ThatOtherGirl said:
Gorrath said:
Well, this question of how to moderate specific kinds of speech is interesting. I would say I fall on the side of those who don't want heavy-handed moderation. I would agree that allowing "questionable" pronouncements to be thrown out into the wild and subsequently ripped apart by passionate debate is better than trying to censor anything anyone might find offensive.
I don't actually disagree with you, but I would like to point out that dealing with the "questionable" comments almost always falls on the group people are being rude to. Other people usually don't care enough. This leads to a situation where people have to spend a significant amount of effort just trying to keep up with assholes so the community is somewhere they can be comfortably. Often you have to engage with these sorts of comments on a level that makes it very difficult to deal with - often bad behavior cannot be called out for what it is because the rules of moderation, so we have to deal with it by engaging with people we really would rather not. And often these counter comments are far more heavily moderated than the original comments, again because of the rules in place.
Firstly, thanks so much for replying. I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts and respond. I feel like I covered some of this in the elaboration below the part you quoted but let me try and refine my meaning. I don't think we should automatically equate bad ideas or what we see as ignorant speech with assholes. Someone can be a perfectly nice person who simply has no idea what they are talking about and so their words come off as offensive and we link offensive speech with ignorant jerks. I think this automatic equation is something we should challenge. This in no way is meant to be apologetics for the ignorant, just a philosophical argument about how we should approach and address what seem to us like ignorant or offensive statements, particularly because what one person asserts as being ignorant is held up as truth by others. My criticisms of CEDA's winners would be held up by some as ignorant racism and I think that's absurd in the extreme.
I would also say that their comments could be dealt with in two effective ways.
1) Try to engage with the person in a way that presents facts, theories and is backed by evidence, even if anecdotal while avoiding the trap of flaming the person for their potentially offensive speech. This may or may not convince them of anything, but reasonable onlookers who are also ignorant about the issue may be swayed. This is a useful and valuable communication even if the OP persists in their ignorance.
2) Ignore it altogether. I am often torn by a desire to respond to posts I see as being riddled with fallacies, bad ideas or ignorance. Sometimes I feel like my own personal investment in the subjects mean I'll get mad and say something undeserving of a decent conversation. In those cases, I just won't comment.
I don't mean to sound self-important here so I hope it doesn't read that way but I engage with lots of people on here about very contentious and sensitive issues. I am almost always someone who is responding rather than being the OP and I've never once been moderated. I believe this is because I think of the person making the comment I find rude/offensive/absurd as merely being misinformed not someone who is a provocative asshole out to piss me off by slandering my whole sex/race/sexual preference.
This gives us a decision: Engage with assholes, let the community go to shit, or just leave. Many have just chosen to leave rather than deal with it.
For example, recently someone voiced the opinion on these forums that trans people are so clearly nuts and unstable that we shouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors. To be clear, I am referring to a specific comment where they actually mention scissors, not general comments about mental illness or whatever. That sort of shit should not be acceptable. How do we deal with that? Under the current rules the only thing we can really do is attempt to engage with the person on an intellectual level. But there isn't anything to engage their, it is blatant transphobia. That sort of opinion shouldn't get dignified by being engaged, it should be dismissed. But we can't just point that out, there is a good chance that will result in getting a warning. Hell, I would not be surprised if bringing it up now as an example gets me a warning.
In the end the comment went unchallenged by the community and was not moderated.
Trans issues are very important to me because my wife is trans, so I certainly have some understanding of your sentiment here. What that person said is clearly ignorant and lacks any understanding of trans people. But I ask you, why do you assert that there isn't anything to engage when it comes to blatant transphobia? I think there is a ton to engage with there; basically everything about trans issues. Now when starting with such a comment, the challenge seems overwhelming and there's a good chance the person won't be convinced no matter what evidence you fling at them, but engaging with them from a position of facts and evidence and assuming that they are just totally misinformed and have no idea what they are talking about is better than just responding that they are an ignorant jackass who needs to read a book. It's a tough temptation to fight because the insult feels so damned personal.
I got into a conversation on here once when someone made the flippant comment that military people were brainwashed child murderers. As someone who served for years in various conflicts, that cuts. My response was to explain in some detail what the military actually teaches. I didn't berate them, I just explained why their comment was absurd. If they had merely been moderated for their comment, I would never have had the chance to point out what was messed up about their statement. I had to delete an retype whole sections of my post because they got pretty reactionary and insulting.
I am sorry that that particular comment went unchallenged. If I'd seen it I'd have been all over it and I'm a straight white male privilege machine (little self-deprecating humor there.)
People can get away with ridiculous shit so long as they are careful in the exact way they word their post so it cannot be challenged without risking moderation or being forced into a bad faith discussion with a bigot. There is no discussion value in a comment like that but we are unable to express disapproval in any other way because of how the forums are setup. We can't downvote. Reporting doesn't help either because often times these people are not technically breaking any rule. So it gets by or someone who is sick of blatant bigotry loses their cool for a minute and calls it out for what it is and risks getting slapped with a warning or ban.
When it comes to bad faith discussions, there's no rule about pointing out the bad faith arguments. I've done it dozens of times and never been moderated for it. I don't like downvoting either because people just assume the hivemind is out to get them and often there's no one taking to time to talk anymore, it's all thumbs up and down along ideological lines. Better, I think, to do the hard work of rigorous debate and presenting evidence and ideas than downvoting or upvoting. I agree with the moderation of blatant personal insults but trying to moderate out ignorance is a failing proposition because it does nothing to teach or explain. And if we can't teach or explain without flinging personal insults ourselves, then we probably should step back a bit, take a few breaths and just try and remember its just ignorance.
Again, hope none of that comes off as self-aggrandizing or superior. Just my philosophy on how to deal with this stuff and why I think trying to moderate the problem away is a bad idea. I really do feel and share your frustration; everyone who has ever argued on the internet does. I just hope we, as a community, fight bad ideas with good ones, ignorance with truth and injustice with justice not with the heavy hand of censoring what we don't like to see.
TL

R: The current setup puts a lot of burden on people who just want a place to hang out and gives a distinct advantage to jerks over the people trying to correct them. There is no low effort way to express disapproval of blatant bigotry so often blatant bigotry is tolerated.
It will always and forever be easier to make a stupid statement than correct one. There is a distinct debate tactic that replies on shoving as many fallacies into one diatribe as one can so that their opponent has no reasonable way to counter them all in the allotted time (William Lane Craig LOVES to do this.) It is a burden, I agree, but I think it's a burden worth bearing. And if you or I or anyone gets tired, we can always set that burden down a while and take a hiatus.
Anywho, thanks again for engaging with me. I'm so glad to get to talk about this stuff. I appreciate your time and attention.