguments like this as a cover for actual attacks on her person? It looks like a demand for martyrdom, which is quite effective at discouraging other people like her from voicing their opinions. You know, the whole freedom to speak your mind thing? Do I think that this is what you intend? No. But I do think that is what arguments like the one you are advancing actually do. I don't give a damn about your character, and if I ever gave that impression I apologize. I'm just flabbergasted by the idea we as a community could actually take seriously the idea that the price of daring to be a social critic is to have to open the front door to your house and let everyone scream at you one by one by one by one. Or worse. These are people's lives that are being ****ed with, for real!
-
I don't want to derail the thread with the Anita Sarkeesian thing. I'll PM you.
-
I mean, I don't want it to take over the thread either, but it's within the topic at hand.
-
If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?" Answer that one and I'll answer this.
I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.
Fair enough; I will remember that for future reference. As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".
In return I'll answer the question you posed:
Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?
I'm not in favor of compelling mature adults to listen to ideas they disagree with. That's indoctrination. Indeed, multiple workplaces and universities often have required seminars, unrelated to their jobs or studies, that espouse politically correct propaganda. I would entirely support their personal choice to not listen to such things.
However, as I said in my previous post, refusing to exclude someone from a community is not the same thing as forcing everybody to listen to him. In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not. Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.
-
As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".
I meant that "being offensive" is a much more legitimate justification than "I disagree with it", and yet I still don't accept it as one.
In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not. Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.
The whole society, by whatever reasonable standard you want to apply to that term? Absolutely. But can smaller subcommunities like ours impose its own standards, just like an individual might impose his or her own?
-
If that's a question for me, then I'll direct you to the question in my post which you haven't answered: "Would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?" Answer that one and I'll answer this.
I stated multiple times that merely being offensive is not sufficient criteria. My answer is no.
Fair enough; I will remember that for future reference. As an aside, it's interesting that you equate "someone you disagree with" with "being offensive".
In return I'll answer the question you posed:
Who are you to tell people who they have to listen to? That's a choice made person by person - who are you to tell them who they can't listen to, block, hire, ban from a forum if they run it?
I'm not in favor of compelling mature adults to listen to ideas they disagree with. That's indoctrination. Indeed, multiple workplaces and universities often have required seminars, unrelated to their jobs or studies, that espouse politically correct propaganda. I would entirely support their personal choice to not listen to such things.
However, as I said in my previous post, refusing to exclude someone from a community is not the same thing as forcing everybody to listen to him. In diverse communities, some people will wish to listen to him and some will not. Those who want to listen will, and those who do not want to will not.
The problem with political correctness is a fear of "toxic ideas and concepts," based on a measurement of perceived harm vs factual and or statistical realities. Toxicity in Free Speech is no laughing matter as our current society wrestles on which speech is deemed harmful and not. One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting."
And frankly, we shouldn't expect one with the concept of "Free Speech."
It's why I argue many issues dividing society may seem like little things in the short term, but people are heavily invested in a long term war of Risk vs Safety (and I think its way too easy to be locked into a "safety" set of mind). My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.
-
I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...
...
You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go. Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.
I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs. So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument. Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.
:D
And here's another interesting. You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction. How is that any different from a practical standpoint?
Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?
:)
And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views. For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s. Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather. It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.
:blah: :doubt:
you had to go THERE didn't you :nono:
-
Again,
That is not what I said. We have a right to ban harmful action but only to shun (which is a combination of many individual actions and not something the state does) harmful expression. You are correct that I applied the term to the mere advocacy of an opinion as opposed to an actually directly harmful act contained within speech, but I also compensated by considerably downgrading the steps we can take to curtail it.
-
I find Mr. Vega's original post to be illuminating...
...
You are pushing that phrase much farther than it was ever intended to go. Douglas used the "brigaded with action" phrase to describe the sole exception to the protection of speech -- to wit, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. So you justify your position in terms of the "imminent danger" test, but then you go on to extend it to harming people and even society generally.
I also find it telling that you took Douglas's original term which was about speech and applied it to beliefs. So now instead of having a freedom of speech argument we're having a freedom of thought argument. Whether you intended it or not, that's straight out of 1984.
:D
And here's another interesting. You emphasize that you are against censorship (i.e. legal sanction) of certain beliefs, but then you turn right around and say that you're strongly in favor of societal sanction. How is that any different from a practical standpoint?
Let me ask you this: would you be in favor of reporting a post on HLP to sanction someone you disagree with?
:)
And the point that others seem to be missing is that some things people consider to be facts are actually views. For example, the dogmatic meme of "climate change" -- which was "global warming" in the 1990s and "global cooling" in the 1970s. Every 20 years the scientists suddenly think that we can control the weather. It's like they think we're all Bond supervillains.
