Vacancy: moderator

[cornsail]

I agree that locking threads is silly.

And I have no problem in going toe to toe with bigots of any stripe rather than banning them. (Although the danger is that that can suck all the air out of a forum.)

But tolerating bigotry, or acting as though it's just another opinion, as valid as any opinion, is not cool in my book, and not something I want to be around.

Yeah, I don't think the practice of not banning someone for an opinion implies in any way that said opinion is valid, good or correct.

 

[mlp]

Yeah, I don't think the practice of not banning someone for an opinion implies in any way that said opinion is valid, good or correct.

Well, that's where we differ, because I don't consider racism, homophobia, misogyny or other forms of bigotry just an "opinion."

 

[Envy]

Well, that's where we differ, because I don't consider racism, homophobia, misogyny or other forms of bigotry just an "opinion."

It's your opinion whether you think something is "racist, homophobic, misogynistic or bigoted" or not.

Well, I think it can be an opinion regardless though.

 

[mlp]

It's your opinion whether you think something is "racist, homophobic, misogynistic or bigoted" or not.

Whether racism, homophobia, misogyny and other forms of bigotry actually exist or whether they are entirely subjective, as you appear to be claiming, is probably best left to the debate forum, and I'd be happy to engage you there on that subject.

Well, I think it can be an opinion regardless though.

Please note that I said "not[sic] ... just an "opinion."" (Emphasis added.)

It's a lot like the tendency of certain U.S. news organizations of late years to say "Candidate A and Candidate B both made a mistake in their stump speeches tonight" when in fact Candidate A said that the Korean War ended in 1954 and Candidate B said that South Korea is a valuable member of the EU and engages in a lot of trade with its neighbor, France. They are trying so hard to be objective that they create a false equivalency.

 

[cornsail]

Well, that's where we differ, because I don't consider racism, homophobia, misogyny or other forms of bigotry just an "opinion."

(Edited) You don't consider it possible for someone to have a racist, homophobic or misogynistic opinion? I didn't use the qualifier "just", which would seem to imply that opinions cannot be bad/significant. So I think we are largely in agreement, since we both don't subscribe to the idea that all opinions are equal and we both don't think that disagreeable/harmful/incorrect opinions necessarily need to be dealt with by bannings.

 

[mlp]

Cornsail, the problem is that if you let an expressions of bigotry stand without calling it out, it results in the appearance that you either agree or don't think it's important. In the case of certain posters, that means there is either an ongoing, neverending argument, and even dedicated, hardheaded arguers like me end up getting fed up with going around the same ugliness all the time. And for those who are the subjects of that bigotry, it can easily become too much to be subjected to day in and day out.

VB lost a lot of good people that way.

 

[thefadedone]

Cornsail, the problem is that if you let an expressions of bigotry stand without calling it out, it results in the appearance that you either agree or don't think it's important. In the case of certain posters, that means there is either an ongoing, neverending argument, and even dedicated, hardheaded arguers like me end up getting fed up with going around the same ugliness all the time. And for those who are the subjects of that bigotry, it can easily become too much to be subjected to day in and day out.

VB lost a lot of good people that way.

Indeed we did and it happened way too often. We lost a lot of very valuable long time members due to situations like these and also lost new members as well.

 

[uno]

MLP needs to be a mod.

 

[mlp]

MLP needs to be a mod.

You're such a **** disturber.

 

[uno]

You're such a **** disturber.

perhaps, but i'm being honest here.

 

[dormouse]

Cornsail, the problem is that if you let an expressions of bigotry stand without calling it out, it results in the appearance that you either agree or don't think it's important. In the case of certain posters, that means there is either an ongoing, neverending argument, and even dedicated, hardheaded arguers like me end up getting fed up with going around the same ugliness all the time. And for those who are the subjects of that bigotry, it can easily become too much to be subjected to day in and day out.

VB lost a lot of good people that way.

So people with bigoted opinions should be banned? I thought you said the opposite in a post on the last page.

Also, what is a bigoted opinion? Here are some sample possibly-bigoted opinions. Which of them should get you a ban on a vegetarian forum and which should be allowed to stay?
-Homesexuality is wrong according to my religion.
-I hate gay people.
-Homosexuals are going to Hell.
-Black people tend to be better dancers than white people.
-I hate black people.
-Black people are stupid.
-I don't think women and men have equal abilities in all areas. Men are better at some things, but women are better at other things.
-I hate women.
-Women are stupid and should stay at home raising children.
-I have a hard time understanding transexuals. Having sex-change surgery seems creepy and extreme.
-Women are primarily responsible for contraception.
-Feminists annoy me.
-Why is there no "White History month"?
-White people need to take our country back from the minorities.
-I'm afraid whenever I see a Muslim on an airplane.
-Muslims are terrorists.
-Religion is stupid.
-There are precautions that women can take to lessen their chances of sexual assault.
-She was totally asking for it.

