Pickle Juice
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 754
I don't think it is all that obvious to everyone, or some people wouldn't let themselves get riled up.
Vacancy: moderator
- Thread starter Second Summer
- Start date
AeryFairy
Anachronism
Well, the former tends not to rile people up... I've rarely seen someone get annoyed at somebody who was providing another angle to a debate (one that they didn't believe themselves, and were just providing for the purposes of the discussion). Generally, when this is happening, it's made fairly obvious, at least in my experience. The thinner line is between genuine controversial belief and troll, as both tend to be presented with equal passion.
Oh, I agree totally with this.
I think you have to have a variety of opinions to keep a board interesting. And some degree of craziness is actually amusing, at least to me.
OTOH, I think that personal insult (along the line of "You're an *******") are less harmful than bigoted comments* (such as "If it's O.K. to be gay why are all these gay kids killing themselves", something that was said in a thread about the suicide of a gay teen who killed himself because of all the bullying he received - that's when I stopped being able to tolerate that particular member and used the "ignore" function for the first and only time, despite feeling strongly that his comments shouldn't be left to stand without ongoing objection). I'm not quite sure why that particular poster was never banned, but another one, who also made homophobic comments, although milder ones, was banned on relatively short order. Perhaps it was because the comments of the former ended up increasing overall post counts dramatically, while the latter didn't? I don't know, but I didn't see any other reason for the differentiation. Along the way, an awful lot of people were banned for being idiots in one way or another (often in pretty harmless ways), while a couple of members who were consistently hateful, but who cause dramatic increases in post count (at least temporarily) were allowed to go on for years.
*After all, personal attacks are just as much an expression of opinion as any other expression of opinion.
I'm not sure what line you're referring to here. But I strongly believe that it's necessary to take a stand against bigotry, and if pointing out the bigotry in posts doesn't effect a change, I see nothing wrong with saying "You're a bigot." It's not the same as calling someone stupid for doing something stupid - after all, even the most intelligent do stupid things from time to time, and so a particular act may be stupid without the person being stupid. But if someone has bigoted views, by definition that person is a bigot.
I think that when someone is "chronic" in their bigotry (Capstan chose an excellent word there), they should be booted. To do otherwise is to (a) create a hatefilled environment, (b) give the appearance that the rest of the community isn't particularly bothered by the bigotry, and (c) ultimately drive away a substantial portion of the community - those members who are objects of the bigotry and/or don't want to be around that kind of hate, those who are tired of the endless takeover of every possible thread in which a ceratin agenda can be furthered, etc.
I also don't think there's any value in "keeping lines of communication" open with the chronic bigots. They're not going to change, at least not because of anything that is said to them on the internet.
I often like to play devils advocate, not necessarily to stir the poo, but to try and stimulate some debate/discussion. Not saying I haven't ****** peeps off from time to time, but so boring otherwise.
AeryFairy
Anachronism
We're encouraged to do it in class. I love studying philosophy. If someone is arguing badly, regardless of whether or not we agree with their conclusion, one of us will always step in and take them down. I've done it to people, and I've had it done to me. It's fun, as long as you don't take it too seriously, and it's a great learning tool.
Oh, as an entirely personal preference - I think it's preferable to have some leeway on the "personal attacks" front. Too strictly regulated, it ends up with people using passive aggressiveness to combat passive aggressiveness. I think I got pretty adept at it myself, but I much prefer the honesty of saying things head on instead of wrapping it up with a pretty ribbon while the package contents stink.
Pickle Juice
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 754
I am referring to the line drawn by any site owner with a rule against personal attacks.
I can't say I am sure that calling a bigot a bigot is going to be any more effective than calling a meat eater a murderer, if the idea is to convince them to change their thinking. I think countering bigoted ideas is most effective when personal attacks are avoided. Even if the bigot refuses to budge, resorting to calling them names is really only motivated by the temporary personal satisfaction one can gain from doing so.
But I don't own the board, so I don't suppose my definition of what constitutes a personal attack matters much in the long run. What I don't like to see is people with something useful to say losing their tempers and resorting to name calling, because in that case they get reprimanded, which effectively shuts them up, and the bigot wins.
Well, I think there's a difference - for one, there's a standard definition of "murder", which doesn't encompass the killing of nonhumans, or of humans, other than specific circumstances. So calling someone a murderer if the act doesn't fall within the definition of murder tends to make the argument against killing animals for use or pleasure look overwrought to those onlookers who might otherwise give some consideration to the veg*n viewpoint.
And by the point I would call someone a bigot, I've given up any hope that anything that could be said would change that person's attitude. I don't see it as any different than saying that a certain former member of VB is a pedophile, versus saying, "Gee, I think that you sexually molested young children is wrong." And I don't think that using the term "bigot" or "pedophile" in their standard definitions is going to turn off any onlookers who might possibly some day rethink their predilictions.
True, but in the example I cited, I don't think I used the term inaccurately - the former member in question was a pedophile who acted on his pedophilia. He wasn't someone who raped children for reasons other than pedophilia.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
I know not inaccurately, it was just the implication that I was reacting to. Some men rape women for reasons of heterosexuality or rape other men for reasons of homosexuality, but we wouldn't use "heterosexual" or "homosexual" or "bisexual" by itself as a disparaging/condemnatory term for a rapist even though it would not be technically inaccurate (or at least we shouldn't--some would sadly use 'homosexual' disparagingly).
I think "child molestor" or "child rapist" works better.
Actually, the number of generated posts have never been given any consideration in any of the modding decisions since I've been on board. We did have a rule that we had to have Michael's permission before we could ban any long-term member.
I didn't think they did, on the moderator level. I couldn't (and still can't) see any other reason underlying the otherwise arbitrariness of who was banned and who wasn't - for instance, why F was banned and HJ wasn't. But maybe these approvals by Michael were totally arbitrary.