:blah: :doubt:
you had to go THERE didn't you :nono:
Hah, I remember how liberals flocked to the Global Warming buzzword. Group think and checkmate. I was surprised how people flocked to it likes flies to the a freshly laid cowpie.
I was an ousted proponent, because well, I said that humans are damn well capable of climate change. 1 human might do little, 7 billion, yes, we do. Global Warming is a side effect of humans altering the environment - the difference between a factual reality check and media induced hysteria buzzword and something the liberal idiots thought was trendy. I got the shaft from several sides for not "siding" with Global Warming hysteria.
-
One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting.
I'm not sure if this is a question that could ever be answered in advance. I think the answer would have to be learned from experience. Though there's no one I'd want to see banned off the site straight off the bat once it became clear what they are. I think someone mentioned nazis and KKK members at one point. I don't think it would be right if we had one to just boot them just because. There are a myriad of ways such a person could legitimately get themselves banned off the site, but by merely being here and it being known what they are? Also, I wouldn't want to see open season on them simply for what they are. What is it they say, everyone hates free speech until somebody uses it? If the topic came up I'd take a crack at debating the topic and not the person. It would be a test of my tolerance that I haven't been put to, but I would know I wouldn't possibly make a difference by being just another person on the attack which they've probably already seen a million times from a million different people.
My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.
And that... is tolerance. That is what I believe too.
-
One reason I've kept from posting till now is for a clarification regarding our scales of "Intolerant vs Tolerant" speech. It's a sliding scale between the two facets with no "correct setting.
I'm not sure if this is a question that could ever be answered in advance. I think the answer would have to be learned from experience. Though there's no one I'd want to see banned off the site straight off the bat once it became clear what they are. I think someone mentioned nazis and KKK members at one point. I don't think it would be right if we had one to just boot them just because. There are a myriad of ways such a person could legitimately get themselves banned off the site, but by merely being here and it being known what they are? Also, I wouldn't want to see open season on them simply for what they are. What is it they say, everyone hates free speech until somebody uses it? If the topic came up I'd take a crack at debating the topic and not the person. It would be a test of my tolerance that I haven't been put to, but I would know I wouldn't possibly make a difference by being just another person on the attack which they've probably already seen a million times from a million different people.
My opinion is, and always will be, tolerating toxic ideas, speech, and even notions that I strongly disagree with. I may vigorously protest ideas, speech and things I don't like on this forum, but I have to be willing to let that side, short of violating forum policy upon both engaged parties, to let their speech be heard. That and a game of both criticism and counter-criticism as long as it remains in a civil fashion.
And that... is tolerance. That is what I believe too.
Heh. Experience is a key factor in how we do things. Learning to respect views is important. But agreeing to it? Hah, no. Just to ruffle feathers, I'll practice my "toxicity" here:
(/on Sex Positive Feminist)
As long as Anita Sarkesian and her cooky writer Jonathan McIntosh remains on the airwaves, I won't spend a moment supporting them and fighting their existence as much as they preach ending the "menace of Sexism." I may recognize their angle and supposed goals, but I damn well know their intent and modus operandi. The danger they pose to a society with Free Speech and Sexual Expression is simple: they don't tolerate the existence of toxic ideology and trying to masquerade as academic criticism without the proper merit and eloquence is equally damning in my eyes. Anita put it on Twitter succinctly that she believes even if we don't play it or buy, it's existence alone is harmful enough. McIntosh? The idiot's ramblings earned themselves a Twitter hash tag.
(/off Sex Positive Feminist).
And that will be the only time I'll mention her in this thread. Off topic, unneeded, and completely unbowed~
But back to the topic, it's the ability to admit we are wrong and are subject to our own criticism and rebuttals. I think its important that we can engage in conversation, but also be mindful of it.
-
The problem with debates around Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate and stuff like that is that unfortunately, the enviroment that created those debates is in itself toxic (and possibly ignorant), and there are people with vested interests in keeping it toxic (https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/youtube-patreon-and-the-rise-of-the-professional-v). This toxicity (and possible ignorance) inevetably find itself onto GenDisc, which inevitably leads to problems. If you have an enviroment that has one of the co writers of a youtube reel equated to forest gump's famous "Full retard" line, that will never end well. There is too much a risk of strawmanning, which is something I have seen a lot in these debates on this forum, which is defenitely a problem.
-
on the topic of Anita, her master's thesis: http://www.scribd.com/doc/130661629/Masters-Thesis
I especially like the bit where she reveals her opposition to individuality and meritocracy
maybe this is too off topic...
-
If you want to discuss Anita Sarkeesian, use another thread.