So where is the line? From what I have gathered, many of us would draw it at different plaecs. It might seem obvious to one person that a certain member should be banned, because he is a bigot. But if that member is eventually banned or put on moderation, there will be complaints from different people about censorship and how the board is boring if everyone has the same opinion.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I personally wouldn't consider any of the above grounds for banning. I think the line gets crossed when it shifts from "I hate bigots" to "you are a bigot".
To me, bigots are a reminder to all of us that we still have a long way to go before such thinking ceases to exist, and we are better off when keep the dialog open. You can't change a person's mind by shutting them up and making them go away.

 

[mlp]

It's too late and I'm too tired to address this, but I will tomorrow. You seem somewhat upset though, so let me assure you that my comments weren't intended as a criticism of your method of moderating on the other board; I wasn't thinking of you at all when I posted.

ETA: That was addressed to Dormouse.

 

[cornsail]

Cornsail, the problem is that if you let an expressions of bigotry stand without calling it out, it results in the appearance that you either agree or don't think it's important. In the case of certain posters, that means there is either an ongoing, neverending argument, and even dedicated, hardheaded arguers like me end up getting fed up with going around the same ugliness all the time. And for those who are the subjects of that bigotry, it can easily become too much to be subjected to day in and day out.

VB lost a lot of good people that way.

Sorry, I thought I interpreted you as not being in favor of banning those you consider bigots. I see now that you are on the fence or perhaps do favor banning them. In that case, we do disagree.

So where is the line? From what I have gathered, many of us would draw it at different plaecs. It might seem obvious to one person that a certain member should be banned, because he is a bigot. But if that member is eventually banned or put on moderation, there will be complaints from different people about censorship and how the board is boring if everyone has the same opinion.

Aye. I tend to fall into the latter camp, but it's certainly true you can't please everyone.

 

[Capstan]

Well, that's where we differ, because I don't consider racism, homophobia, misogyny or other forms of bigotry just an "opinion."

You left out age-discrimination!

 

[Capstan]

To me, bigots are a reminder to all of us that we still have a long way to go before such thinking ceases to exist, and we are better off when keep the dialog open. You can't change a person's mind by shutting them up and making them go away.

Exactly right. Banishment should be reserved only for chronic offenders, and only when there is no doubt about their intentions, never for the sake of our immediate convenience. There's a fine line between moderation and vigilantism. Gagging someone without just cause is itself a manifestation of bigotry.

 

[dormouse]

It's too late and I'm too tired to address this, but I will tomorrow. You seem somewhat upset though, so let me assure you that my comments weren't intended as a criticism of your method of moderating on the other board; I wasn't thinking of you at all when I posted.

ETA: That was addressed to Dormouse.

I'm not upset, nor was I taking your comments personally. Don't worry about that. I don't exactly know what the answer to these questions is myself, and I just wanted to point out that I think it is much more difficult to know the right course of action when you are moderating than some people make it out to be. Not tolerating bigots is a nice concept, certainly something I would agree with, but not everyone agrees on what exactly that means. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[thefadedone]

Exactly right. Banishment should be reserved only for chronic offenders, and only when there is no doubt about their intentions, never for the sake of our immediate convenience.

Yeah that tended to be the problem in the past on the other board. There were always a group of chronic offenders who constantly started the same arguments on specific topics over and over knowing it would incite controversy and drama.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I don't mind a bit of stirring, and I am frequently the one with the point of view that is at odds with the majority on a lot of subjects, but I think a little stirring is good if it serves to offer up another way of seeing an issue. But often certain people say things just because they know it will rattle cages. I just wish people were better able to recognize cage-rattling when they see it, and not let the cage-rattler know they've succeeded. Cage rattling isn't much fun when the rattled one refuses to snarl back.

 

[AeryFairy]

I don't mind a bit of stirring, and I am frequently the one with the point of view that is at odds with the majority on a lot of subjects, but I think a little stirring is good if it serves to offer up another way of seeing an issue. But often certain people say things just because they know it will rattle cages. I just wish people were better able to recognize cage-rattling when they see it, and not let the cage-rattler know they've succeeded. Cage rattling isn't much fun when the rattled one refuses to snarl back.

There is a really thick and fairly obvious line between playing devil's advocate in a debate, and just saying controversial things to start arguments and rile people up.