[Mr. Vega]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well... the often asked question is whether intolerance should be tolerated. But that's a 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...

[Mr. Vega]

The right question to ask is how much intolerance should be accepted.

There we have it. Not rocket science.

[Hellstryker]

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!

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Mr. Vega]

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

[Lorric]

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

[swashmebuckle]

I call for all liberty-minded posts to impose a chilling effect on chilling effect-imposing posts. Chill out with extreme prejudice.

[Mars]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[deathspeed]

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!

[Hellstryker]

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. 

[karajorma]

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.

[Hellstryker]

Ah, neat. Can I stop being waffles now by the way Kara?

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[castor]

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.